Tories move to eliminate faint-hope clause

[jdobbin]

I don't think it's wild speculation to suggest that if 15% are caught, a considerably larger number have simply not been caught

But you have no evidence of that and. It is like those who suggest our murder rate must be double or triple what it is because they believe so many missing people are out there must have been murdered.

Edited June 7, 2009 by jdobbin

[ironstone]

That's right, but they hadn't screamed for GST cuts and massive spending over the last two years. We would have only had one or the other with a Liberal government....probably smaller tax cuts and slightly lower spending. We have left our selves with no room to maneuver and we were told that in 2008.

I didn't believe it at the time, because I thought Harper knew what he was doing. Later, I realized that he's a liar and that he has no idea what he's doing. I can't support someone like that.

Sounds like you really miss the days of "Honest Jean" Chretien.

"I never said I would get rid of the GST,I never said that!"(The mother of all lies?)

"A few million dollars may have been stolen after the referendum."(A capacity for understatement?)

"I never called the head of the BDC!"(Can you say LIAR?)

Yeah those were the days.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Sounds like you really miss the days of "Honest Jean" Chretien.

"I never said I would get rid of the GST,I never said that!"(The mother of all lies?)

"A few million dollars may have been stolen after the referendum."(A capacity for understatement?)

"I never called the head of the BDC!"(Can you say LIAR?)

Yeah those were the days.

No I miss the days when politicians were viewed as honorable.

[jdobbin]

No I miss the days when politicians were viewed as honorable.

There was never a time. All leaders have been considered poorly for as long as humans have had leaders.

[ironstone]

I seem to remember a column by Michael Harris a few years ago in which he stated something like 70% of inmates who applied for the faint hope clause got parole.Sounds more like the "sure thing clause".

[jdobbin]

I seem to remember a column by Michael Harris a few years ago in which he stated something like 70% of inmates who applied for the faint hope clause got parole.Sounds more like the "sure thing clause".

Really. Let's see the stats.

[Argus]

That's right, but they hadn't screamed for GST cuts and massive spending over the last two years. We would have only had one or the other with a Liberal government....probably smaller tax cuts and slightly lower spending.

Utter drivel. The Liberals had made huge promises, in both Martin's and Dion's elections, which would have increased spending even beyond what the Tories have done. So that would have been in place when the storm hit. And THEN there would have been the huge incentive spending on top.

[Argus]

That's factually untrue. Just look at the cases dealing with the section that's been quoted here. Lots of people being protected without being criminals.

Like who?

[Argus]

I don't expect you to want murderers out in 15. But I do expect that if you're going to object to the faint hope clause because of how it works then you should know how it works before raising the objection not after. How can you say Canadians don't trust the people making the decisions when in this case the people making the decisions are regular Canadians?

All showing that many of the concerns raised here are exaggerated.

All largely irrelevant because most of the objection to the faint hope clause stems from the belief that the crime these people committed is unforgivable, and as long as their victim lies in the grave, they have no business being out partying and shopping and enjoying life. Not EVER.

To me how many people re-offend is a side issue, worthy of discussion but not the prime motivator behind my position.

[Argus]

No I miss the days when politicians were viewed as honorable.

That must be before my time.

Although, I can remember viewing the House from the Visitor's gallery when Diefenbaker was speaking during question period. There were some men then, including Stanley Knowles and Bob Stanfield, who deserved that title. It all began to go to pot during the Trudeau years, however, and the downward spiral accelerated during the Mulroney years, reaching their nadir during the Chretien years. There's no one on the federal scene I have much respect for nowadays, nor anyone I honestly consider to be a man/woman of honesty and integrity. I admit I don't know most of the MPs, for they seem largely irrelevant, but the ones who do show up on television and in the news don't seem to be the kind of people I would ever describe as "honorable". Sleazy is a phrase that more often springs to mind.

[Smallc]

Utter drivel. The Liberals had made huge promises, in both Martin's and Dion's elections

Actually, Martin made most of his promises before the election last time. Dion made promises that Harper is now using to try to rescue the economy.

[Argus]

Actually, Martin made most of his promises before the election last time. Dion made promises that Harper is now using to try to rescue the economy.

