Progress in Penal Methods - Equal and Public Punishments

[jbg]

Not that I'm defending this woman, but I suspect that most people who are accused of what amounts to acts of passion involving a single victim are far more likely to get bail than, well, serial killers.

Both, it seems, are violent people who pose a danger to society. It seems that certain populations get a free pass.

[ToadBrother]

Both, it seems, are violent people who pose a danger to society. It seems that certain populations get a free pass.

I would completely disagree. In general, a number of factors go into determining whether the accused remains incarcerated while awaiting trial. A big one is the risk of flight, which probably wasn't a big factor here. Another is public safety, and since this was a targeted attack, I don't think the Crown could ever make a reasonable case that she was at a high risk to reoffend. Then comes the severity of the crime. Serial killers, or in Picton's case, outright mass murderer, it's significantly easier to make the argument that the accused is at a serious risk to offend while on bail.

Apples and oranges. But I tell you what, if you can show me some stats that show that non-Muslims accused of murdering a family member are less likely to get bail than Muslims, then I'll concede the point.

Edited August 23, 2010 by ToadBrother

[jbg]

Apples and oranges. But I tell you what, if you can show me some stats that show that non-Muslims accused of murdering a family member are less likely to get bail than Muslims, then I'll concede the point.

These aren't stats but here's a case (link).

[ToadBrother]

These aren't stats but here's a case (link).

I asked for stats. For your claim to be legitimate, you have to back it up with numbers.

[jbg]

I asked for stats. For your claim to be legitimate, you have to back it up with numbers.

Usually I agree with you and your posts. Why the vitriol?

[msdogfood]

These are barbaric punishments, and places the State on the same (actually, at least arguably, worse) moral plane as the original perpetrator.

Very true!!.

[ToadBrother]

Usually I agree with you and your posts. Why the vitriol?

Because I'm a vitriolic person?

Seriously though, you made a claim, in a backwards sort of way, that Muslims who killed family members are more likely to get bail than non-Muslims. I explained, to the best of my knowledge and ability, the way in which bail is decided, and that the woman in question, while most certainly a crazed religious fanatic, does not sit in the same category as, say, Robert Picton, a mass murderer who butchered women, literally, and fed them to his pigs. It's not that murder is good, or one kind is better than another, it's simply that one can generally be slotted into a "crime of passion" section, meaning the likelihood of reoffending is fairly low, the risk to the public is low, and risk of flight is low. Let's remember here that she, and any accused, is innocent until proven guilty, so depriving bail just because the crime is bad is not sufficient, because you are essentially saying "Keep a person accused of unproven allegations behind bars."

In the case of someone like Picton, he is a serial killer who killed, in horrific fashion, dozens of women. He was very much a risk to the general public, and what's more the general public were a risk to him. Let him out of jail and even odds says some family member of one of the victims might have decided to do him in and not wait for the courts to do their job.

We can make an argument, perhaps, that bail in cases of serious crimes is often given where it isn't applicable, as as sort of general statement, but I really don't think Muslims, or Sikhs, or whoever (honor killings aren't really Islamic per se but a feature, unfortunately of Central Asia and the Subcontinent, predating Islam) are more likely to get bail as a group than a guy who kills his cheating wife or any other similar crime.

[jbg]

Toad Brother,

I understand your point. My point is that I suspect there's somewhat of a deferential attitude towards groups that are associated with violence, out of fear and appeasement. The same thing happened with groups such as the "Black Panthers" in the U.S. back in the early 1970's.

[ToadBrother]

Toad Brother,

I understand your point. My point is that I suspect there's somewhat of a deferential attitude towards groups that are associated with violence, out of fear and appeasement. The same thing happened with groups such as the "Black Panthers" in the U.S. back in the early 1970's.

And I don't think there is. People get bail after some pretty nasty crimes, but you can't meaningfully compare serial killers like Paul Bernardo or Robert Pickton to some deluded Muslim mother.

Do try to remember here that bail is an important aspect of the whole presumption of innocence. As with everything to do with a criminal trial, the prosecution has to prove that society's interests are best served by keeping the accused in prison, or at least free under a very high bond, but that any such arguments are taken within the context of the presumption of innocence.

