Robert Pickton. Serial killer. Fed women to pigs. Convicted of...2nd degree murder

[SlowwHand]

And he'll be a threat to everyone around him for the rest of his life. You get to pay for his food, shelter and medical.
Enjoy that while potholes are developing.

[Wezil]

I don't believe in killing people to save a few bucks (debatable premise to start with btw). Again, I'll pass.

[DinoDoc]

You know, here's something I've always been curious about since this thread is drifting in this direction. Say a capital murder suspect from the US manages to elude a manhunt, makes it to Canada, and teh Mounties catch him but the US prosecutor refuses to not ask for the DP. What happens to him?

[Asher]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
You know, here's something I've always been curious about since this thread is drifting in this direction. Say a capital murder suspect from the US manages to elude a manhunt, makes it to Canada, and teh Mounties catch him but the US prosecutor refuses to not ask for the DP. What happens to him?

This has happened -- Canada keeps them.

[DinoDoc]

In jail? Or sets them free?

[Asher]

In jail.

[SlowwHand]

Cool. We'll just send convicts to you.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
And he'll be a threat to everyone around him for the rest of his life. You get to pay for his food, shelter and medical.
Enjoy that while potholes are developing.

You do realize that the DP costs more than merely keeping a man in prison for life in the US right?

[SlowwHand]

Not just on you saying so, I don't. Not that that's the end reason.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Asher
In jail.

Interesting. On what basis?

On topic, I must admit to still being curious on what basis the jury decided he didn't plan the killings. That's going to bug me for awhile.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
You know, here's something I've always been curious about since this thread is drifting in this direction. Say a capital murder suspect from the US manages to elude a manhunt, makes it to Canada, and teh Mounties catch him but the US prosecutor refuses to not ask for the DP. What happens to him?

It is actually an issue under policy debate in this country at the moment (back to that case in a minute).

Historically we would not extradite someone to a jurisdiction that exercised the DP. This meant US prosecutors would have to take the DP off the table before we would extradite. Our court has ruled such punishment unconstitutional therefor it would be equally bad to let someone else do it. Hence the policy.

This also applied to Canadians convicted of DP crimes in other jurisdictions. Our government would make great efforts to have such sentences commuted. The results would vary, but the effort would be there.

Our new government seems to be waffling on this now. There is currently a dirtbag Cdn facing the DP in (I believe) North Dakota. The Harper Tories are making no effort on his behalf. Where they hope to go with this and how our courts will react is not clear.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Cool. We'll just send convicts to you.

No you won't b/c you can't get the pleasure of killing them if you send them here.

[DirtyMartini]

Originally posted by Wezil

That said, if your family member was one of his victims I suspect you might want to see him tried and convicted for it.

I'd like to think I wouldn't care whether tax money was wasted on such a trial (provided I'd seen sufficient evidence to convince me that he's the one who did it, and such a trial would have nothing to add to his punishment.) While I'm probably wrong about my own pragmatism, I don't think that the DA (or Canadian equivalent) should be.

[Lord Avalon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Originally posted by SlowwHand

And he'll be a threat to everyone around him for the rest of his life. You get to pay for his food, shelter and medical.
Enjoy that while potholes are developing.

You do realize that the DP costs more than merely keeping a man in prison for life in the US right?

Is teh DP cheaper in Texas? Maybe they get a bulk rate.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
On topic, I must admit to still being curious on what basis the jury decided he didn't plan the killings. That's going to bug me for awhile.

Unlike the US we aren't allowed to go ask them (the jury) what they were thinking so it is all just conjecture.

My guess - The jury was not entirely convinced Pickton acted alone. The defence portrayed their client as a dimwit and some of the jury may have bought this ("He couldn't have planned it, he's too stupid"). Alternately, this was a charge the jury could agree on for a conviction (to avoid a mistrial). We will never know for sure.