Lax sentencing for criminals

[Wild Bill]

Fear of retribution has little to do with behaviour.

I dunno, Molly. Only a true sociopath would consistently act with no thought to the consequences. It makes more sense to me that if the expectation of being caught is very low, and if you are caught you can expect hearings over a couple years, with the potential punishment being reduced at every such step, finally ending up with "time served" while waiting counted at some multiplier of regular time...wouldn't it only be logical for someone inclined to crime to think it's worth the risk?

Fear of retribution is a basic and natural fear. However, there is a difference between sucker-punching someone bigger than you and a retribution that can drag on for months if not years before it's enacted. Psychologists have long proven that part of the development of the human brain deals with the ability to envision long-term consequences. That's why kids and adolescents repeatedly break rules and also what generated the old expression that "crime is a young man's game".

I'm not saying its the whole picture but I don't think we can just blow the whole idea away either.

[cybercoma]

The number of people that carry out a fully planned murder is few and far between. Those people should be aware of the consequences because of the time they take and the lengths they go to for concealing what had happened, as a rule. More often than not, even people that are in jail for murder, are there because they found themselves in a circumstance that got out of their control. In those moments, they're certainly not weighing the consequences of their actions. Some recidivists continue to put themselves into situations where they're setup to lose. I think people have this mistaken notion that the majority of criminals go out looking for trouble, when from my experience this has not been the case.

[guyser]

What a crock of crap

Which part? I nominate this part as a "crock of crap"

Time & time again the sentence for a blatantly "first degree" murder is reduced to second degree & a 3 or 4 year sentence is passed on someone who should stay in prison for the rest of his/her life which should be a life shortened by a rope, chair or injection.

You think a Crown Attorney has no pride in the job to want to get a 1st deg conviction?

They do.

It gets reduced because of circumstances that present themselves such as.....

-no reasonable chance at conviction

-violation of rights somewhere along the line

-shoddy testimony/evidence

-gamble on the trial and two things happen....walks free, is convicted.

Your call.

[noahbody]

The number of people that carry out a fully planned murder is few and far between.

That's debatable. About 1 in every 5 murders in Canada is gang-related. If all kids can see is the upside of gang life (money, cars) it's only going to get worse.

More often than not, even people that are in jail for murder, are there because they found themselves in a circumstance that got out of their control. In those moments, they're certainly not weighing the consequences of their actions.

Not necessarily so. Some might gladly do 10 years to "end the bitch's life."

I think people have this mistaken notion that the majority of criminals go out looking for trouble, when from my experience this has not been the case.

Gangs look for trouble.

[Tilter]

Which part? I nominate this part as a "crock of crap"

You think a Crown Attorney has no pride in the job to want to get a 1st deg conviction?

They do.

It gets reduced because of circumstances that present themselves such as.....

-no reasonable chance at conviction

-violation of rights somewhere along the line

-shoddy testimony/evidence

-gamble on the trial and two things happen....walks free, is convicted.

Your call.

if you walk into a bar, bank, convenience store or any business with a gun, threatening injury & someone is killed (even a pal crook of yours)--- you are guilty of 1st degree murder. The carrying of a gun into a crime is premeditation to kill thus 1st degree.

Let's not even talk about murder-- let's talk about the use of guns in crime. If I, as a private citizen, keep my revolver in a bedside drawer & the cops find out about it, under the law I am in violation of the storage laws and am liable up to 10 years in jail. People have been sentenced to long prison terms for this but there are also hundreds of criminals who have gotten 2 & 3 year terms for the use of an illegal, unregistered weapon in the commission of a holdup. The laws state that they could have been given 10 years for the weapon violation alone--- that's why mandatory sentencing would be a boon to business owners & police --- use of guns in crime would be too large a risk to the freedom to the cretins who live on the avails of crime

[guyser]

if you walk into a bar, bank, convenience store or any business with a gun, threatening injury & someone is killed (even a pal crook of yours)--- you are guilty of 1st degree murder. The carrying of a gun into a crime is premeditation to kill thus 1st degree.

No you are not and no it isn't.

Intent to kill, plan to kill, those are the key points. And very hard to prove.

Edited June 28, 2011 by guyser

[cybercoma]

No you are not and no it isn't.

Intent to kill, plan to kill, those are the key points. And very hard to prove.

Yeah, but that doesn't really fit with his argument, so he's not really going to pay attention to that. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a bitch.

[Molly]

It makes more sense to me that if the expectation of being caught is very low, and if you are caught you can expect hearings over a couple years, with the potential punishment being reduced at every such step, finally ending up with "time served" while waiting counted at some multiplier of regular time...wouldn't it only be logical for someone inclined to crime to think it's worth the risk?

(my bold)

What's this 'inclined to crime' thing? Doesn't that mean 'lacking (for lack of a better term) moral limits'?

....aka 'sociopath', as in "Only a true sociopath would consistently act with no thought to the consequences."...?

