Tories move to eliminate faint-hope clause

[Argus]

I am saying that I have not seen evidence recently that those on parole after 15 or 25 years are committing murder again. 15% have re-offended or violated their paroles. You have suggested even greater numbers but I have not seen any numbers to back that up.

Does elementary logic offend you?

Or is it as bewildering a concept for a Liberal as "honesty" and "integrity"?

[Oleg Bach]

I am saying that I have not seen evidence recently that those on parole after 15 or 25 years are committing murder again. 15% have re-offended or violated their paroles. You have suggested even greater numbers but I have not seen any numbers to back that up.

If you are going to question the statistics over and over, I guess you can make up any number you want.

For example, you can state that there are actually thousands of murders of women and children when they disappear. This may or may not be true but it certainly sounds dramatic.

You have to have a parole board that is bright and honourable - one that a prisoner would dare not lie too...but they do lie to them because they are not respectable - those on such boards are usally twits - who just love to hear - just the right things - so they can feel that they have done their jobs right - at our peril.

[jdobbin]

You have to have a parole board that is bright and honourable - one that a prisoner would dare not lie too...but they do lie to them because they are not respectable - those on such boards are usally twits - who just love to hear - just the right things - so they can feel that they have done their jobs right - at our peril.

So your answer is to eliminate the boards and never release anyone from prison- ever.

[Argus]

Would you be happy that you didn't get a chance to torture and kill this person for hours and hours yourself? Of course not. This is why the government must allow citizens the rights to kill their tormentors. Only we can mete out punishment or assess what it should be. Damn the police, judges, juries, parole boards and governments. We need to do it old school.

It's funny but no one has even suggested vigilante action was necessary other than the raging left. It's also odd to note that thirty years ago, say pre-Trudeau, no one seemed to think the Justice system needed a different name. People who hurt other people tended to be thrown deep into prison and kept there for a very long time.

Now with short sentences, two or three for one considerations for pre-trial custody, automatic parole no matter what your behaviour is like - all of which are liberal concepts - almost no one other than the liberal political class seems to believe that people are being appropriately punished by the judicial system.

[jdobbin]

Does elementary logic offend you?

Or is it as bewildering a concept for a Liberal as "honesty" and "integrity"?

Does wild speculation and bloviating define you?

Or is it as bewildering as dealing with real numbers like deficits and actual parole and re-offence violations?

[Smallc]

So what?

See, my extremes weren't so extreme after all. You have very little respect for anything that you don't find necessary. Well, guess what, this isn't only your world.

[jdobbin]

It's funny but no one has even suggested vigilante action was necessary other than the raging left. It's also odd to note that thirty years ago, say pre-Trudeau, no one seemed to think the Justice system needed a different name. People who hurt other people tended to be thrown deep into prison and kept there for a very long time.

The raging right says that the victims should be how we are guided entirely when we deal crime and punishment. String up the noose!

Now with short sentences, two or three for one considerations for pre-trial custody, automatic parole no matter what your behaviour is like - all of which are liberal concepts - almost no one other than the liberal political class seems to believe that people are being appropriately punished by the judicial system.

There isn't a punishment that many on the right would be happy with. That is a Conservative concept but it doesn't fit well with things like justice or fiscal management, does it? Those seem like foreign concepts to those on the right.

[benny]

almost no one other than the liberal political class seems to believe that people are being appropriately punished by the judicial system.

The appropriateness of a punishment cannot be determined without having in sight a complete pardon or closure.

[Smallc]

You have a naive faith in a piece of paper.

And you have such hatred and mistrust of, well, everything. You know, I get accused of having opinions based on emotion. Well, it's quit clear that we all make opinions based on emotion. Two of the people who have accused me of making decisions based on emotion are right in this topic doing the same. I find it rather hypocritical

I have never said that an argument based on emotion was unimportant, yet the people who tell me the exact opposite make arguments based on emotion all of the time.

I think it's important that as people, we realize that many of our opinions are based on emotion. It would be wise to not discredit others when their emotion based view..that is quite often supported by facts....doesn't agree with yours.

[Oleg Bach]

The appropriateness of a punishment cannot be determined without having in sight a complete pardon or closure.

It's not a case of "punishment" sure they like to get our hateful emotions flowing with the idea of punishement - it works well politically - what the crux of the problem really is - Is the PROTECTION - of the public - the elite find us easier to control of we are a tad paranoid and off kilter with fear - so they gleefully allow lunitics to move through society to harrass us - I swear they get a kick out of it.

[Argus]

The raging right says that the victims should be how we are guided entirely when we deal crime and punishment. String up the noose!

You know, when you're angry you make Oleg sound sensible, and you seem to forget that English is supposed to be your first language.

[Argus]

Does wild speculation and bloviating define you?

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

[benny]

It's not a case of "punishment" sure they like to get our hateful emotions flowing with the idea of punishement - it works well politically - what the crux of the problem really is - Is the PROTECTION - of the public - the elite find us easier to control of we are a tad paranoid and off kilter with fear - so they gleefully allow lunitics to move through society to harrass us - I swear they get a kick out of it.

The problem with the Conservatives is that they really believe themselves that "the world is a dangerous place".

Edited June 7, 2009 by benny

[Oleg Bach]

The problem with the Conservatives is that they really believe themselves that "the world is a dangerous place".

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?

[Smallc]

You know, when you're angry you make Oleg sound sensible, and you seem to forget that English is supposed to be your first language.

