Svend Robinson Poll

[idealisttotheend]

The poor by definition have nothing to steal. (Thieves apply "progressive" taxation.)

People can be poor but still have property. Even cherished property. Theives apply "flat" taxation as the poor have obviously benefited more from the state and it's educational, health and security services.

[maplesyrup]

I heard some statistics recently, and I cannot vouch for its veracity, however it said 10% of people in Canada steal. One in ten. That seems like theft is a very serious problem in our society, as I had no idea it was that high.

If we seriously address the issues of poverty, such as finding a way to get more motivated teachers who will spend the time with those in difficulty in high school, rebuiding an A-1 apprentice program, and making education tuition free etc., we could probably make large inroads into solving the problem of theft in Canada. It won't solve all the problems but it would make a good dent.

It is pointless to stream all high school students towards university. Most don't complete it. We need to raise the profile of skilled labour in our country, so that blue collar workers are provided with more respect. I think it would be kind of neat to have a welder as our next prime minister.

Part of it is that people need to be convinced they live in a fair system. Now how do we define fair?

I am intrigued by this new approach of having the perpetrator face the people he abused, and having the two parties work out a retribution process. When you put real people up as the victims, and not some faceless person, it must have more of an impact on the person who did the dirty deed.

It seems nuts that we have such high rates of unemployment and yet we had to import skilled workers recently in BC. Sounds like our current BC government, which has contributed to the decimation of the apprentice program, have no sense of direction except greed for their financial supporters. A big total screwup.

[JWayne625]

Admitting the theft does not cancel it out, and for most people who commit a theft of that value they would at the very least end up with a criminal record, even if they are not sentenced to incarceration. Why should Svend be treated any differently? So yes, let's let the punishment fit the crime, and let's treat him like any other thief who steals something worth that much money!

How is anyone supposed to take our justice system seriously, if someone with political pull can be let off with a virtual slap on the wrist as Svend has been? The point is that HE IS A THIEF, and thieves should be punished. I'm sure the only reason he didn't run for office in the last election is that he was facing possible criminal charges, but now since he has been let off the hook because of his social standing as an MP, it would not surprise me in the least to see him running again when the next election is called. Just what we need in Ottawa, another thief! In fact, someone who is an elected Member of Parliament should be held to a higher standard because of the fact that they hold a position of trust.

[Black Dog]

Admitting the theft does not cancel it out, and for most people who commit a theft of that value they would at the very least end up with a criminal record, even if they are not sentenced to incarceration. Why should Svend be treated any differently? So yes, let's let the punishment fit the crime, and let's treat him like any other thief who steals something worth that much money!

Not only did he admit the theft, he turned himself in to face charges (charges that the auction house-the victim-didn't want to go ahead with), demonstrated what the court deemed an appropriate level of remorse and resigned his public position. Not only that, given that it was his first offence and the merchandise was returned, what would be the point in pursuing this further?

"I'm satisfied that what he has gone through is enough. He's fallen a long way and embarrassed himself," said B.C. provincial court Judge Ronald Fratkin.

...

The outcome was "appropriate," Crown spokesperson Geoff Gaul said.

Now, I'd like to see some real evidence that the result (One year's probation, continuing psychiatric counselling and100 hours of community service) stems from his standing as a public figure.

More than likely, the circumstances around the theft and subsequent actions by Robinson had more to do with the result than his "social standing".

[Stoker]

Part of it is that people need to be convinced they live in a fair system. Now how do we define fair?

What "fair system"? Life isn't fair.........you get out of it, what you put into it.......simple as that.

Why should some slacker in high school be given the same opportunities as a student that works hard?

Do we really want this slacker given free post secondary education so he or she could become a *insert professional job title*, when they didn't really work towards it?

I am intrigued by this new approach of having the perpetrator face the people he abused, and having the two parties work out a retribution process. When you put real people up as the victims, and not some faceless person, it must have more of an impact on the person who did the dirty deed.

Is that program called "restorative justice"? If thats what your talking about, I too am in favor of that, but only in cases involving minor crimes (ie vandalism), commited by youths.

It seems nuts that we have such high rates of unemployment and yet we had to import skilled workers recently in BC. Sounds like our current BC government, which has contributed to the decimation of the apprentice program, have no sense of direction except greed for their financial supporters. A big total screwup

I've been a part of the apprentice program in BC for the last 4 years (on again off again) and I've yet to see any problems with it........infact, from talking with many trades men and women, they say it's now more fexlable then it was when they went through it. The only people that I've heard (and I experienced briefly) have a problem with trades in BC, are those that are members in a Union.

