Jump to content

Tories move to eliminate faint-hope clause


Recommended Posts

Don't you think murderers should be in jail?

I do. At 15 years, I think a parole board should revisit the issue to determine what is best for the state and for the prisoner.

Someone like Bernardo has no chance of parole. In fact, most first degree murders won't have a chance after 15 years. However, there will be exceptions to these rules.

Harper wants to end any exceptions because he doesn't trust judges, juries or parole boards. It is an extremely costly proposition to make sure that people serve a full 25 years while parole still allow for monitoring following a release after time served at a fraction of the cost.

I'm not sure why you are so supportive of higher taxes or cuts in things like highways.

Edited by jdobbin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 456
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm more than willing to fund as much prison construction as it takes.

The number of people eligible for the 'faint hope' clause is pretty small. It isn't the huge issue the Tories will try to make it. It's just an emotional hook for some of their supporters who always scream "YES!! HARDER!! HIT HIM HARDER!!!" when it involves punishing someone ... anyone! Makes me wonder sometimes ...

However, in this case it seems very clear that Harper is simply making political hay out of Paul Bernardo, by appealing to that punitive nature of his core supporters, imo.

It certainly isn't about protecting the public!

Show me one person who reoffended after getting out on a 'faint hope' parole.

There is no problem to be solved. Just political points to be scored by manipulating people's emotions to make them afraid of a threat that doesn't exist.

Edited by tango
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The number of people eligible for the 'faint hope' clause is pretty small. It isn't the huge issue the Tories will try to make it. It's just an emotional hook for some of their supporters who always scream "YES!! HARDER!! HIT HIM HARDER!!!" when it involves punishing someone ... anyone!

There is no problem to be solved. Just political points to be scored by manipulating people's emotions to make them afraid of a threat that doesn't exist.

definitely time to pound the "Conservative get tough on crime" drum! Anything to keep the focus off the economy/ballooning deficit/bankruptcies/...

much ado about..... it really is such a minimum number of persons under consideration: between 1987 and 2006, 145 offenders applied under the so-called "faint hope clause", section 745.6 of the Criminal Code. Of those 145 offenders, 118 were granted permission to apply to the National Parole Board for early release. Of these 118, 97 were granted parole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The faint hope clause effects so few people it's not like Canada is letting lots of murderers out on the street today. If a judge and parole board find that someone has rehabilitated and can function in society that's better for society. Why should we needlessly get rid of discretion in the justice system?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The faint hope clause effects so few people it's not like Canada is letting lots of murderers out on the street today. If a judge and parole board find that someone has rehabilitated and can function in society that's better for society. Why should we needlessly get rid of discretion in the justice system?

For a little concept known as justice. Violent offenders should be locked up in solitary confinement until the natural death they will experience occurs. No life extending assistance on the public dime, no forgiveness, not a damn thing is deserved by those who would perpetrate a violent crime against a fellow citizen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

definitely time to pound the "Conservative get tough on crime" drum! Anything to keep the focus off the economy/ballooning deficit/bankruptcies/...

much ado about..... it really is such a minimum number of persons under consideration: between 1987 and 2006, 145 offenders applied under the so-called "faint hope clause", section 745.6 of the Criminal Code. Of those 145 offenders, 118 were granted permission to apply to the National Parole Board for early release. Of these 118, 97 were granted parole.

Thanks for the information.

Do you happen to know how many re-offended?

That would be the only reason for removing the faint hope clause - if it was resulting in danger to the public.

I don't think that's the issue, though. I think it's just election politics - distracting people from the real issues as you said.

Unfortunately, too many people are too easily sucked in by the manipulations of politicians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a little concept known as justice. Violent offenders should be locked up in solitary confinement until the natural death they will experience occurs. No life extending assistance on the public dime, no forgiveness, not a damn thing is deserved by those who would perpetrate a violent crime against a fellow citizen.

Your reality is ... unreal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do. At 15 years, I think a parole board should revisit the issue to determine what is best for the state and for the prisoner.

Someone like Bernardo has no chance of parole. In fact, most first degree murders won't have a chance after 15 years. However, there will be exceptions to these rules.

Harper wants to end any exceptions because he doesn't trust judges, juries or parole boards. It is an extremely costly proposition to make sure that people serve a full 25 years and it doesn't allow for monitoring following a release after time served.

I'm not sure why you are so supportive of higher taxes or cuts in things like highways.

After 25 years, the criminal is still on parole for the rest of his life. That would be why it's called a life sentance. So how exactly does it not allow for monitoring following release?

