But I don't think it's absurd to question the character of the other passengers.
It's not like Li is a big man and he wasn't armed with a gun. He could have been subdued.
Easy to say. Let me know if you're ever in a situation like that.
Life without parole, coming soon to a Canada near you
Thu, 2014-09-25 19:06
#52
Thu, 2014-09-25 20:25
#53
alan smithee
But I don't think it's absurd to question the character of the other passengers.
It's not like Li is a big man and he wasn't armed with a gun. He could have been subdued.
Easy to say. Let me know if you're ever in a situation like that.
Are you going to tell me that you'd run with your tail between your legs?
All it would have taken is 2 or 3 people.
You'd figure someone would step up.
He's a small guy armed only with a knife...Sorry,this could have been averted.
I'm not a pacifist. But I will admit,I can't answer exactly what I'd do...Instinct would be to disarm him...Use something to beat him with for example.
Thu, 2014-09-25 20:25
#54
Amen cco,
Much like the people who question why a cop didnt shoot someone in the legs or shoot the knife/gun/whatever out of his hand
Thu, 2014-09-25 20:34
#55
But I don't think it's absurd to question the character of the other passengers.
It's not like Li is a big man and he wasn't armed with a gun. He could have been subdued.
Easy to say. Let me know if you're ever in a situation like that.
It wasn't a city bus. People would have been rushing down the single file isle and climbing over very high seat backs to get out. The man was dead too fast for anyone to save him. Li was hacking his head off.
One woman that was trapped in the seats behind him passed her daughter over the seat to a man who grabbed her and carried her out while the woman followed.
Thu, 2014-09-25 20:37
#56
Are you going to tell me that you'd run with your tail between your legs?
I'd like to say I'd have stepped up and been a hero. But I've only really been in one situation in my life where I witnessed homicidal violence being inflicted upon someone, and all I did was call the cops. Fear can be a pretty gut-seizing thing. It's easy to sit back and say someone should've jumped him. But in the heat of the moment, I won't judge anyone for being paralyzed under those circumstances.
Thu, 2014-09-25 20:39
#57
Maysie
Most folks here have a lot more faith in the justice system and the policing system than I do, or ever will.
That said, I'm with Arthur and Smith.
Who ends up arrested and charged, never miind jailed, has everything to do with their social location (race, class, education level) and usually little to do with the severity of the crime committed.
It's also very much a Con talking point to use the most egregious, well-publicized and notorious examples to "prove" the (talking) "points" around supporting all manner of law and order agendas. I say Resist!
Bernardo for fuck's sake. Do people not remember that the police questioned him, what, 3 times over the course of a number of years, and ignored whatever evidence led to him because of their assumptions about what his whiteness and his middle-classness meant? No outrage over what could have been prevented? With the blame firmly in the hands of fucking cops? No. Just the same old idiocy of "I wouldn't want him to be my neighbour". Reactionary bullshit.
Revolutionary? Fuck yeah:
Thu, 2014-09-25 20:40
#58
alan smithee
Read up about the Yorkshire Ripper.
The police force did a dreadful job,Peter Sutcliffe could and should have been arrested and charged years before he was finally apprehended.
And no,I wouldn't want to be his neighbour.
Thu, 2014-09-25 20:43
#59
alan smithee
Are you going to tell me that you'd run with your tail between your legs?
I'd like to say I'd have stepped up and been a hero. But I've only really been in one situation in my life where I witnessed homicidal violence being inflicted upon someone, and all I did was call the cops. Fear can be a pretty gut-seizing thing. It's easy to sit back and say someone should've jumped him. But in the heat of the moment, I won't judge anyone for being paralyzed under those circumstances.
Fair enough. I'm not a hero by any means,I don't know what that scene was like as I wasn't there.
I just think it's a shame that there wasn't anyone who could have smashed him in the head with something to unconsciousness.
Like you,my first instinct would be to call the police.
Thu, 2014-09-25 21:44
#60
Most folks here have a lot more faith in the justice system and the policing system than I do, or ever will.
That said, I'm with Arthur and Smith.
Who ends up arrested and charged, never miind jailed, has everything to do with their social location (race, class, education level) and usually little to do with the severity of the crime committed.
It's also very much a Con talking point to use the most egregious, well-publicized and notorious examples to "prove" the (talking) "points" around supporting all manner of law and order agendas. I say Resist!
