We agree exactly. Fortunately, the Canadian government came to it's senses long ago, and we have no death penalty. Now I just wish they would make the legal system itself a bit more sensible.

>I would like to see if the person that defends the death penalty would still defende it it the person charged with it was from their family, a son or a close relative.
>I always lived by a rule and that was don't do to others what you wouldn't like that others do to you. And with this rule the death penalty doesn't come in, cause I would sure not like that someone would kill me, so in that case how can I say that someone should be kill.
>I know there are alot of physcos out there but even for real poor people sometimes the death panalty can be a bless, since most cases they don't have nothing to loose so if someone kills them, would be a favor to them.
>On the other hand if someone is made to pay for their mistake perhaps others would think twice before making the same one.
>
>>Tracy, I'm not arguing that you are wrong. What I am arguing is that the law would call it murder, and I don't understand why the law should be allowed to call it a just killing if the system does it, and murder if you do it. If it's murder, for you, then it's murder for the system. In fact, in the case of the system, it is even more reprehensible as far as I'm concerned, since once in the prison system, the legal system should be able to render any such threats meaningless.
>>
>>>Verbal threats get little action from the law. I know of a couple of examples where individuals were threatened (and knew the threats would be carried out) but the law could take no action until the person who voiced the threat actually did something. The most that can be done is a restraining order and we all know how successful those are. I would risk it with myself, but not my child.