Another brutal rapist serial killer eased out to medium security prison

[I am Groot]

We need to get them ready for their release, after all! All this one did was rape and murder four women. Well, three women and a 15 year old blind girl. But hey, he's been in jail almost ten whole years now! Time is approaching fast for his pat on the head and release into a halfway house! No doubt he'll join Paul Bernardo there as the corrections authorities continue to assert that the criminal's well-being is more important than the victims they killed.

https://www.aptnnews.ca/national-news/a-slap-in-the-face-serial-killer-moved-to-medium-security/

[TreeBeard]

Might have been newsworthy 4 years ago when it happened.  

 

Mar 12, 2019

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

Might have been newsworthy 4 years ago when it happened.  

 

Mar 12, 2019

My guess is that what Groot is attempting to react to is current news that Paul Bernardo was just moved to Medium security. 
 

Its standard practice to move inmates to medium security after a few years of good behaviour if they don’t pose a security risk, it USUALLY has nothing to do with the horrendousness of their crime. Part of the reason is to make room for new inmates who need to be in max security.  Most inmates move after 2 years but Bernardo was not moved until after 30 years  AFAIK he was never considered a security risk or a problem inmate but was kept in max due to the exceptional publicity and horrific nature of his crimes  

Another part of the reason for moving is rehabilitation, even for those who will never actually be released. Corrections Services Canada still has a mandate to try and reform and rehabilitate all inmates including those who will never see the outside of a prison complex. 

Edited June 10, 2023 by BeaverFever

[I am Groot]

12 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Might have been newsworthy 4 years ago when it happened.  

 

Mar 12, 2019

Got me there. I read the complaint with cite on another forum and didn't think to check the date. I remember this case at the time for its particular cruelty, especially with leading the blind girl into the woods and beating her to death. It's bad enough the guy was let out of max after 9 years but if it was only 5 years that's worse.

[I am Groot]

11 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Its standard practice to move inmates to medium security after a few years of good behaviour if they don’t pose a security risk, it USUALLY has nothing to do with the horrendousness of their crime. Part of the reason is to make room for new inmates who need to be in max security.

Why would someone be a worse risk than this scumbag?

11 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

 Most inmates move after 2 years but Bernardo was not moved until after 30 years  AFAIK he was never considered a security risk or a problem inmate but was kept in max due to the exceptional publicity and horrific nature of his crimes  

And this guy's crimes were just as horrific. 

11 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Another part of the reason for moving is rehabilitation, even for those who will never actually be released. Corrections Services Canada still has a mandate to try and reform and rehabilitate all inmates including those who will never see the outside of a prison complex. 

Time to change that. Time to put all such people into solitary and keep them there until they die. And screw the courts. Put the law under the notwithstanding clause. It's clear the judiciary has zero consideration for either justice or the safety of the community.

[BeaverFever]

13 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Why would someone be a worse risk than this scumbag?

A security risk assessment simply refers to their ability and willingness to harm prison staff other inmates, or willingness or ability to escape from the facility, and has nothing with the crime they committed. 
 

13 hours ago, I am Groot said:

And this guy's crimes were just as horrific. 

As already stated that is irrelevant to his security risk assessment. 
 

13 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Put the law under the notwithstanding clause.

I don’t think the clause can be used that way

 

 

Edited June 11, 2023 by BeaverFever

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

I don’t think the clause can be used that way

It could, but it would set such a horrible precedent and face such criticism that it would be almost impossible for a gov't to seriously consider it.

[BeaverFever]

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

It could, but it would set such a horrible precedent and face such criticism that it would be almost impossible for a gov't to seriously consider it.

I know there are limits on what it can be used for- for example a PM can’t use it to declare themselves dictator for life, etc etc. but I’m not familiar with all of the parameters 

Edited June 11, 2023 by BeaverFever

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, BeaverFever said:

I know there are limits on what it can be used for- for example a PM can’t use it to declare themselves dictator for life, etc etc. but I’m not familiar with all of the parameters 

Essentially it can be used to set aside personal rights granted by the charter.  For example consider the right to not be discriminated against due to religion.  If you wrote a law that was found by the courts to discriminate against people for religious expression (I'm looking at you quebec) then the courts would throw out that law normally. However - if you used section 33 of the charter you could basically include within the law "Notwithstanding the rights in the charter pertaining to this, we're doing it anyway".   Slightly paraphrased of course

That would allow you to violate the people's right to freedom of religious expression and, say, declare there's no religious symbols allowed at work places.