Whats your problem with trades in BC?

Not only did he admit the theft, he turned himself in to face charges (charges that the auction house-the victim-didn't want to go ahead with), demonstrated what the court deemed an appropriate level of remorse and resigned his public position. Not only that, given that it was his first offence and the merchandise was returned, what would be the point in pursuing this further?

I agree, and only because I don't see a reason why taxpayers should be forced to waste anymore money on this bozo. Give him his slap on the wrist, and send him off on his merry way.

[KrustyKidd]

Not only did he admit the theft, he turned himself in to face charges (charges that the auction house-the victim-didn't want to go ahead with), demonstrated what the court deemed an appropriate level of remorse and resigned his public position.

It was my understanding that he was notified by somebody that he had been recorded taking the ring. It was then that he 'did the honerable thing.' Before it was done for him.

Not only that, given that it was his first offence and the merchandise was returned, what would be the point in pursuing this further?

What if I did it?

They locked up Lattimer for twelve years, not like he was going to go on a killing spree if he was out of prison, so what is the point? Detterence? What?

[maplesyrup]

They locked up Lattimer for twelve years, not like he was going to go on a killing spree if he was out of prison, so what is the point? Detterence? What?

This is exactly what I am talking about. With all due respect to the tragedy of the Lattimer family, it is absurd to compare taking someone's ring to killing someone. Svend has paid dearly for his breakdown or whatever happened to him.

Strange though, the Burnaby Douglas constituents still voted NDP, and elected Svend's long time constituency assistant. Was this their way of showing their support for Svend?

[KrustyKidd]

Maple, I'm not trying to be facitious, however, I am sure that Latimer paid dearly for his highly desputed crime. In fact, many feel that he did right or at least understand why he did that. On the other hand, we all agree that Svend did wrong. The Ottawa Sun quoted the Judge in the case saying something to the effect that 'there was no sense kicking a man when he is down.' Well, Latimer certainly was down. In his self rationalized 'compassionate action' he lost a daughter and his soul. Then, if that wasn't enough, the Judge went to town on him. A little discrepency here wouldn't you think?

Murder and non-violent theft? Hardly n actual comparrison however, the publicity of the crimes is similar as is the likelyhood of either commiting the offence again. actually, Svend is more likely to steal again more than Latimer is to kill. Where is the cuttoff line for compassion? Parking tickets? Assault? I thought the rules were already laid down so that we wouldn't have this amount of lattitude.

Another example is Keon, the Ottawa heart surgeon who got caught in a prostitution sting and rounded up with a bunch of other 'Jphn.' He wasn't punished simply because he, unlike the other unlucky saps, was a World reknowned heart surgeon. Cut me some slack. He was a horney old prick out to get his rocks off. Suddenly what you do for a day job has relevence in whether or not you are contributing to moral decay in our society? What a joke. The possibility of him doing the same act? Probable.

I am merely supporting my contention that there is a double standard here with Svend, and used Latimer as one example. There are thousands more, we all know it. If Svend had been anybody else, he would have gotten a more severe penalty, and rightfully so.

I am all for forgiving and forgetting. I would even say it is great for him to run for office again .... once he had done his time or fulfilled his 'debt to society.' It is an easy debt, much easier than what any of us would have been saddled with.

However, I wonder how many common thieves are going to use the 'Robinson defence?' Probably a lot, and with a great degree of sucess I would imagine. A few tears when you get caught beating the hell out of an old lady might go a long way from now on.

[Black Dog]

It was my understanding that he was notified by somebody that he had been recorded taking the ring. It was then that he 'did the honerable thing.' Before it was done for him.

My understanding was he knew he was being recorded and did it anyway. Hardly the mark of a professional criminal, let alone a balanced, clear-thinking individual.

They locked up Lattimer for twelve years, not like he was going to go on a killing spree if he was out of prison, so what is the point? Detterence? What?

Murder is a little bit more serious than theft, even theft of an expensive item that was subsequentally returned. Furthermore Latimer showed no remorse, believeing that he did what was right.

I thought the rules were already laid down so that we wouldn't have this amount of lattitude.

