Pickton - Murderer of 49 women ("Was gonna do 1 more - make it an even 50")

[Flubber]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
The law can be mistaken in that it does not promote moral behaviour/deter immoral behaviour, or does not promote behaviour which benefits society as a whole (usually the same, but occasionally different) or does more harm than good, etc.

"Justice" is a completely separate concept, and one which does not motivate my beliefs.

Interesting bundle of ideas there. I would be curious .....


Many people consider adultery to be immoral behavior. If you assume (without conceding) for just a moment that adultery is immoral, is the law "mistaken" in that it does not act as a deterrent?

How about if you make the same assumptions for gay marriage?

All that said , the criminal law in Canada is a codified system of public wrongs. They gain such status by being accepted by the government largely according to the prevalent or persuasive morals of those officals and those than influence them.

I do agree that the criminal law does nothing to promote any real moral behavior. In most cases it simply punished "wrong' behavior and except in certain circumstances would provide no penalty for a failure to act even in circumstances where action would be clearly beneficial

[KrazyHorse]

How is this definitional?

It's extremely important. Winston evidently believes that even if Pickton can be guaranteed to never harm another person, and even if executing him would provide no deterrent effect then we should execute him to serve "justice".

I don't.

So do you mind explaining to me what's so definitional about it?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Winston


Well I suppose that's one good way of dodging jury duty, if one is so inclined.

You know, I've never been called for jury duty. I think as a lawyer I had an exemption in Newfoundland (in practice I would know some of the lawyers in almost every case personally anyway).

I think the reason Canadians are so rarely called is twofold

1. Civil juries are exceptionally rare here-- If you sue you get a judge alone in almost all cases

2. In most smaller criminal cases there is no right to a jury trial and for serious offences, the accused can elect for judge alone which they seem to do whenever they have a technical defense or an unsympathetic defendant

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Flubber



Interesting bundle of ideas there. I would be curious .....


Many people consider adultery to be immoral behavior. If you assume (without conceding) for just a moment that adultery is immoral, is the law "mistaken" in that it does not act as a deterrent?

Assuming I thought adultery was immoral (which I do, given the breach of trust issue), I would not be in favour of criminal sanctions due to it, because the positive benefit from such a law (likely small, since people think with their genitals in those situations) would be drowned by the harm in invading the privacy of the public, by the harm in jailing large numbers of people etc.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


It's extremely important. Winston evidently believes that even if Pickton can be guaranteed to never harm another person, and even if executing him would provide no deterrent effect then we should execute him to serve "justice".

I don't.

There is a dark part of me that thinks it would be "just "to leave Pickton on his farm with one relative for each of the 49 women he killed. This dark part would not be one bit upset with whatever might occurr in that scenario.

But the rest of me remembers that he has yet to be convicted and I believe in and support the right to a fair trial. As we stand here today he is innocent.

On the facts of this one, you have to REALLY believe in the system to keep saying that

[KrazyHorse]

I do agree that the criminal law does nothing to promote any real moral behavior. In most cases it simply punished "wrong' behavior and except in certain circumstances would provide no penalty for a failure to act even in circumstances where action would be clearly beneficial

I think that criminal law does provide a real deterrent effect, in addition to pulling dangerous/criminal elements off the street so that they have difficulty harming society further.

[KrazyHorse]

On the facts of this one, you have to REALLY believe in the system to keep saying that

His ass is going to jail for a very long time. There's no doubt about it.

He's unlikely to breathe free ever again.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Assuming I thought adultery was immoral (which I do, given the breach of trust issue), I would not be in favour of criminal sanctions due to it, because the positive benefit from such a law (likely small, since people think with their genitals in those situations) would be drowned by the harm in invading the privacy of the public, by the harm in jailing large numbers of people etc.

I agree. I was just curious since you seemed to think the law SHOULD promote moral behavior.

I agree with you on the adultery issue as well although I am sure someone could come up with some scenario where it was not immoral ( spouse in a coma for 10 years or whatnot)

[Flubber]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

On the facts of this one, you have to REALLY believe in the system to keep saying that

His ass is going to jail for a very long time. There's no doubt about it.

He's unlikely to breathe free ever again.

While the publicly available information means that I believe that as well, if you are a juror youn are supposed to come at this with an open mind and absolutely WITHOUT the opinion you just expressed

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Flubber


I agree. I was just curious since you seemed to think the law SHOULD promote moral behavior.

I agree with you on the adultery issue as well although I am sure someone could come up with some scenario where it was not immoral ( spouse in a coma for 10 years or whatnot)

I agree with you re exceptions to adultery. Which is another wrinkle in any proposed adultery law. Interpersonal relationships are so complicated that any simple law would lead to numerous convictions for non-immoral actions, while making the law overly complicated tends to erode the understanding the general public has of it (which in turn reduces the deterrent effect). Even in the much simpler realm of self-defence there is lots and lots of wiggle room.

My point is that laws which do not promote moral behaviour or societal good, or laws which do more harm than good, are wrong.

Also, when the law fails to take the opportunity to regulate/legislate behaviour in a case where a law would have done more good than harm, it is deficient.

In all cases, jailing somebody in itself is doing harm. However, the good outweighs the harm in any number of cases (pickton being a wonderful example)...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Flubber


While the publicly available information means that I believe that as well, if you are a juror youn are supposed to come at this with an open mind and absolutely WITHOUT the opinion you just expressed

a) Yeah, right... This case is so infamous that despite anybody's promises that jury is going to be looking to convict from day one
b) I'm basing my opinion of the probable outcome of the case on the evidence which I'm guessing the Crown will be allowed to present. It seems like an extremely strong case

[Flubber]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


a) Yeah, right... This case is so infamous that despite anybody's promises that jury is going to be looking to convict from day one
b) I'm basing my opinion of the probable outcome of the case on the evidence which I'm guessing the Crown will be allowed to present. It seems like an extremely strong case

Since what we know seems to include a confession and body parts all over the guy's farm, I would tend to agree.

The only thing better would be a videotape of the guy actually committing a murder in between two competency hearings with the most qualified docs in the land ( which he passes).


I'll be curious where they head but if the physical evidence is as strong as we are lead to believe they have him nailed on his actions and the only defenses will be as to his mental capacity/sanity.

But the opening by the defence as reported , implies they may deny the doing part too

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Wezil


Giving the rest of us a bad name.

Oh please, you already had a bad name.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
How is this definitional?

It's extremely important. Winston evidently believes that even if Pickton can be guaranteed to never harm another person, and even if executing him would provide no deterrent effect then we should execute him to serve "justice".

I don't.

Not to quibble about definitions...

If there is no doubt about the guilt of a person who kills and chops up 50 other people, if there is no hope of rehabilitation, if there is no possibility of ever releasing that person...

Then the only good that the mass murderer might be able to do is give a final sense of closure to the victims left behind (the families) by his or her own death.

There is no reason to keep such an animal alive, and there may well be reasons to put it to death.

[chequita guevara]

How does killing someone bring about closure? And if it does, you aren't that decent of a human being anyway.