I answered your point 1 in the post you quoted. he should be behind bars until the day he dies.
Sorry about that. I guess you did.
Can you clarify when I have often described the ways in which you wish these people to be put down? That's kind of a big assertion to just casually toss out there.
I answered your point 1 in the post you quoted. he should be behind bars until the day he dies.
Sorry about that. I guess you did.
Can you clarify when I have often described the ways in which you wish these people to be put down? That's kind of a big assertion to just casually toss out there.
maybe I'm recalling incorrectly, but I honestly believe you have in the past, not in a chadwick way, but just in "this is what these guys deserve" way. But if it came across as the former, my apologies.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
But being Dr. Petit... or any of the other family members that live daily knowing their children were murdered in horrific fashion would be a Hell far worse. Far worse.
Say nothing of the victims and their final moments.
No, Hugh... sorry man. I'm still not there. Some people have more than earned their sentences of death.
And some have met their end through malicious or incompetent investigative and trial proceedings. This is really brutal.
I have stated many many times how awful it must be for the victims and their families. I didn't in this instance, as it isn't necessary to point out the obvious in every single post. I was responding to a direct point you made, that "prison is too good for them". you seem to think it's a country club, when in fact, it is quite the opposite.
I said prison is too good for them- which it is. I never said prison is a 'country club'... but even if I did... you said 'prison is utter hell'. Why wouldn't I be able to exaggerate to support my position if you can freely employ the same tactic to support yours?
And in the last post to me you pointed out my- admittedly- absurd statement... but not surprisingly, you never pointed out Callen's absurd statement which prompted my silly comment. I say not surprisingly because 'pro DP people are cool with murdering innocents as long as they get their bloodthirst quenched' fits your narrative- it sat well with you I assume.
You speak of emotion too. Who's the emotional one? The definition of justice as it pertains to sentencing is as follows: the administering of deserved punishment or reward. To frame what I'm about to say... consider fellow countryman, Michael Rafferty, who lurks behind bars as we speak? After snatching Tori Stafford from the streets as a random victim... he raped her twice and after satisfying himself... he tried to crush her with his boots kicking her ribs in. Failing to murder her with his feet, he resorted to a hammer to kill her- proceeding to unceremoniously dump her 8 year old body under a pile of rocks in the middle of the field, go home and shower.
You think 30 years behind bars is the deserved punishment for such a crime? I don't. I think prison is a great place for gangsters who kill each other... jilted lovers that murder in a fit of jealous rage... serial drunk drivers who run over people in crosswalks... and the like. For the murders of the grotesque variety- serial or mass fashion, involving torture, or where children are the victims... warm meals, television, books, and internet usage while killing time is simply not my idea of justice.
actually, maybe not in that post, but in several others, you have described the "comforts of prison life", so yes, you have described it as some sort of country club.
you assume wrong. just because I didn't comment on his position, doesn't mean that I agree with it. He has posted that same sentence several times, and I believe many moons ago I addressed it as not being my position. Again, I don't need to address everyone's repeated posts every time it is done.
I wouldn't call it "bloodthirst" (even though you have often described the ways in which you wish these people to be put down, which begs the question, is it?), but I do agree that pro-DPers are able to reconcile with innocents being put to death so that other, seemingly deserving folks, meet the same fate. and I don't get it. I just don't get it.
I think someone who you've described should get life. and when I say life, I mean FOREVER. No release. ever. not 30 years. not 50 years. release the dead body.
just as you believe that my position would change if someone I knew were a victim, so do I believe yours would change if you knew someone on death row you thought were innocent.
To the bolded statement... when have I described in any detail how I'd like to see someone put down? The most graphic I think I have ever been on this forum is when I used the expression 'shit sandwiches' as a suggestion for the Boston Bomber while he spent his time in a cell.
Outside of this... two things:
1. Is Rafferty's sentence 'justice' for Tori Stafford in your mind? Have we determined that 25 years without the possibility of parole is adequate? Does this punishment fit the crime?
2. I'd like to think my position wouldn't change if I knew someone on Death Row. I'd concede that it might. The family of Hayes (one of the Cheshire murderers) want him dead.
Point 2 here - I'm not familiar with the Cheshire case but I imagine innocence is not in question so that doesn't really factor in the pertinence of the question posed ?