Such as? As I recall, Dion wanted to bring in a huge new tax on industry in order to somehow benefit the environment - though how that would work was never very clear.

[canfan]

I seem to remember a column by Michael Harris a few years ago in which he stated something like 70% of inmates who applied for the faint hope clause got parole.Sounds more like the "sure thing clause".

Check your facts. You don't even have to go far to do it if you'd read this thread you'd know those numbers are wrong.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....st&p=428280

At the end of 2001 only 11% of prisoners eligible for faint hope had got early parole.

[benny]

One arch old conservative that I met justifys his harsh Darwinianism - with "it's human nature" - that the nature of humans is base and to deal with them legally and in buisness must be done without mercy or grace..the world might be a dangerous place - because perhaps they made it such?

I think so.

[canfan]

Like who?

Even a minimal knowledge of the Charter shows your claim to be false. It's amazing how many people rant against things that they haven't even investigated for themselves. This is just 1 example of the Charter helping someone who wasn't an accused criminal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vriend_v._Alberta

[canfan]

All largely irrelevant because most of the objection to the faint hope clause stems from the belief that the crime these people committed is unforgivable, and as long as their victim lies in the grave, they have no business being out partying and shopping and enjoying life. Not EVER.

To me how many people re-offend is a side issue, worthy of discussion but not the prime motivator behind my position.

Then stick to that instead of claiming things like Canadians don't trust Canadians to make these decisions. We'll disagree on the faint hope clause because your concept of justice is more limited in scope than mine but that's ok. If everyone agreed noone would be on these forums. The discussion gets ridiculous when people attack the process without understanding it or when they throw out made up statistics instead of looking at actual numbers.

[benny]

All largely irrelevant because most of the objection to the faint hope clause stems from the belief that the crime these people committed is unforgivable, and as long as their victim lies in the grave, they have no business being out partying and shopping and enjoying life. Not EVER.

To me how many people re-offend is a side issue, worthy of discussion but not the prime motivator behind my position.

You have it all wrong! "Resurrection" (Jesus-style) occurs only when the cycle of revenge ends in forgiveness.

[Smallc]

Such as?

Meetings of the federation, large amounts of infrastructure spending, etc.

[benny]

All largely irrelevant because most of the objection to the faint hope clause stems from the belief that the crime these people committed is unforgivable, and as long as their victim lies in the grave, they have no business being out partying and shopping and enjoying life. Not EVER.

To me how many people re-offend is a side issue, worthy of discussion but not the prime motivator behind my position.

Also, only love can make transcendence accessible.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

When concern for the criminal is of greater importance than the victimized citizen, our society is tracking down a slippery slope.

[Keepitsimple]

Check your facts. You don't even have to go far to do it if you'd read this thread you'd know those numbers are wrong.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....st&p=428280

At the end of 2001 only 11% of prisoners eligible for faint hope had got early parole.

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 faint hope clause only means that a convict might be eligible for parole before 25 years. It doesn't mean that they get parole.

488 people could have used the faint hope clause. Only 103 applied.

84 of those 103 had their eligibility for parole moved up. The rest were unsuccessful.

Their eligibility for parole was moved up to anywhere between 15 and 24 years. Some only had their parole eligibility moved up to 24 years instead of 25 years.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

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.

Which is still a lifetime too soon.

[Smallc]

When concern for the criminal is of greater importance than the victimized citizen

That's not what happens. There is concern for both parties, as there should be.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

That's not what happens. There is concern for both parties, as there should be.

Sure it is! Do you think letting a wife or a child beater out of jail is anything less than risky for the victims of their crimes? How about child molesters? Rapists? We have not even got into the murderers. Where is the concern for the victim in this respect?

[Hydraboss]

That's not what happens. There is concern for both parties, as there should be.

...and this is where philosophies diverge. Convicted murderers have killed and should have exactly zero rights left, human or otherwise. Why would anyone have any concern for them? They are sub-human and should be treated as such. Want to give early parole to someone who robbed the local Fas Gas? Fine (I don't like parole, but okay). Someone who committed murder? Why????? Why should they get out early? Who gives a damn if they're rehabilitated? 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 isn't golf. They shouldn't get a mulligan.

Edited June 8, 2009 by Hydraboss