The_Squid Posted March 4, 2015 Report Posted March 4, 2015 People found guilty in some killings should have to serve life in prison with little or no chance of parole, Prime Minister Stephen Harper says. He made the announcement Wednesday in Scarborough, Ont., accompanied by Justice Minister Peter MacKay, that his government is proposing legislation to end parole for those convicted of murders involving: Sexual assault. Kidnapping. Terrorism. A police or corrections officer. Particular brutality. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stephen-harper-proposes-bill-to-deny-parole-for-some-murderers-1.2981192 I have no particular issues with longer sentences before being eligible for parole or not having it at all for heinous crimes. The vagueness once again is an issue. Hopefully "particular brutality" will be clearly defined or else, once again, Harper is going to have his legislation overturned by the courts. I don't think someone like Picton should ever have the opportunity to be released. But even with this legislation, he would still be eligible for parole. (always check the fine print conservative partisans) What is stupid about this legislation is that parole can be granted by the Public Safety Minister after 35 years... so all this legislation really does is increase the parole eligibility from 25 to 35 years and, instead of a defined process and board to deal with these parole applications, it will be a single Minister with that authority. Harper said those convicted of the crimes listed in the legislation could voluntarily petition the public safety minister for release after serving no less than 35 years. "Decisions will not rest with an appointed board, but with the federal cabinet," he said. So his catchy quote that "life equals life" is a bold faced lie. Life equals 35 years instead of 25 years, should actually be the catchy quote. But that phrase wouldn't be catchy red-meat for the base... Quote
Big Guy Posted March 5, 2015 Report Posted March 5, 2015 I guess that the question is - what is an especially heinous crime? If it is that "heinous" then why not bring back the death penalty and save ourselves a lot of money? Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
guyser Posted March 5, 2015 Report Posted March 5, 2015 (edited) Pedophilia not so much. But dont plant more than 6 doobie plants. If it is that "heinous" then why not bring back the death penalty and save ourselves a lot of money?Because every day we are reminded how little we should trust cops. Edited March 5, 2015 by Guyser2 Quote
Guest Posted March 5, 2015 Report Posted March 5, 2015 (edited) I guess that the question is - what is an especially heinous crime? If it is that "heinous" then why not bring back the death penalty and save ourselves a lot of money? Because if you kill someone there's no going back. At least if they are in Jail you can let them out if you've put them there in error. I've no objection to the death penalty other than that, but that's enough to make me dead set against it. Edited March 5, 2015 by bcsapper Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 5, 2015 Report Posted March 5, 2015 Say it ain't so....no more Hug-A-Thug Canada ? Where will panties stealing murderers/rapists, pedophiles, and cannibals go for "rehabilitation" and "restorative justice". Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Topaz Posted March 5, 2015 Report Posted March 5, 2015 Perhaps that what Harper may really want is the death penalty but wants to wait for someone else to suggest it. I also, think by listening to the news tonight, that the Supreme Court may not buy this and IF it does, it shouldn't apply to those already in jail serving time. Quote
Wilber Posted March 5, 2015 Report Posted March 5, 2015 The courts decide whether a law violates the Constitution or Charter. I don't see how changing the penalty for an existing law violates either. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Smallc Posted March 5, 2015 Report Posted March 5, 2015 The courts decide whether a law violates the Constitution or Charter. I don't see how changing the penalty for an existing law violates either. It is possible for life without parole to be considered cruel and unusual punishment. I don't buy it, but...I'm not them. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted March 5, 2015 Report Posted March 5, 2015 I guess that the question is - what is an especially heinous crime? If it is that "heinous" then why not bring back the death penalty and save ourselves a lot of money? The glaring question here is what the hell is particular brutality... Harper keeps on putting language he thinks will fool people into his attempts to pass laws he thinks will get him some votes from the tin hat crowd,and then taxpayers end up paying the bill for the SC to correct his crap. Quote
Wilber Posted March 5, 2015 Report Posted March 5, 2015 It is possible for life without parole to be considered cruel and unusual punishment. I don't buy it, but...I'm not them. Then the SC should define exactly what the word "life" means. If it means something less than a person's normal life span they should say so and why. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
The_Squid Posted March 5, 2015 Author Report Posted March 5, 2015 Then the SC should define exactly what the word "life" means. If it means something less than a person's normal life span they should say so and why. It's defined in law.... SCC doesn't need to.... Quote
