Broken Justice - these infuriating cases have it all

[nicky10013]

Hot off the press from The Star.....the Toronto 18 terrorist leader has been sentenced to "Life" in prision.....but will be eligible for parole in 6 years. This for the planned attempted murder of scores of innocent people by blowing up various buildings.

Link: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/crime/article/752507--life-term-for-terror-ringleader

Do you actually think he'll get out?

Furthermore, we can sit here lecturing judges. However, I'm willing to bet that no one here is remotely qualified to be a judge. There's something to be said about judicial discretion. I'd rather trust judges than a vengence seeking mob (IE the public) any day of the week and twice on sundays.

[ironstone]

Do you actually think he'll get out?

Furthermore, we can sit here lecturing judges. However, I'm willing to bet that no one here is remotely qualified to be a judge. There's something to be said about judicial discretion. I'd rather trust judges than a vengence seeking mob (IE the public) any day of the week and twice on sundays.

It seems to me that most judges in this country are rather left leaning and therefore inclined to hand out the most lenient sentences allowed more often than not.

Today's sentence handed out to the leader of the Toronto 18 is a joke.Sentenced to life,but most likely a free man about 6 yrs from now.Lenienct sentencing,topped off by easy parole.

[blueblood]

Do you actually think he'll get out?

Furthermore, we can sit here lecturing judges. However, I'm willing to bet that no one here is remotely qualified to be a judge. There's something to be said about judicial discretion. I'd rather trust judges than a vengence seeking mob (IE the public) any day of the week and twice on sundays.

So people are stupid then?

We have juries in trials, are you suggesting we punt them too?

I trust the public far more than I trust unaccountable, and nearly unfirable judges.

[William Ashley]

I am encouraging all posters to use this thread to vent.....if you read of ill-advised sentencing, post the story and relieve some of that pent-up frustration!

When will it end? Another soft-headed judge

I don't want to pay to keep people in jail. Why should we pussify the public? It makes a lot more sense for police and probation counsellors to monitor non carear criminals. Prison only makes people life long useless criminals, rather than creating a whole society that works to turn people into functioning members of society. The problem with the justice system is that it is legal rather than dealing with "the situation". What actually happened rather than what law was broken. We need to heal society, put it to work. Only pussies will live in fear, a real man would get a gun to protect himself.

I wholely disagree with your put people in jail at $40,000-$150,000 dollars a year, I'd rather employ 3 criminals in a work program for $40,000 a year than pay that same amount to feed them and waste their time.

If it ain't worth killing them for, then it ain't worth wasting their time and tax payers funds for it. Put them to work or kill them. Prison doesn't deliver justice it delivers dehumanization and wasted productivity. The last thing we should do is group all the people who are thought to break the law into one group, that only organizes them, making professional crimninals with a lower standard of morality..

Edited January 20, 2010 by William Ashley

[CrazeeEddie]

At the risk of being totally ostracized and ridiculed for this comparison, I will present it anyway. My family (father's side) represents a long line of law enforcement (from prison guards, to the RCMP, to Metro police) here in Ontario. One day, while discussing a similar situation, my uncle put it this way (in terms, I, who relates everything to hockey, would understand).

Imagine it is game seven of the Stanley Cup finals, and we are in overtime. The other team is pressing, and your defenseman, trying to relieve the pressure, shoots the puck over the glass. The ref calls a penalty, and the other team scores on the ensuing play, giving them the Stanley Cup.

So who do you get mad at here? Many people would get mad at ther ref right (aka the judge) but why? The penalty has been called the same way all season. The defenseman knew the rules going into the game, and broke them, costing the entire team, and its fanbase.

Most of the players and the coach would be rightly upset with the player, who probably could have relieved the situation by dumping the puck, aka following the rules.

Now I know that the Stanley Cup and Murder are not the same thing, but the point remains the same. Had the officer taken the time to follow the rules, and observe the laws he is sworn to protect, these people would probably not be walking. The blame lays solely on them. (And this coming from another cop).

You may not agree with the rules all the time, and we have avenues to address that. No officer has the right to take the law into their own hands, even if they do end up being right in the end.

[nicky10013]

So people are stupid then?

We have juries in trials, are you suggesting we punt them too?

I trust the public far more than I trust unaccountable, and nearly unfirable judges.

You bet people are. You'd rather trust a trucker in a Tim's than a guy who has years of education and experience practicing law? Are you high?

For instance: would a regular person on the street know that recidivism goes up with longer sentences? No. The regular person on the street probably doesn't even know what recidivism means.

If I got your hint correctly, you'd prefer elected judges. However, what would you rather have - appointed judges that can't be touched by parliamentarians and therefore owe nothing to the people that appoint them, or would you rather politicize the race so judges give people what they want rather than ruling fairly and impartially?

