No tolerance toward violent crime.

[geoffrey]

Well with Vic Toews as our Justice Minister, there is definitely going to be a big change in how crime is handled in this country.

[Concerned]

I never quite understood why conservatives, who advocate less government control over our lives, are often the first to advocate giving government the power to kill us.

This is one conservative who doesn't believe in capital punishment, not because I particularly care if some of these scumbags live or die but because of what it says about a society that condones institutional killing. I don't believe that just because a government sanctions killing someone, it is morally OK. On the other hand, people have a right to expect their government to put their safety ahead of the rights of predators who have continually demonstrated they cannot be trusted in society.

Well by the same token, abortion and euthanasia are institutionalised killing. Then again, you could be against those as well...

I'm not completely pro-capital punishment, but what is happening now obviously isn't working and is too lax.

Ok, here we go with our anti-abortionist pro-incarcerationist theory.

So Geoffrey, let me get this right. (I mean, very RIGHT)....Abortion should be illegal and so then we have this child born to a single mother, into poverty, no father around, no social net, mother perhaps unfit to bring up a child that will adequately cope in our society. No no, don't let her have an abortion, she must have that child. Then when that child is 14 or 15, he commits a violent crime, we raise him to adult court, put him in jail and lock him up forever, right ......RIGHT ???

Somehow I don't get you guys.

[geoffrey]

Ok, here we go with our anti-abortionist pro-incarcerationist theory.

So Geoffrey, let me get this right. (I mean, very RIGHT)....Abortion should be illegal and so then we have this child born to a single mother, into poverty, no father around, no social net, mother perhaps unfit to bring up a child that will adequately cope in our society. No no, don't let her have an abortion, she must have that child. Then when that child is 14 or 15, he commits a violent crime, we raise him to adult court, put him in jail and lock him up forever, right ......RIGHT ???

Somehow I don't get you guys.

I've stated that I'm not completely anti-abortion, so don't put words in my mouth (I actually said that in this thread). I'll let people make their own choices about how to morally defile themselves.

I'm also not in favour of gratuitious murder of our children. Since when does that woman not have the responsibility to either A) not be having sex or B ) use protection. (I blame the guy equally) Most abortions in Canada are because someone got lazy or changed their mind. If condoms are failing at that rate we really need to look at better manufacturing technologies.

I'm also not in favour of a doctor removing a childs brain during labour so its delivered stillborn. Why not just shoot the kid at age 1 once your a little short on cash?

I'm disgusted at how you support such irresponsibility. Come on people, if your going to have unprotected sex, or going to have kids with some hooligan guy that you've known for a few weeks, you better be prepared to accept the consequences of your actions.

Action without responsibility. The leftist way.

[Concerned]

Ok, here we go with our anti-abortionist pro-incarcerationist theory.

So Geoffrey, let me get this right. (I mean, very RIGHT)....Abortion should be illegal and so then we have this child born to a single mother, into poverty, no father around, no social net, mother perhaps unfit to bring up a child that will adequately cope in our society. No no, don't let her have an abortion, she must have that child. Then when that child is 14 or 15, he commits a violent crime, we raise him to adult court, put him in jail and lock him up forever, right ......RIGHT ???

Somehow I don't get you guys.

I've stated that I'm not completely anti-abortion, so don't put words in my mouth (I actually said that in this thread). I'll let people make their own choices about how to morally defile themselves.

I'm also not in favour of gratuitious murder of our children. Since when does that woman not have the responsibility to either A) not be having sex or B ) use protection. (I blame the guy equally) Most abortions in Canada are because someone got lazy or changed their mind. If condoms are failing at that rate we really need to look at better manufacturing technologies.

I'm also not in favour of a doctor removing a childs brain during labour so its delivered stillborn. Why not just shoot the kid at age 1 once your a little short on cash?

I'm disgusted at how you support such irresponsibility. Come on people, if your going to have unprotected sex, or going to have kids with some hooligan guy that you've known for a few weeks, you better be prepared to accept the consequences of your actions.

