Broken Justice - these infuriating cases have it all

[Jerry J. Fortin]

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.

Prevent crime? You cannot possibly believe that you are capable of formulating a legislative effort that can preclude or even mitigates the free will of human beings to act. They may act in a manner that will be "wrong" to you or me or somebody else, but they will indeed act. So lets get back to reality for a minute and understand that you cannot legislate morality. Whose version of morality do we use?

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.

Great crime is falling everywhere! That is good news, now why is it that the ones that slip through the cracks and become criminals are the ones with higher re-offend rates? What does that tell you? It means that they got let out too freaking soon now doesn't it?

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.

For the best interests of society to come into play we will have to consider the fact that we have a mutual responsibility to ensure the safety of that society. Allowing a criminal to leave custody and return to society where they will statistically represent a danger to society does not compute....sorry. In my view the only benefit society can realize in terms of crime is the pursuit of justice.

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.

Blame the media for crime?

[nicky10013]

Prevent crime? You cannot possibly believe that you are capable of formulating a legislative effort that can preclude or even mitigates the free will of human beings to act. They may act in a manner that will be "wrong" to you or me or somebody else, but they will indeed act. So lets get back to reality for a minute and understand that you cannot legislate morality. Whose version of morality do we use?

Great crime is falling everywhere! That is good news, now why is it that the ones that slip through the cracks and become criminals are the ones with higher re-offend rates? What does that tell you? It means that they got let out too freaking soon now doesn't it?

For the best interests of society to come into play we will have to consider the fact that we have a mutual responsibility to ensure the safety of that society. Allowing a criminal to leave custody and return to society where they will statistically represent a danger to society does not compute....sorry. In my view the only benefit society can realize in terms of crime is the pursuit of justice.

Blame the media for crime?

No, you can't legislate people's free will. However, the problem with that thinking is it presupposes that human beings are either born naturally good or bad. We can reduce crime through other methods than putting people behind bars. There's a reason why crime is way higher in poorer neighbourhoods than rich ones. Education is the silver bullet. You educate kids to a higher standard, especially in poorer neighbourhoods. When you give people more options than a life between mcdonalds or dealing drugs in a gang, people will tend to to pick the legal option. That's not always the case but then we can never completely get rid of crime.

Your second point makes no sense at all. You essentially just said that crime is falling, but what about the criminals, they re-offend. No, 75% of people who are let out of prison don't re-offend. 25% do, and of that, like 80% of those are parole violations and not new offenses. So, where's this horrible problem that everyone is talking about?

Your third point doesn't make any sense either. Of course we have to have to ensure a safer society. My view of a safer society is one where there's a lower rate of crime. Ex-convicts on the street does represent a statitical danger in that they may re-offend. However, we can't keep them in prison forever and everything points to longer sentences upping the chance of recividism. So, in essence, these small sentences should allow people a better chance to re-enter society and attempt to become useful citizens. There's simply a greater chance of that happening with the smaller sentence. Nothing anyone can say can make that false.

4th point. No, media doesn't cause crime. It causes a backlash against crime. It makes things seem worse than it actually is. I live in Toronto yet I've seen comments on news stories saying that people refuse to go to Toronto because there's so much gun violence that they're convinced that they'll have to dodge bullets. I saw one remark that Toronto was almost as bad as Baghdad. That's absolutely insane. I walk the streets every day and have never felt anything but safe. However, the idea is still out there that the streets of Toronto run red with the blood of dead innocent shooting victims. Is it because it's true or is it because "if it bleeds, it leads?"

[Wilber]

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.

Continually letting habitual criminals loose dos not reduce the actual occurence of crime. If you want to get into statistics it has been known for years that 90% of crime is committed by a very small proportion of criminals. Those are the people our system doesn't seem to be willing to deal with. You have an odd way of looking at things. You point to people committing new offenses or breaking parole because of longer prison sentences. I will just point out the obvious by stating that the only reason they can commit new offenses or break parole is because they aren't in prison.

