eyeball Posted January 29, 2012 Report Posted January 29, 2012 So whichever it is, it is still a strange response from you that in the face of this aweful religious hate crime where a family premeditatedly murders members of their family, your first thought is to decry vengence in either the justice system OR Canadians. But maybe it's just me. It's just you. My thoughts were on the face of AW's question which was about the punishment for the crime, not the crime itself. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
William Ashley Posted January 29, 2012 Report Posted January 29, 2012 (edited) We are. In our countries. Thank God. I think we can. that would only demonstrate the issue. pointing a gun at someones head doesn't make its yours. Hopefully you will understand there are no borders other than between enlightenment and failure. rule isn't by force it is by reason. there is no culture that grants reason it is recognition of the reasons for culture that is enlightenment. Edited January 29, 2012 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
sharkman Posted January 29, 2012 Report Posted January 29, 2012 who says anything about how they think. You are bieing culturally ignorant. One persons right is not anothers. who is to say right and wrong. it is common sense on some matters but those who are not enlightened, and americans arn't can't claim superior culture. What the hell does America have to do with this other than you felt like throwing it in since you're talking to an American? Our culture is ours. Our laws are ours. In Canada a person's right to live belongs to everybody. One person's rights is everybodies. And our laws, penned by Canadians right here in Canada says what's right and wrong. Anybody with a brain will say it's wrong to kill somebody. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted January 29, 2012 Report Posted January 29, 2012 What the hell does America have to do with this other than you felt like throwing it in since you're talking to an American? Our culture is ours. Our laws are ours. Well said, and better coming from you than from me. In Canada a person's right to live belongs to everybody. One person's rights is everybodies. And our laws, penned by Canadians right here in Canada says what's right and wrong. Anybody with a brain will say it's wrong to kill somebody. One would think that would be painfully obvious, eh? How anyone can question whether "honor killings" are "right or wrong," comparing them to punishment, boggles the mind. Quote
jacee Posted January 29, 2012 Report Posted January 29, 2012 who says anything about how they think. You are bieing culturally ignorant. One persons right is not anothers. Its like people punishing their children.. not acceptable in inuit societies etc.. it all depends where you come from. intantacide is not too far in the distant past of many societies. women were owned in many societies. it wasn't until this past 100 years that women started regaining rights. who is to say right and wrong. it is common sense on some matters but those who are not enlightened, and americans arn't can't claim superior culture. Oh it's wrong alright! Murder is wrong ... 1st degree ... 4 counts for each of 3 murderers ... and that's right! Quote
Wild Bill Posted January 29, 2012 Report Posted January 29, 2012 4 counts. Given the circumstances of the case, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they were consecutive, rather than concurrent. Which means no sooner than 60 years. CC, I'm surprised you didn't know this! Right wing talk radio has been shrieking about this for years as part of what is seriously wrong with the Canadian justice system. Canada has not delivered consecutive sentences on ANYTHING in years and years and years and years! They are always concurrent. In effect, for a multiple murder, you pay for the first one and the rest are free! Supposedly, we are still protected by the concepts of habitual or dangerous offender. This means that on a regular basis legalists will be paid to form panels and consider whether or not to grant parole, the assumption being that they would never allow someone who is a real danger to get out. We also have similar panels with medical types who would decide if someone is sane enough to be released. This approach of course employs a great many people and ensures that their kids can get a fine education! However, friends and families of victims have often felt that the "system" couldn't care less about their pain or the value of the life or lives taken when it releases an offender after what seems an incredibly short term served. Of course, their feeling are dismissed as merely a desire for primitive vengeance and they are simply too coarse to be allowed input. I personally witnessed a man be sentenced and served with only 4 years for waiting outside his ex girlfriend's place of work for her to show up and blowing her away with a shotgun under his coat. His crime was reduced to manslaughter. It would take pages for me to properly explain why. I also have first hand knowledge of a man who carved his wife up with an axe. His lawyer got him sentenced as criminally insane. This meant that he did not go to ordinary jail. The doctors in the white coats took him away. Eventually they decided that he was no longer raising snakes under his hat and he was released. He served only 2 years. As I said, Canada has not delivered a consecutive sentence for decades, if not a century. The "system" doesn't seem to advertise this much. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
