Want to live in nice resort? Just murder someone

eyeball · March 10, 2016

No, that is just more lies. It has nothing to do with your fevered perceptions of political stance. I did not suggest and do not suggest that every criminal desrves the same sentence. Duh. I mentioned front and center that there are mitigating factors. But there are also factors than should serve to condemn those that are undoubtedly guilty of heinous acts. I named those persons to distinguish them from your everyday, crime of passion killer. For those, a lenghty term is preferable, to give them a chance to rehabilitate.

In the meantime, psycho bastards like the three I named are an ongoing threat inside prison. The government, meaning you and I, have a duty to keep other inmates and prison staff out of harms way, to make them as safe as is reasonable. Our society sanctions deadly force every day, for every officially armed person in Canada there are specific rules where they are not just permitted to kill, they are required to kill.

I simply pointed out there are a pile of conservatives who disagree with you as well as Conservatives who want mandatory minimums and that life means life. These people will keep grinding away at this issue as virulently and perennially as anti-abortionists.

Trudeau just sanctioned an icrease in Canadian killers in Iraq/Syria.

You don't see me accusing Trudeau of being a liberal do you?

There is no logical reason not to apply the death penalty in certain circumstances.

Yes there is. If nothing else I'd say it's to keep extremists from taking their inch as sign the mile can be taken next and they can apply it to more people while ramping up the vengeance against other criminals at every opportunity.

cybercoma · March 10, 2016

Its not a matter of whether some crimes warrant the death penalty. Its that the death penalty accomplishes nothing, and is extremely expensive. That's why its being abolished all over the world. Its terrible public policy.

Not to mention the legal system is not perfect, so it's really not good when an innocent person is murdered by the state for someone else's crime.

dre · March 10, 2016

Not to mention the legal system is not perfect, so it's really not good when an innocent person is murdered by the state for someone else's crime.

Especially considering the decision is handled by part of a government that cant even keep the roads free of potholes. I don't trust the government enough to decide who lives and dies.

Bonam · March 10, 2016

Why are you guys on about the death penalty? This thread isn't about the death penalty. The death penalty is a dumb idea as long as there is even the slightest chance that the justice system got it wrong, which there always will be.

Back to the topic at hand, this is about the facilities in which convicted murderers are housed being too comfortable, creating the sense that rather than being punished they are receiving an expenses-paid mandatory vacation.

The idea that punishment (you know, "justice") should not be a part of the consideration in our "justice system", as dre suggests, is worth discussing further. I understand that crime reduction is an important goal of the system. But I disagree that the idea that those who have committed serious crimes should be appropriately punished has no place in our justice system. I don't think these two goals are mutually exclusive.

dre · March 10, 2016

Why are you guys on about the death penalty? This thread isn't about the death penalty. The death penalty is a dumb idea as long as there is even the slightest chance that the justice system got it wrong, which there always will be.

Back to the topic at hand, this is about the facilities in which convicted murderers are housed being too comfortable, creating the sense that rather than being punished they are receiving an expenses-paid mandatory vacation.

The idea that punishment (you know, "justice") should not be a part of the consideration in our "justice system", as dre suggests, is worth discussing further. I understand that crime reduction is an important goal of the system. But I disagree that the idea that those who have committed serious crimes should be appropriately punished has no place in our justice system. I don't think these two goals are mutually exclusive.

I never said punishment isn't part of it. I just said the primary goal is public safety. If having facilities like this makes the public safer then we should have them, otherwise more people will become victims of crime.

Argus · March 11, 2016

That is clearly not true. Rape, murder, countless drug crimes and serious assaults occur in prisons. Crimes that take place in prisons are still crimes.

They can't commit them against ME. How's that?

Army Guy · March 11, 2016

I would have thought that if I understand your position correctly your main concern is with the bottom dollar, are you saying that these type of prisons are more cost effective than housing them in traditional prisons?

cybercoma · March 11, 2016

I would have thought that if I understand your position correctly your main concern is with the bottom dollar, are you saying that these type of prisons are more cost effective than housing them in traditional prisons?