In this case passing a law that limited bernardo's situation you would likely run afoul of the cruel and unusual  provisions - which you would override with the charter.

But - that would basically mean you'd used the law to be cruel and unreasonable to a single person who had otherwise gone through the proper legal process - it would be largely unthinkable. Imagine if it became commonplace to override the rights of individuals you just didn't like. The potential for abuse would be insane. A lot of legal people and rights groups would quite correctly freak the hell out. 

Not to mention the time it would take to push the law through the house. You can't use that clause with an OIC, it would have to pass like any other law.

So i doubt it would be considered.

[I am Groot]

8 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

A security risk assessment simply refers to their ability and willingness to harm prison staff other inmates, or willingness or ability to escape from the facility, and has nothing with the crime they committed. 

The guy brutally murdered four people. I think that makes him extremely dangerous. Especially in an age we've seen fit to give women 'equal opportunities' by letting them work in men's prisons.

8 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

As already stated that is irrelevant to his security risk assessment. 

No. That is not what you stated. 

 

[I am Groot]

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It could, but it would set such a horrible precedent and face such criticism that it would be almost impossible for a gov't to seriously consider it.

Why? The Charter is a shitty piece of paper that is essentially meaningless. It protects no one and nothing. The Russians have a constitution too, you know. It has the same guarantees. 

The biggest mistake the government ever did was to remove its ability to overrule the supreme court. The second biggest and dumbest mistake it has made is to choose the members of that court according to their geographic location, language, race, religion, and ethnicity, with political ideology following behind. They weren't appointed for their wisdom or restraint or proven judgment or superior legal acumen. Those are barely even considerations.

[I am Groot]

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

But - that would basically mean you'd used the law to be cruel and unreasonable to a single person who had otherwise gone through the proper legal process

The term 'cruel and unusual' is one the SC have used lately to ban any law they don't personally approve of. It doesn't mean the law actually IS cruel or unusual. The term itself is a legal term meant to describe something which is so horrible that it would offend and disturb the general population. These ivory tower judges used it to describe a law that would double the parole eligibility time for mass murderers. Literally NO ONE thought that was cruel and unusual but them.

Even they probably didn't think it was. They just used it as a handy excuse. They stopped ruling according to the actual written constitution years ago.

Edited June 11, 2023 by I am Groot

[CdnFox]

8 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Why? The Charter is a shitty piece of paper that is essentially meaningless.

Then the constitution is as well, which means our laws are not valid which means he didn't do anything wrong so by what authority is he being locked up in the first place?

C'mon.  You don't need me to explain why the constitution and the charter is more than just a shitty piece of paper right?

 

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

The term 'cruel and unusual' is one the SC have used lately to ban any law they don't personally approve of.

True.

Quote

It doesn't mean the law actually IS cruel or unusual. The term itself is a legal term meant to describe something which is so horrible that it would offend and disturb the general population.

It does in fact mean that it's LAWFULLY 'cruel and unusual'.  Unfortunately.

I agree entirely the term is grossly abused by judges. To be honest i think judges are terrible people who use the law to push their own agendas and have zero love or care for the society and people whose rights they're there to protect.   I guess the old saying is true - if you spend all your time fighting monsters you risk becoming a monster, and if you stare long enough into the abyss the abyss will stare into you.

And it's a shame because eventually people get sick of it and eventually a politician will use that political capital to just start putting the notwithstanding clause in as a general rule and the whole point of having a barrier to genuinely cruel and unusual punishment goes right out the window.

[I am Groot]

9 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Then the constitution is as well, which means our laws are not valid which means he didn't do anything wrong so by what authority is he being locked up in the first place?

C'mon.  You don't need me to explain why the constitution and the charter is more than just a shitty piece of paper right?

 

Our laws are not based on the Constitution except insofar as they are restricted by its terms. Many of our laws predate the Trudeau Charter. 

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

True.

It does in fact mean that it's LAWFULLY 'cruel and unusual'.  Unfortunately.

Yes, well, whatever the judges say automatically becomes lawful. They could say dyeing your hair blonde is unconstitutional tomorrow and that would be the law. There are literally zero restrictions on what they can rule. They just need to make up an interpretation of some aspect of the constitution to pretend their decision is based on.

Edited June 11, 2023 by I am Groot

[CdnFox]

Just now, I am Groot said:

Our laws are not based on the Constitution except insofar as they are restricted by its terms. Many of our laws predate the Trudeau Charter. 