Edited January 25, 2010 by Wilber

[Wilber]

Linky

[Keepitsimple]

This one is unbelievable:

Less than 2 years for grisly murder attempt

Pilot's neck slashed in random attack

By JOE WARMINGTON, QMI Agency

TORONTO -- “I was pleased to get him some water”

— attempted murder victim Ryan Watson

You don’t have to squint to see the scars on Ryan Watson’s throat.

The nasty remnants of the knife is on display for all to see. What you don’t see are the scars inside.

Meanwhile, the guy responsible could be home in time to enjoy the NHL playoffs. It’s Ontario justice where a man, for a reason not known to anyone, smashed a completely innocent neighbour over the head, stabbed the 32-year-old airline pilot in the neck and all he gets is two-years-less-a-day in jail.

And to think all of this over a simple glass of water!

It started on a hot day last August with the request for the most basic human need.

“I was thirsty too,” said Watson Monday, who “recognized” fellow Port Hope resident Thomas Tollett from a wedding and “invited him in.”

Being neighbourly, Watson retrieved two cold bottles from his fridge. There was no thank you.

“When I turned, all I felt was something being smashed over my head,” said Watson. “It was a piece of ceramic, maybe a candle holder, which shattered into a million pieces.”

Dove on him

He fell and his guest dove on top of him.

“I just remember him stabbing me in the throat — twice,” said Watson, who said he was in a state of shock and writhing in pain.

He started calling out for help but his spouse Courtney was out. Fearing for his life, Watson managed to bite Tollett on the finger and elude his attacker. Yelling “I don’t want to die” — while bleeding profusely — he went to neighbours’ Beverly and Stanley Kostoff, 71 and 79-years-old.

“It was like a horror movie,” said Watson.

And the nightmare was not over. “I shut the door but he broke it down,” he said. “Telling me he is going to kill me he jumped on me and started punching me.”

Tollett also hit his two elderly neighbours over the head with a wooden paddle, before stabbing the woman in the abdomen with a piece that had splintered off, he said.

Thankfully, help arrived in the nick of time. The man was arrested and Watson was rapidly airlifted to St. Michael’s Hospital where he underwent six hours of surgery to save his life.

If you are not already sufficiently outraged, stay tuned. How much time did Tollett get? You figure 25 years? 20? 15? 10? Five?

No, 60-year-old retired teacher and local theatre actor, after pleading guilty to attempted murder, was sentenced Friday in Cobourg Court to serve two-years-less-a-day on top of the six months he has already served. He was also handed three years probation and an order to not come any closer than 300 metres from his victims.

.....snip

Link: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2010/01/25/pf-12615276.html

[Argus]

Great crime is falling everywhere!

Is it? What if it's not?

Recently Statistics Canada has once again issued a misleading set of statistics concerning crime in Canada. The agency insists on using crimes reported to police to calculate what it refers to as crime rates. Yet other surveys carried out by Statistics Canada show that only about one-third of crimes are reported to police, and that proportion may be declining

As an illustration of the misleading impact this can have, there was a marked divergence of aspects of actual crime versus crime reported to police in the first half of this decade. Compared to the 1999 survey, the 2004 Criminal Victimization Survey shows: "...no significant change in self-reported rates of violent victimization, namely sexual assault, robbery or physical assault. However, rates rose by 24 per cent for theft of personal property, 42 per cent for theft of household property and 17 per cent for vandalism. The only type of offence to show a significant decline was breaking and entering, where rates fell by about one-fifth."

Vancouver board of Trade

[bjre]

Justices is in jobs. If everyone in Canada can easily to have a job when s/he needs, so that s/he can feed himself and have a affordable place to live with his/her own efforts, much less time will available for people to crime. Change laws to make people easier to get a job or start their own business will help a lot on making crime rate lower.

I guess the real problem is that is not the best interest of the legal system because the less crime the legal system will earn less.

Someone has experience in the legal system believes it is a business system. It is an industry that takes billions each year from taxpayers and others. He said police is buyer, prosecutor is sales, judge is customer, jail is warehouse, and prisoner is product.

Edited January 27, 2010 by bjre

[ironstone]

Forgive me if anyone has mentioned this crime before,but with slow dial up it takes me a very long time to read the topics in here.

