Why do we call it a "Life Sentence"?

[Keepitsimple]

It makes my blood boil. If someone is given a "Life" sentence for murder - shouldn't it require that they spend more than 12 years in prison? This murderer was given a Life Sentence with no chance of parole for 12 years. "Life" in Canada means 25 years. Yet he was in a minimum security facility - obviously "preparing" for his release even before he was up for review. What kind of justice is this? Componding the issue is that many second-degree convictions are arrived at through plea-bargaining because a first-degree conviction is so difficult to prove.

PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND (CBC) - The RCMP suspect that Gary Gormley, the P.E.I. man convicted of murder who escaped from a New Brunswick prison last Thursday, is getting some help. Gormley, 39, was discovered to be missing from the minimum security Westmorland Institution in Dorchester, N.B., during the noon head count. RCMP Sgt Derek Strong said Monday that, after five days, somebody must be helping him hide. But he added police are also getting help from the public.

Strong said Gormley is probably hiding out in the Maritimes. Gormley had served 11 years of his life sentence for second-degree murder. He would have been eligible to apply for parole next year. Gormley beat and strangled Clifford McIver in his Charlottetown apartment in March 1995. He was sentenced in August 1996 to life in prison with no chance of parole for 12 years.

Link: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/11092007/3/cana...-help-rcmp.html

Here's an additional link on Life Sentences in Canada: http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/PUB/C40.htm#10

Edited September 11, 2007 by Keepitsimple

[Visionseeker]

It makes my blood boil. If someone is given a "Life" sentence for murder - shouldn't it require that they spend more than 12 years in prison? This murderer was given a Life Sentence with no chance of parole for 12 years. "Life" in Canada means 25 years. Yet he was in a minimum security facility - obviously "preparing" for his release even before he was up for review. What kind of justice is this? Componding the issue is that many second-degree convictions are arrived at through plea-bargaining because a first-degree conviction is so difficult to prove.

Link: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/11092007/3/cana...-help-rcmp.html

Here's an additional link on Life Sentences in Canada: http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/PUB/C40.htm#10

This one has girlfriend written all over it. That the RCMP is claiming that he's probably hiding in the maritimes rather than suggesting that "Gomley may be travelling with a female companion" is odd.

[weaponeer]

Life should mean life. The rest of your natural life, you never see the outside again.... 25 years is not enough, life means forever!!!

[Borg]

Blame our feel good society.

Yes, even you the reader had a hand in this.

Deny as you might - you vote in the governments that make the laws.

Borg

[FTA Lawyer]

There is plenty of mis-information about life sentences in Canada...and the bullshit in the John Howard Society link above is not helping things:

Offenders convicted of second degree murder are those whose crime is viewed as unintentional homicide which did not involve any of the elements comprising first degree murder

Second degree murder is unintentional homicide!?!?!?!?!?!? WTF!?!?!?!?! Try manslaughter maybe? Anyway...

A life sentence in Canada means LIFE...as in the rest of your natural life. The numbers part of a life sentence is just the parole eligibility component. A colleague of mine had a client who got "life 10" for manslaughter and ended up doing well over 30 years in prison becuase he couldn't toe the line long enough to stay out on parole.

See, on a life sentence, even if you make parole after reaching your eligibility date, you are always still serving your life sentence. If you step out of line, your parole is breached by your PO and your ass goes directly back to prison. There's no bail provision, and the only "trial" you get on a parole breach allegation is a Parole Board review which need only be done within 90 days.

No doubt there are many criticisms to be made of the system, but few people realize the true nature of a life sentence.

FTA

[Argus]

Liberal judges and Liberal laws. If you examine any sentencing scale for violent crime you will find that almost all sentences fall within the lower quarter of the possible sentencing limits. Virtually none go above the lower half, and it's rare indeed to see sentences in the upper quarter. Judges are _extremely_ reluctant to issue severe sentences regardless of the severity of the crime or the damage done.