But being Dr. Petit... or any of the other family members that live daily knowing their children were murdered in horrific fashion would be a Hell far worse. Far worse.
Say nothing of the victims and their final moments.
No, Hugh... sorry man. I'm still not there. Some people have more than earned their sentences of death.
And some have met their end through malicious or incompetent investigative and trial proceedings. This is really brutal.
I have stated many many times how awful it must be for the victims and their families. I didn't in this instance, as it isn't necessary to point out the obvious in every single post. I was responding to a direct point you made, that "prison is too good for them". you seem to think it's a country club, when in fact, it is quite the opposite.
I said prison is too good for them- which it is. I never said prison is a 'country club'... but even if I did... you said 'prison is utter hell'. Why wouldn't I be able to exaggerate to support my position if you can freely employ the same tactic to support yours?
And in the last post to me you pointed out my- admittedly- absurd statement... but not surprisingly, you never pointed out Callen's absurd statement which prompted my silly comment. I say not surprisingly because 'pro DP people are cool with murdering innocents as long as they get their bloodthirst quenched' fits your narrative- it sat well with you I assume.
You speak of emotion too. Who's the emotional one? The definition of justice as it pertains to sentencing is as follows: the administering of deserved punishment or reward. To frame what I'm about to say... consider fellow countryman, Michael Rafferty, who lurks behind bars as we speak? After snatching Tori Stafford from the streets as a random victim... he raped her twice and after satisfying himself... he tried to crush her with his boots kicking her ribs in. Failing to murder her with his feet, he resorted to a hammer to kill her- proceeding to unceremoniously dump her 8 year old body under a pile of rocks in the middle of the field, go home and shower.
You think 30 years behind bars is the deserved punishment for such a crime? I don't. I think prison is a great place for gangsters who kill each other... jilted lovers that murder in a fit of jealous rage... serial drunk drivers who run over people in crosswalks... and the like. For the murders of the grotesque variety- serial or mass fashion, involving torture, or where children are the victims... warm meals, television, books, and internet usage while killing time is simply not my idea of justice.
My statement stands. It can't be disputed.
"If one is for the death penalty they are okay with a few innocents thrown in the mix".
But being Dr. Petit... or any of the other family members that live daily knowing their children were murdered in horrific fashion would be a Hell far worse. Far worse.
Say nothing of the victims and their final moments.
No, Hugh... sorry man. I'm still not there. Some people have more than earned their sentences of death.
And some have met their end through malicious or incompetent investigative and trial proceedings. This is really brutal.
I have stated many many times how awful it must be for the victims and their families. I didn't in this instance, as it isn't necessary to point out the obvious in every single post. I was responding to a direct point you made, that "prison is too good for them". you seem to think it's a country club, when in fact, it is quite the opposite.
I said prison is too good for them- which it is. I never said prison is a 'country club'... but even if I did... you said 'prison is utter hell'. Why wouldn't I be able to exaggerate to support my position if you can freely employ the same tactic to support yours?
And in the last post to me you pointed out my- admittedly- absurd statement... but not surprisingly, you never pointed out Callen's absurd statement which prompted my silly comment. I say not surprisingly because 'pro DP people are cool with murdering innocents as long as they get their bloodthirst quenched' fits your narrative- it sat well with you I assume.
You speak of emotion too. Who's the emotional one? The definition of justice as it pertains to sentencing is as follows: the administering of deserved punishment or reward. To frame what I'm about to say... consider fellow countryman, Michael Rafferty, who lurks behind bars as we speak? After snatching Tori Stafford from the streets as a random victim... he raped her twice and after satisfying himself... he tried to crush her with his boots kicking her ribs in. Failing to murder her with his feet, he resorted to a hammer to kill her- proceeding to unceremoniously dump her 8 year old body under a pile of rocks in the middle of the field, go home and shower.
You think 30 years behind bars is the deserved punishment for such a crime? I don't. I think prison is a great place for gangsters who kill each other... jilted lovers that murder in a fit of jealous rage... serial drunk drivers who run over people in crosswalks... and the like. For the murders of the grotesque variety- serial or mass fashion, involving torture, or where children are the victims... warm meals, television, books, and internet usage while killing time is simply not my idea of justice.