His point stands, no matter. How much should we base our legal decisions on the feelings of the victim? How much say should they get? People often say that the justice system isn't working....but most of the people saying that (just like with everything else) happen to be from one side of the spectrum. Conservatives don't even seem to be happy while in government.

[ironstone]

Not likely...probably just a never ending deficit. That seems to be where we're headed.

I seem to recall the Libs and NDP screaming for massive stimulus spending,just like their hero Obama is doing.Now we have people complaining about a deficit.Let me get this straight,is a deficit acceptable depending on whether or not the leader is a charismatic left winger?Did anyone from the left complain about deficits under former Socialist Prime Minister Trudeau?

[Smallc]

I seem to recall the Libs and NDP screaming for massive stimulus spending,

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.

[canfan]

This seems to be especially true among victims and their loved ones. One stat we never seem to see is one showing the percentage of victims that are happy with the sentences of those that have wronged them. Perhaps that's "the elephant in the room" that no one wants to admit is there.

I'm never opposed to getting more information but I don't see victim satisfaction as being a good indicator of a fair and honest justice system. I doubt victims are happy when they see someone found not guilty but that doesn't make the person guilty and it definitely doesn't mean the system failed. We also don't see stats about how happy criminals are with their sentences or how happy their families are. I'm not saying happiness of relatives of criminals should equate to victim happiness but as long as we're talking about missing stats you might as well include those too.

Not everyone feels that a murderer has a right to a chance to rehabilitate. Many feel that after committing such a horrible deed as to take the life of a fellow human being in an unlawful manner a murder has forfeited such 'rights'. In effect he or she has placed themselves outside the law we all share, which is the traditional definition of an 'outlaw'.

Not everyone believes that we should ignore the real circumstances of a situation and just write off people as lost causes.

There is also the factor of personal responsibility. Some believe that individuals are responsible for their own actions and their consequences. Others don't seem to share this belief.

However, those that don't share this belief seem to feel they have the right to determine how the justice system operates with respect to sentencing, particularly with violent crimes! Here in this very thread we have those, including yourself, who believe that the state is doing the right things and that the feelings of the victims and their families are of little or no import.

This is where the typical law and order argument goes wrong. It's assumed that if you support something like a faint hope clause then you must be a bleeding heart liberal with no belief in personal responsibility. That's a lie. No different than accusing people who want tougher sentences of being rednecks who just want to shoot em all and let God sort em out. I'd invite you to go back and read my post and see that I do think victims should be heard at these hearings. So yes I think they're important. But they shouldn't be the only factor when making these decisions for faint hope or parole in general. We might disagree on our ideas of justice and sentencing but stop pretending my views fit into your preconceived ideas of what a supporter of the faint hope clause should sound like. I can support it and still find a place for both the views of the victims and for the prisoner.

[canfan]

You have a naive faith in a piece of paper. So far the only people the Charter has protected have been criminals.

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.

[canfan]

There are undoubtedly exceptional circumstances which would allow for parole and I'm willing to accept that. But the general rule, so far as I'm concerned, is if you deliberately take someone's life you forfeit yours. So given I think 25 years is too early to be allowed back on the street, why would you think I'd want murderers to get out in 15?

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?

Lots of numbers.

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

[canfan]

The standards which are now imposed on juries can be probelmatic given the defence' opportunity to remove anyone they might think is "prejudicial" to their client. The jury is supposed to be a mimic of the defendant's peers, but instead, given the nature of things, there is a tendency for lawyers to try to manipulate the selection. Jury selection is now an actual industry, with high priced consultants using statistics and studies to decide what income bracket, what gender and what race and characteristics would be most favorably inclined towards their client.

You once again demonstrate that you don't know how juries work. The Crown can also remove people from a jury. If both sides have the same options avialable to them then how's that unfair?

I don't know enough about the way the faint hope clause "hearings" are conducted, but the fact they have something like a 90% success rate seems to me that "faint hope" is a pretty poor description, and that in all likelihood someone is messing with the juries or what they get to hear.

Or maybe you're not as in touch with how Canadians feel about their justice system as you think. You don't like the results but that doesn't mean that someone is messing with anything.

[Argus]

His point stands, no matter. How much should we base our legal decisions on the feelings of the victim? How much say should they get? People often say that the justice system isn't working....but most of the people saying that (just like with everything else) happen to be from one side of the spectrum.

Maybe because that's the end of the spectrum composed of people who actually watch and read the news, who actually pay attention to things. Most of the liberals I know haven't read a newspaper or magazine in years, and rarely, if ever, watch the news on TV either.

[canfan]

Maybe because that's the end of the spectrum composed of people who actually watch and read the news, who actually pay attention to things. Most of the liberals I know haven't read a newspaper or magazine in years, and rarely, if ever, watch the news on TV either.

So all people who don't totally agree with you must be uninformed? That position is very ironic after you've complained about how the faint hope clause works while admitting that you don't know enough about how it works.

[Smallc]

Maybe because that's the end of the spectrum composed of people who actually watch and read the news, who actually pay attention to things. Most of the liberals I know haven't read a newspaper or magazine in years, and rarely, if ever, watch the news on TV either.

Most of the Liberals I know have a more detailed understanding of the issues than most of the Conservatives that I know. They get their news from a variety of sources. I spend hours with the news every day, and I almost never agree with you.

[jdobbin]

You know, when you're angry you make Oleg sound sensible, and you seem to forget that English is supposed to be your first language.

I'm not angry in the least. I think it is funny how your fury comes out in every post.

It strikes me that the right always tells the left to check their emotions on social issues but then they let their own emotions dictate how they deal with things like crime and immigration.

Edited June 7, 2009 by jdobbin