Action without responsibility. The leftist way.

Sorry Geoffrey, you have missed the point. I don't support irresponsibility. I also don't support a right wing government taking away a women's choice while that same government decreases social spending and the programs that (some) women need to be able to raise a child to be a productive element of society.... And while that same government increases incarceration of a population that needs the support of our society to function. As far as I'm concerned, taking away the right to choose while decreasing social programs are two concepts that oppose each other.

[Wilber]

"Sentencing is supposed to be about the three things: deterrent, rehabilitation and retribution. "

What about protecting the Innocent? Is that not supposed to be part of sentencing? What about the mom and her two kids in a mini van who get wiped out by a meth addict car thief who has dozens of convictions and has never seen more than a couple of days in jail? Don't they deserve any consideration?

By all means rehabilitate when you can but get these people out of the system and keep them there until they are no longer a threat to themselves or anyone else.

[geoffrey]

Sorry Geoffrey, you have missed the point. I don't support irresponsibility. I also don't support a right wing government taking away a women's choice while that same government decreases social spending and the programs that (some) women need to be able to raise a child to be a productive element of society.... And while that same government increases incarceration of a population that needs the support of our society to function. As far as I'm concerned, taking away the right to choose while decreasing social programs are two concepts that oppose each other.

I really don't think I've missed the point. Hold people accountable for their actions.

Don't have sex if you can't afford reliable contraception or a baby. End of story. If you choose to have sex with everyone you meet, you need to appreciate the possible consequences of your actions. With privledges come responsibility. Financial excuses cannot justify murder.

I don't understand how Canadians believe that the government should hold their hand and raise their children for them. It just further encourages this behaviour. So its either raise my kids or I'll kill 'em. Sounds like extortion by the feminist movement to me.

[Concerned]

Sorry Geoffrey, you have missed the point. I don't support irresponsibility. I also don't support a right wing government taking away a women's choice while that same government decreases social spending and the programs that (some) women need to be able to raise a child to be a productive element of society.... And while that same government increases incarceration of a population that needs the support of our society to function. As far as I'm concerned, taking away the right to choose while decreasing social programs are two concepts that oppose each other.

I really don't think I've missed the point. Hold people accountable for their actions.

Don't have sex if you can't afford reliable contraception or a baby. End of story. If you choose to have sex with everyone you meet, you need to appreciate the possible consequences of your actions. With privledges come responsibility. Financial excuses cannot justify murder.

I don't understand how Canadians believe that the government should hold their hand and raise their children for them. It just further encourages this behaviour. So its either raise my kids or I'll kill 'em. Sounds like extortion by the feminist movement to me.

Hang on Geoffrey. It is the child is who is at stake here. The mother who has an unwanted child, or a child who she cannot properly raise, is only hurting the child. It is not the child's fault that she didn't have or use the proper birth control methods (if that is truly why the unwanted pregnancy occurred).

As you have stated, you do not want to financially support this child through social support programs. Yet you want the woman to have this child??? You do not want the woman to end the pregnancy for financial reasons, but you do not believe the community should support her or the child financially ? Why is that, because it might be coming out of your precious pocket??????

[lost&outofcontrol]

The idea of deterrence doesn't carry any weight anymore. The people who commit such violent acts are not the ones who spend a lot of time reading about the efforts of society to keep them on the straight and narrow. Part of the reason why compassion has a chance of working, they haven't proven to me that they are incapable of learning. Deterrence may have worked when people were hanged in the town square for stealing a piece of bread. But that was a pretty lawless time.

Studies have shown that the severity of a sentence has little to no effect on the probability of a crime being committed. What is important is the probabilities of being caught. 47% of deviants (people who are caught and convicted of a crime) will have no subsequent record. Another 35% will stop after the second crime and a further 29% will stop after the third. Thereafter, less than 5% will continue committing crimes. If you want deterrence, you should cut the length of sentences for first offense and better use the resources to catch criminals.

