segnosaur Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 If Harper wants the death penalty - that means that some old white jerks sitting in bank towers in Toronto and in Montreal - want the death penality. Depeding on the poll you look at, the number of Canadians who support the death penalty makes up between 40 and 75% of our population. Do you really think that there are MILLIONS of "old white jerks" working in Toronto and Montreal bank towers? (Never mind the fact that many of those "old white jerks" probably have supported the Liberal party in the past.) These old robber barrons have enough power finacially without giving them more through their surrogate bum boy Harper. Bad enough they can make you broke at will - so why allow them the futher privledge of making you dead at will? Except they wouldn't have the priviledge of makig you dead "at will". There'd be a little thing called "due process". You know, there ARE valid reasons to oppose the death penalty. But trying to oppose it by stereotyping and marginalizing its supporters is NOT a valid way to make a point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 So, ultimately, its doubtful the faint hope clause would cause any SIGNIFICANT burden to our prison system, and may even save money depending on the costs of handling the parole and dealing with any reoffenders. Faint hope is one aspect of the Tory crime bill. There are significant other areas of mandatory sentencing, fewer paroles for other offenders and criminalizing wider areas of activity that all add to additional costs that the Tories are not taking into account. I have been told in this forum that the prisons are not filled to capacity. The watchdog reported to the Feds a few days ago that the prisons are at the breaking point. I think if we are looking to put even more people in prison and have tighter controls of when they are released, we have to be honest about the costs and whether it really is the wisest or safest course of action. Given that faint hope provisions are fairly tight, the noise about ending parole for some seems overblown. It is less expensive and often more appropriate to use the parole system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 In English, "parole" is reduced to a word of honor and to giving a guarantee of one's future good behavior. In French, "parole" is a much more all-encompassing word by which a human society differentiates itself from animal society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 What I stole?If the Tories still believe Liberal MPs are guilty of theft, they should call the RCMP or launch another investigation. There's no question the Liberal party stole millions from the taxpayer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 There's no question the Liberal party stole millions from the taxpayer. So has every other government since confederation, your point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 So has every other government since confederation, your point? Don't forget John A McDonald who expenced ten thousand dollars ----that was his whiskey bill for the year - better dig him up and have him pay up ---------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 There's no question the Liberal party stole millions from the taxpayer. Then there is no question that the Tories should call the RCMP and an inquiry. Again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 Then there is no question that the Tories should call the RCMP and an inquiry. Again. Then there is no question that it is irrelevant for this topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 Then there is no question that it is irrelevant for this topic. Identify ten (10) relevant posts of yours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 Identify ten (10) relevant posts of yours. HAH ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canfan Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 I think they clearly do. Of the 83, only 17 were denied parole......but even then, they could be given parole at some future date before their 25 years is up - if they're good boys and girls......but perhaps I can re-word my statement and say "those that are granted early eligibility for parole are extremely likely to get out early". About 63% of those granted early eligibility get parole 17% day and 46% full. I can accept that those granted early eligibility are likely to get out early. This shouldn't be surprising since a jury of their peers have examined their cases and think they're worthy of having that chance. That still leaves a lot of prisoners with early eligibility in prison though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 About 63% of those granted early eligibility get parole 17% day and 46% full. I can accept that those granted early eligibility are likely to get out early. This shouldn't be surprising since a jury of their peers have examined their cases and think they're worthy of having that chance. That still leaves a lot of prisoners with early eligibility in prison though. Good place for them to stay. Perhaps we can fix the problem before they get a chance to get out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canfan Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 Sure I do. But I don't trust those agencies and organizations which have repeatedly proved themselves to be dishonest and/or incompetent. We've probably moved on past this point but when I saw this article I wanted to share it so people could see that claims that defense lawyers and only defense lawyers are manipulating juries aren't accurate. The government has been breaking a few rules when it comes to juries lately. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/windsor/story/200...istrial010.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canfan Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 Good place for them to stay. Perhaps we can fix the problem before they get a chance to get out. Your views on justice make you assume there's a problem. Mine don't. Justice is about more than locking people up and throwing away the key. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 Your views on justice make you assume there's a problem. Mine don't. Justice is about more than locking people up and throwing away the key. Really? Like what is the point of the system if not to apprehend, try, and convict perpetrators of crimes in this nation? Justice is not well served by allowing convicted criminals out of prison to commit crimes against innocent citizens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canfan Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 Really? Like what is the point of the system if not to apprehend, try, and convict perpetrators of crimes in this nation? Justice is not well served by allowing convicted criminals out of prison to commit crimes against innocent citizens. That's a classic response in this thread but the reality is that of the 57 people who actually got early parole up to 2001 only 4 had their paroles revoked for reoffending 1 for robbery and 3 for drugs 2 of which were minor offences. The claim that innocent citizens are being extremely victimized by faint hope doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Faint hope is about sentencing not apprehending trying or convicting. Justice is about punishment, rehabilitation, protection of the public, interest of the victims the prisoner and the families of both, society's interest in locking people up and society's interest in having people contribute to society instead of waste away in a prison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 Identify ten (10) relevant posts of yours. The first ten. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 The first ten. Ten points for benny..good work boy - I will take you to the store and get you some pop and chips.....as I mentioned benny competition does not bring out the best - but the most arrogant and foolish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 That's a classic response in this thread but the reality is that of the 57 people who actually got early parole up to 2001 only 4 had their paroles revoked for reoffending 1 for robbery and 3 for drugs 2 of which were minor offences. http://www.justicemonitor.ca/repeatoffenders.htm The StatisticsMany repeat offender statistics in Canada are deceptively low. One of the reasons for this is that Corrections Canada excludes provincial statistics from their rates (federal and provincial correctional departments do not currently share information with one another). An offender serving time in a federal jail who had previously served time in a provincial jail would not be labeled a repeat offender. Out of 310,000 convictions in 2002-03 only 4281 offenders were sentenced to a federal prison. In addition, Correctional Services statistics do not take into account conditional sentences or other non-prison sentences, which have grown in popularity. Finally, Correctional Services rates do not include offenders that have been free for more than three years. In light of these factors, it is easy to see just how misleading these statistics can become. The few studies that do attempt to track prior convictions across jurisdictions peg recidivism at alarmingly high rates. Six out of every ten convicted offenders aged 18 to 25 in 1999/2000 had at least one previous conviction, according to a new pilot study of court-based recidivism in seven provinces and two territories. Among these repeat offenders, 72% had multiple prior convictions. Nine out of ten offenders sentenced to a federal corrections facility (meaning at least a two year sentence) had at least one prior conviction either in adult or youth court. (Source: Statistics Canada) The claim that innocent citizens are being extremely victimized by faint hope doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Faint hope is about sentencing not apprehending trying or convicting. Justice is about punishment, rehabilitation, protection of the public, interest of the victims the prisoner and the families of both, society's interest in locking people up and society's interest in having people contribute to society instead of waste away in a prison. I will submit that some violent offenders deserve little more than to waste away in jail. Olson, Bernardo, to name just two. They will never get out, but they are an exception and they should not be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 Nobody in the provincial system has any interaction with the faint hope clause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 Nobody in the provincial system has any interaction with the faint hope clause. Why not ? Are provincials considered just that - provincials? The two leveled system stinks...All should be involved in these decisions...but as we stand it seems that provinces are like large feudal estates and none of he lords want to admit they run their own private empires...it might be time to remove the provincal boarders and have a good old fashioned.... kingdom - why not crown Harper king - and make people like McGinty...well - bothersome princes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Regional health authorities are a jurisdiction according to Ontario's laws. They have autonomy and a budget and the rule is no deficits. Which Ontario law? Read what I wrote I did. You said that it was against the law for Alberta and NB to run deficits. They're running deficits this year, and project deficits next year. Once again, you make up your own facts. He is responsible for the slow pace for present infrastructure work though For what reason? The last report came a few days ago Once again, you misrepresent things, and make up your own facts. This is from the very link you posted... "It's undoubtedly the case that we're going to be building new prisons in the future," he said in an interview. But that need has more to do with crumbling buildings and overall population growth than Conservative plans to lock up more people, he said Hmmm. Crumbling buildings. I wonder which Party was in power for say 12 years, and let our prision system fall behind and crumble? I bet we could also have a nice prison from the $300 million from the last election that Harper called and the electorate wasn't that interested in seeing. Hmmm. Money for democratic elections vs stolen money for liberal crime, are two very different things. I'm sorry you can't see that. Once again you proven wrong I'm proven wrong by 5 people escaping from a Regina prision last year? I believe that prisioners have been escaping prisions since prisions were created. Your link didn't say anything about the escape being related to a lack of staff and/or overpopulation. I guess you're just assuming? And apparently, using your same logic. These prisioners escaped last year, because of the influx of new inmates, that may take place this year? Ooooookkkkaaaaayyyyy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Because people don't stay in provincial jail for more than 2 years less a day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Ten points for benny..good work boy - I will take you to the store and get you some pop and chips.....as I mentioned benny competition does not bring out the best - but the most arrogant and foolish. The competition between defense and pursuit lawyers exists to help judges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 The competition between defense and pursuit lawyers exists to help judges. Yes - but a good judge should be able to tell what's going on by looking for two seconds and listening for three. The rest it theatre - and you love drama and the tapestry that is living...see you later benny - hate to admit it but you just might be the missing brain cells I lost in my youth...good night - keep the faith - and maybe you will make a fine P M - I will support you ------------------------------from my wheel chair.... 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.