Life without parole, coming soon to a Canada near you

117 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ Pondering

I didn't say that anyone made that claim about all murderers.

I questioned the idea that one can make that judgement based solely on the initial crime.

And this nonsense about wanting William Pickton to live next to me, or what I would say to family of victims? Never mind that that is not too far removed from the "with us or with the pedophiles" argument our former justice minister used. One thing I would say is they should not be determining how a convicted person is sentenced, or ultimately decide when the right time is for release.

I saw some people making just this complaint yesterday on FB about a newly-paroled killer still being alive while his victim is dead. The killer had served 18 years, and while that will never be enough for some, it is not up to them, nor should it be.

Your argument, and your question is a reactionary one, and as I said in my last post, it makes no sense because victims do not all react the same way to tragedy. If you really want me to indulge your personal request I could pose that question to a family member - who did have a close relative murdered - at supper this evening. I'm not going to, just as I saw no point of calling down people's expressions of grief and outrage in that facebook thread, but I can tell you I have never heard my relative railing about tougher crime and parole.

Having sympathy and respect for the grief of victims is one thing; making it the basis for justice policy is completely unworkable.

You misunderstand me. I am not talking about the victims that are already dead. I am talking about the next victims. The ones who would have lived if we didn't release a Pickton or Magnotta back into the public because they deserve a second chance.

Nor are we referring to run of the mill murderers. No one is claiming all murderers should serve life without parole. The goal isn't punishment, it's safety. It's to prevent stacking up more victims.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Unlike you, I am unwilling to have my daughter living next to a Pickton or a Bernardo because they get their rocks off by torturing and killing women.

I find this offensive and a personal attack. You are trying to personalize this to say that one person's opinion makes him an uncaring or bad parent.

The Mods may tolerate these personal attacks becuase they are coming from you but this style of posting is out of hand.

The bias on this board will destroy it. Nobody gets away with this but you. And you called me a bigot in another thread.

Anyone who gets upset with this style of posting and the mods will crack down on them rather than you. This is a joke and the whole board has become a joke becuase of it.

6079_Smith_W

Pondering, I'm not even going to bother pointing out the ways in which that makes no sense, and could lead to some very bad outcomes.

As for the wooden examples of boogeymen that are being used to shore up whatever the argument is that you are making,  William Pickton is unlikely to be released, and Luka Magnotta hasn't even been tried yet, let alone convicted and sentenced.

 

 

Unionist

bekayne wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Before Peter Mackay said last week they were considering life without parole, not one progressive person anywhere ever raised that prospect. 

Because we already have it. Before last week, who here was calling for the repeal of the Dangerous Offender designation?

Look, I understand Dangerous Offender provisions. They allow for the possibility of parole - after 7 years, then every 2 years thereafter. Peter Mackay is talking about life with no possibility of parole. That does not exist in Canada today. Are we in agreement on that much??

Is there something unclear about this:

Quote:
"We are looking at ways in which we can toughen the parole provisions, but also we’re looking at ways in which the very worst, those who are most violent, those who have committed offences, murder, in concert with other violent offences against the public and the individual, that they’re never released."

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Pondering, I'm not even going to bother pointing out the ways in which that makes no sense, and could lead to some very bad outcomes.

As for the wooden examples of boogeymen that are being used to shore up whatever the argument is that you are making,  William Pickton is unlikely to be released, and Luka Magnotta hasn't even been tried yet, let alone convicted and sentenced.

They aren't boogeymen, they are quite real and that Pickton is unlikely to be released is my point. You are arguing that he should have a second chance. You are saying that no one at all "deserves" to be incarcerated for life. You say nothing about the public deserving to be safe from predators.

Sean in Ottawa

This is the removal of all remaining hope -- (faint hope).

I don't see how this is a practical appraoch to incarcerated people. I look on people without hope as more dangerous in any event.

The Conservatives like to replace lawyers and judges with absolutes no matter how inhuman and inhumane that may be. It does not make the public safer.

That this is done while removing any preparation for other incarcerated people to enter society is especially perverse. The removal of any rehabilitation efforts has made society more dangerous not safer.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

My problem is the Conservatives' idea of 'dangerous offender'

Would this apply to drug dealing?

