Oleg Bach Posted June 8, 2009 Report Posted June 8, 2009 One a person has decieded to make some other person DEAD - Then at that moment that person is in truth dead - do we want dead men walking about who are capable of taking more human life? It really does not matter much to a murdering SOB..if he or she spends the rest of their mortal life in a steal box.. BUT if it is an accident or a crime of passion - unplanned or premeditated - then hope for some sort of release must be provided. Even the ancients showed mercey for killers - and would send them off to a special place of exile. A place where they could reform and regroup their senses.. The problem here is that we have very few judges that can really size up an offender and give proper sentencing. To remove the faint hope clause - our of sheer spite will not serve society. In the same breath - to release those that kill with cold and brutal intent - must have no hope...and IF released - let them leave pushing a walker. The delemia here is also during the judical process - in the earliest of stages - The onis has always been on the accused - during a bail hearing..If the person could explain themselves they were usually released and would return for trial at a later date- NOW - the public is under the impression that the onis is on the courts - and it should be changed to putting the responsiblity on the accused _ I REPEAT - The onis has always been on the accused! How can we take serously a judical system - that sees an accused enter into the courts who has been found to be carrying a hand gun - that has one specific purpose in crimminal culture - to MURDER - but - we release these people after a silly show cause hearing ...why does this take place - are there preverts sitting on the bench who get their jollies harrassing the community at large - by sending our those ready and willing to murder out into the world to threaten coerce and kill? The most important subject should be show cause hearings -------------------and we would not be talking about the faint hope buisness - Why wait untill they kill - nip in in the bud! Quote
Smallc Posted June 8, 2009 Report Posted June 8, 2009 Where is the concern for the victim in this respect? There is concern for the victim. They have rights, but so do the accuesd and the convicetd. Quote
Smallc Posted June 8, 2009 Report Posted June 8, 2009 They should die in their cells (because YOU don't approve of capital punishment, which is a much better choice), not be allowed to get out regardless of whether they kill again or not. This is definitely where the ideologies diverge. Justice isn't about revenge or excessive punishment. If someone has been rehabilitated, and if they have paid what is determined by a fair body to be a long enough sentance for their crime given the circumstances, then there is no reason to keep them in jail. Just because someone takes away the life of another, it doesn't give us the right to take away their life or rights forever without reason. Quote
canfan Posted June 8, 2009 Report Posted June 8, 2009 It still confirms that 83% of those who apply, get their parole eligibility date moved up. While it's true that less that 25% of murderers actually apply, it seems likely that's only because they don't know how to navigate the legal system - more than likely because they can't afford to pay a lawyer. It's also true that they don't get out right away......but all of them are LIKELY to get out before their 25 years is up. This is not just about the prisoners - who all took someone's life - it's about the families of the victims who have to relive the horror with every notification of the murderer's intent to seek parole. The stats don't support your claim that all of them are likely to get out. Quote
Oleg Bach Posted June 8, 2009 Report Posted June 8, 2009 The stats don't support your claim that all of them are likely to get out. Forget the stats! One of you should go to Kingston - and sit in on a parrole hearing - and look the prisoner in the eye and JUDGE for yourself - in real time - and in realtiy - Now that would be impressive - to see some good judgement - rather than see a couple of bean counters looking at numbers and attempting to take authority over something as important as life and liberty....stats don't cut it! Quote
Hydraboss Posted June 8, 2009 Report Posted June 8, 2009 This is definitely where the ideologies diverge. Justice isn't about revenge or excessive punishment. If someone has been rehabilitated, and if they have paid what is determined by a fair body to be a long enough sentance for their crime given the circumstances, then there is no reason to keep them in jail. Just because someone takes away the life of another, it doesn't give us the right to take away their life or rights forever without reason. Actually, the fact that they were convicted of murder DOES give us the right to take away their life or rights forever. It's called a life sentance. Murder IS the reason to keep them in jail. Justice isn't about revenge or excessive punishment Revenge is a feeling and/or a motive, but life without seeing the sun is not "excessive" punishment. It is appropriate under the Criminal Code of Canada. Quote "racist, intolerant, small-minded bigot" - AND APPARENTLY A SOCIALIST (2010) (2015)Economic Left/Right: 8.38 3.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 3.13 -1.23
