Wilber Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 The court uses a "risk assessment" model for helping to determine parole. What's to consider? Do you think victims or their families should determine the punishments for all criminals? Frankly, I think that's just a bit silly, since they obviously can't be unbiased. Seeing as it was their daughter who was murdered, you would think it would be common courtesy that they at least be informed. That's what pisses me off about our system, the victim is looked at as an inconvenience that gets in the way of the process. Better to just ignore them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusThermopyle Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 That's what pisses me off about our system, the victim is looked at as an inconvenience that gets in the way of the process. Better to just ignore them. I understand what you're saying, it pisses off a lot of people. What also pisses me off is the idea that some in our society apparently feel this plug deserves a chance to be set free. Seriously, what does it take to forfeit your right to freedom? How many rapes and murders does it take to land your ass in prison permanently? I guess three rapes and a murder don't quite cut it as proof that you should forfeit an expectation of freedom. On top of that their is apparently concern for this sh*t bags desires for privacy, his personal spiritual revelations. Screw that, subject him to the same process that is already in place for the majority, purely for forms sake, then tell him sorry pal, its a no go, back to your cell. Quite simply he should be declared a dangerous offender. As I said ealier this was not a youthfull indiscretion, not just a simple mistake. In life their have to be some things where you simply do not get a second chance. In my opinion this guys actions qualify for that category. It has nothing to do with subverting the justice system or transforming it into a vengeance based system and everything to do with what is forgiveable, what is not. His personal epiphany, whatever it may be, will never undo what he did. It will never un-rape or un-murder his victims. Thats a done deal, as his punishment should also be. Sorry for the rant, and sorry if some find it disagreeable, but this kind of thing just pisses me off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 (edited) Seeing as it was their daughter who was murdered, you would think it would be common courtesy that they at least be informed. That's what pisses me off about our system, the victim is looked at as an inconvenience that gets in the way of the process. Better to just ignore them. Yeah, but this is the system that we're moving towards. Successive governments, not just the Conservatives, have nudged or Criminal Justice System towards a more crime and punish model. There is little to no room for assessing the impact on victims, families, or community and there is maybe a minimal attempt to make them whole again. We absolutely need a restorative justice model. What you might not realize is that this is the model that is promoted by the First Nations and aboriginal communities. The irony is that it seems Conservatives and their supporters want everyone to consider the victim, but their consideration of the victim ends at punishing the criminal. We do need to consider victims, their families and the community, but we need to move beyond the model of merely punishing offenders and begin holding offenders accountable for the damages they cause not only to victims, but to their families and to the community at large. Edited January 21, 2012 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusThermopyle Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 We do need to consider victims, their families and the community, but we need to move beyond the model of merely punishing offenders and begin holding offenders accountable for the damages they cause not only to victims, but to their families and to the community at large. You make a very good point, one that any rational person would be hard pressed to disagree with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peeves Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 You make a very good point, one that any rational person would be hard pressed to disagree with. Yes indeedy, a motherhood and apple pie response. Difficult to fault except just how does one go about We do need to consider victims, their families and the community, but we need to move beyond the model of merely punishing offenders and begin holding offenders accountable for the damages they cause not only to victims, but to their families and to the community at large. That? Accountable for the damages? How pray tell? Can the victims/families be in some way beyond incarceration? Yes they can in fact. Stop pouring salt in their wounds with interminable hearings and rehashing the crime or by prematurely without victims input, putting criminals on the street on supervised perks or early parole because of prison space. Every time a case comes up a victim suffers the pain again. And some criminals take a particular delight in so doing. See; Clifford Olson Died, September 30, 2011(2011-09-30) (aged 71) ... was a convicted Canadian serial killer who confessed to murdering two children and nine youths in the early 1980s. Repeatedly victimized the victims! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 The court uses a "risk assessment" model for helping to determine parole. What's to consider? Do you think victims or their families should determine the punishments for all criminals? Frankly, I think that's just a bit silly, since they obviously can't be unbiased. Let me speak for the majority of Canadians here. I don't care if this piece of vermin is a "risk to re-offend" or not. I don't believe he should ever be set free. Personally, I don't even believe he should be alive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 We do need to consider victims, their families and the community, but we need to move beyond the model of merely punishing offenders and begin holding offenders accountable for the damages they cause not only to victims, but to their families and to the community at large. What is the difference between punishing a rapist murderer and holding them 'accountable' for the rapes and murders they commit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 Let me speak for the majority of Canadians here. I don't care if this piece of vermin is a "risk to re-offend" or not. I don't believe he should ever be set free. Personally, I don't even believe he should be alive. I'm not a Canadian or even close, but I heartily agree. I live in a country that is not remotely similar to yours but certain values, hopefully, are universal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peeves Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 I'm not a Canadian or even close, Eat your heart out but I heartily agree. I live in a country that is not remotely similar to yours but certain values, hopefully, are universal. Let's keep in mind the criminal's rights to a native circle and burning of sweet grass etc. whilst the victims get to suffer again at his 'accommodation.' Surely somewhere common decency will prevail and a criminal will be due the punishment and sentence for the crime, not an avenue to stick it to the families. I doubt sincerely his option to the native circle was for any need but publicity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 Let's keep in mind the criminal's rights to a native circle and burning of sweet grass etc. whilst the victims get to suffer again at his 'accommodation.' Surely somewhere common decency will prevail and a criminal will be due the punishment and sentence for the crime, not an avenue to stick it to the families. I doubt sincerely his option to the native circle was for any need but publicity. What's your problem with this? How does this make the victim's family suffer any more than a regular parole hearing? Explain to me the difference for the victim's family between this and what would have happened had he not requested this religious accommodation, rather than swearing on a Bible or having a prayer with a priest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 What's your problem with this? How does this make the victim's family suffer any more than a regular parole hearing? Explain to me the difference for the victim's family between this and what would have happened had he not requested this religious accommodation, rather than swearing on a Bible or having a prayer with a priest. That's part of the problem. Neither you or the system can be bothered to ask them. How the hell would you know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tilter Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 (edited) 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. The laughable--- maybe "cry-able" way that "justice" is treated in Canada is a horror. I think that Harper has the right idea along these lines--- PUNISH the felon not the victim and in many cases it is at present, the victim that suffers because the felon has too many safeguards that refer to the criminal's "RIGHTS". If a prisoner has been found guilty of a serious crime, his "rights" should stop at the door of the prison. one of the most laughable cases was that of one of Canada's worst (arguable because we have our share of worst criminals) is Clifford Olson who filed thousands of lawsuits against the Canadian government. The financial cost of letting this murderer live out his life in prison was in the hundreds of millions--- all because of his "rights" His victim's parents had the "right" to see him hang as a result of his criminal behaviour as did the relatives of: 1 Allan Legere 1948 Canada Male“killed five individuals and infamously known as the "Monster of the Miramichi"„2 Clifford Olson 1940 Vancouver Canada Male“killed 11 children in British Columbia„ 3 Gilbert Paul Jordan 1931 Canada Male“murdered 8-10 women by means of alcohol poisoning„ 4 John Martin Crawford 1962 Manitoba Canada Male“Found guilty for the murders of three women; convicted in 1996„ 5 Léopold Dion “raped and killed four young boys in 1960; Met his end when he was murdered in 1972; AKA "Monster of Pont-Rouge"„ 6 Paul Bernardo 1964 Toronto Canada Male“Ontario man who killed three teenage girls with the aid of his wife Karla Homolka. This includes the murder of his wife's sister too; AKA the "Scarborough Rapist"„ 7 Peter Woodcock 1939 Peterborough Canada Male“he murdered fellow psychiatric institute patient in 1991 and three children between 1956 and 1957„ 8 Robert Pickton 1949 Port Coquitlam