Bernardo for fuck's sake. Do people not remember that the police questioned him, what, 3 times over the course of a number of years, and ignored whatever evidence led to him because of their assumptions about what his whiteness and his middle-classness meant? No outrage over what could have been prevented? With the blame firmly in the hands of fucking cops? No. Just the same old idiocy of "I wouldn't want him to be my neighbour". Reactionary bullshit.
Revolutionary? Fuck yeah:
Going Up the River:Travels in a Prison Nation
Ihighly recommend i, I just finished it and if anyone wants my copy they can have it
Fri, 2014-09-26 08:12
#61
Most folks here have a lot more faith in the justice system and the policing system than I do, or ever will.
That said, I'm with Arthur and Smith.
Who ends up arrested and charged, never miind jailed, has everything to do with their social location (race, class, education level) and usually little to do with the severity of the crime committed.
It's also very much a Con talking point to use the most egregious, well-publicized and notorious examples to "prove" the (talking) "points" around supporting all manner of law and order agendas. I say Resist!
Bernardo for fuck's sake. Do people not remember that the police questioned him, what, 3 times over the course of a number of years, and ignored whatever evidence led to him because of their assumptions about what his whiteness and his middle-classness meant? No outrage over what could have been prevented? With the blame firmly in the hands of fucking cops? No. Just the same old idiocy of "I wouldn't want him to be my neighbour". Reactionary bullshit.
Revolutionary? Fuck yeah:
Good to see you participating as always, but I disagree with your entire premise here. The inherent racism of the justice system is an issue that shouldn't cloud the need for protection of the public. When parole boards keep making decisions like this, and the cumulative effect of incarceration amounts to zero change in the predatory behaviour of a violent offender, then these facts constiute more evidence, as if we needed more, that the justice and correctional system is broken. The cops original treatment of Bernardo, based on his status, and the parole board's decision in this case, all point to something terribly wrong that trancends even systemic racism in these cases. This is an issue that shouldn't be tainted by left/right posturing. As I suggested, if tomorrow we were to declare ourselves to be an anarchist society, the collective responsibility to facilitate safe environments for everyone to live in would still exist. How to go about that is the discussion that should be taking place, that should start with the justice system certainly, the correctional system, and the way people are managed within. In the meantime, the place for dangerous offenders - and my contention is that such a designation only requires one body depending on the case and circumstances - is away from the public. Its obvious that the outrage being expressed over the circumstances of the latest systemic failure is completely justified. If the system is broken then it makes no sense to continue to provide exit points for violent individuals through the cracks.
And I wouldn't make a very good poster boy for the 'protect and serve' mantra.
Fri, 2014-09-26 08:37
#62
Maysie
Its obvious that the outrage being expressed over the circumstances of the latest systemic failure is completely justified.
I heartily disagree.
If the system is broken then it makes no sense to continue to provide exit points for violent individuals through the cracks.
Again, I disagree.
The sooner that the idea of "justice" is disengaged from the prison system, indeed from the "injustice" system, the better.
"Lock 'em up and throw away the key!" or some variation thereof, will never be something I support. Ditto the violent way that Webgear said the same sentiment, just further along the continuum.
Since we already have life without parole, as many have mentioned, for some the solution is to simply apply it to more people. Have fun with that.
Also, since Indigenous folks are incarcerated at far greater rates than their proportion to the population, and Canada has no problem appropriating all kinds of stuff from them, how about this:
Fri, 2014-09-26 08:51
#63
We already have dangerous offender legislation, SJ. VIolent offenders , particularly the ones we are talking about here, ARE kept in prison by that law.
Yes, courts and parole boards sometimes misjudge, but frankly that is a red herring since it is not what we are talking about here.
The point raised is sentencing people to life imprisonment as PUNISHMENT, regardless of likelihood to reoffend or how a person might change over time.
Some background:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/dangerous-offender-what-the-label-means-1....
Note that the numbers are ALREADY rising, and that after several convictions, the onus is already on the offender to prove s/he is not a dangerous offender.
Again, I think this talk of safety is just a foil. Our Justice minister, in his wisdom, made that very argument - that certain criminals should never be released. Just how much oversight does he plan to put in there and how muich does he plan to improve the parole system? One might look at those mandatory minimum sentences for a clue of how his government might approach it.
Again, I know this is just exploitation of a tragedy for a bit of pre-election stumping on his part. But I think we in responding to it should look at what his government has actually done to our prison and justice systems, and to society in general, when we assess his words and what he might really be saying.
He uses those heart-tugging, but essentially boneheaded arguments for a reason - because they work. I got one from our MP last week: What do I support? supporting the victims of crime, or protecting criminals. After all, it has to be one or the other, right?
