|
ColdBlooded 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. This is the outcome I'm hoping for out of the whole election, that and Pallister not loving things up before we get there.
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 10:16 |
|
|
TheKingofSprings posted:This is the outcome I'm hoping for out of the whole election, that and Pallister not loving things up before we get there. I have a friendly bet with a friend to see what crown corp will be sold off first. Hydro seems to big. MPI is my front runner.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
Monaghan posted: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." You realize that PT6A's complaint is that 10 years isn't, "proportional to the gravity of the offence" right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
Monaghan posted: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." It's mainly for the sake of revenge, but I don't see that as an unreasonable motivation in sentencing cases of this sort -- we merely need to balance it with other factors, not necessarily ignore it entirely. Edit: Pure revenge would be "we have your nuts removed by wild dogs, beat you, and leave you for dead, naked by the side of the road in mid-winter." That's obviously not recommendable for many reasons, but I think a life sentence with no parole for 10 years is proportional to the gravity of the crime without being needlessly harsh or bloodthirsty. Edit 2: I'll also say, I think this case is going to cause an unfortunate backlash against sentencing guidelines that result in people getting well-deserved leniency. If you grew up in poverty with drug-addicted parents and started drinking when you were 10, and maybe you got abused or something, should we extend leniency toward you when you're convicted of a drug crime? Yes. What if you rob someone to feed your drug habit? Again, leniency is probably indicated. What if you knock over a Mac's and kill a guy in the process (EDIT 3: or let's say you fire a gun and kill a child in the crossfire, even)? Even in that serious of a crime, leniency should be provided. But there's nothing about drug addiction or poverty that makes you rape and beat a 7-year-old child. Leniency based on the sad history of one's life is decidedly not deserved in that case. PT6A fucked around with this message at 02:21 on Apr 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
Manitoba is so so hosed if it loses MPI. The entire province aside from a small percentage of Winnipeg residents rely on cheap vehicle operating costs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
Monaghan posted: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." Canadian Criminal Code posted:Purpose and Principles of Sentencing I think other people in this thread think that perhaps not enough emphasis on denouncement was given in this case, especially considering the vulnerable nature of the victim. There is no fundamental justice, it's a reflection of societies mores, and sentences that are fundamentally at odds with what most members of society would consider just call into question the efficacy of the justice system as a whole.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
EvilJoven posted:Manitoba is so so hosed if it loses MPI. The entire province aside from a small percentage of Winnipeg residents rely on cheap vehicle operating costs. Liquor marts is his bet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
Gorau posted:I think other people in this thread think that perhaps not enough emphasis on denouncement was given in this case, especially considering the vulnerable nature of the victim. There is no fundamental justice, it's a reflection of societies mores, and sentences that are fundamentally at odds with what most members of society would consider just call into question the efficacy of the justice system as a whole. I personally am complaining about : (c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary. apatheticman posted:Liquor marts is his bet. If we can get through our mandatory Conservative period with only MLCC being privatized I'll consider us lucky. Patrick Spens fucked around with this message at 02:50 on Apr 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Edit 2: I'll also say, I think this case is going to cause an unfortunate backlash against sentencing guidelines that result in people getting well-deserved leniency. If you grew up in poverty with drug-addicted parents and started drinking when you were 10, and maybe you got abused or something, should we extend leniency toward you when you're convicted of a drug crime? Yes. What if you rob someone to feed your drug habit? Again, leniency is probably indicated. What if you knock over a Mac's and kill a guy in the process (EDIT 3: or let's say you fire a gun and kill a child in the crossfire, even)? Even in that serious of a crime, leniency should be provided. But there's nothing about drug addiction or poverty that makes you rape and beat a 7-year-old child. Leniency based on the sad history of one's life is decidedly not deserved in that case. Do you have some information about the case besides the nature of the crime that you aren't sharing? It's weird that a prosecutor and judge could find there is reason for leniency despite your claim there could be none. Perhaps they are part of a child torture ring that you've uncovered with your unerring sense of justice and fair punishment?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
On reflect I have to say that for once I'm a bit sympathetic to PT6A's point. I think punishment is sometimes an appropriate goal for the criminal justice system as well as rehabilitation, and I don't really care whether that's currently reflected in the criminal code. With some people I don't really care if they're rehabilitated. I wouldn't say 10 years is a slap on the wrist but it's less than what this guy deserves and honestly, if he had just been taken out behind a shed and shot like a rabid dog then I'd argue it was wrong on procedural grounds but ethically speaking I wouldn't exactly be outraged.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
