PIK Posted February 2, 2012 Report Posted February 2, 2012 Over the remarks by the com senator who said they should leave a rope in certain cells for certain evil people could hang themselves. Well, it may be a little over the top, but the fact that 10 yrs ago his daughter was kidnapped, raped and murdered, they could have said very little about it, but instead tried to score political points by going after him. IMO In this case they stepped over the line, and that will come back to haunt them. It seems the left still hates the victims. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
The_Squid Posted February 2, 2012 Report Posted February 2, 2012 The Senator said a stupd thing... But it's not really a big deal.... and calling him out on it doesn't mean that "the left" cheers on rapists and murderers... But I have to question the Senator's ability to do his job without his personal tragedies clouding his judgement... "kill 'em all" is not really a viable solution. Quote
Topaz Posted February 2, 2012 Report Posted February 2, 2012 I"m sorry about his daughter but what he said as a Senator on a Committee was wrong and its wrong for him to be on that committee because he's already made up his mind on the justice committee. If he were being selected on a jury and said those views , he would never be allow to seat as a juror. Harper knew what this guy was like when he picked him for senator. So is Harper going down to road to the death penalty in Canada to save money? Quote
jacee Posted February 2, 2012 Report Posted February 2, 2012 The Senator said a stupd thing... But it's not really a big deal.... and calling him out on it doesn't mean that "the left" cheers on rapists and murderers... But I have to question the Senator's ability to do his job without his personal tragedies clouding his judgement... "kill 'em all" is not really a viable solution. Well in a democracy extreme points of view are part of reality too, and can be addressed by the backlash from other opinions too. He's in pain. He lashed out. Inappropriate, and others are responding. Business as usual. Quote
waldo Posted February 2, 2012 Report Posted February 2, 2012 He's in pain. and the extent and 10 year duration of that pain should exclude the Conservative Senator from sitting on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee... should exclude the Conservative Senator from being a spokesman for the Conservative party in the Senate on justice issues. Quote
Wild Bill Posted February 2, 2012 Report Posted February 2, 2012 and the extent and 10 year duration of that pain should exclude the Conservative Senator from sitting on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee... should exclude the Conservative Senator from being a spokesman for the Conservative party in the Senate on justice issues. I quite agree, Waldo. People who have lost family to murderers should be totally shut out of the judicial process! They have no right to any expectation of redress or closure! They should trust in the State to look after the matter. After all, the State has an outstanding sterling record of such responsibility! Besides, they are all too focused on their own pain. Murder is a crime against society and families of victims have no right to believe that their feelings are any more important than those of anyone else in society. Relatives and friends of victims all have their minds clouded with base emotionalism and should simply not be allowed any involvement beyond a short victim's statement which can then be filed and forgotten. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
PIK Posted February 2, 2012 Author Report Posted February 2, 2012 And turmel said canadians do not want the death penalty, last poll-62% want it back in some form. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
waldo Posted February 2, 2012 Report Posted February 2, 2012 Wild Bill, you went a long way to suggest personal pain trumps (perceived) impartiality - ya think? Quote
waldo Posted February 2, 2012 Report Posted February 2, 2012 And turmel said canadians do not want the death penalty, last poll-62% want it back in some form. citation request Quote
The_Squid Posted February 2, 2012 Report Posted February 2, 2012 (edited) oops Edited February 2, 2012 by The_Squid Quote
mentalfloss Posted February 2, 2012 Report Posted February 2, 2012 (edited) This is dumb. The guy made a stupid comment. It might have been emotionally fueled, but he should have known better. His personal situation doesn't excuse him from ridicule. He's in pain. He lashed out. Inappropriate, and others are responding. Business as usual. Exactly. And CPC are now using his situation as a cloak to deflect answering questions during question period. Business as usual. Edited February 2, 2012 by mentalfloss Quote