The courts have a fair amount of leeway in determing what's an appropriate punishment based on a wide variety of factors, such as remorse, the mental state of the accused and what purpose the sentence would serve. Thankfully, there's no uniform standard of punishment.

However, I wonder how many common thieves are going to use the 'Robinson defence?' Probably a lot, and with a great degree of sucess I would imagine. A few tears when you get caught beating the hell out of an old lady might go a long way from now on.

Oh, give me a frigging break. It seems some were quite looking forward to the spectacle of Svend getting his comeuppance. Denied that, they fall back on ludicrous, unsubstansiated appeals to some maligned idea of justice. As stoker said (and how weird is it that we agree again?!):

I agree, and only because I don't see a reason why taxpayers should be forced to waste anymore money on this bozo. Give him his slap on the wrist, and send him off on his merry way.

[Cartman]

If I am not mistaken, Svend plead guilty to the charges put forth by the state (not the injured party). This rarely happens when others engage in crime. His actions were reported over and over by the media which is also different than when most people engage in crime. For a rather successful person to do such an odd thing demonstrates a measure of irrationality. This is also different from most theives. Finally, he has lost a tremendous amount of respect and his bright career has been all but destroyed. Most theives have no career to speak of.

I think the sentence was appropriate. I doubt he is a hardened criminal who is likely to repeat the crime or use a weapon. Sentences must fit the criminal to an extent, not just the crime in question.

[maplesyrup]

Both the Latimer situation and the Robinson case are quite unique, and need to be considered individually on their own merits. Comparing the two is absurd.

Getting back to Robinson, does anyone know what the condidtions are like at these auctions?

When one first enters there is a registration desk and one does not go any further than that without producing identification. Everyone has to register, and often one is required to leave one's driver's licence at the registration desk. It is returned when you leave. You must register because it is at the registration desk one receives one's bidding card - usually a piece of cardboard or plastic with a number on it.

There are security cameras usually trained on the security desk as well as on areas such as the expensive jewellery. Quite often the premises are patrolled by security guards as well.

The point I am making is that no one is unidentified or unseen, particularly a prominent person in society who everyone recognises. That question is not even an issue, not up for debate. So there never was any rationale attempt by Svend to try and get away with stealing the jewellery.

[KrustyKidd]

Cartman and Maple, those were excellent points and posts.

However, comparing the two cases is not absurd as they were highly publicized and easy to acess for reason of example. I imagine that I could, with a fair amount of research find a few individual stories of thieves who do something similar to Svend and see what reprimand they get and that would make a better example. I think Winonna Ryder would be a fair example wouldn't it?

[Alberta Socialist]

What "fair system"? Life isn't fair.........you get out of it, what you put into it.......simple as that.

Why should some slacker in high school be given the same opportunities as a student that works hard?

Do we really want this slacker given free post secondary education so he or she could become a *insert professional job title*, when they didn't really work towards it?

I am intrigued by this new approach of having the perpetrator face the people he abused, and having the two parties work out a retribution process. When you put real people up as the victims, and not some faceless person, it must have more of an impact on the person who did the dirty deed.

Is that program called "restorative justice"? If thats what your talking about, I too am in favor of that, but only in cases involving minor crimes (ie vandalism), commited by youths.

It seems nuts that we have such high rates of unemployment and yet we had to import skilled workers recently in BC. Sounds like our current BC government, which has contributed to the decimation of the apprentice program, have no sense of direction except greed for their financial supporters. A big total screwup

I've been a part of the apprentice program in BC for the last 4 years (on again off again) and I've yet to see any problems with it........infact, from talking with many trades men and women, they say it's now more fexlable then it was when they went through it. The only people that I've heard (and I experienced briefly) have a problem with trades in BC, are those that are members in a Union.

Whats your problem with trades in BC?

Not only did he admit the theft, he turned himself in to face charges (charges that the auction house-the victim-didn't want to go ahead with), demonstrated what the court deemed an appropriate level of remorse and resigned his public position. Not only that, given that it was his first offence and the merchandise was returned, what would be the point in pursuing this further?

I agree, and only because I don't see a reason why taxpayers should be forced to waste anymore money on this bozo. Give him his slap on the wrist, and send him off on his merry way.

Unfortunatly, more often that not you get out of life what your social net (family and friends) had to put into it FOR you, rather than what you yourself put in.

Why should some slacker in high school be "given" the same oppurtunities as a student that works hard simply because his/her family is wealthy?