In the late 19th century, most convicted criminals weren't sent to prisons, they were sentenced to repay their debt to society by working for the city/government/victims. Prisons were never created to be the only tool to punish criminals. I urge everyone to read up on the Classical thinking theory of criminal punishment from Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham.

[geoffrey]

Hang on Geoffrey. It is the child is who is at stake here. The mother who has an unwanted child, or a child who she cannot properly raise, is only hurting the child. It is not the child's fault that she didn't have or use the proper birth control methods (if that is truly why the unwanted pregnancy occurred).

As you have stated, you do not want to financially support this child through social support programs. Yet you want the woman to have this child??? You do not want the woman to end the pregnancy for financial reasons, but you do not believe the community should support her or the child financially ? Why is that, because it might be coming out of your precious pocket??????

A child raised poorly is still able to make something of their life eventually, possibly. A child dead can't have a life at all ever.

Why should I pay for other people's irresponsibility? I already do enough of that. The woman could have got contraceptives, could have used them, she didn't. No sympathy for the woman, sorry.

The kid is in a disadvantaged situation I agree. But no social program is going to change the irresponsible nature of the mother. Some of the richest people in the world are terrible parents and raise terrible children. Look at Paris Hilton or those Gotti kids if you want some in your face examples.

Lack of money or social assistance isn't making kids commit crime. It's bad parents. Whine about welfare all you want, at the end of the day bad parents won't be changed.

I know lots of people that grew up poor and now are people of great character and integrity.

Stop blaming our countries welfare system and just admit these irresponsible parents are bad parents too!

[Concerned]

Hang on Geoffrey. It is the child is who is at stake here. The mother who has an unwanted child, or a child who she cannot properly raise, is only hurting the child. It is not the child's fault that she didn't have or use the proper birth control methods (if that is truly why the unwanted pregnancy occurred).

As you have stated, you do not want to financially support this child through social support programs. Yet you want the woman to have this child??? You do not want the woman to end the pregnancy for financial reasons, but you do not believe the community should support her or the child financially ? Why is that, because it might be coming out of your precious pocket??????

A child raised poorly is still able to make something of their life eventually, possibly. A child dead can't have a life at all ever.

Why should I pay for other people's irresponsibility? I already do enough of that. The woman could have got contraceptives, could have used them, she didn't. No sympathy for the woman, sorry.

The kid is in a disadvantaged situation I agree. But no social program is going to change the irresponsible nature of the mother. Some of the richest people in the world are terrible parents and raise terrible children. Look at Paris Hilton or those Gotti kids if you want some in your face examples.

Lack of money or social assistance isn't making kids commit crime. It's bad parents. Whine about welfare all you want, at the end of the day bad parents won't be changed.

I know lots of people that grew up poor and now are people of great character and integrity.

Stop blaming our countries welfare system and just admit these irresponsible parents are bad parents too!

It is not all simple economics and simple contraceptives. As pointed out by sparhawk on another thread ...

" Financial well being and emotional well being are intimately connected and cannot be seperated. Very few people have an abortion for purely monetary reasons (although that may be the reason they speak aload). The real reason is they do not emotionally able to cope with the child"....

OF course there are people who are poor that have become great characters. In all likelihood though, they were brought up by parents (or at least one parent) who were able to support them emotionally, and were strong enough in character themselves to properly raise a child in less than an ideal situation.

The problem is that the most likely person to become a detriment to society is the person that grew up in poverty, did not have an appropriate social support system, and ultimately, yes, had bad parents. So why are you so insistent that all these bad parents who (according to you) make bad and irresponsible choices about their birth control, bring children into society?? If these so-called bad parents get themselves into the situation of being pregnant, wrongly or rightly, why should they be forced to raise a child? Obviously you do not want to help support that child and do not believe that our society in general has any responsibility towards that child?

Your arguments seem very self-righteous to me.

