Canada's justice system is far too lenient for murderers. They should really get capital punishment to protect society.

[eyeball]

14 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I didn't notice your example because you didn't actually link to it. And I can see why. The murder thing was thrown out.

Really? How come you don't put a link indicating that if that's the case?

Oh right, you can't, because you're full of shit.

[CdnFox]

32 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Really? How come you don't put a link indicating that if that's the case?

Oh right, you can't, because you're full of shit.

Aww muffin   I posted the exact same link YOU did  

It's pretty easy to look up as well so....

[Gaétan]

10 hours ago, User said:

Where does this ruling say the king can do no wrong?

It states that if the President is charged with executing the laws of the country, that can't be unlawful, because he is executing the laws. 

I realize this little factual nuance is too much for you folks or maybe you just don't care, because you want to push your nonsense fear-mongering talking points. 

 

The king cannot prosecute himself.

[Gaétan]

On 1/27/2026 at 4:55 AM, blackbird said:

This is an example of a failed justice system.

This man stabbed another man 50 times and killed him of course.  Any rational person would think this was murder.  But the Canadians justice system found him guilty of manslaughter and sentenced him to eleven years, a relatively light sentence.  Such a crime should have warranted the death penalty or at least life in prison with no parole.  Life should mean life, but not in Canada.  Our supreme court declared actual life in prison to be "unconstitutional"  or cruel and unusual punishment.

If you google this you find this does not really even fit the definition of manslaughter.  The legal definition says this:

" Unlike murder, death in manslaughter is not planned, and there is no intent to kill. "   Manslaughter Laws in Canada: Charges & Sentencing | Criminal Code Help

So even though the offender stabbed a man 50 times, the justice system people decided the killer had no intent to kill????  That doesn't make sense. 

I don't see this as meeting the definition of manslaughter at all.   Granted the offender was taking some kind of drugs around that time, but I don't think an offender taking any drugs around the time of a crime should be able to use that as an excuse to be found guilty of the lesser offence of manslaughter.  That is a perversion of justice.

The sentence given him was eleven years.  Again a very light sentence for such a horrific crime.  The victim must have suffered horrifically.  

Canada needs to bring back capital punishment.  People who commit these kinds of crimes are a serious threat to society and should never be out free again.  Who can guarantee that this kind of character will not go out and repeat this same kind of crime?  Nobody can make such a guarantee.  This person also represents a serious danger to jail guards who have often been attacked in their job.   Perhaps this is another reason the Bible prescribes capital punishment for killing.  See Genesis 9:6 KJV.  It makes no distinction between different classifications of killing.

Yet, in Canada, even though it is unlikely, there is a chance he could get out on parole after seven years.  Another failure of the justice system.

The protection of society should come first in the justice system.  However, it Canada, under Liberal rule, the justice system is designed to grant rights to the criminal, even murderers, rights they should never have.  That is liberal mentality.  It is wrecking this country.   The Liberals are apparently bringing in some changes at the moment to the justice system.  But don't hold your breath for any serious changes that would protect society.

Jamaican who stabbed Albertan 50 times and hid his body gets 11-year sentence for manslaughter

"If you believe that killing a person is a good thing, you cannot remain in the Kingdom and have eternal life, no matter what your crazy teachers say.

[User]

1 hour ago, Gaétan said:

The king cannot prosecute himself.

There is no king… 

[Barquentine]

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

They have immunity from prosecution in the courts. The court ruled that the correct venue for that is impeachment.

ttps://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/trump-v-united-states/
In July 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Trump in a 6-3 decision, holding that a former president is entitled to at least presumptive, if not absolute, immunity from prosecution for all official acts.

https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/impeachment.htm
The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to convict, and the penalty for an impeached official upon conviction is removal from office.

2/3 almost impossible in the US Senate in this era. And if the Prez sees it coming, like Nixon, he can simply resign. You can't get much closer to total immunity than that. 

[User]

7 hours ago, Barquentine said:

2/3 almost impossible in the US Senate in this era. And if the Prez sees it coming, like Nixon, he can simply resign. You can't get much closer to total immunity than that. 

"for official acts"

The part you all have so much difficulty with. 

 

[CdnFox]

7 hours ago, Barquentine said:

ttps://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/trump-v-united-states/
In July 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Trump in a 6-3 decision, holding that a former president is entitled to at least presumptive, if not absolute, immunity from prosecution for all official acts.

Yes. They cannot be prosecuted. They must be impeached. I just said that. 

7 hours ago, Barquentine said:

2/3 almost impossible in the US Senate in this era.

Sure. That's because the dems would impeach the republican president every single time they had 51 percent if they could   But if the crime of failure is serious enough then he can be removed. And the courts determined that's how it should be. 

Obama broke the law with drone strikes.  If he could be charged for that he'd be in court for murder. Protection from that kind of thing is a must or the us couldn't fuction. So that's why they have impeachment. 

That's why it's important to pick good leaders. If you want to be mad be mad at the democrats for putting forward such a crap show that it made trump look good to voters

[I am Groot]

On 1/29/2026 at 9:35 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Now that we have a hardline US government, things should be changing right ?

Or ... not .... 
 

Criminal law is a state jurisdiction, as are judicial appointments. Prosecution is a local affair. The federal government has very little to do with it other than appointing the SC

On 1/29/2026 at 9:43 AM, John Stone said:

.........unlike SCOTUS most Canadians would be hard pressed to even name the Canadian Supreme Court bench.

Because they're nonentities chosen for their conformity with shallow, fringe left social justice views. There are probably ten thousand people with a better grasp of the law and more intellectual heft than anyone on the Supreme Court.

[I am Groot]

The level of low-level crime and disorder, often straying into pretty nasty crime, is frustrating when it involves people we all (except the courts) know should be in prison for a very long time, if not permanently. The laws and the type of people appointed as judges appear to prioritize the well-being of the criminals rather than the protection of society.

Too tender-hearted to lock people up, we instead let the population lock itself away behind steel core doors, with burglar alarms and barred windows on the basement, and CCTV cameras. Kids get kept inside. Couples are too wary of going out at night.

All so people who ought to be institutionalized or in prison can stagger through the streets in search of more drugs or something to steal to get more drugs. It's madness.