Edited August 24, 2010 by ToadBrother

[jbg]

As with everything to do with a criminal trial, the prosecution has to prove that society's interests are best served by keeping the accused in prison, or at least free under a very high bond, but that any such arguments are taken within the context of the presumption of innocence.

My proposed solution would be to offer very speedy trials to those accused of crimes of extreme violence. There should be no lengthy interim periods of limbo here. That would balance the competing interests better.

[Argus]

The problem with your claim about polls on Sharia law is that it can be implemented a number of ways. Some muslims believe it should be the ONLY source of law, and some favor a kind of partial implementation of it along side a constitution that guarantees things like free speech.

Regardless of what form they want it to take the population in Muslim countries seems inclined to support barbaric and brutal applications of law so long as they are assured that God wills it. You can write what you will about many Americans wanting the bible to be a source of law, but western people merely mean the morals taught in the bible should inform the writers of law. Muslim people feel the the laws as dicated centuries ago should BE the law. If you embrace a cultural and legal code which is a thousand years old how does that not make you a barbarian?

[Argus]

Had you been following the line of questioning, then you would obviously know that we are talking about "these people" in reference to immigrants. And - as clearly pointed out - the specific examples show that indeed people - presumably immigrants - were being held "responsible for the "customs they support" through criminal charges.

Or did you miss all of that and just want to argue?

What I noted was that you wanted desperately to argue. So I gave you the opportunity. Your badgering on the subject of "these people" and "Who do you mean by these people" etc. etc. was clearly fishing for a statement you could jump up and down shouting and pointing at for a poster condemning a group of people for the actions of individuals. What I'm doing is giving you your argument. I condemn the entirety of their cultures and everyone who embraces and supports those cultures and cultural value systems.

So go ahead and jump up and down now.

[jbg]

What I'm doing is giving you your argument. I condemn the entirety of their cultures and everyone who embraces and supports those cultures and cultural value systems.

So go ahead and jump up and down now.

Many people overly complicate our response to attacks by what amounts to savages by saying "not all of the members of such and such group are violent" or whatever variation they choose. The fact is that the attackers don't differentiate, and it's very hard to surgically respond to people who fight out of uniform.

Schwa's response amounts to a request that we fight back with not one, but two hands tied behind their backs.

[bloodyminded]

Many people overly complicate our response to attacks by what amounts to savages by saying "not all of the members of such and such group are violent" or whatever variation they choose. The fact is that the attackers don't differentiate, and it's very hard to surgically respond to people who fight out of uniform.

Schwa's response amounts to a request that we fight back with not one, but two hands tied behind their backs.

Schwa's response was nothing of the kind...your criticism here doesn't even sound like it's about Schwa's arguments.

[jbg]

Schwa's response was nothing of the kind...your criticism here doesn't even sound like it's about Schwa's arguments.

How do you read it then?

[Shwa]

How do you read it then?

Why ask bloodyminded and not me? Because I will tell you:

What I meant is that immgrants of any colour, creed, religion, economic status - or any other distinction including their feverish Islamicity - fall under the protection of the Criminal Code of Canada, just like everybody else. There is no "these people" when it comes to criminality, they are persons who must face the same set of laws as everyone else including non-immigrants. Sure there are advantages and disadvantages to be had, but mainly of a minor type that do not undermine the overall overpowering effect of the Criminal Code.

It is only weak-minded people who cannot see that our (Canada AND the US) systems of justice and government are supreme and try and assign their own petty fears and irrational prejudice as something that usurps that supremacy.

Now, you can play social politics all you want here, you can espouse your distasteful bigotry and whine about "these people" because "it's a free country" after all. But should you ever want to argue your superior views before the bench here, please let me know when and where and I will gladly come to observe. I might even join in on the all the laughter and merriment that will surely follow. You know, in keeping with the ironic and light hearted tone of your OP.

As for Argus, well at least he admits he is a bigot and I greatly respect such honesty. And at least he has no delusions about his postion in relation to everything else. I am sure he has eaten his share of shawarmas.

[jbg]

Now, you can play social politics all you want here, you can espouse your distasteful bigotry and whine about "these people" because "it's a free country" after all. But should you ever want to argue your superior views before the bench here, please let me know when and where and I will gladly come to observe. I might even join in on the all the laughter and merriment that will surely follow. You know, in keeping with the ironic and light hearted tone of your OP.

