Judges.....two years for murder

[Argus]

I just think rehabilitation is the better way to go. Crackin' down and gettin' tough (almost exclusively on drugs) appears to have been worse than a complete waste of time, all it's done is fueled more violence, bred harder criminals and resulted in more cynical scornful conservatives.

You presume rehabilitation works equally on all manner of criminals and have no evidence to support that. I'm all for trying to rehabiliate juveniles who are not hardened repeat offenders, but what makes you think you can rehabiliate a violent thug with fourteen convictions? And I remind you it is not drugs which infuriate people, it is the brutality and violence of the people involved in drugs.

Further, no one has actually tried "cracking down" on violent offenders in the last several decades. The prison and judicial systems in Canada have been wholy under the control of liberals during that period.

[Argus]

Good luck with that. The reality is, we have rather long sentences in comparison to many countries with much lower crime rates. People aren't going to take things into their own hands...and if they do, they'll be punished.

Perhaps you could demonstrate, since you apparently have such knowledge, how much longer our sentences are for violent offenders than other countries.

[Argus]

I don't have that kind of information. What I do know is that we can't afford to spend all of our money keeping people in prisons longer. Even eliminating 2 for 1 is going to cost billions of dollars over 5 years.

The reason it costs so much is because prisoners are coddled when they ought to be working to support themselves.

[Argus]

If someone killed your child or one of your family members and you didn't like the sentence they got and decided to go vigilante, then as much as I might abhor the sentence given, I would want the justice system to put you away for a long, long time. Once you had your trial of course. And were found guilty.

If someone brutally murdered someone's child and got a year in jail, and the father killed that person I, for one, would refuse to find them guilty of a single, bloody thing.

[Argus]

That is completely false. Obviously, by the example you gave, you didn't know what I meant. Across the board, laws are being changed to impose tougher mandatory minimum sentences.

The laws are not being made harsher the new laws are simply taking away the ability of judges to let people go without any punishment. So now a judge will be stymied. He'll have to say "Gee, the law allows for up to ten years in prison, but gee, I'd really like to only give them four days because they clearly had an unhappy childhood. Unfortunately, I have to give them at least a year now. Darn it all!"

[Army Guy]

Perhaps you could demonstrate, since you apparently have such knowledge, how much longer our sentences are for violent offenders than other countries.

I've been doing research on this all day, what i did find is this a 1999 survey which states that the Average time spent in cells for 1 st degree murder in Canada is reported at 28.4 years....i know i almost choked...

That being said there i've not been able to find any more recent reports...what i did find out is this there is a loop hole in our laws which dictate that life sentences for 1 st degree murder are suppose to be 25 years with out parole, the loop hole is section 745 which states that any one can apply to have thier snetence reduced after serving just 10 years of that life sentence without parole....so life does not mean 25 years any more it means do 10 years and will see...

I think this is why there is no more stats after 1999, becuase rarely are they even serving 25 years...

But hey sentencing is getting harsher....crime rates are going down....we should be smiling....

[Argus]

I've been doing research on this all day, what i did find is this a 1999 survey which states that the Average time spent in cells for 1 st degree murder in Canada is reported at 28.4 years....i know i almost choked...

That being said there i've not been able to find any more recent reports...what i did find out is this there is a loop hole in our laws which dictate that life sentences for 1 st degree murder are suppose to be 25 years with out parole, the loop hole is section 745 which states that any one can apply to have thier snetence reduced after serving just 10 years of that life sentence without parole....so life does not mean 25 years any more it means do 10 years and will see...

I think this is why there is no more stats after 1999, becuase rarely are they even serving 25 years...

But hey sentencing is getting harsher....crime rates are going down....we should be smiling....

1st degree murder does not make a fair comparison as judges have no option in sentencing. Manslaughter would make a more apt comparison since judges are free to give out what sentences they choose. Even then tho it's hard to make comarisons. People are often convicted of manslaughter in Canada where they would have been commited of 1st degree murder elsewhere.