Bonam Posted March 5, 2015 Report Posted March 5, 2015 (edited) If it is that "heinous" then why not bring back the death penalty and save ourselves a lot of money? Two reasons: 1) We have tons of data that shows that imprisoning someone for life, as expensive as it is, is still far far cheaper than killing them, given the legal costs involved. 2) It is extremely rare that there is 100% certainty, and death is irreversible. Many innocent people have been put to death and later found to have been innocent. Edited March 5, 2015 by Bonam Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted March 5, 2015 Report Posted March 5, 2015 DNA has shown that America has put a lot of innocent people to death. Luckily we in Canada had the good sense to stop doing that 50 years ago, and take it completely off the books 40 years ago. You know who hug a thug troll guy apparently doesnt seem to mind a little blood on his hands. Quote
Ash74 Posted March 5, 2015 Report Posted March 5, 2015 I am the first to say that some people just need killing but I have come to believe as much as my gut wants some people dead We as a society are better than that. Lock them up, throw away the key and call it a day. But putting somebody to death is just uncivilized. I have been called a racist for saying so but I believe that the death penalty should be looked back on like slavery. It is not part of the civilized world and if you think stoning a person for having sex is justice than yes. I am a more civilized human being than you and I don't care what color you are. Quote “Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.”― Winston S. Churchill There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him. –Robert Heinlein
Wilber Posted March 5, 2015 Report Posted March 5, 2015 It's defined in law.... SCC doesn't need to.... Then why would they have anything to say about parole eligibility? Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
On Guard for Thee Posted March 5, 2015 Report Posted March 5, 2015 Well to be honest, there have been cases were I have thought I could take a baseball bat in a room with a certain criminal and save the taxpayer a lot of money. However, would I actually do it, no. Killing is wrong no matter who is doing it IMO. And some murders occur were people werent planning it but things went a little crazy, (booze, drugs for instance) and I hasten to add that is not an excuse. However in those cases there is a chance of rehab. And once again, lets not kill anyone in case we find out later we goofed. Public safety has of course to be the first consideration. Finally, our crime rate has been dropping for decades, as has the recidivism rates. All Harpers new proposal will do is cost us money building even more jails. Quote
The_Squid Posted March 5, 2015 Author Report Posted March 5, 2015 Then why would they have anything to say about parole eligibility? They could have a say in any law if it's brought before them... they're the SCC. Quote
Wilber Posted March 5, 2015 Report Posted March 5, 2015 They could have a say in any law if it's brought before them... they're the SCC. No law is being brought before them, this is a proposed change in parole elegibility. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Mighty AC Posted March 5, 2015 Report Posted March 5, 2015 Two reasons: 1) We have tons of data that shows that imprisoning someone for life, as expensive as it is, is still far far cheaper than killing them, given the legal costs involved. 2) It is extremely rare that there is 100% certainty, and death is irreversible. Many innocent people have been put to death and later found to have been innocent. You beat me to it. I would also add that on top of the cost and the potential error, the lack of humanity and that IMO death is an easier way out, the death penalty doesn't even deter crime. Quote "Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
Smallc Posted March 5, 2015 Report Posted March 5, 2015 All Harpers new proposal will do is cost us money building even more jails. It will keep a select few vicious killers away from the public for life. It's worth the money. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted March 5, 2015 Report Posted March 5, 2015 It will keep a select few vicious killers away from the public for life. It's worth the money. We already have review boards for that and they work quite well. Quote
Wilber Posted March 5, 2015 Report Posted March 5, 2015 We already have review boards for that and they work quite well. Which continually put victim's family members through the same ordeal. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Smallc Posted March 5, 2015 Report Posted March 5, 2015 We already have review boards for that and they work quite well. Some people should not even have the chance to make their case ever again. Quote
eyeball Posted March 5, 2015 Report Posted March 5, 2015 This all seems so familiar...crackin' down and lookin' tuff for the sake of a partisan tickle with an unnecessary law that cranks up the power of the state and the size/capacity of the dictator's tool box shed. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
On Guard for Thee Posted March 5, 2015 Report Posted March 5, 2015 Some people should not even have the chance to make their case ever again. And those people dont get past the review board. Clifford Olson comes to mind. Generally speaking I think going down the American road of vengeance and punishment as opposed to public safety and rehab will be just as ineffective, expensive, and dangerous as it is down there. 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.