If they were to lock up and throw away the key for offenders such as Pickton,Olson or Bernardo,I have no problem with that.

Those people are not capable of rehabilition.

But to introduce this policy as a blanket solution to any offender deemed dangerous (including organized crime and moralistic crimes) then I'm dead set against it.

6079_Smith_W

In the context of this discussion they are boogeymen, Pondering. Because William Pickton isn't going to move in next door to me. As has been repeated quite a few times he is almost certainly never going to get out, even with a parole system that recognizes his right to hearings.

And even Charles Manson got another one of those not too long ago.He was turned down for the 12th time.

At best it is an irrational, reactionary response that has no relation at all to what we are talking about. At worst, it is an attempt to imply that my support for a fair parole system means I think he should be let loose to perhaps kill again.

6079_Smith_W

Gee alan, what about the nice drug dealers who killed two guys here in Saskatoon in the past week?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/police-investigate-death-of-loga...

Again, waving around serial killers and paedophiles as monsters both obscures the very difficult nature of these kind of decisions, and clouds people's minds by trying to present it as something that is black and white.

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Gee alan, what about the nice drug dealers who killed two guys here in Saskatoon in the past week?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/police-investigate-death-of-loga...

Again, waving around serial killers and paedophiles as monsters both obscures the very difficult nature of these kind of decisions, and clouds people's minds by trying to present it as something that is black and white.

 

Minor drug dealers are innocuous.

Big time dealers are more dangerous.

But keep in mind,there is no such thing as 'drug related' crime. It's all about money and where I live,80% of murders are money related.

The players are all involved in that game.

'Drug related' crime is a myth..Much like the Pusher is a myth.

6079_Smith_W

That would be my point - that these labels and assumptions that some are real people and others are monsters is absurd.. I'm talking about a person who sticks a lethal drug dose in a pill and just throws it out there randomly to kill someone.

bekayne

Unionist wrote:

bekayne wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Before Peter Mackay said last week they were considering life without parole, not one progressive person anywhere ever raised that prospect. 

Because we already have it. Before last week, who here was calling for the repeal of the Dangerous Offender designation?

Look, I understand Dangerous Offender provisions. They allow for the possibility of parole - after 7 years, then every 2 years thereafter. Peter Mackay is talking about life with no possibility of parole. That does not exist in Canada today. Are we in agreement on that much??

Is there something unclear about this:

Quote:
"We are looking at ways in which we can toughen the parole provisions, but also we’re looking at ways in which the very worst, those who are most violent, those who have committed offences, murder, in concert with other violent offences against the public and the individual, that they’re never released."

Well, McKay is talking nonsense and indulging in cheap politics-in the case that prompted the attention, parole was denied every time. And the original crime would not have led to a life sentence. The question is what to do when someone has served their full sentence and is still considered to be a grave danger to society.

cco

Perhaps it's worth remembering that the boogeyman who prompted this conversation was, in fact, not convicted of murder, nor of being a really bad dude (not yet in the criminal code), but of assault and unlawful confinement. So if life-no-parole is only being discussed for murder, it wouldn't have done a thing about him. We'd have to expand it considerably, American-style, to have retroactively locked Caissie up forever.

6079_Smith_W

@ bekayne, at the risk of going around in circles again, that's what we have dangerous offender status for.

And cco, VERY good point.

 

bekayne

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ bekayne, at the risk of going around in circles again, that's what we have dangerous offender status for.

Exactly

Pondering

cco wrote:
Perhaps it's worth remembering that the boogeyman who prompted this conversation was, in fact, not convicted of murder, nor of being a really bad dude (not yet in the criminal code), but of assault and unlawful confinement. So if life-no-parole is only being discussed for murder, it wouldn't have done a thing about him. We'd have to expand it considerably, American-style, to have retroactively locked Caissie up forever.

Yes true. I don't know the details of his original crime so I don't know if there was reason to believe that he would kill someone. Even if there were, this could suggest greater supervision being needed rather than further incarceration.

I do like the more advanced systems like Sweden's that focus on reintegration rather than punishment. Even for those who I believe can never be trusted again the issue for me is public safety not punishment so I would want their living conditions to be as comfortable as reasonably possible.

Pages