Tories move to eliminate faint-hope clause

[benny]

Oh, you are so full of it. The Crown acts in the interests of the people.

This comes from the very first statehood law forbidding do-it-yourself Justice.

[canfan]

Given the victim's voice has been silenced permanently by the accused I'm afraid I don't see what you're talking about.

Given your apparent support for only taking victims and their families into consideration I'm surprised you haven't considered that the families and friends of the dead are also victims of the crime. Pleading ignorance doesn't change the fact that victims and their families have a voice in the process.

[Argus]

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.

Homicide, in Canada, requires that the Crown prove intent. That is made extremely difficult under our rules of evidence. In fact, it's almost impossible in most cases of attempted murder, which is why you rarely see that charge laid. The Crown almost has to get the defendant to admit that his intent was to kill. Just because the defendant shot the victim, chased him up the stairs, shot him again, chased him outside, shot him again, chased him to the hospital, walked into the emergency room, and shot him three more times, that is by no means evidence that proves, under Canadian law, that he intended to commit murder.

Likewise, it's very difficult to prove intent even in homicide, which is why so many cases which are clearly murder get plea-bargained down to manslaughter. If the defendent was drunk, or at least, had been drinking, had been smoking pot, was on some other kind of drug, or can cast any reasonable doubt about his "intent" when he ran over that man and backed up over him again, or when he stabbed that girl fourteen times, or whatever, then the charge gets dropped to manslaughter.

Premeditation, obviously, is even more difficult to prove. So the evidence has to be substantial in order to convict under first degree murder.Last week in Ottawa, a man was convicted of manslaughter, for chasing a man around a children's play area and hacking him to death with a sword he'd brought with him. Murder? No, of course not. He had no inteintion of killing the man! He uh, just wanted to teach him a lesson. Which was why he left his intestines spilling out of his belly, several fingers severed, his face savagely slashed and his wrist cut to the bone, severing an artery.

[Hydraboss]

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.

First degree murder indicates the most heinous of crimes in our society. Second degree is typically what is sought if the chance of a conviction on first degree is questionable.

The fact that there are mandatory minimums before parole eligibility supports the fact that there should be absolutely no second guessing of whether or not the convicted killer should be detained for that minimum period of time. The faint hope clause flies in the face of that law.

Typical of Canadians, we make a rule and then make another rule that contradicts the first.

[canfan]

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.

Argus doesn't like judges or some of their decisions therefore they mustn't be wise. It's helpful to remember that you also claimed Canadians don't trust themselves to make these faint hope decisions.

[Argus]

Given your apparent support for only taking victims and their families into consideration I'm surprised you haven't considered that the families and friends of the dead are also victims of the crime. Pleading ignorance doesn't change the fact that victims and their families have a voice in the process.

The victim's familes, unless they are witnesses, are largely ignored by the process. There has been some effort, grudging effort, to include them at least insofar as the Crown telling them what he or she is going to do, but the families have no say whatsoever. And while they get to make a victim's impact statement, again, this is a grudging interference forced on the courts by the politicians, and not accepted until after guilt has been decided.

[Argus]

Argus doesn't like judges or some of their decisions therefore they mustn't be wise. It's helpful to remember that you also claimed Canadians don't trust themselves to make these faint hope decisions.

Other than misstating what I wrote do you actually have an argument to put up against anything I actually said?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I think the only valid defense for murder would be self defense. Other than that the degree to which a person is dead doesn't mean a whole lot to me. Dead is dead, you killed, you lose all rights and end up in prison till you die.

[canfan]

I am not in favour of ANY parole for first degree murderers except in exceptional circumstances.

If only we had a way to figure out what those exceptional circumstances were. Maybe if we had a jury of Canadians determine if circumstances warranted eligibility for parole. That might be a way to do it.

[Argus]

Oh, you are so full of it. The Crown acts in the interests of the people.

Yes, in theory, just like RCMP officers, when they taser people.

[benny]

I think the only valid defense for murder would be self defense. Other than that the degree to which a person is dead doesn't mean a whole lot to me. Dead is dead, you killed, you lose all rights and end up in prison till you die.

insanity too

[Oleg Bach]

insanity too

No - there is no such thing - it's subjective - If the whole world goes crazy - then the one un-crazy would be considered insane - everybody is nuts these days. Being crazy does not exist - nor can someone plead instanity in an insane world.

[Hydraboss]

insanity too

No. Insanity (NCR) defenses are BS. It doesn't change the fact that someone slaughtered someone else. Who cares if the killer is crazy by any definition? A case could be made that, knowing the penalty, everyone who kills is crazy.

The victim is still dead.

I don't believe in sending the "crazy" convict to a mental institution. Serve your life sentance in prison just like other killers. Again, who cares if the sub-human is "fixed" or "rehabilitated"? They have no purpose left in their lives. Throw them away.

[Argus]

If only we had a way to figure out what those exceptional circumstances were. Maybe if we had a jury of Canadians determine if circumstances warranted eligibility for parole. That might be a way to do it.

Exceptional circumstances meaning that only those rare men who had really made a determined and many years long effort to come to terms with what they had done and entirely change who and what they were. No, no need for a parole board filled with political appointees. One man, say the Justice Minister, could be tasked with the ability to allow early parole to 1st degree murderers because there would be so very few cases which ever came up.

[benny]

No. Insanity (NCR) defenses are BS. It doesn't change the fact that someone slaughtered someone else. Who cares if the killer is crazy by any definition? A case could be made that, knowing the penalty, everyone who kills is crazy.

The victim is still dead.

I don't believe in sending the "crazy" convict to a mental institution. Serve your life sentance in prison just like other killers. Again, who cares if the sub-human is "fixed" or "rehabilitated"? They have no purpose left in their lives. Throw them away.

