charter.rights Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 If you look at the latin term patre or pappa - it does not mean slavish provider in a consumerist society with a limitless appitite for more and more stuff.. The term literally means PROTECTOR...That is a fathers true purpose...He failed to protect his children because he could not even protect himself. He was a totally vulnerable human being who had given up his human dignity and was open to all sorts of abuse - of himself and of those supposedly his wards. Sending a strong message to the native community might be - stand tall and be men...the same goes to the black community - be men! and so on....but in this world of matriarchal and patriarchal oppression it is almost illegal to stand up and be MEN AND WOMAN. Alcoholism is a mental disorder and a father who risks his children's lives while in a psychotic episode - whether alcohol induced, drug induced or psychotically induced requires treatment. Punishment doesn't do any good, nor does it serve as a deterrent in these kinds of cases. Putting Pauchay in a sentencing circle has the community looking at not only his illness but the extent to which it has harmed the children and ultimately the community. It may very well be that the circle will recommend some sort of banishment, or incarceration but I guarantee the focus will be on treating the disease and not killing the Indian, so to speak. The Hollow Water Circle model of restorative justice has had great success dealing with the kinds of social misbehavior that leads to these kinds of events. By using an restorative approach the offender and victims (there are more victims in this than just the children), the families of the survivors and the community all participate in controlling and monitoring the behavior of the offender. They all take responsibility for what happens in their community and in turn help prevent similar events from happening in the future. The sentencing circle is a way for Pauchay to received the help he needs, protect the community they way they need protection and provide an avenue where it will be possible for him to return to the community as a whole person. No one expects everyone to "get it" since our western worldview contaminates our thinking towards violence and using a seemingly obtuse process to correct the problem appears foreign and inadequate. That isn't a problem with the process since the recidivism rate is below 20%, but it is a problem with our filters which prefers to mete out an eye for an eye even though Biblically they even get that wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Alcoholism is a mental disorder and a father who risks his children's lives while in a psychotic episode - whether alcohol induced, drug induced or psychotically induced requires treatment. Then he should be sentenced as such...in a court of law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted February 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Informative - thank you. They eye for the eye is old testimonial and not based in later Christian doctrine - I have always wondered about the term we embrace as our own cultural gosspel..."Christian-Judiac values - never have these to camps merged in over 1500 years of OUR church history - they are to distinct countering values and why we mix the unmixable in our judical sytem defys logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Then he should be sentenced as such...in a court of law. Even if there is no effect? What would that prove except to satisfy your thirst for blood? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted February 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Even if there is no effect? What would that prove except to satisfy your thirst for blood? I have a mother in law that I insulted 25 years ago by telling her the truth - she still wants me dead after all these years even as she approaches her death bed she hates ----some are just not genetically equipped with the love gene..the old bat still thinks that orgasm is love...some to not have spirit but are base and mean spirited - the world is full of this type and their is no changing them...they are what they are. The thrill of the kill or the idea of tormenting someone in a cage turns them on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 What would that prove except to satisfy your thirst for blood? I don't have such a thing. I want all people who commit crimes to be treated the same. If the problem is alcoholism, he should be sentenced to a treatment program. He still also committed negligent homicide. He should have to endure the punishment the same as any other person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 I don't have such a thing. I want all people who commit crimes to be treated the same. If the problem is alcoholism, he should be sentenced to a treatment program. He still also committed negligent homicide. He should have to endure the punishment the same as any other person. You can't have that in a civil society. There are different levels of the same crime. Different degrees of the people that commit them and different social, economic and political circumstances under which they are committed. There are two basic premises behind sentencing. 1. Is to ensure that there is a sufficient period in which the offender is rehabilitated and society is protect in the interim, and 2. the sentence acts as a deterrent for repeat offense and to others for committing an offense. The judiciary has built in discretion in both convicting and sentencing offenders. That is what a civil society provides and just as politicians have no business in the bedrooms of our soceity they have no business behind the bench of a court of law. If a hungry man steals a loaf of bread from a rich man who wastes at least two loaves per day, who is really guilty? What sentence could you possible give that would make this right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 You can't have that in a civil society. Equality? I think you can. There are different levels of the same crime. Then they aren't really the exact same crime, now are they? The judiciary has built in discretion in both convicting and sentencing offenders. Yes, exactly why we don't have any use for sentencing circles. Special circumstances are already considered within the courts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Equality? I think you can.Then they aren't really the exact same crime, now are they? Yes, exactly why we don't have any use for sentencing circles. Special circumstances are already considered within the courts. WE don't have the use for sentencing circles perhaps, but native people do. They are a form of justice which the Supreme Court of Canada accepts as equal to our system. And in fact a