If they lower crime rates and reduce recidivism, then yes. I find it strange when people want to revamp our jail system and the sentences that judges hand out when what we're doing has successfully reduced the crime rate overall for years. There's more we can do for the pockets of problems in certain areas, but in general the system has been successful in reducing crime.

Army Guy · March 11, 2016

Motivations related to the decline

Several factors commonly mentioned by experts as possible explanations for the decline in crime may be related primarily to certain types of crime. For example, multivariate analysis performed by the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics indicated that changes in inflation tend to have the most association with changes in crime that is financially motivated (i.e., robbery, break and enter, motor vehicle theft), while changes in alcohol consumption and unemployment rates are correlated with changes in the homicide rate, and changes in the population's age and gender are associated with changes in the rate of break and enters.

As well, legislative changes introduced in Canada—such as amendments to the Criminal Code regarding sexual assault and the Young Offenders Act, which was followed by the Youth Criminal Justice Act on April 1, 2003 (Department of Justice)—have the potential to affect crime rates by expanding definitions and criminalizing certain behaviours not previously considered a crime, or by decriminalizing others.

www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2015001-eng.htm

The above link gives some explanation on some of the reasons for the decline, very few of them have to do with our justice system, none of them have to do with prison or prison conditions. The same goes for sentencing handed out....Instead it has more to do with the condition of our economic state. the healthier it is the less crime we have....

You'll also find that the rates of decrease are really minimum in the ranges of 5 to 8 % overall....so while you are technically right there has been a decrease in crime rates....and yet one of the concerns spelled out in the posts above is convicts being released early because of it costs occurred in housing prisoners......Sentencing is also some what of a problem, life does not mean life for serious crimes.....it is in the rare case that murder one means 25 years served.....There are thousands of cases where some prisoners have served much less than that, in some cases 18 months, others average are 10 to 12....to add insult to this whole issue BC decides to open up club med, where singing camp fire songs over a fire on the beach some how reduces crime rates....and is a good use of tax payers dollars.

I guess the real question here is not the sentencing but what price do we put on another's life....is 10 to 12 years served in a cushy prison it ? I have not lost any one to murder.....but 10 to 12 years in my opinion is not enough....On top of all that It cost tax payers 100,000 plus to house the average prison, to provide all the privileges they have available to them....The only thing we have taken from these people is freedom of movement.....everything else they enjoy and on the tax payers dollar.....No one has seriously looked at making prisons a zero sum cost, because it would infringe on some human rights.....no mention of the victims family human rights there at all....It's all about the criminal.....

So while you may feel strange about wanting change, I think it is something we should have been debating this long ago....like spending those bils we spend to have these guys play tennis we could be spending it in high crime areas....on those areas stated in the above link.....areas that will see real results in reductions.....

eyeball · March 11, 2016

So it simply comes down to how tough and hard punishment and justice are and I guarantee they'll never ever be hard enough for hard boiled conservatives. They want vengeance not justice, always have always will.

Jurisprudence and expert opinion apparently all have an un-conservative bias too and the only thing that can be done about it is to replace them with something more like Sharia law.

dre · March 11, 2016

I would have thought that if I understand your position correctly your main concern is with the bottom dollar, are you saying that these type of prisons are more cost effective than housing them in traditional prisons?

My main concern is with public safety and how much of it we can get with what we have to spend.

And yes... re-education and re-integration saves a lot of money if recidivism is reduced.

overthere · March 11, 2016

I simply pointed out there are a pile of conservatives who disagree with you as well as Conservatives who want mandatory minimums and that life means life. These people will keep grinding away at this issue as virulently and perennially as anti-abortionists.

You don't see me accusing Trudeau of being a liberal do you?

Yes there is. If nothing else I'd say it's to keep extremists from taking their inch as sign the mile can be taken next and they can apply it to more people while ramping up the vengeance against other criminals at every opportunity.