My statement stands. It can't be disputed.
"If one is for the death penalty they are okay with a few innocents thrown in the mix".
You're flawed bit of nonsense has been disputed. A+B does not equal C when A and B are not exact- yielding multiple sums.
What can't be disputed is you throw it out there to agitate. I'm not biting any more.
But being Dr. Petit... or any of the other family members that live daily knowing their children were murdered in horrific fashion would be a Hell far worse. Far worse.
Say nothing of the victims and their final moments.
No, Hugh... sorry man. I'm still not there. Some people have more than earned their sentences of death.
And some have met their end through malicious or incompetent investigative and trial proceedings. This is really brutal.
I have stated many many times how awful it must be for the victims and their families. I didn't in this instance, as it isn't necessary to point out the obvious in every single post. I was responding to a direct point you made, that "prison is too good for them". you seem to think it's a country club, when in fact, it is quite the opposite.
I said prison is too good for them- which it is. I never said prison is a 'country club'... but even if I did... you said 'prison is utter hell'. Why wouldn't I be able to exaggerate to support my position if you can freely employ the same tactic to support yours?
And in the last post to me you pointed out my- admittedly- absurd statement... but not surprisingly, you never pointed out Callen's absurd statement which prompted my silly comment. I say not surprisingly because 'pro DP people are cool with murdering innocents as long as they get their bloodthirst quenched' fits your narrative- it sat well with you I assume.
You speak of emotion too. Who's the emotional one? The definition of justice as it pertains to sentencing is as follows: the administering of deserved punishment or reward. To frame what I'm about to say... consider fellow countryman, Michael Rafferty, who lurks behind bars as we speak? After snatching Tori Stafford from the streets as a random victim... he raped her twice and after satisfying himself... he tried to crush her with his boots kicking her ribs in. Failing to murder her with his feet, he resorted to a hammer to kill her- proceeding to unceremoniously dump her 8 year old body under a pile of rocks in the middle of the field, go home and shower.
You think 30 years behind bars is the deserved punishment for such a crime? I don't. I think prison is a great place for gangsters who kill each other... jilted lovers that murder in a fit of jealous rage... serial drunk drivers who run over people in crosswalks... and the like. For the murders of the grotesque variety- serial or mass fashion, involving torture, or where children are the victims... warm meals, television, books, and internet usage while killing time is simply not my idea of justice.
actually, maybe not in that post, but in several others, you have described the "comforts of prison life", so yes, you have described it as some sort of country club.
you assume wrong. just because I didn't comment on his position, doesn't mean that I agree with it. He has posted that same sentence several times, and I believe many moons ago I addressed it as not being my position. Again, I don't need to address everyone's repeated posts every time it is done.
I wouldn't call it "bloodthirst" (even though you have often described the ways in which you wish these people to be put down, which begs the question, is it?), but I do agree that pro-DPers are able to reconcile with innocents being put to death so that other, seemingly deserving folks, meet the same fate. and I don't get it. I just don't get it.
I think someone who you've described should get life. and when I say life, I mean FOREVER. No release. ever. not 30 years. not 50 years. release the dead body.
just as you believe that my position would change if someone I knew were a victim, so do I believe yours would change if you knew someone on death row you thought were innocent.
To the bolded statement... when have I described in any detail how I'd like to see someone put down? The most graphic I think I have ever been on this forum is when I used the expression 'shit sandwiches' as a suggestion for the Boston Bomber while he spent his time in a cell.
Outside of this... two things:
1. Is Rafferty's sentence 'justice' for Tori Stafford in your mind? Have we determined that 25 years without the possibility of parole is adequate? Does this punishment fit the crime?
2. I'd like to think my position wouldn't change if I knew someone on Death Row. I'd concede that it might. The family of Hayes (one of the Cheshire murderers) want him dead.
Point 2 here - I'm not familiar with the Cheshire case but I imagine innocence is not in question so that doesn't really factor in the pertinence of the question posed ?
No doubt of guilt. Dr. Petit- a one time staunch opponent of the DP- lived to identify them and plea for a sentence of death.