Again you're missing my point. I am the ultimate "anti-bigot". What I want is that those that come to Western countries live in a Western manner. As far as what happens in their countries, I will admit to disapproving of the way they treat helpless people. It is savage. We don't have to invade, but we don't have to approve either.

As for Argus, well at least he admits he is a bigot and I greatly respect such honesty. And at least he has no delusions about his postion in relation to everything else. I am sure he has eaten his share of shawarmas.

As far as eating schwarma and other ethnic foods my sons ask me, when I come home, "Daddy, what kind of foreign food did you bring home today"? I appreciate the gifts that other cultures can give us. All that I ask is if they come here they learn English, Canadian or French, and otherwise play by the rules.

[Shwa]

Again you're missing my point. I am the ultimate "anti-bigot". What I want is that those that come to Western countries live in a Western manner. As far as what happens in their countries, I will admit to disapproving of the way they treat helpless people. It is savage. We don't have to invade, but we don't have to approve either.

Which is why I wanted to know what you meant by:

I really think we are derelict in not making these people feel welcome in the U.S. and Canada.

I asked you to clarify what you meant by "these people." Thanks for clearing it up. I almsot had you pegged as a bigot instead of an anti-bigot.

As far as eating schwarma and other ethnic foods my sons ask me, when I come home, "Daddy, what kind of foreign food did you bring home today"? I appreciate the gifts that other cultures can give us. All that I ask is if they come here they learn English, Canadian or French, and otherwise play by the rules.

Fair enough sentiment. Can they wear tradition clothes too like saris and stuff, or should they strictly adhere to Western clothing standards?

[jbg]

Which is why I wanted to know what you meant by: I asked you to clarify what you meant by "these people." Thanks for clearing it up. I almsot had you pegged as a bigot instead of an anti-bigot.

Your response threads back to an Argus, post, not this one. But as long as you asked my point, albeit made sarcstically, is that the custom of a court-directed blinding or crippling cannot be welcome in Canada. It is, pure and simple, barbaric.

Fair enough sentiment. Can they wear tradition clothes too like saris and stuff, or should they strictly adhere to Western clothing standards?

It depends on the context. At their own religious ceremonies, or at an ethnic festival, or at a fair, one thing would apply. When it comes to a majority-dominated work world, they really should conform.

A short digression. My great-grandparents (and in one case grandmother) came to this country, fleeing serious persecution in what's now the Czech or Slovak Republic (they were ethnically Hungarian Jews), Ukraine and Poland. They, like millions of others coming through Ellis Island between 1892 and 1914, were willing to kiss the U.S.'s ground. They went about, in rapid succession, changing their names to ethnically conforming names (I do NOT think that was a good idea), learning English, getting jobs, getting apartments, registering to vote, and totally participating in the new country. Very quickly their descendants fought for our country, went to universities, and became full-blown Americans. In terms of service, tax payments and other benefits they rendered, they more than repaid any benefits they received from the U.S. or New York State.

I expect no less of recent immigrants.

[Shwa]

Your response threads back to an Argus, post, not this one.

Nice try. It "threads back" to your brutal attempt at irony and all that flinching when I asked you to define "these people." Leave Argus out of it.

But as long as you asked my point, albeit made sarcstically, is that the custom of a court-directed blinding or crippling cannot be welcome in Canada. It is, pure and simple, barbaric.

As IF the custom of court-directed blinding or crippling COULD be welcome in Canada? Gimme a break. That is such a weak-minded and thoroughly ridiculous premise that it should embarrass you. You want to defend a great country at the same time denying why it is great in the first place.

It depends on the context. At their own religious ceremonies, or at an ethnic festival, or at a fair, one thing would apply. When it comes to a majority-dominated work world, they really should conform.

"...they really should conform??" WTF? Why "should" they? Oh, I know why, because they will erode the greatness of this country if they don't, that's why. Did I get your gist correctly? You know, because someone wearing a sari or some other sort of ethnic gown, they are destroying the fabic of our "great" society. I remember how turbans absolultey ruined the country in the 80's. Damned Sikhs wrecked the whole place entirely. Ruins! Ruins I tells ya!

