Smallc Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 We certainly don't know all of the circumstances surrounding the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 We certainly don't know all of the circumstances surrounding the case. Until we get them, I can imagine a rape punishable by 2.5 year in jail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Until we get them, I can imagine a rape punishable by 2.5 year in jail. Edmonton Sun This kind of crap should be punishable with more than a slap on the hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 We still don't know all of the facts in the case. We know what was reported, and we know some of what happened, butt here are reasons that judges give out the sentances that they do, whether or not we agree with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Edmonton SunThis kind of crap should be punishable with more than a slap on the hand. "Crap" is not an appropriate word here at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 We still don't know all of the facts in the case. We know what was reported, and we know some of what happened, butt here are reasons that judges give out the sentances that they do, whether or not we agree with them. There speaks the voice of unquestioning obedience, the voice of the herd. "I don't know why they did it, but I'm sure they must have had a good reason." Uh huhhhhhhh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 I don't know all of the facts in the case. It's no better to blindly criticize than to blindly follow. If I had all of the facts of the case in front of me, I suppose I could make a judgement, but even then, considering that I lack a legal background, I would still be lacking required information. It's not blind obedience tio assume that I don't know as much about the law and justice as legal and judicial professionals do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 There speaks the voice of unquestioning obedience, the voice of the herd. "I don't know why they did it, but I'm sure they must have had a good reason." Uh huhhhhhhh About you then!? You seem so sure that the judge had a bad reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 About you then!? You seem so sure that the judge had a bad reason. There is the problem isn't it? The judge has the discretionary power to limit sentencing. First they say it is a big deal, then they hand out a little deal of a sentence! We need to be able to elect these clowns so we can fire them for this kind of crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 About you then!? You seem so sure that the judge had a bad reason. Correction - There is no reasoning when it comes to judges..because they do not judge freely - ALL reach into the drawer in the end for the policy bible - and then they rule regardless of right or wrong - legal or illegal - they all do the bidding of those that appointed them. The judge did not have a bad reason or a good one - he had no reason...or any reasonability - we actually believe that we have honourble people sitting on the bench - that they are intelligent and like King Solomon....after seeing over twenty of them in action - I never saw ONE single judge that was a JUDGE. On the provincial level they do what they are told or they are not appointed - I am sure the same takes place federally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Mob rule? No thanks. I want my judges impartial and unafraid of public retribution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 (edited) Correction - There is no reasoning when it comes to judges..because they do not judge freely - ALL reach into the drawer in the end for the policy bible - and then they rule regardless of right or wrong - legal or illegal - they all do the bidding of those that appointed them. The judge did not have a bad reason or a good one - he had no reason...or any reasonability - we actually believe that we have honourble people sitting on the bench - that they are intelligent and like King Solomon....after seeing over twenty of them in action - I never saw ONE single judge that was a JUDGE. On the provincial level they do what they are told or they are not appointed - I am sure the same takes place federally. Reasoning consists in making deductions and inductions. Edited June 16, 2009 by benny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 First of all, while it is true that eliminating 'faint hope' is only one aspect of the Torie's crime bill, I had assumed that the focus in this thread was on that one particular area. (After all, it is in the title of the thread, and the opening post, created by jdobbin doesn't mention anything at all about other aspects of the crime bill. Since I created the thread, I suppose I can take it anywhere I want. Faint hope is the one area that the link was concerned about. There was plenty more in the bill than that. While a certain amount of thred drift is expected, I (nor anyone else) is a mindreader. If you want to discuss topic X in a thread, you need to bring it up at the start, not AFTER people have debunked your arguments. I mentioned it because Harper has no evidence to support that it cost effective or the right punishment. And you have not provided evidence that it is an incorrect punishment. Maybe I because I also posted a link by the prison watchdog that states that prisons are filled to the breaking point. Did you actually look at that? This thread is almost 30 pages long. I have skimmed through it, but its easy to miss things. Please point to the page or post number that it appears on. However, I would keep a few things in mind: - Did that 'prison watchdog' give any statistics or figures to back up their opinions? After all, you could simply be relying on someone else who is using faulty information - Whomever this "prision watchdog" is, if they are some sort of prisioner advocy group, did it ever occur to you that they may simply be providing political spin on behalf of prisioners who might not get released if the crime bill passes? The Tories don't trust judges, juries or parole boards. They want to exclude their involvement in the process. Mandatory sentences are a one size fits all solution that hasn't worked how well in other jurisdictions. There are reasons that judges and parole boards should't be trusted... they do make mistakes. Even if they are 100% competent, outside