Canadian Politics Redux

15859606163

Comments

  • http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/isis-fighters-returning-target-jihadis-1.4404021

    Hey Justin sometimes it is good to be a follower of a trend and not a leader!

    The poison from the poison stream caught up to you NINE years ago and you floated out of here. Sept. 14, 08
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 37,932

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/isis-fighters-returning-target-jihadis-1.4404021

    Hey Justin sometimes it is good to be a follower of a trend and not a leader!

    Sometimes it's also good to consider the bigger picture. Any idea how many innocent civilians die in these drone strikes that you think Trudeau should be so interested in?
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • PJ_Soul said:

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/isis-fighters-returning-target-jihadis-1.4404021

    Hey Justin sometimes it is good to be a follower of a trend and not a leader!

    Sometimes it's also good to consider the bigger picture. Any idea how many innocent civilians die in these drone strikes that you think Trudeau should be so interested in?


    That wasn't the topic of the piece I posted. Was it?

    If you're fine with being lit up at a concert like happened in France, all the best to ya, dear.

    I don't believe in killing innocents at all. But if we are to choose where this happens, over there, BC, anywhere but where I live. GET IT?!?!

    The poison from the poison stream caught up to you NINE years ago and you floated out of here. Sept. 14, 08
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 37,932
    PJ_Soul said:

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/isis-fighters-returning-target-jihadis-1.4404021

    Hey Justin sometimes it is good to be a follower of a trend and not a leader!

    Sometimes it's also good to consider the bigger picture. Any idea how many innocent civilians die in these drone strikes that you think Trudeau should be so interested in?


    That wasn't the topic of the piece I posted. Was it?

    If you're fine with being lit up at a concert like happened in France, all the best to ya, dear.

    I don't believe in killing innocents at all. But if we are to choose where this happens, over there, BC, anywhere but where I live. GET IT?!?!

    Er, no, I don't get it.

    Yeah, it was the topic of the piece you posted... I mean, part of it, anyway. It's about Britain, the US, and other countries really going after terrorists/ISIS with drones and other military means, and about how Canada isn't matching their aggressive tactics. Which part of the article are you focused on? The part about the Brit saying they should all be killed? It was a strange comment... I'm not clear on what he meant. Like, without trial?? What do you think he meant?

    I'm sorry, I don't really understand any of your comments. I am not sure what I said that makes you think I'm find with being lit up at a concert (well, not in the way you mean anyway, haha). And I don't know what you've got in mind generally. So yeah, you don't want to be killed in a terrorist attack... and that ties to the article how, specifically? Nobody wants to die in a terrorist attack, but that doesn't really address what the British minister said, or Trudeau's tactics. I don't even get your initial comment about it being good to be a follow of a trend and not a leader. What did you actually mean by that, exactly? :confused:
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • More tough as nails Canadian law at work:

    http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/saskatchewan/sask-man-fined-4k-shooting-bull-moose-1.4407940

    In short, a guy illegally shoots a bull moose and leaves it to rot. The cops do their work and bring him to the courts where... aaaaaagain... massive failure occurs. 

    $4000 bucks and no hunting for three whole years.

    Whoo. That'll teach him.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 New JerseyPosts: 12,578
    More tough as nails Canadian law at work:

    http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/saskatchewan/sask-man-fined-4k-shooting-bull-moose-1.4407940

    In short, a guy illegally shoots a bull moose and leaves it to rot. The cops do their work and bring him to the courts where... aaaaaagain... massive failure occurs. 

    $4000 bucks and no hunting for three whole years.

    Whoo. That'll teach him.
    Del,
    I hate illegal hunting and especially hate when someone leaves an animal to rot but were you expecting jail time?  If it was an endangered animal then absolute jail time but it wasn't.  Three years no hunting is a pretty big deal.
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • mcgruff10 said:
    More tough as nails Canadian law at work:

    http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/saskatchewan/sask-man-fined-4k-shooting-bull-moose-1.4407940

    In short, a guy illegally shoots a bull moose and leaves it to rot. The cops do their work and bring him to the courts where... aaaaaagain... massive failure occurs. 

    $4000 bucks and no hunting for three whole years.

    Whoo. That'll teach him.
    Del,
    I hate illegal hunting and especially hate when someone leaves an animal to rot but were you expecting jail time?  If it was an endangered animal then absolute jail time but it wasn't.  Three years no hunting is a pretty big deal.

    I'm thinking $4000 is tiny. I think three years ban on hunting will fly by.

    Those aren't consequences.

    No. I'm not thinking jail (even though I'd be okay with it). I'm thinking $10,000 and 10 years of no hunting would be more appropriate. This guy should be impacted- not inconvenienced.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 New JerseyPosts: 12,578
    mcgruff10 said:
    More tough as nails Canadian law at work:

    http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/saskatchewan/sask-man-fined-4k-shooting-bull-moose-1.4407940

    In short, a guy illegally shoots a bull moose and leaves it to rot. The cops do their work and bring him to the courts where... aaaaaagain... massive failure occurs. 

    $4000 bucks and no hunting for three whole years.

    Whoo. That'll teach him.
    Del,
    I hate illegal hunting and especially hate when someone leaves an animal to rot but were you expecting jail time?  If it was an endangered animal then absolute jail time but it wasn't.  Three years no hunting is a pretty big deal.

    I'm thinking $4000 is tiny. I think three years ban on hunting will fly by.

    Those aren't consequences.

    No. I'm not thinking jail (even though I'd be okay with it). I'm thinking $10,000 and 10 years of no hunting would be more appropriate. This guy should be impacted- not inconvenienced.
    I'd go a step further and say that if he breaks the smallest hunting rule then he gets a lifetime ban.
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    More tough as nails Canadian law at work:

    http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/saskatchewan/sask-man-fined-4k-shooting-bull-moose-1.4407940

    In short, a guy illegally shoots a bull moose and leaves it to rot. The cops do their work and bring him to the courts where... aaaaaagain... massive failure occurs. 

    $4000 bucks and no hunting for three whole years.

    Whoo. That'll teach him.
    Del,
    I hate illegal hunting and especially hate when someone leaves an animal to rot but were you expecting jail time?  If it was an endangered animal then absolute jail time but it wasn't.  Three years no hunting is a pretty big deal.

    I'm thinking $4000 is tiny. I think three years ban on hunting will fly by.

    Those aren't consequences.

    No. I'm not thinking jail (even though I'd be okay with it). I'm thinking $10,000 and 10 years of no hunting would be more appropriate. This guy should be impacted- not inconvenienced.
    I'd go a step further and say that if he breaks the smallest hunting rule then he gets a lifetime ban.
    You wouldn't get an argument from me.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • One more of the countless, weak and pathetic court rulings that tend to piss me off:

     https://globalnews.ca/news/3706681/saskatchewan-man-leslie-black-marlene-bird-prince-albert-not-dangerous-offender/

    The shitbird that beat Leslie Black to an inch of her life and lit her on fire was ruled 'not a dangerous offender'. The weak excuse of a judge, Stanley Loewen, determined instead that 'He's got to learn to treat women right.'

    Sooo... a 16 year sentence which will inevitably not be that long... shitbird can try again.

    F**king joke.

    * This is a somewhat older story, but his victim died recently and was mentioned in my news feed.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 6,442
    One more of the countless, weak and pathetic court rulings that tend to piss me off:

     https://globalnews.ca/news/3706681/saskatchewan-man-leslie-black-marlene-bird-prince-albert-not-dangerous-offender/

    The shitbird that beat Leslie Black to an inch of her life and lit her on fire was ruled 'not a dangerous offender'. The weak excuse of a judge, Stanley Loewen, determined instead that 'He's got to learn to treat women right.'

    Sooo... a 16 year sentence which will inevitably not be that long... shitbird can try again.

    F**king joke.

    * This is a somewhat older story, but his victim died recently and was mentioned in my news feed.
    As much as you might not like it, there are specific criteria for designating someone a DO and he doesn't appear to meet them. That doesn't excuse or minimize this crime. It's a legal designation, not a moral one. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • One more of the countless, weak and pathetic court rulings that tend to piss me off:

     https://globalnews.ca/news/3706681/saskatchewan-man-leslie-black-marlene-bird-prince-albert-not-dangerous-offender/

    The shitbird that beat Leslie Black to an inch of her life and lit her on fire was ruled 'not a dangerous offender'. The weak excuse of a judge, Stanley Loewen, determined instead that 'He's got to learn to treat women right.'

    Sooo... a 16 year sentence which will inevitably not be that long... shitbird can try again.

    F**king joke.

    * This is a somewhat older story, but his victim died recently and was mentioned in my news feed.
    As much as you might not like it, there are specific criteria for designating someone a DO and he doesn't appear to meet them. That doesn't excuse or minimize this crime. It's a legal designation, not a moral one. 

    I understand that. It doesn't make it right.

    Some moron who really concerned themselves with poor poor murderers advocated for and wrote that legal language. It doesn't protect the public- it protects the guys that beat women to death while lighting them on fire.

    It's a f**king joke.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 6,442
    edited November 27
    One more of the countless, weak and pathetic court rulings that tend to piss me off:

     https://globalnews.ca/news/3706681/saskatchewan-man-leslie-black-marlene-bird-prince-albert-not-dangerous-offender/

    The shitbird that beat Leslie Black to an inch of her life and lit her on fire was ruled 'not a dangerous offender'. The weak excuse of a judge, Stanley Loewen, determined instead that 'He's got to learn to treat women right.'

    Sooo... a 16 year sentence which will inevitably not be that long... shitbird can try again.

    F**king joke.

    * This is a somewhat older story, but his victim died recently and was mentioned in my news feed.
    As much as you might not like it, there are specific criteria for designating someone a DO and he doesn't appear to meet them. That doesn't excuse or minimize this crime. It's a legal designation, not a moral one. 

    I understand that. It doesn't make it right.

    Some moron who really concerned themselves with poor poor murderers advocated for and wrote that legal language. It doesn't protect the public- it protects the guys that beat women to death while lighting them on fire.

    It's a f**king joke.
    No, people who know much more about the law and risk assessment than you do wrote that legislation. 

    However, this is a good reminder to me why I stopped responding to you on these issues. Time to get back to that. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • One more of the countless, weak and pathetic court rulings that tend to piss me off:

     https://globalnews.ca/news/3706681/saskatchewan-man-leslie-black-marlene-bird-prince-albert-not-dangerous-offender/

    The shitbird that beat Leslie Black to an inch of her life and lit her on fire was ruled 'not a dangerous offender'. The weak excuse of a judge, Stanley Loewen, determined instead that 'He's got to learn to treat women right.'

    Sooo... a 16 year sentence which will inevitably not be that long... shitbird can try again.

    F**king joke.

    * This is a somewhat older story, but his victim died recently and was mentioned in my news feed.
    As much as you might not like it, there are specific criteria for designating someone a DO and he doesn't appear to meet them. That doesn't excuse or minimize this crime. It's a legal designation, not a moral one. 

    I understand that. It doesn't make it right.

    Some moron who really concerned themselves with poor poor murderers advocated for and wrote that legal language. It doesn't protect the public- it protects the guys that beat women to death while lighting them on fire.

    It's a f**king joke.
    No, people who know much more about the law and risk assessment than you do wrote that legislation. 

    However, this is a good reminder to me why I stopped responding to you on these issues. Time to get back to that. 
    Lol. Okay. Defend all you want. I'm right.

    Just in my area... we had this guy... he came to our community after being served by 'people who know much more about the law and risk assessment than [I] do':

    Froese’s rapes and criminal activity began at age 13. He was convicted of 24 offences as a youth, including property crimes and failure to comply with court conditions.

    At age 22, he sexually assaulted his sister’s 16-year-old friend, receiving a seven-month jail sentence.

    Two years later, in 2004, he trapped a 19-year-old chambermaid in a Saskatoon hotel room, restraining and raping her. He was jailed three years

    Froese came to Kamloops in May, 2011, after his jail sentences were exhausted. He told authorities he would live with his mother and was bound by another court order.

    A specially trained probation officer supervised Froese here, with police making one or two checks nightly. He was also interviewed by psychiatrists and psychologists.

    But, in November the same year, after he told the probation officer he was in a happy relationship with a woman pregnant with his child and was receiving job training, Froese used his paycheque to buy drugs — drug use preceded all his sex crimes.

    Froese admitted to kidnapping the clerk, injecting her with cocaine and sexually assaulting her in a terrifying ordeal that left the woman with post-traumatic stress disorder, “agony, anguish and emotional trauma,” said B.C. Supreme Court Justice Peter Rogers in his ruling last year.


    http://www.kamloopsthisweek.com/convicted-rapist-found-dead-in-cell/

    The courts you advocate for so staunchly didn't do so great protecting the public here, eh? What's not included in the story linked here is the fact that he repeatedly broke conditions of his parole including one time where he had rope, a knife and duct tape in the trunk of his car.

    He was killed in his cell after being locked up for his last event. Poor poor serial rapist.

    Take your advice... don't respond. How can you? With the old 'that's just one teeny weeny case' classic comeback? I'll post 100 others that stink of the same negligence.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 12,120
    edited November 27
    you aren't right. it's an opinion. DO status is a major deal that basically goes against the rights and freedoms of an individual after serving their debt to society. it is only used in very extreme cases. it isn't about "the poor poor murderers", it's about protecting the rights of society as a whole so it isn't abused. 

    your issue is with sentencing (which I think we can all agree is too lenient in some cases-although you obviously cherry pick rare cases to suit your agenda-not the thousands where the courts got it right), not with the DO designation. 
    Post edited by HughFreakingDillon on
  • you aren't right. it's an opinion. DO status is a major deal that basically goes against the rights and freedoms of an individual after serving their debt to society. it is only used in very extreme cases. it isn't about "the poor poor murderers", it's about protecting the rights of society as a whole so it isn't abused. 

    your issue is with sentencing (which I think we can all agree is too lenient in some cases-although you obviously cherry pick rare cases to suit your agenda-not the thousands where the courts got it right), not with the DO designation. 
    Ultimately, you're probably right with regards to what my real issue is.

    These cases I've 'cherry picked' aren't as 'rare' as they should be- they are splashed on the news daily. We error on the side of leniency far too much and as a result... many innocent people are hurt. That is not protecting 'society as a whole'... it's protecting degenerates. If we were protecting society... these women in the story I just submitted would not have been traumatized.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 12,120
    you aren't right. it's an opinion. DO status is a major deal that basically goes against the rights and freedoms of an individual after serving their debt to society. it is only used in very extreme cases. it isn't about "the poor poor murderers", it's about protecting the rights of society as a whole so it isn't abused. 

    your issue is with sentencing (which I think we can all agree is too lenient in some cases-although you obviously cherry pick rare cases to suit your agenda-not the thousands where the courts got it right), not with the DO designation. 
    Ultimately, you're probably right with regards to what my real issue is.

    These cases I've 'cherry picked' aren't as 'rare' as they should be- they are splashed on the news daily. We error on the side of leniency far too much and as a result... many innocent people are hurt. That is not protecting 'society as a whole'... it's protecting degenerates. If we were protecting society... these women in the story I just submitted would not have been traumatized.
    of course they are splashed on the news daily. what are they going to report on, the rapist who got 15 years and lived in a halfway house for 5 and then is now working a decent wage and contributing to society? you know full well news like that doesn't sell. 

    sentencing laws are designed to protect all involved so people don't get over-sentenced. that's not "protecting the poor poor murderer". that's protecting the guy who doesn't deserve life in prison for his crime. that's not to say the people in your examples got good sentences; they did not. they were too lenient, and got far too many chances. but you can't just go throwing the DO willy nilly. we have the benefit of hindsight in these cases. the vast majority of cases don't go this route. 
  • Thirty Bills UnpaidThirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 12,298
    edited November 27
    you aren't right. it's an opinion. DO status is a major deal that basically goes against the rights and freedoms of an individual after serving their debt to society. it is only used in very extreme cases. it isn't about "the poor poor murderers", it's about protecting the rights of society as a whole so it isn't abused. 

    your issue is with sentencing (which I think we can all agree is too lenient in some cases-although you obviously cherry pick rare cases to suit your agenda-not the thousands where the courts got it right), not with the DO designation. 
    Ultimately, you're probably right with regards to what my real issue is.

    These cases I've 'cherry picked' aren't as 'rare' as they should be- they are splashed on the news daily. We error on the side of leniency far too much and as a result... many innocent people are hurt. That is not protecting 'society as a whole'... it's protecting degenerates. If we were protecting society... these women in the story I just submitted would not have been traumatized.
    of course they are splashed on the news daily. what are they going to report on, the rapist who got 15 years and lived in a halfway house for 5 and then is now working a decent wage and contributing to society? you know full well news like that doesn't sell. 

    sentencing laws are designed to protect all involved so people don't get over-sentenced. that's not "protecting the poor poor murderer". that's protecting the guy who doesn't deserve life in prison for his crime. that's not to say the people in your examples got good sentences; they did not. they were too lenient, and got far too many chances. but you can't just go throwing the DO willy nilly. we have the benefit of hindsight in these cases. the vast majority of cases don't go this route. 
    I notice you have spoken to the need for gun control in the US. I am assuming this is because you recognize the need for legislation to protect society. I agree with you.