They didn't need him to testify though- the two scumbags were caught leaving the house high fiving each other after raping the inhabitants and leaving them tied up to be consumed by the flames they had set.
and I don't allow killers actions to enflame me or bother me. They turn into humans that need to be incarcerated and housed as efficiently as possible. Maybe study them and find out how they ended up this way. .
You speak from privilege. You haven't had your children or wife wrested from you- living every day knowing the fates they suffered at the hands of some piece of shit that plays ping pong daily and answers emails sent from demented fans.
It's easy to be impartial when you aren't invested.
But being Dr. Petit... or any of the other family members that live daily knowing their children were murdered in horrific fashion would be a Hell far worse. Far worse.
Say nothing of the victims and their final moments.
No, Hugh... sorry man. I'm still not there. Some people have more than earned their sentences of death.
And some have met their end through malicious or incompetent investigative and trial proceedings. This is really brutal.
I have stated many many times how awful it must be for the victims and their families. I didn't in this instance, as it isn't necessary to point out the obvious in every single post. I was responding to a direct point you made, that "prison is too good for them". you seem to think it's a country club, when in fact, it is quite the opposite.
I said prison is too good for them- which it is. I never said prison is a 'country club'... but even if I did... you said 'prison is utter hell'. Why wouldn't I be able to exaggerate to support my position if you can freely employ the same tactic to support yours?
And in the last post to me you pointed out my- admittedly- absurd statement... but not surprisingly, you never pointed out Callen's absurd statement which prompted my silly comment. I say not surprisingly because 'pro DP people are cool with murdering innocents as long as they get their bloodthirst quenched' fits your narrative- it sat well with you I assume.
You speak of emotion too. Who's the emotional one? The definition of justice as it pertains to sentencing is as follows: the administering of deserved punishment or reward. To frame what I'm about to say... consider fellow countryman, Michael Rafferty, who lurks behind bars as we speak? After snatching Tori Stafford from the streets as a random victim... he raped her twice and after satisfying himself... he tried to crush her with his boots kicking her ribs in. Failing to murder her with his feet, he resorted to a hammer to kill her- proceeding to unceremoniously dump her 8 year old body under a pile of rocks in the middle of the field, go home and shower.
You think 30 years behind bars is the deserved punishment for such a crime? I don't. I think prison is a great place for gangsters who kill each other... jilted lovers that murder in a fit of jealous rage... serial drunk drivers who run over people in crosswalks... and the like. For the murders of the grotesque variety- serial or mass fashion, involving torture, or where children are the victims... warm meals, television, books, and internet usage while killing time is simply not my idea of justice.
My statement stands. It can't be disputed.
"If one is for the death penalty they are okay with a few innocents thrown in the mix".
You're flawed bit of nonsense has been disputed. A+B does not equal C when A and B are not exact- yielding multiple sums.
What can't be disputed is you throw it out there to agitate. I'm not biting any more.
Realize my position is uncomfortable. My position though is proven every time a prisoner is released. You got me back on this when you gave support today to stop an execution. How ironic.
It is black and white. There is no grey. The justice system is not perfect. Far from it. Want to execute? Then you are okay with the risks of killing innocent people. Fight and scramble all you want. Ultimately you know.
Some numbers to support innocent people released due to shitty prosecutions and human inadequacy. And yes now we have DNA but many in jail aren't convicted by DNA and they don't have this saving gift as those released in article below.
If you are okay with death penalty you are okay with a few innocents thrown In to satisfy your thirst for revenge. No debate on this. Just admit it.
If we were 100% assured that through forensic science we would never convict anyone wrongfully again... would you...
1. Support the application of the DP in cases such as the Cheshire Murders where bondage, rape, torture and murder of the horrific variety occurred?
2. Refute the application of it and insist on the same sentence drug dealers serve?
If you choose #2... let's be honest... you care much more about the psychotic killers than you do seeking appropriate justice for the event and for Dr. Petit (he himself a former staunch opponent of the DP who abruptly changed his course of thinking once directly affected). No debate on this. Just admit it.
3. refute the application of it, but not insist on the same sentence drug dealers serve. apples and oranges.
it's not "caring about psychotic killers". it is absolutely ridiculous to keep claiming this. I am speaking from an objective position. and you HAVE TO. I'm not looking at the victim, I'm not looking at the criminal.
justice + emotion = chaos.
which is why I also disagree with victim impact statements. for the justice system to put, say, a murdered high school coach above, say, a murdered homeless man without family or friends, to me is not blind justice. it's favouritism.
Yes, I completely agree with the bolded portion. I think that victim impact statements generally do not serve justice. The fact that some victims or family members happen to be more eloquent, or better connected, or more comfortable speaking up in court or to crowds of media should in no way affect the sentence handed down to the perpetrator. that simply makes victims/family doubly victimized. And why do the victim impact statements only seem to be used to make a sentence harsher? What if, for instance, a victim of a crime whose belief system valued forgiveness and compassion submitted a victim impact statement asking that the perpetrator not be punished - would that be given any credence? And if not, why not?
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Some numbers to support innocent people released due to shitty prosecutions and human inadequacy. And yes now we have DNA but many in jail aren't convicted by DNA and they don't have this saving gift as those released in article below.
If you are okay with death penalty you are okay with a few innocents thrown In to satisfy your thirst for revenge. No debate on this. Just admit it.
If we were 100% assured that through forensic science we would never convict anyone wrongfully again... would you...
1. Support the application of the DP in cases such as the Cheshire Murders where bondage, rape, torture and murder of the horrific variety occurred?
2. Refute the application of it and insist on the same sentence drug dealers serve?
If you choose #2... let's be honest... you care much more about the psychotic killers than you do seeking appropriate justice for the event and for Dr. Petit (he himself a former staunch opponent of the DP who abruptly changed his course of thinking once directly affected). No debate on this. Just admit it.
3. refute the application of it, but not insist on the same sentence drug dealers serve. apples and oranges.
it's not "caring about psychotic killers". it is absolutely ridiculous to keep claiming this. I am speaking from an objective position. and you HAVE TO. I'm not looking at the victim, I'm not looking at the criminal.
justice + emotion = chaos.
which is why I also disagree with victim impact statements. for the justice system to put, say, a murdered high school coach above, say, a murdered homeless man without family or friends, to me is not blind justice. it's favouritism.
Yes, I completely agree with the bolded portion. I think that victim impact statements generally do not serve justice. The fact that some victims or family members happen to be more eloquent, or better connected, or more comfortable speaking up in court or to crowds of media should in no way affect the sentence handed down to the perpetrator. that simply makes victims/family doubly victimized. And why do the victim impact statements only seem to be used to make a sentence harsher? What if, for instance, a victim of a crime whose belief system valued forgiveness and compassion submitted a victim impact statement asking that the perpetrator not be punished - would that be given any credence? And if not, why not?
That is stupid. Victims of crime need to be heard and felt. The justice system has no time for criminals.
edit - I really hope that you are not a lawyer. Because any lawyer reading this certainly would disagree. Any victim would not hire you.
Some numbers to support innocent people released due to shitty prosecutions and human inadequacy. And yes now we have DNA but many in jail aren't convicted by DNA and they don't have this saving gift as those released in article below.
If you are okay with death penalty you are okay with a few innocents thrown In to satisfy your thirst for revenge. No debate on this. Just admit it.
If we were 100% assured that through forensic science we would never convict anyone wrongfully again... would you...
1. Support the application of the DP in cases such as the Cheshire Murders where bondage, rape, torture and murder of the horrific variety occurred?
2. Refute the application of it and insist on the same sentence drug dealers serve?
If you choose #2... let's be honest... you care much more about the psychotic killers than you do seeking appropriate justice for the event and for Dr. Petit (he himself a former staunch opponent of the DP who abruptly changed his course of thinking once directly affected). No debate on this. Just admit it.
3. refute the application of it, but not insist on the same sentence drug dealers serve. apples and oranges.
it's not "caring about psychotic killers". it is absolutely ridiculous to keep claiming this. I am speaking from an objective position. and you HAVE TO. I'm not looking at the victim, I'm not looking at the criminal.
justice + emotion = chaos.
which is why I also disagree with victim impact statements. for the justice system to put, say, a murdered high school coach above, say, a murdered homeless man without family or friends, to me is not blind justice. it's favouritism.
