Molly Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Vengeance-based 'justice', rather than corrections-based.... Vengeance is outrageously expensive, at best morally doubtful, and pretty ineffective at preventing additional crimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted January 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Vengeance-based 'justice', rather than corrections-based....Vengeance is outrageously expensive, at best morally doubtful, and pretty ineffective at preventing additional crimes. It's not about preventing other crime. It's about preventing that one criminal from hurting anyone else. I doubt we'd have the death penalty again but we can and need to have harsher punishment for violent crime. I doubt anyone can disagree with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 It's not about preventing other crime. It's about preventing that one criminal from hurting anyone else. So if it isn't about preventing crime, it's about preventing one criminal hurting someone else, does that mean if he or she did, it wouldn't be a crime? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted January 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 So if it isn't about preventing crime, it's about preventing one criminal hurting someone else, does that mean if he or she did, it wouldn't be a crime? I have no idea what this riddle means. Are you a supporter of the current status quo where criminals are getting out on bail everyday? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 (edited) I have no idea what this riddle means. Yes I'm sure your own illogic confuses you. Are you a supporter of the current status quo where criminals are getting out on bail everyday?] Do you mean do I suppprt the canadian constitution , whereby all accused have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guity by an impartial court, a feature which is the hallmark of most civilised democratic nations and a pillar of English common law since the Magna Carta? Or are you simply changing the subject because it got too complicated for you? Edited January 28, 2009 by M.Dancer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted January 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Yes I'm sure your own illogic confuses you. Do you mean do I suppprt the canadian constitution , whereby all accused have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guity by an impartial court, a feature which is the hallmark of most civilised democratic nations and a pillar of English common law since the Magna Carta? Or are you simply changing the subject because it got too complicated for you? This latest joust is about this post I made here. In particular our current weak justice, legal system of whatever you people wish to call it today. I don't support people charged with violent crime getting out on bail like they do now. Nor do I support the lack of stiff sentencing for offenders. Life should mean life and not 25 years in Canada. So, do you support the current justice, legal system letting violent offenders out on bail and receiving light sentences when convicted? If you're not going t o answer and just want to play games just don't respond Dancer. 60 year old man child. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 I don't support people charged with violent crime getting out on bail like they do now. Guilty until proven innocent? Thanks, but I want no part in your utopia. Life should mean life and not 25 years in Canada. You misunderstand. It is life. The 25 years is simply when they are first eligible for parole (aside from the faint hope clause). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 So, do you support the current justice, legal system letting violent offenders out on bail and receiving light sentences when convicted? violent offender don't get bail. If you aren't going to use any of the brains that dog gave you, don't persist in making yourself look silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted January 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 violent offender don't get bail. If you aren't going to use any of the brains that dog gave you, don't persist in making yourself look silly. It's not enough. Judges should be keeping the scum in jail and should have the power to sentence people to whatever they want. Life with no parole or 99 years in prison, etc. It's about the victims of crime, that's what's important to me. That these people who were victimized get justice. If a person gets shot during a home invasion these people shouldn't be out on bail even though I know smallc and M.Dancer thinks they should be. The victims, and that's what's important here is the victim wouldn't feel safe knowing that her attacker is out on the street a day after a violent assault. This isn't fair to the poor victim which no one thinks about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 people who were victimized get justice. That's not what you seem to be after at all. What you are advocating is revenge, not justice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted January 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 That's not what you seem to be after at all. What you are advocating is revenge, not justice. Victims of violent crime getting revenge isn't justice? If you were to ask the victims I'm sure they'd agree with me that revenge is justice. That's what people want, revenge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Victims of violent crime getting revenge isn't justice? No, justice is supposed to be blind and fair. It can't be based on knee jerk reactions of people who have been done wrong. What the criminal did is certainly not right, but we can't use revenge as a punishment. If you were to ask the victims I'm sure they'd agree with me that revenge is justice. That's completely irrelevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted January 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 No, justice is supposed to be blind and fair. It can't be based on knee jerk reactions of people who have been done wrong. What the criminal did is certainly not right, but we can't use revenge as a punishment. That's completely irrelevant. Yes Justice should be fair but harsh when the person is found guilty and dangerous people be kept off of our streets. Victims feelings are not irrelevant. The justice system is there to serve the victim. How cold of you to say that the victim doesn't matter. Shame, shame, shame... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Yes Justice should be fair but harsh when the person is found guilty and dangerous people be kept off of our streets.Victims feelings are not irrelevant. The justice system is there to serve the victim. How cold of you to say that the victim doesn't matter. Shame, shame, shame... Did you know 40% of crimes in Canada are committed under the influence of the gateway drug alcohol the stat goes up when you look at violent crimes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Yes Justice should be fair but harsh when the person is found guilty and dangerous people be kept off of our streets. Yes, it should. Obviously then, you don't support the use of murder in the justice system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted January 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Yes, it should. Obviously then, you don't support the use of murder in the justice system. Do I want widespread use of the death penalty? Of coarse not. Some people deserve to die like Bernardo, Clifford Olson, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 (edited) Some people deserve to die like Bernardo, Clifford Olson, etc. Who gets to decide? Have we done wrong or right when we put someone to death? Edited January 28, 2009 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Do I want widespread use of the death penalty? Of coarse not. Some people deserve to die like Bernardo, Clifford Olson, etc. Yes, and I'm sure some thought David Milgard deserved it too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 It's not about preventing other crime. It's about preventing that one criminal from hurting anyone else. I doubt we'd have the death penalty again but we can and need to have harsher punishment for violent crime. I doubt anyone can disagree with that. The very worst offenders, guys like Bernardo and Olsen, are never going to see the light of day. They cannot hurt anyone any more. Killing them now would not make society safer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 The very worst offenders, guys like Bernardo and Olsen, are never going to see the light of day. They cannot hurt anyone any more. Killing them now would not make society safer. And that's why we have the dangerous offender legislation... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Normally most trolls, yes you MR C, can keep their post lies in order. But I understand your problem since you are a unionist and uber religious , a double whammy of never having to think for yourself. Anyhow, to let you know that is, I offer you your own words. If we're helping the poor Haitians what are they doing for us? We can't exploit them in any way so what's the point? If they're going to die then they;re going to die. Except there are millions of women in Haiti, and we all know that yesterday you wanted to save all the women in Australia from the imam. So , what happened overnight? Did your wife piss you off and now you want to kill all the women, or just let them starve to death. Hey, at least killing them outright will be quicker than a slow starved death. Perhaps you only want women to be 'free' in order to exploit them? All things considered , that would be mighty catholic of you. Billions of my dollars isn't going to stop that. Africa has been getting Billions every year since 1970's and they still can't get it together. Are we really that much smarter then them? This welfare for no return has to end. Who's the we in that statement...cuz it sure aint you. No welfare, not even for the poor women of Africa. And here I thought being a suffragette was a new postion of yours. Now of course you want to kill people in the name of cap murder. Even the women? Afterall, one of those women might have had to live w you, and as we can all appreciate, even some women have a tolerance level that gets crossed. Perhaps one eye open sleeping is in order? Our criminal justice system works pretty damn good, and most definitely better than you have any knowledge of. Violent crime charges and the perps are out the same day? Too funny. Comedy gold jerry, gold! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whowhere Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 The very worst offenders, guys like Bernardo and Olsen, are never going to see the light of day. They cannot hurt anyone any more. Killing them now would not make society safer. killing them is the right thing to do and it would also save tax dollars. Why should working Canadians pay to feed and shelter human trash that should have been disposed of by the noose of a rope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 killing them is the right thing to do and it would also save tax dollars. Why should working Canadians pay to feed and shelter human trash that should have been disposed of by the noose of a rope. Save tax dollars? There's nothing cheap about executions. Look down in the States, guys can sit for years on Death Row while appeals, almost always paid for by the taxpayer, are carried out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whowhere Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Save tax dollars? There's nothing cheap about executions. Look down in the States, guys can sit for years on Death Row while appeals, almost always paid for by the taxpayer, are carried out. If there weren't lefty do gooder christians standing in the way I am sure there wouldn't be a death row wasting tax dollars. The judge would render his judgment and the prisoner would be escorted to the rope and hung for all to see. Bullets are cheap. Rope and a tree is environmentally friendly; Can be re-used over and over. No taxpayer in the world should be allowing human trash to continue on. As they say, kill them all and let God sort them out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 If there weren't lefty do gooder christians standing in the way I am sure there wouldn't be a death row wasting tax dollars. The judge would render his judgment and the prisoner would be escorted to the rope and hung for all to see. Bullets are cheap. Rope and a tree is environmentally friendly; Can be re-used over and over. No taxpayer in the world should be allowing human trash to continue on. As they say, kill them all and let God sort them out. And what do you say, then, about wrongful convictions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.