The minimum limits for parole eligibility was the sop to public opinion the lawyers made when public opinion finally demanded we take sentencing out of the hands of these judges for murder. But of course, the lawyers have managed to weasel around even those limits.

The law as it is written makes it almost impossible to prove intent unless the criminal actually admits he was trying to kill someone. Chasing someone around and shooting and stabbing them multiple times is absolutely no evidence you wanted to kill them - according to the law. That's why we have so many murders called "manslaughter". Premeditation is often even more difficult to prove. And because the law is so tortuously complex that cases can last months we don't have enough money for the high-priced lawyers and judges to try them all properly. Thus plea bargains are a requirement.

[geoffrey]

Liberal judges and Liberal laws. If you examine any sentencing scale for violent crime you will find that almost all sentences fall within the lower quarter of the possible sentencing limits. Virtually none go above the lower half, and it's rare indeed to see sentences in the upper quarter. Judges are _extremely_ reluctant to issue severe sentences regardless of the severity of the crime or the damage done.

Common law requires such sentances. If I were a judge, I can't just sentance someone to x years because I didn't have enough butter on my bagel that morning. Sentances are based on previous case law, and a similar crime needs to be dealt with similar time. A handful of lenient judges can throw the whole system off.

But if you don't like it, you've got to overturn our entire justice system and adopt, God forbid, something along the lines of the French model.

Or, have politicans with the balls to institute mandatory minimums.

The law as it is written makes it almost impossible to prove intent unless the criminal actually admits he was trying to kill someone. Chasing someone around and shooting and stabbing them multiple times is absolutely no evidence you wanted to kill them - according to the law. That's why we have so many murders called "manslaughter". Premeditation is often even more difficult to prove. And because the law is so tortuously complex that cases can last months we don't have enough money for the high-priced lawyers and judges to try them all properly. Thus plea bargains are a requirement.

Your kidding right? Ancedotally, I think most 1st degree murder charges end in 1st degree murder convictions. But I may be wrong.

Generally, if you shoot and kill someone, your going to jail for murder.

Edited September 29, 2007 by geoffrey

[Argus]

Common law requires such sentances. If I were a judge, I can't just sentance someone to x years because I didn't have enough butter on my bagel that morning. Sentances are based on previous case law, and a similar crime needs to be dealt with similar time. A handful of lenient judges can throw the whole system off.

But if you don't like it, you've got to overturn our entire justice system and adopt, God forbid, something along the lines of the French model.

Or, have politicans with the balls to institute mandatory minimums.

That would be Harper, if he ever gets a majority. Call me odd, but I just don't see Dion doing so.

Your kidding right? Ancedotally, I think most 1st degree murder charges end in 1st degree murder convictions. But I may be wrong.

Generally, if you shoot and kill someone, your going to jail for murder.

Most charges end in convictions, regardless of the crime. That is because prosecutors judge ahead of time the strength of their case, and won't lay a higher charge than they are pretty darned sure they can prove without any doubts. Your last sentence is simply wrong. I believe I have used the example before of a punk in Ottawa who went to the local mall, carrying a large knife, deliberately picked a fight with a shopkeeper by insulting him and his wife, then stabbed him to death - inside the mall in full view of cameras and witnesses. As the man lay dying his killer shouted, triumphantly "I killed you! I'm going to watch you die!"

He was neither a juvenile nor on drugs nor drunk.

Manslaughter. I think he got 3 years.

Another case I remember is a drug dealer who shot one of his customers multiple times. Upon learning the customer was taken to hospital by ambulance the drug dealer went to the hospital, went into the emergency room, and shot him again several times in the torso.

He was not charged with attempted murder because the crown said they could not prove it was his intention to kill the victim. I think the eventual charge was something like assault with a deadly weapon.