Experienced counsel agreed on a sentence after negotiation and careful consideration having regard to the circumstances of the offence, the offender, and the facts of the case. A judge imposed the sentence that counsel sought. The Internet, knowing nothing other than what they read in an online source and some quick googling for the statutory bases for sentencing, figures that they know better. Not only do they know better, but they know so much better, and are so convinced that this must have been an injustice, that they feel confident recommending sweeping and systemic changes to the Criminal Code to ensure that this Bad Outcome never occurs again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
flashman posted:Do you have some information about the case besides the nature of the crime that you aren't sharing? It's weird that a prosecutor and judge could find there is reason for leniency despite your claim there could be none. Perhaps they are part of a child torture ring that you've uncovered with your unerring sense of justice and fair punishment? PT6A is probably one of these idiots: http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/we-talked-to-the-leader-of-a-growing-network-of-vigilante-pedophile-hunters
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 03:14
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
terrorist ambulance posted:Experienced counsel agreed on a sentence after negotiation and careful consideration having regard to the circumstances of the offence, the offender, and the facts of the case. A judge imposed the sentence that counsel sought. Yes, "the internet", having read this: quote:Paul admitted to investigators that he lured the girl away from her family, sexually assaulted her, and left her naked in the snow. When she followed him and begged him not to leave her, he beat her with his fists until she was unconscious, and threw her into a bush. decided that maybe an injustice had occurred. drat the internet for leaping to such a wild conclusion. If only they'd trusted the world's pre-eminent moral authority, experienced lawyers!
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
terrorist ambulance posted:Experienced counsel agreed on a sentence after negotiation and careful consideration having regard to the circumstances of the offence, the offender, and the facts of the case. A judge imposed the sentence that counsel sought. It's almost like our criminal system allows nuance and is not set up as a purely punitive system!
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 03:27
|
|
|
Helsing posted:drat the internet for leaping to such a wild conclusion. Yeah, exactly. People knowing nothing about anything but despite that being really certain that they know a lot about whatever they decide to care about in the moment is like the definition of PTA6 and apparently also maybe you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
Long prison sentences are very expensive. I would rather society spend that money on helping people rather than on punishment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
We don't know all the details but we know enough to be sure that that person doesn't deserve much, if any, further accommodation from society. The original article posted seems to suggest that there was some leniency given because of the rapist's poor upbringing and social circumstances. I'm having an extreme sense of deja vu. Did we have an argument a couple years ago about a First Nations man who got released from imprisonment on a rape sentence, and ended up committing another rape? Something along these lines?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
Mandatory life minimum for rape I guess it's the only way to be sure there won't be a repeat offense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
terrorist ambulance posted:Yeah, exactly. People knowing nothing about anything but despite that being really certain that they know a lot about whatever they decide to care about in the moment is like the definition of PTA6 and apparently also maybe you. What crucial information do you think is possibly being left out that would change the way we look at this case? cowofwar posted:Long prison sentences are very expensive. I would rather society spend that money on helping people than punishing. If only PT6A could be won over to my socialist vision of confiscatory income tax rates then just imagine what an epic gulag we could build for all the
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
apatheticman posted:Liquor marts is his bet. Pallister has explicitly said he wouldn't privatize MBLL. Doesn't mean he won't do it, but if he does anything with it, it'll likely be a small incremental change(s) like Wall is doing in Saskatchewan. Can't have people making living wages after all! The NDP has beaten the PCs privatizing Hydro drum for years, whereas not so much with MPI, so I'll go with MPI. Then 5 years from now, people will be wondering why their insurance costs so much.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:PT6A is probably one of these idiots: http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/we-talked-to-the-leader-of-a-growing-network-of-vigilante-pedophile-hunters Absolutely not. Vigilante justice is not acceptable, most especially when it actually impedes the work of law enforcement. The fact that I think the justice system failed in this case should not be construed to mean I think anyone is entitled to mete out punishment beyond its boundaries.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
Are these cases and their punishments a systemic problem with our justice system, or are they the exceptional twenty or thirty cases of the hundreds of thousands of cases that are dealt with each year that get media attention for being outrageous?
