Revisiting the "rare level of brutality and indifference"

[Guest Peeves]

A parole board states a murderer showed a rare level of brutality and indifference, The community is struggling yet with scars and is entitled to heal peacefully.

http://www.capebreto...d-full-parole/1

Don't go near the community. avoid contact with victims or their families.

Muise robbed a McDonald's and with two others murdered three employees -left another permanently disabled.

What were the four lives worth in 1992? A bullet in the head.

Well the National Parole Board decided only about a couple of decades or so.This multiple murderer is out on full parole. He's 39.

The victims dead or crippled forever. Never will enjoy the freedom he is given. Judged by he and the other murderers to not be worth anything.

http://www.wellandtr...-of-two-murders

ANOTHER murderer, a Canadian (Micheal Durant) in the Niagara region was just sentenced to a couple of decades before he can request parole on a typical sentence here that is certainly not a life sentence."sentenced the 39-year-old Niagara Falls man to life in prison with no possibility of parole for 25 years."

That's the same sentence for two brutal murders as for the first murder. The second one is free in Canada.

Now, is it any wonder that some advocate for the death penalty IF LIFE ISN'T LIFE for murder? For multiple murder?

[cybercoma]

lots of bold, upsized, underlined and italicized font doesn't make your arguments any better

[Guest]

The only reason not to have the death penalty is the fact that many who are innocent would be executed.

It would have been nice to be able to execute the fellow mentioned in Peeves's post, but to have a law in place that allows us to do so would have resulted in the deaths of some who did not deserve the penalty.

He certainly should not be paroled.

[Canuckistani]

The only reason not to have the death penalty is the fact that many who are innocent would be executed.

It would have been nice to be able to execute the fellow mentioned in Peeves's post, but to have a law in place that allows us to do so would have resulted in the deaths of some who did not deserve the penalty.

He certainly should not be paroled.

Nope, not the only reason. Also to show that the state is not on the same brutal level as the killers, but values life. It enhances all of us to show we're better than that. But I use the killing of innocents with people who don't get the idea I just expressed.

[Guest]

Nope, not the only reason. Also to show that the state is not on the same brutal level as the killers, but values life. It enhances all of us to show we're better than that. But I use the killing of innocents with people who don't get the idea I just expressed.

I get the idea, I just see no value in it.

[Bonam]

Nope, not the only reason. Also to show that the state is not on the same brutal level as the killers, but values life. It enhances all of us to show we're better than that.

So valuing life means allowing monsters who would destroy the lives of others to live on and eventually go free? Sorry but that's not valuing life at all. To refuse to destroy that which threatens life is valuing death, not life.

However, I agree with the other argument, we cannot allow innocents to be executed.

But in cases like this, we really need an actual life imprisonment sentence, rather than 25 years.

[Guest Peeves]

I get the idea, I just see no value in it.

They miss the point(s)

Point 1 the second murder is free of any penalty -might be a mitigation in parole?

It wasn't apparently in the cited case. multiple murder one sentence.

Point 2. The death penalty was abolished in Canada A life sentence established.

It isn't a life sentence. The sentence of "life" is a misnomer!

Point 3.The criminal is set free with a "full Parole" why? Why? A multiple murderer should die in jail. Die without mercy as did his victims AND their families that were victimized again by his release.

I haven't supported the death penalty here, I have condemned the hypocrisy of our law claiming there is a life penalty. Condemning the concurrent sentence for subsequent murders. Effectively making the second murder a free crime and the victim's life/death of no consequence

[Guest Peeves]

lots of bold, upsized, underlined and italicized font doesn't make your arguments any better

Lots of non sequitur response doesn't make your opinion more worthy.

[Wilber]

I find it interesting that the board rejected the advice of their own officers when granting full parole. There should be consequences for them if it goes wrong.

[wyly]

the fact that the court sentenced him to 20yrs with no parole instead of 25yrs says should tell you there is more to the case than you know, you're making long range judgements without knowing all the details that a judge has carefully weighed and a release the parole board has studied very carefully ...

and 25yrs is the minimum sentence there is no guarantee the convicted will be paroled but there needs to be the option for because people do change/rehabilitate, murderers have good rehabilitation rates....particularly heinous murders are likely never to be paroled, paul bernardo, david thrienen, clifford olsen(dead) are never released, someone like colin thacher, single murder(wife)get the opportunity for parole...

[Canuckistani]

So valuing life means allowing monsters who would destroy the lives of others to live on and eventually go free? Sorry but that's not valuing life at all. To refuse to destroy that which threatens life is valuing death, not life.

