Justice canadian style

[PIK]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/06/05/chinatown-theft.html

I have heard he has been given a plea deal to testify against the store owner.

[guyser]

so ?

[Saipan]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/06/05/chinatown-theft.html

I have heard he has been given a plea deal to testify against the store owner.

Wrong. That's a justice Liberal style.

Regular Canadians have nothing to do with it.

Only the Morons.

[August1991]

Wrong. That's a justice Liberal style.

Regular Canadians have nothing to do with it.

Who should have the right to apply criminal law in Canada? The State, or individuals?

In a civilized society, do you think individuals should have the right to apply the law as they interpret it? That would be vigilante justice.

----

In this specific case, it seems that the thief was a habitual criminal. The shopkeeper had complained to police but nothing was done.

IMV, it is the failure of the local police (the State, to use a big word) to perform their job that is the underlying, important issue here.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Who should have the right to apply criminal law in Canada? The State, or individuals?

In a civilized society, do you think individuals should have the right to apply the law as they interpret it? That would be vigilante justice.

----

In this specific case, it seems that the thief was a habitual criminal. The shopkeeper had complained to police but nothing was done.

IMV, it is the failure of the local police (the State, to use a big word) to perform their job that is the underlying, important issue here.

I think you are right.

[Smallc]

Justice is supposed to be blind, if I recall. That means that this is justice....justice style.

[Alta4ever]

Justice is supposed to be blind, if I recall. That means that this is justice....justice style.

This is garbage, its putting the criminals rights above the victims. No wonder canadian society is such a mess.

[Keepitsimple]

In this specific case, it seems that the thief was a habitual criminal. The shopkeeper had complained to police but nothing was done.

IMV, it is the failure of the local police (the State, to use a big word) to perform their job that is the underlying, important issue here.

It's beyond that....it's the systemic problem of the courts/justice system where a guy with so many previous convictions can get only 30 days. It's no wonder the cops aren't motivated - they KNOW these petty criminals will just end up walking or get a slap on the wrist - especially when the victims have to repeatedly show up in court as defence lawyers try to grind down the system. Why there are not incremental sentences for repeat criminals is beyond me.....30 days - then 60, then 120.....something, ANYTHING to protect law abiding citizens from these leeches.

[capricorn]

It's beyond that....it's the systemic problem of the courts/justice system where a guy with so many previous convictions can get only 30 days.

Anthony Bennett, 52, the man Mr. Chen caught, has been convicted 28 times, in Ontario and British Columbia, starting in 1976, mainly of theft, possession of cocaine and trafficking in narcotics. On each offence, he served a few days in prison.

In August 2009, Mr. Bennett pleaded guilty to the Lucky Moose theft and two thefts from another plant shop. The Crown asked for 90 days in jail; the judge knocked that down to 30 days to reward the thief for agreeing to be a Crown witness against Mr. Chen.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/10/02/peter-kuitenbrouwer-david-chen-%E2%80%94-big-anger-in-little-china/

In all probability, those convictions don't account for the times he was charged and acquitted for lack of evidence.

"Oh Canada, you stand on guard for me" is what career criminal Bennett must be thinking.

Why there are not incremental sentences for repeat criminals is beyond me.....30 days - then 60, then 120.....something, ANYTHING to protect law abiding citizens from these leeches.

Somewhere in our criminal justice system handbook, you will find the answer under "rehabilitation".

[Smallc]

This is garbage, its putting the criminals rights above the victims. No wonder canadian society is such a mess.

When I was growing up, I was always taught that two wrongs didn't make a right. In this case, the victims became criminals. Forced confinement is not an appropriate response to theft. Justice isn't about how you feel. Too many people think that.

[Argus]

I think you are right.

I do as well, but that failure is endemic and longstanding. The streets of Canada are filled with the likes of this guy, this useless waste of skin tissue who bounces from one crime to another over decades of time. The state has failed both at reforming criminals, and at punishing them adequately to discourage their criminal behavior. There should be NO ONE on the street like this guy. After a certain period of time the state should simply recognize that an individual is incorrigible and lock him or her up permanently.

[Argus]

Justice is supposed to be blind, if I recall. That means that this is justice....justice style.

