I wondered how 'it' would be abused

TimG · January 23, 2012

As I've said, I'd shoot the bad ones like the mad dogs they are, but if that's too extreme for you sensitive types

I agree with you that these "mad dogs" deserve to be put down. The trouble is I have no faith in our justice system to ensure that innocent people are not railroaded by the police. Guy Paul Morin was convicted "beyond all reasonable doubt" of the rape and murder of an 8 year old girl and at the time would have been classed as a "mad dog" that should be put down. He was exonerated by DNA 10 years after the fact.

I realize that there are some circumstances where we really know the guy is guilty but I can't think of any way to codify that test in law since we already require proof "beyond all reasonable doubt". Would a stiffer test that requires "proof with no doubt" actually get any convictions? Would it actually be any less subject to abuse by police or incompetent forensic labs?

Jerry J. Fortin · January 23, 2012

You do not support the death penalty, but you do support a lifetime of torture.

I guess that eliminates cruelty as part of your objection, you seem to enjoy the punishment phase quite a bit.

If you object to the state taking a life in any circumstances, would you also support police weapons being replaced with foam bats?

Shall we strip our military of all arms and give them basic training in the life and times of Ghandhi instead?

It is not only the right of the state to take a life in some circumstances, it is a serious responsibility.

I do not advocate torture, never have. I do advocate removing convicted criminals from society. I do not "enjoy" the punishment part, that is kind of sick in my view. To suggest that because I am against the death penalty that I enjoy torture is not merely a stretch but an outright misrepresentation of what I have said. I would appreciate it if folks would beat me up for what I do say instead of what they THINK I said.

I object to people putting words in my mouth. I don't support the tin foil hat concept of using foam bats to tackle crime instead of a service revolver. I object to "the Great One" being used as a foil in some cheap internet argument. That man is likely more man that all of us on this board put together, I respect him for his works.

To return to the point, I do nor support the death penalty because we make mistakes. You wish to discuss responsibility, that is a different matter entirely. I believe the government is responsible for every repeat offender they let them out in society, period.

There are two kinds of felons, violent ones are the ones that society MUST address.

cybercoma · January 23, 2012

The why the secrecy with this one? Apparantly a rapist and murderer's privacy trumps his victim's right to know why this is being done.

It's everyone's responsibility to understand our laws. If the victim's family (the victim here is dead), doesn't understand the parole process who's fault is that? Besides, I'm sure they understand just fine. You're making a claim that they don't understand why this is being done and you have no proof to back that up.

January 23, 2012

name='cybercoma' And yes. I stand on a position that there is never a justification for state-sanctioned executions.

Let's look at a hypothetical scenario for your consideration.

You have been given the ability to go back in time and assassinate a young Adolf Hitler, a young Stalin, Mao, Vlad the impaler, Jack the ripper, Clifford Olsen, Pol Pot, (in all, an estimated 2,000,000 to 4,000,000 people died under his leadership, or any of the serial killers like Piktin.

Would you (any of you)take that opportunity knowing that allowing their lives to continue would be cause executions, murders, tortures and genocide to millions?

sharkman · January 23, 2012

I agree with you that these "mad dogs" deserve to be put down. The trouble is I have no faith in our justice system to ensure that innocent people are not railroaded by the police. Guy Paul Morin was convicted "beyond all reasonable doubt" of the rape and murder of an 8 year old girl and at the time would have been classed as a "mad dog" that should be put down. He was exonerated by DNA 10 years after the fact.

I realize that there are some circumstances where we really know the guy is guilty but I can't think of any way to codify that test in law since we already require proof "beyond all reasonable doubt". Would a stiffer test that requires "proof with no doubt" actually get any convictions? Would it actually be any less subject to abuse by police or incompetent forensic labs?

I hear you and I suspect our justice system too. But the courts have become so skewed in the last 40 years in favour of the criminal, it's sickening. Cases beig thrown out for the most ridiculous reasons. In BC a drug dealer with hundreds of thousands of fake money plus as much drugs had his case dismissed because when confronted on the street, the cop said to him, "What do you have in your hand?" The judge said that was illegal search, so all the evidence after that point was thrown out.

There is no way in hell that was even a search. This is the way our criminals get treated by the courts so if a mass murderer's case actually made it to the penalty phase, it would be because the judge's skewed reasoning in favour of the accused had been satisfied.

At any rate, some people just do not deserve to live. Pickton is one of them.

cybercoma · January 23, 2012

Let's look at a hypothetical scenario for your consideration.