of having some supernatural ability, they have no way to tell whether an individual convicted of a particular crime truely shows remorse, or is simply a heck-of-an-actor. Frankly, I have no problem with a system that distributes justice on a uniform basis, rather than relying on a system where a criminal's punishment depends on either how good of an actor he his, or on how 'generous' a particular judge is feeling on a particular day. Lastly, is there any guarantee that we would see more people actually in jail as a result of increased penalties? After all, a couple of decades ago people predicted that jails in New York would be overflowing if they decided to crack down on 'minor' crimes (the 'Broken Windows' policy). Yet there was no surge in prision populations; in fact, fewer people were in jail. Citation for this? I'm suprised that you've never heard of 'broken windows' before. Back in the 80s/90s, New York decided to crack down on 'minor' crimes. If the police caught someone engaged in something like vandalism, turnstile jumping, etc., while in the past they'd just release them with a warning, they decided to actually prosecute these people. Proper background checks were done, and some people received jail time. At the start, there were plenty of people who made the same claims you are: that prisons would be filled to overflowing. However, that never happened.... instead, the aspect of actually punishing crimes (along with the better view of justice by the public) actually ended up reducing the actual crime rate. Now, I do realize that not all of the success can be attributed to the "broken windows" theory; however, the point is that the doom and gloom of the "overflowing prision system" never materialized. http://www.pbs.org/fmc/segments/progseg13.htm Ah, back to "faint hope" again? In the beginning you suggested eliminating faint hope would mean they need to increase taxes, etc. After I showed that it would have little or no effect, you started talking about the other provisions in Conservative crime proposals. Now, you're back to talking about faint hope again. It does increase costs of it means building new prisons. Or are you denying that? I think you meant to say it increases costs if it means building new prisions. However, that's the issue... I've pointed out that eliminating 'faint hope' doesn't really impact the size of the prison population to any significant degree. As for your argument that it is more 'appropriate' to use the parole system... you certainly haven't provided any evidence to show that that is the case. In terms of costs, I didn't think it needed any evidence. First of all, you still need to demonstrate how there would be a significant increase in costs. And simply quoting a "prison watchdog" who doesn't explain their facts/figures isn't exatly "proof". Secondly, as I've pointed out before, if cost is your only argument, then perhaps you think we should totally eliminate jails... ater all, that would REALLY cut costs... wouldn't it. (I'm being sarcastic here, in case you didn't know....) As far as justice goes, I believe the juries, courts and parole boards have spoken. The Tories want to quash that voice though. It is the job of judges and parole boards to interpret laws and administer punishments, but they are not the final arbiters of what an 'acceptable' punishment is. The fact that there continue to be crimes committed by people on parole should indicate the falibility of the court and parole system. From: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...78_6/?hub=WFive according to the Canadian Police Association...66 people that have been killed by convicts out on early release in the last five years. Now, while you are busy trying to justify the cost savings by granting faint hope and avoiding manditory sentences, please remember to add the costs of new trials for prosecuting those people given early release and reoffending. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Reasoning consists in making deductions and inductions. You are an ameteur - and now I guessed your age..you are about 20..and have no experience other than being a very interesting parrot.......fancey words mean nothing - they just add to a confusion that corrupt people create in order to wallo in a protective blanket of complexity because they are to weak to stand up and tell me what reasoning is ------It is the difference between right and wrong - between sickness and health - but you are a modernist that loves the creation of new concepts that are paraistic - There is a reasoning in my next statement...You are either sick - or you are well ......and mondernists corrupt the language by creating a term - called WELLNESS that equates with sick NESS - THERE IS NO SUCH THING BENNY AS WELLNESS - YOU ARE EITHER SICK OR YOU ARE WELL - AND SICK CAN HAVE THE ADDED N E S S attatched - but why have they attatched it to well.......It is corruption -----the medical industry was not happy generating a profit from sickness - so they seeked to double their profits by treating those with a condition of wellness.......point being benny...dedecutions and inductions are clumsy words - they should be IF the person is a real judge -----rendered down to simplicty -----RIGHT and WRONG .....IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS THEN YOU SHOULD NOT BE A JUDGE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 You are an ameteur - and now I guessed your age..you are about 20..and have no experience other than being a very interesting parrot.......fancey words mean nothing - they just add to a confusion that corrupt people create in order to wallo in a protective blanket of complexity because they are to weak to stand up and tell me what reasoning is ------It is the difference between right and wrong - between sickness and health - but you are a modernist that loves the creation of new concepts that are paraistic - There is a reasoning in my next statement...You are either sick - or you are well ......and mondernists corrupt the language by creating a term - called WELLNESS that equates with sick NESS - THERE IS NO SUCH THING BENNY AS WELLNESS - YOU ARE EITHER SICK OR YOU ARE WELL - AND SICK CAN HAVE THE ADDED N E S S attatched - but why have they attatched it to well.......It is corruption -----the medical industry was not happy generating a profit from sickness - so they seeked to double their profits by treating those with a condition of wellness.......point being benny...dedecutions and inductions are clumsy words - they should be IF the person is a real judge -----rendered down to simplicty -----RIGHT and WRONG .....IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS THEN YOU SHOULD NOT BE A JUDGE. You seem so above the Law, much like criminals for that matter! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 You seem so above the Law, much like criminals for that matter! I'm kind of very old school Christian and the king of judea was not above the law - he was the rightful heir to the throne of Judea ----and it was the state (Rome) that delt with him in a crimminal manner - I just do what is right - as a kid growning up my parents said to me ----- "below the children are the pets and cattle of the field - below that are microbes and plants - there is only one thing above your parents - GOD - not some man made construct called government - as a partial follower of old school Christian doctrine - I adhere to the quote " I have not come to abolish the law - but to fulfill the law - each and every written and unwritten stroke of the law ...look at Bush and Cheney for instance - they were the law ...but were lawless --- I don't believe that Conrad is an actual crimminal - those that sentenced him probably are. I am bound by the law...and the state is so so ---sometimes lawful and sometimes not - I discriminate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 I'm kind of very old school Christian and the king of judea was not above the law - he was the rightful heir to the throne of Judea ----and it was the state (Rome) that delt with him in a crimminal manner - I just do what is right - as a kid growning up my parents said to me ----- "below the children are the pets and cattle of the field - below that are microbes and plants - there is only one thing above your parents - GOD - not some man made construct called government - as a partial follower of old school Christian doctrine - I adhere to the quote " I have not come to abolish the law - but to fulfill the law - each and every written and unwritten stroke of the law ...look at Bush and Cheney for instance - they were the law ...but were lawless --- I don't believe that Conrad is an actual crimminal - those that sentenced him probably are. I am bound by the law...and the state is so so ---sometimes lawful and sometimes not - I discriminate. On the Cross, Jesus brought faint-hope to his two neighbors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 On the Cross, Jesus brought faint-hope to his two neighbors. No one had a mircophone up in the air - NO one knows if there were exchanges of words of those being tormented...this is speculation -- much like the mother of the King Jesus..being a virgin --------------how the hell would they know - did the father of Jesus stick his head out the door and proclaim to the villaged "I did not have sex with that woman" - there ideas are bizarre and clearly concocted - Devinity does not depend on smoke and mirrors and romantic Romanized fantacy to seduce and enroll... HOPE is NEVER faint - no institution on earth - no prison no human can measure out hope in faint amounts or in abundance - HOPE belongs to the man and to GOD - and those that think they control faith and hope are idiots, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 No one had a mircophone up in the air - NO one knows if there were exchanges of words of those being tormented...this is speculation -- much like the mother of the King Jesus..being a virgin --------------how the hell would they know - did the father of Jesus stick his head out the door and proclaim to the villaged "I did not have sex with that woman" - there ideas are bizarre and clearly concocted - Devinity does not depend on smoke and mirrors and romantic Romanized fantacy to seduce and enroll... HOPE is NEVER faint - no institution on earth - no prison no human can measure out hope in faint amounts or in abundance - HOPE belongs to the man and to GOD - and those that think they control faith and hope are idiots, Now that was an inspired little speech - I must say - and suffering from complacencey --- I am highly self satisfied...benny --- you do inspire me to action... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 (edited) No one had a mircophone up in the air - NO one knows if there were exchanges of words of those being tormented...this is speculation -- much like the mother of the King Jesus..being a virgin --------------how the hell would they know - did the father of Jesus stick his head out the door and proclaim to the villaged "I did not have sex with that woman" - there ideas are bizarre and clearly concocted - Devinity does not depend on smoke and mirrors and romantic Romanized fantacy to seduce and enroll... HOPE is NEVER faint - no institution on earth - no prison no human can measure out hope in faint amounts or in abundance - HOPE belongs to the man and to GOD - and those that think they control faith and hope are idiots, Concerning Mary's virginity, what we have to recall is that for polytheists, the gods (Chronos for example) were often procreating through rapes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Girard Edited June 17, 2009 by benny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Concerning Mary's virginity, what we have to recall is that for polytheists, the gods (Chronos for example) were often procreating through rapes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Girard I heard that the tooth fairy was gay! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 I heard that the tooth fairy was gay! troll Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 troll Troll? Come on you folks have streamed so far out of the discussion a little levity was required. Get over it........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Troll? Come on you folks have streamed so far out of the discussion a little levity was required. Get over it........ Get back up! 2.5 years in jail is not "a slap in the hand". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Get back up! 2.5 years in jail is not "a slap in the hand". Do you have a wife, a daughter, or a sister or a mother? If you do, would you think that a 2.5 year sentence would be enough if they were the victim? 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.