However, I agree with the other argument, we cannot allow innocents to be executed.

But in cases like this, we really need an actual life imprisonment sentence, rather than 25 years.

And there's no reason to assume it won't be a life sentence. 25 years is just before they become eligible for parole. Recidivism among murderers is actually very low, 2 or 3 percent. But, say somebody like Paul Bernardo will never get out.

[Bonam]

and 25yrs is the minimum sentence there is no guarantee the convicted will be paroled but there needs to be the option for because people do change/rehabilitate

Doesn't matter. Someone who's killed multiple innocent victims should never see the light of day again, regardless of whether some panel of bleeding hearts thinks that he/she has changed.

[dre]

Doesn't matter. Someone who's killed multiple innocent victims should never see the light of day again, regardless of whether some panel of bleeding hearts thinks that he/she has changed.

Well that entirely depends on whether that policy is effective or not. It costs about 150k to keep a person in jail for a year which means about 8 people have to work full time (assuming 100% of their taxes are used) to fund each one. So if we really think a person whos served a life sentence is safe to let out, then thats exactly what we should do. And if the rate of recidivism for people released is very low, then its clear the systems judgement in these cases is pretty good.

The other thing is that "faint hope" makes it a lot easier and cheaper to keep people in prison.

[Guest Peeves]

Well that entirely depends on whether that policy is effective or not. It costs about 150k to keep a person in jail for a year which means about 8 people have to work full time (assuming 100% of their taxes are used) to fund each one. So if we really think a person whos served a life sentence is safe to let out, then thats exactly what we should do. And if the rate of recidivism for people released is very low, then its clear the systems judgement in these cases is pretty good.

The other thing is that "faint hope" makes it a lot easier and cheaper to keep people in prison.

So restating for clarity in what you're opining on?

The guy kills three by shooting them in the head. He permanently disables a fourth. but, the cost is the factor on paroling him?

The NOT 'life sentence" in stead of capital punishment is just an aside, not a consideration of justice served?

The other cited case of one life sentence for two violent murders of women..a serial killer, getting only one NOT 'life sentence', (eventual parole as in the first case), is an aside.

The important aspect, (by you) might be the cost of incarceration and recidivism stats?

Strange I see injustice as THE important issue here.

[Guest]

The costs can be reduced by making jail a little less humane for people like the subject of this thread.

Also, costs can be reduced by only putting violent offenders in jail. Other criminals can pay their debt in other ways.

The parole board's only consideration should be the families of the victims. The offender shouldn't enter into it.

Edited December 3, 2012 by bcsapper

[Bonam]

Well that entirely depends on whether that policy is effective or not. It costs about 150k to keep a person in jail for a year which means about 8 people have to work full time (assuming 100% of their taxes are used) to fund each one.

A few points:

1) In cases of multiple murders and other comparably heinous crimes, the cost should not be allowed to get in the way of justice being served. Some things are worth spending money on. And keeping the worst monsters among us behind bars is one of those.

2) If it really costs $150k/year to keep someone behind bars (cite? last time I read a number in that regard I think I recall something like $80k/year), then we should have a serious review of prison costs and how to reduce them. That being said, I do not support a for profit private prison system.

3) As bcsapper mentioned, we should look at imprisonment of non-violent criminals and decide whether alternative punishments would be more suitable for some of those cases, freeing up more space and prison resources for permanent storage of murderers.

[dre]

The parole board's only consideration should be the families of the victims.

No, what the parole board is a part of the criminal justice system and its only goal is to reduce crime as much as possible with the budget they have.

[dre]

_{A few points:}

_{1) In cases of multiple murders and other comparably heinous crimes, the cost should not be allowed to get in the way of justice being served. Some things are worth spending money on. And keeping the worst monsters among us behind bars is one of those.}

_{2) If it really costs $150k/year to keep someone behind bars (cite? last time I read a number in that regard I think I recall something like $80k/year), then we should have a serious review of prison costs and how to reduce them. That being said, I do not support a for profit private prison system.}

_{3) As bcsapper mentioned, we should look at imprisonment of non-violent criminals and decide whether alternative punishments would be more suitable for some of those cases, freeing up more space and prison resources for permanent storage of murderers.}

_{1) In cases of multiple murders and other comparably heinous crimes, the cost should not be allowed to get in the way of justice being served. Some things are worth spending money on. And keeping the worst monsters among us behind bars is one of those.}

Well cost is always a consideration, whether you want it to be or not.