Our laws are entirely based on the constitution. No constitution, no laws period. And the charter forms part of that.

Like it or not, the constitution is real, the charter is real and they are both more than pieces of paper. We're going to have to find ways to cope with them i'm afraid. Or rewrite them.

[I am Groot]

Just now, CdnFox said:

Our laws are entirely based on the constitution. No constitution, no laws period. And the charter forms part of that.

Disagree. Murder was illegal before we ever had a constitution of any kind. It was illegal before the BNA act. It was illegal before the Magna Carta. 

[BeaverFever]

36 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

The guy brutally murdered four people. I think that makes him extremely dangerous. Especially in an age we've seen fit to give women 'equal opportunities' by letting them work in men's prisons.

I’m sure Corrections Services Canada knows how to assess the the CURRENT threat level of inmates and as previously stated that is jot related to original crime.  Bernardos victims were defenceless youths and Bernardo was more than than 30 years younger than he is today . Current he is nearly 60 years old and guards, even female ones,  are trained professionals decades younger than him and in a secure facility with all sorts of well-established controls and safeguards in place. I’m sure if they thought he still posed a security risk they would have acted accordingly. 
 

44 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

No. That is not what you stated. 

Second sentence of my first post in this thread 

[BeaverFever]

43 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

The biggest mistake the government ever did was to remove its ability to overrule the supreme court.

If you believe that then you don’t believe in rights at all. You believe in elected dictatorship. 

[I am Groot]

1 minute ago, BeaverFever said:

If you believe that then you don’t believe in rights at all. You believe in elected dictatorship. 

Better an elected one than an unelected one.

5 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

I’m sure Corrections Services Canada knows how to assess the the CURRENT threat level of inmates and as previously stated that is jot related to original crime.  Bernardos victims were defenceless youths and Bernardo was more than than 30 years younger than he is today .

And this guy's victims were women, and in one case a blind 15 year old girl, and he is a big, and still quite young guy.

And Corrections Canada has made plenty of boneheaded decisions in the past and will again in the future.

5 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Second sentence of my first post in this thread 

This one?  it USUALLY has nothing to do with the horrendousness of their crime. 

[I am Groot]

Lest you think people like Paul Bernardo will never be released...

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-65479515

[Guest]

2 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Lest you think people like Paul Bernardo will never be released...

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-65479515

Pitchfork should never get out.  Neither should Bernado. 

Some people should rot in chains, no matter how much they have rehabilitated.

[impartialobserver]

the issue is that the law and its interpretation are subjective. Also, no matter the person and no matter how horrible they are.. they still seek self-preservation. Of course, he wants out just like every other criminal does and always has. So when you have a system that has any nuance... errr.. wiggle room, you will get cases like this. If you are too punitive/rigid then you get cases where someone serves long sentences for crimes that they did not commit or the punishment is too severe for the crime. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, impartialobserver said:

the issue is that the law and its interpretation are subjective. Also, no matter the person and no matter how horrible they are.. they still seek self-preservation. Of course, he wants out just like every other criminal does and always has. So when you have a system that has any nuance... errr.. wiggle room, you will get cases like this. If you are too punitive/rigid then you get cases where someone serves long sentences for crimes that they did not commit or the punishment is too severe for the crime. 

Yeah, that's the only reason I'm opposed to death penalty.  I have no moral objection to killing someone who deserves to be killed.  It's just that we seem to find it difficult sometimes to correctly ascertain who that person is.

Still, when there is no doubt, as is the case with both Pitchfork and Bernardo, I care far more about how the victim's families feel than I do about how they feel.

[BeaverFever]

On 6/11/2023 at 9:42 AM, I am Groot said:

Better an elected one than an unelected one.

Both are bad. 
 

On 6/11/2023 at 9:42 AM, I am Groot said:

And this guy's victims were women, and in one case a blind 15 year old girl, and he is a big, and still quite young guy.

And Corrections Canada has made plenty of boneheaded decisions in the past and will again in the future.

Yeah that doesn’t prove he’s a threat to prison guards, none of whom are teenagers or blind    Considering it was 2019 we would know by now if he was in fact a security risk  

 

 

On 6/11/2023 at 9:42 AM, I am Groot said:

This one?  it USUALLY has nothing to do with the horrendousness of their crime. 

Yeah so normally the crime itself isn’t (much) of a factor… the decision is based on the security risk they pose to others or risk of escape. I say “usually” because obviously when it’s a high profile case with lots of publicity like Bernardo they tru to avoid public controversy