You have been given the ability to go back in time and assassinate a young Adolf Hitler, a young Stalin, Mao, Vlad the impaler, Jack the ripper, Clifford Olsen, Pol Pot, (in all, an estimated 2,000,000 to 4,000,000 people died under his leadership, or any of the serial killers like Piktin.

Would you (any of you)take that opportunity knowing that allowing their lives to continue would be cause executions, murders, tortures and genocide to millions?

Are we talking about acts of war or the criminal justice system here? You're all over the place.

guyser · January 23, 2012

The whole Canadian judicial system needs to be replaced--- maybe non-partisan elected judges who QUALIFY as judges, perhaps someone who has both served as prosecutors and who have acted in the defence of people charged with crimes.

Thats laughable. Simply being elected ,means non-partsan is thrown out the window.

eyeball · January 23, 2012

Are we talking about acts of war or the criminal justice system here?

I think we're talking about a general stampede to the bottom, on virtually every single front.

Tilter · January 23, 2012

It's everyone's responsibility to understand our laws. If the victim's family (the victim here is dead), doesn't understand the parole process who's fault is that? Besides, I'm sure they understand just fine. You're making a claim that they don't understand why this is being done and you have no proof to back that up.

The answer to this is that the felon has had his sentence to date to learn about the parole process. the victim's relatives have lived that time in sorrow, avoiding every thought that they can about the committed crime and the consequences of the crime to the family.

If you were a relative of the Manitoban on the bus, remember--- the guy whose HEAD was chopped off do you honestly think you would reflect on the crime every day? If you were the mother of one of Bernardo/Homolka victims would you diligently prepare for the parole process of the female murderer who got out after 12 years-- 12 years after she murdered 3 teenage girls, also 12 years after having our splendid "justice" system betray every law abiding citizen in Canada, do you really think that the people involved would care to dwell on the rotten process we call the penal system of Canada?

cybercoma · January 23, 2012

What's your point? No one should be up for parole, ever, because it causes the victims or their families to relive crimes?

eyeball · January 23, 2012

If you were a relative of the Manitoban on the bus, remember--- the guy whose HEAD was chopped off do you honestly think you would reflect on the crime every day?

I'm pretty certain this poor fellow's relatives think about him everyday.

But what crime are you talking about? There was no conviction in this case, no trial, not even a prison.

guyser · January 23, 2012

If you were the mother of one of Bernardo/Homolka victims would you diligently prepare for the parole process of the female murderer who got out after 12 years-- 12 years after she murdered 3 teenage girls, also 12 years after having our splendid "justice" system betray every law abiding citizen in Canada, do you really think that the people involved would care to dwell on the rotten process we call the penal system of Canada?

They did no such thing. Silly to even write that.

Wilber · January 24, 2012

It's everyone's responsibility to understand our laws. If the victim's family (the victim here is dead), doesn't understand the parole process who's fault is that? Besides, I'm sure they understand just fine. You're making a claim that they don't understand why this is being done and you have no proof to back that up.

You should read the article. They were refused an explanation because it violated the perpetrators privacy. You have made it very clear that you put the process ahead of its victims and the process puts the convicted ahead of them as well. I doubt very much that if a child of yours was murdered, you wouldn't see yourself as a victim.

jbg · January 24, 2012

I realize that there are some circumstances where we really know the guy is guilty but I can't think of any way to codify that test in law since we already require proof "beyond all reasonable doubt". Would a stiffer test that requires "proof with no doubt" actually get any convictions? Would it actually be any less subject to abuse by police or incompetent forensic labs?

My proposal - to require, for capital punishment, conviction "beyond the shadow of a doubt". This is the standard New York uses for conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence. But do allow lesser sentences if the jury convicts by the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" but cannot exclude all doubt.

cybercoma · January 24, 2012

They were refused an explanation because it violated the perpetrators privacy.

What exactly did they need explained?

January 24, 2012

They did no such thing. Silly to even write that.

One certainly could argue that point since her plea bargain rested on her telling the whole truth, they found she hadn't but chose to ignore that. Her plea bargain/sentence could have and should have been revoked and a sentence handed out as was Pauls'.

guyser · January 24, 2012

One certainly could argue that point since her plea bargain rested on her telling the whole truth, they found she hadn't but chose to ignore that. Her plea bargain/sentence could have and should have been revoked and a sentence handed out as was Pauls'.