I find your position of banning capital punishment without exception to be extremist.

So is your ridiculous conflation that the purpose of capital punishment or imprisonment is vengeance.

You are welcome to be ridiculous, but don't expect not to be challenged on it.

The first purpose of the criminal justice system must always be to protect the public, which includes prison staff and inmates.

The second goal, which is secondary, is rehabilitation.

Not to mention the legal system is not perfect, so it's really not good when an innocent person is murdered by the state for someone else's crime.

Which is why the death penalty must be reserved only for cases with special circumstances. For example, Paul Bernardo was recorded as he drugged, raped and strangled girls. Is there any doubt that happened? Or Clifford Olson, who sold the locations of a few kids that he molested and buried? Any doubt about him?

poochy · March 11, 2016

Why are you guys on about the death penalty?

It's a distraction from their indefensible opinion the people who murder other people should either have an easy time of it in prison, or get to have the freedom that their victim can never have, it's an indefensible, broken ideology. Justice for the victim is for the perpetrator to lose almost as much as they did, without the death penalty.

SpankyMcFarland · March 16, 2016

Punishment does not interest me. What I want to see from prisons is, for some offenders, deterrence and rehabilitation, and for others, protection for the public. Some murderers cannot be rehabilitated with a satisfactory low risk of reoffending and should be kept behind bars until they no longer pose any danger. Giving such offenders reasonably pleasant conditions probably makes the lives of prison guards easier so I would be for that.

Victims of crime and their relatives have valuable but highly subjective perspectives on crime. We should not rely on them to dictate reasonable policy any more than we would ask patients to draw up chemotherapy regimes.

Edited March 16, 2016 by SpankyMcFarland

eyeball · March 16, 2016

I find your position of banning capital punishment without exception to be extremist.

Yes I get that.

So is your ridiculous conflation that the purpose of capital punishment or imprisonment is vengeance.

You are welcome to be ridiculous, but don't expect not to be challenged on it.

The first purpose of the criminal justice system must always be to protect the public, which includes prison staff and inmates.

The second goal, which is secondary, is rehabilitation.

I know precisely what the purpose is. It's hard-boiled conservatives who want to add vengeance to the mix. If they could get away with daily beatings and feeding convicts nothing but moldy bread and fetid water they would.

Which is why the death penalty must be reserved only for cases with special circumstances. For example, Paul Bernardo was recorded as he drugged, raped and strangled girls. Is there any doubt that happened? Or Clifford Olson, who sold the locations of a few kids that he molested and buried? Any doubt about him?

None whatsoever. You don't need a death penalty you just want one. There's a difference and the difference is vengeful.

The definition of the phrase "special circumstances" would evolve and change until all the circumstances were special. The phrase would become both diluted and as meaningless as the word terrorism so it could be applied just as liberally as possible. Its why prisons are referred to as resorts... It's how conservatives roll.

Edited March 16, 2016 by eyeball

Argus · March 16, 2016

Victims of crime and their relatives have valuable but highly subjective perspectives on crime. We should not rely on them to dictate reasonable policy any more than we would ask patients to draw up chemotherapy regimes.

So if someone murders your children and blinds you in an attack, and I, as the judge, fine him $5, you'll be okay with that, right?

And if you're not, well, we shouldn't care. What do you know about what is a just punishment for the crime committed against your family? You're no expert.

Edited March 16, 2016 by Argus

poochy · March 16, 2016

So if someone murders your children and blinds you in an attack, and I, as the judge, fine him $5, you'll be okay with that, right?

And if you're not, well, we shouldn't care. What do you know about what is a just punishment for the crime committed against your family? You're no expert.

They just aren't able to grasp it.

dre · March 16, 2016

What do you know about what is a just punishment for the crime committed against your family? You're no expert.

Yes that's correct. Having a family member murdered does not make you an expert on crime and punishment or on how to run an effective criminal justice system. Does that really need to be pointed out to you?

Bob Macadoo · March 16, 2016

They just aren't able to grasp it.