Yes, I completely agree with the bolded portion. I think that victim impact statements generally do not serve justice. The fact that some victims or family members happen to be more eloquent, or better connected, or more comfortable speaking up in court or to crowds of media should in no way affect the sentence handed down to the perpetrator. that simply makes victims/family doubly victimized. And why do the victim impact statements only seem to be used to make a sentence harsher? What if, for instance, a victim of a crime whose belief system valued forgiveness and compassion submitted a victim impact statement asking that the perpetrator not be punished - would that be given any credence? And if not, why not?
That is stupid. Victims of crime need to be heard and felt. The justice system has no time for criminals.
edit - I really hope that you are not a lawyer. Because any lawyer reading this certainly would disagree. Any victim would not hire you.
. No, I'm not a lawyer - why on earth would you think that? (But FYI, I've heard lawyers express similar sentiments).
Feel free not to hire me for anything at all, PJfan.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
sometimes i wonder if the word justice exists still for the victims when the criminal has not repented or has cause serious lifelong mental or physical injury
sometimes i wonder if the word justice exists still for the victims when the criminal has not repented or has cause serious lifelong mental or physical injury
Some numbers to support innocent people released due to shitty prosecutions and human inadequacy. And yes now we have DNA but many in jail aren't convicted by DNA and they don't have this saving gift as those released in article below.
If you are okay with death penalty you are okay with a few innocents thrown In to satisfy your thirst for revenge. No debate on this. Just admit it.
If we were 100% assured that through forensic science we would never convict anyone wrongfully again... would you...
1. Support the application of the DP in cases such as the Cheshire Murders where bondage, rape, torture and murder of the horrific variety occurred?
2. Refute the application of it and insist on the same sentence drug dealers serve?
If you choose #2... let's be honest... you care much more about the psychotic killers than you do seeking appropriate justice for the event and for Dr. Petit (he himself a former staunch opponent of the DP who abruptly changed his course of thinking once directly affected). No debate on this. Just admit it.
3. refute the application of it, but not insist on the same sentence drug dealers serve. apples and oranges.
it's not "caring about psychotic killers". it is absolutely ridiculous to keep claiming this. I am speaking from an objective position. and you HAVE TO. I'm not looking at the victim, I'm not looking at the criminal.
justice + emotion = chaos.
which is why I also disagree with victim impact statements. for the justice system to put, say, a murdered high school coach above, say, a murdered homeless man without family or friends, to me is not blind justice. it's favouritism.
Yes, I completely agree with the bolded portion. I think that victim impact statements generally do not serve justice. The fact that some victims or family members happen to be more eloquent, or better connected, or more comfortable speaking up in court or to crowds of media should in no way affect the sentence handed down to the perpetrator. that simply makes victims/family doubly victimized. And why do the victim impact statements only seem to be used to make a sentence harsher? What if, for instance, a victim of a crime whose belief system valued forgiveness and compassion submitted a victim impact statement asking that the perpetrator not be punished - would that be given any credence? And if not, why not?
That is stupid. Victims of crime need to be heard and felt. The justice system has no time for criminals.
edit - I really hope that you are not a lawyer. Because any lawyer reading this certainly would disagree. Any victim would not hire you.
Victims of crime are heard. It's just from the very back of the court room and when they are gasping: once when details about their loved ones surface and a second time when they hear the laughable sentences we typically see.
And I disagree with your statement about the justice system not having any time for criminals. In Canada, we most certainly do. We roll out the red carpet for our murderers and rapists and give them the best we can under the circumstances. The pendulum has swung way too far and it was pushed by some of the same attitudes on display here.
So for those of you strongly advocating for victim impact statements to be taken into account in sentencing - how can you justify this actually making a difference in how someone is sentenced? This puts the onus on the victim of a crime, and/or their family members, to participate in the whole court process even if they can't, or don't want to, for fear that their non-participation would be the reason that the perpetrator got a lesser sentence - to my mind, that's a completely unfair burden to put on someone who is grieving. What about those who are disenfranchised from the legal system? Many groups of individuals have historically (and currently) been badly treated by the legal system; this includes first nations peoples, sex trade workers, immigrants, etc. Now they have to participate in a system that has victimized them in order to see justice for their loved ones? And, as HFD said, what about the homeless or those without any family? No-one to speak for them, so they're less important to the court?
