Justice canadian style

[Saipan]

As for Common Law - most liberals forgot.

"The right of self defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it

has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest

limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the

right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext

whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink

of destruction."

Henry St.George Tucker, in Blackstone's 1768 "Commentaries on

the Laws of England."

[Mr.Canada]

I thought it couldn't be simpler. Why, for example, should taxpayer feed and house some petty criminal when 10 lashes would do the "rehabilitation" and cost next to nothing.

Same with dangerous murderer who will never reofend after he's hanged.

And save the millions spend on new prisons.

Try and get some politician in your riding to bring it before the house. Maybe it will prove popular.

[Jack Weber]

Try and get some politician in your riding to bring it before the house. Maybe it will prove popular.

That simplicity has been tried already....And rejected!!!

It's called Sharia Law....

Edited October 10, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Saipan]

Try and get some politician in your riding to bring it before the house. Maybe it will prove popular.

I will, after 2012.

[Saipan]

That simplicity has been tried already....And rejected!!!

It's called Sharia Law....

You're confusing punishing criminals with punishing women.

Do you feel it's the same?

[Argus]

That simplicity has been tried already....And rejected!!!

It's called Sharia Law....

Actually, corporal punishment is as old as time and was a staple of almost every form of government in the world up to the early twentieth century.

[CANADIEN]

You're confusing punishing criminals with punishing women.

Do you feel it's the same?

Sharia encompasses more than ways of dealing with women, including rules on bamking and contracts, religious practices, and criminal justice. The punishments you propose are in law books all over the Muslim world.

[Saipan]

Sharia encompasses more than ways of dealing with women, including rules on bamking and contracts, religious practices, and criminal justice. The punishments you propose are in law books all over the Muslim world.

And who really cares about that?

[guyser]

No it's not. The guy returned to the scene of the crime. It's not like they got a posse together and went hunting him.

What part of "he left and came back an hour later" escapes you?

IOW, one cannot pull the stunt like he did.

Edited October 12, 2010 by guyser

[guyser]

Do you think he knew this guy's name? He didn't. So it would be a complaint about shoplifting, and the police would do nothing.

The police know him. After all, they caught him.

In other words, you agree that the police would do nothing, that the police were not protecting this shop owner.

They have no legal duty to do so. Apart from that , relevance?

And here comes the emotional heartugging wahhhh.....

Since we've both agreed the police do nothing you're saying the shop owner should have just shrugged and ignored a guy repeatedly stealing money from him and his family.

I wonder if you'd do the same. I wonder if there was a guy who lived in your neighborhood who routinely broke into your house while you were away and stole your stuff what you'd do. You know it's him because people have seen him break in, and you have video of him doing it. And the police yawn in your face when you complain. When you see him hanging around on the sidewalk outside your house waiting for you to go to work are you just going to do nothing?

Dont believe I ever said just ignore it. The shopkeeper had tools he could have availed himself of, but chose not too. Not a bright decision.

First off, had he stole from me, an hour later I wouldnt be chasing him down the street to duct tape him, blind him and throw him in a van with a couple of shots to boot. See, I know thats criminal behaviour and would rather not face the Judge. You can choose Door B should you wish.

It really is quite cut and dried.

[guyser]

Of course he was.

Oh lord, please!

One can protect his property from theft by blocking access to the thief. Chasing him down the street an hour after is not protection but payback (fine with me just acccept its criminal too)

The theft already occured . How can that be protecting ?

This guy was a repeat offender. He came back to steal more. If he didn't steal more that day he would have stolen it the next or the day after.

....and your point is what?

[Saipan]

Oh lord, please!

One can protect his property from theft by blocking access to the thief. Chasing him down the street an hour after is not protection but payback

Is it payback if the police chase him?

The theft already occured . How can that be protecting ?

To stop it from happening over and over and over and over..... also to other shopkeepers.