Bill, I'm reading 'threat of punishment is a good way to manage those who, by definition, don't respond to threat of punishment'. It does not compute.

............................................

We have to believe, though, that we are dealing with folks who are psychologically normal anyway-- folks who are misguided (or 'bad') rather than suffering from serious mental/emotional health deficiencies. (If they are that mentally unhealthy, they are generally not responsible and should be recieving treatment, not jail time.)

So, if fear of retribution should be the go-to strategy (in dealing with the psychologically normal vast majority of criminals and bad guys) 'cause it works so well-- if folks refrain from certain activities primarily because they rationally assess and rationally fear punishment, why don't more people shoplift? Odds of being caught are negligible, and even if caught, prosecution is extremely unlikely.... so it makes good sense to lightfinger pretty much anything you want or need.

Meh. Folks don't, because their behaviour relies on many more, and more important factors than 'fear of retribution'. Fear of retribution is not entirely irrelevant to behaviour, but it's very close.

[noahbody]

Meh. Folks don't, because their behaviour relies on many more, and more important factors than 'fear of retribution'. Fear of retribution is not entirely irrelevant to behaviour, but it's very close.

Do you just make this stuff up? Fear is a powerful motivator. There aren't too many parents who don't fear child abduction for example. This strongly influences behavior. Not only is there a fear of loss of a loved one, but fear of being seen as a bad parent. The problem with our society today is that no one is to blame. We believe that someone who'd made it to the 10th grade, isn't old enough to understand retribution, when that same kid likely never put a hand near the blades of a lawnmower as a young child, because of the fear of retribution.

[Tilter]

No you are not and no it isn't.

Intent to kill, plan to kill, those are the key points. And very hard to prove.

What is the reasonable doubt issue here?--- Walk into a bar or whatever brandishing a weapon, threaten to kill unless---- casts aside any doubt. The argument is that if you issue a threat the assumption by the victim is that you intend to carry out the threat. If the threat is real to the victim it is real to a jury. The intent to kill is indicated by your threat & the presence of your gun.

[eyeball]

Do you just make this stuff up? Fear is a powerful motivator. There aren't too many parents who don't fear child abduction for example. This strongly influences behavior. Not only is there a fear of loss of a loved one, but fear of being seen as a bad parent. The problem with our society today is that no one is to blame. We believe that someone who'd made it to the 10th grade, isn't old enough to understand retribution, when that same kid likely never put a hand near the blades of a lawnmower as a young child, because of the fear of retribution.

You're making it sound as if people's thoughts are and perhaps even should be completely dominated by their fear - it's irrational. Most parents don't dwell on the fear of child abduction - I certainly can't recall worrying about it not even a little.

I can only imagine what parents who wake up and act on the thought 'omigod where's my child' are filling their poor kid's heads with. Probably an irrational deep-seated desire for draconian vengeance systems as opposed to objective justice systems later on in life.

[guyser]

What is the reasonable doubt issue here?--- Walk into a bar or whatever brandishing a weapon, threaten to kill unless---- casts aside any doubt.

One may think that, but it has to be proven that the person walked into that bar to kill instead of just rob.

It is the reason why we have different layers of murder, intent is very hard to prove.

The argument is that if you issue a threat the assumption by the victim is that you intend to carry out the threat. If the threat is real to the victim it is real to a jury. The intent to kill is indicated by your threat & the presence of your gun.

Not in the slightest.

The intent to the victim is in many ways immaterial ergo same for the jury. It has to be proven beyond any reasonable doubt and once again , that is hard to do.

The part in italics is not correct either.The presence of a gun is no way an intent to kill.

If you had a gun (legal or not) and someone was rooting around in your garage at night, would you grab the gun to kill that person ?

[noahbody]

You're making it sound as if people's thoughts are and perhaps even should be completely dominated by their fear - it's irrational.

I'm saying it influences behavior. If you lived in a community where there was little risk that 'fear' might have little motivational power. If a pedophile moved next door, I'd expect the fear would significantly affect your behaviour. If the retribution is real and meaningful such as losing a hand in a mover or having one chopped off for stealing in a foreign country, it'll be effective.

[Tilter]

One may think that, but it has to be proven that the person walked into that bar to kill instead of just rob.

It is the reason why we have different layers of murder, intent is very hard to prove.

Not in the slightest.

The intent to the victim is in many ways immaterial ergo same for the jury. It has to be proven beyond any reasonable doubt and once again , that is hard to do.

The part in italics is not correct either.The presence of a gun is no way an intent to kill.

If you had a gun (legal or not) and someone was rooting around in your garage at night, would you grab the gun to kill that person ?

I guess that's what you'd do if you wanted to spend a few years in jail. If he was in your house threatening you or your family's your life you would have the right to shoot him-- altho you'd still have to answer to the law to show that you were in mortal peril.

imagine this--- You are in the local 7/11 and a guy comes in brandishing a gun. would you still have the same "doubts" as to the robber's intent?