Fri, 2014-09-26 09:05
#64
A very good point Maysie. Thanks.
There are cases here where sentencing circles were used - one particularly shocking one in which a father let his children freeze to death. That got a lot of people yapping about what he deserved.
In the end, the judge turned down the recommendation of the circle (he was not bound by its findings) because the accused did not take responsibility for his actions. But even so it was an important part of the process:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/father-of-girls-who-froze-to-...
We had another sentencing here yesterday - someone who stabbed her infant in the head, and the child now needs lifelong care. She got four years. What does she deserve, if we are going to reduce it to that absurd eye for an eye logic? I'd say at least those on the right wing are honest enough to voice their preference for the death penalty.
To think that 20 years is getting off easy, or that life in prison isn't ending someone's life (both in reality, and in the closed minded attitude that change is impossible) is a roundabout way of doing the same thing, without admitting it.
Fri, 2014-09-26 09:11
#65
Restorative approaches should be available when there is something to restore. I don't happen to agree that this can apply to every criminal act or individual. It depends on the nature of the case. Someone stealing food from a grocery store is a quite a bit different than someone who has committed lethal violence. There is also a difference between spur of the moment fits of rage resulting in injury or death, or even cases of negligence resulting in the same outcomes, and a calculated, predatorial disregard for the lives of others. The incarceration rates of communities placed at risk by the system we live under is derived from the very same system that fails us in many other ways. At present, it doesn't seem like a logical, interim solution, to support a continuance of the laissez-faire, rubber stamp approach that the parole boards seem to be employing. I don't care for words like 'justice' or 'punishment' either, or for the fact that politicans like to build platforms out of them. The nomenclature and political opportunism at work are secondary matters.
Fri, 2014-09-26 09:24
#66
Restorative approaches should be available when there is something to restore.
We are talking about a living person, not an abstract concept or a scratched tabletop.
Fri, 2014-09-26 09:35
#67
We already have dangerous offender legislation, SJ. VIolent offenders , particularly the ones we are talking about here, ARE kept in prison by that law.
No. This is obviously not the case. Under the present system, the parameters around who gets designated as a 'violent offender' very clearly requires an overhaul. The one's we're talking about here just committed another one, there's no way around it. Sure, it would be very much preferable to not live in a predatory society that sets all of the behavioural examples for humans to absorb from very early in their development. This would be a desirable starting point toward systemic change in human behaviour. I don't want to sound all Bolshevik here, but since prisons as they are presently constituted are not exactly re-education camps designed to change violent minds away from everything they've internalized since childhood, in terms of how to behave in the very society that sets the predatory examples for everyone with each waking day, and they won't let us change any of these circumstances, then it necessarily is the responsibility of the capitalist system to keep its products away from us as we try to strive toward something better. Even the ones who wrote 'The Coming Insurrection,' and who were arrested and designated by the French State as being anarchistic terrorists recognized that some people in society simply can't be treated. By their acts and anti-social, colonized minds, they designate themselves as unredeemable. It was a point Hannah Arendt understood and articulated in the early 60's in her banality of evil report from the Eichmann trial.
Fri, 2014-09-26 10:31
#68
Um, SJ.
Sorry to skewer a good Godwinism, but you do know that Eichmann was in charge of just such a plan to "keep those products away from us as we strive toward something better". In their hateful vision of the world, anyway.
Colonized people render themselves unredeemable and incapable of treatment? Man, you are taking this into stranger and stranger territory.
What I wonder is how did this country in the centre of capitalist world managed to do this:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/08/us-norway-netherlands-prison-i...
while we are moving in the direction of this:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/20/solitary-confinemen...
Despite crime rates which are actually falling.
Fri, 2014-09-26 10:59
#69
Sorry to skewer a good Godwinism, but you do know that Eichmann was in charge of just such a plan to "keep those products away from us as we strive toward something better". In their hateful vision of the world, anyway.
Your counter-analogy doesn't fit. His share in support of the ideology he worked for wasn't based on individual, case by case assessments of abhorrent acts. It included everybody within the designated communities on account of them being born as such.
Colonized people render themselves unredeemable and incapable of treatment? Man, you are taking this into stranger and stranger territory.
I think it's strange that ideological shackles are preventing people from seeing where the emphasis toward harm and threat reduction should be focused.
