Argus Posted March 7, 2016 Report Posted March 7, 2016 I think we've forgotten that there are many purposes behind the punishment meted out to those who break the laws. One of the primary purposes is well, punishment. I recognize this is a word which horrifies progressives, since criminals are merely lost children who need only be guided back to the path of love and peace, but in most cases that's simply not true. I think another purpose behind the punishment has to be to deter people from taking the law into their own hands. If you feel the law isn't just and isn't likely to properly punish those who have harmed you, a lot of people will get to thinking that they should take care of the punishment themselves. Certainly you can't blame the family in this case for perhaps having a thought or two along those lines. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/mother-leaves-parole-hearing-appalled-by-posh-b-c-prison-where-daughters-killer-enjoys-ocean-views 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
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 7, 2016 Report Posted March 7, 2016 No surprise here...that's why Canada's criminal justice system country club is called Hug-A-Thug® Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
dre Posted March 7, 2016 Report Posted March 7, 2016 I think we've forgotten that there are many purposes behind the punishment meted out to those who break the laws. One of the primary purposes is well, punishment. I recognize this is a word which horrifies progressives, since criminals are merely lost children who need only be guided back to the path of love and peace, but in most cases that's simply not true. I think another purpose behind the punishment has to be to deter people from taking the law into their own hands. If you feel the law isn't just and isn't likely to properly punish those who have harmed you, a lot of people will get to thinking that they should take care of the punishment themselves. Certainly you can't blame the family in this case for perhaps having a thought or two along those lines. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/mother-leaves-parole-hearing-appalled-by-posh-b-c-prison-where-daughters-killer-enjoys-ocean-views William head is SUPPOSED to be a minimum security prison, and its one of the CSC's programs aimed at reducing recidivism. Only certain kinds of criminal go there. To evaluate the program you would have to see if its effective. The "ocean views" thing is a total red herring. Alcatraz had ocean views too. As for tennis courts and fire-pits I don't see a big problem with that. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Bonam Posted March 7, 2016 Report Posted March 7, 2016 William head is SUPPOSED to be a minimum security prison, and its one of the CSC's programs aimed at reducing recidivism. Only certain kinds of criminal go there. Like ones that strangle 18 year old girls to death? Quote
BC_chick Posted March 7, 2016 Report Posted March 7, 2016 Sounds like a great 'resort'. Other than the fact that you can't leave, you have the obey the conditions and live with a bunch of criminals, it sounds like a terrific way to spend 25 years or so. Quote It's kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. Other than that, it's fine." Bill Nye on Alberta Oil Sands
dre Posted March 7, 2016 Report Posted March 7, 2016 Like ones that strangle 18 year old girls to death? My guess is that he went there near the end of his sentence, and met the criteria to be placed in minimum security. Id need to know more about the process to know if I agree with that decision or not, but a homicide conviction does not necessarily mean an inmate needs to be kept in a maximum security facility. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Moonlight Graham Posted March 7, 2016 Report Posted March 7, 2016 Sounds like a great 'resort'. Other than the fact that you can't leave, you have the obey the conditions and live with a bunch of criminals, it sounds like a terrific way to spend 25 years or so. But not exactly hard time. Thing is, you have to punish, so I agree with Argus' main sentiment, yet you can't go too far that way because you also have to rehabilitate (unless they're in for life, which who knows how often that can even happen in Canada), you can't make prisoners who may eventually be released into society into even angrier, viscous, hardened people. So tennis courts is total BS imo (just put up a basketball net etc.), but a theater program may actually be great, most any program where criminals can express themselves could help rehabilitate. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
SunnyWays Posted March 8, 2016 Report Posted March 8, 2016 My guess is that he went there near the end of his sentence, and met the criteria to be placed in minimum security. Don't you find it insanely maddening that his sentence was "Life in Prison"? Quote