similar type of alternative justice forums are available to youth offenders called family circles which emulate the same process as aboriginal sentencing circles. As far as equality before the law it cannot be realized unless there is equity before the law as well. That means that extenuating circumstances must always be considered at trial and during sentences. In the example I cited to your under your thinking theft is theft and there is no room for moral judgment. Accordingly all sentences should be equal for theft. So is the hungry man guilty? And what sentence would you impose on him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 In the example I cited to your under your thinking theft is theft and there is no room for moral judgment. I never said that. If two people steal something of the same value under very similar circumstances, they should face a similar penalty, would you not agree? Having said that, I don't consider myself to be as wise on such matters as the Supreme Court of Canada. If they felt that allowing such alternatives was within the law and justified, I really have to bow to their authority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griz Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Whenever I read some of these I wonder if some of you have anything better to do? In this thread, Charter, Myata, and Melanie seem to know what they are talking about--the rest of you are outright dumb when it comes to aboriginal issues. I ask you, when was the last time you heard an "idiot right-wing politician" say "one law for all?" If any of you had a clue and the meaning of precedence then maybe you may at least sound like you know what you're talking about. The justice system has always been a farce especially when it come to aboriginal people. IN RL you wouldn't give a hoot about those children and now that you have a chance you pounce on an issue. The radio talk people are idiots too--grow up and get a life and quit harpin on the indians because you all sound like fools. WHo wants to bet that the cop in Vancouver will get off with that beating of the delivery man in January? That's the justice system--one great big farce Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 (edited) IN RL you wouldn't give a hoot about those children. You don't know me, and you have no idea what I do and don't know. With comments like this, quite frankly, you sicken me. Skin colour means nothing to me. People are people no matter what. We should all be treated the same, and we should all have the same opportunities. I know that isn't always the case, but its something that I believe we should be striving towards as a society. Oh, and I know exactly what precedence is. I very much support its use. I just have trouble with alternate parallel judgment systems. It is not my place to decide such things however, and I am quite sure that the supreme court has its reasons. Edited February 19, 2009 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 I never said that. If two people steal something of the same value under very similar circumstances, they should face a similar penalty, would you not agree? Having said that, I don't consider myself to be as wise on such matters as the Supreme Court of Canada. If they felt that allowing such alternatives was within the law and justified, I really have to bow to their authority. I want all people who commit crimes to be treated the same. Well you did. You left no room for discretion by the courts. Even if the two crimes were committed under similar circumstances there could be extenuating issues that make sentencing dissimilar, such as a guy who steals a loaf of bread. If one of the guys who stole a loaf of bread had money in his bank account that could be extenuating even if the guys lived side by side and both were hungry. And what about the guy that wasted bread? Is he not morally guilty for withholding food from a hungry person? Could the motivation for the theft from this particular guy not have arrived because he hoarded and wasted food in the face of hunger? The point is (and one the SCoC takes particular care of) there are no universal and just one-off sentences for crimes. Each case is individual and in it we must examine not only our Charter rights, our human rights not defended by the Charter but also the moral circumstances that led to a crime. The court owes the defendant a duty of care in examining all of the facts and not excluding them because of personal bias or repugnant superiority. And lastly couldn't a crime be avoided entirely if the owner of the bread simply handed the bread over willingly? In these types of criminal acts - thefts, robberies etc - the unwillingness to part with personal possessions is actually what creates the crime in the first place. If we are willing to hand over or share our possessions it is unlikely that some crimes would even exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muddy Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Well this lovely couple had another child after his neglect. Her name is Miracle! She is now in the custody of authorities . Seems the drinking goes on and he is charged for domestic violence.His bail said he was not to drink. Seems that circle of Indian justice does not have a lot of influence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Well you did. You left no room for discretion by the courts. Even if the two crimes were committed under similar circumstances there could be extenuating issues that make sentencing dissimilar, such as a guy who steals a loaf of bread. Of course there are differences. If there are differences it isn't the same crime anymore. Motive is very important in determining the severity of a crime. The courts can have all the leeway they want, I wuold simply prefer that it stay within the courts rather than sending it to a special body that is only accessible by some. If one of the guys who stole a loaf of bread had money in his bank account that could be extenuating even if the guys lived side by side and both were hungry. Being poor doesn't make one a criminal. That's a terrible excuse when it really comes down to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huston Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 I would be into flogging any man who drank themselves into a drunken stupor while minding his babys. So whats that make me? I don`t care that the guy was an Indian. What I do care about is that equal justice be done no matter race or colour. Now the question is. What made the man take up the bottle? Syupidity? Desperation? Something else? People who commit crimes or unfortunate events are victims as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huston Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 I'm sorry, but I see what police have to deal