canfan

You're opinion that it's grudging interference isn't really reality but in the end it doesn't matter because families of victims aren't largely ignored in the faint hope process they obviously have a voice. You can downplay it if you want but that doesn't change the fact that they're there making their opinions heard.

This is just you saying that you like some rules and not others. It's got nothing to do with 1 rule being more valid than the other.

Yes but there're circumstances where 1st degree murder doesn't have to be planned out before. Premeditation to murder someone isn't the same as the intent required to prove 1st degree murder. And has nothing to do with 2nd degree murder. You don't agree with the jury's decision but that's got nothing to do with premeditation. The jury obviously thought the man's claims of self defence were legitimate enough to reduce the charge to manslaughter. And again intent isn't the same as premeditation.

If only we had a way to figure out what those exceptional circumstances were. Maybe if we had a jury of Canadians determine if circumstances warranted eligibility for parole. That might be a way to do it.

Argus doesn't like judges or some of their decisions therefore they mustn't be wise. It's helpful to remember that you also claimed Canadians don't trust themselves to make these faint hope decisions.

Given your apparent support for only taking victims and their families into consideration I'm surprised you haven't considered that the families and friends of the dead are also victims of the crime. Pleading ignorance doesn't change the fact that victims and their families have a voice in the process.

Faint hope clause applies to 1st and 2nd degree murder. And even 1st degree murder isn't necessarily premeditated. That's what happens when you apply a 1 size fits all approach you end up making assumptions that sometimes turn out to be wrong.

It's not a media report but I answered a similar question of yours in a different topic. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....st&p=427795

It's appropriate in some cases. Not in others. That's why removing discretion from the justice system is a bad thing. 1 size doesn't fit all.

We're not talking about an individual case. Stats cut it when people make claims like everyone is likely to go free and the evidence shows the opposite.

You act as if victims don't have a voice in the process when they clearly do. There are other interests as well and just because you don't like them that doesn't mean the victims are ignored.

The stats don't support your claim that all of them are likely to get out.

I think the obvious answer to that is no.

That story seems a bit too convenient. If there really was a drug that made people straight why aren't those camps in the US using it to turn homosexuals back into heterosexuals?

Then stick to that instead of claiming things like Canadians don't trust Canadians to make these decisions. We'll disagree on the faint hope clause because your concept of justice is more limited in scope than mine but that's ok. If everyone agreed noone would be on these forums. The discussion gets ridiculous when people attack the process without understanding it or when they throw out made up statistics instead of looking at actual numbers.

Even a minimal knowledge of the Charter shows your claim to be false. It's amazing how many people rant against things that they haven't even investigated for themselves. This is just 1 example of the Charter helping someone who wasn't an accused criminal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vriend_v._Alberta

Check your facts. You don't even have to go far to do it if you'd read this thread you'd know those numbers are wrong. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....st&p=428280 At the end of 2001 only 11% of prisoners eligible for faint hope had got early parole.

So all people who don't totally agree with you must be uninformed? That position is very ironic after you've complained about how the faint hope clause works while admitting that you don't know enough about how it works.

True although my view was that the bigger assumption involved the comparison between Ontario's economy and Canada's economy. In terms of the money flowing faster argument that wouldn't affect the deficit I don't think. Weren't the Liberals saying that the money already earmarked for spending needs to get to the municipalities sooner? That money should already be included in the current deficit numbers. I can't say things would be better or worse off with any party in power. There're too many factors. I'd agree that the partisan people on this forum are pretty over the top and that some are redundant and hypocritical on all sides. That's the internet for you.

You once again demonstrate that you don't know how juries work. The Crown can also remove people from a jury. If both sides have the same options avialable to them then how's that unfair? Or maybe you're not as in touch with how Canadians feel about their justice system as you think. You don't like the results but that doesn't mean that someone is messing with anything.

I don't expect you to want murderers out in 15. But I do expect that if you're going to object to the faint hope clause because of how it works then you should know how it works before raising the objection not after. How can you say Canadians don't trust the people making the decisions when in this case the people making the decisions are regular Canadians? All showing that many of the concerns raised here are exaggerated.

That's factually untrue. Just look at the cases dealing with the section that's been quoted here. Lots of people being protected without being criminals.

I'm never opposed to getting more information but I don't see victim satisfaction as being a good indicator of a fair and honest justice system. I doubt victims are happy when they see someone found not guilty but that doesn't make the person guilty and it definitely doesn't mean the system failed. We also don't see stats about how happy criminals are with their sentences or how happy their families are. I'm not saying happiness of relatives of criminals should equate to victim happiness but as long as we're talking about missing stats you might as well include those too. Not everyone believes that we should ignore the real circumstances of a situation and just write off people as lost causes. This is where the typical law and order argument goes wrong. It's assumed that if you support something like a faint hope clause then you must be a bleeding heart liberal with no belief in personal responsibility. That's a lie. No different than accusing people who want tougher sentences of being rednecks who just want to shoot em all and let God sort em out. I'd invite you to go back and read my post and see that I do think victims should be heard at these hearings. So yes I think they're important. But they shouldn't be the only factor when making these decisions for faint hope or parole in general. We might disagree on our ideas of justice and sentencing but stop pretending my views fit into your preconceived ideas of what a supporter of the faint hope clause should sound like. I can support it and still find a place for both the views of the victims and for the prisoner.

I'm not sure if we'd be any better or worse off but your comparison with Ontario Liberals suffers from too many flaws to be accurate. Aside from assuming that the Ontario party is the exact same as the federal party you'd also have to ignore the fact that Ontario has a huge manufacturing sector which is arguably the worst hit industry in this recession. I don't think manufacturing makes up the same percentage of Canada's economy as it does for Ontario. No matter who was in power in Ontario I doubt the job loss numbers would be much different.

You need to read that section again. Those categories aren't minorities for example race includes both majority racial groups and minority racial groups. Race is not focused on minority groups. It's harder for a white male to prove discrimination but that's because white males really aren't discriminated against. But white is still a race and male is still a sex. Noone has been denied a right despite your opinion. As for claiming discrimination outside of those categories you need to get better information. Lots of people have retained a lawyer and had their rights recognized and validated. 1 example is when the courts agreed that people couldn't be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation.