The ultimate penalty

I’ve dodged this subject on this web site for many years.  Here’s why.

If someone killed someone I love, I’d want to kill them with my bare hands.  If someone kills a child, with malice aforethought, I’d want to see them receive the same treatment. That’s the emotional reality, I guess.

Here’s the non-emotional reality, in the form of a short tale.  In my first year of law school in Calgary, in Criminal Law, our wonderful prof, Chris Levy, asked us who favoured the death penalty.  Most of the hands in the classroom went up.  Being a Democrat of long-standing, I – like Bill Clinton, like Barack Obama – put my hand up for that one, too.

Here’s what Prof. Levy said next:  “I will ask you again in your final year.”

And he did.  In 1987, after three years of trying to learn the law – and, in my case, I had spent a lot of time on the study of criminal law – Prof. Levy asked again for a show of hands.  “Who favours the death penalty, now?”

And not a single hand went up.

What you learn in law school, more than anything else, is how completely flawed our system is.  You learn that it is in need of continual improvement, and that it fundamentally flawed, much like the human beings who created it.

Reason over passion, Trudeau said.  It’s not the world we live in, but it’s the world we should aspire to, I think.

There, I’ve come clean.  Now, what do you think?


We get letters

This is my latest favourite.  Totally awesome.

HOW ABOUT COMMENTING ON THE FAMOUS PHOTO OF DRAFT DODGING PIERRE ELLIOT TRUDEAU RIDING HIS MOTORCYCLE IN QUEBEC WITH HIS GERMAN HELMET ON CLAIMING THE WAR WAS NOT CANADAS CONCERN ALSO HOW ABOUT A COMMENT ON HOW COME JEAN CHRETIEN WAS LISTED IN FORBES MAGAZINE WITH A LISTED FORTUNE OF 3.4 BILLION YES BILLION DOLLARS THERE IS NOW NO LISTING SHOWN FOR HIM GUESS THE LIBERALS DIDNT WANT THAT TO GET OUT SO HOW ABOUT SHOWING SOME GUTS AND COMMENTING ON THIS DARE YOU R.L.BENT


Toronto Star: pour gas on yourself in public (again)! It’ll help us sell papers!

Maybe it’s just my twisted sense of humour, but I found this tweet to be the dumbest (and funniest) I’ve seen since, well, the last stupid tweet (there’s plenty).

My questions:

  1. If a photo got someone fired, why would they want to share it again with anyone?
  2. Why would they want to share it with a newspaper, who may republish it, and get that person fired again?
  3. Am I missing something? Next up: send us a copy of your criminal record, so we can put it in the paper! It’ll be fun! Wheeee!


In today’s Sun after all: goodbye Charlie Brown

With his intention to rob Canadian seniors of the old age benefits they’ve already paid for, Stephen Harper is in big trouble. But not for the reason you might think.

Politics is all about the effective use of symbols. Ask Jean Chretien or Brian Mulroney, they’ll tell you. Or they’ll show you.

Case study one: Summer 1993. Conservatives have just picked ex-justice minister Kim Campbell to be their leader. Campbell’s brainy, but she also doesn’t take herself too seriously. Earlier, someone circulated a photo in which a coiffed Campbell — bare shouldered — holds her Queen’s Counsel robes in front of her. The photo was republished around the world. One gushing account in Britain’s The Independent carried this headline: “A provocative picture may help Kim Campbell become leader of her country.”

The British paper wasn’t entirely wrong. Soon after her selection as Conservative leader, Campbell became the most popular prime minister in decades.