    However, statistically speaking, you are far more likely to be injured by a criminal who has 'paid his debt to society' than you are by a person who owns a gun. Recidivism rates in Canada are high. They are difficult to ascertain, but some estimates suggest it is higher than 40% as detailed in the following link:

    https://ipolitics.ca/2016/12/22/how-bad-is-canadas-recidivism-problem-nobody-knows/

    There are also government documents that suggest a much lower rate of recidivism (in the 15% range). This doesn't make any sense for a number of reasons. From an obvious standpoint... these statistics would suggest for every 100 people convicted of a crime... 85% are very first time offenders.

    Regardless... I would place the percentages of gun owners who harm people with their weapons far below 15% (giving the recidivism rate the benefit of the doubt). In fact, without bothering to research the data, I would suggest the percentage is below 1%. Guns and their owners are far less likely to hurt someone than offenders reoffending. Why don't criminals likely to reoffend concern you as much as gun owners and their guns when their offending rates are infinitely lower?
    Post edited by Thirty Bills Unpaid on
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 12,120
    you aren't right. it's an opinion. DO status is a major deal that basically goes against the rights and freedoms of an individual after serving their debt to society. it is only used in very extreme cases. it isn't about "the poor poor murderers", it's about protecting the rights of society as a whole so it isn't abused. 

    your issue is with sentencing (which I think we can all agree is too lenient in some cases-although you obviously cherry pick rare cases to suit your agenda-not the thousands where the courts got it right), not with the DO designation. 
    Ultimately, you're probably right with regards to what my real issue is.

    These cases I've 'cherry picked' aren't as 'rare' as they should be- they are splashed on the news daily. We error on the side of leniency far too much and as a result... many innocent people are hurt. That is not protecting 'society as a whole'... it's protecting degenerates. If we were protecting society... these women in the story I just submitted would not have been traumatized.
    of course they are splashed on the news daily. what are they going to report on, the rapist who got 15 years and lived in a halfway house for 5 and then is now working a decent wage and contributing to society? you know full well news like that doesn't sell. 

    sentencing laws are designed to protect all involved so people don't get over-sentenced. that's not "protecting the poor poor murderer". that's protecting the guy who doesn't deserve life in prison for his crime. that's not to say the people in your examples got good sentences; they did not. they were too lenient, and got far too many chances. but you can't just go throwing the DO willy nilly. we have the benefit of hindsight in these cases. the vast majority of cases don't go this route. 
    I notice you have spoken to the need for gun control in the US. I am assuming this is because you recognize the need for legislation to protect society. I agree with you.

    However, statistically speaking, you are far more likely to be injured by a criminal who has 'paid his debt to society' than you are by a person who owns a gun. Recidivism rates in Canada are high. They are difficult to ascertain, but some estimates suggest it is higher than 40% as detailed in the following link:

    https://ipolitics.ca/2016/12/22/how-bad-is-canadas-recidivism-problem-nobody-knows/

    There are also government documents that suggest a much lower rate of recidivism (in the 15% range). This doesn't make any sense for a number of reasons. From an obvious standpoint... these statistics would suggest for every 100 people convicted of a crime... 85% are very first time offenders.

    Regardless... I would place the percentages of gun owners who harm people with their weapons far below 15% (giving the recidivism rate the benefit of the doubt). In fact, without bothering to research the data, I would suggest the percentage is below 1%. Guns and their owners are far less likely to hurt someone than offenders reoffending. Why don't criminals likely to reoffend concern you as much as gun owners and their guns when their offending rates are infinitely lower?
    interestingly, as I was typing that out, the thought came to me that this may seem hypocritical in nature, given my stance on guns. I thought about it for a while, and wouldntchaknowit, thirty bills had the same thought. 

    the difference is, in my mind, and this is still a young thought, is that you can't take away a person's freedom because of "what if". the freedom to own a weapon, to me, is much different, and infinitely less intrusive, than taking away a person's freedom of life (we're not talking about serial rapists and pre-meditated murderers here-throw away the key). 

    I'm not advocating for the criminals who are likely to re-offend. I'm concerned about the ones who won't, but would nonetheless be shackled by the system because of the possibility of it. 

    And as I also stated, I agree that sentences are way too light in this country for violent crimes. that we agree on. So I'm not really "more concerned with criminals". to me it just doesn't make sense to go around slapping the DO sticker on someone's shirt rather than dealing with the issue of lenient sentencing. 

    I also don't think you can compare gun crimes in the US to recidivism in Canada, if that is what you are doing. 
  • you aren't right. it's an opinion. DO status is a major deal that basically goes against the rights and freedoms of an individual after serving their debt to society. it is only used in very extreme cases. it isn't about "the poor poor murderers", it's about protecting the rights of society as a whole so it isn't abused. 

    your issue is with sentencing (which I think we can all agree is too lenient in some cases-although you obviously cherry pick rare cases to suit your agenda-not the thousands where the courts got it right), not with the DO designation. 
    Ultimately, you're probably right with regards to what my real issue is.

    These cases I've 'cherry picked' aren't as 'rare' as they should be- they are splashed on the news daily. We error on the side of leniency far too much and as a result... many innocent people are hurt. That is not protecting 'society as a whole'... it's protecting degenerates. If we were protecting society... these women in the story I just submitted would not have been traumatized.
    of course they are splashed on the news daily. what are they going to report on, the rapist who got 15 years and lived in a halfway house for 5 and then is now working a decent wage and contributing to society? you know full well news like that doesn't sell. 

    sentencing laws are designed to protect all involved so people don't get over-sentenced. that's not "protecting the poor poor murderer". that's protecting the guy who doesn't deserve life in prison for his crime. that's not to say the people in your examples got good sentences; they did not. they were too lenient, and got far too many chances. but you can't just go throwing the DO willy nilly. we have the benefit of hindsight in these cases. the vast majority of cases don't go this route. 
    I notice you have spoken to the need for gun control in the US. I am assuming this is because you recognize the need for legislation to protect society. I agree with you.

    However, statistically speaking, you are far more likely to be injured by a criminal who has 'paid his debt to society' than you are by a person who owns a gun. Recidivism rates in Canada are high. They are difficult to ascertain, but some estimates suggest it is higher than 40% as detailed in the following link:

    https://ipolitics.ca/2016/12/22/how-bad-is-canadas-recidivism-problem-nobody-knows/

    There are also government documents that suggest a much lower rate of recidivism (in the 15% range). This doesn't make any sense for a number of reasons. From an obvious standpoint... these statistics would suggest for every 100 people convicted of a crime... 85% are very first time offenders.

    Regardless... I would place the percentages of gun owners who harm people with their weapons far below 15% (giving the recidivism rate the benefit of the doubt). In fact, without bothering to research the data, I would suggest the percentage is below 1%. Guns and their owners are far less likely to hurt someone than offenders reoffending. Why don't criminals likely to reoffend concern you as much as gun owners and their guns when their offending rates are infinitely lower?
    interestingly, as I was typing that out, the thought came to me that this may seem hypocritical in nature, given my stance on guns. I thought about it for a while, and wouldntchaknowit, thirty bills had the same thought. 

    the difference is, in my mind, and this is still a young thought, is that you can't take away a person's freedom because of "what if". the freedom to own a weapon, to me, is much different, and infinitely less intrusive, than taking away a person's freedom of life (we're not talking about serial rapists and pre-meditated murderers here-throw away the key). 

    I'm not advocating for the criminals who are likely to re-offend. I'm concerned about the ones who won't, but would nonetheless be shackled by the system because of the possibility of it. 

    And as I also stated, I agree that sentences are way too light in this country for violent crimes. that we agree on. So I'm not really "more concerned with criminals". to me it just doesn't make sense to go around slapping the DO sticker on someone's shirt rather than dealing with the issue of lenient sentencing. 

    I also don't think you can compare gun crimes in the US to recidivism in Canada, if that is what you are doing. 
    I was more making reference to your frame of mind than anything.

    I think you can compare the 'risk factors' for each given they both impact humans in at least a remote way.

    Thanks for the meaningful responses. I always appreciate the opportunity to test my belief sets with you and others (Often... even though you have lost your patience with me... you as well).
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 12,120
    you aren't right. it's an opinion. DO status is a major deal that basically goes against the rights and freedoms of an individual after serving their debt to society. it is only used in very extreme cases. it isn't about "the poor poor murderers", it's about protecting the rights of society as a whole so it isn't abused. 

    your issue is with sentencing (which I think we can all agree is too lenient in some cases-although you obviously cherry pick rare cases to suit your agenda-not the thousands where the courts got it right), not with the DO designation. 
    Ultimately, you're probably right with regards to what my real issue is.

