babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Edmonton Cabbie Death - Ruling
March 5, 2007 - 10:29am
CBC News
Something is rotten in Ponoka, no doubt.
What happened in this case is awful, no doubt. That shouldn't be forgotten. Three idiots took a life for shits and giggles, basically.
Not to politicize the discussion, but it's cases like this that illustrate one of the biggest issues the left has when it comes to setting policy.
How do you deal with violent crime? These three idiots will be out of jail in about 12 years. I don't want to discount what 12 years in jail means (it is a long time), but Yussuf's still going to be dead then.
Statistically speaking, this type of crime is rare. However, it's not unheard of and whenever a crime like this happens people, understandably, I think, want justice--actually, make that vengeance.
The right controls the debate when it comes to violent crime. You have to admit that lock 'em up, throw away the key is an appealing thought when you are dealing with idiots like this.
What I'm wondering is: what should be the position of the left when it comes to violent crime? Is there a point where compassion for someone's upbringing or circumstance is no longer appropriate?
My position is that there does come a time when our compassion is wasted, and where our concerns should be reserved for the victims. However, as someone who worked in a jail for young offenders for two years, I understand that sometimes things aren't as black and white as we like to think that they are...
I too don't understand the left's position on crimes like this, but you would think an issue like this isin't a matter of left or right, but a matter of justice.
However, I'm pleased that the accused were found guilty. I'm cynically assuming that it's very rare for a guilty verdict and for such a sentence to be handed down, for the murder of a man of colour, given how racist the Canadian justice system is.
As for the left's position on violent crime, I don't sopeak for the entire "left". However, being against capital punishment will always be a position I hold. It's a barbaric and racist practice.
Further, I don't believe the prison system is the answer, nor do I feel equating "justice" with "lengthy prison sentence" is something that has much value. Yussuf will still be dead, even if his murderers are in jail for decades.
Women on the left, feminists that is, are very intimately connected with the politics of violent crime and the lack of "justice" in the justice system. There's a movement afoot in the states for the abolition of prisons. This isn't something I'm very educated about, but I'm intrigued by the notion and want to learn more about it. Angela Davis, famous as a Black Panther in the 60s and 70s, is one of the spokepeople for this movement.
news.harvard.edu
prisonjustice.ca (It's Canadian)
Before I begin, I just want to be clear that this topic (the left's reaction to violent crime) and am legitimately interested in hearing people's opinions. I'm ambivalent, big time, when it comes to this.
As to capital punishment...I think that can be looked at as a separate issue. You can have a "hard on crime" stance and be opposed to capital punishment, and you can be all for rehabilitation and still think that capital punishment is Ok in some cases.
For the record, I'm opposed to capital punishment. Although it's more because I could never be convinced that the criminal justice system always gets it right, then it is from the "it's barbaric" camp.
I think that it goes without saying that the vast majority of people on here would agree that there are many things that can be done to address the roots of crime. However, I'm not talking about the roots. I'm talking about what to do one the deeds done.
You wrote:
I guess my question to you is this: Who defines "much value?" If you are talking about "much value to society as a whole" I agree to a point (caveat--they can't kill me or you when they are in prison). If you are talking about "much value to the victim's family" then I begin to wonder. Does rehabilitating a murderer provide value to a victim's family? Does a murderer deserve a chance to be rehabilitated?
Evoking the image of the victim can be a powerful tool of propaganda, and it's a tool that the right has used very well. I wonder if the left has given enough thought about victim rights and how they relate to criminal justice issues.
You and drgrollins are the ones trying to twist this into a left/right issue, not other babblers.
The persons convicted of this horrible crime were aboriginal. While the post-trial taunting was clearly inappropriate, I don't recall any evidence at the trial that the cabbie was targeted because of his race or ethnicity.
The circumstances involved several intoxicated individuals who made a spur of the moment decision to rob a cabbie to get money for more drugs or alcohol, and ended up stabbing and killing him.
The evidence did not support a charge of first degree murder because there was no prior intent.
The two persons convicted of second degree murder were the ringleaders. In my opinion, in this case the justice system worked as it should.
Twist? Good God.