The Police screwed up severely, all the errors fall from that.

No one could reverse the term she got without the entire system being thrown into disrepute.

Scotty · January 25, 2012

Oh right. You're one of those people that actually ignores all of the judges, lawyers, academics, police officers, and stats canada on this one. I guess when you close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears, and say "lalala, I can't hear you" there's no evidence.

Stats Canada has never said the crime rate has gone down.

It very specifically refers to 'police reported crime', not overall crime.

And it's own studies indicate that what is going down on a consistent basis is the % of crime which winds up being reported to police.

Edited January 25, 2012 by Scotty

Scotty · January 25, 2012

And that's not what I have a problem with, obviously. I have a problem with those that were saying he should be killed or tortured.

If I had sufficient trust in our judicial system that they wouldn't make mistakes I'd be all for killing him. He certainly deserves to die, and I'd push the button myself without remorse.

guyser · January 25, 2012

Stats Canada has never said the crime rate has gone down.

Really?

The national crime rate has been falling steadily for the past 20 years and is now at its lowest level since 1973.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/110721/dq110721b-eng.htm

I grant you it doesnt say 'gone down'....does 'falling steadily ' come close enough?

It very specifically refers to 'police reported crime', not overall crime.

And it's own studies indicate that what is going down on a consistent basis is the % of crime which winds up being reported to police.

Police reported crime....oi vey.

nearly 2.1 million Criminal Code incidents (excluding traffic) last year, about 77,000 fewer than in 2009.

Does it say percentage there? Oe does it say 77,000 fewer....fewer means less than.

The police-reported crime rate, which measures the overall volume of crime, continued its long-term downward trend in 2010, declining 5% from 2009. At the same time, the Crime Severity Index, which measures the severity of crime, fell 6%.

Edited January 25, 2012 by guyser

cybercoma · January 25, 2012

I figure it's just easier any more to ignore people that have no clue what they're talking about. People want to say "Police Reported Crime" data is an inaccurate indicator because it fits the narrative about the absolutely stupid decisions the current government is making. How else do you justify spending more on police and prisons and tinkering with the Criminal Code when crime is the lowest it has been in 40 years? You tell people that there's a lot of crime going on that's not being caught and that we need to be more "vigilant".

guyser · January 25, 2012

How else do you justify spending more on police and prisons and tinkering with the Criminal Code when crime is the lowest it has been in 40 years? You tell people that there's a lot of crime going on that's not being caught and that we need to be more "vigilant".

The spending on the prisons, as far as upgrades and improvements goes , I can get behind. Some of them are appalling.

The building of more seems foolish unless they mothball ones in existence. But really, now , in these tight times, it is money foolishly spent.

cybercoma · January 25, 2012

As the population increases, more prisons are obviously going to be necessary. However, changing the laws so more people are locked up and for longer periods of time, when our CJS has consistently seen a drop in crime for 40 years is a problem. It's going to create an even bigger demand for prison space.

The plan is going to end up putting more dangerous offenders out on the street. There's a mandatory minimum for pot plants, but not for pedophiles? When the prisons are packed to the brim and a judge has someone with a pot charge before her bench and another person with a charge for diddling a child, she'll be forced to let the pedophile walk free. As a judge, her hands will be tied over the pot smoker.

jacee · January 25, 2012

Stats Canada has never said the crime rate has gone down.

It very specifically refers to 'police reported crime', not overall crime.

And it's own studies indicate that what is going down on a consistent basis is the % of crime which winds up being reported to police.

Right ... all that "unreported" crime. :lol:

If you can provide a link to verify the existence of "unreported" crime of sufficient importance to warrant building new jails, please do!

Scavengers stole my lounge chair. No I didn't report it to police. No it wouldn't warrant jail time or building a new jail. Case closed. Big deal!

Wilber · January 25, 2012

It's everyone's responsibility to understand our laws. If the victim's family (the victim here is dead), doesn't understand the parole process who's fault is that? Besides, I'm sure they understand just fine. You're making a claim that they don't understand why this is being done and you have no proof to back that up.

According to the article, they say that they have been refused that information on the grounds that it violates the convicted's privacy. Do you have proof this is not the case or do you just assume the paper or the family is lying.

The law says that if someone steals your wallet, you are a victim. If someone steals your child's life and in fact, steals your child, you are not. That is a pretty callous way to look at life, IMO. They may very well understand the process, but when did understanding something automatically make it right.