So I ask, what is or defines a Canadian?

bleeding heart · May 20, 2012

He gets 3 square meals a day while Canadians from coast to coast go hungry.

He can have access to a computer

He has a bed to sleep at night

He could get an education, learn a second language

He will be protected from the general population, unlike the little girl he brutally murdered

He gets medical care, probably faster then the rest of us

He will get better dental care then most Canadians, at the expense of the people who can't afford the dental care for themselves

He will have access to books and other reading materials

He can vote, guess who will never get to vote

Prison sure looks like a horrible place to be...

He should be in jail, hard labour for life at the very least. Human rights can be given up, If I take someone else's rights, then I automatically should be giving my own rights up. What I see here is that the little girl had the most basic of human rights taken from her and we trip over ourselves to make sure we don't by accident violate the rights of the murderer who didn't seem so interested in protecting her rights.

You're saying that he and people like him are afforded too much comfort and too many priveleges...fine, that's a matter worth debating.

I only disputed your factual error: that we are "safeguarding all his rights," when in fact some of the most important rights are being taken away. (Again: as they should be.)

Signals.Cpl · May 20, 2012

You're saying that he and people like him are afforded too much comfort and too many priveleges...fine, that's a matter worth debating.

I only disputed your factual error: that we are "safeguarding all his rights," when in fact some of the most important rights are being taken away. (Again: as they should be.)

What are some of those most important rights? Yeah he is in jail, no freedom for him. What else did he lose? The right to engage in sexual activity? The right to rape little girls?

bleeding heart · May 20, 2012

What are some of those most important rights? Yeah he is in jail, no freedom for him. What else did he lose? The right to engage in sexual activity? The right to rape little girls?

Yes, the freedom of movement, the freedom of association at will, and so on. These are profoundly serious infringements, as they're meant to be.

As for your last sentence: if you're somehow directing this to me, and trying to imply that I might be ok with such acts...well, it's an unanswerable question, isn't it? As it's meant to be. I can only wonder why you would include such an aggressively unneccessary "question" in your post.

Signals.Cpl · May 20, 2012

Yes, the freedom of movement, the freedom of association at will, and so on. These are profoundly serious infringements, as they're meant to be.

As for your last sentence: if you're somehow directing this to me, and trying to imply that I might be ok with such acts...well, it's an unanswerable question, isn't it? As it's meant to be. I can only wonder why you would include such an aggressively unneccessary "question" in your post.

No I didn't mean to make it sound like you approve, all I was saying is that we didn't take enough rights as punishment. Seems to me we are restricting his freedom of movement and freedom of association but how is that punishment? He can have visitors, I don't know how many people want to visit him but all the same he can have visitors. We shouldn't let criminals sit in their cell and read books or play computer games, as according to a CTV reporter he is entitled to get a computer as long as he pays for it. He is in jail, he shouldn't have the time to do anything, 16h-18h days of had labour 7 days a week 364 days of the year with 1 day vacation, and give him the extra day of the leap year. Make sure it is publicized as much as possible to show people that prison is not a place anyone would want to be in.

Argus · May 20, 2012

Canada is a country of change, and if you don't think so then it's strange that you're worried about others changing Canada.

Nobody is bringing 10 million here; if you use such examples, people will wonder why.

Not if they've read the thread they won't. Your own statement was

It would be great to move wherever one would like to, and it's a crime that you can't.

Change is not always for the better. That is why wise men don't embrace it without having a reasonable idea of how it will affect them.

Edited May 20, 2012 by Argus

dre · May 20, 2012

How so? Someone like Rafferty can take away the rights of a little defenceless child while we have to make sure we safeguard all of his rights?

This sort of low-grade appeal to emotion is rather useless. The fact that we are a nation of laws where both the accused and convicted have legal rights, and the government has to follow the rules actually DECREASES the number of attacks on children, and the ammount of crime in general.

Signals.Cpl · May 21, 2012

This sort of low-grade appeal to emotion is rather useless. The fact that we are a nation of laws where both the accused and convicted have legal rights, and the government has to follow the rules actually DECREASES the number of attacks on children, and the ammount of crime in general.

Seems to me that the criminal has a lot more rights then the victim.

the government has to follow the rules actually DECREASES the number of attacks on children, and the ammount of crime in general.

Any source on this? As in supporting the way Canada caters to the criminals every need.

What It comes down to is that every time someone says its time to get tough on crime people get up in arms and start spewing BS about protect the prisoners from harsher sentences and such, but no one thinks about protecting the victims. And by tough on crime I don't mean arresting the kid with a little weed on him, that could easily be solved by some community service time. By getting tough on crime I mean those people who don't seem to get they live in a civilized society, like those that are violent and/or those that cause great hardship to the victim even if not violent eg. Financial scams that take the lifesavings of people. We need to stop worrying about the rights of the criminals ad start worrying about the rights of the victims and the rights of the average citizen to be protected from criminals.

