Black Dog Posted March 6, 2015 Report Posted March 6, 2015 The liberals have always have had a soft spot for the poor misguided criminal, and screw the victim. Restorative justice they called it, when they said by now we wont have any need for jails. Violent crime trends would suggest they were right! Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted March 6, 2015 Report Posted March 6, 2015 That's why I'm not advocating the death penalty for widespread use but only in special circumstances. People like Bernardo, Olsen, etc...Not the run of the mill murderer. Well I doubt you will see it returned in Canada anytime soon. First of all its against the Charter, and people just dont want to go back down that road. Quote
Black Dog Posted March 6, 2015 Report Posted March 6, 2015 murders start off in Max once convicted. They spend two years in there before being reclassified. At this time they can go to a high medium like Collins bay. Drumheller, Dorchester, they can and do work their way down to a minimum security level institution. Not all of them certainly not the notorious ones but murderers still do go to min camps. Lots of them in min. Just saying. Cite? Quote
Black Dog Posted March 6, 2015 Report Posted March 6, 2015 . For what? Everything in your post. Quote
Argus Posted March 6, 2015 Report Posted March 6, 2015 OK so you're making a point about vehicular manslaughter convictions should warrant a 30 year penalty. That's certainly one position. I don't think a majority would agree with that. No, because it's a moronic suggestion. No sane society punishes an accidental death worse than a deliberate murder. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 6, 2015 Report Posted March 6, 2015 Well I doubt you will see it returned in Canada anytime soon. First of all its against the Charter, and people just dont want to go back down that road. Who says it's against the Charter? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
On Guard for Thee Posted March 6, 2015 Report Posted March 6, 2015 Who says it's against the Charter? It tends to run aground under section 7 as regards cruel and unusual punishment. The SC has already made a ruling against it mostly because it is arbitrary and impossible to correct, as in cases of wrongful conviction. Quote
Argus Posted March 7, 2015 Report Posted March 7, 2015 (edited) It tends to run aground under section 7 as regards cruel and unusual punishment. The SC has already made a ruling against it mostly because it is arbitrary and impossible to correct, as in cases of wrongful conviction. The SC has never ruled for or against capital punishment. It did rule in the Burns case that we couldn't extradite to the US where there was capital punishment, but a big part of the reasoning was that Canada's social compact opposing capital punishment had developed in the 40 years since the elimination of the death penalty here, which builds on its earlier finding that a violation of fundamental justice would occur if a punishment 'shocks the social conscience". No one attempted to make a case for capital punishment in the Burns case, however. If the government could present convincing evidence that the majority of Canadians were in favour of the death penalty, it would be difficult for the judges to use their reasoning on the Burns case to overturn a death penalty. Then again, they tend to find whatever they want in most cases. Certainly the Burns decision overturned their own previous decision in the Kinder case, only ten years earlier, which allowed extradition in death penalty cases. What was different about Burns? There were different judges, that's all. Edited March 7, 2015 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
LemonPureLeaf Posted March 7, 2015 Report Posted March 7, 2015 (edited) Everything in your post.Uhm. I know from experience. I'm not aware of any news source that tracks movements of federal convicts.When you first plead guilty and get federal time you go back to the jail until the bus (which we call the goose) is ready to bring you to federal reception. This used to be at Mill haven in Ontario but is now at Joyceville. You stay there for 3-6 months so they can see how you behave and they use this time as observation to decide what level you should be classified as. One you're classified you'll be soon moved to your mother institution. For murderers they must stay at Mill havens J unit (Max Security Unit) for two years before they can meet with the classification officer again to get reclassified to a lower security level and a chance at getting shipped to a different institution. Convicts meet with classification every few years to try for a lower security level until they are at minimum. Which we call camps. This is how it works. Even murderers get a chance at going to a lower security housing. They're are murderers in minimum right now as we speak. They walk away from them from time to time. Just Google it. I'm not posting this to be an ass. Just trying to let you know what its like in prison. As I say this is first hand experience. Have a good day. Edited March 7, 2015 by LemonPureLeaf Quote
Queenmandy85 Posted March 7, 2015 Report Posted March 7, 2015 If a prisoner wanted out after 35 years, it would seem it is a lot easier and cheaper to buy off a cabinet minister than an entire panel. Quote A Conservative stands for God, King and Country
The_Squid Posted March 7, 2015 Author Report Posted March 7, 2015 If a prisoner wanted out after 35 years, it would seem it is a lot easier and cheaper to buy off a cabinet minister than an entire panel. Don't worry.... that will only be available to the richest of murderers.... Quote
eyeball Posted March 7, 2015 Report Posted March 7, 2015 If a prisoner wanted out after 35 years, it would seem it is a lot easier and cheaper to buy off a cabinet minister than an entire panel.If you wanted to cultivate a perpetually adversarial relationship between a convict and the state locking someone up and throwing away the key with zero chance of parole should probably do it.There won't be a single one that won't have escape on their minds, by any means possible including bribery. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
On Guard for Thee Posted March 7, 2015 Report Posted March 7, 2015 The SC has never ruled for or against capital punishment. It did rule in the Burns case that we couldn't extradite to the US where there was capital punishment, but a big part of the reasoning was that Canada's social compact opposing capital punishment had developed in the 40 years since the elimination of the death penalty here, which builds on its earlier finding that a violation of fundamental justice would occur if a punishment 'shocks the social conscience". No one attempted to make a case for capital punishment in the Burns case, however. If the government could present convincing evidence that the majority of Canadians were in favour of the death penalty, it would be difficult for the judges to use their reasoning on the Burns case to overturn a death penalty. Then again, they tend to find whatever they want in most cases. Certainly the Burns decision overturned their own previous decision in the Kinder case, only ten years earlier, which allowed extradition in death penalty cases. What was different about Burns? There were different judges, that's all. Thats the way te world goes round. We evolve. 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.