Only a Liberal cheerleader like you could equate the program that allowed convicted murderers to be let out of prison early to kill again to being supportive of higher taxes and cuts in highways. Are you seriously trying to make the case that, because a murderer doesn't have a shot at 15 year release, that suddenly his cell is no longer available? Was it double-booked? Does Air Canada now run Corrections Canada? Since you have made the case that very few "first degree murderers" won't even be making use of the program, how exactly does that equal higher taxes?

Man, if Iggy made a sudden stop, would your head smell like crap?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the information.

Do you happen to know how many re-offended?

That would be the only reason for removing the faint hope clause - if it was resulting in danger to the public.

I don't think that's the issue, though. I think it's just election politics - distracting people from the real issues as you said.

Unfortunately, too many people are too easily sucked in by the manipulations of politicians.

According to Global News this evening, Corrections Canada's own numbers say that of the 97 granted parole 15 reoffended and were returned to prison. That's 15.5% of first degree murderers reoffended.

But who cares? You haven't been killed by one of them so what's the problem, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even the worst - deserves hope - even the faintest of hope - Any Tory that wants to get rid of the faint hope clause is simply mean spirited - violence and crimminality usually spawn from poverty and abuse - The Tories are big buisness - in order to gather great wealth you have to impoverish a group some where - that's economic physics...To remove hope is to remove all evidence of there mistakes when it comes to social management - Dangerous offenders are usually created by the states neglect...This is the sweeping under the carpet of human failure - and hopefully while these "dangerous" offenders quickly rot - and die in 24 hour lock up - the mistakes in social management will die with them -------------Think of every young man that was sodomised at Maple Leaf Gardens while management turned a blind eye - think of the 20 or so young damaged men that took a leap off the Bloor Via duct...and think of removing the last bit of hope for the incarcerated - Hope is faith - and the only wealth the free and imprisoned have - do not take it away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your reality is ... unreal.

Not unreal, unrealistic.

You see the problem is that people do not want to face reality in the first place. The reality is that society has the responsibility to protect its citizens to the best of its ability. There is of course a price tag associated with this concept in as much as society is judged by the level of justice it can afford. It is obvious that the cheapest form of justice is crude and swift, the most expensive is complicated and time consuming. What is not obvious is the degree of success associated with the justice system within a society. Process errors resulting in inappropriate judgments or sentencing detract from the functional dispensation of justice. These errors abound within all systems and result in a lack of justice. We are not perfect. To error is human, yet error that results in harm to another human is criminal. This is the basis of our judicial system, and that is the reality people choose not to accept.

To release a violent offender from incarceration and allowing them to return to society is a risk to society. That risk has been calculated to be as many 4 of 10 inmates will re-offend within two years. All the numbers are very subjective because the government desires that citizens believe that the system works, but it does not. Keeping in mind that these are violent offenders we are talking about, does the average citizen, do you, believe that the 40% of recently released convicted felons living next door to you and your family poses an acceptable risk? I am willing to suggest that any reasonable human would say that the risk is in fact unacceptable. The question then becomes what should be done about the risk to society that is represented with the release of convicted violent offenders?

The prisons in Canada are a vacation spot for criminals. Three square meals a day, exercise equipment, access to free education, television, movies, swimming pools, and god only knows what else. The availability of drugs is even greater in prison than on the street, and now we allow conjugal visits to boot. They don't have to work, they don't have to worry about bills or money. Their food is cooked for them and their dishes are washed for them. They don't buy clothes or wash the ones they use. Life isn't too tough inside the joint. It should be, but it isn't.

They do their time, and then we let them out for as long as it takes for them to figure out that life on the inside is easier than life on the outside and some poor citizen becomes the scapegoat of society and becomes a victim of the now repeating offender. The next victim will be marked for life by a criminal that society let out to cause them harm. So much for justice to that individual, for them the state is a least partially responsible for letting the criminal do what they did in the first place because that individual should have been behind bars where they belong.

What is "unreal" about desiring that the government do its job and protect society from known threats to its citizens?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After 25 years, the criminal is still on parole for the rest of his life. That would be why it's called a life sentance. So how exactly does it not allow for monitoring following release?

I didn't write that correctly. I had meant to say that parole allows for monitoring at a fraction of the cost of prison time. I changed the original post to reflect that.

Anyone serving a life sentence cannot violate any terms of their parole or they end up back in prison/

Only a Liberal cheerleader like you could equate the program that allowed convicted murderers to be let out of prison early to kill again to being supportive of higher taxes and cuts in highways. Are you seriously trying to make the case that, because a murderer doesn't have a shot at 15 year release, that suddenly his cell is no longer available? Was it double-booked? Does Air Canada now run Corrections Canada? Since you have made the case that very few "first degree murderers" won't even be making use of the program, how exactly does that equal higher taxes?

The prisons are now filled to the rafters. Any Corrections official will say it is dangerous to them and a danger to all other prisoners.