If it really costs $150k/year to keep someone behind bars (cite? last time I read a number in that regard I think I recall something like $80k/year), then we should have a serious review of prison costs and how to reduce them. That being said, I do not support a for profit private prison system.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/02/28/canadas-criminal-sitting-pretty-as-price-tag-for-prisoners-soars

The average is actually 120K

http://torontoist.com/2011/03/a_superjail_in_toronto/

Ranging from 52k to 250k per person.

3) As bcsapper mentioned, we should look at imprisonment of non-violent criminals and decide whether alternative punishments would be more suitable for some of those cases, freeing up more space and prison resources for permanent storage of murderers.

Not gonna happen, at least not with this government. Manditory minimum sentences for things like having 5 pot plants are going to drive costs way up.

[Guest Peeves]

The costs can be reduced by making jail a little less humane for people like the subject of this thread.

Also, costs can be reduced by only putting violent offenders in jail. Other criminals can pay their debt in other ways.

The parole board's only consideration should be the families of the victims. The offender shouldn't enter into it.

"The parole board's only consideration should be the families of the victims. The offender shouldn't enter into it."

And the risk to society.

[Guest Peeves]

No, what the parole board is a part of the criminal justice system and its only goal is to reduce crime as much as possible with the budget they have.

Not rehabilitation?

Not consideration of the victim's families?

Not any monitoring?

[Guest]

No, what the parole board is a part of the criminal justice system and its only goal is to reduce crime as much as possible with the budget they have.

I know. I said should, not is.

And as Peeves pointed out, I forgot to mention risk to society.

[Guest]

"The parole board's only consideration should be the families of the victims. The offender shouldn't enter into it."

And the risk to society.

Right. I forgot that, which should be paramount.

[Canuckistani]

The costs can be reduced by making jail a little less humane for people like the subject of this thread.

Also, costs can be reduced by only putting violent offenders in jail. Other criminals can pay their debt in other ways.

The parole board's only consideration should be the families of the victims. The offender shouldn't enter into it.

And yet, Norway, which has very humane prisons focused on rehabilitation has a far lower recidivism rate than Canada, and their "club Med" prison has the lowest of all. That saves way more money than going back to Victorian era prisons. Most prisoners will get out eventually, treating them like animals will just make then act like animals when they get out. I have no problem with having prisoners work for their keep, in fact it's a very good idea. That might save some money.

As for the third sentence, one of the less intelligent statements I've seen on this forum. We're going to copy Saudi Arabia now, are we? Of course parole should be based on the likelihood that the prisoner is rehabilitated.

Edited December 3, 2012 by Canuckistani

[Guest]

And yet, Norway, which has very humane prisons focused on rehabilitation has a far lower recidivism rate than Canada, and their "club Med" prison has the lowest of all. That saves way more money than going back to Victorian era prisons. Most prisoners will get out eventually, treating them like animals will just make then act like animals when they get out. I have no problem with having prisoners work for their keep, in fact it's a very good idea. That might save some money.

As for the third sentence, one of the less intelligent statements I've seen on this forum. We're going to copy Saudi Arabia now, are we? Of course parole should be based on the likelihood that the prisoner is rehabilitated.

Yes, I already had that pointed out to me. Sorry about that. Risk to society, and the feelings of the victims.

[Guest Peeves]

Well cost is always a consideration, whether you want it to be or not.

http://www.calgarysu...prisoners-soars

The average is actually 120K

http://torontoist.co...ail_in_toronto/

Ranging from 52k to 250k per person.

Not gonna happen, at least not with this government. Manditory minimum sentences for things like having 5 pot plants are going to drive costs way up.

There are certainly laws that need be considered and then on experience reconsidered. The pot issue is one I can think of off hand.

Trouble is for ignored at times in the cost of crime is the entire cost.

The prosecution, the legal, the victims, the injury, the insurance, the appeals, the appeals, the police, the judges, the courts, the impact and costs to families both in monies and pain. The parole system, the families-kids-.

Then there's the housing of the criminal

For a generation or more, under the watch of varied governments, there has been a terrible shortage of jail space.So bad that convicts have had sentences reduced simply for the conditions of incarceration.

Surely a modern developed country has the obligation to provide adequate and appropriate jails.

Certainly there is a cost.

But that cost cannot be leveled at our current government that wants to address the problem)S(.

Laws and the costs of crime has to be addressed.

Crime and it's impact..total impact has to be considered, but some things are unavoidable, at least I think so.