Tilter · May 21, 2012

Does the bolded bit refer to abortion?

No, it refers to killers like Rafferty, bernardo & Homolka.

We have people like you to demonstrate against the mothers-to-be right to abortion and even to institute the possibility of murdering Doctors who assist in abortion rights.

I am not a proponent of abortion but then I've never been a penniless and abandoned teen whose parents have deserted their responsibility nor have I ever been pregnant because of some dirty sonofabitch's inability to obtain sex in any way but rape.

Tilter · May 21, 2012

Nothing veiled. I support immigration, selective not by race, creed or religion, but whether or not they will be productive members rather than a continued cost.

You are the one using name calling, a genetic weakness no doubt.

Another condition should be applied to any immigrant's ability to become a Canadian after the proper period and that condition is that they have become "Canadianized" to the point that they are fluent in an official Canadian language, have supported themselves and family and have learned about their new country--- Note "their new country"-- which excludes any other country as a "home" country.

Another condition should be that they have NOT committed any felony in their stay.

Any variation from this condition should, without variation lead upon conviction, to a plane ticket to their Old/New home country with a stay in Maximum security conditions till they board the plane. this would insure that no more Canadian money would be necessary for his/her support.

Tilter · May 21, 2012

I was born on Earth. I'm a human being.

Wouldn't that be an "Earthanian?" :lol: :lol:

Tilter · May 21, 2012

Seems to me that the criminal has a lot more rights then the victim.

Any source on this? As in supporting the way Canada caters to the criminals every need.

What It comes down to is that every time someone says its time to get tough on crime people get up in arms and start spewing BS about protect the prisoners from harsher sentences and such, but no one thinks about protecting the victims. And by tough on crime I don't mean arresting the kid with a little weed on him, that could easily be solved by some community service time. By getting tough on crime I mean those people who don't seem to get they live in a civilized society, like those that are violent and/or those that cause great hardship to the victim even if not violent eg. Financial scams that take the lifesavings of people. We need to stop worrying about the rights of the criminals ad start worrying about the rights of the victims and the rights of the average citizen to be protected from criminals.

One example of this is the propensity for Canadian courts to impose Concurrent sentences. Rafferty, under a consecutive sentencing situation would be eligible for parole, not in 2034 but rather 2047, at which time- Victoria Stafford would be still serving her sentence of death by scumbag.

Edited May 21, 2012 by Tilter

madmax · May 21, 2012

How so? Someone like Rafferty can take away the rights of a little defenceless child while we have to make sure we safeguard all of his rights?

You would be more comfortable if our legal system had a similar approach to sharia law and pashtoonwali.

Jack Weber · May 21, 2012

You would be more comfortable if our legal system had a similar approach to sharia law and pashtoonwali.

I will be eagerly awaiting the response to that question....

bleeding heart · May 21, 2012

Madmax makes an interesting point, and it bears thinking on for advocates of "harsher prison time."

What is the proper level? Is three meals a day too generous? Why or why not? Would officially-proscribed beatings and torture be acceptable? If not, why not? If yet, to what limits?

The remarks are always presented as "common sense," and yet plainly there is a lot to discuss if we're going to go that route.

Further, what if our prisons were as these folks say they should be...and many poeple started insisting it wasn't harsh enough, and that these so-called "tough on prisoners" advocates were simply being too weak, the bunch of bleeding hearts?

What then?

Edited May 21, 2012 by bleeding heart

Signals.Cpl · May 21, 2012

You would be more comfortable if our legal system had a similar approach to sharia law and pashtoonwali.

I would be more comfortable with a stronger law that puts away the people who commit violent crimes and make them regret the decision. We need laws that reflect the crime, if not death then decades of hard labour for the criminal. I am uncomfortable with the knowledge that we are looking after the rights of murderers and rapists while they couldn't care less.

It does not necessarily need to go from coddling the criminals to executing them for trivial matters. There is a middle ground where you commit a crime, you do the time that is appropriate for the crime in question.

eyeball · May 21, 2012

Further, what if our prisons were as these folks say they should be...and many poeple started insisting it wasn't harsh enough, and that these so-called "tough on prisoners" advocates were simply being too weak, the bunch of bleeding hearts?

What then?

I think today's right wing is more of a direction than a place. Take Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Rob Nichols who said "we're just getting started" for example.

Signals.Cpl · May 21, 2012

Madmax makes an interesting point, and it bears thinking on for advocates of "harsher prison time."

What is the proper level? Is three meals a day too generous? Why or why not? Would officially-proscribed beatings and torture be acceptable? If not, why not? If yet, to what limits?