Saying judges are lefties is the entire problem with today's conservative movement. Frankly, if you think what judges are doing is left wing then reality has a left leaning bias. We don't need dogmatism, we need pragmatism.

[CrazeeEddie]

You bet people are.

I don't believe people are stupid, I believe they are human, and subject to kneejerk reactions based on overblown and often unsubstantiated emotions. This is why we have judges. That being said, I can understand why people are upset with these cases. However, they SHOULD be upset with the idiots who took shortcuts and broke laws in order to get what they wanted when in most of these cases, they could just as easily followed the rules of the game, and we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

[Wilber]

I don't believe people are stupid, I believe they are human, and subject to kneejerk reactions based on overblown and often unsubstantiated emotions. This is why we have judges. That being said, I can understand why people are upset with these cases. However, they SHOULD be upset with the idiots who took shortcuts and broke laws in order to get what they wanted when in most of these cases, they could just as easily followed the rules of the game, and we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Certainly there are knee jerk reactions but the problem runs much deeper. To a large degree it is the courts which determine the rules of the game. The lack of accountability of those who do so is what has people upset. They have been taking a course which is diverging farther and farther from the expectations of society in general and that is a big reason for the current discontent and lack of confidence in our court system.

Edited January 21, 2010 by Wilber

[Wilber]

For instance: would a regular person on the street know that recidivism goes up with longer sentences? No. The regular person on the street probably doesn't even know what recidivism means.

You mean like these guys?

According to a recent study of 456 offenders by Fraser Valley University, 46 were identified as super offenders with more than 30 convictions. Average number of convictions 47. Average time between convictions 3.2 months. Number who have violated conditions 100%. Number with convictions for violence 91%. Number who served jail time 80%. Of those. Number who served less than two weeks 88%. Number who served one day 38%.

[nicky10013]

You mean like these guys?

According to a recent study of 456 offenders by Fraser Valley University, 46 were identified as super offenders with more than 30 convictions. Average number of convictions 47. Average time between convictions 3.2 months. Number who have violated conditions 100%. Number with convictions for violence 91%. Number who served jail time 80%. Of those. Number who served less than two weeks 88%. Number who served one day 38%.

Funny, doesn't mention what the offences actually are.

While you're at it, check out Corrections Canada's report on recidivism and look at the entire picture. You can't just pick 45 guys out of the entirel correctional system and declare a state of emergency. Doing so is not only stupid but irresponsible.

[fellowtraveller]

Most infuriating case?

Easy : Adscam, in which hundreds of millions of dollars were stolen from the public purse by politicians, and none of them were charged or went to jail.

[Wilber]

Funny, doesn't mention what the offences actually are.

While you're at it, check out Corrections Canada's report on recidivism and look at the entire picture. You can't just pick 45 guys out of the entirel correctional system and declare a state of emergency. Doing so is not only stupid but irresponsible.

I'm not declaring a state of emergency just pointing out 46 occasions in just one jurisdiction where the system has failed miserably. As far as offenses go, these are habitual criminals by any standard and the system is just not willing to deal with them. How much misery and hardship have these 46 caused for their victims, even if the majority of offenses were just property crimes? However, 91% had convictions for violent offenses, what else do you really need to know? You have to ask yourself, why do the police waste their time with them for such a pitiful result for all their efforts? Perhaps it is because they are the only ones in the system who are doing their job when it comes to these people.

How would they know if longer sentences cause recidivism when only habitual criminals ever get them and often, not even then it would seem.

Edited January 21, 2010 by Wilber

[Argus]

You bet people are. You'd rather trust a trucker in a Tim's than a guy who has years of education and experience practicing law? Are you high?

For instance: would a regular person on the street know that recidivism goes up with longer sentences? No. The regular person on the street probably doesn't even know what recidivism means.

This is what's known as a logical fallacy. It suggests that longer sentencing causes of fendersto become criminalized and thus repeat offenders. In reality, of course, the fact is that by the time someone has gotten a longer sentence that person is almost certainly a career criminal with many previous offenses under his belt. So if one looks at the recividism numbers for people who recieve long sentences, well yeah, they're going to be high, as opposed to those with minor sentences who are, by and large, not hardened criminals.

[Keepitsimple]

This is what's known as a logical fallacy. It suggests that longer sentencing causes of fendersto become criminalized and thus repeat offenders. In reality, of course, the fact is that by the time someone has gotten a longer sentence that person is almost certainly a career criminal with many previous offenses under his belt. So if one looks at the recividism numbers for people who recieve long sentences, well yeah, they're going to be high, as opposed to those with minor sentences who are, by and large, not hardened criminals.

That's an important point....and the term logical fallacy is very apt. A second point is that criminals are only sentenced for the crimes that they are CAUGHT committing. For example - someone convicted of break and enter has almost certainly pulled off numerous similar acts before being caught. So putting away career criminals for longer periods removes their ability to commit their usual high number of crimes before being caught and tried for a single offense again.