sharkman Posted January 29, 2012 Report Posted January 29, 2012 Yep, and then we get some who are really concerned that our 'justice' system will seek vengence. Quote
cybercoma Posted January 29, 2012 Report Posted January 29, 2012 Well that would mean the person will have to be released in 35 years. All this means is that in 25 years these ghouls get a parole hearing. We can't assume what they would be like in a quarter century. The parents will be in their 80's by the time they'll be up for parole not exactly a threat to re-offend, but I'm sure there's a public will to have all the people convicted today die in prison. Then again they have said they will appeal the decision so this story isn't over. They haven't been sentenced yet. They're guilty on 4 counts and it's well within the judges ability and I would say probably likely that they will be given consecutive sentences, rather than concurrent. If they get consecutive sentences then they will have to serve 4x 35 year sentences back-to-back, rather than at the same time. Quote
cybercoma Posted January 29, 2012 Report Posted January 29, 2012 (edited) CC, I'm surprised you didn't know this! Right wing talk radio has been shrieking about this for years as part of what is seriously wrong with the Canadian justice system. Canada has not delivered consecutive sentences on ANYTHING in years and years and years and years! They are always concurrent. In effect, for a multiple murder, you pay for the first one and the rest are free! Supposedly, we are still protected by the concepts of habitual or dangerous offender. This means that on a regular basis legalists will be paid to form panels and consider whether or not to grant parole, the assumption being that they would never allow someone who is a real danger to get out. We also have similar panels with medical types who would decide if someone is sane enough to be released. This approach of course employs a great many people and ensures that their kids can get a fine education! However, friends and families of victims have often felt that the "system" couldn't care less about their pain or the value of the life or lives taken when it releases an offender after what seems an incredibly short term served. Of course, their feeling are dismissed as merely a desire for primitive vengeance and they are simply too coarse to be allowed input. I personally witnessed a man be sentenced and served with only 4 years for waiting outside his ex girlfriend's place of work for her to show up and blowing her away with a shotgun under his coat. His crime was reduced to manslaughter. It would take pages for me to properly explain why. I also have first hand knowledge of a man who carved his wife up with an axe. His lawyer got him sentenced as criminally insane. This meant that he did not go to ordinary jail. The doctors in the white coats took him away. Eventually they decided that he was no longer raising snakes under his hat and he was released. He served only 2 years. As I said, Canada has not delivered a consecutive sentence for decades, if not a century. The "system" doesn't seem to advertise this much. Believe me. They hand out consecutive sentences. Just not as frequently as some people would like. Edited January 29, 2012 by cybercoma Quote
Guest American Woman Posted January 29, 2012 Report Posted January 29, 2012 According to the National Post: Maranger imposed the mandatory sentences of life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years. Also: Once the Shafias complete their prison sentences, they are likely to be deported to Afghanistan, according to a lawyer and former Canadian immigration officer. Quote
Shady Posted January 29, 2012 Report Posted January 29, 2012 Also: Once the Shafias complete their prison sentences, they are likely to be deported to Afghanistan, according to a lawyer and former Canadian immigration officer. Sweet! I'm gonna be dancing at the airport while they board the plane. Quote
