Should rich prisoners pay their keep?

[Figleaf]

In my opinion it sucks, that is why I follow the law, I don't want to go. But it is better than being homeless.

My point is if even the homeless don't want to go to jail, then jail must be worse than being homeless.

Think of it... cramped quarters, violent atmosphere, anal rape, bad medicine, stiffling rules, and worst of all, being at the mercy of a bureaucracy that no-one gives a shit about.

Think of this, no home, no warm bed, no food, no tv, no anything, and they are at the mercy of society. I should think one would choose jail over starving to death.

I don't think most homeless people starve to death. Homelessness and prison are different kinds of hell on earth, but neither is unhellish.

[Charles Anthony]

What crimes would you limit it to,or would it apply for any crime?

Whatever you want. Right now, victims get nothing -- except bureaucracy.

how will you find the money or all the victims?

I am not saying you have to. I am saying that if a victim can NOT be clearly identified, the criminal does the time.

You see: your objection is caused by a problem with crime, not with a form of justice.

This is an idea from Saudi where you can pay the victims a payment and have your sentence lowered or cancelled, the rich never get time in prison but buy their way out...not very fair and open for abuse, it's simply cash for crime-you pay you go free.....

I do not think you have to go so far as Saudi Arabia to observe different justice for "rich" people.

[Figleaf]

I am saying that if a victim can NOT be clearly identified, the criminal does the time.

If there's no victim, how is there a crime?

[Wilber]

Yes, I am. Right now, victims get nothing and "rich" convicts get to keep their money. How could my proposal be worse than what we have now?????

I agree with you that victims should be compensated by the criminals and that the criminals should not get to keep the proceeds of their crimes. I just don't think they should be negotiable. The victim should be able to apply for compensation and the courts should impose it. The criminal gets a say but does as he is told. He doesn't get a choice of pay or go to jail when it comes to compensation. He pays, period.

[Charles Anthony]

I just don't think they should be negotiable.

I do.

If there's no victim, how is there a crime?

Bingo! There is no crime.

I was trying to lay a trap and you blew my cover. I tip my hat to you, FigLeaf.

I wanted to rope people into accepting a compromise of our current justice system by at least allowing victims to negotiate a settlement with their aggressors. After that, I hoped to force people into examining how the State could determine what my proposed "victim's rights" time sentence would be with the ultimate intent of exposing how NOBODY logically has a right to determine such a sentence other than the victim and the aggressor. Our justice system is arbitrary.

[FTA Lawyer]

Too many posters here with fantastic ideas...few of which are well-informed.

The Criminal Code has specified procedures for seizing and forfeiture of proceeds of crime...there's an entire part of the code (Part XII.2) devoted to the subject. These procedures are routinely used and convicted criminals very rarely ever attempt to argue the seizure / forfeiture to try to get their stuff back. Also, being in possession of the proceeds of crime is itself a criminal offence (s. 354).

Revenue Canada can do a net worth tax assessment on anyone who apparently has massive assets and no reported legitimate income.

People who are victimized by "rich" individuals are free to pursue their civil court remedy just like any other person who claims to have been wronged by a fellow citizen.

Financial gain to the criminal is an aggravating factor in sentencing for many offences...if they made money off their crime they get more severe sentences.

These are all legitimate, presently on the books, lawful ways to disavow rich criminals of their fortunes, to the extent that those fortunes are proceeds of crime. If they are just rich (lawfully) then too bad for us that we have to cover the costs of taking away their liberty. It is not a crime to have money (again, assuming lawfully obtained) and there is simply no lawful basis on which to mete out criminal justice in a different manner depending on the size of one's bank account.

FTA

[Charles Anthony]

there is simply no lawful basis on which to mete out criminal justice in a different manner depending on the size of one's bank account.

There may not be a "lawful basis" only because there is nothing written in our law books which says so. However, there can certainly be a moral basis if the criminals and the victims agree to negotiate a settlement.

[madmax]

There may not be a "lawful basis" only because there is nothing written in our law books which says so. However, there can certainly be a moral basis if the criminals and the victims agree to negotiate a settlement.

You do realize that that is the system the Taliban used.

[Charles Anthony]

I am sure members of the Taliban eat their wheaties every morning too.

What do you fear?

[guyser]

If there's no victim, how is there a crime?

Hopefully FTA can chime in on this one too.

A couple of years ago a man was arrested at the CNE with a "shoe camera" taking "upskirt" shots. He did not coerce nor jostle any woman to get the shot. He simply manipulated his camera to see where the sun dont shine.

The women were oblivious. Thus they had not lost anything, nothing was stolen from them nor were they harmed in anyway. Couple that with public domain and they could be photographed in public anyway, and assuming they fell down they too could be photographed with their undies showing, I was wondering how was that a crime ?

Stay with me here. The women had no idea , thus they were not harmed physically nor mentally. It was not until it became public did anyone step forward and say they were violated . All of them had no idea .