How about Paul Champagne?A DND low level bureaucrat that managed to steal well in excess of 100 million dollars from Canadian taxpayers.He recieved a seven year sentence although his actual time behind bars will be substancially less than that.The judge was apparently quite moved that he voluntarily returned from his beachfront home in the Turks and Caicos to face his charges.Wonder where he got the money for that home?Undoubtably,he has hidden millions beyond the reach of the law and he will never have to work a day in his life.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2008/04/03/ot-champagne-080403.html

[eyeball]

Speaking of broken justice...the federal government's violation of Omar Khadr's constitutional rights takes the cake.

[Argus]

Speaking of broken justice...the federal government's violation of Omar Khadr's constitutional rights takes the cake.

Then let Khadr eat cake.

[nicky10013]

Continually letting habitual criminals loose dos not reduce the actual occurence of crime. If you want to get into statistics it has been known for years that 90% of crime is committed by a very small proportion of criminals. Those are the people our system doesn't seem to be willing to deal with. You have an odd way of looking at things. You point to people committing new offenses or breaking parole because of longer prison sentences. I will just point out the obvious by stating that the only reason they can commit new offenses or break parole is because they aren't in prison.

Again, people are alarmist when it comes to crime. I don't doubt your point has at least some merit, but the fact of the matter is that an overwhelming majority of the time, the system works. As I said before, all criminal policy is at least somewhat of a gamble. What do we do then? We take the best bet. Time and time again, the best bet is overwhelmingly proven to be not just throwing people in prison.

I pointed to new offences or parole because of longer sentences because it's proven to be true. I just said that the recidivism rate is incredibly low for what people here are screaming about. With the way people carry on it's as if there's a crime epidemic when there's every bit of proof to prove exactly the opposite. Is there something so horribly wrong with stating the truth?

People can read about sentences and get upset, and that's understandable. However, looking at crime statistics prove that the system is doing a pretty good job.

You also don't seem to understand that throwing these habitual criminals behind bars isn't a permanent solution to crime. It's a band-aid on a broken leg. Criminologists have a pretty clear understanding that strenuous social conditions lead to crime. Just throwing people in prison doesn't work for the same reasons why the death sentence doesn't work as a deterrent. The more we neglect poverty, lack of education and opportunity as causes of crime, the less we have the ability to actually lower crime. It's not rocket science.

[Wilber]

I pointed to new offences or parole because of longer sentences because it's proven to be true. I just said that the recidivism rate is incredibly low for what people here are screaming about. With the way people carry on it's as if there's a crime epidemic when there's every bit of proof to prove exactly the opposite. Is there something so horribly wrong with stating the truth?

Actually the recidivism rate for habitual criminals is incredibly high. Few would dispute that first time offenders should be given a second chance, maybe even second time offenders or even third. When it comes to thirty time offenders it should be obvious that what you are doing hasn't worked. It is the multiple offenders that the system seems incapable of dealing with. I keep pointing out that 90% of crime is commited by 10% of criminals. Why? Because we let them.

You also don't seem to understand that throwing these habitual criminals behind bars isn't a permanent solution to crime. It's a band-aid on a broken leg. Criminologists have a pretty clear understanding that strenuous social conditions lead to crime. Just throwing people in prison doesn't work for the same reasons why the death sentence doesn't work as a deterrent. The more we neglect poverty, lack of education and opportunity as causes of crime, the less we have the ability to actually lower crime. It's not rocket science.

Bullshit, it is not the courts job to engage in social engineering, it is to apply the law and protect the public. When it comes to habitual criminals, throwing them behind bars is the permanent solution unless you want them to come and live with you.

The death sentence does work as a deterrent, there is zero recidivism. In spite of that, I am against it.

[nicky10013]

Actually the recidivism rate for habitual criminals is incredibly high. Few would dispute that first time offenders should be given a second chance, maybe even second time offenders or even third. When it comes to thirty time offenders it should be obvious that what you are doing hasn't worked. It is the multiple offenders that the system seems incapable of dealing with. I keep pointing out that 90% of crime is commited by 10% of criminals. Why? Because we let them.