Justice can not depend on how loudly and how long someone can talk.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
So for those of you strongly advocating for victim impact statements to be taken into account in sentencing - how can you justify this actually making a difference in how someone is sentenced? This puts the onus on the victim of a crime, and/or their family members, to participate in the whole court process even if they can't, or don't want to, for fear that their non-participation would be the reason that the perpetrator got a lesser sentence - to my mind, that's a completely unfair burden to put on someone who is grieving. What about those who are disenfranchised from the legal system? Many groups of individuals have historically (and currently) been badly treated by the legal system; this includes first nations peoples, sex trade workers, immigrants, etc. Now they have to participate in a system that has victimized them in order to see justice for their loved ones? And, as HFD said, what about the homeless or those without any family? No-one to speak for them, so they're less important to the court?
Justice can not depend on how loudly and how long someone can talk.
For the record, I'm not advocating for victim impact statements to carry any influence with regards to sentencing. I do think that the opportunity to address the mutant that destroyed your life should be provided to any victim that seeks it in their impossible journey towards closure or comfort of some sort.
I think the courts and the laws of our land should rule in the interests of victims without them urging anything.
So for those of you strongly advocating for victim impact statements to be taken into account in sentencing - how can you justify this actually making a difference in how someone is sentenced? This puts the onus on the victim of a crime, and/or their family members, to participate in the whole court process even if they can't, or don't want to, for fear that their non-participation would be the reason that the perpetrator got a lesser sentence - to my mind, that's a completely unfair burden to put on someone who is grieving. What about those who are disenfranchised from the legal system? Many groups of individuals have historically (and currently) been badly treated by the legal system; this includes first nations peoples, sex trade workers, immigrants, etc. Now they have to participate in a system that has victimized them in order to see justice for their loved ones? And, as HFD said, what about the homeless or those without any family? No-one to speak for them, so they're less important to the court?
Justice can not depend on how loudly and how long someone can talk.
For the record, I'm not advocating for victim impact statements to carry any influence with regards to sentencing. I do think that the opportunity to address the mutant that destroyed your life should be provided to any victim that seeks it in their impossible journey towards closure or comfort of some sort.
I think the courts and the laws of our land should rule in the interests of victims without them urging anything.
Okay, so we are in agreement; on your first point, anyway.
We may still have a different interpretation of just what your second point means, but overall it's good.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
So for those of you strongly advocating for victim impact statements to be taken into account in sentencing - how can you justify this actually making a difference in how someone is sentenced? This puts the onus on the victim of a crime, and/or their family members, to participate in the whole court process even if they can't, or don't want to, for fear that their non-participation would be the reason that the perpetrator got a lesser sentence - to my mind, that's a completely unfair burden to put on someone who is grieving. What about those who are disenfranchised from the legal system? Many groups of individuals have historically (and currently) been badly treated by the legal system; this includes first nations peoples, sex trade workers, immigrants, etc. Now they have to participate in a system that has victimized them in order to see justice for their loved ones? And, as HFD said, what about the homeless or those without any family? No-one to speak for them, so they're less important to the court?
Justice can not depend on how loudly and how long someone can talk.
For the record, I'm not advocating for victim impact statements to carry any influence with regards to sentencing. I do think that the opportunity to address the mutant that destroyed your life should be provided to any victim that seeks it in their impossible journey towards closure or comfort of some sort.
I think the courts and the laws of our land should rule in the interests of victims without them urging anything.
Okay, so we are in agreement; on your first point, anyway.
We may still have a different interpretation of just what your second point means, but overall it's good.
Obviously, I'm a hard ass.
I can accept our laws as they currently stand, but swallowing them is like a swallowing a spoonful of cod liver oil sometimes. If people would leave other people alone... we wouldn't need these discussions about where the bar should be with regards to 'punishment'.
how do the pro death penalty advocates feel about the glossip case on the presumption that he is indeed guilty.
asking someone to kill someone, does that warrant death? or is that punishment only appropriate for the person who actually kills?
no thoughts?
PD.
I've detailed conditions I feel warrant the DP many times.