dre Posted March 8, 2016 Report Posted March 8, 2016 But not exactly hard time. Thing is, you have to punish, so I agree with Argus' main sentiment, yet you can't go too far that way because you also have to rehabilitate (unless they're in for life, which who knows how often that can even happen in Canada), you can't make prisoners who may eventually be released into society into even angrier, viscous, hardened people. So tennis courts is total BS imo (just put up a basketball net etc.), but a theater program may actually be great, most any program where criminals can express themselves could help rehabilitate. Its not supposed to be hard time. Its a minimum security facility. But not exactly hard time. Thing is, you have to punish, so I agree with Argus' main sentiment, yet you can't go too far that way because you also have to rehabilitate (unless they're in for life, which who knows how often that can even happen in Canada), you can't make prisoners who may eventually be released into society into even angrier, viscous, hardened people. So tennis courts is total BS imo (just put up a basketball net etc.), but a theater program may actually be great, most any program where criminals can express themselves could help rehabilitate. Punishing is secondary. The primary purpose of the criminal justice system is to achieve civil order and promote low crime rates. This prison is part of a program aimed at lowering recidivism rates and rehabilitation. If it works it works. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
dre Posted March 8, 2016 Report Posted March 8, 2016 Don't you find it insanely maddening that his sentence was "Life in Prison"? Not really. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Argus Posted March 8, 2016 Author Report Posted March 8, 2016 My guess is that he went there near the end of his sentence, and met the criteria to be placed in minimum security. Id need to know more about the process to know if I agree with that decision or not, but a homicide conviction does not necessarily mean an inmate needs to be kept in a maximum security facility. It is this kind of thing which inspires the desire for the death penalty. His victim has been in the ground for the last ten years. She is not getting out EVER. Why should this scumbag be enjoying life in his resort community and getting ready to leave? He got a life sentence, didn't he? Then he should be in prison for life. 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 8, 2016 Author Report Posted March 8, 2016 Punishing is secondary. The primary purpose of the criminal justice system is to achieve civil order and promote low crime rates. This prison is part of a program aimed at lowering recidivism rates and rehabilitation. If it works it works. So if someone murdered your child, you'd be content with the system judging him to have learned his lesson a few years later, pat him on the head, and send him off to enjoy life? 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 8, 2016 Author Report Posted March 8, 2016 But not exactly hard time. Thing is, you have to punish, so I agree with Argus' main sentiment, yet you can't go too far that way because you also have to rehabilitate (unless they're in for life, which who knows how often that can even happen in Canada), you can't make prisoners who may eventually be released into society into even angrier, viscous, hardened people. You mean like... MURDERERS? Just how much more angry and vicious do you think this guy can get? And what's wrong with locking him up and throwing away the key? 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
dre Posted March 8, 2016 Report Posted March 8, 2016 It is this kind of thing which inspires the desire for the death penalty. His victim has been in the ground for the last ten years. She is not getting out EVER. Why should this scumbag be enjoying life in his resort community and getting ready to leave? He got a life sentence, didn't he? Then he should be in prison for life. No, desire for the death penalty is inspired by irrational thought and a failure to think critically. The justice system is here to reduce crime, not to appeal to your emotional pleas for vengeance. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
dre Posted March 8, 2016 Report Posted March 8, 2016 So if someone murdered your child, you'd be content with the system judging him to have learned his lesson a few years later, pat him on the head, and send him off to enjoy life? No. Nobody who's child is killed is ever going to be satisfied. Id probably try to kill him in the court room. The justice system needs to get results though... its not there cater to the emotional needs of the victims family. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
poochy Posted March 8, 2016 Report Posted March 8, 2016 So if someone murdered your child, you'd be content with the system judging him to have learned his lesson a few years later, pat him on the head, and send him off to enjoy life? You will never receive a truly on point answer to this question, they have completely bought in to an illogical ideology. We have absolutely no real obligation to rehabilitate any murderer, we choose to do so because we want to pat ourselves on the back for our civility, as you might notice from our new government this is a very left wing trait. We aren't short on people, we don't need them, if you murder in cold blood you should forfeit your chance at a life outside of prison. The murderer made a choice, surely they should have no more freedom than the person they murdered, who has no freedom, no life, and had no choice. Quote
Guest Posted March 8, 2016 Report Posted March 8, 2016 I have to admit I am against the death penalty. There's too much of a possibility you get the wrong person. No appeal will do any good once it's too late. I would have no objection to it if you could actually prove guilt beyond any doubt. Quote