Wild Bill Posted February 2, 2012 Report Posted February 2, 2012 (edited) Wild Bill, you went a long way to suggest personal pain trumps (perceived) impartiality - ya think? Sorry for the "Modest Proposal", Waldo. I just get a bit touchy at times. Often, it truly seems as if the family and relatives of victims ARE so cavalierly dismissed! I wasn't trying to make out that YOU don't have a heart! That being said, I don't buy this argument that collateral victims are simply after revenge because they are blinded by their emotions. This to me seems a simple rationalization to not have to deal with them at all! It's akin to saying that you don't have to address any rights of a smoker, because his brain is fried from his nicotine drug addiction. Or like saying someone dying in insufferable pain has no right to make a decision on euthanasia, since their brains are too clouded by the agony! Justice is about payment and always has been. If there is no price to be paid by the murderer then it means there is no value on the life that he or she took! This principle is as old as man. In our own British history, there is the Saxon Dane Geld, where if you took someone's life you owed a price to the victim's family, for taking away their breadwinner. As the centuries wore on, we allowed the State to more and more take over applying justice. This seemed more effective, since the State had far more resources to bear. Let the King deal with crime! This allowed individuals to give up personal feuds and duels. No more Hatfield and McCoys murdering each other for wrongs that were past history. We even largely gave up our right to defend ourselves and our property, trusting in the State to do a better job of it than we could on our own. In academic circles, they call this "consent to be governed". Fast forward to today and we see sentences whose lack of severity seems to trivialize the victim and its relations. When a collateral victim tries to question this, they are gently but firmly rebuffed. They are treated like people who are insane - unable to make rational decisions. They seem to be viewed as an impediment to the process. To me, this all stems from an innate philosophy that has grown not in the population at large but rather within the justice system itself. The attitude is almost a cliche of "white-assed" liberal thinking. Jokes of how a man who murdered his parents and then demands leniency for being an orphan are black humour rooted in reality from those frustrated by the system with no ability to change it, like Russian jokes told by Russian citizens in the days of the USSR. I don't expect you to agree with me and I rather hijacked your post to make my point. It's just an expression of how I feel. That being said, I don't think I'm the ONLY Canadian who feels this way! I don't think it healthy for a country to allow a disconnect to grow between the values of its mainstream and those of its judicial system. Sooner or later it has negative consequences. Corrections are never as smooth and efficient as doing it right in the first place! Edited February 2, 2012 by Wild Bill Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
waldo Posted February 2, 2012 Report Posted February 2, 2012 Wild Bill, your position presumes that the legal system, and/or society, discriminates against victims of crime. Even if one were to accept this premise, on whatever levels or to varying degrees, it doesn't separate the fact that one of the Conservative Senate members overtly projects an influence that calls into question his impartiality. Quote
guyser Posted February 2, 2012 Report Posted February 2, 2012 I have seen criminals rights get increasingly stronger over the years, to the point where they seem to overshadow the victim's position. This makes me increasingly uncomfortable as well. Actually you have not seen that anywhere in this country. What you have seen is that as this country has started to uphold everyones rights. A convicted criminal does not gain any rights, only loses his mobility right. A victim does not lose nor gain any rights. Quote
eyeball Posted February 2, 2012 Report Posted February 2, 2012 (edited) His comment is a little uncomfortable to hear, but then again what's comfortable about the topic of murder, rape, and the evil people in this world that perform such acts of violence. I have seen criminals rights get increasingly stronger over the years, to the point where they seem to overshadow the victim's position. This makes me increasingly uncomfortable as well. His comment seems to align with those who hope that incarcerated rapists will mete out the vengeance that is apparently missing in our justice system. It's a really sick way of looking at the world but one that seems to be growing with each election cycle. Edited February 2, 2012 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
cybercoma Posted February 2, 2012 Report Posted February 2, 2012 I have to question the Senator's ability to do his job without his personal tragedies clouding his judgement... "kill 'em all" is not really a viable solution. And this is the crux of the issue. Quote
Scotty Posted February 2, 2012 Report Posted February 2, 2012 Well in a democracy extreme points of view are part of reality too, and can be addressed by the backlash from other opinions too. How extreme? I bet you could easily find millions of Canadians to agree with his sentiment. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