with on reserves. I can see exactly why things are the way they are. Now, we should fix the situation on reserves, but that situation isn't the fault of the police. Maybe if they were not forced onto those reserves or the systemiatic breakdown of their culture since the European imperialist came (I will not include all, because I do not know the extent of the Viking settlement and the interaction with natives. The natives like all other natives have had their way of life destroyed all around the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Maybe if they were not forced onto those reserves I agree, and I think they should be done away with. They have no place in today's world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muddy Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 (edited) Anyone who advocates the apartied reserve system is perpetuating failure. Our native people after over one hundred years still live in abject poverty and ignorance. If a guy can get off a boat ,with five bucks in his pocket ,not knowing the language,culture and with wife and kids in tow and can own his own home in one year ,it begs the question. What have we done to our native people? Scrap the Indian act and let our native people be all they can be in a modern world. The reserve system is a failure. Edited February 19, 2009 by Muddy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted February 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Anyone who advocates the apartied reserve system is perpetuating failure. Our native people after over one hundred years still live in abject poverty and ignorance. If a guy can get off a boat ,with five bucks in his pocket ,not knowing the language,culture and with wife and kids in tow and can own his own home in one year ,it begs the question. What have we done to our native people? Scrap the Indian act and let our native people be all they can be in a modern world. The reserve system is a failure. The natural reserve system is abslolutely racist - To set up a reserve to preserve natural inhabitants is to set up a ZOO -- Natives are different genetically...and culturally - They are an unchanged ancient group from another time...If not oppressed they walk with nobilty and grace. What I have noticed - and it goes for all sorts of decendants from all tribes including Anglo Saxons...Is that some from certain familiar lineage - take well to captivity (society) and sort of thrive - while others are resistant to authority and slowly perish. Natives are prisonsers of war - and are still treated as such - some prisoners adapt and others do not and die. This phenomena is not reserved only to take place in native genetic culture - it takes place in all races and cultures. The dominant familiar lineages who we call establishement have an agenda - Our family first and all others can perish'. Natives will never be excepted as fully human by the elites - nor will the blacks..nor will I the germanic slav...and I am as white as you get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griz Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 Anyone who advocates the apartied reserve system is perpetuating failure. Our native people after over one hundred years still live in abject poverty and ignorance. If a guy can get off a boat ,with five bucks in his pocket ,not knowing the language,culture and with wife and kids in tow and can own his own home in one year ,it begs the question. What have we done to our native people? Scrap the Indian act and let our native people be all they can be in a modern world. The reserve system is a failure. Then why are there idiots in this society that say the natives have it good? I mean what a bunch of fools! If the indians have it so good, then why don't those in power make the system the same for all? Man sometimes you all sound like a bunch of babbling fools! Radio show hosts and forums are very good at disclosing the idiocrisy and ignorance that exist in Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 Yes, exactly why we don't have any use for sentencing circles. Special circumstances are already considered within the courts. Sentencing circles are a mechanism designed to involve community input in sentencing of criminals. It is clear that in this case the circle missed the boat by recommending that the man be set free.. But we have had judges in the past making the same kind of mistake. And juries. And Crown Attorneys. The fact that the wrong recommendation was made in this case is not sufficient reason to throw out the concept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 Anyone who advocates the apartied reserve system is perpetuating failure. Our native people after over one hundred years still live in abject poverty and ignorance. If a guy can get off a boat ,with five bucks in his pocket ,not knowing the language,culture and with wife and kids in tow and can own his own home in one year ,it begs the question. What have we done to our native people? Scrap the Indian act and let our native people be all they can be in a modern world. The reserve system is a failure. Here's a novel concept. Let the First Nations decide themselves what they want their future to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted February 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 Sentencing circles are a mechanism designed to involve community input in sentencing of criminals.It is clear that in this case the circle missed the boat by recommending that the man be set free.. But we have had judges in the past making the same kind of mistake. And juries. And Crown Attorneys. The fact that the wrong recommendation was made in this case is not sufficient reason to throw out the concept. Okay - you win - give the guy six months and a course on anger management - a parenting class ( better late than never) - and some treatment for alcohol and put him on what used to be common in the 50s ---- It was called the "Indian list" - I heard my dad mention that about a local violent drunk....."You know they have Joe on the Indian list - Frank had to go in and buy his Voldka for him" Joe was not native...maybe we should have a new version of this - called - If you can't hold your booze and you get caught drinking - we make sure you don't drink - give them a mandatory 2 years for the liver to heal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 (edited) Sentencing circles are a mechanism designed to involve community input in sentencing of criminals. But I'm not really sure that is compatible with the principles of justice. I suppose many things that we do really aren't though. I've already said that I think there must be a reason they allow them, I just don't completely agree with them. Edited February 20, 2009 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.