Broken Justice - these infuriating cases have it all

[Wilber]

Well, since you believe they're not doing the right thing, then you clearly believe the don't know what they're doing.

Of course they know what they are doing. So what, Clifford Olsen knew what he was 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.

If you are worried about reducing recidivism from 40 times offenders, you are a bit late.

[nicky10013]

Of course they know what they are doing. So what, Clifford Olsen knew what he was doing.

If you are worried about reducing recidivism from 40 times offenders, you are a bit late.

No, I'm not. This isn't about recidivism of 40 time offenders. You keep going back to these people who have committed 40 offences. However, what's the percentage of the corrections program...not even in people in prison but on parole as well...of people who have committed that many of offences? What are the offences? Honestly, what's more likely, that these are people whom the system failed and have been in and out of juvy and prison on posession busts rather than people who have stolen cars or committed serious assault or murder.

Fact is, if you want people "seriously punished" for their crimes it has to be through mandatory minimums. With mandatory minimums I'm not worried about the mythical 40 time offender. I'm worried about the first time offenders that automatically get 10 years for stealing a car at 16, or 10 years for having a few joints.

No matter how many times you say judges know what they're doing in that condescending tone, I'd rather trust a judge than idiots hell bent on vigilantiism who have no fucking idea what they're talking about. A point you conveniently don't like to address due to the fact that you've said it is that if judges are so bad then why are the crime rates falling?

This thread is nothing more than a circle jerk for people who get too hot under the collar thinking that our justic system is sending us to the 7th level of hell when everything points to the opposite.

Edited February 2, 2010 by nicky10013

[Wilber]

I do keep going back to these mythical 40 time offenders because you keep blowing them off. And remember this is just in one jurisdiction, not province or nation wide. I don't want people "seriously punished", I just want the system to hold people like this accountable and stop them from victimizing others.

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]

I do keep going back to these mythical 40 time offenders because you keep blowing them off. And remember this is just in one jurisdiction, not province or nation wide. I don't want people "seriously punished", I just want the system to hold people like this accountable and stop them from victimizing others.

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%.

Which prisons were canvassed? Who gave access, was there criteria for interviews? Most importantly, who comissioned the study? Until those questions are asked, this study is hardly scientific. Less prestigious universities have agendas. Namely to get their name in the paper to bump up admissions. That's why I ignored it.

Furthermore, the stats sound scary but that's only 10% of the sample. That and these numbers are just too easy to deconstruct. As I mentioned before, we have no idea what crimes these guys are committing. Super offenders sounds bad, but 38% of people served 1 day? Sounds to me like a brawl where a guy gets sent to the drunk tank for the night. Violence doesn't denote things like attempted murder or manslaughter. The re-offence rate of these 10% of offenders but it doesn't say if they've committed new crimes or just breached parloe. Furthermore, the 100% re-offence rate makes it seem that no matter what, they always re-offend which unfortunately we have no idea because the data just doesn't tell us that, just that down the line they've re-offended at least once. Though I'm sure there are some serious offenders in there to be sure, these numbers just don't stand up to any scrutiny.

[Argus]

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?

The reported crime rate is going down. That is not necessarily synonymous with the crime rate itself.

[Smallc]

Right, we'll use those mythical Argus figures that so often come up yet don't really exist.

[nicky10013]

The reported crime rate is going down. That is not necessarily synonymous with the crime rate itself.

Nothing has magically changed. Crime rates were only reported crimes 30 years ago as well. You somehow think there's been an explosion of crime to the degree that's making our society incredibly unsafe yet has gone unreported? Where in Canada is this going on?

[Argus]

Right, we'll use those mythical Argus figures that so often come up yet don't really exist.

Or we can use the information Stats Canada puts out from its Criminal Victimization Survey, which shows that crime is not falling, and that less than a third of victims bother to report crimes to the police. Most likely because they feel it would be a waste of time.