What I wonder is how did this country in the centre of capitalist world managed to do this:http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/08/us-norway-netherlands-prison-idUSKBN0H325820140908
What, renting offshore penal colony space because they've run out of room at home? This is what you're putting up as an example of enlightened correctional practices?
while we are moving in the direction of this:http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/20/solitary-confinemen...
Despite crime rates which are actually falling.
We could have a crime rate of one rape and murder per year in this country, and we would still need to come up with a better system and approach when it comes time to consider releasing them. In lieu of that better approach, I'd err on the side of caution and continue to hold them for awhile longer until a better determination can be made toward their safe release, better than what the current determinations are based on. Crime rates and solitary confinement issues are seperate matters. Segues from the main topic at hand.
Fri, 2014-09-26 11:28
#70
I'm talking about Netherlands, though both countries have prison policies that put ours to shame.
Isolation is not a separate issue; it is a direct result of cramming more and more people into a smaller and smaller space, with no plan other than building more prisons.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/isolation-of-inmates-rising-in-crowded-p...
And "ideological shackes"?
Fri, 2014-09-26 11:44
#71
Catchfire
Wow, so glad to have Maysie in this thread. Super points.
Also, if we could have less bloodlust bravado and less taunting of who would and wouldn't "smash someone unconscious" in a fleeting moment of murderous violence, that would make me feel like this was a progressive discussion board. Thank you.
***
Following Maysie, the popular reactionary response to events like Raymond Caissie is that he is an individual that "slipped through the cracks" as if the whole justice system wasn't already a pile of warm, damp cardboard. How lefties can respond to cases like Caissie -- which prove that the system is a shambles -- by repeating right-wing talking points like "some people should never be released" (one of the milder epithets on this thread) is beyond me.
As even right-wing, tough on crime pundits have been pointed out, the "system" failed Caissie 21 years ago (or, arguably, on his first arrest before that), not at the moment of his release -- as if just keeping him behind bars would have made the whole system work. Folks on the left should always -- always -- treat instance like this case as sociological -- that is, shared -- problems that can't be fixed by centring on the right number of years to lock a criminal up.
Fri, 2014-09-26 11:51
#72
Wow, so glad to have Maysie in this thread.
And Arthur Cramer. Thanks for your wisdom and humanity.
Just noticed this thread. It sure doesn't take much in the way of horror stories to bring out the worst in even the best people. Photos and videos of beheadings are doing likewise right now on the international scene.
Fri, 2014-09-26 11:52
#73
Isolation is not a separate issue; it is a direct result of cramming more and more people into a smaller and smaller space, with no plan other than building more prisons.
Even this doesn't make sense the way you've put it. How does cramming more people in to the same spaces result in isolation? It would be the reverse I would think, in reading what you have there.
We really should be discussing this serious problem in a different way than what the conservative approach suggests, which is to lock up as many people as possible for as long as they can in order to promote their chances among like minded people at election time. Its like they toss down a bone with a little red meat on it and people run off and knaw away at it for hours to peel away the tasty bits. I suggest leaving it where its dropped for the time being and talk about how best to confront the behaviours that cause these outcomes. I will admit that I don't care at all about people who can do what this person has done. They can rot in cells until they look like Eddy from Iron Maiden. They shouldn't have done what they did to get there. The real issue is about the possibility of an eventual release, how is this determined, and by what standards can it be safely facilitated. It doesn't seem as if the necessary provisions toward that end are in place.
Fri, 2014-09-26 11:54
#74
alan smithee
My point is someone needs to take responsibility.
If it's not the offender than it's the police or the government (I'd pick #3)
As for bashing someone's head in,I think if someone was stabbing someone to death in front of you and you had a cane or a bottle,you do what you got to do,
That's bloodlust?
You hear about bear attacks all the time where a person witnessing a mauling will find something to beat the animal with or at least make an effort to stop the animal from killing that person.
Vince Li is no bear,I stand by my comment.
Thanks for always highlighting my comments,even when worse has been posted by others.
I love you too 
Fri, 2014-09-26 12:17
#75
It sure doesn't take much in the way of horror stories....
What do you mean by 'much?' You mean there is not a serious enough rate of recidivism with these types of crimes to make people's anger understandable? Yeah, whatever the USA and its allies are doing about the problem in Syria and Iraq certainly won't help matters, nor will Harper's approach to crime domestically. Facts are facts however. Beheadings, rape and murder of innocent victims is wrong obviously.
Fri, 2014-09-26 12:26
#76
SJ, what I meant, and perhaps expressed badly, is that these horror stories are used by dark forces to promote wrong solutions to real problems.
