The sad state of our judicial/penal system

[jdobbin]

Presumably, they are older now, and thus wiser.

What he did was not particularly important. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. That he didn't demand every offender by thrown in prison and the key tossed away? That he didn'e eschew all contact and cooperation with the federal government? These are simply straw men and this discussion has no point to it that I can see.

Yes, Mulroney is much older now and presumably gave Harper the advice to invoke national security as a reason to direct contracts to provinces they wanted.

What Toews did was very important as Attorney General because it is at the heart of his policies as Justice minister now. Toews wasted money on gang trials that were broken up into smaller trials by defence lawyers. Many of these guys faced reduced charges.

Toews office was underfunded and inept and let a man who sex with a 12 year old girl serve his time in the community. A review found his department to be substandard.

This is the man that is Justice minister now. Older and wiser, presumably.

[Argus]

Presumably, they are older now, and thus wiser.

What he did was not particularly important. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. That he didn't demand every offender by thrown in prison and the key tossed away? That he didn'e eschew all contact and cooperation with the federal government? These are simply straw men and this discussion has no point to it that I can see.

Yes, Mulroney is much older now and presumably gave Harper the advice to invoke national security as a reason to direct contracts to provinces they wanted.

You may whine about it when and if it happens and if it costs us money.

What Toews did was very important as Attorney General because it is at the heart of his policies as Justice minister now. Toews wasted money on gang trials that were broken up into smaller trials by defence lawyers. Many of these guys faced reduced charges.

All the more reason to change the law.

Toews office was underfunded and inept and let a man who sex with a 12 year old girl serve his time in the community. A review found his department to be substandard.

Departments that are underfunded tend to be inept. Are you telling me Toews decided on his own what funding his department would have? That has not been my experience.

[jdobbin]

You may whine about it when and if it happens and if it costs us money.

All the more reason to change the law.

Departments that are underfunded tend to be inept. Are you telling me Toews decided on his own what funding his department would have? That has not been my experience.

It is bad policy and even the National Post and Western Standard say so. Anyone with any sense can't see why the absolute bald faced lie of "national security" is being used. There is no justification. None at all.

Toews was Attorney General. His department dropped the ball repeatedly. It was cited as a reason why he was defeated in 1999.

His department misspent money constantly for super trials. That was his responsibility. He was incompetent then, I can't imagine he is any better now.

[Hicksey]

Presumably, they are older now, and thus wiser.

What he did was not particularly important. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. That he didn't demand every offender by thrown in prison and the key tossed away? That he didn'e eschew all contact and cooperation with the federal government? These are simply straw men and this discussion has no point to it that I can see.

Yes, Mulroney is much older now and presumably gave Harper the advice to invoke national security as a reason to direct contracts to provinces they wanted.

What Toews did was very important as Attorney General because it is at the heart of his policies as Justice minister now. Toews wasted money on gang trials that were broken up into smaller trials by defence lawyers. Many of these guys faced reduced charges.

Toews office was underfunded and inept and let a man who sex with a 12 year old girl serve his time in the community. A review found his department to be substandard.

This is the man that is Justice minister now. Older and wiser, presumably.

Well, if that's true we'll end up moving from one government that completely refuses to punish criminals to another that cannot for its own ineptitude.

Maybe what we need to do is examine each case seperately and figure out what suspension of priviledges would most punish each criminal.

I know this is hardly a great example, but it gets my point across. My oldest boy responds much better to some punishments than others. For example, spanking him achieves nothing with him, but because he is such a busybody standing him in the corner and making him stand still is as much as torture to him. When I do this he knows I mean business and that the behavior should not be repeated.

I wonder if could/should do the same for criminals? Could this serve as a more effective deterrent?

[geoffrey]

Secondly, why not tag and label criminals.

The ancient Romans would occasionally brand criminals on the forehead if the circumstances of the crime was severe. The letters MUR (for murderer) or FUR (for thief) or FUG (for military fugitive) would be forever burned on their forehead.

Alternatively, we could do something a little more humane by following their whereabouts. We could make a concerted effort to inform everybody that a criminal is living in their neighborhood. I realize this would lead to vigilantism. The criminal would self-ostracize to the extreme.

While I'm all for life sentences for violent offenders, there is a democratic issue with tagging people after their realease.

If they've served their time, they should have paid their debt to society. I don't really like the concept of people paying their debt in public, like with all the conditional sentences. Money shouldn't be the issue with a matter of morality like dealing with criminals that have destroyed lives.

So it's all or nothing, lock them up, or maintain the status quo. Tagging people sets a precedent and would surely lead to vigilantism, which doesn't make sense when our objective is REDUCING violence in our society. Violence against a criminal is violence all the same.

[Yaro]

Is there perhaps an article about the case that isn't so obviously an opinion piece, usually I have found that when a court case seems inexplicable according to an article its because the article is leaving crucial information out. Not always but usually.