[nicky10013]

Or we can use the information Stats Canada puts out from its Criminal Victimization Survey, which shows that crime is not falling, and that less than a third of victims bother to report crimes to the police. Most likely because they feel it would be a waste of time.

Does it actually say that crime isn't falling or is that your assessment? Something tells me that a lions share of the crime 30 years ago wasn't reported either. What if anything has changed?

[Wilber]

Which prisons were canvassed? Who gave access, was there criteria for interviews? Most importantly, who comissioned the study? Until those questions are asked, this study is hardly scientific. Less prestigious universities have agendas. Namely to get their name in the paper to bump up admissions. That's why I ignored it.

Furthermore, the stats sound scary but that's only 10% of the sample. That and these numbers are just too easy to deconstruct. As I mentioned before, we have no idea what crimes these guys are committing. Super offenders sounds bad, but 38% of people served 1 day? Sounds to me like a brawl where a guy gets sent to the drunk tank for the night. Violence doesn't denote things like attempted murder or manslaughter. The re-offense rate of these 10% of offenders but it doesn't say if they've committed new crimes or just breached parloe. Furthermore, the 100% re-offence rate makes it seem that no matter what, they always re-offend which unfortunately we have no idea because the data just doesn't tell us that, just that down the line they've re-offended at least once. Though I'm sure there are some serious offenders in there to be sure, these numbers just don't stand up to any scrutiny.

Prison records? How about court records. These are criminal convictions, not misdemeanors or bylaw infractions. When you consider the amount of time the police and Crown spend to get a criminal conviction plus the fact that in BC where this study was done, only the crown can press charges, the police can only recommend, you can be sure they were more serious than a drunken brawl and a night in the tank. You know very well that a person does not get a criminal record for that in Canada unless they seriously injure or kill someone.

You seem to be a bit thick or can't read to well. Number with convictions for violence 91%. 100% have breached conditions set by the courts. Re offended at least once? All 46 have re offended at least 30 times with an average of 47 times.

Do you honestly believe the courts are doing anyone a favour by continuing to release them until they eventually wind up dead? You have to get them out of their environment for an extended period of time in order to have a chance of doing anything positive and when it comes to habitual criminals, they are not going to do it voluntarily. Like it or not, the only place where both the time and treatment is available is in Federal prisons which means a sentence of at least two years. The unfortunate fact is, you cannot fix what is wrong with these people with a weeks confinement or telling them that the have to attend treatment. Ask any cop who deals with them on a daily basis. They will tell you the minute they step back into their old neighbourhood filled with the same old people, they are done for, regardless of their intentions when they walked out of that court room. They don't stand a chance. But the next time one of them steals your car or smashes a window to steal what is in it, I'm sure you will understand and take responsibility for their actions.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Prison records? How about court records. These are criminal convictions, not misdemeanors or bylaw infractions. When you consider the amount of time the police and Crown spend to get a criminal conviction plus the fact that in BC where this study was done, only the crown can press charges, the police can only recommend, you can be sure they were more serious than a drunken brawl and a night in the tank. You know very well that a person does not get a criminal record for that in Canada unless they seriously injure or kill someone.

You seem to be a bit thick or can't read to well. Number with convictions for violence 91%. 100% have breached conditions set by the courts. Re offended at least once? All 46 have re offended at least 30 times with an average of 47 times.

Do you honestly believe the courts are doing anyone a favour by continuing to release them until they eventually wind up dead? You have to get them out of their environment for an extended period of time in order to have a chance of doing anything positive and when it comes to habitual criminals, they are not going to do it voluntarily. Like it or not, the only place where both the time and treatment is available is in Federal prisons which means a sentence of at least two years. The unfortunate fact is, you cannot fix what is wrong with these people with a weeks confinement or telling them that the have to attend treatment. Ask any cop who deals with them on a daily basis. They will tell you the minute they step back into their old neighbourhood filled with the same old people, they are done for, regardless of their intentions when they walked out of that court room. They don't stand a chance. But the next time one of them steals your car or smashes a window to steal what is in it, I'm sure you will understand and take responsibility for their actions.