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 8, 2009 Report Posted June 8, 2009 Actually, the fact that they were convicted of murder DOES give us the right to take away their life or rights forever. It's called a life sentance. Murder IS the reason to keep them in jail. Revenge is a feeling and/or a motive, but life without seeing the sun is not "excessive" punishment. It is appropriate under the Criminal Code of Canada. Excessive punishment is the death penalty. Life behind bars, solitary confinement, is fair. Quote
canfan Posted June 8, 2009 Report Posted June 8, 2009 Where is the concern for the victim in this respect? You act as if victims don't have a voice in the process when they clearly do. There are other interests as well and just because you don't like them that doesn't mean the victims are ignored. Quote
canfan Posted June 8, 2009 Report Posted June 8, 2009 Forget the stats! One of you should go to Kingston - and sit in on a parrole hearing - and look the prisoner in the eye and JUDGE for yourself - in real time - and in realtiy - Now that would be impressive - to see some good judgement - rather than see a couple of bean counters looking at numbers and attempting to take authority over something as important as life and liberty....stats don't cut it! We're not talking about an individual case. Stats cut it when people make claims like everyone is likely to go free and the evidence shows the opposite. Quote
canfan Posted June 8, 2009 Report Posted June 8, 2009 Revenge is a feeling and/or a motive, but life without seeing the sun is not "excessive" punishment. It is appropriate under the Criminal Code of Canada. It's appropriate in some cases. Not in others. That's why removing discretion from the justice system is a bad thing. 1 size doesn't fit all. Quote
Argus Posted June 8, 2009 Report Posted June 8, 2009 Most of the Liberals I know have a more detailed understanding of the issues than most of the Conservatives that I know. They get their news from a variety of sources. I spend hours with the news every day, and I almost never agree with you. Maybe, but your whole attitude is a kind of smug contentment, a "don't worry, be happy" sort of phlosophy about any complaints about systemic problems. The only thing in the world which seems to concern you is the fact there's a Conservative government in power. Once the PMs name is Ignatieff you will entirely lose what little concern you have about what's going on in this country. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
benny Posted June 8, 2009 Report Posted June 8, 2009 When concern for the criminal is of greater importance than the victimized citizen, our society is tracking down a slippery slope. The slippery slope for a society comes from disregarding/discarding its problems. Quote
Hydraboss Posted June 8, 2009 Report Posted June 8, 2009 It's appropriate in some cases. Not in others. That's why removing discretion from the justice system is a bad thing. 1 size doesn't fit all. Parole eligibility after 25 years indicated premeditated murder. We aren't talking about the accidental killing of someone, or "dying with dignity" affairs. Life in prison IS appropriate in ALL cases. Who the hell cares if the murderer says he's "cured"? They gave up their rights when they slaughtered another. No second chances for these "people". Discretion has no place in first degree murder convictions/penalties. 1 size DOES fit all. Quote "racist, intolerant, small-minded bigot" - AND APPARENTLY A SOCIALIST (2010) (2015)Economic Left/Right: 8.38 3.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 3.13 -1.23
Argus Posted June 8, 2009 Report Posted June 8, 2009 That's not what happens. There is concern for both parties, as there should be. Not actually true. In fact, our entire system is predicated upon the presumption that the only victim in a crime is the state. The actual person victimized is considered nothing more than a witness, or, if dead, a source of evidence. The person on trial is punished for his misdeeds against the state, or more properly, against the Crown, not against the individual concerned. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted June 8, 2009 Report Posted June 8, 2009 This is definitely where the ideologies diverge. Justice isn't about revenge or excessive punishment. But it IS about apropriate punishment, punishment that fits the crime, as it were, and many, many people feel the punishments currently in place DO NOT fit the crimes being commited. Just because someone takes away the life of another, it doesn't give us the right to take away their life or rights forever without reason. Without reason? The REASON is that they'e commited murder. Fly them to a work camp up on the tundra and let them work the rest of their life away in hard labour. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Smallc Posted June 8, 2009 Report Posted June 8, 2009 Maybe, but your whole attitude is a kind of smug contentment, a "don't worry, be happy" sort of phlosophy about any complaints about systemic problems. You seem to find problems with everything though, and there has to be some balance. Yes, I'm probably over optimistic, but I would rather be that than hateful and spiteful. Liberals can't fix everything, and neither can Conservtaives. Government is a human system and as a result it will always be falable. We cannot expect more from government than we do from ourselves in my opinion. I don't hold the government to any higher standard than I would myeself...and I know I make mistakes. Our government will always make mistakes, but overall, it seems to have been good. Our soceity is one of the safest, richest, and most comfortable on this Earth, and so you'll have to forgive me if I don't share in your negative view. Quote
Argus Posted June 8, 2009 Report Posted June 8, 2009 Excessive punishment is the death penalty. Life behind bars, solitary confinement, is fair. I think the death penalty is entirely apropriate and just. You feel it's acceptable to kill someone because you don't like them or they were a problem? Fine, we don't like you and you're a problem. Buh bye. The only reason I oppose the death penalty for first degree murder is the incompetence of our judicial system. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted June 8, 2009 Report Posted June 8, 2009 You act as if victims don't have a voice in the process when they clearly do. There are other interests as well and just because you don't like them that doesn't mean the victims are ignored. Given the victim's voice has been silenced permanently by the accused I'm afraid I don't see what you're talking about. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted June 8, 2009 Report Posted June 8, 2009 It's appropriate in some cases. Not in others. That's why removing discretion from the justice system is a bad thing. 1 size doesn't fit all. We removed the discretion of judges because society lost confidence in their ability to use that discretion wisely. Again, if we appointed wise people to be judges, instead of giving out robes as reward or for political favours things might be different. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Smallc Posted June 8, 2009 Report Posted June 8, 2009 many people feel the punishments currently in place DO NOT fit the crimes being commited. Feel? As in...emotion? Without reason? The REASON is that they'e commited murder. Fly them to a work camp up on the tundra and let them work the rest of their life away in hard labour. And if they become reahibilitated and no longer pose a risk to society? Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favour of keeing the faint hope clause, but I'm not in favour of locking people away forever if there is no longer a reason to. Quote
Smallc Posted June 8, 2009 Report Posted June 8, 2009 We removed the discretion of judges because society lost confidence in their ability to use that discretion wisely. Have you done a poll? Quote
Smallc Posted June 8, 2009 Report Posted June 8, 2009 In fact, our entire system is predicated upon the presumption that the only victim in a crime is the state. Oh, you are so full of it. The Crown acts in the interests of the people. Quote
Argus Posted June 8, 2009 Report Posted June 8, 2009 Feel? As in...emotion? As in making a judgement which says that the punishment falls short of being apropriate. And if they become reahibilitated and no longer pose a risk to society? Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favour of keeing the faint hope clause, but I'm not in favour of locking people away forever if there is no longer a reason to. I think society has to establish firmly in the minds of all its members that murder is a crime which will never be forgiven and never be forgotten, and one you will never stop paying for as long as you live. I am not in favour of ANY parole for first degree murderers except in exceptional circumstances. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
canfan Posted June 8, 2009 Report Posted June 8, 2009 Parole eligibility after 25 years indicated premeditated murder. We aren't talking about the accidental killing of someone, or "dying with dignity" affairs. Life in prison IS appropriate in ALL cases. Who the hell cares if the murderer says he's "cured"? They gave up their rights when they slaughtered another. No second chances for these "people".Discretion has no place in first degree murder convictions/penalties. 1 size DOES fit all. Faint hope clause applies to 1st and 2nd degree murder. And even 1st degree murder isn't necessarily premeditated. That's what happens when you apply a 1 size fits all approach you end up making assumptions that sometimes turn out to be wrong. Quote
Argus Posted June 8, 2009 Report Posted June 8, 2009 Have you done a poll? Would you care to posit another reason why the Liberals implimented the laws requiring mandatory minimum periods of sentencing before parole eligibility? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
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.