Fri, 2014-09-26 13:02
#77
Just to reel this back in a bit again.
This didn't start out as a discussion of being more careful about parole - something I'd say we all agree with, though it usually has to do with hindsight - but rather the idea that certain crimes should carry an automatic life sentence.That is where this started.
It's that point, as well as the assumption that some technical fix to the justice system has any hope of working, given how unfairly it is applied
...and raising the question of people being found not criminally responsible, and this whole slant around paying for crime.
That I'd say some of us object to, and with good reason
Speaking of 20/20 hindsight, and knowing when you can be a vigilante, they are sentencing someone today for the murder of a fellow here in town who stepped in to stop a fight.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/estevan-fuenzalida-to-be-sentenc...
I can think of times I have stepped into a violent situation like an idiot without thinking (and on one of those occasions I was very lucky there was a cop right there), and other times when I have frozen, or done something entirely wrong. No one can say what they will do or how they will react. Even one of the cops who attended the greyhound killing would up committing suicide; that incident was the turning point in his PTSD.
Fri, 2014-09-26 14:40
#78
I'm talking about Netherlands, though both countries have prison policies that put ours to shame.
Isolation is not a separate issue; it is a direct result of cramming more and more people into a smaller and smaller space, with no plan other than building more prisons.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/isolation-of-inmates-rising-in-crowded-p...
And "ideological shackes"?
The Netherlands has actually closed prisons since they didnt need as many and one has been turned into a hotel
Fri, 2014-09-26 14:45
#79
Paul Bernardo has not been labeled a dangerous offender yet when his 25 years are up, I sincerely doubt he will get out on parole since the sentence is basically 25-life, you could stay in.
And stay in you will unless you admit the crime and express remorse and rehabilitation as that ex MP Colin waterhisnameis did after being convicted of killing his wife
Fri, 2014-09-26 15:03
#80
alan smithee
The Netherlands has their shit together..So does Switzerland.
Instead we look to the US for inspiration and boy oh boy has that been working out well.
Fri, 2014-09-26 22:59
#81
My late Uncle (blessed be his memory), was Provincial Court Judge. He said 15 years was more then enough to break a man; he had expereince here and knew about what he was speaking. OK, there is a problem where people with Mental Health Issues are concerned. But, I'll take what my Uncle told me as defintive here. You don't need to put people away for life if all you think our legal system exists for is to destroy people. For a bunch of so-called "lefties", there sure seems to be a lot of blood lust. Remember Niewmoller. Its just as applciable here. I don't beleive in needlessly locking someone away; and yeah, if I sound "holier then thou", well, that's your problem. This is wrong, will be abused and for my opinion, some of you really need to give your heads a really good shake. Then, go for a really long walk.
Niemöller, a man with documented issues himself, eventually said something in reference to the state coming after everyone, regardless if they were innocent or not. We're not talking about anything that resembles a rounding up of the innocent. That is to say, it doesn't seem applicable to this discussion as you're suggesting. He was speaking in the context of a blood lust, if you want to call it that, and really, who could argue on that point. But here there seems to be an unjustified transference of similarities to some of the positions being taken....granted the 'wall' thing caused a few ripples.....but in all honesty who doesn't rage against it at times.
And with all of my respect Arthur, by what method was that 15 year breaking point for men arrived at? Was there a built in variance, give or take? Is the field of psychology aware of this apparent breakthrough, so that we too may read up on it as well?
Fri, 2014-09-26 23:12
#82
Following Maysie, the popular reactionary response to events like Raymond Caissie is that he is an individual that "slipped through the cracks" as if the whole justice system wasn't already a pile of warm, damp cardboard. How lefties can respond to cases like Caissie -- which prove that the system is a shambles -- by repeating right-wing talking points like "some people should never be released" (one of the milder epithets on this thread) is beyond me.
Stuff like this makes it into an ideological discussion. It really shouldn't be an ideological debate no matter how many charges are made. No one said the justice system isn't a broken pile. Predators are being released because of the fact that it is, often enough bearing no more of a psychological deterrent than the day they first committed the act that put them there. In fact, the psychology that allowed for it in the first place was probably reinforced while they were in. I suggest that we stop knawing on that old bone of left/right talking points around 'correctional' matters.
Fri, 2014-09-26 23:13
#83
Yes, I know better than to be serious in suggesting otherwise. One of the points I am trying to get at is the lack of real debate in the wider context outside of the given framework that it has been painted in. I like the bit about Chomsky's teeth in the article I posted in the media forum, that he grinds away the enamel every morning while reading the NY Times. When people see conservative and 'justice' issues in the same context, the more the immediate concerns get frittered away within the non-debate as its laid down.