All of which leads me to continue to believe that violent offenders should be put away for the duration of their lives. That is the only effective way to protect society, anything less constitutes a risk.

[Argus]

Does it actually say that crime isn't falling or is that your assessment? Something tells me that a lions share of the crime 30 years ago wasn't reported either. What if anything has changed?

I refer you to post 356 where the link to the data can be found.

[Keepitsimple]

And now Earl Jones - orchestrator of the worst case of massive fraud in Canadian history - doesn't get the maximum sentence and can ask for parole in 22 months.....after ruining hundreds of lives:

Victims of the Ponzi schemer had hoped to see him slapped with the maximum 14-year sentence and were dismayed by the deal reached between prosecutors and his attorneys.

He will be eligible to apply for parole after serving one-sixth of his sentence - meaning he could request to be released from prison after 22 months.

Several victims wondered how Jones, who'd masterminded a pyramid scheme over three decades, could possibly have been spared the maximum sentence allowed by the law.

Link: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100215/national/crime_earl_jones_sentencing

[Wilber]

And now Earl Jones - orchestrator of the worst case of massive fraud in Canadian history - doesn't get the maximum sentence and can ask for parole in 22 months.....after ruining hundreds of lives:

Link: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100215/national/crime_earl_jones_sentencing

Does make you wonder what it takes to get a maximum sentence for fraud in this country, or if it is even possible at all.

[Smallc]

Blame that on the Crown. They didn't ask for the maximum. Under our system, non violent crime is not punished nearly as severely as violent crime, and without legislative change, that will continue.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Smallc

[Wilber]

Blame that on the Crown. They didn't ask for the maximum. Under our system, non violent crime is not punished nearly as severely as violent crime, and without legislative change, that will continue.

Seems like the Crown doesn't even believe in them.

[Wilber]

This has nothing to do with the courts but on one hand we have Robert Latimer who is no threat to society rotting in jail because he won't lie to a parol board in order to get out, and on the other hand we have THIS The release of a man described in National Parole Board (NPB) documents as “an untreated violent offender” with a “high risk to re-offend” after serving less than 10 years of a 14 year sentence because of the law. How f&$# up is our system anyway?

Edited February 28, 2010 by Wilber

[Keepitsimple]

Remember Jane Creba....well here's some sentences that were passed down. I believe this report is wrong - I think these guys will walk out free men without serving a day. Statutory release is pretty well automatic after serving two thirds of your sentence. The old 2 for 1 credit has slashed more than 8 years off their 12 year sentences - and that probably means they'll walk.

2 men get 12 years for Boxing Day shooting Module body

By The Canadian Press

TORONTO - Two men convicted of manslaughter in the fatal Boxing Day shooting of 15-year-old Jane Creba were sentenced today to 12 years in prison.

But, with a credit of eight years and five months, Louis Woodcock, 23, and Tyshaun Barnett, 22, will only serve three years and seven months. Both men served four years and 11 weeks in pre-trial custody. Creba was killed while she was shopping with her family in downtown Toronto on Boxing Day in 2005.

Jeremiah Valentine and Jorrell Simpson-Rowe have already been found guilty of second-degree murder in the shootout and sentenced to life in prison. A youth was found not guilty of manslaughter.

Link: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100826/national/boxing_day_shooting_1

[eyeball]

What will walk in their shadow is any mention of the role our mis-governance of the issues and problems related to substance use played in Jane Creba's death and the injuring of 6 others.

The trafficking of substances and the use of guns by traffickers to settle their differences cannot be stopped, short of turning our country into a police state. It's bad enough that innocent people are killed and injured in the crossfire of all the war's being fought against or over drugs but extolling and allowing public infuriation to rationalize turning our justice system into a vengeance system, spending billions of dollars on prisons, expanding the criminal code, and turn our country into a police state in other words seems worse.