[geoffrey]

Hang on Geoffrey. It is the child is who is at stake here. The mother who has an unwanted child, or a child who she cannot properly raise, is only hurting the child. It is not the child's fault that she didn't have or use the proper birth control methods (if that is truly why the unwanted pregnancy occurred).

As you have stated, you do not want to financially support this child through social support programs. Yet you want the woman to have this child??? You do not want the woman to end the pregnancy for financial reasons, but you do not believe the community should support her or the child financially ? Why is that, because it might be coming out of your precious pocket??????

A child raised poorly is still able to make something of their life eventually, possibly. A child dead can't have a life at all ever.

Why should I pay for other people's irresponsibility? I already do enough of that. The woman could have got contraceptives, could have used them, she didn't. No sympathy for the woman, sorry.

The kid is in a disadvantaged situation I agree. But no social program is going to change the irresponsible nature of the mother. Some of the richest people in the world are terrible parents and raise terrible children. Look at Paris Hilton or those Gotti kids if you want some in your face examples.

Lack of money or social assistance isn't making kids commit crime. It's bad parents. Whine about welfare all you want, at the end of the day bad parents won't be changed.

I know lots of people that grew up poor and now are people of great character and integrity.

Stop blaming our countries welfare system and just admit these irresponsible parents are bad parents too!

It is not all simple economics and simple contraceptives. As pointed out by sparhawk on another thread ...

" Financial well being and emotional well being are intimately connected and cannot be seperated. Very few people have an abortion for purely monetary reasons (although that may be the reason they speak aload). The real reason is they do not emotionally able to cope with the child"....

OF course there are people who are poor that have become great characters. In all likelihood though, they were brought up by parents (or at least one parent) who were able to support them emotionally, and were strong enough in character themselves to properly raise a child in less than an ideal situation.

The problem is that the most likely person to become a detriment to society is the person that grew up in poverty, did not have an appropriate social support system, and ultimately, yes, had bad parents. So why are you so insistent that all these bad parents who (according to you) make bad and irresponsible choices about their birth control, bring children into society?? If these so-called bad parents get themselves into the situation of being pregnant, wrongly or rightly, why should they be forced to raise a child? Obviously you do not want to help support that child and do not believe that our society in general has any responsibility towards that child?

Your arguments seem very self-righteous to me.

Very clever Concerned. I was just trying to make clear my position that social assistance does nothing for raising good kids in any situation. In fact, I'd suggest that it creates kids that will rely on it in the future. Anyways...

It's tough, because I don't want these kids raised in poor family situaitons. Yet I also can't support killing them all off. Why can't women make a responsible choice and give the kid up for adoption if they can't handle it? That seems like a reasonable compromise, the kid gets to live with responsible happy parents, instead of getting flushed.

[Riverwind]

It's tough, because I don't want these kids raised in poor family situaitons. Yet I also can't support killing them all off. Why can't women make a responsible choice and give the kid up for adoption if they can't handle it? That seems like a reasonable compromise, the kid gets to live with responsible happy parents, instead of getting flushed.

I find it interesting that so many people make such a fuss over a bundle of cells. From a purely biological perspective the DNA of a fetus is 95% the same as the DNA of a pig or a mouse yet we have no particular concern about terminating the lives of those creatures if they are inconvenient for us.

I feel the decision about when a mess of cells attains 'humaness' is a religious decision - not a scientific one. For that reason, the only reasonable approach to give individuals the power to make the choice that conforms to their religious views.

Forcing a women to bare a child to term and then give it up for adoption is nothing more than imposing the religious views of a minority of the population on someone who does not share those religious views.

[Wilber]

It's tough, because I don't want these kids raised in poor family situaitons. Yet I also can't support killing them all off. Why can't women make a responsible choice and give the kid up for adoption if they can't handle it? That seems like a reasonable compromise, the kid gets to live with responsible happy parents, instead of getting flushed.

I find it interesting that so many people make such a fuss over a bundle of cells. From a purely biological perspective the DNA of a fetus is 95% the same as the DNA of a pig or a mouse yet we have no particular concern about terminating the lives of those creatures if they are inconvenient for us.