cybercoma Posted February 2, 2012 Report Posted February 2, 2012 And turmel said canadians do not want the death penalty, last poll-62% want it back in some form. The poll you're referring to said that more than 50% of people wanted to see murderers and rapists executed, but very few people actually wanted capital punishment re-instated. If it's the same poll that was posted earlier this week. You should post the poll you're talking about. Quote
Scotty Posted February 2, 2012 Report Posted February 2, 2012 and the extent and 10 year duration of that pain should exclude the Conservative Senator from sitting on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee... should exclude the Conservative Senator from being a spokesman for the Conservative party in the Senate on justice issues. So does that mean anyone who is unduly sympathetic to criminals or who wants lower sentences and extend more forgiveness should likewise be prevented from representing those views in any sort of official capacity? Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
cybercoma Posted February 2, 2012 Report Posted February 2, 2012 Let me rephrase my comment, then. I have seen criminals' inherent rights increasingly overshadow the position of their victim, and the safety of the public.Overshadow the position? What do you mean by position? Quote
cybercoma Posted February 2, 2012 Report Posted February 2, 2012 We don't do enough for the victims because the system is too concerned with punishing offenders. Nevertheless, given what you said... here we are with a crime rate that has decreased for over the last 40 years. So what exactly is your concern? Quote
Wild Bill Posted February 2, 2012 Report Posted February 2, 2012 Wild Bill, your position presumes that the legal system, and/or society, discriminates against victims of crime. Even if one were to accept this premise, on whatever levels or to varying degrees, it doesn't separate the fact that one of the Conservative Senate members overtly projects an influence that calls into question his impartiality. I'm confused. Is his role to be impartial or to represent the views of many Canadians? Is this a process to arrive at something better to serve the people or some kind of trial? Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Scotty Posted February 2, 2012 Report Posted February 2, 2012 We don't do enough for the victims because the system is too concerned with punishing offenders. Nevertheless, given what you said... here we are with a crime rate that has decreased for over the last 40 years. So what exactly is your concern? I don't accept that it's decreased. I believe, as Stats Can figures attest, that fewer crimes are being reported to police, which of course, mans police figures will be dropping whether crime actually is or isn't. Even if one says the rate might be falling, I don't see how you can dismiss the affects on those statistics of fewer people making police reports. Which would mean it's not dropping as much as it seems to be. In addition, of course, there's the fundamental view that justice must be done for a given act regardless of how often that act is committed by others. Ie, if murder is a rarity does that mean we should not punish murderers severely? If the guy sitting at the desk next to you punched you in the face, would you feel satisfied if your supervisor shrugged and said. "Well, that doesn't happen as much any more, so we'll go easy on him and just tell him to please not do that again." Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Wild Bill Posted February 2, 2012 Report Posted February 2, 2012 We don't do enough for the victims because the system is too concerned with punishing offenders. Nevertheless, given what you said... here we are with a crime rate that has decreased for over the last 40 years. So what exactly is your concern? Well, again we have a problem, CC. Many people no longer blindly trust statistics! We have seen many times how stats have been manipulated, or presented only in portions to misrepresent conclusions. Not everyone believes that crime rates have gone down. Or that they have gone down equally in all areas. Or that there are problems with how reliably crimes have been reported. Or with who and how the data has been collected and "crunched". This is entirely subjective, of course. Nevertheless, that doesn't make such beliefs untrue! Just not easily unprovable. The situation has become so tainted that it is difficult if not impossible to change the minds of many with pronouncements from StatsCan. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
cybercoma Posted February 2, 2012 Report Posted February 2, 2012 So we go from talking about violent crimes, victims' rights, and criminal punishment, but when I say that those crime rates have been falling, the goalposts get moved to say "yeah, but people aren't reporting when their bicycles or lawnchairs are stolen." So are we concerned with petty B&Es, where a "victim" finds someone has stolen the change out of the cupholder in their car, or are we talking about murderers and rapists still? Quote
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.