Fri, 2014-09-26 23:19
#84
Paul Bernardo has not been labeled a dangerous offender
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bernardo
Bernardo was also declared a "Dangerous Offender", making it unlikely he will ever be released.[16]
Fri, 2014-09-26 23:47
#85
The Netherlands has their shit together..So does Switzerland.
Instead we look to the US for inspiration and boy oh boy has that been working out well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment_in_the_Netherlands
Since the abolition of the death penalty in the Netherlands in 1870, life imprisonment has almost always meant imprisonment until death. Though the prisoner can appeal for pardon, it must be granted by royal decree; since the 1970s, only two such pardons have been successful, both being terminally ill.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment_in_Switzerland
Following a series of murders by recidivists in the 1980s and 1990s, a citizens' committee collected 194,390 signatures to propose a popular initiative that would amend the constitution to mandate the effective incarceration for life of violent criminals and sex offenders considered untreatable.[5] The amendment was adopted by 56% of the popular vote on February 8 2004, even though it was supported only by the right-wing Swiss People's Party.
It was unsuccessfully opposed by the other major political parties and the government, as well as by legal scholars who argued that mandatory lifetime detention violates the European Convention on Human Rights.[6][7] The enabling legislation entered into force on 1 August 2008.[8]
Fri, 2014-09-26 23:54
#86
From that same wikipedia article on Netherlands:
Since 1945, 41 criminals (excluding war criminals) have been sentenced to life imprisonment. There has been a noticeable increase of life imprisonment sentences being given in the last decade, and more than triple the number of life imprisonment sentences in the last few years than the previous decades.
And this:
The only life sentence for a single murder without gravitating circumstances was given in 2005 to Mohammed Bouyeri for the murder of Dutch film director Theo van Gogh, due to its strong political nature.
Sat, 2014-09-27 00:09
#87
From that same wikipedia article on Netherlands:
Since 1945, 41 criminals (excluding war criminals) have been sentenced to life imprisonment. There has been a noticeable increase of life imprisonment sentences being given in the last decade, and more than triple the number of life imprisonment sentences in the last few years than the previous decades.
And this:
The only life sentence for a single murder without gravitating circumstances was given in 2005 to Mohammed Bouyeri for the murder of Dutch film director Theo van Gogh, due to its strong political nature.
In all other cases, there has been circumstances of recurrence (murder committed after sentencing for another murder), multitude (several murders) or severe gravity to the crime (i.e. torture murder).
That would cover virtually all of the notorious Canadian cases that have been mentioned here.
Sat, 2014-09-27 00:19
#88
Yes, but only 41 such sentences in almost 70 years? Not so much like Canada.
Sat, 2014-09-27 00:44
#89
Sat, 2014-09-27 01:17
#90
Left Turn
Even violent criminals such as Bernardo and Pickton could potentially rehabilitate themselves if given the right supports. It's not very likely, but it could happen.I doubt any potential neighbors of theirs would want to roll the dice in that regard, or society in general for that matter. I think it's vital to distinguish between types of crime. Parole shouldn't be simply based on a person having served enough time for consideration in all cases, or by the fact that, by not having raped and killed someone recently, that somehow this reflects favourably upon their rehabilitation while under lock and key. Where it concerns parole boards, what skills are these matters submitted to for determination? Are they qualified to perform this work? What is the criteria for being selected as a member of a parole board? Obviously there is a systemic and tragic failure occurring in this area.
SJ, I don't support the release of Bint ernardo or Pickton at this point in time. The supports that would allow them to rehabilitate themselves don't exist in the current prison system. So I agree with you on this aspect of thngs.
Where I disagree is on the idea that Bernardo and Picketon are beyond rehabilitation. I do believe that with the right supports, there is a chance, however slight, that they could rehabilitate themselves. As such, I believe they need to be allowed to periodically go before a parole board and attempt to prove that they've rehabilitated themselves. Now I wouldn't, in the absence of the proper rehabilitation programs, support them being granted parole; but to deny them thhe right to periodically appear before a parole board, is to argue that they deserve to be 'punished' for the rest of their lives for what they did. It's the 'lock e'm up an throw away the key' approach, which I reject out of hand, because it's not what I want the prison system to be used for.