And, in fact, most of the complaints are about sentences for manslaughter, and mostly because of this. You usually don't see a lot of complaints about murder, except that once you kill someone you are free to kill however many more people you want to without any additional punishment.

The punishment for 1st degree murder is life, no parole 25 years.

The punishment for five thousand cases of 1st degree murder, ten thousand rapes, four thousand arsons, twenty thousand agrivated assaults and jaywalking is life, no parole 25 years.

Edited May 12, 2010 by Argus

[Smallc]

so life does not mean 25 years any more it means do 10 years and will see...

I think this is why there is no more stats after 1999, becuase rarely are they even serving 25 years...

It's 15 years, it's rarely used, it is being eliminated, and you appear to be paranoid.

[Army Guy]

My Bad it is 15 years, That being said we where talking about "25 years without parole" and excuse me if my english is bad but i thought (without Parole ) meant there was no chance of getting out earlier ....what a lie...

As for it being rarly used your FULL OF SHIT...The fact that 73% of those offenders who have applied so far have been successful....AND it is not being ELIMINATED it is being amended....to include these 3 caveats.

1. Offenders who commit multiple murders no longer have the right to apply for early release under section 745.6 (this bill would have been able to eliminate Clifford Olsen's chance to apply for early release)

2. Applicants, including those now serving time for murder, no longer have an automatic right to a section 745 hearing. All applicants will now be screened by a superior court judge and will only proceed to a hearing if the applicant can show a reasonable prospect of success.

3. A section 745 jury composed of members of the community, must reach a unanimous decision before an offender's parole ineligibility period is shortened. (Before C-45, only a 2/3 majority was needed.)

Am i being Parnoid, i'd like to call it concerned...and the more i learn the less i like our current justice sys and it's sentencing procedures....

My linkwww.victimsofviolence.

[Shwa]

If someone brutally murdered someone's child and got a year in jail, and the father killed that person I, for one, would refuse to find them guilty of a single, bloody thing.

And yet, as often as that happens - thousands of such cases over the decades - the members of our society by and large avoid vigilantism in favour of allowing our justice system to do its work. And as tough as your words may be - understandable as they are - it is a sentiment often expressed and yet hardly acted upon. If ever.

Rodney Stafford's little girl was brutally murdered in Woodstock last year and what did he do? He went on a bike ride to Edmonton and raised $50,000 for Child Find. He is planning another trip again this year with his young son.

Rodney Stafford's actions speak much louder than your words.

[Army Guy]

And yet, as often as that happens - thousands of such cases over the decades - the members of our society by and large avoid vigilantism in favour of allowing our justice system to do its work. And as tough as your words may be - understandable as they are - it is a sentiment often expressed and yet hardly acted upon. If ever.

Rodney Stafford's little girl was brutally murdered in Woodstock last year and what did he do? He went on a bike ride to Edmonton and raised $50,000 for Child Find. He is planning another trip again this year with his young son.

Rodney Stafford's actions speak much louder than your words

SHWA.

Your right actions do speak louder than words, and Rodney's actions are of course the right action, or perhaps the sane action to be taken...perhaps the one most of us would chose in the long run...it would be a long and tough battle to struggle with the frustration of it all. knowing your child is gone forever, and this convict is walking free after just 2 years....i just hope that not many Canadians have to face it...

[eyeball]

You presume rehabilitation works equally on all manner of criminals and have no evidence to support that.

No that's wrong, I believe it's worked in most cases but I clearly said it hasn't worked in every single case.

I'm all for trying to rehabiliate juveniles who are not hardened repeat offenders, but what makes you think you can rehabiliate a violent thug with fourteen convictions? And I remind you it is not drugs which infuriate people, it is the brutality and violence of the people involved in drugs.

