cybercoma Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) How do you know he hasn't re-offended? No one knew what he was doing at the time, so how can anyone know for certain what he's doing now? The kids he was abusing as a hockey coach were afraid to come forward for years - so perhaps other victims have not come forward. How long was he living in Mexico? And why was he living there? At any rate, no one can say that he hasn't re-offended, and you certainly are in no position to determine if he's "likely not going to." How do I know that you're not a sex offender? You might even be molesting a child right now as you're posting. Prove me wrong. Edited March 21, 2012 by cybercoma Quote
Guest American Woman Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 How do I know that you're not a sex offender? You might even be molesting a child right now as you're posting. Prove me wrong. You may not realize it, but you just proved my point. Quote
Guest Peeves Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 How do I know that you're not a sex offender? You might even be molesting a child right now as you're posting. Prove me wrong. I find it suspicious that apparently after his release he left the country to coach more kids at hockey. I doubt that should have been allowed. Were there more abuse there? We likely will not know. Quote
cybercoma Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 You may not realize it, but you just proved my point. I'll let the authorities know that you should be locked up, since you're a risk. Quote
cybercoma Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 I find it suspicious that apparently after his release he left the country to coach more kids at hockey. I doubt that should have been allowed. Were there more abuse there? We likely will not know. Are you a child molester too? Tough to say. We'll likely never know. Quote
fellowtraveller Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 Actually, I recognise that it's not the responsibility of the court to protect the public or to rehabilitate offenders. Actually, protection of the public is a primary role of the court in some cases, including those where sexual predators are involved.It is the role of the justice system overall to offer an opportunity at rehabilitation to offenders, and the responsibility of the offender to take that opportuniy. Quote The government should do something.
cybercoma Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 Actually, protection of the public is a primary role of the court in some cases, including those where sexual predators are involved. It is the role of the justice system overall to offer an opportunity at rehabilitation to offenders, and the responsibility of the offender to take that opportuniy. Yeah, but you've made it patently clear that no amount of rehabilitation is enough for you. Even when the professionals say an offender is rehabilitated, it doesn't matter. He should be in prison. Quote
Guest Peeves Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 Yes he was pardoned on original charges. Yes he had a cushy earlier sentence. Yes he got another. Yes he went to Spain and Mexico to coach hockey. Yes there were many offenses. http://proicehockey.about.com/od/history/a/Graham-James-Hockey-Coach-And-Sex-Offender.htm Quote
g_bambino Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 It's the best moderately 'objective' answer I can give to you. So, you're complaining that the sentence isn't harsh enough (and, as such, serves as an example of a justice system that's failing because it's too lax), but can't say what would be harsh enough to carry justice in this case and in others so as to save the justice system. Right... I'm trying hard not to offend your sensitive and empahtetic nature when it comes to sentencing criminals. Well, that difficulty is imposed upon yourself, since I've neither showed empathy towards criminals, nor that empathy should play a part in metting out justice. (In fact, I've argued blatantly that emotion shouldn't impact conviction or sentencing.) Quote
Guest Peeves Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 Yeah, but you've made it patently clear that no amount of rehabilitation is enough for you. Even when the professionals say an offender is rehabilitated, it doesn't matter. He should be in prison. I doubt sex offenders can be rehabilitated. Recidivism is more likely. Quote
g_bambino Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 Actually, protection of the public is a primary role of the court in some cases, including those where sexual predators are involved. No, it is the job of the police to protect the public. The courts carry out justice and convict and sentence according to the law. Quote
fellowtraveller Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 People far more qualified than you have said he's rehabilitated. Then those more quailified persons should be criminally and civilly liable if he ever does anything similar again for the next 6 years and 4 months.. The only thing that guarantees he will not commit this crime again for any period is a stretch in jail that is commensurate with his crimes. The courts cannot ensure his good behaviour after he is released from any sentence, but the certaintyof a lengthy prison sentence might influence his conduct. If 350 sexual assaults gets you 2 years which is actually 8 months, it might be worth it to him. If 350 sexual assualts gets you 10 years with 7 served, there might be a different perspective on where he puts his dick. In the meantime, we all have a pleasant extra 6 years and 4 months of not worrying about this evil f*cker. Works for me. Quote The government should do something.