Bullshit, it is not the courts job to engage in social engineering, it is to apply the law and protect the public. When it comes to habitual criminals, throwing them behind bars is the permanent solution unless you want them to come and live with you.

The death sentence does work as a deterrent, there is zero recidivism. In spite of that, I am against it.

The first point is dumb logic. Of course the recividism rate for habitual criminals would be high. It would be 100%. If it wasn't, they wouldn't be habitual. The fact is the vast majority of offenders don't re-offend, no matter how much you try to spin the "perpetual" offender theory.

Your second point is also dumb. If we have statistics to prove that these sentences reduce the amount of re-offence and that a poverty reduction and education strategy on behalf of the government reduce crime, and overwhelmingly there are, pursuing those interests are in the public's best interest. You can't keep people in prison forever. They have to get out sometime no matter what your delicate sensibilities and obvious high level of education regarding criminology say.

The death sentence does NOT work as a deterent. The US brought back the death penalty in the 70s yet murder rates went up. It's the same thinking with prisons. Even if you can lock up an entire generation of criminals, it's the next generation of criminals which we need to worry about which is a fact apparently you simply can't understand.

[Wilber]

The first point is dumb logic. Of course the recividism rate for habitual criminals would be high. It would be 100%. If it wasn't, they wouldn't be habitual. The fact is the vast majority of offenders don't re-offend, no matter how much you try to spin the "perpetual" offender theory.

Your second point is also dumb. If we have statistics to prove that these sentences reduce the amount of re-offence and that a poverty reduction and education strategy on behalf of the government reduce crime, and overwhelmingly there are, pursuing those interests are in the public's best interest. You can't keep people in prison forever. They have to get out sometime no matter what your delicate sensibilities and obvious high level of education regarding criminology say.

The death sentence does NOT work as a deterent. The US brought back the death penalty in the 70s yet murder rates went up. It's the same thinking with prisons. Even if you can lock up an entire generation of criminals, it's the next generation of criminals which we need to worry about which is a fact apparently you simply can't understand.

What you don't seem to understand is that there are people who have no desire to be rehabilitated.

[nicky10013]

What you don't seem to understand is that there are people who have no desire to be rehabilitated.

Oh, I do understand that. Sexual predators and those similar should be kept under constant surveillance and there are provisions for that. What you don't seem to understand that not everyone in the criminal system is a prolific rapist that needs to be locked away.

[Wilber]

Oh, I do understand that. Sexual predators and those similar should be kept under constant surveillance and there are provisions for that. What you don't seem to understand that not everyone in the criminal system is a prolific rapist that needs to be locked away.

So you are saying that only prolific rapists and sexual predators need to be put away? That it is OK to be a prolific anything else?

[Argus]

Again, people are alarmist when it comes to crime. I don't doubt your point has at least some merit, but the fact of the matter is that an overwhelming majority of the time, the system works.

In fact, the system fails 100% of the time.

Because the point of the system is to ensure that society is safe from violent lawbreakers, and that it can thus carry on its life and business undeterred by fear that violent and criminal people might wait behind every corner. But people do fear violent people wait behind every corner. Society spends uncountable billions and billions of dollars trying to protect itself with complicated alarm systems, bars on windows, expensive locks, security guards, shatter-proof windows and safes. Yet we have stories repeated all the time of small corner stores facing gunmen again and again, of closed stores being broken into so often that they can no longer get insured and must close their doors. We have victims surveys which show that only something like 1/3 of victims of crimes even bother to report them because of their lack of confidence in the system to find, much less to actually punish those who victimized them - a figure which is falling, btw.

Falling.

Take note. Less and less people have enough faith in the system to make a complaint when they are beaten, robbed or raped, because they feel the system is a massively complicated, time consuming, depersonalized, embarrassing waste of time.

So you were beaten up and your wallet stolen? So what? What do you expect the system to do about it? You want to spend hours filling out reports and talking to the cops? Why? It's very unlikely they'll find the person, and even if they do it's even more unlikely that, after you spend more hours and hours of time waiting to be a witness and then testifying, that person will actually be punished to any real degree.

That's how most people feel now. MOST.

And you think the system works?

[Argus]

You can't keep people in prison forever.

No, just till they die. We can let them out then.