Only a frothy, right wing extremist would jump on the get tough on crime issue without thinking about whether it would affect government budgets elsewhere, put people in danger who have to manage the crowded facilities or think about whether there were cheaper and more logical approaches to those not likely to re-offend.

The faint hope clause means just that. It is faint hope. It is applied only when it makes sense. But Conservative cheerleaders who want to see prison guards placed in danger because they have no plan to deal with overcrowding can't see that.

Man, if Iggy made a sudden stop, would your head smell like crap?

If you talked like that in public, I'm sure you'd lack the same bite. Or do you act like a boor all the time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to Global News this evening, Corrections Canada's own numbers say that of the 97 granted parole 15 reoffended and were returned to prison. That's 15.5% of first degree murderers reoffended.

Or violated the terms of their parole. How many killed again?

But who cares? You haven't been killed by one of them so what's the problem, right?

If you want revenge then no punishment including death of the murderer is suitable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are a nut - jails are not a vaction - they are overcrowded and NOW lack seniour convicts with wisdom that corrected young offenders - they are training facilities that keep judges and lawyers employed - Once as a kid I had to lay in a cell in the old part of the Don Jail - It was two and a half feet wide - it was akin to a burial vault - incarceration takes strenghth to endure - at least back them we had old jailers from Scotland - who took care of the young men and in eccence - protected them from a corrupt society - we were wards of the Queen - dressed in white - and we were corrected...by people who cared - Thank God that her majesty ran a system - that was a santuary - now all you have are hell holes filled with black gang bangers listening to tunes on the telephone...They system lacks class - It was not a shame to be jailed - at one time - It meant that someone cared - no it means that no one cares.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or violated the terms of their parole. How many killed again?

If you want revenge then no punishment including death of the murderer is suitable.

You realize that those numbers do not include those convicted in provincial courts don't you. That is what I was talking about! The feds only track re-offenders into "their" system not that of the provinces. A recent article in a Vancouver publication outlines this very carefully and suggested the feds numbers were out by 400%!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You realize that those numbers do not include those convicted in provincial courts don't you. That is what I was talking about! The feds only track re-offenders into "their" system not that of the provinces. A recent article in a Vancouver publication outlines this very carefully and suggested the feds numbers were out by 400%!!!

I don't expect the federal government to track provincial numbers. That is the job of the provinces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Big buisness is old school conservatism gone bad. They are big on the terrorism stuff - domestic and abroad. They look at so-called thugs as domestic terrorists - because these thugs are out for revenge - from being screwed by rich people who control the courts and the money supply. No guy with influenence over the judicary - wants the grandchildren of the grandfathers that their grandfathers screwed by working them to death and haveing one of their companies pay them in booze - retaliate - in intergenerational spite....It's funny - those that got screwd are not quite sure who did it - but they do know one thing for certain - SOMEONE SCREWED THEM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't expect the federal government to track provincial numbers. That is the job of the provinces.

Yet it is relevant to this discussion isn't it?

The numbers of convicts in the system surely must speak of something don't you think? I mean if crime is going down but the prison population is getting higher then does that not account for at least some of the re-offenders? Another thing to consider is the nature of crimes committed, how many criminals are violent offenders? I think if you look into it a little deeper you will find that the vast majority of prisoners are drug offenders and other petty crimes offenders. These people need to be taught a lesson, but the punishment does not fit the crime. In addition the cost associated with putting hookers and pot smokers in jails is to say the least awfully damned expensive.

Please keep in mind I was speaking about VIOLENT offenders, those that cause harm to citizens. This is a class of crime unto its own and deserves very careful attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The prisons in Canada are a vacation spot for criminals. Three square meals a day, exercise equipment, access to free education, television, movies, swimming pools, and god only knows what else. The availability of drugs is even greater in prison than on the street, and now we allow conjugal visits to boot. They don't have to work, they don't have to worry about bills or money. Their food is cooked for them and their dishes are washed for them. They don't buy clothes or wash the ones they use. Life isn't too tough inside the joint. It should be, but it isn't.

If it's so wonderful, why don't you just sign yourself in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Next step is to get rid of Statutory Release where prisoners for just about anything other than murder, automatically (with only a few exceptions) get released after serving 2/3 of their sentence. It's almost impossible to keep someone in jail for their full sentence.

Is there evidence that serving a full sentence results in fewer reoffences than the current system?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fully expect that if I ever break the law my invitation would be forthcoming. My intent is to stay on the correct side of the law and not break the social covenant that as a citizen I am responsible to keep.

Yes - being good..how hard can it be? Some people never had goodness instilled by their parents...and being a good social covenater - comes from the contract that parents pass to their kids ---- good families trickle down good basic behaviour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...