Not with booze, this stuff can make people violent by damaging their brains before they're even born. You may not be able to rehabilitate these kids, and so the problem becomes one of ensuring they get the the best and most compassionate care they can. These 'thugs' as you'd like to refer to them deserve a hug from the state given the state is partly responsible for damaging their brains.

Further, no one has actually tried "cracking down" on violent offenders in the last several decades. The prison and judicial systems in Canada have been wholy under the control of liberals during that period.

Well, there's your problem right there, you have to make liberalism a crime so you can put the country under the complete control of conservatives.

Edited May 13, 2010 by eyeball

[Argus]

Rodney Stafford's little girl was brutally murdered in Woodstock last year and what did he do? He went on a bike ride to Edmonton and raised $50,000 for Child Find. He is planning another trip again this year with his young son.

Rodney Stafford's actions speak much louder than your words.

His daughter's killers are charged with 1st degree murder and likely to get 25 to life.

I wonder how sanguine he would be if the charges were downgraded to manslaughter and they were both given a year in jail, then wandered past his door.

[Argus]

No that's wrong, I believe it's worked in most cases but I clearly said it hasn't worked in every single case.

Worked in most cases? Maybe you could enlighten us on what "rehabilitation" means. So far to you it seems to mean getting a one year sentence instead of a five year sentence, or getting a five year sentence instead of a twenty five year sentence. How exactly do you imagine street gang members are being "rehabiliated" in this manner?

Not with booze, this stuff can make people violent by damaging their brains before they're even born. You may not be able to rehabilitate these kids, and so the problem becomes one of ensuring they get the the best and most compassionate care they can. These 'thugs' as you'd like to refer to them deserve a hug from the state given the state is partly responsible for damaging their brains.

Sorry. Don't buy it. It's that conservative belief in individual responsibility, you see. If you hurt people, it's your fault. End of story. It's interesting if you want to note that you had a bad upbringing or whatever, but your alcholic mother didn't make you beat that man to death for laughs or rape that girl for fun. And if it did, all the more reason to lock you up forever, as a safety measure.

Well, there's your problem right there, you have to make liberalism a crime so you can put the country under the complete control of conservatives.

Not really neccessary. We just need to prevent stupid people with little sense of reality from having as much say in law, prisons and parole.

[eyeball]

We just need to prevent stupid people with little sense of reality from having as much say in law, prisons and parole.

I certainly can't argue with that sentiment.

Don't buy it. It's that conservative belief in individual responsibility, you see. If you hurt people, it's your fault. End of story.

Then why do conservatives treat drug dealers so differently than liquor store clerks?

[Argus]

Then why do conservatives treat drug dealers so differently than liquor store clerks?

Because liquor store clerks don't shoot their clients, or each other, or their suppliers. And while drunks are an undeniable societal problem, alcoholics aren't usually out robbing and and mugging people to get their fix. Welfare provides quite enough money for that.

[Wild Bill]

Because liquor store clerks don't shoot their clients, or each other, or their suppliers. And while drunks are an undeniable societal problem, alcoholics aren't usually out robbing and and mugging people to get their fix. Welfare provides quite enough money for that.

Well, there was a LOT of alcohol-related violence and crime before Prohibition ended!

[Argus]

Well, there was a LOT of alcohol-related violence and crime before Prohibition ended!

I don't have a problem with legalizing drugs. It's worth trying anyway. I just don't think it can ever happen because the Americans would go bananas. Anyway, it doesn't seem to have done much good in the Netherlands.

Edited May 15, 2010 by Argus

[Shwa]

His daughter's killers are charged with 1st degree murder and likely to get 25 to life.

I wonder how sanguine he would be if the charges were downgraded to manslaughter and they were both given a year in jail, then wandered past his door.

Still his actions speak louder than your words.

What if one of them plea bargined for time served? What if they got away with it on a technicality? What if the evidence cannot convict them? What if DNA proves it wasn't them, but someone else? What if... just words Argus.