Justice is FAR more important than the law, which often is an ass. I'm sure the shopkeepers learned a lesson that they waste lot of their tax money. And so next time the thief will disappear never to be seen again

[guyser]

Is it payback if the police chase him?

No...troll

To stop it from happening over and over and over and over..... also to other shopkeepers.

Justice is FAR more important than the law, which often is an ass. I'm sure the shopkeepers learned a lesson that they waste lot of their tax money. And so next time the thief will disappear never to be seen again

Any more tall tales for us?

[Saipan]

No...troll

Why do you think police troll?

Any more tall tales for us?

We got most of them. Do you want more?

[Keepitsimple]

Oh what a surprise....Anthony Bennett has been arrested for shoplifting again......

TORONTO - TORONTO - A Kensington Market fruit store owner wants Anthony Bennett - languishing in jail again after an alleged shoplifting incident - banned from the area for three years.

Bennett, 52 - a career petty criminal who seems to have chosen plants as the focus of his shoplifting - is becoming a pariah in the Chinatown and Kensington areas.

He's scheduled to appear Wednesday in Old City Hall, charged with five counts of theft under $5,000.

Bennett is accused of stealing plants from Jungle Fruit between May and July.

And he recently testified against a Chinatown shop owner charged with overstepping the bounds of making a citizen arrest.

Toronto Police alleged Bennett was captured by the many surveillance cameras in the Jungle Fruit store.

Detectives didn't get a chance to review the surveillance until last week. Police fanned out in Parkdale, where the suspect lives, and arrested him Friday.

Link: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2010/10/11/15653831.html?cid=rssnewscanada

[guyser]

Bennett was captured by the many surveillance cameras in the Jungle Fruit store.

Geez, I thought these things didnt work or the police would yawn.

Colour me surprised.

[Wild Bill]

What part of "he left and came back an hour later" escapes you?

IOW, one cannot pull the stunt like he did.

Guyser, what part of "he came back an hour later and ADMITTED IN COURT THAT HE INTENDED TO STEAL SOME MORE!" escapes YOU?

This is the sticking point. I'll concede that you are correct from a strictly technical viewpoint. The problem is, that viewpoint is exactly why so many people have lost or are losing respect for the justice system!

It seems as if the system is there so that lawyers can run up billable hours debating how many technical loopholes can dance on the head of a pin. To the common man, it looks as if justice has become irrelevant compared to those technical details.

IOW, it depends on if you expect the Law to be a tool to achieve Justice or if you think that the system is there solely to satisfy technicalities. Like the old joke about the statistician, who thinks that if a man has one foot on ice and one foot in a fire he should be comfortable!

[Wild Bill]

Geez, I thought these things didnt work or the police would yawn.

Colour me surprised.

I'm not at all surprised! This case has achieved national attention. It now has political aspects, forcing police to respond.

Call it the "Fantino Legacy".

[guyser]

Guyser, what part of "he came back an hour later and ADMITTED IN COURT THAT HE INTENDED TO STEAL SOME MORE!" escapes YOU?

No part of that escapes me. But after reading you for well over a year, I would figure you could connect the dots.

So, mr shopkeeper chased the perp down, did the tape thing, put in the van etc because shopkeeper could read the perps mind? Come on WB, spare me the oversights.

Whatever he admitted in court does not allow the shopkeeper to be exonerated.

When he chased the crook, an hour after the fact, he was committing a new crime, for one he was arrested on.

Crook steals from shopkeeper-crime #1

Crook steals from shopkeeper an hour later(even though he didnt)-crime #2

Shopkeeper chases (an hour after) crook and catches and binds etc-crime #3

This is the sticking point. I'll concede that you are correct from a strictly technical viewpoint. The problem is, that viewpoint is exactly why so many people have lost or are losing respect for the justice system!

I dont believe that for a second.

Ok, with this reasoning you are happy that this crook gets one charge of theft under $5000 even though he may have done it 3000 times.

And of course you are happy he gets 5 days jail, served on weekends, since afterall, its only one charge because "he was thinking about ,and planning", to steal from the store indefinitely?