dre Posted March 8, 2016 Report Posted March 8, 2016 You mean like... MURDERERS? Just how much more angry and vicious do you think this guy can get? You don't know if hes angry and vicious. You just know he committed a crime a decade ago. And what's wrong with locking him up and throwing away the key? Well if you throw away the key you have to cut the door open with a torch so that you can use the cell again after he dies. It would be better to just stash the key somewhere safe. And it costs over 100k a year to keep someone in jail, so its smart to rehabilitate and release in cases where inmates are deemed to not pose further risk. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Guest Posted March 8, 2016 Report Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) You don't know if hes angry and vicious. You just know he committed a crime a decade ago. Well if you throw away the key you have to cut the door open with a torch so that you can use the cell again after he dies. It would be better to just stash the key somewhere safe. And it costs over 100k a year to keep someone in jail, so its smart to rehabilitate and release in cases where inmates are deemed to not pose further risk. That's the trick, though, isn't it? Maybe if you made those who authorized release responsible for any crimes the released commits... Edited March 8, 2016 by bcsapper Quote
dialamah Posted March 8, 2016 Report Posted March 8, 2016 Prison is soul-destroying. Tennis courts don't change that. A person incarcerated for a long period of time has trouble functioning in the outside world when initially released; even something as simple to us as going grocery shopping can be beyond their capabilities and just being around people can be scary and exhausting. Prisons are filled with fear, intimidation and violence - whether from other inmates or guards, and some ex-cons exhibit symptoms of PTSD when they are released. Given some of the issues ex-cons face when first out of prison, it's quite a feat when they're able to reintegrate into society. Of course, most of society could care less if these people are even more severely damaged when they come out than when they went in - they deserve it for their crimes. It's short sighted, because damaged people are the ones who commit crimes It'd be much smarter if prisons actually worked to rehabilitate people, but that would not satisfy the desire for revenge and punishment that our society craves. This isn't to say that I think every prisoner *can* be rehabilitated. Some can't be, and those are the ones who should be in prison for life - but those people are a small percentage of prisoners overall. And yes, the victims deserve consideration as well. But since most people are going to be leaving prison at some point, the goal should be more on using that time to ensure they will be able to come out with an ability to function, so they don't end up repeating their criminal behavior and creating another victim. One can have compassion for victims, without simultaneously insisting that the perpetrator be punished in a way that will make him/her more likely to re-offend, rather than less likely. Quote
dre Posted March 8, 2016 Report Posted March 8, 2016 You will never receive a truly on point answer to this question, they have completely bought in to an illogical ideology. He already did get one. And my position on this is completely logical. Jumping up and down spewing emotional outrage is not. Its a simple numbers game to me... You reduce crime as much as you can with the money you have to spend on it. And not all solutions are going to quell everyone's emotional outrage, and some of them might seem counter intuitive to some. But the important thing is the overall results. We have absolutely no real obligation to rehabilitate any murderer, we choose to do so because we want to pat ourselves on the back for our civility. Its not about any obligation, its about simple common sense. Why would you pay 100k+ per year to keep someone in prison if you believe they can be rehabilitated? The murderer made a choice, surely they should have no more freedom than the person they murdered, who has no freedom, no life, and had no choice. An "eye for an eye" is not the purpose of the criminal justice system. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
dialamah Posted March 8, 2016 Report Posted March 8, 2016 So if someone murdered your child, you'd be content with the system judging him to have learned his lesson a few years later, pat him on the head, and send him off to enjoy life? Someone did try to murder my child. Didn't succeed, but it was close. He never even saw court; has been whisked away to a psychiatric facility where he still resides, as far as I know. My 'revenge' brain is angry that he didn't pay the price for trying to kill MY child - a guilty verdict and a hefty prison sentence! But the rational part of me knows that my response is not objective, and because it never can be, it is up to someone else to take all the facts, and make the decision. Quote
cybercoma Posted March 8, 2016 Report Posted March 8, 2016 So tennis courts is total BS imo (just put up a basketball net etc.)...Wait, you're okay with a full contact sport like basketball, but they can't swat balls at each other from across a net? Quote
Moonlight Graham Posted March 8, 2016 Report Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) Wait, you're okay with a full contact sport like basketball, but they can't swat balls at each other from across a net? It's the cost. Basketball is full contact? FOUL Edited March 8, 2016 by Moonlight Graham Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Bryan Posted March 8, 2016 Report Posted March 8, 2016 Coddling criminals fullfulls some people's irrational need to be seen as compassionate instead of dealing seriously and intelligently with the crime that was committed. 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.