A dead victim is not a victim anymore.

[canfan]

Homicide, in Canada, requires that the Crown prove intent.

Yes but there're circumstances where 1st degree murder doesn't have to be planned out before. Premeditation to murder someone isn't the same as the intent required to prove 1st degree murder. And has nothing to do with 2nd degree murder.

Premeditation, obviously, is even more difficult to prove. So the evidence has to be substantial in order to convict under first degree murder.Last week in Ottawa, a man was convicted of manslaughter, for chasing a man around a children's play area and hacking him to death with a sword he'd brought with him. Murder? No, of course not. He had no inteintion of killing the man! He uh, just wanted to teach him a lesson. Which was why he left his intestines spilling out of his belly, several fingers severed, his face savagely slashed and his wrist cut to the bone, severing an artery.

You don't agree with the jury's decision but that's got nothing to do with premeditation. The jury obviously thought the man's claims of self defence were legitimate enough to reduce the charge to manslaughter. And again intent isn't the same as premeditation.

[Oleg Bach]

No. Insanity (NCR) defenses are BS. It doesn't change the fact that someone slaughtered someone else. Who cares if the killer is crazy by any definition? A case could be made that, knowing the penalty, everyone who kills is crazy.

The victim is still dead.

I don't believe in sending the "crazy" convict to a mental institution. Serve your life sentance in prison just like other killers. Again, who cares if the sub-human is "fixed" or "rehabilitated"? They have no purpose left in their lives. Throw them away.

A couple of institutionalized bureacrats sitting on a parole board are incapable of evalutating another person that is institutionalized - you need outside help!

[canfan]

First degree murder indicates the most heinous of crimes in our society. Second degree is typically what is sought if the chance of a conviction on first degree is questionable.

The fact that there are mandatory minimums before parole eligibility supports the fact that there should be absolutely no second guessing of whether or not the convicted killer should be detained for that minimum period of time. The faint hope clause flies in the face of that law.

Typical of Canadians, we make a rule and then make another rule that contradicts the first.

This is just you saying that you like some rules and not others. It's got nothing to do with 1 rule being more valid than the other.

[canfan]

The victim's familes, unless they are witnesses, are largely ignored by the process. There has been some effort, grudging effort, to include them at least insofar as the Crown telling them what he or she is going to do, but the families have no say whatsoever. And while they get to make a victim's impact statement, again, this is a grudging interference forced on the courts by the politicians, and not accepted until after guilt has been decided.

You're opinion that it's grudging interference isn't really reality but in the end it doesn't matter because families of victims aren't largely ignored in the faint hope process they obviously have a voice. You can downplay it if you want but that doesn't change the fact that they're there making their opinions heard.

[canfan]

Other than misstating what I wrote do you actually have an argument to put up against anything I actually said?

Sorry you said that Canadians don't trust the people who make these decisions. It turns out that the people who make these faint hope decisions are other Canadians. Complaining about the process while being ignorant about the process doesn't help your case but consider this a more accurate reproduction of what you said.

[canfan]

Exceptional circumstances meaning that only those rare men who had really made a determined and many years long effort to come to terms with what they had done and entirely change who and what they were. No, no need for a parole board filled with political appointees. One man, say the Justice Minister, could be tasked with the ability to allow early parole to 1st degree murderers because there would be so very few cases which ever came up.

You're living in a fantasy world. There wouldn't be very few cases every prisoner just like today would want to show that they are these rare men. We'd need a system of determining who meets our criteria and who doesn't. Even assuming 1 man could do that entire job the justice minister has better things to do with his time than spend all day every day hearing parole applications. We've got a system that does all of this. You don't like where the criteria are because you want people locked up for longer but your solution is to replace the system with something almost identical but worse.

[benny]

You're living in a fantasy world. There wouldn't be very few cases every prisoner just like today would want to show that they are these rare men. We'd need a system of determining who meets our criteria and who doesn't. Even assuming 1 man could do that entire job the justice minister has better things to do with his time than spend all day every day hearing parole applications. We've got a system that does all of this. You don't like where the criteria are because you want people locked up for longer but your solution is to replace the system with something almost identical but worse.

We need another kind of justice system to allow murderers a fair chance to become saints.

[Argus]

You're living in a fantasy world. There wouldn't be very few cases every prisoner just like today would want to show that they are these rare men. We'd need a system of determining who meets our criteria and who doesn't. Even assuming 1 man could do that entire job the justice minister has better things to do with his time than spend all day every day hearing parole applications. We've got a system that does all of this. You don't like where the criteria are because you want people locked up for longer but your solution is to replace the system with something almost identical but worse.

In point of fact, since parole is now pretty much automatic regardless of behaviour, very few make any real effort to rehabilitate themselves. Why should they?

I'm not talking about someone writing a letter of apology and taking a correspondance course in business. I'm talking about someone who perhaps spent fifteen or twenty years in prison largely in voluntary work to help others - for example - and displayed such a real change, such an impressive sense that violence was wrong, that even the prison guards recommended he be released.

[Hydraboss]

A dead victim is not a victim anymore.

This has to be the dumbest comment yet on the subject.

[Oleg Bach]

We need another kind of justice system to allow murderers a fair chance to become saints.

Look at Saint Paul - he stood by and held the cloaks of the guys tossing rocks as the stoning of Saint Steven took place - he facilitated a murder - and was also involved they say in the killing of James the Just - the brother of Christ - and now look at Paul ------the Catholic church is Paulism - and he is the prime saint...worked for the Vatican - well - the boy rape was an occultish failure though...I guess that murderers do become saints in the eyes of humanity - but not God.