Canada Male“Accused with the first degree murders of 26 women and allegedly confessed to 49 murders; convicted December 9, 2007 of six charges;„ 9 Wayne Boden 1948 Canada Male“serial killer active between 1968 and 1971„ 10 William Patrick Fyfe 1955 Toronto Canada Male“found guilty for killing five women in Montreal and a suspect in several other murders„ We are paying billions of dollars to let these cretins live--- giving them the luxuries that a lot of Canadians cannot afford.String 'em'up Edited January 22, 2012 by Tilter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 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. The laughable--- maybe "cry-able" way that "justice" is treated in Canada is a horror. I think that Harper has the right idea along these lines--- PUNISH the felon not the victim and in many cases it is at present, the victim that suffers because the felon has too many safeguards that refer to the criminal's "RIGHTS". If a prisoner has been found guilty of a serious crime, his "rights" should stop at the door of the prison. one of the most laughable cases was that of one of Canada's worst (arguable because we have our share of worst criminals) is Clifford Olson who filed thousands of lawsuits against the Canadian government. The financial cost of letting this murderer live out his life in prison was in the hundreds of millions--- all because of his "rights" His victim's parents had the "right" to see him hang as a result of his criminal behaviour as did the relatives of: String 'em'up And for all of those hideous creatures I will give you a David Milgaard,Guy Paul Morin,Donald Marshall,and,a Stephen Truscott (who was on death row).all incarcerated for murders they did not commit. When the state kills,even in the name of justice,they are representing the people of a nation.Indirectly,the execution of the innocent means we would have all been complicit in the murders of all the above because they were not guilty but were incorrectly convicted of sentences that would have invoked the death penalty... I don't want to kill people when they come into this world and I don't think we ought to be assisting folks on the way out.. Doing actual "hard time" and limiting any rights of those who commit crimes( who have given up any claim to rights law abiding citizens enjoy) is another matter all together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 (edited) That's part of the problem. Neither you or the system can be bothered to ask them. How the hell would you know? Sure. Give me their phone numbers. I'll call them up. You don't know what I do for a living and I can guarantee you that I've asked more victims what they need from our criminal justice system than the vast majority of people in the country. You don't seem to be aware that the RCMP, government, and academic institutions in our country do actually try to work together to find out how to best serve victims. That's why there have been specialty courts created for family violence. Edited January 22, 2012 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peeves Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 (edited) What's your problem with this? How does this make the victim's family suffer any more than a regular parole hearing? Explain to me the difference for the victim's family between this and what would have happened had he not requested this religious accommodation, rather than swearing on a Bible or having a prayer with a priest. Quite simply it's a farce, it's guaranteed to get him more publicity, more exposure in the media,put more stress on the victims. He exercised his right to...what? To get publicity and raise a finger in contempt is my conclusion. As I have pointed out, several criminals (Clifford Olson types) go to any extreme to get publicity. This was an extreme,a dalliance from the norm, from the mundane, the every day appeal or hearing. It served no purpose but to get a criminal exposure. While as expected, to no avail, but it succeeded by making him first and foremost a high profile and newsworthy big shot in his realm. I'm sure other like minded convicts shared his victory over the establishment. Laughing all the while. And that's not just my opinion. it was opined by others. Edited January 22, 2012 by Peeves Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prairiechickin Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 And for all of those hideous creatures I will give you a David Milgaard,Guy Paul Morin,Donald Marshall,and,a Stephen Truscott (who was on death row).all incarcerated for murders they did not commit. When the state kills,even in the name of justice,they are representing the people of a nation.Indirectly,the execution of the innocent means we would have all been complicit in the murders of all the above because they were not guilty but were incorrectly convicted of sentences that would have invoked the death penalty... I don't want to kill people when they come into this world and I don't think we ought to be assisting folks on the way out.. Doing actual "hard time" and limiting any rights of those who commit crimes( who have given up any claim to rights law abiding citizens enjoy) is another matter all together. Milgaard, Morin and Truscott were innocent, Marshall was trying to rob an old man when the old guy turned the tables and knifed