Edited September 29, 2007 by Argus

[Keepitsimple]

Let's not forget that we also have Statutory Release where by law, most prisoners must be released after serving two-thirds of their sentence. I think we should immediately do away with Statutory Release and institute a version of three-strikes for parole eligibility. For an offender's first violent crime. they are eligible for parole after serving one-third of their sentence. For their second crime, two-thirds. If they commit a third crime, they are not eligible for parole and must serve their full sentence. This parole "three strikes" would be aimed at violent criminals who do physical harm to others.

Statutory Release: By law, most federal inmates must be released with supervision after serving two-thirds of their sentence. Offenders serving life or indeterminate sentences are not eligible for statutory release.

Q. Is statutory release the same as parole?

A. No. Contrary to parole, which is a discretionary decision made by the National Parole Board, most federal inmates are released automatically by law on statutory release after serving two-thirds of their sentence if they have not already been released on parole. While subject to statutory release, offenders are supervised in the community and will be returned to prison if they are believed to present an undue risk to the public.

Q. Does the National Parole Board have authority to grant statutory release?

A. No. Statutory release is a legal requirement. However, the Board may add certain conditions to contribute to the protection of society. It may also revoke a release if there is a breach of a condition or detain an offender in certain circumstances.

Parole Eligibility

Q. When is an inmate eligible for parole consideration?

A. An offender must usually serve the first third, or the first seven years, whichever is less, of any sentence of imprisonment before being eligible for full parole. Different rules apply for offenders serving life sentences for murder or indeterminate sentences.

The sentencing court may also determine the period that offenders convicted of a serious drug offence or a violent offence must serve before becoming eligible for parole. In these cases, the court may specify that the portion of the sentence that must be served before parole eligibility is one-half or 10 years, whichever is less.

Federal offenders generally become eligible for day parole six months before their full parole eligibility date or three years in cases of offenders serving life sentences.

Link: http://www.npb-cnlc.gc.ca/infocntr/parolec/contribe.htm

Edited September 29, 2007 by Keepitsimple

[Keepitsimple]

Sentances are based on previous case law, and a similar crime needs to be dealt with similar time. A handful of lenient judges can throw the whole system off.

A perfect example of this is the double and triple credits for time served before sentencing. This is not a law - it is a precedent established by judges. It stems from prisoners being held in the Don Jail in Toronto, an institution dating back to 1850. At one time in the late 90's, it was so over-crowded and the conditions were so unsanitary that a judge gave several prisoners double credit for time served. This is now common practice even though the conditions that almost all prisoners face meet reasonable standards.

[old_bold&cold]

I personally believe that the judges today are really more liberal minded when it comes to sentencing people. I personally believe that people in positions of authority that break the law should get the maximum sntece allowed by law, and take that right out of the judges hands when sentencing these people. I would rather see a person who reacted badly and with malice get some consideration of his background during sentencing, then those who were in positions of power and abused these powers in sentencing. But the way things go, if a police officer is caught for threathening and shooting his wife or girl friend he will most likely get a very light sentence. Where if any normal person did this same thing he would get a must harsher sentence. It seems that being a police officer is like a get out of jail free card, and thta is just wrong.

The sentecing of the people in the sponsorship scandel for instance will not see much of the insides of federal prisons, and they did more harm to the people and the perception of government then a non-government person defrauding a company. So they should be made to serve the maximum sentences allowed for their crimes and they should have to serve them in the highest security prisons. There should be no mitigating circumstances in any of this. But as we will see shortly they will get a slap on the wrist. This is wrong. The people who are sentenced to life should have some faint hope of parole, but that should have to be shown by a much larger issue then normal parole requirements. Carrying a life sentence, should mean that you will have to carry that burden for life and yes, if out on parole that should also mean that you can not afford to mess up even in small ways. I do not mean you go away for speeding, but for any criminal offence you should again have to serve at least 10 years before you are considered again for parole and your prison record would have to be spotless. That is the kind of thinking we need today, not this fuzzy feel good stuff the courts seem to be doing.