It seems as if the system is there so that lawyers can run up billable hours debating how many technical loopholes can dance on the head of a pin. To the common man, it looks as if justice has become irrelevant compared to those technical details.

IOW, it depends on if you expect the Law to be a tool to achieve Justice or if you think that the system is there solely to satisfy technicalities. Like the old joke about the statistician, who thinks that if a man has one foot on ice and one foot in a fire he should be comfortable!

I do like that joke !

Irrelevant?

The ability to achieve Justice lies in the laying and persecuting of charges . What will stick more, multiple charges of theft , or one?

You either pick one or the other, because brother, you want your cake and to eat it too !

[Saipan]

So, mr shopkeeper chased the perp down, did the tape thing, put in the van etc because shopkeeper could read the perps mind?

No, he read the perp's action. Action of habitual thief.

Whatever he admitted in court does not allow the shopkeeper to be exonerated.

He should be rewarded and receive some of the tax money going to protect the public. Somebody HAS to do that job no one else did.

Shopkeeper chases (an hour after) crook and catches and binds etc-crime #3

Shouldn't the lazy police do that work?

Never mind one hour later. How about 20 years later on Air India and still screwing it up?

[guyser]

No, he read the perp's action. Action of habitual thief.

Moronic , but predictable

He should be rewarded and receive some of the tax money going to protect the public. Somebody HAS to do that job no one else did.

You mean the job the police did ? You really should keep up, that ignorance thing you have going sucks.

Shouldn't the lazy police do that work?

Never mind one hour later. How about 20 years later on Air India and still screwing it up?

Air India disaster vs Toronto Police.

See that word in bold above? Want to add stupid to it ?

[Keepitsimple]

Geez, I thought these things didnt work or the police would yawn.

Colour me surprised.

Guyser - you must be a very patient fellow. As the article says, he was arrested for multiple crimes committed in May through July.....but the police only now got around to reviewing the security footage. That's what these shopowners were dealing with - complete apathy to their situation.....and why?....because the courts just send the crooks on their way through the revolving door.

Edited October 12, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[guyser]

Guyser - you must be a very patient fellow. As the article says, he was arrested for multiple crimes committed in May through July.....but the police only now got around to reviewing the security footage. That's what these shopowners were dealing with - complete apathy to their situation.....and why?....because the courts just send the crooks on their way through the revolving door.

Im quite impatient actually.

Mr Chen , clearly frustrated (understandably so), decided to do a dumb thing. He too got popped. But Mr Chen wasnt smart enough to weigh his pros and cons and he was the one who had more to lose. (Hope he gets off or reduced to misdemeanor)

As for the apathy/crooks on their way angle, I really dont buy it.

[Saipan]

Moronic , but predictable

If you're losing debate try name calling.

You mean the job the police did ?

Charging the guy who did their job?

Maybe they should also taser the store owner, no?

[Wayne McQ.]

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.

Are you for real? The police arrest perpetrators, (habitual criminals), and then it is then supposed to be up to our joke of a justice system to put these people on trial. Unfortunately the Crown prosecutors being the lazy bunch that they are, enters into pleas that basically allows criminals to plead to lesser charges. Once it gets to our appointed, and unaccountable judiciary they also allows this joke to take place. In the end, they are sentenced to incarceration, it is often no where near long enough, considering the crime committed. Once in jail they become eligible for parole, (also a system comprised of appointees who are not accountable to society), and before we know it, the criminal is right back on the streets committing more crimes. Our once appropriate justice system has been gutted by successive Liberal governments, with the help of their socialist friends in the NDP, who seem have this naive idea that there are no bad people in Canada, so why the need for prisons? Very likely why they are arguing against spending any money on prisons. Their idea seems to be that criminals are going to get out of prison at some point anyway, so why put them there in the first place. Instead just send them to programs lobbied for by organizations like the John Howard Society, & Elizabeth Fry who make money from these useless programs.