But the guy was charged , cannot remember with what, and IIRC he was convicted. But essentially there was no "victim" , but there was a crime.

What am I missing?

Seeing how the papparazi can hide in bushes to take shots of celebs, how is this different? How was Brittany pantiless shots any different other than the angle?

[blueblood]

If there's no victim, how is there a crime?

Hopefully FTA can chime in on this one too.

A couple of years ago a man was arrested at the CNE with a "shoe camera" taking "upskirt" shots. He did not coerce nor jostle any woman to get the shot. He simply manipulated his camera to see where the sun dont shine.

The women were oblivious. Thus they had not lost anything, nothing was stolen from them nor were they harmed in anyway. Couple that with public domain and they could be photographed in public anyway, and assuming they fell down they too could be photographed with their undies showing, I was wondering how was that a crime ?

Stay with me here. The women had no idea , thus they were not harmed physically nor mentally. It was not until it became public did anyone step forward and say they were violated . All of them had no idea .

But the guy was charged , cannot remember with what, and IIRC he was convicted. But essentially there was no "victim" , but there was a crime.

What am I missing?

Seeing how the papparazi can hide in bushes to take shots of celebs, how is this different? How was Brittany pantiless shots any different other than the angle?

That's like raping someone when their passed out. They were oblivious, had no idea thus not harming them in that logic.

[guyser]

That's like raping someone when their passed out. They were oblivious, had no idea thus not harming them in that logic.

No, that is rape and physical assault. Huge difference.

[geoffrey]

No, that is rape and physical assault. Huge difference.

Not at all. It makes people feel less secure, it's probably one of the best examples of a crime against all of society, or rather, all the individuals existing within a community.

[guyser]

No, that is rape and physical assault. Huge difference.

Not at all. It makes people feel less secure, it's probably one of the best examples of a crime against all of society, or rather, all the individuals existing within a community.

Apologies geoffrey, I do not understand what you mean.

[geoffrey]

No, that is rape and physical assault. Huge difference.

Not at all. It makes people feel less secure, it's probably one of the best examples of a crime against all of society, or rather, all the individuals existing within a community.

Apologies geoffrey, I do not understand what you mean.

Your saying that these camera freaks aren't harming anyone, and I'm disagreeing. People seeing that on the news and the such are more frightened then they were before it happened. That is a harm.

[guyser]

Your saying that these camera freaks aren't harming anyone, and I'm disagreeing. People seeing that on the news and the such are more frightened then they were before it happened. That is a harm.

People Magazine, LOOK , US WEEKLY, all feature photos of unsuspecting celebrities and normal people. The newspapers are full of people who NEVER consented...the news feature on fat people last night showed people who had no idea they were being filmed. Public domain.

You are making it up to say people are more frightened.

I grant you it is sleazy.

[blueblood]

Your saying that these camera freaks aren't harming anyone, and I'm disagreeing. People seeing that on the news and the such are more frightened then they were before it happened. That is a harm.

People Magazine, LOOK , US WEEKLY, all feature photos of unsuspecting celebrities and normal people. The newspapers are full of people who NEVER consented...the news feature on fat people last night showed people who had no idea they were being filmed. Public domain.

You are making it up to say people are more frightened.

I grant you it is sleazy.

Those paparazzi camera guys could get charged for harassment, IMO that causes harm. If the victims weren't suspecting it it's like getting raped when your passed out. If your passed out you don't know whats going on, so you don't know if your getting harmed or not, much like the unsuspecting upskirt victims who could lay sexual harrassment charges.

[guyser]

Those paparazzi camera guys could get charged for harassment, IMO that causes harm. If the victims weren't suspecting it it's like getting raped when your passed out. If your passed out you don't know whats going on, so you don't know if your getting harmed or not, much like the unsuspecting upskirt victims who could lay sexual harrassment charges.

Be real fellows.

Those papparazi guys have not been charged, and wont be because one being in the public domain cannot assume privacy.

No wait you are right...London Police, Toronto Police , NY Police all will be charged for taking pics of people on the street.

And you equate rape with pic taking ? You really do????

The act of rape is a criminal offence. Taking a pic is not. What is so hard to understand fellows?

Let me reiterate once again, it is sleazy, and I do not advocate it.

[blueblood]

Those paparazzi camera guys could get charged for harassment, IMO that causes harm. If the victims weren't suspecting it it's like getting raped when your passed out. If your passed out you don't know whats going on, so you don't know if your getting harmed or not, much like the unsuspecting upskirt victims who could lay sexual harrassment charges.

Be real fellows.

Those papparazi guys have not been charged, and wont be because one being in the public domain cannot assume privacy.

No wait you are right...London Police, Toronto Police , NY Police all will be charged for taking pics of people on the street.

And you equate rape with pic taking ? You really do????

The act of rape is a criminal offence. Taking a pic is not. What is so hard to understand fellows?

Let me reiterate once again, it is sleazy, and I do not advocate it.