[guyser]

I guess that's what you'd do if you wanted to spend a few years in jail. If he was in your house threatening you or your family's your life you would have the right to shoot him-- altho you'd still have to answer to the law to show that you were in mortal peril.

There is no 'right' to shoot anyone. Even in your own home and especailly if you have an escape or exit from the danger.

imagine this--- You are in the local 7/11 and a guy comes in brandishing a gun. would you still have the same "doubts" as to the robber's intent?

Probably, since most robberies dont result in the death of anyone.

Gosh, what if he only said he had a gun ?

[cybercoma]

Do you just make this stuff up? Fear is a powerful motivator. There aren't too many parents who don't fear child abduction for example. This strongly influences behavior. Not only is there a fear of loss of a loved one, but fear of being seen as a bad parent. The problem with our society today is that no one is to blame. We believe that someone who'd made it to the 10th grade, isn't old enough to understand retribution, when that same kid likely never put a hand near the blades of a lawnmower as a young child, because of the fear of retribution.

Fear also motivates people to commit crimes without thinking of their consequences.

[Oleg Bach]

Yeah.....ok.

If a man who is part of a group that apppoints Canadian judges...states in a growling contemptuous voice..Ìt`s the blacks that are doing it` - What would that suggest to you about the temperment of that person appointing judges..would you not assume that he might be a racist - and insist that those stepping up to the bench might have similar leanings.............question mark.

[guyser]

If a man who is part of a group that apppoints Canadian judges...states in a growling contemptuous voice..Ìt`s the blacks that are doing it`

One man, one opinion. Lets hope (if true) the others arent idiots

[Molly]

We believe that someone who'd made it to the 10th grade, isn't old enough to understand retribution, when that same kid likely never put a hand near the blades of a lawnmower as a young child, because of the fear of retribution.

Apparently 'we' are right, because a lawnmower is incapable of retribution.

'Retribution' means 'retaliation', 'revenge', 'reprisal', not 'result' or even 'consequences'. It's not a passive word. It demands both judgement and punishment.

(Unless, of course, you mean that the kid avoids sticking his hand in the lawnmower out of fear of the slap in the head his mother will hand him for being that stupid... )

Edited June 29, 2011 by Molly

[Tilter]

There is no 'right' to shoot anyone. Even in your own home and especailly if you have an escape or exit from the danger

Probably, since most robberies dont result in the death of anyone.

Gosh, what if he only said he had a gun ?

Same threat as having one under the law.

There is no 'right' to shoot anyone. Even in your own home and especailly if you have an escape or exit from the danger

BS--- Even Canada has not done away with the right to protect your or your family's life

You really are a chickenshit aren't you?

Let a guy with a gun rape your wife & daughter, murder your son while you stand there watching with a gun in your hand, debating your right to shoot that guy.

[guyser]

BS--- Even Canada has not done away with the right to protect your or your family's life

You really are a chickenshit aren't you?

Let a guy with a gun rape your wife & daughter, murder your son while you stand there watching with a gun in your hand, debating your right to shoot that guy.

BS? Chickenshit ? First off, it is not BS, and secondly I am not chickenshit . Nice scenario, me with a gun, guy with a gun raping and pillaging....as if I will stand there?

You prove with this post that you are very unfamiliar with Canada's law because that is exactly the way it spells out.

And now we enter into the emotional part that invariably shows up when someone does not know how our laws work.

See, you bring in this ridiculous story to try and prove a point, or rather some counterpoint to a point I made.

well, let me spell it out. The scenario above is miles away from someone in your garage and you with a gun.

[Scotty]

This comment is, among other things, unspeakably offensive.

That you are offended by the statement has no actual impact on its truthfulness.

Edited June 30, 2011 by Scotty

[Scotty]

It's quite obvious Scotty has never visited a prison, worked in the criminal justice system, or talked to any inmates in his entire life. All the prisoners that I have met were people deserving dignity and respect that found themselves there, more often than not, due to terrible circumstances in their lives.

Dignity

Respect

[Scotty]

No you are not and no it isn't.

Intent to kill, plan to kill, those are the key points. And very hard to prove.

You are correct. That is why the law needs to be changed. The moment you make the decision to walk out of the door with a gun that should be considered premeditation. Anyone who dies because of that should bring automatic first degree murder charges and convictions.

[Scotty]

What is the reasonable doubt issue here?--- Walk into a bar or whatever brandishing a weapon, threaten to kill unless---- casts aside any doubt. The argument is that if you issue a threat the assumption by the victim is that you intend to carry out the threat. If the threat is real to the victim it is real to a jury. The intent to kill is indicated by your threat & the presence of your gun.

I've seen cases where a gun was fired at a victim, the victim was chased, got away, found again hours later and shot again, and the crown still couldn't convict of attempted murder. The law really is written by incompetants and bleeding heart liberals.