Novak
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by Novak on Aug 28, 2010 1:30:04 GMT
My attack happened in Windsor, Ontario. The serial killer crossed the border from Michigan. He tried to kill another woman in Windsor. There were at least three others who got away. When he was caught, he confessed to killing me and the other woman in Windsor. He wouldn't talk any further unless the Canadian Government gave him immunity. The government said no to the immunity so the serial killer didn't talk any more about the Windsor attacks. Yes it is extremely hard to get compensation in Ontario and probably everywhere else. I waited almost 5 years for my hearing. There were photos of me in the ER and just after I came out of the hospital. I did not want to look at them. It was bad enough I looked in the mirror that night and every time my wounds were being cleaned I would look in the rail of the hospital bed to see what my wounds looked like. After the hearing I ran as fast as I could out of the building to get away from reporters and because I was panicking. I recently had surgery and panicking the whole night before. When they were taking the breathing tube out I was panicking and was trying to fight them off of me. They kept calling my name telling me I was safe and my surgery was over with. This is what I have to live with every day of my life. At least got some justice when he died in prison September 21 2007. In cases like this I definitely believe in capital punishment. Sandra, I am so sorry for what happened to you. Ontario needs to change their policy for victim compensation and the amount. I don't think the compensation board truly understands what it's like to survive a brutal attack or be a victim. Instead the Government should take the money used for the prisoners (the excess amount) and put half of it toward victims for the rest of their lives. It is only fair. A prisoner doesn't need it.
|
|
|
Post by sandra on Aug 31, 2010 8:16:08 GMT
I agree the prisoners do not need the money. The prisoners should be working to some extent to make the prison self sufficient so less tax payers dollars are being used. I think the Collin's Bay penitentiary in Kingston, Ontario is partially self sufficiency.
|
|
|
Post by sadie1263 on Aug 31, 2010 21:32:22 GMT
I am very torn on this subject. There are times I am for it and other times I think life in prison should suffice. I have a good friend that her son was murdered.......she raged for a long time against the man that killed him. Eventually she was one of the people that asked for his life to be spared. She writes her story on this website. It starts from the day of her son's death and having to identify him to her pain and anger to going and visiting the man that killed him in prison. Reading this humbles me tremendously....... www.larryrobison.org/lynnem/jimsway.htmI've read it several times........and I still can't say that I could ever do that. The thought of losing one of my children......just the fear of that is staggering....taking that to a level of knowing someone hurt them would make me out of mind........
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Sept 2, 2010 13:57:58 GMT
Sadie, I understand exactly how you feel.
I'm probably one of the most reluctant pros you'll find.
I understand better than most the sort of things that drive people to kill others because I've nearly done it myself twice.
I also know, like and respect the lady you mention very much.
It's always heart-breaking and I fight just as furiously with those pros who want to execute everyone and think all murderers are scum and that no one deserves a break as I do with the antis who think all pros are heartless people and that we're all some sort of sick psycho.
Moral decisions are never easy, that's the trouble.
On balance I support the death penalty but I freely admit I'm NOT a fry circus pro.
|
|
|
Post by beez0811 on Sept 13, 2010 22:08:47 GMT
Pro death penalty arguments:Yes, he or she will not be able to murder again. People have been murdered in prison by already-convicted murderers. Unfortunately some have no value toward life and will kill again. It does, in a rather scary way. With some, that's the only way to deter them from horrible acts such as murder. Yes. Some will bring up the "eye for an eye" quote. Nothing more than an eye if Bob happens to stab Steve in the eye with a pencil. Well, not on execution day at the prison, but after the sentence is carried out and people reflect on it. That one is a toss up. Anti death penalty arguments:It does inflict suffering, and yes it is sad. The act that put said condemned inmate on Death Row caused a lot of suffering for everyone involved. Think about what put said inmate on Death Row and then we'll talk. I hope not, but that's an unfortunate risk. If the evidence is sketchy, I'd prefer them to hold off. John Spirko's sentence was reduced to LWOP due to "the lack of physical evidence linking him to the murder, as well as the slim residual doubt about his responsibility for the murder that arises from careful scrutiny of the case record." I am for the death penalty, but as long as there is solid, untampered evidence. True. No amount of money can ever replace a life. Same goes for those that take a life out of greed, lust, hate, or just for the hell of it. Many murders are based on revenge, greed, hate, lust, or for sick pleasure. Yes, it is sad that another life will be taken. If it were revenge, the murderer would die the way they killed their victim(s). That usually does not happen. Again, that one is a toss up. Cost...Since it was brought up twice for both sides, here's how I feel. It is probably more expensive with appeals to go through with a Capital Punishment case than to do LWOP. What if you have a guy like Stephen Hugueley who killed someone so he could get on Death Row and use that as a means for "suicide"? "Serving a life sentence for the murder of his own mother in 1986, and another life sentence for murdering an inmate in 92, he was sentenced to death for the murder of a counselor in the Hardeman County Correctional Facility. He stabbed Delbert Steed over and over until his knife broke." [/b]That means more lives lost, more legal crap. They should have sentenced him to die so they could already be done with his horrendous self. If they would have sentenced him to die with the first murder, that inmate and that prison counselor would probably still be alive. On the other hand, look at California. They have tons of people sentenced to death. Do they actually carry out these sentences? Once in a skybluepink moon on Februrary 29th, when the dish runs away with the spoon. Our country is financially in the crapper. California is one of the worst states to be in, financially. Since they don't really carry out many death sentences, why sentence anyone to death? Richard Ramirez is STILL on his appeals. I know they are or were working on an updated death chamber. Are they going to start carrying out sentences once everything is finished or will it stay the same? I also don't fully agree about how some death sentences are handed out. Money talks, sometimes more than should be allowed. --Wheels turning in my brain! I added more!