It depends on the manner the pic was taken. I'm sure if someone was right up in your face snapping pics, you could have a pretty good case for charging harrassment which is a criminal offense. Especially if you caught a perv snapping pics up a skirt which calls for sexual harrassment, another criminal offense, the analogy makes sense.

[Wilber]

I am saying that if a victim can NOT be clearly identified, the criminal does the time.

If there's no victim, how is there a crime?

Someone is busted for operating a crystal meth or crack lab and has no direct contact with the lives he screws up, does that mean there is no crime? Do we have to go out and find each addict that bought some of his stuff before there is?

[geoffrey]

Sounds like the prisoners heard my plan to put them to work, I got a freaky call from a Corrections Canada facility tonight.

Good reason to cut off their internet access... they can read my posts...

[FTA Lawyer]

If there's no victim, how is there a crime?

Hopefully FTA can chime in on this one too.

A couple of years ago a man was arrested at the CNE with a "shoe camera" taking "upskirt" shots. He did not coerce nor jostle any woman to get the shot. He simply manipulated his camera to see where the sun dont shine.

The women were oblivious. Thus they had not lost anything, nothing was stolen from them nor were they harmed in anyway. Couple that with public domain and they could be photographed in public anyway, and assuming they fell down they too could be photographed with their undies showing, I was wondering how was that a crime ?

Stay with me here. The women had no idea , thus they were not harmed physically nor mentally. It was not until it became public did anyone step forward and say they were violated . All of them had no idea .

But the guy was charged , cannot remember with what, and IIRC he was convicted. But essentially there was no "victim" , but there was a crime.

What am I missing?

Seeing how the papparazi can hide in bushes to take shots of celebs, how is this different? How was Brittany pantiless shots any different other than the angle?

Forgive me if my "chiming in" here comes across as rude...

Everyone has full free access to all Federal and Provincial legislation (including the Criminal Code) on the CANLII Website...look it up! (Or at least try to look it up on your own first to be informed about the topic you are posting on...or send me a retainer...)

Voyerism

FTA

[Figleaf]

there is simply no lawful basis on which to mete out criminal justice in a different manner depending on the size of one's bank account.

There may not be a "lawful basis" only because there is nothing written in our law books which says so. However, there can certainly be a moral basis if the criminals and the victims agree to negotiate a settlement.

As FTA just pointed out, this is already available through civil proceedings. Civil courts, however, typically don't consider themselves to be capable of addressing any punitive or rehabilitory function as regards the wrongdoer.

Criminal justice, on the other hand, appears to be about the condition of the relationship of the offender with the state brought about by the 'criminal' conduct. That is, crimes are not just offenses against the victim, they are offenses against society or the state. So, Charles, I think before we can assess negotiated criminal justice it's necessary to consider the rectitude of the state/criminal concept.

[Figleaf]

If there's no victim, how is there a crime?

Hopefully FTA can chime in on this one too.

A couple of years ago a man was arrested at the CNE with a "shoe camera" taking "upskirt" shots. He did not coerce nor jostle any woman to get the shot. He simply manipulated his camera to see where the sun dont shine.

The women were oblivious. Thus they had not lost anything, nothing was stolen from them nor were they harmed in anyway. Couple that with public domain and they could be photographed in public anyway, and assuming they fell down they too could be photographed with their undies showing, I was wondering how was that a crime ?

Stay with me here. The women had no idea , thus they were not harmed physically nor mentally. It was not until it became public did anyone step forward and say they were violated . All of them had no idea .

But the guy was charged , cannot remember with what, and IIRC he was convicted. But essentially there was no "victim" , but there was a crime.

What am I missing?

Seeing how the papparazi can hide in bushes to take shots of celebs, how is this different? How was Brittany pantiless shots any different other than the angle?

In this particular case, I cannot agree that there was no victim. The victims were women whose expectations of privacy were violated. I don't think it matters that much that they didn't know. Even if some women at the tower never heard this story and are still unaware, they are victims of the behaviour as their personal freedom of privacy (to cover a part of their body) was circumvented. So IF the state has promulgated a constitutionally correct law that has the effect of criminalizing the circumventing of a person's modesty, THEN lack of an identifiable victim wouldn't be a problem here. {On the other hand, we might find such a law unconstitutional for other reasons, eg. restricting freedom to make video, or too harsh for the minor intrusion involved.}

[Figleaf]

I am saying that if a victim can NOT be clearly identified, the criminal does the time.

If there's no victim, how is there a crime?

Someone is busted for operating a crystal meth or crack lab and has no direct contact with the lives he screws up, does that mean there is no crime? Do we have to go out and find each addict that bought some of his stuff before there is?

You have anticipated exactly where this line of analysis leads. If there is no victim, what harm has been done? If no harm can be seen, what makes the act a 'crime'? That is to say, on what premise is the state purporting to punish someone for it? And that leads us directly to the question of 'vice' crimes like recreational drug use or prostitution.