|
Here we go again! How many pages of PT6A are we getting this time? 
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 04:58 |
|
|
Maybe instead of 3 pages of complaining about PT6A's bloodlust, one of the people who thinks that this is an appropriate sentence could take a crack at explaining why?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
Patrick Spens posted:Maybe instead of 3 pages of complaining about PT6A's bloodlust, one of the people who thinks that this is an appropriate sentence could take a crack at explaining why? The death penalty is appropriate. There is no redemption for a crime like that. It's not an acceptable sentence for a whole bunch of reasons unrelated to the specifics of this particular crime, but yeah. Life without the possibility of parole would also be acceptable I guess. It mostly comes down to me thinking that nothing this man could ever do in his life would redeem him. It's not about preventing others from committing the same crime or anything like that. It's entirely punitive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
What problem would a 25-year sentence solve that isn't solved by a 10-year sentence, in this case? (I'm sure that the facts of the case and actual text of the judgement aren't relevant, so let's proceed without them.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
Patrick Spens posted:Maybe instead of 3 pages of complaining about PT6A's bloodlust, one of the people who thinks that this is an appropriate sentence could take a crack at explaining why? Defence and prosecutor both asked for 10 years so it was the only possible sentence 
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:Defence and prosecutor both asked for 10 years so it was the only possible sentence The judge doesn't have discretion there? That surprises me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:What problem would a 25-year sentence solve that isn't solved by a 10-year sentence, in this case? (I'm sure that the facts of the case and actual text of the judgement aren't relevant, so let's proceed without them.) For one, the guy who assaulted two of his girlfriends and raped and brutally beat a 7 year old wouldn't be let out in 3 to 6 years to go victimize more people. Ikantski posted:Defence and prosecutor both asked for 10 years so it was the only possible sentence Yeah but why?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
Patrick Spens posted:Maybe instead of 3 pages of complaining about PT6A's bloodlust, one of the people who thinks that this is an appropriate sentence could take a crack at explaining why? Have you bothered to read the sentencing document? In every sentencing I've ever read, the judge will go through the list of reasons why the sentence is what it is. Perhaps this one is different, since the prosecution and defence agreed on a sentence, but I really doubt it. Judgements tend to logic through all the factors in a case, even when the answer is "there is no basis in law for any of the claims made". The question we in the peanut gallery have to ask is "what would we be hoping to achieve by assigning a longer sentence?" e: Actually, this was just handed down today wasn't it? In that case the judgement won't be out yet, but if you really want to argue about this, you should wait until it is. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Apr 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 23:15
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Regarding actually reading the ruling, I fear it would read rather like a Saudi judge's judgment to cut someone's hand off for robbery. The ruling could be consistent with the law and existing precedents and it would still seem a bizarre and unreasonable sentence to me (albeit in the opposite direction). I think the question we should ask is: how can we fix the laws so they don't result in such an unacceptable sentence?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
PT6A posted:
This sentence is in line with sentencing guidelines and agreed upon by both counsel. It is also in line with western liberal non-punitive sentencing practices and I bet if you bothered to look you would find that other western democracies sentence offenders similarly for similar crimes. What I'm saying is the problem isn't 'fixing the laws.' This is how we do things in the west. Perhaps some repressive third world regime would be more to your liking.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
To put this in perspective, this is less time than Jared from Subway will spend in prison. I think his sentence is fair and neither excessive nor lenient. Ergo, this guy ought to be in prison for much longer, because although Jared is one sick gently caress, he at least didn't beat anyone to the point of brain damage, nor did he leave anyone for dead at the side of the road. Edit: you can get a life sentence for smuggling cocaine or heroin, which is orders of magnitude less concerning to me than raping and beating children, so I'm not sure what the gently caress is wrong with our laws but I disagree with this sentence very strongly. PT6A fucked around with this message at 23:47 on Apr 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
Well, you'll note that Jared Fogle was tried and sentenced in the United States, not Canada. We have a very different legal system with very different objectives to the American one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
PT6A posted:To put this in perspective, this is less time than Jared from Subway will spend in prison. For many reasons I don't think it's very useful to do comparative analysis here or for similar cases, instead (speaking utopically) we should be looking at the solution that benefits society the most. For someone like this guy I think we can unanimously agree that the benefit of removing him permanently from society far outweighs the drawback of the loss of a citizen or worker or taxpayer or whatever. There's a very minimal economic drawback, compared to removing a source of extreme misery and pain that falls randomly upon an individual (and has ripple effects beyond that individual -- I'm sure the family and community of that little girl isn't having a too great time of it). Unfortunately, that method requires a case-by-case approach and thus is difficult to encode in law, and besides, I think most people should be wary of giving more power and autonomy to judges. It's easy to look at this one specific case and go "the system hosed up" and, indeed it did, and to say "the system should have done {X} in this case", and, indeed it probably should. But the ways to go around fixing that so it applies to every single case are much more complicated.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Well, you'll note that Jared Fogle was tried and sentenced in the United States, not Canada. We have a very different legal system with very different objectives to the American one. Yes, but whether or not you agree with the US (I generally don't, but they got that case right) you must concede that they are a western democracy. This doesn't change the fact that our laws provide for life imprisonment of someone convicted of smuggling cocaine (which is utterly ridiculous, IMO), so at the very least it should allow for the life imprisonment of this guy because his crime is nigh-incalculably worse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