The remarks are always presented as "common sense," and yet plainly there is a lot to discuss if we're going to go that route.

Further, what if our prisons were as these folks say they should be...and many poeple started insisting it wasn't harsh enough, and that these so-called "tough on prisoners" advocates were simply being too weak, the bunch of bleeding hearts?

What then?

Some people are just unfit to live in a civilized society, and can never be rehabilitated, execution for those individuals is the way to go. Hard labour for the duration of your sentence might prevent some people from committing crimes. And simply keeping criminals who are still a danger to society in jail. If a pedophile has committed a crime and done the sentence but the authorities are certain he is going to reoffend, whose rights do we protect? The criminal or the soon to be victims.

If we give prisoners 3 square meals a day and medical and dental services then they should work for them. You committed a crime, the government and the people owe you nothing. Everything that a criminal gets is due to the goodwill of the people. Give criminals the basic necessities and then make them work for those necessities. And if you continue with criminal enterprise within prison, wether it is directly with the prison or with a criminal organization outside of the prison then your sentence increases in length and severity. A criminal abuses the rights given to him, then he loses those right, meaning if a prisoner has the right to sent and receive mail then him/her abusing said rights means that they lose them.

bleeding heart · May 21, 2012

Some people are just unfit to live in a civilized society, and can never be rehabilitated, execution for those individuals is the way to go.

I will never support this biggest of big government initiatives.

If we give prisoners 3 square meals a day and medical and dental services then they should work for them. You committed a crime, the government and the people owe you nothing. Everything that a criminal gets is due to the goodwill of the people. Give criminals the basic necessities and then make them work for those necessities. And if you continue with criminal enterprise within prison, wether it is directly with the prison or with a criminal organization outside of the prison then your sentence increases in length and severity. A criminal abuses the rights given to him, then he loses those right, meaning if a prisoner has the right to sent and receive mail then him/her abusing said rights means that they lose them.

Fine, but I think you overlooked my main points.

Who's to say you're not being too weak, too lily-livered, like some damn womanly lefty or what have you?

Why shouldn't they work hard labour and not get three square meals a day? what's wrong with bread and water? Why three meals a day?

Is there a reason?

Why can't they live in worse conditions than you advocate? Some folks might say you're coddling the prisoners with your liberal notions.

What's too harsh, in other words?

I'm not being coy here, Signals; I'm quite serious. What makes you think a tough-on-prisoners paradigm begins and ends where you deem it common sense?

Edited May 21, 2012 by bleeding heart

dre · May 21, 2012

Some people are just unfit to live in a civilized society, and can never be rehabilitated, execution for those individuals is the way to go.

:lol:

TimG · May 21, 2012

Madmax makes an interesting point, and it bears thinking on for advocates of "harsher prison time."

I think the issue are people that perceive the life of a prison to be more comfortable than life outside working a minimum wage job while living in a crappy apartment. There may be different ways to rectify this problem but that issue is something that we should be concerned about. Edited May 21, 2012 by TimG

Signals.Cpl · May 21, 2012

I will never support this biggest of big government initiatives.

Fine, but I think you overlooked my main points.

Who's to say you're not being too weak, too lily-livered, like some damn womanly lefty or what have you?

Why shouldn't they work hard labour and not get three square meals a day? what's wrong with bread and water? Why three meals a day?

Is there a reason?

Why can't they live in worse conditions than you advocate? Some folks might say you're coddling the prisoners with your liberal notions.

What's too harsh, in other words?

I'm not being coy here, Signals; I'm quite serious. What makes you think a tough-on-prisoners paradigm begins and ends where you deem it common sense?

Most Canadians would agree that we need to be tougher on criminals, I understand that there would always be someone who will look at me as being easy on crime and then someone would look at me as being harsh on crime, what I think is that most Canadians would agree we need to be tougher on crime the main disagreement would be to what degree. So how do we reach an agreement on what that means? Through consensus as a democracy should. I might be viewed as extreme by many people on this board and in this case they might be right but that does not mean my premise is wrong.

We need to look at this as a nation and avoid the black and white arguments. For example madmax might not want change so he automatically believes that If I want to be tougher on criminals then I want sharia law. The role of the government in this case is to protect the citizens from criminals.

Signals.Cpl · May 21, 2012

There are plenty of people who fit the bill.

dre · May 21, 2012

I think the issue are people that perceive the life of a prison to be more comfortable than life outside working a minimum wage job while living in a crappy apartment. There may be different ways to rectify this problem but that issue is something that we should be concerned about.

I dont see any reason to be concerned about that issue.

dre · May 21, 2012

There are plenty of people who fit the bill.

No actually theres only a small handfull of capital criminals, and implement the DP to deal with them would be a complete and utter waste of time and money. The DP is a complete failure as public policy and you might as well just forget about it.