Dreylad fucked around with this message at 03:43 on Apr 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
Hey look, a case where a guy with a previous criminal record on leave from a psych assessment got drunk and high and randomly killed a guy got 8 years for no reason and where the supreme court of Nova Scotia cited a Court of Appeal case saying that the majority of manslaughter sentences are between 4-10 years. You guys should get on the phone and let them know the internet thinks 10 years is a slap on the wrist for killing someone, and that they should justice harder.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
As an extremely woke and socially conscious liberal, I support leniency towards the fully grown adult man who raped a seven year old girl, beat her unconscious and inflicted permanent mental disability, then left her to die naked and cold in the snow. Child rape is about power, you see, and this poor First Nations citizen had a terrible, just terrible upbringing where he was denied the sacred Canadian right of home ownership and arguments about marijuana legality. Unsurprisingly, he could not tell right from wrong, and lashed out against members of his own community. What he did was inexcusable, but
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
terrorist ambulance posted:Hey look, a case where a guy with a previous criminal record on leave from a psych leave got drunk and high and randomly killed a guy got 8 years and where the supreme court of Nova Scotia cited a Court of Appeal case saying that the majority of manslaughter sentences are between 4-10 years. So your argument is that unless you're a criminal lawyer or judge you just shouldn't have any opinions on the justice system or sentencing? What are you actually arguing here?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 03:45
|
|
|
Before advocating the death of people you should try to learn something about the subject matter you want them dead over I think that's fair
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
Helsing posted:So your argument is that unless you're a criminal lawyer or judge you just shouldn't have any opinions on the justice system or sentencing? What are you actually arguing here? If I were a cynical man, I'd say he's arguing how not-bad raping a child is in comparison to other things.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
He's a pretty bad guy, but at least he's not Ghomeshi.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
terrorist ambulance posted:Before advocating the death of people you should try to learn something about the subject matter you want them dead over I think that's fair Can you be more specific about what you mean?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
No sorry, can't be heard over the sound of you jerking off into your own mouth and gulping contentedly
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
Check out this hot take: I think Canada either needs harsher, more punitive sentences for violent and sexual offenders, or more-effective rehabilitation programs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
terrorist ambulance posted:No sorry, can't be heard over the sound of you jerking off into your own mouth and gulping contentedly Seriously though, what is the missing information that would make it acceptable for someone who isn't a lawyer to have an opinion on this sentence?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 03:58
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:Check out this hot take: I think Canada either needs harsher, more punitive sentences for violent and sexual offenders, or more-effective rehabilitation programs. Hey justify that view in respect of long-standing sentencing principles (which have a constitutional dimension), describe with some precision what exactly "harsher sentences" means in relation to sentences that have actually been imposed in a majority of cases (as compared to the one that you just read about in the headlines that made you SO MAD SO VERY MAD) and articulate how mandatory sentences of 10+ plus for offences that previously had a 1-yr minimum will contribute meaningfully to a more moral and safe society and we can have a discussion "this guy should spend 25 years without parole in jail and I wish (not really but also kind of) that he was dead and that's my opinion let's Debate and Discuss it" isn't worth anything but contempt terrorist ambulance fucked around with this message at 04:05 on Apr 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
terrorist ambulance posted:Hey justify that view in respect of long-standing sentencing principles (which have a constitutional dimension), describe with some precision what exactly "harsher sentences" means in relation to sentences that have actually been imposed in a majority of cases (as compared to the one that you just read about in the headlines that made you SO MAD SO VERY MAD) and articulate how mandatory sentences of 10+ plus for sentences that previously had a 1-yr minimum will contribute meaningfully to a more moral and safe society and we can have a discussion No.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 04:06
|
|
|
I hope my new registration with the Conservative party comes in time for me to vote for whichever candidate offers the most medieval law and order platform. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 04:06
|
|
|
I'd honestly settle for a permanent tracking shackle and a police pickup and escort if je evef deviates from specific areas he is permitted. Like punishment sure whatever, but until we find a way to demonstrably show he has adjusted he should not be permitted to ever walk freely and independently, not in 10 years not in 25
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
The problem with criminal justice and the agreements of whether a sentence is "Just" or not comes down how you feel society affects a persons upbringing, if you feel that every man is his own island and they came to commit the crime on their own volition with very few external factors than you will argue for harsh punishments. If you feel society had some sort of role in the crime then you would be arguing for leniency. In other news Ric McIver leader of the PCs in Alberta throws a temper tantrum and is shocked that his actions have consequences. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/dispute-over-ruling-gets-pc-leader-ric-mciver-kicked-out-of-legislature-1.3542009 quote:NEW
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 04:25