And if our forbears arbitrarily decided that the appropriate punishment for a cocaine smuggler is "slow flaying of their entire skin, then rubbing salt into their exposed flesh", does that mean we need to do something worse for this guy? The justice system's primary purpose should be to work towards the good of society. Occasionally that means punitive measures, or to remove a malcontent from society, but not punishment for punishment's sake.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
Do you have a continuum of crime you base this off of, or do you just assign a heinousness rating based on your initial reaction to the reporting?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
Brannock posted:Unfortunately, that method requires a case-by-case approach and thus is difficult to encode in law, and besides, I think most people should be wary of giving more power and autonomy to judges. It's easy to look at this one specific case and go "the system hosed up" and, indeed it did, and to say "the system should have done {X} in this case", and, indeed it probably should. But the ways to go around fixing that so it applies to every single case are much more complicated. I actually respect this argument: basically that it's better to have a miscarriage of justice in this direction, rather than risk one in the opposite direction. I can agree with that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:Do you have a continuum of crime you base this off of, or do you just assign a heinousness rating based on your initial reaction to the reporting? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:Do you have a continuum of crime you base this off of, or do you just assign a heinousness rating based on your initial reaction to the reporting? Yes; a crime that involves raping, beating, abusing and/or killing a child is inherently worse than one that does not. Edit: to clarify: worse than one that doesn't involve violence. There are some levels of severe violence against adults that would be less bad than moderate abuse of children. Killing some guy who was dealing on your turf would be worse than slapping your kid across the face, for example, but not worse than raping your kid. PT6A fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Apr 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:Do you have a continuum of crime you base this off of, or do you just assign a heinousness rating based on your initial reaction to the reporting? Raping children is pretty far down the continuum of crime.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
Crime Continuum sounds like a nifty band name E: Continuum of Crime sounds like a supervillain team
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
Basically I just want to know if there's a systematic method we can use to determine whether someone needs to be shot in the face, have their village razed, or maybe just be incarcerated for the rest of their natural lifespan, in the absence of your moral outrage? I don't know if we needs some sort of matrix, or maybe radial continuum, but it would be good to have a reproducible standard by which to gauge how angry we must be. infernal machines fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Apr 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:Basically I just want to know if there's a systematic method we can use to determine whether someone needs to be shot in the face, have their village razed, or maybe just be incarcerated for the rest of their natural lifespan, in the absence of your moral outrage? we are the hosed up ones for not describing in detail how we would like to maim and/or kill someone for a perceived injustice at every available opportunity, and dont you forget it
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:Raping children is pretty far down the continuum of crime. And, let's face it, raping a kid is still way much better than raping a kid and then beating that kid until they have brain damage, and then leaving them for dead. When you consider the relative seriousness of the two, the fact that this guy only got 10 years means that a person who just raped a 7-year-old would only deserve like a 5 year sentence. In fact, you'll find he was sentenced to only 4 years for the sexual assault and 6 years for the aggravated assault. It's self-evidently ridiculous. The only justification can be what Brannock brought up: that we must allow for this, lest we allow a miscarriage of justice in the other direction.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:Basically I just want to know if there's a systematic method we can use to determine whether someone needs to be shot in the face, have their village razed, or maybe just be incarcerated for the rest of their natural lifespan, in the absence of your moral outrage? Well, for one thing, I don't think we need to shoot people in the face or raze entire villages just because. That's hyperbole. But I do believe this man's sentence was too light in consideration of his crime. A life sentence with the possibility of parole after 10 years would be eminently reasonable, given the circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
It's not so much "must" as it is "the solution to fix this without screwing everything else up involves hideously complex layers of legalities" and I don't think Canada is advanced enough as a society to have the gumption to correctly enact justice reform of that scale. Of course, perhaps the problem here was that the prosecutor asked for far too little. In that case, that's easily solved. In absence of that, you could write letters to your representatives complaining about this. They're more likely to be able to do something about it than we are here in this thread 
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I think the question we should ask is: how can we fix the laws so they don't result in such an unacceptable sentence? Aggravated sexual assault of someone under the age of sixteen is punishable by life in prison. The issue isn't the law as written, it's that neither the judge nor the crown thought any more than 10 years was appropriate. Mandatory minimums would technically be a way to prevent this kind of thing in the future, but I'm not in favour of them in most cases.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