It's supposed to be blind, not dumb.

[Evening Star]

Quite agree with August and Smallc on the basis of the info in this one article. The shopkeeper has been arrested, not convicted, right? I can see cause for that.

[Argus]

When I was growing up, I was always taught that two wrongs didn't make a right. In this case, the victims became criminals. Forced confinement is not an appropriate response to theft. Justice isn't about how you feel. Too many people think that.

It might have escaped your notice but forced confinement is the punishment the state holds out for almost every criminal offense.

Edited October 8, 2010 by Argus

[Smallc]

It might have escaped your notice but forced confinement is the punishment the state holds out for almost every criminal conviction.

The shop keeper isn't the state.

[Alta4ever]

When I was growing up, I was always taught that two wrongs didn't make a right. In this case, the victims became criminals. Forced confinement is not an appropriate response to theft. Justice isn't about how you feel. Too many people think that.

BS holding the criminal until the authorities arrive is completely appropriate.

[Smallc]

BS holding the criminal until the authorities arrive is completely appropriate.

That depends on the exact circumstances. Justice is also about minute details that may not matter to you.

Edited October 8, 2010 by Smallc

[Alta4ever]

That depends on the exact circumstances. Justice is also about minute details that may not matter to you.

No that would be what money grubbing lawyers have made it about.

[Smallc]

No that would be what money grubbing lawyers have made it about.

Ummm....no. Details are important to anyone who isn't overcome by ignorance.

[August1991]

BS holding the criminal until the authorities arrive is completely appropriate.

You raise a difficult question. What constitutes "holding"?

IMHO, a society where private individuals can arrest other individuals is not civilized.

----

I think the greater issue is that police/judges/crown prosecutors (the State) should protect us. I am no fanatical Libertarian but as a minimum, I want a State capable of generally protecting honest citizens.

In Canada in general, it seems that governments (the State) are concerned with other matters. Apparently, they are now pre-occupied seeking ways to redistribute property rather than seeking ways to protect it.

Imagine the long-term result of such a State.

Edited October 8, 2010 by August1991

[Alta4ever]

Ummm....no. Details are important to anyone who isn't overcome by ignorance.

Here are the relevant details the criminal stole, the shop owner stopped him held him until the police responded. Had the criminal not stolen from the shop owner the shop owner would not have had to hold him until the cops arrived. I imagine your ignorance stops you from using common sense and siding with the real victim.

[Smallc]

Here are the relevant details the criminal stole, the shop owner stopped him held him until the police responded.

What did he steal? How did they hold him? What else did they do to him? Those are only off of the top of my head.

1Had the criminal not stolen from the shop owner the shop owner would not have had to hold him until the cops arrived.

You're right in the sense that he shouldn't have stolen anything. Now, should they have held him? What are the other relevant details?

I imagine your ignorance stops you from using common sense and siding with the real victim.

I'm simply not foolish enough to see the world as black and white. I'm also not foolish enough to believe that common sense exists.

[Smallc]

In Canada in general, it seems that governments (the State) are concerned with other matters. Apparently, they are pre-occupied seeking ways to redistribute property rather than seeking ways to protect it.

This is where you go wrong. Criminals are apprehended and prosecuted every day. This example clearly illustrates that.

[Alta4ever]

You raise a difficult question. What constitutes "holding"?

IMHO, a society where private individuals can arrest other individuals is not civilized.

----

I think the greater issue is that police/judges/crown prosecutors (the State) should protect us. I am no fanatical Libertarian but as a minimum, I want a State capable of generally protecting honest citizens.

In Canada in general, it seems that governments (the State) are concerned with other matters. Apparently, they are now pre-occupied seeking ways to redistribute property rather than seeking ways to protect it.

Imagine the long-term result of such a State.

The problem is that we don't have property rights, we have no right to defend what is ours. If the idiot leader of the liberal party in 1982 would have been a 'real' classical liberal we would have had property rights in our charter of rights, instead he gave us what amounts to a mess.

[Smallc]

You do have a right to property in the face of other private entities. You simply don't have a right to property in the face of the state. What you're talking about doesn't apply here.