A short digression. My great-grandparents (and in one case grandmother) came to this country, fleeing serious persecution in what's now the Czech or Slovak Republic (they were ethnically Hungarian Jews), Ukraine and Poland. They, like millions of others coming through Ellis Island between 1892 and 1914, were willing to kiss the U.S.'s ground. They went about, in rapid succession, changing their names to ethnically conforming names (I do NOT think that was a good idea), learning English, getting jobs, getting apartments, registering to vote, and totally participating in the new country. Very quickly their descendants fought for our country, went to universities, and became full-blown Americans. In terms of service, tax payments and other benefits they rendered, they more than repaid any benefits they received from the U.S. or New York State.

I expect no less of recent immigrants.

Ah, now I get it. "These people" = "recent immigrants" I kind of thought so.

And what makes you think that recent immigrants aren't "learning English, getting jobs, getting apartments, registering to vote, and totally participating in the new country?"

I can pretty well guarantee you - based on all the previous evidence - that their descendents will fight for our country, go to university and become full-blown Americans and Canadians and repay any benefits they received from state or province.

They aren't the problem - you are. You are attributing twisted ideas to them in a generalizing way. Next you'll be saying they asked for it...

Edited September 16, 2010 by Shwa

[jbg]

Nice try. It "threads back" to your brutal attempt at irony and all that flinching when I asked you to define "these people." Leave Argus out of it.

Now that you've made and finished the personal attack...

As IF the custom of court-directed blinding or crippling COULD be welcome in Canada? Gimme a break. That is such a weak-minded and thoroughly ridiculous premise that it should embarrass you. You want to defend a great country at the same time denying why it is great in the first place.

You like Sharia law, you'd love court-directed blinding and crippling.

"...they really should conform??" WTF? Why "should" they? Oh, I know why, because they will erode the greatness of this country if they don't, that's why. Did I get your gist correctly? You know, because someone wearing a sari or some other sort of ethnic gown, they are destroying the fabic of our "great" society. I remember how turbans absolultey ruined the country in the 80's. Damned Sikhs wrecked the whole place entirely. Ruins! Ruins I tells ya!

Fine. Then don't conform. But don't expect the "majority" culture to readily employ the 'non-conformers' at other than menial jobs. And also don't expect subsidies or handouts.

Ah, now I get it. "These people" = "recent immigrants" I kind of thought so.

And what makes you think that recent immigrants aren't "learning English, getting jobs, getting apartments, registering to vote, and totally participating in the new country?"

I can pretty well guarantee you - based on all the previous evidence - that their descendents will fight for our country, go to university and become full-blown Americans and Canadians and repay any benefits they received from state or province.

They aren't the problem - you are. You are attributing twisted ideas to them in a generalizing way. Next you'll be saying they asked for it...

I guess you've returned to the personal warpath. By asking for Sharia law to apply, by committing "honor killings" and "honor assaults" they're marking themselves as foreigners in the U.S. and Canada. Edited September 17, 2010 by jbg

[Argus]

As for Argus, well at least he admits he is a bigot and I greatly respect such honesty. And at least he has no delusions about his postion in relation to everything else. I am sure he has eaten his share of shawarmas.

I don't consider judging a group poorly due to their group behaviour to be a demonstration of bigotry, but rather, a demonstration of judgement. We all judge others, things, people, whatever, based on observed behaviours and patterns. Some of us are simply too weak minded and politically correct to apply this to people. I'm not.

[Argus]

Ah, now I get it. "These people" = "recent immigrants" I kind of thought so.

And what makes you think that recent immigrants aren't "learning English, getting jobs, getting apartments, registering to vote, and totally participating in the new country?"

Because the government says they're not.

[Shwa]

Because the government says they're not.

Citations please.

[Shwa]

Now that you've made and finished the personal attack...

I don't personally know you, so there are no personal attacks here. If you feel this way, it is the fault of your emotional constitution and has nothing to do with me.

You like Sharia law, you'd love court-directed blinding and crippling.Fine. Then don't conform. But don't expect the "majority" culture to readily employ the 'non-conformers' at other than menial jobs. And also don't expect subsidies or handouts.

Now you are attributing your twisted ideas to me like most weak-minded people are apt to do when they can't face the fact that they espouse defence of an idea they themselves feel unworthy of defence.

I guess you've returned to the personal warpath. By asking for Sharia law to apply, by committing "honor killings" and "honor assaults" they're marking themselves as foreigners in the U.S. and Canada.

Now you will say they ask for it. Oops. You already did that. So predictable.