[Wilber]

The death sentence does NOT work as a deterrent. The US brought back the death penalty in the 70s yet murder rates went up. It's the same thinking with prisons. Even if you can lock up an entire generation of criminals, it's the next generation of criminals which we need to worry about which is a fact apparently you simply can't understand.

I have never made an argument for the death sentence being a deterrent, just that there are no re offenders. I have also made it clear that I am against the death penalty but that is a matter of principle not pragmatism. After listening to you, I wonder why we have prisons at all as it is obvious they are at the root of all crime and we could be crime free if we just got rid of them.

Edited January 30, 2010 by Wilber

[nicky10013]

I have never made an argument for the death sentence being a deterrent, just that there are no re offenders. I have also made it clear that I am against the death penalty but that is a matter of principle not pragmatism. After listening to you, I wonder why we have prisons at all as it is obvious they are at the root of all crime and we could be crime free if we just got rid of them.

I've never made the argument against custodial sentences. Anyone arguing that would be dumb. We just need to smartly hand out sentences based on circumstance. Mandatory minimums take judicial discretion away which could do more damage than good. Thanks for putting words in my mouth, though.

[Wilber]

I think mandatory minimums are not the most desirable solution, however if they do come about it will be largely because of the actions of the judiciary. They will have no one to blame but themselves. After reading your posts one could be forgiven for thinking you don't believe in custodial sentences. Sentences should be based on circumstance but more and more they seem to be based on expediency in the case of chronic offenders. If maximum sentences do not apply to those who have offended forty or fifty times, who the hell do they apply to? Time after time we see the courts refusing to take chronic offenders off the street and put them where they can no longer victimize others. People have a right to expect the courts to provide some protection from these offenders.

Edited January 31, 2010 by Wilber

[nicky10013]

I think mandatory minimums are not the most desirable solution, however if they do come about it will be largely because of the actions of the judiciary. They will have no one to blame but themselves. After reading your posts one could be forgiven for thinking you don't believe in custodial sentences. Sentences should be based on circumstance but more and more they seem to be based on expediency in the case of chronic offenders. If maximum sentences do not apply to those who have offended forty or fifty times, who the hell do they apply to? Time after time we see the courts refusing to take chronic offenders off the street and put them where they can no longer victimize others. People have a right to expect the courts to provide some protection from these offenders.

I think you're getting worked up thinking that most of the people in jail offend 40 or 50 times. That's just not the case. The entire point you're making is based on the widespread beliefe that judges don't know what they're doing when clearly given the fact that crime statistics have been falling. So really, do they have themselves to blame?

What's the old saying? Don't fix something that's not broken? I think it applies.

[Wilber]

I think you're getting worked up thinking that most of the people in jail offend 40 or 50 times. That's just not the case. The entire point you're making is based on the widespread beliefe that judges don't know what they're doing when clearly given the fact that crime statistics have been falling. So really, do they have themselves to blame?

What's the old saying? Don't fix something that's not broken? I think it applies.

Don't be ridiculous. Now who is putting words in people's mouths? I'll ask you again, if maximum sentences are not for people who have offended 40 or 50 times, who the hell are they for? I've also never said judges don't know what they are doing. Quite the contrary, I believe they are very aware of what they are doing.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

We need to look at the difference between having a legal system and having a justice system. I would prefer a system of justice myself. Crimes should be punished.

[nicky10013]

Don't be ridiculous. Now who is putting words in people's mouths? I'll ask you again, if maximum sentences are not for people who have offended 40 or 50 times, who the hell are they for? I've also never said judges don't know what they are doing. Quite the contrary, I believe they are very aware of what they are doing.

Well, since you believe they're not doing the right thing, then you clearly believe the don't know what they're doing. What are max sentences there for? They're there for people to recieve. I hear of people getting 25 years in prison but those are the types of sentences that don't fit the type of thread this is supposed to be. I agree that people should be punished, but then again, we should do it in such a way that prevents further crime from recidivism. So, what's the best way to go? I think we've clearly seen which way that is.

I've said this time and again. The crime rate is going down. The recidivism rate is really low. What needs to be fixed? What's broken?