I feel the decision about when a mess of cells attains 'humaness' is a religious decision - not a scientific one. For that reason, the only reasonable approach to give individuals the power to make the choice that conforms to their religious views.

Forcing a women to bare a child to term and then give it up for adoption is nothing more than imposing the religious views of a minority of the population on someone who does not share those religious views.

Would you say that a fetus that is capable of living on its own outside the womb is just mess of cells, because in Canada that mess of cells gets absolutely no protection from law until it leaves the womb.

[Riverwind]

Would you say that a fetus that is capable of living on its own outside the womb is just mess of cells, because in Canada that mess of cells gets absolutely no protection from law until it leaves the womb.

There is no such thing as a preterm fetus that can live by itself outside the womb (i.e needs nothing more than food and water). Preterm fetuses require extraordinary medical intervention and must live in an artificial womb (a.k.a incubator) until they are viable. In many cases, preterm fetuses have nothing to look forward to but a life with multiple severe disabilities. As a result, some parents (with the co-operation of medical professionals) choose to let nature take its course and provide only food and water. Whether that is an ethical thing to do or not depends entirely on your religious convictions.

Which brings me back to my original point: it is extremely difficult to decide exactly when a fetus becomes human so it is best left as an individual choice.

[FTA Lawyer]

Would you say that a fetus that is capable of living on its own outside the womb is just mess of cells, because in Canada that mess of cells gets absolutely no protection from law until it leaves the womb.

There is no such thing as a preterm fetus that can live by itself outside the womb (i.e needs nothing more than food and water). Preterm fetuses require extraordinary medical intervention and must live in an artificial womb (a.k.a incubator) until they are viable. In many cases, preterm babies have nothing to look forward to but a life with multiple severe disabilities. As a result, some parents (with the co-operation of medical professionals) choose to let nature take its course and provide only food and water to the baby. Whether that is an ethical thing to do or not depends entirely on your religious convictions.

Which brings me back to my original point: there is massive grey area between conception and birth where a fetus becomes human.

WTF does this have to do with jail sentences and bail conditions for violent crime????!!!!????!!!!????

Start a new thread.

FTA

[Wilber]

Would you say that a fetus that is capable of living on its own outside the womb is just mess of cells, because in Canada that mess of cells gets absolutely no protection from law until it leaves the womb.

There is no such thing as a preterm fetus that can live by itself outside the womb (i.e needs nothing more than food and water). Preterm fetuses require extraordinary medical intervention and must live in an artificial womb (a.k.a incubator) until they are viable. In many cases, preterm babies have nothing to look forward to but a life with multiple severe disabilities. As a result, some parents (with the co-operation of medical professionals) choose to let nature take its course and provide only food and water to the baby. Whether that is an ethical thing to do or not depends entirely on your religious convictions.

Which brings me back to my original point: there is massive grey area between conception and birth where a fetus becomes human.

WTF does this have to do with jail sentences and bail conditions for violent crime????!!!!????!!!!????

Start a new thread.

FTA

Good idea. I just find this an incredibly difficult question. I'm always amazed at how simple others see it.

[Insom Elvis]

that someone dropped a piece of concrete off an overpass that severely disfigured her face and nearly killed a bride to be on her way back from trying on her wedding dress.

Perhaps the most sick thing about our justice system is the guy who drop the cement block will likely never see the inside of a jail because the woman did not die and therefore he can only be charged with assault with a weapon. I think we need to change the law that so if you commit a crime that results in the permanent injury of another person then it should be treated the same a murder - the fact that death did not occur is irrelevant.

We also need to have a new crime called 'murder by mob' which carries serious penalties. The police should not have to figure out which individual in mob actually landed a the killing blow (a near impossible task). All the police should need to prove is an individual was a willing participant in a mob attack to get a conviction.