That is the post of the day.

jacee · March 17, 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.

Loss of freedom is appropriate punishment, and protects society from criminals.

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.

You are right about some. Sociopaths should be locked up forever.

However, some criminals can be rehabilitated.

Not sure about this one though. Lack of remorse suggests sociopath. Problem is, sociopaths do really well in jail, model prisoners, charm the guards, get perks.

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

Parents' pain from the loss of a child cannot be fixed.

If a child falls out of a tree and dies, the loss is the same pain.

Would it help them to take an axe to the tree?

Maybe briefly.

But the pain wouldn't go away.

.

Edited March 17, 2016 by jacee

jacee · March 17, 2016

And it costs over 100k a year to keep someone in jail,

I just want to let that sink in a bit ...

Locking people up for life costs every one of us a LOT of money.

... so its smart to rehabilitate and release in cases where inmates are deemed to not pose further risk.

Yup.

But I'm not sure about this guy.

Sociopaths are good at the jail game.

.

Army Guy · March 18, 2016

I just want to let that sink in a bit ...

Locking people up for life costs every one of us a LOT of money.

Yup.

But I'm not sure about this guy.

Sociopaths are good at the jail game.

.

Yes it does cost a lot of money, but what is included in that total, and what measures have we taken to really look at each line item on that list, to access whether or not it is truly needed, or is still working and producing good results....Perhaps what is needed is an inquiry a fact finding inquiry to spell it all out for us....

There has been other studies and other strategies done to give us other options, to lowering these costs. There are several prisons in the us that create positive cash flow back to the tax payers. By making prisoners grow their own food, produce products that are sold, such as Cor Can here in Canada...these type of solutions are lowering costs paid out by tax payers....

I think Canadians are getting tired of our high tax bills and are willing to try anything to lower them including reducing times served to lower burden on jail crowding and reduce over costs of housing criminals....we balk at harpers plans to build more jails to get tougher sentencing.....we shout at the top of our lungs .....it does not work.....and yet the inter net is full of Canadian examples of our justice system becoming a joke....

The most recent example is the release of an elderly women call the black widow....who received 6 years for murdering her first husband convicted of manslaugter...She drugged her husband then ran him over twice. of which she served 2 years of her sentence, she gets out and marries again that husband also dies, but she is not charged, later she marries again, this time she is caught and her husband barely survives being poisoned....and sentenced to guess what... Melissa Ann Shepard, now in her early 80s, is finishing a three-and-a-half year sentence for administering a noxious substance and failing to provide the necessaries of life to her husband at the time. three and a 1/2 years...she is made to serve the whole sentence....Now this is the her third kick at the cat....one would hope the judge would have seen a pattern here....nope and sentences her to the very hard sentence of 3 and half years....and we made her serve it all to....

This is what makes the average Canadian citizen sick....first over the conditions that prisoners have in our prison systems today, next is the cost of keeping our streets safe, prisoners live it up and laugh all the way to freedom, and then the sentencing leaves most of us just scratching our heads and asking WTF just happened....

Army Guy · March 18, 2016

Parents' pain from the loss of a child cannot be fixed.

If a child falls out of a tree and dies, the loss is the same pain.

Would it help them to take an axe to the tree?

Maybe briefly.

But the pain wouldn't go away.

.

We are not talking about an accident here, we are talking about someone making a choice and talking your childs life...for their own pleasure or gain...And the pain is not the same....

And while it does not matter what punishment is handed out it will never stop the pain or bring them back...nut knowing that this person is locked up and will not be able to inflict this pain on another family is some what comforting .....

SpankyMcFarland · March 19, 2016

So if someone murders your children and blinds you in an attack, and I, as the judge, fine him $5, you'll be okay with that, right?

And if you're not, well, we shouldn't care. What do you know about what is a just punishment for the crime committed against your family? You're no expert.

So you want a return to clan justice?

I would not be fit to make a judgement there because I would probably want to maim the perp myself.