[Oleg Bach]

When you have a judicary that hold themselves in such high regard, who have a superiority complex are actually total lunitics - They hold the common person is such contempt and loathing that releasing the hounds (violent crimminals) is a blood sport.

[nicky10013]

That's an important point....and the term logical fallacy is very apt. A second point is that criminals are only sentenced for the crimes that they are CAUGHT committing. For example - someone convicted of break and enter has almost certainly pulled off numerous similar acts before being caught. So putting away career criminals for longer periods removes their ability to commit their usual high number of crimes before being caught and tried for a single offense again.

Putting people away for longer because we THINK they committed more crimes than they actually did, I'm quite certain, is fairly illegal.

Furthermore, whatever people's reasons are for longer sentences, the fact is, the longer they are, the more likely they are to reoffend. Longer sentences due to repeat offenses makes a bit of sense, but don't think it's because institutionalizing does them any good. The longer people are taken out of society, the harder it becomes for them to make it legally in the real world. Job training, trade training, education etc. is all stuff that people fall behind on. Most working correctional programmes realize that prison sentences are really the last resort.

Is it all like that? Absolutely not, I suspect the answer is somewhere in the middle, however you can't just write off the higher recidivism rate because all the guys getting longer sentences are arch criminals.

[Wilber]

Is it all like that? Absolutely not, I suspect the answer is somewhere in the middle, however you can't just write off the higher recidivism rate because all the guys getting longer sentences are arch criminals.

Actually, I think you pretty much can.

[nicky10013]

Actually, I think you pretty much can.

Why? Because it fits your dogmatic view of crime? Criminologists would disagree with you.

[Wilber]

Why? Because it fits your dogmatic view of crime? Criminologists would disagree with you.

My view of crime is no more dogmatic than yours. I don't dispute that longer sentences may result in a higher rate of recidivism for first time offenders but that is not an issue in our system because they are never given. We rarely give them to chronic offenders. We just keep turning them loose to prey on society. Even then those sentences are given, they are made a joke with things like double time for time served and mandatory release after two thirds completion. People aren't stupid, they know that when a sentence is handed down, the chances of it being served anywhere near its entirety is quite low.

[Keepitsimple]

I think the public would be even more enraged if the media reported the true sentence - like they do in the US. A sentence of 12 years should be reported as 4-8 years....because statutory release means you're out after 8 years and you can recieve full parole after serving only one third of the sentence - or 4 years. Hence, a 12 year sentence is actually "serving 4-8 years". I wish that's what appeared in the papers.

[nicky10013]

My view of crime is no more dogmatic than yours. I don't dispute that longer sentences may result in a higher rate of recidivism for first time offenders but that is not an issue in our system because they are never given. We rarely give them to chronic offenders. We just keep turning them loose to prey on society. Even then those sentences are given, they are made a joke with things like double time for time served and mandatory release after two thirds completion. People aren't stupid, they know that when a sentence is handed down, the chances of it being served anywhere near its entirety is quite low.

My view of crime is based on statistics and attempting to ascertain what type of policy best reduces the actual occurence of crime. That's not dogmatism, it's pragmatism. Everything points to higher rates of offenders breaking parole or committing new offences because they serve better prison time. Show me something that says bigger sentences does something more than to just pad our ego and then we'll talk.

You're right, people aren't generally stupid. However, they can't seem to grasp that generally, the people who hand out the sentences and the people who are in charge of corrections are actually doing a pretty good job. People can be offended all they want about small sentences but who are those idiots kidding? Crime has been falling in this country for 30 years so obviously they must know what they're doing. I'd rather trust a judge than the morons who call for people to get 25 years for stealing a car. Those policies are active in the states and violent crime is exponentially higher there than here. Property crime, though not exponentially higher, is higher than the states than it is here.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. We can't just lock people up because it makes US feel good. We have to do what's best for a society as a whole. You're definition may be different than mine, but in terms of crime, benefiting society means bringing down the actual crime rate.

Something tells me that we wouldn't be up in arms about this if the media didn't make such a bloodsport out of crime. There were only 80 murders in Toronto last year yet news outlets (papers and television stations) led with stories about murders 150 days of the year.

[Smallc]

There were only 80 murders in Toronto last year yet news outlets (papers and television stations) led with stories about murders 150 days of the year.

I thought there was even less than that.

[nicky10013]

I thought there was even less than that.

I'm thinking of 2007. 2008 I think it was around 60.

[Smallc]

I can't find the numbers, but I think that in 2009 it was even lower.

[nicky10013]

I can't find the numbers, but I think that in 2009 it was even lower.

Ahahah, nevermind, apparently I'm living in the past. I'm thinking about 2008...I'm still on 2009 time. Probably not even 2009 time.