I find it highly ironic that you begin by stating that "life isn't fair" and then go on to invoke 2 appeals to fairness in the same post.

Why shouldn't you pay for someone elses education?

[Stoker]

Unfortunatly, more often that not you get out of life what your social net (family and friends) had to put into it FOR you, rather than what you yourself put in.

So? Some people have it easier and some don't.......remember that part about life being fair?

Why should some slacker in high school be "given" the same oppurtunities as a student that works hard simply because his/her family is wealthy?

Are you saying that only "rich" people work hard?

I'll ask again, why should the slacker be given the free ride? Also if there is no incentive to work hard, how do we know that the numbers of students that apply themselves in school (or life) won't decline?

I find it highly ironic that you begin by stating that "life isn't fair" and then go on to invoke 2 appeals to fairness in the same post.

Where's the irony exactly? Life isn't fair.......but that doesn't mean that anybody (that I know of) wants to make it harder

So I ask again, why should my tax dollars go towards an investment (a post secondary education) for somebody that is just "going through the motions", if that?

Why shouldn't you pay for someone elses education?

I don't mind my tax dollars going towards any persons basic, grade 1-12 education, since that will give a person the basic tools to go in whatever direction that there life might take.

After that, education is an investment in ones future, and the definition of the word investment is "the outlay of money usually for income or profit". In this case, the profit is a person that will benefit society.

So I ask you this, do you make it a habit to throw good money after bad?

[DAC]

Maple Syrup :

What's the big deal here anyways, apart from the fact that Svend is the left wing politician that most right wingers love to hate. 

The issue has nothing to do with my view of Svend, his politics or his sex life. No question, I’m what most people call right wing. But the issue is justice. Svend should get no more, and no less than any other person who commits the same crime. I think it’s clear that he got off lightly on that standard. Theloniusfleabag’s crack dealers also have the money to hire good lawyers. (Note that Svend had one of the best known Canadian criminal lawyers on his side!) Consequently they’re released promptly. The poor worker who did the same thing would be dumped on.

theloniusfleabag

Derar DAC and August1991,

I own a business in a part of town rife with crack-cocaine, stabbings, prostitution and you name it. I see crack dealers occasionally get arrested and be back on the streets within hours....

I overheard of fellow(who looked like he was recently kicked out of the Hell's Angels for looking like a psycho) state to someone else,"It's great now, I can pretty much do anything I want and all they (justice) do is give me counselling!"

I cannot see Svend earning greater punishment than this person. The Canadian Justice system needs a swift kick in the pants, but Sven, idiot though he may be, deserves the typical punishment, which is unfortunately not much. 

I agree that our justice system needs a kick in the pants. I even agree with MS that property crimes should be treated differently than violent crimes. I don’t go for “decriminalizing” them. Lots of people have pointed out the problem with that. But make them costly; make people know they don’t pay. Restitution (100%) should only be the beginning. I’d suggest triple or quadruple restitution, so the thief loses even what he or she presumably got through other, more successful thefts. Only those who will not get a job and pay back should be imprisoned; and they should be put to work, with their earnings sent to pay back their victim. The prison term, of course, would last until they had paid back completely, and incidentally, learned to earn a living for themselves.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Well, I voted that 'justice was served', but that's only part of the story. I think Svend was treated appropriatedly, but repudiate the manner in which the judiciary often holds two standards of justice. Svend and other dignitarians who get themselves into trouble obtain a special status called, in law, 'punished enough'.

(Ah, the Punished Enough! To be among this elite category, you must commit an greivous wrong, such that in a lesser person would result in a sentence to hard time. But you must do so from a position of such grace and influence that to lose it is deemed (by your fellows who still have it) to be so terrible that no more harm must be permitted to come to you.)

No, the problem wasn't that Svend was given community service and a conditional discharge, the problem is that someone of lesser stature might well have been punished too harshly in similar circumstances.

[JWayne625]

SVEND ROBINSON WANTS TO RETURN TO LAW

Svend Robinson, who pleaded guilty to stealing a $21,500 ring at an auction in April, has applied for re-admission to the Law Society of B.C.

Now there is a dose of justice Canadian style. Here we have an admitted thief, and he now wants to be accepted back into the BC Law Society, why does this not surprise me? One thing he won't be able to say to a perspective client about to be sentenced is I know how you feel, because in all likelihood his client is probably going to be going to jail.