Law and Order in America

[TimG]

Mandatory minimum sentencing has been attempted in many, many places and found that it just does not work.

So why do we have mandatory minimums for murder? What makes that crime so special that everyone seems to be happy with them?

[Big Guy]

So why do we have mandatory minimums for murder? What makes that crime so special that everyone seems to be happy with them?

Some people feel that even these sentences are too lenient and others feel that they are too barbaric. There are still differing points of view.

The majority of Canadians would like to see execution as an option for convictions of first degree murder under certain conditions.

I believe that mandatory minimal sentencing serve only to politically placate a part of our society at the cost of allowing a judge to make a decision based on the evidence presented. Every case is different and requires individual scrutiny.

I may be wrong but I understand that there are different levels of accusing someone of murder. I think it is split into "degrees" - first and second. Rather than trying to get into the specifics and nuances of the charge that the prosecutor chooses to apply, the final decision is still left to the judge and/or jury.

Whatever the reasons for implementing mandatory minimum sentencing the intent was to decrease to crime rate. It has proven not to work - please see my previous post in that it did not decrease the crime rate. What it did do, was increase the number of people being incarcerated, greatly increased the cost of law enforcement and forced a shift in the way our judicial system operated. Prosecutors were far more reluctant to apply maximum charges and juries tended to consider the maximum mandatory sentences in their recommendations for guilty verdicts on lesser charges.

There are ways to decrease a crime rate if a society is prepared to put money into a solution. The increased cost of increased number of people being incarcerated because of mandatory minimum sentencing is not one of them.

[TimG]

Whatever the reasons for implementing mandatory minimum sentencing the intent was to decrease to crime rate. It has proven not to work - please see my previous post in that it did not decrease the crime rate.

So what? That is not what they are for. If the system does not give lawbreakers sentences that the general public thinks are fair then the system fall into disrepute. This is essential for preserving the civil society that relies on individuals choosing to do the right thing even when the chances of getting caught are small. That is why murder one is 25 years with no parole. Without it we would risk creating a vigilante culture. It is has nothing to do with convincing people that they should not commit murder.

I would say that no minimums should apply to first time offenders. But mandatory minimums are necessary for repeat offenders. It is necessary to increase public confidence in the justice system.

Edited May 25, 2014 by TimG

[Big Guy]

So what? That is not what they are for. If the system does not give lawbreakers sentences that the general public thinks are fair then the system fall into disrepute. This is essential for preserving the civil society that relies on individuals choosing to do the right thing even when the chances of getting caught are small. That is why murder one is 25 years with no parole. Without it we would risk creating a vigilante culture. It is has nothing to do with convincing people that they should not commit murder.

I would say that no minimums should apply to first time offenders. But mandatory minimums are necessary for repeat offenders. It is necessary to increase public confidence in the justice system.

It appears to me that we are both trying to suggest a system where there is public confidence in our justice system. You believe that mandatory minimums elicit that confidence. I believe that allowing a judge or jury a large amount of leeway does elicit that confidence.

I guess we have a different perspective of the views of the "public". But that is what feeds public access bulletin boards and people to vote for a government that more reflects their views.

Thanks for sharing.

[TimG]

I believe that allowing a judge or jury a large amount of leeway does elicit that confidence.

Jury yes - Judges no. In Canada judges are academics with a value system that does not necessarily reflect the larger society. That is why it is necessary for politicians who are accountable to the public to place guidelines in place. Closing this loop between the voter and the sentencing is why mandatory sentences are necessary in some cases.

The main difference is you believe in the technocrats (specialists who know better than the 'little people'). Many people do not and since a democracy is about compromise then the system much have some elements that reflect the values of people who simply do not trust the technocrats. Mandatory minimums are one of those elements.

[monty16]

Tim is dead wrong on all counts but we must not forget that in part he's speaking for the priorities of the ilk of Harper. Canadians need only look at the complete failure of the US system of justice and compare it with Canada's.

However, I shudder at the thought of 'some' Canadians being in favour of capital punishment as Big Guy has mentioned. Don't go there, not even in a discussion! It's barbaric and uncivilized and is only a feeble wrong headed approach to fix that which needs to be fixed with social reform.

A part of the US bringing back the electric chair should now put it to bed forever for all Canadians. Absolutely disgusting!

[bush_cheney2004]

Many Canadians do support the death penalty. According to an Angus Reid public opinion poll in 2013, a majority of polled Canadians support reinstating the death penalty for murder, and nearly half still support the death penalty even when the sentence is life without the possibility of parole.

Most Canadians who support capital punishment do so because they believe that it would serve as a

deterrent for potential murderers (58%), save taxpayers money and the costs associated with having murderers in prison (57%), and because they think the penalty fits the crime (53%). Two-in-five Canadian

death penalty supporters (39%) think it would provide closure to the families of murder victims, and one-in-five (20%) suggest that murderers cannot be rehabilitated.