Edited August 26, 2010 by eyeball

[Wilber]

What will walk in their shadow is any mention of the role our mis-governance of the issues and problems related to substance use played in Jane Creba's death and the injuring of 6 others.

The trafficking of substances and the use of guns by traffickers to settle their differences cannot be stopped, short of turning our country into a police state. It's bad enough that innocent people are killed and injured in the crossfire of all the war's being fought against or over drugs but extolling and allowing public infuriation to rationalize turning our justice system into a vengeance system, spending billions of dollars on prisons, expanding the criminal code, and turn our country into a police state in other words seems worse.

Yup, it's society's fault that scumbags murder each other in public (taking out the odd innocent in the process) over the proceeds of trading in human misery. We force them to do it. If we were all just more tolerant I am sure they would stop.

[eyeball]

Yup, it's society's fault that scumbags murder each other in public (taking out the odd innocent in the process) over the proceeds of trading in human misery. We force them to do it.

No it isn't, and no we didn't. Society simply created an environment for them to thrive in. Beyond that everything else they did was a matter of individual choice.

If we were all just more tolerant I am sure they would stop.

Tolerance seems to have stopped people from killing innocent people over the proceeds of trading in booze.

I haven't seen any gunfights erupt between our government liquor store and the beer and wine store that opened up a few years ago. I can't for the life of me understand why. Can you?

[guyser]

Remember Jane Creba....well here's some sentences that were passed down. I believe this report is wrong - I think these guys will walk out free men without serving a day.

The Jane Creba case reflects not broken justice, but justice personified.

I receive Ontario Court proceedings booklet every two weeks. It lays out the cases (not the transcripts) as they are concluded .

As an outsider on this issue I can say I am surprised anyone other than one man was convicted in this case. I read, and re-read , that case and found it so bloody hard to follow along as to who did what that I was surprised when I saw the verdicts.

There were so many conflicting accounts of what went down, how some people standing next to the shooter saw one thing, a person two feet away saw something else.

The fact that there were 2 roving gangs, multitudes of shoppers on the street, and the courts were able to navigate through the maze of conflictin reports and convict someone is simply astounding.

I have never been onside those who say we have a broken justice system . I firmly believe most people come to their conclusions based on superficial knowledge of our entire system. We hear bon mots about how our judges "make up the rules as they go along", "no supervision of Judges and their sentences" and so on.

IN fact our Judges are held to an extremely high standard, (the number of judicial reviews in the booklet I get is testament to that) and must meet thresholds for all but the most minor of cases. The Judges, peer reviewed and held accountable, pass that along in their own courtrooms to the Lawyers.

We are more than well served by the justice system. We may not like everything about it, but we are well served.

[Wilber]

No it isn't, and no we didn't. Society simply created an environment for them to thrive in. Beyond that everything else they did was a matter of individual choice.

So at what point do they become responsible for their own actions and held accountable?

Tolerance seems to have stopped people from killing innocent people over the proceeds of trading in booze.

I haven't seen any gunfights erupt between our government liquor store and the beer and wine store that opened up a few years ago. I can't for the life of me understand why. Can you?

They will just find something else to kill each other over. What's your solution, legalize everything?

[Wilber]

IN fact our Judges are held to an extremely high standard, (the number of judicial reviews in the booklet I get is testament to that) and must meet thresholds for all but the most minor of cases. The Judges, peer reviewed and held accountable, pass that along in their own courtrooms to the Lawyers.

By whom, other judges? I believe most judges try to do a good job but when they reach a point where the public feels they have lost touch with the needs of society, they need to listen. A justice system that does not have the confidence of the people to deliver justice is in big trouble. The next step is people lose respect for the law itself.

[eyeball]

So at what point do they become responsible for their own actions and held accountable?

The minute their actions impact another.

They will just find something else to kill each other over. What's your solution, legalize everything?

No, just stop criminalizing vice.