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:Long prison sentences are very expensive. I would rather society spend that money on helping people rather than on punishment. Turns out that keeping child rapists away from children is in fact helping people. Helsing posted:Seriously though, what is the missing information that would make it acceptable for someone who isn't a lawyer to have an opinion on this sentence? That this kind of sentence happens all of the time, and so it isn't a big deal when it happens again. Which is obviously an argument with no significant flaws. terrorist ambulance posted:Hey justify that view in respect of long-standing sentencing principles (which have a constitutional dimension), describe with some precision what exactly "harsher sentences" means in relation to sentences that have actually been imposed in a majority of cases (as compared to the one that you just read about in the headlines that made you SO MAD SO VERY MAD) and articulate how mandatory sentences of 10+ plus for offences that previously had a 1-yr minimum will contribute meaningfully to a more moral and safe society and we can have a discussion He should get life. I don't care if he's paroled in 5 years or whatever. But there should not be a time for the rest of his life when he is not under some level of supervision. Also, the only people in this conversation who have mentioned mandatory sentences are me and PT6A, and neither of us are in favour of them. That I think the judge and crown attorney exercised bad judgement here doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to use their judgement later. It means I want them to use better judgement. Patrick Spens fucked around with this message at 04:42 on Apr 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
terrorist ambulance posted:Hey justify that view in respect of long-standing sentencing principles (which have a constitutional dimension), describe with some precision what exactly "harsher sentences" means in relation to sentences that have actually been imposed in a majority of cases (as compared to the one that you just read about in the headlines that made you SO MAD SO VERY MAD) and articulate how mandatory sentences of 10+ plus for offences that previously had a 1-yr minimum will contribute meaningfully to a more moral and safe society and we can have a discussion I recognize the serious legal and procedural complications of reforming our justice systems to give the seven-year-old-little-girl-raper a more punitive/fitting sentence. At the same time, I think he's more than demonstrated that not only is his further marginal value to society not worth the risk and drawbacks of keeping him around, but also that his further marginal value to society has far more than been outweighed by the negative impact he's already caused to society and its citizens, and that the desire to keep him around is driven by a strong cultural value on the individual instead of the collective. Not specifically him, but a preference for lenience towards perpetrators in general. This extra-strong emphasis on the individual over the collective can also be, if you're inclined to, traced to many other cultural problems we're facing right now (such as an overly-lenient-to-the-ultrarich tax structure; the complete embarrassment that is our planet's response to the climate change crisis; and the tacit and almost inevitable participation we all have in the exploits of globalist capitalism). I think a society and its apparatuses, such as its justice systems and its governments, should value the good of society over the interests of the individual.* Governments and other civil groups should be thinking pragmatically, efficiently, and long-term. Education, welfare, social support, and other preventative measures to reduce the risk; rehabilitation, resources, and support for these who commit minor crimes or crimes of circumstances or accidents. And these who commit particularly serious crimes? Well, traditionally they've been removed from society -- one way or another. Exile (deprecated), execution (increasingly deprecated), or life/long-term imprisonment. I genuinely don't care whether the raper is tortured to death or if he rots in prison or if he's transported to the Yukon and left to fend for himself. To me, he's one of millions, billions of people. I will almost certainly never interact with him, his victims, his victims' families and communities, or ever think about him again a week from now. I think it's far more important that he's removed entirely from society so he cannot ever commit these crimes again, or, failing that, our civil apparatuses put in reasonable and serious efforts to ensure that he never re-offends. He's already proven himself capable and willing of inflicting horrific things on his fellow citizens; he's irrevocably broken the social contract that all of us signed. "Precrime" is a terrible idea, but "postcrime" is entirely within our hands. And we live on a planet containing untold amounts of humans. It's not like we're scraping out a survival in a three-dozen-human prehistoric tribe and every member is crucial to our survival. The focus, just like it was thousands of years ago, should be on "How much of a good idea is it for us to tolerate your continued presence?" Of course, as I'm sure terrorist ambulance will remind us, it's much easier to lay out basic framework ideals like this than it is to create a legal code for it that follows it in spirit while leaving little up to personal bias, judgement, or corruption. *: Within reason, of course, much of which Western societies already employ. For example, clearly an "innocent until proven guilty" legal guideline is a good idea, which obviously favors the individual, but also averts serious blowback to a society further down the line and prevents valuable citizens from getting slammed by the system. We could go into further detail about this but I think the basic point is clear. apatheticman posted:The problem with criminal justice and the agreements of whether a sentence is "Just" or not comes down how you feel society affects a persons upbringing, if you feel that every man is his own island and they came to commit the crime on their own volition with very few external factors than you will argue for harsh punishments. If you feel society had some sort of role in the crime then you would be arguing for leniency. I lean more towards the latter, but also consider that most of the population, even these who live in terrible conditions or are otherwise varying degrees of oppressed, is able to handle the incredibly difficult responsibility of "do not brutalize or murder other human beings".
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 10:16 |
|
|
.
Legit Businessman fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 05:01
|
|