Edited May 25, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[monty16]

Yeah, your Angus Reid also gave the NDP 9 points over the B.C. Liberals. In any case, our system of government puts resjponsible people in positions in which they "democratically" make decisions for the people and that's why it's not going to change. The corrupt system in the US allows the people to make bad decisions and that's why the US is one of the few remaining modern first world countries to allow capital punishment. Maybe even the last?

[monty16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_capital_punishment_by_nation

Here's a list of the good company the US kept in 2010:

The following 22 countries are believed by Amnesty International to have carried out executions in 2010: Bahrain (1), Bangladesh (9+), Belarus (2), Botswana (1), China (2000+), Egypt (4), Equatorial Guinea (4), Iran (252+), Iraq (1+), Japan (2), Libya (18+), Malaysia (1+), North Korea (60+), Republic of China (4),Saudi Arabia (27+), Singapore (0+), Somalia (8+), Sudan (6+), Syria (17+), USA (46), Vietnam (0+), Yemen (53+).[2]

Edited May 25, 2014 by monty16

[bush_cheney2004]

The majority of the world's population lives in countries that have capital punishment.

[monty16]

The majority of the world's population lives in countries that have capital punishment.

That could reflect on the real reason that the US continues to kill people. Because China and a few other third world countries do it. Are you trying to express pride in the company of the 22 countries listed above that the US keeps?

If so then we have nothing more to discuss.

[bush_cheney2004]

Seventy-five percent (75%) of Canada's exports go to the United States (where they kill people). Canada even wants to build a new bridge (DRIC) to get people and goods there faster, including parts for electric chairs.

Edited May 25, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[monty16]

Seventy-five percent (75%) of Canada's exports go to the United States (where they kill people). Canada even wants to build a new bridge (DRIC) to get people and goods there faster, including parts for electric chairs.

And that's absolutely a few facts that should lead us to fear the Harper government even more. That is, providing that the part about parts for electric chairs is true. I'm really interested in learning if it is or not.

We as Canadian citizens can decide to not be a part of US evil but we can't control what our government is doing behind our backs. Knowing what they are doing will help us to get them replaced in the next federal election.

[bush_cheney2004]

Canadians choose their government(s), and choose to integrate with the U.S. economy and culture. Canadians know much more about "law and order" in America because so many of them choose to work there, shop there, winter there, live there, and even die there. Many can only define a Canadian identity in American terms.

[guyser]

The majority of the world's population lives in countries that have capital punishment.

.....and are shitholes.

Yay !!...no wait....

[GostHacked]

More 'law and order'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZBVc7EuOvs

[Argus]

All the more reason why all cops should have to wear bodycams during their entire shifts. In Canada, as well.

Edited July 6, 2014 by Argus

[monty16]

Gosthacked, Policing in Canada is entirely differenct from in the land of the gun. In that country nearly everybody who walks the street has a gun in his pocket, his shoe, behind his/her ear, in her/purse, in his/her nose, or wherever. Canada is entirely different and there is consequently no need for police to be more heavily armed than they already are.

Of course we have to take into consideration Harper's attempts to turn Canada into a country full of gungoons so everything could change.

The reason for carrying a gun is more cowardice than anything else. A coward, or an American, can make himself immune to getting a slap in the face for being rude by having the threat of a gun in his pocket. This is obviously the mentality of people such as Harper who was most likely slapped around and bullied by his school companions for being a little boy who wouldn't and couldn't take part in normal play with other children. THeir habit of hiding behind mommy's apron was carried into adulthood and is easily identifiable.

Look for the characteristic in those who support lots of guns, we generally find that it's more a personal thing with them because of a childhood background of not fitting in which led to being bullied, which in turn led to cowardice, which in turn led to needing a "big" friend by their side at all times. The big frience being the gun, the extension of their bodies. The problem could have been nipped in the bud in childhood by a few good cuffs behind their ear by another child, which would have caused them to stand up like men.

This is a conspicuously present attribute of most conservatives. They're bullied in their opinions but they bring the bullying on quite consciously and deliberately because they know they are safe with their guns. (or any other entity or mechanism that takes the place of their gun when the gun won't protect their sensitivities)

And all that leads to the definite conclusion: We must stop Harper before he turns Canada into another 'land of the gun' and land of the coward who advocates carrying them around in a normal peaceful society such as Canada.

Edited July 6, 2014 by monty16

[GostHacked]

All the more reason why all cops should have to wear bodycams during their entire shifts. In Canada, as well.

What if they turn them off?

http://www.news-journalonline.com/article/20140513/NEWS/140519763

Police Chief Mike Chitwood said Ranum’s body camera was sent to Taser to check why it did not record the entire encounter and Ranum was given another body camera. Then Chitwood said there was a second incident in which Ranum’s body camera was not running.

The officer resigned before the camera audit was completed. But the audit came back that the camera did not film the entire arrest because it was turned off manually, a policy violation, Chitwood said.

[eyeball]

What if they turn them off?

http://www.news-journalonline.com/article/20140513/NEWS/140519763

They should be charged with the deliberate obstruction of justice....aggravated obstruction in cases of unfounded violent arrests.