I pity your system and envy it at the same time. In America, that could be a count of attempted murder, to attempted manslaughter, to misdemeanor vandalism resulting in injury, depending on the lawyer. Those last 3 words say a lot, unfortunately. In a case like this, the kid might be desensitised to think this was ok, and made a mistake that really messed up someones life. Or it might be a case where he caused an effect and because of chance, the effect turned out to be devastating. I'm lost on this one, if i shoot a .22 bullet at a bird in the middle of nowhere and it misses and happens to hit a hunter a mile away should I be charged with murder? No, if I can presuade the judge... but yeah in this case I'd say change is in order, no matter what the kid hit bad things would happen. His family should pay for the reconstructive surgery and maybe his parent will implement a different style of dicipline.

[Hicksey]

The idea of deterrence doesn't carry any weight anymore. The people who commit such violent acts are not the ones who spend a lot of time reading about the efforts of society to keep them on the straight and narrow. Part of the reason why compassion has a chance of working, they haven't proven to me that they are incapable of learning. Deterrence may have worked when people were hanged in the town square for stealing a piece of bread. But that was a pretty lawless time.

Studies have shown that the severity of a sentence has little to no effect on the probability of a crime being committed. What is important is the probabilities of being caught. 47% of deviants (people who are caught and convicted of a crime) will have no subsequent record. Another 35% will stop after the second crime and a further 29% will stop after the third. Thereafter, less than 5% will continue committing crimes. If you want deterrence, you should cut the length of sentences for first offense and better use the resources to catch criminals.

In the late 19th century, most convicted criminals weren't sent to prisons, they were sentenced to repay their debt to society by working for the city/government/victims. Prisons were never created to be the only tool to punish criminals. I urge everyone to read up on the Classical thinking theory of criminal punishment from Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham.

You've attributed that quote to the wrong person. I didn't say that.

[betsy]

I'd like to see a very tough law on youth crimes....including first time offenders. I say giving them a realistic experience of how real jail time will be like will be a better deterrent for repeat-offenders, and may really help the youth to turn his life around.

Harsh, (no kiddie-gloves) boot camp should be it! Include intense trade learning so they can have jobs when they come out.

[newbie]

We need to send a message to people that there will no longer be a slap on the wrist for such offenses. We need to make the punishments for such crimes so severe that people would not consider committing them in the first place.

Tried that, didn't work. Capital punishment too expensive and no deterenrt. How about the rack, burning at the stake worked for awhile. But the shark infested island thing might make a comeback.

[Hicksey]

We need to send a message to people that there will no longer be a slap on the wrist for such offenses. We need to make the punishments for such crimes so severe that people would not consider committing them in the first place.

Tried that, didn't work. Capital punishment too expensive and no deterenrt. How about the rack, burning at the stake worked for awhile. But the shark infested island thing might make a comeback.

I'm not worried so much about rehabilitation as I am about the safety of the general public. The odds are most likely that the type of person affected by what I present here would likely commit further violent crimes in jail and end up there for life. I'll submit that it will cost more in the long run, but what cost is too much for the safety of the public? If people are so worried about the general welfare of society, isn't their safety important and a part of that?

[betsy]

[

So Geoffrey, let me get this right. (I mean, very RIGHT)....Abortion should be illegal and so then we have this child born to a single mother, into poverty, no father around, no social net, mother perhaps unfit to bring up a child that will adequately cope in our society. No no, don't let her have an abortion, she must have that child. Then when that child is 14 or 15, he commits a violent crime, we raise him to adult court, put him in jail and lock him up forever, right ......RIGHT ???

Somehow I don't get you guys.

But who says he's going to be a criminal just because he's been born to that kind of circumstances?

A good number of success stories actually started on those dire backgrounds.

Are you saying that all children born to a single mom, into poverty, with no father around, no social net, will end up criminals...therefore we ought to slaughter them before they're even born?