|
|
|
Post by wonderwoman on Oct 3, 2010 19:38:23 GMT
LOL ~ you two quit talkin' about me behind my back!!
I used to be what I refer to (now) as a 'couch pro' ~ It is oh, so easy to sit back and watch the news and pick and choose which murderers ought to die. Even at the point when we decided to ask for LWOP for Jim's killer, I was still pro (pick and choose, naturally).
And, sure as shit, I'm not a person who thinks all killing is necessarily wrong, nor all death tragic........... erm, we're all gonna die. So, I don't stand opposed because I'm a pacifist, nor because I think LI is cruel.
My own opposition (as opposed to my son's) is based on the arbitrariness of the sentence, the fact it's more like dart-board treatment, my belief it's discriminatorily (is that a word?) doled, and that I believe with my whole heart that we can do better than killing a handful and releasing the rest regardless of their dangerousness...
The case of NY alone proves (leastways, to me) that more and better policing is far more effective than is execution. When I say effective I'm talking about murder rates. And, lower murder rates (pesky statistics) means fewer murder VICTIMS, no matter what the spin.
|
|
|
Post by sadie1263 on Oct 6, 2010 3:09:22 GMT
Turn around....we'll talk about you to your front!!!
I would be all for spending all that money they spend on capital murder cases on more policemen and better training for them.......
|
|
|
Post by wonderwoman on Oct 6, 2010 16:34:28 GMT
LMAO ~ yeah, I know you will talk about me any which way!
|
|
|
Post by sadie1263 on Oct 6, 2010 20:09:37 GMT
I do understand what you mean WW.......there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to how it is applied.........Also....the amount of money spent in prosecuting these cases and the appeals involved is just staggering.......What do you do?
Some of these people are just so violent and completely unsafe to be in society....some I don't even believe it is safe to have them incarcerated with other people......so what is the answer for them?
I do think there are cases where there is just something wrong with the person....and there is nothing that is ever going to make them anything but a monster.......but then there are cases where I do believe the person could be rehabilitated or at least contribute to society even if it is behind bars.
I just don't know........there are just no perfect answers are there?
|
|
|
Post by wonderwoman on Oct 6, 2010 20:39:52 GMT
Yeah, sadie ~ never have been, never will be. When I was growing up there was this guy who lived round the corner ~ right in the path between our house and my best friend's house ~ had to pass by everyday. He sodomized and murdered a young man and rolled him in a carpet and asked a fellow police officer to help him 'bring out the trash'... He was hospitalized, deemed insane. Out in 4 years to rape and murder a 14 year old boy. Don't know whatever happened to him. For all I know two wasn't enough to convince the powers that be he was dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Oct 12, 2010 15:55:34 GMT
I'm a reluctant pro. If there's the TINIEST smidgeon of doubt I'm against execution.
On the other hand, where there IS no doubt - like Richard Ramirez, Christa Pike. Peter Sutcliffe and so on - I can't see the point in keeping them alive for years and years rather than just executing them.
I also agree that the death penalty is not always used in what seems a rational way. I can't understand why Ramirez and Pike are still breathing free air and yet Teresa Lewis was deemed MORE worthy of being executed.
I do feel though that ALL forms of punishment are going to be unfair in different ways.
Even a fine affects a poor person more than a rich one.
The disgusting behaviour of Jon Venables after his release has NOT made me think that he should have been executed; it hasn't even made me think he ought to have got life.
At 10 years old a lot of us do crazy stuff. It doesn't SEEM that his co-murderer Robert Thompson has carried on in the same way which is why I think he should have been released (though NOT after just 11 years).
I'm a great believer in second chances. God knows I lived a pretty violent and destructive criminal youth and if I'd been locked up in juvie it would probably have done me more harm than good.
What so many murderers, especially young ones, seem to lack is empathy.
What so many of them needed, especially the young ones, was love.
(Oh dear, here I go again! One minute I want to execute people and the next I'm burbling on about prisoners' rights and even about love! Maybe it's time I went back to PTO - haven't visited it for over a year now!)
|
|