One would hope Google-glasses might put a crimp in the more egregious behaviour of the police.

[GostHacked]

They should be charged with the deliberate obstruction of justice....aggravated obstruction in cases of unfounded violent arrests.

One would hope Google-glasses might put a crimp in the more egregious behaviour of the police.

True, as much as I loathe Glass. But even when caught on camera some of it is deemed 'within police guidelines'.

[Shady]

Gosthacked, Policing in Canada is entirely differenct from in the land of the gun. In that country nearly everybody who walks the street has a gun in his pocket, his shoe, behind his/her ear, in her/purse, in his/her nose, or wherever. Canada is entirely different and there is consequently no need for police to be more heavily armed than they already are.

Of course we have to take into consideration Harper's attempts to turn Canada into a country full of gungoons so everything could change.

The reason for carrying a gun is more cowardice than anything else. A coward, or an American, can make himself immune to getting a slap in the face for being rude by having the threat of a gun in his pocket. This is obviously the mentality of people such as Harper who was most likely slapped around and bullied by his school companions for being a little boy who wouldn't and couldn't take part in normal play with other children. THeir habit of hiding behind mommy's apron was carried into adulthood and is easily identifiable.

Look for the characteristic in those who support lots of guns, we generally find that it's more a personal thing with them because of a childhood background of not fitting in which led to being bullied, which in turn led to cowardice, which in turn led to needing a "big" friend by their side at all times. The big frience being the gun, the extension of their bodies. The problem could have been nipped in the bud in childhood by a few good cuffs behind their ear by another child, which would have caused them to stand up like men.

This is a conspicuously present attribute of most conservatives. They're bullied in their opinions but they bring the bullying on quite consciously and deliberately because they know they are safe with their guns. (or any other entity or mechanism that takes the place of their gun when the gun won't protect their sensitivities)

And all that leads to the definite conclusion: We must stop Harper before he turns Canada into another 'land of the gun' and land of the coward who advocates carrying them around in a normal peaceful society such as Canada.

Sounds like you're blaming the victim. You should be more compassionate and understanding of people that are victims of childhood bullying.

[monty16]

It's sad when a person's makeup is influenced by bullying. It shouldn't happen but in fact it does. Then it becomes a real problem when such a person as Harper gets into a position of power and makes decisions based on that personal experience that formed part of his personality.

Consider this, If a child is indoctrinated at childhood into believing in religious superstition, then he will become almost powerless to escape that indoctrination in adult life. And that's not to say that some don't but to point out that the degree and level of indoctrination varies with individuals.

Being bullied and religious indoctrination are just two of the childhood traumas that go to make up a conservative. There are others.

The need for guns in the US street is a direct reflection of the gungoon's level of cowardice. It's just a fact that they fear others and for that reason they need to carry their handguns. And don't confuse this with the legitimate use of guns. That sort of use of guns can most likely escape scrutiny. Well, sort of anyway.

p.s. and I should also warn you again of trying to make this about me. "I'm" not the issue here, it's conservatism.

[guyser]

p.s. and I should also warn you again of trying to make this about me. "I'm" not the issue here, it's conservatism.

Is this some way to deflect that you are truly nutty to think (1) that nearly everybody who walks the street has a gun in his pocket, his shoe, behind his/her ear, in her/purse, in his/her nose, or wherever

Becuase that is complete horseshit.

for more read here....

The reason for carrying a gun is more cowardice than anything else

and

Of course we have to take into consideration Harper's attempts to turn Canada into a country full of gungoons so everything could change (Harper has never asked me to get a gun, nor anyone I know.

This is such an obvious troll thread to incite anger and outrage.

Considering the current prolifrating poster made it without a shred of brain matter, facts being ignored and such, it should disappear.

Edited July 7, 2014 by Guyser2

[On Guard for Thee]

Many Canadians do support the death penalty. According to an Angus Reid public opinion poll in 2013, a majority of polled Canadians support reinstating the death penalty for murder, and nearly half still support the death penalty even when the sentence is life without the possibility of parole.

Most Canadians who support capital punishment do so because they believe that it would serve as a

deterrent for potential murderers (58%), save taxpayers money and the costs associated with having murderers in prison (57%), and because they think the penalty fits the crime (53%). Two-in-five Canadian

death penalty supporters (39%) think it would provide closure to the families of murder victims, and one-in-five (20%) suggest that murderers cannot be rehabilitated.

Lucky for Canadians we don't do everything by polls. Cooler heads can prevail and with the death penalty, all a "cooler head" would have to do is look to how much a failure it is in the US. Never been proven to be a deterrent, but definitely proven to be hugely expensive. By the time someone gets through the mandatory appeals system, the lawyers fees have far exceeded the cost of just letting the offender die a natural death in jail if they are not able to be rehab'd. Then there that kind of gnarly little fact that after DNA testing became effective a number of (mostl;y poor, mostly black) murder convicts were exonerated. I wonder how many wrongly convicted got fried before DNA arrived. Just let Harper try weaving that into his tough on crime bill and see what happens to "the polls"