[Concerned]

[

So Geoffrey, let me get this right. (I mean, very RIGHT)....Abortion should be illegal and so then we have this child born to a single mother, into poverty, no father around, no social net, mother perhaps unfit to bring up a child that will adequately cope in our society. No no, don't let her have an abortion, she must have that child. Then when that child is 14 or 15, he commits a violent crime, we raise him to adult court, put him in jail and lock him up forever, right ......RIGHT ???

Somehow I don't get you guys.

But who says he's going to be a criminal just because he's been born to that kind of circumstances?

A good number of success stories actually started on those dire backgrounds.

Are you saying that all children born to a single mom, into poverty, with no father around, no social net, will end up criminals...therefore we ought to slaughter them before they're even born?

I'm saying that the best judge of whether or not the child will be born into the right set of circumstances, and whether or not the parents are emotionally able to deal with that child, is the parents, and in particular the mother. The right to choose should be left to the individuals who are directly responsible for that child.

[Wilber]

[

So Geoffrey, let me get this right. (I mean, very RIGHT)....Abortion should be illegal and so then we have this child born to a single mother, into poverty, no father around, no social net, mother perhaps unfit to bring up a child that will adequately cope in our society. No no, don't let her have an abortion, she must have that child. Then when that child is 14 or 15, he commits a violent crime, we raise him to adult court, put him in jail and lock him up forever, right ......RIGHT ???

Somehow I don't get you guys.

But who says he's going to be a criminal just because he's been born to that kind of circumstances?

A good number of success stories actually started on those dire backgrounds.

Are you saying that all children born to a single mom, into poverty, with no father around, no social net, will end up criminals...therefore we ought to slaughter them before they're even born?

I'm saying that the best judge of whether or not the child will be born into the right set of circumstances, and whether or not the parents are emotionally able to deal with that child, is the parents, and in particular the mother. The right to choose should be left to the individuals who are directly responsible for that child.

Nearly twenty seven years ago to this day, my wife gave birth to twin boys by Cesarean. She was overdue and the doctors felt it would not be safe to deliver them normally. Eight weeks later when I was in Toronto on business, I got a call from my father. It was a nice warm day and my wife had the twins in their buggy out in the back yard while putzed around in the garden. When she went to feed them, one was not breathing. The autopsy found nothing, it was diagnosed as SIDS. Even though you and the government may say otherwise, no one will ever convince me that little boy was less deserving of life nine weeks before, than he was on the day he died.

[JMH]

I have watched the front pages peppered with the devastation from gun crime for a long time now. It should have happened a long time ago, but since it hasn't we should do it now.

I'm calling for:

No Bail for Violent Criminals

No Bleeding Hearts for Violent Criminals no matter how young or old.

No Parole.

No Exceptions.

Our laws need to be changed to take these sub-human creatures from society and pen them up like the dogs they are. The time for compassion for these people has come and passed. They prove every day they cannot function within our society. It's time to respect the right of the rest of us to live in a safe society.

I read the front page of the Toronto Sun today and I discovered that Jane Creba died because someone knocked someone else's hat off, that someone opened fire on the 18th floor of an apartment building and nearly shot a 5 year old girl, that someone dropped a piece of concrete off an overpass that severely disfigured her face and nearly killed a bride to be on her way back from trying on her wedding dress.

This behavior simply cannot continue to be underpunished. We need to send a message to people that there will no longer be a slap on the wrist for such offenses. We need to make the punishments for such crimes so severe that people would not consider committing them in the first place.

I agree. Furthermore, I believe the worst thing that happened to the youth of Canada, was the "Young Offenders Act". Young people these days are well aware that crime "DOES PAY", when it comes to them.

I can only speak for myself but I've mused (jokingly) about robbing a bank. Why havn't I? Because it's morally deprived but also because the prospect of spending 15-25 in Stoney Mountain Penn. is not my idea of fun. Consequences are a deterent and anyone that says otherwise is kidding themselves. The basis for the YOA was flawed to begin with: "young people are fundimentaly good people and should not pay heavily for mistakes". Well, my way thinking reads: fundementaly good, youg people won't commit crimes when they know that they will be punished severly!