I would like to remind everybody once again that while PT6A advocates the violent dismemberment of everyone who commits a slight against him, he believes it is perfectly okay to drink yourself into a near-coma, then kill someone, because he's a loving hypocrite and a moron.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
Patrick Spens posted:Aggravated sexual assault of someone under the age of sixteen is punishable by life in prison. The issue isn't the law as written, it's that neither the judge nor the crown thought any more than 10 years was appropriate. Mandatory minimums would technically be a way to prevent this kind of thing in the future, but I'm not in favour of them in most cases. Fair point. Mandatory minimums are bad, because as much as I feel odd saying this, there are cases where sexual assault of a person under 16 doesn't deserve a life sentence or even a 10-year sentence. It seems like this case, a life sentence would be merited. I mean, what could be worse?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I mean, what could be worse?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
Gus Hobbleton posted:I would like to remind everybody once again that while PT6A advocates the violent dismemberment of everyone who commits a slight against him, he believes it is perfectly okay to drink yourself into a near-coma, then kill someone, because he's a loving hypocrite and a moron. I don't think that's okay and I don't know why you keep bringing it up. Drunk driving should carry a mandatory prison sentence, and drunk driving causing death or serious injury should both result in a prison sentence and automatic lifetime driving ban. I have no tolerance for drunk drivers. That being said, I can understand why people drive drunk, even if I'd never do it. I can't even imagine why someone would rape and beat a 7-year-old.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
Hagborn posted:Our 10 year sentence with you Tedious hyperbole should be punishable by guillotine or training to Coupons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
Actually no, you posted the exact opposite sentiment, that if someone gets drunk and kills someone then it's a terrible tragedy and we should feel bad for the poor murderer. I would also like to say that, in my own personal arbitrary outrage system, being a hypocrite and a moron is a capital offense, and you should be sentenced to slow death by deli-slicer. This is perfectly 100% objectively moral, and to say otherwise makes you a childfucker.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:Tedious hyperbole should be punishable by guillotine or training to Cupons. There would be literally no one left in this thread. PT6A posted:Fair point. Mandatory minimums are bad, because as much as I feel odd saying this, there are cases where sexual assault of a person under 16 doesn't deserve a life sentence or even a 10-year sentence. It seems like this case, a life sentence would be merited. I mean, what could be worse? I mean, purposefully murdering the child would have been worse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
Gus Hobbleton posted:Actually no, you posted the exact opposite sentiment, that if someone gets drunk and kills someone then it's a terrible tragedy and we should feel bad for the poor murderer. Those aren't inconsistent, actually. I know I guy who drove drunk and killed someone. He deserved to go to prison, and he did go to prison. He quite probably deserved to go to prison for longer than he did. He feels terrible about it even so and accepts responsibility, and it's a tragedy that it happened because it's certainly not a thing he intended to do. That doesn't for a second absolve him of responsibility. Edit: I feel sorry for this guy too, in a sense. Can't be easy to face a 10 year sentence, nor to be such a broken person that you can do what he did. That doesn't mean he doesn't deserve every single goddamn day of his sentence and more. PT6A fucked around with this message at 00:47 on Apr 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
Patrick Spens posted:There would be literally no one left in this thread. Well, yes, but that's a separate crime. I can't imagine the crime of sexual assault against a minor being committed in a more heinous manner than in this case.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Well, yes, but that's a separate crime. I can't imagine the crime of sexual assault against a minor being committed in a more heinous manner than in this case. As awful as this was, it was an unpremeditated single attack on someone he wasn't related to. Changing any of those three descriptors would make it worse. And it was his first offence of this kind.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
Patrick Spens posted:As awful as this was, it was an unpremeditated single attack on someone he wasn't related to. Changing any of those three descriptors would make it worse. And it was his first offence of this kind. You're right, I was wrong. Edit: although I would argue that it being the first offense of this kind does not make the offense less heinous. PT6A fucked around with this message at 00:53 on Apr 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
DariusLikewise posted:
The good news, well as good as it can be with an incoming PC majority, is that people already hate Pallister so if the NDP get their poo poo together, they'll have a decent chance at winning the next election in 2020. Selinger is obviously gone after tomorrow; I wouldn't be shocked if he lost his seat too, but I have no idea who would replace him as leader. Andrew Swan? Kevin Chief? Theresa Oswald would be ok, but the optics of her not running for re-election would be kind of bad if she threw her name in right away.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 04:58 |
|
|
God drat do I wish people would read the loving criminal code and read the purposes and principals in sentencing. It's actually pretty reasonable. There's more to a sentence that just "he committed a terrible act, therefore lock him up forever."PT6A posted:And, let's face it, raping a kid is still way much better than raping a kid and then beating that kid until they have brain damage, and then leaving them for dead. Please enlighten me why it's ridiculous other then a simple need for revenge on your part. Monaghan fucked around with this message at 01:23 on Apr 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 01:21
|
|