his accomplis. I have no sympathy for him. As for you squeamishness for killing, nobody's asking you to do it. I think we could have a chamber of sober second thought that would exclude the Milgaards of the system, the case was bogus from the get-go and that would be pretty obvious to any neutral observer. But for the rest of truly guilty, I'd be happy to shoot them myself as a public service. You might be too faint of heart to kill the Clifford Olsens of the world, I'd consider it a public service to put a bullet through his brain. Then we could use the $100,000 per year it costs to keep this waste of skin in jail to provide free dental care to underpriviledged children. This nonsense about every life being sacred is a bunch of crap -- the really sick ones should be shot like the mad dogs they are, and the rest of us should just get on with living. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 In my opinion, we simply cannot return to the death penalty. Having said that we do need to reform this system by a large measure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 Milgaard, Morin and Truscott were innocent, Marshall was trying to rob an old man when the old guy turned the tables and knifed his accomplis. I have no sympathy for him. As for you squeamishness for killing, nobody's asking you to do it. I think we could have a chamber of sober second thought that would exclude the Milgaards of the system, the case was bogus from the get-go and that would be pretty obvious to any neutral observer. But for the rest of truly guilty, I'd be happy to shoot them myself as a public service. You might be too faint of heart to kill the Clifford Olsens of the world, I'd consider it a public service to put a bullet through his brain. Then we could use the $100,000 per year it costs to keep this waste of skin in jail to provide free dental care to underpriviledged children. This nonsense about every life being sacred is a bunch of crap -- the really sick ones should be shot like the mad dogs they are, and the rest of us should just get on with living. It's not about being feint of heart... The fcat of the matter is that the Death Penalty frankly,is too good for the likes of Olsen and Bernardo.They don't/did'nt deserve the quick ending of their lives... What they did deserve is to be treated in the harshest way possible for the rest of their earthly lives in prison...Hard Time,I'm talking about... I'd gladly pay for that knowing these people are suffering daily rather than having their lives come to a swift ending under the guise of Justice... And again,I come back to those who would have been put to death who were clearly innocent... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prairiechickin Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 It's not about being feint of heart... The fcat of the matter is that the Death Penalty frankly,is too good for the likes of Olsen and Bernardo.They don't/did'nt deserve the quick ending of their lives... What they did deserve is to be treated in the harshest way possible for the rest of their earthly lives in prison...Hard Time,I'm talking about... I'd gladly pay for that knowing these people are suffering daily rather than having their lives come to a swift ending under the guise of Justice... And again,I come back to those who would have been put to death who were clearly innocent... I'm not much on making a sick dog suffer, even if he bit me. Quick bullet to the brain then move on to other things. We have better things to spend our money on, like free dental care for underpriviledged kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 I'm not much on making a sick dog suffer, even if he bit me. Quick bullet to the brain then move on to other things. We have better things to spend our money on, like free dental care for underpriviledged kids. I guess I'm just not as squeamish... How 'bout having Bernardo sodomized daily by a lifer...For the rest of his natural life??? I'd sleep easier knowing "rough justice" was being served daily rather than giving that scumbag the easy way out of a quick death... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 In my opinion, we simply cannot return to the death penalty. Having said that we do need to reform this system by a large measure. We need to reform a system that has been highly successful at reducing the crime rate for over 40 years? I don't get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 We need to reform a system that has been highly successful at reducing the crime rate for over 40 years? I don't get it. That maybe true,but,for those like Olsen who commit heinous crimes...Things are a little soft,short of the Death Penalty... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 It's funny how we put people in jail for murdering and torturing people, then we revel in the idea of murdering and torturing the people we put in jail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 It's funny how we put people in jail for murdering and torturing people, then we revel in the idea of murdering and torturing the people we put in jail. Did Olsen really deserve the "Feint Hope"clause and and countless parole hearings??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 Maybe, maybe not. That's quite beside my point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.