    These cases I've 'cherry picked' aren't as 'rare' as they should be- they are splashed on the news daily. We error on the side of leniency far too much and as a result... many innocent people are hurt. That is not protecting 'society as a whole'... it's protecting degenerates. If we were protecting society... these women in the story I just submitted would not have been traumatized.
    I think we're talking apples and oranges here. protecting society comes with protecting ALL of it, the innocents, and those who have done wrong and paid their debts. 

    the issue here is the size of the debt, which we agree is not enough. 

    Dangerous offender status is, again, only used, and only should be used, in rare cases where throwing the book at someone isn't enough and there simply is no recourse to keep them incarcerated (like giving the maximum sentence under law, and they'll still get out and are likely to reoffend). that is not the case in any of the cases you mentioned, as the book was not thrown at any of them. 
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 6,442
    Here's an example of Crown, the police, and the Alberta Court of Appeal working very hard over years to get first degree murder charges against two individuals (father and stepmother) who tortured and beat a child to death. Apparently one of those rare cases where the justice system worked.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/supreme-court-canada-calgary-couple-magoon-jordan-meika-murder-1.4420360
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • Here's an example of Crown, the police, and the Alberta Court of Appeal working very hard over years to get first degree murder charges against two individuals (father and stepmother) who tortured and beat a child to death. Apparently one of those rare cases where the justice system worked.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/supreme-court-canada-calgary-couple-magoon-jordan-meika-murder-1.4420360
    My gawd.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 6,442
    The incredible grace and strength of the Virk family has always impressed me, particularly the steps they took with Glowatski. Here it is again on display in an even more difficult situation - Ellard.

    http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/parole-ok-for-reena-virk-s-killer-grandfather-says-1.23106055
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 37,932
    The incredible grace and strength of the Virk family has always impressed me, particularly the steps they took with Glowatski. Here it is again on display in an even more difficult situation - Ellard.

    http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/parole-ok-for-reena-virk-s-killer-grandfather-says-1.23106055
    Ellard is scum, and I wish she'd never get out of prison. I can't fucking believe that she was actually allowed to have a relationship, get pregnant, and have a kid while she's in there. Really pisses me off.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 6,442
    BC has made some policy decisions around the marijuana sale issue. Looks like the LDB will be the wholesaler, though not yet clear if weed will be sold in liquor stores or elsewhere. A mix of public and private outlets is expected.

    http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/you-ll-need-to-be-19-to-buy-pot-in-b-c-1.23113191
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 12,120
    legal age for purchase in manitoba will be 19. weird. why 19 and not 18 like alcohol?
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 6,442
    legal age for purchase in manitoba will be 19. weird. why 19 and not 18 like alcohol?
    The drinking age is 18 in Manitoba? Huh.

    I suspect that the provinces will go 19 across the board, given the competing demands to (1) make it higher, given concerns about increased use in youth, and (2) the reality that youth are already using and the hope to reduce (probably never eliminate) the black market.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 12,120
    legal age for purchase in manitoba will be 19. weird. why 19 and not 18 like alcohol?
    The drinking age is 18 in Manitoba? Huh.

    I suspect that the provinces will go 19 across the board, given the competing demands to (1) make it higher, given concerns about increased use in youth, and (2) the reality that youth are already using and the hope to reduce (probably never eliminate) the black market.
    I think BC and Ontario are the only provinces that are 19 for drinking. 
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 37,932
    edited December 6
    It seems to me like the provinces have reign over the legal age in their province, so I agree that it's really weird that a province with a legal drinking age of 18 would make it 19. Makes sense in BC and Ontario, obviously. I mean, I understand what you're saying Often, and agree, but if that is the philosophy in Manitoba, then why wouldn't they make the drinking age 19 too? The same principles apply to either industry.

    RE BC deciding that the LBD will be the sole wholesale distributor for weed... That sounds just fine to me. As long as they aren't the sole retailer, I'm good. I also don't really care if they get in on the retail side, as long as private retail is also available, which it will be. In fact, since BC Liquor is unionized, I would actually kind of favour some retail sales being done there.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Sign In or Register to comment.