Sat, 2014-09-27 01:34
#91
Left Turn
Restorative approaches should be available when there is something to restore. I don't happen to agree that this can apply to every criminal act or individual. It depends on the nature of the case. Someone stealing food from a grocery store is a quite a bit different than someone who has committed lethal violence.
Whether or not there is something to restore is an unkonwable quantity. There are undoubtedly cases where there is nothing to restore, but this cannot be known in any individual cases. As such, I support using the restorative approach with all convicted criminals. To me that means that every criminal, regardless of the crimes they've committed, ought to be entitled to the best restorative justice programs that money can buy.
Then, at set intervals, the incarcerated persons deserve the right to go before a parole board and argue that they've rehabilitated themselves, though the burden of proof on their part should be very high. If the system works properly, and there is nothing there to restore, then they'll be repeatedly denied parole.
Obviously there's a lot of other things broken in our prison system that would need to be fixed in order for this to be a viable option. And I don't think we can take a social justice approach to the corrections system without including these things in the discussion.
Sat, 2014-09-27 03:20
#92
Paul Bernardo has not been labeled a dangerous offender
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bernardo
Bernardo was also declared a "Dangerous Offender", making it unlikely he will ever be released.[16]
Well I stand corrected, I didnt think they had done that. Though the dangerous offender status is never permanent and is reviewed on a continual basis
Sun, 2014-09-28 03:56
#93
I don't think anyone here is saying they approve of whatever Harper has up his sleeve, just that for the foreseeable future people like Caissie will exist. Individual rights are important but individuals have a right to public safety too. That is the bargain people make with the "justice" system.
I want anyone incarcerated for life on behalf of public safety to be as comfortable as possible.
Restorative justice and rehabilitation is appropriate for the majority of criminals but not all of them.
I try to avoid the descriptions of the brutality in the mid-east but it also makes me wonder at the malleability of the human mind and behaviors. We are every bit as capable of extreme violence as they are. We think of Magnotta as a mad man but he is no madder than all the butchers in the mid east. Some people choose to commit horrific crimes. It's not a matter of punishing them, it's a matter of keeping the public safe which should be the priority of the justice system. It's the deal we make. We don't take justice into our own hands. If we did Magnotta would be dead. Instead we hand him to the justice system.
Sure, there are a ton of people who didn't get a fair shake, people with fetal alcohol syndrome, poverty, racism etc. who are perfect candidates for rehabilitation. I am glad we did away with the death penalty but for some people life has to mean life because there is no way to ever trust them.
Sun, 2014-09-28 08:03
#94
Shunning is an age old practice by many cultures around the world, and when it is not arbitrary, it is fully consistent today with the UN Declaration of Human rights when it speaks about arrest, detention, or exile. Of course, there's no denying that the arbitrary nature of the justice system is a widespread problem that we see being inflicted more than ever, but when a society considers someone lethally dangerous to the community, the proven facts and reasons are compelling ones. For certain social crimes, the concept of physical exile from a community has to be treated differently than at other places or times in history, because of our interconnected world and it's broader responsibilities. It would obviously make no sense to banish a predator to someone else's town. That form of remedy becomes more significant when it consigns a person to a solitary existence of surviving off the land. Most of us would likely consider banishment with few provisions on some frozen island in the high Arctic to be severe and unusual, and we generally don't consider it as an option. Realistically, all we have available then is provisioned confinement from interaction with the community. Even here it not a complete ban on communication or interaction. Visitations and legal representation are provided for.
Our discussion here reminds me of an old cartoon that described the US position on apartheid South Africa, that showed a White House staffer whispering in Reagan's ear the word 'communists' in relation to the ANC. So fixated on the obviously disturbing implications, Reagan's eyes were staring straight ahead and resembled two beady circles of rage, as if he were in a trance. I suppose it's true that the mention of 'justice' and 'conservatives' in the same context is enough to evoke that kind of reaction.
Sun, 2014-09-28 11:15
#95
But why do you keep coming back to "certain crimes"? To reduce it to that, and the idea (irrational, in my opinion) that people cannot change means that parole boards are completely pointless.
Unless of course our PM is right on the ball by bringing in exactly the same thing: minimum mandatory sentences. So far our courts consider that approach unconstitutional, but maybe he is thinking far ahead of the rest of us.
And why, if there is this opinion that certain crimes merit being locked away forever, and that criminals have to "pay" to someone else's satisfaction, is there only one person in this thread who agrees with G.B. Shaw and has called for people to be lined up against a wall and shot?
