Vancouver is the opioid gateway to North America. Jailling with the junkies doesn’t fix the problems. They need to deal with the distribution network, and stop giving out methadone to the addicts like it’s candy. But if they actually start getting these junkies off the streets and into transition houses and support structures maybe they’ll get back on their feet
oh wait…the province already tried that. Leased an entire hotel and started housing junkies in it with support services and the junkies burned it to the fucking ground.
fuck them all, pieces of shit. this is why our fucking kids can’t use the playgrounds fucking needles everywhere. they shit on the slides, throw tarps over the monkeybars until the cops move them out.
Does a user have a responsibility towards the supplier? Who is more to blame the user or the supplier? Does no user equal no supplier. Who is facilitating who? Who should have the harsher judgement?
With that in mind I’m pretty sure everyone on here knows someone who uses/has used and indeed most on here may have/do dabble. Are we all equally culpable? Should we extend this alcohol addiction - which can be just as devastating?
I quite like this quote “Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.” Tolkien
How on earth is it whataboutery to suggest that the criminal justice system is insufficiently robust, which you agree with me, to ensure that 100% of the people sentenced to death deserve to be there, and extrapolate that to you or your loved ones being the victims of that?
Smacks of “I know I’m wrong but I can’t be arsed to argue”.
To look at it in isolation like that completely ignores the context of the death penalty being final, i.e. you execute someone wrongly, there is no coming back from that. Nor does it even consider why someone would even go down that path.
You’d rather condemn many people to avoid missing out a few, than to treat the few differently to avoid condemn the many.
As I said, with today’s technology, most especially when someone is caught on film shooting a bunch of innocent school children, then 100% prison is too good for them.
You on the other hand want to “consider why someone would even go down that path.”
That is why I can’t be arsed arguing with you.
Now move along.
And how do you propose that it’s guaranteed that the death penalty will only be used in such situations?
How do you design the laws to suit that, the sentencing guidelines, the jury instructions?
How do you ensure that the defendants have the right to a proper legal defence?
How do you account for the costs of administering such a criminal justice system, as opposed to one where the cost of not having a death penalty are lower?
Just looking at your specific, narrow example, innocence by reason of insanity? Mental incapacitation?
You don’t want to argue with me because you want to see the complex world in narrow black and white, and can’t be arsed to actually think about the issue. You want to just pass your moral judgment and move on. You can’t be arsed, really, because you don’t care about anything else other than your own feelings and everyone else, and facts, be damned.