No, I'm trying to have a conversation about how the left deals with violent crime because it interests me and because I think it's a worthwhile thing to discuss.
Twist???
The evidence that the crime was committed against a backdrop of racial animosity, is that the supporters of the accused were making racist remarks at the trial. It is a grave mistake to think that racial antagonism do not exists between ethnic devides amonge people of colour. In fact such devision are way to common, even though this is counter-intuitive.
In my experience intra-racial antagonism betweem minority groups are often even more common and more flagarnt than those between the racial minorities and the dominant culture.
I agree that the primary motivation for the crime is likely more or less how you portray it, but then it is also very possible, though not provable that race was a factor.
This is a very sad and depressing story.
deadmonton 2005 - hassan mohammed yussuf
No matter how horrified we are about this senseless murder, it's not surprising that the jury returned a verdict of second degree murder. To secure a conviction for first degree murder, there has to be an intentional killing involving pre-meditation.
dgrollins, IMHO you should start a new thread if you want to have a general discussion on right and left views of crime and punishment.
The "tough on crime" proponents on the right use these examples, not out of compassion, or a sincere desire to look at male violence (men commit a vast majority of all violent crimes, against both women and men) and why NA society sanctions and encourages male violence against women, and against other men who are seen as lower on the societal ranking scale (by race, class, masculine appearance and many other ways).
If we're going to talk about violent crime, then we have to talk about who's committing this crime (men), and what is the connection to our larger society, since these crimes (and guilty convictions) happen in a context.
So, as a lefty, this sad story can be a springboard to talk about the role of violence, how violence is taught to children and particularly to boys, desensitization to violence, and what the point of it is. Since I work in the anti-VAW (violence against women) field, I'm not particularly full of energy to engage this topic at full throttle, but those are my thoughts for tonight.
As for the specific story that began this conversation, I understand a bit more about why the story played out in the media the way it did.
Even in this context the issue of race, racism and poverty cast a shadow over the trial.
[ 05 March 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
I think that's fair. I know that in the vast majority of cases it is men who do commit violent crime and in cases were women have it's most often
as a reaction to violence themselves (killing an abuser.) The one exception when it comes to violent female crimes is infanticide, but I think there are other issues at play there that would be best addressed in another thread.
Violence against women was actually an area of crime I was thinking about when I made my first post about this. If spousal abuse was taken more seriously by the criminal justice system and the penalties were harsher, would it help? The same question goes for sexual assault.
Let me ask you directly, in your opinion, what would be an appropriate penalty for a sexual assault. The same question goes for a man that beats a women to the point that she requires to be hospitalized.
For the sake of argument, let's say the man is 20, white, college educated and has no previous record.
If the man came from a more marginalized population, should his penalty be different?
Again, I ask because I am interested in your opinion. To be clear, I'm not trying to bait anyone. I also ask it to anyone with an opinion.
John K,
Respectfully, there have been threads with far greater thread drift than this on babble.
Please see a new thread on the topic of violent crimes against women, penalties and solutions here
[ 06 March 2007: Message edited by: bigcitygal ]
First-degree murder does NOT always have to involve pre-meditation. It could, for example, result if you murder someone during a sexual assault.
The difference between first and second degree murder is not as great as often supposed, particularly in terms of how seriously both crimes are viewed in the criminal justice system. They both flow from the same basic offence: murder.
So you are saying that the jury would likely not have convicted had the defendents been upstanding people with jobs who were non-native, based on such unreliable and obviously biased witnessess, especially Fidler who has a history of lying in court in defence of her own interests?
Quite likely. Though I think I too would have voted for conviction, having known people like Fidler, it sounded like her statement were more or less the truth though she may have understated her involvement in the actual killiing.
That said I think it likely that the crown opted for a 3 out of 4 isn't bad strategy.
Perhaps. I know little about the inner workings of the legal system.
What the 3 accused did was heinous and horrific.
There is no doubt for me that they are guilty. But race and class did play a role in what happened with them, their convictions as well as their sentences. When was the last time any of us heard of "upstanding people with jobs who were non-native" being found guilty for the murder of a man of colour?
P.S. Wow! That was almost word for word! How'd you do it, Cue?
P.P.S. Check your PMs