Because on that point he is right: If someone is truly irredeemable, better to kill him than condemn him to a life of misery. I have to wonder, is it that people here don't think people have suffered enough, or that they actually believe it is a kinder option than death. Or (since you raise the issue of conflating policies with ideology) that we're just too progressive to talk about sentencing people to death, so we have to keep them in misery for the rest of their lives, because that is somehow better.
And the fact that you have some victims of crime who cannot let go of the hurt and crying for blood, and others who manage to move on says to me that tying sentencing to the feelings of the victims is completely unworkable.
As for the negative comparisons with other parts of the world, or course we don't want to do that. The other side of that is, of course that some of those societies have a thing or two to teach us as well, if only because they were at the point where "endless punishment" simply would not work, and they had to find another way.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-06/rwandans-guilty-of-genocide-for...
You want "certain crimes"? You'll find them in any war zone.
I doubt we'll get to that point before we learn that simply tossing evil people in prison doesn't solve anything (California figured that out), and that separating them from us just perpetuates the illusion that there aren't social causes to this problem. But if anything, our current government is moving very quickly in the wrong direction, and I'd prefer we start learning sooner rather than later.
Besides, it seems to me what we blame the worst of the worst for is their treating others as throwaway, worthless and less than human. Having our justice system set exactly the same standard won't do anything at all to teach people otherwise. It only justifies and perpetuates that way of thinking.
Sun, 2014-09-28 11:20
#96
But why do you keep coming back to "certain crimes"? To reduce it to that, and the idea (irrational, in my opinion) that people cannot change means that parole boards are completely pointless.
No one is claiming that we should throw away the key for all murderers.
And why, if there is this opinion that certain crimes merit being locked away forever, and that criminals have to "pay" to someone else's satisfaction, is there only one person in this thread who agrees with G.B. Shaw?
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.
Because on that point he is right: If someone is truly irredeemable, better to kill him than condemn him to a life of misery. I have to wonder, is it that people here don't think people have suffered enough, or that they actually believe it is a kinder option than death. Or (since you raise the issue of conflating policies with ideology) that we're just too progressive to talk about sentencing people to death, so we have to keep them in misery for the rest of their lives, because that is somehow better.
And yet people on death row still want to live. Just because you think it's a fate worse than death doesn't mean it is.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-06/rwandans-guilty-of-genocide-for...
You want "certain crimes"? You'll find them in any war zone.
True, but we can't tell which of those people were doing it purely for the pleasure rather than out of political or personal motivations.
I am not willing to move in next to Pickton because "people can change". Just because people can change doesn't mean they will and you cannot tell if they have by talking to them. I'm pretty sure people who get their rocks off by killing don't have a problem with lying.
What about the safety of future victims? Dead people don't get a second chance.
What would you say to the parents whose children are murdered because it would be cruel to keep the murderer behind bars just in case he changes? What questions would you ask Pickton to decide when to release him?
Sun, 2014-09-28 11:45
#97
But why do you keep coming back to "certain crimes"? To reduce it to that, and the idea (irrational, in my opinion) that people cannot change means that parole boards are completely pointless.
Unless of course our PM is right on the ball by bringing in exactly the same thing: minimum mandatory sentences. So far our courts consider that approach unconstitutional, but maybe he is thinking far ahead of the rest of us.
Actually the Supreme Court has upheld every mandatory minimum sentence challenged as unconstitutional except one, way back in 2001. It will consider a new case this November, that seems to have a better shot.
Sun, 2014-09-28 11:54
#98
My dismay at this thread hasn't lessened.
Before Peter Mackay said last week they were considering life without parole, not one progressive person anywhere ever raised that prospect. Now, some here are not only supporting it, but considering the fine points.
Before some images of beheadings, no Canadian, progressive or not, was calling for troops in Iraq, and maybe Syria, and bombing missions... Now, well, who isn't? Yet the beheadings and atrocities and genocides are going on everywhere.
Consent is being manufactured. As when peacefully coexisting neighbours start sending each other to death camps, or picking up machetes.
Why do we, of all people, have such difficulty in determining when we are being manipulated?
I'd quote Rudyard Kipling here, but the "if you can keep your head" part might be inappropriate.
Sun, 2014-09-28 12:05
#99
@ 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.
Sun, 2014-09-28 12:11
#100
@ pookie,
Yes, it was the gun crimes law - a fairly radical shift - I was talking about. Parts of it have been ruled unconstitutional, and it is working its way up.
Sun, 2014-09-28 12:23
#101
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?