capricorn Posted January 30, 2012 Report Posted January 30, 2012 (edited) They haven't been sentenced yet. Maybe the judge hasn't said "I sentence you to 25 years in prison" but no need to. First degree murder automatically carries a 25 year sentence. They're guilty on 4 counts and it's well within the judges ability and I would say probably likely that they will be given consecutive sentences, rather than concurrent. If they get consecutive sentences then they will have to serve 4x 35 year sentences back-to-back, rather than at the same time. I haven't seen anything about a sentencing hearing in the media. Have you? Edit: I just found a live blog of the trial and yes, the Judge did pronounce the sentence. For these crimes, for these murders, the sentence is mandatory as set out in the criminal code of Canada. You are each sentenced to life imprisonment without eligibility for parole until you have served a period of 25 years and that's the sentence of the court for each of you. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2012/01/29/shafia-sunday.html Edited January 30, 2012 by capricorn Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
Guest American Woman Posted January 30, 2012 Report Posted January 30, 2012 (edited) I haven't seen anything about a sentencing hearing in the media. Have you? As I said, the judge gave them a life sentence with no possibility of parole for 25 years, so the sentences must be concurrent, right? “There is nothing more honourless than the deliberate murder of, in the case of Mohammad Shafia, three of his daughters and his wife … in the case of Tooba Yahya, three of her daughters and a stepmother to all her children, in the case of Hamed Shafia three of sisters and a mother,” Judge Robert Maranger, of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice said, before he passed sentence. Edited January 30, 2012 by American Woman Quote
Guest American Woman Posted January 30, 2012 Report Posted January 30, 2012 Sweet! I'm gonna be dancing at the airport while they board the plane. I would love to be there myself. Good for Canada!! Quote
capricorn Posted January 30, 2012 Report Posted January 30, 2012 As I said, the judge gave them a life sentence with no possibility of parole for 25 years, so the sentences must be concurrent, right? Correct. See my post above with the Judge's exact words AW. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
BC_chick Posted January 30, 2012 Report Posted January 30, 2012 Watch our legal system let these guys off with like 5 years or something. Oh ye have little faith. Quote It's kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. Other than that, it's fine." Bill Nye on Alberta Oil Sands
Michael Hardner Posted January 30, 2012 Report Posted January 30, 2012 Oh ye have little faith. Nice find ! Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
BC_chick Posted January 30, 2012 Report Posted January 30, 2012 (edited) I don`t know if justice can ever be served when it comes to murder but today`s ruling made me very happy. I hope all of them get their asses kicked over and over in jail while the guards look the other way. Edited January 30, 2012 by BC_chick Quote It's kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. Other than that, it's fine." Bill Nye on Alberta Oil Sands
BC_chick Posted January 30, 2012 Report Posted January 30, 2012 Nice find ! I with I could take credit but it was one of the first posts in the thread. Quote It's kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. Other than that, it's fine." Bill Nye on Alberta Oil Sands
Wild Bill Posted January 30, 2012 Report Posted January 30, 2012 Believe me. They hand out consecutive sentences. Just not as frequently as some people would like. I'd like to believe you CC. I just can't! I'm not saying it's impossible, just more like winning the same lottery several times! I'm willing to be proven wrong, though. Shall we wait and see how the trial comes out? Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Smallc Posted January 30, 2012 Report Posted January 30, 2012 (edited) You can be given consecutive sentences for first and second degree murder in Canada now, but I don't think that was available here, as that wasn't the law when this trial began: http://news.gc.ca/web/article-eng.do?nid=598999 I believe that for the same reason, the faint hope clause still applies in this case. Edited January 30, 2012 by Smallc Quote
sharkman Posted January 30, 2012 Report Posted January 30, 2012 Okay Harper, time to earn your money and toughen up these sentences. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted January 30, 2012 Report Posted January 30, 2012 Okay Harper, time to earn your money and toughen up these sentences. If the honor clause applies and they get earlier parole, they'll just be shipped back to Afghanistan that much earlier. Quote
Smallc Posted January 30, 2012 Report Posted January 30, 2012 Okay Harper, time to earn your money and toughen up these sentences. Read the link, he already has. Quote
sharkman Posted January 30, 2012 Report Posted January 30, 2012 Read the link, he already has. Hey man, don't rain on my groove! Quote
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.