g_bambino Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) You may not realize it, but you just proved my point. What was your point? [ed.: c/e] Edited March 21, 2012 by g_bambino Quote
Guest American Woman Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 I'll let the authorities know that you should be locked up, since you're a risk. Are you a child molester too? Tough to say. We'll likely never know. Is there something wrong with you? That's a serious question. Because here's the thing. We are talking about a convicted child molester. You made the claim that he hasn't re-offended in at least 15 years. All you are doing now is proving that you don't know if he has or if he hasn't. Rather than admit that, you are going off on some ridiculous "you could be a child molester, I should notify the authorities" ignorant-beyond-words tangent. Now, you could be many things, but none of it would be relevant to this issue - which is the sentencing for a known child molester. Are you getting it yet? Quote
stopstaaron Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) No, it is the job of the police to protect the public. Police fail at it. Read the paper everyday. And watch TV shows. The Wire shows clearly how the police have all sorts of trouble protecting the public from crimes even under their custody. And Dexter. I know his intention to kill is to satisfy his Dark Passenger but he still protects the public from serial killers. The courts carry out justice and convict and sentence according to the law. Courts fail all the time. Just look at the shows The Wire, Dexter, Justified. Yeah, they are shows but they ring true to real life how murderers get off on tiny technicalities. Edited March 21, 2012 by stopstaaron Quote Don't ban me bro. Oh behave, I'll behave. I'll be a good little boy.
fellowtraveller Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 No, it is the job of the police to protect the public. The courts carry out justice and convict and sentence according to the law. Incarceration protects the public directly by ensuring that people who are convicted criminals, who have actually committed crimes, are unable to do it again for a specified time. The police do nothing of the sort, they mostly investigate crime and react to acts already committed. That does not protect the public, except in the sense that criminals fear getting caught. The cops cannot punish or really protcet since what they do is after the fact, they only collect evidence for the courts to act upon. Incarceration does protect the public, though it sometimes does the opposite for prison staff and other inmates. Quote The government should do something.
Guest American Woman Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 What was your point? [ed.: c/e] I see you edited your really ignorant response for one that's slightly better. My point, if you really need it spelled out for you, is that Cybercoma doesn't know whether or not James has re-offended in the past 15+ years. Quote
stopstaaron Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 This man deserves to die, not do 2 years. Quote Don't ban me bro. Oh behave, I'll behave. I'll be a good little boy.
dre Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 I already admitted that my initial comment was offside and was intended to emphasize the ineffectiveness of a sentence like this to rehabilitate. I'm not holding this case and sentence as the system's failure to avenge the victim, I'm using it as a talking point to debate the issue of effective and proper sentencing. I understand you feel that overall, the system is effective in rehabilitation and public safety. I don't. Based on what? I feel that Canada is one of the safest places in the world. The system isnt perfect of course, but its pretty good. I dont want to pay more money to make it better especially on thinks like mandatory sentencing that make no sense and dont work. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
cybercoma Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 The only thing that guarantees he will not commit this crime again for any period is a stretch in jail that is commensurate with his crimes.There were 4 people that claim he sexually assaulted them. He received 3-1/2 years each for two of them, served concurrently and another 2 years each for the other two, served concurrently. If they were all tried together, he still would not have been given anything longer than 6 years, which ends up being the total of what he got.The argument that you can't guarantee he won't reoffend when he's out of prison doesn't hold any water. As I've been saying, you can't guarantee me that you're not molesting children. That's no reason for you to be put in prison and that's not how our justice system works. For an idea of what that kind of thinking suggests, perhaps you should check out Minority Report. Quote
waldo Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 I doubt sex offenders can be rehabilitated. Recidivism is more likely. U.S. Department of Justice - 2002 study... 5.3% recidivism rate among sex offenders. Quote
cybercoma Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 Is there something wrong with you? That's a serious question. Because here's the thing. We are talking about a convicted child molester. You made the claim that he hasn't re-offended in at least 15 years. All you are doing now is proving that you don't know if he has or if he hasn't. Rather than admit that, you are going off on some ridiculous "you could be a child molester, I should notify the authorities" ignorant-beyond-words tangent. Now, you could be many things, but none of it would be relevant to this issue - which is the sentencing for a known child molester. Are you getting it yet? Someone's not getting the point. It's ok. Have someone explain it to you. I've wasted enough hours on the AmWo-go-round. Quote
waldo Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 I see you edited your really ignorant response for one that's slightly better. My point, if you really need it spelled out for you, is that Cybercoma doesn't know whether or not James has re-offended in the past 15+ years. the presiding judge, in sentence consideration, stated it. Your personal feelings have no bearing. Quote
cybercoma Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 Police fail at it. Read the paper everyday. And watch TV shows. The Wire shows clearly how the police have all sorts of trouble protecting the public from crimes even under their custody. And Dexter. I know his intention to kill is to satisfy his Dark Passenger but he still protects the public from serial killers. Courts fail all the time. Just look at the shows The Wire, Dexter, Justified. Yeah, they are shows but they ring true to real life how murderers get off on tiny technicalities. Are you serious? Claim: The criminal justice system in Canada is broken. Support: Just watch these shows on HBO. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 Someone's not getting the point. It's ok. Have someone explain it to you. I've wasted enough hours on the AmWo-go-round. Oh, I'm getting it. You have no idea if James has re-offended or not - and the ludicrous tangent you went off on proves it. 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.