Serial/mass... and cases where torture and excessive cruelty are evident... and any case where a child (or children) are the victim(s) of a violent and premeditated homicide.
how do the pro death penalty advocates feel about the glossip case on the presumption that he is indeed guilty.
asking someone to kill someone, does that warrant death? or is that punishment only appropriate for the person who actually kills?
no thoughts?
PD.
I've detailed conditions I feel warrant the DP many times.
Serial/mass... and cases where torture and excessive cruelty are evident... and any case where a child (or children) are the victim(s) of a violent and premeditated homicide.
So zero support for the Glossip punishment ?? Even for the guy who committed the actual murder ?
Some numbers to support innocent people released due to shitty prosecutions and human inadequacy. And yes now we have DNA but many in jail aren't convicted by DNA and they don't have this saving gift as those released in article below.
If you are okay with death penalty you are okay with a few innocents thrown In to satisfy your thirst for revenge. No debate on this. Just admit it.
If we were 100% assured that through forensic science we would never convict anyone wrongfully again... would you...
1. Support the application of the DP in cases such as the Cheshire Murders where bondage, rape, torture and murder of the horrific variety occurred?
2. Refute the application of it and insist on the same sentence drug dealers serve?
If you choose #2... let's be honest... you care much more about the psychotic killers than you do seeking appropriate justice for the event and for Dr. Petit (he himself a former staunch opponent of the DP who abruptly changed his course of thinking once directly affected). No debate on this. Just admit it.
3. refute the application of it, but not insist on the same sentence drug dealers serve. apples and oranges.
it's not "caring about psychotic killers". it is absolutely ridiculous to keep claiming this. I am speaking from an objective position. and you HAVE TO. I'm not looking at the victim, I'm not looking at the criminal.
justice + emotion = chaos.
which is why I also disagree with victim impact statements. for the justice system to put, say, a murdered high school coach above, say, a murdered homeless man without family or friends, to me is not blind justice. it's favouritism.
Yes, I completely agree with the bolded portion. I think that victim impact statements generally do not serve justice. The fact that some victims or family members happen to be more eloquent, or better connected, or more comfortable speaking up in court or to crowds of media should in no way affect the sentence handed down to the perpetrator. that simply makes victims/family doubly victimized. And why do the victim impact statements only seem to be used to make a sentence harsher? What if, for instance, a victim of a crime whose belief system valued forgiveness and compassion submitted a victim impact statement asking that the perpetrator not be punished - would that be given any credence? And if not, why not?
That is stupid. Victims of crime need to be heard and felt. The justice system has no time for criminals.
edit - I really hope that you are not a lawyer. Because any lawyer reading this certainly would disagree. Any victim would not hire you.
. No, I'm not a lawyer - why on earth would you think that? (But FYI, I've heard lawyers express similar sentiments).
Feel free not to hire me for anything at all, PJfan.
Think it's more of allowing victims families to begin closure. Probably not fair but needed. I am on victims side. I do though hope the judge can see through th
So for those of you strongly advocating for victim impact statements to be taken into account in sentencing - how can you justify this actually making a difference in how someone is sentenced? This puts the onus on the victim of a crime, and/or their family members, to participate in the whole court process even if they can't, or don't want to, for fear that their non-participation would be the reason that the perpetrator got a lesser sentence - to my mind, that's a completely unfair burden to put on someone who is grieving. What about those who are disenfranchised from the legal system? Many groups of individuals have historically (and currently) been badly treated by the legal system; this includes first nations peoples, sex trade workers, immigrants, etc. Now they have to participate in a system that has victimized them in order to see justice for their loved ones? And, as HFD said, what about the homeless or those without any family? No-one to speak for them, so they're less important to the court?
Justice can not depend on how loudly and how long someone can talk.
For the record, I'm not advocating for victim impact statements to carry any influence with regards to sentencing. I do think that the opportunity to address the mutant that destroyed your life should be provided to any victim that seeks it in their impossible journey towards closure or comfort of some sort.
I think the courts and the laws of our land should rule in the interests of victims without them urging anything.
how do the pro death penalty advocates feel about the glossip case on the presumption that he is indeed guilty.
asking someone to kill someone, does that warrant death? or is that punishment only appropriate for the person who actually kills?
no thoughts?
PD.
I've detailed conditions I feel warrant the DP many times.
Serial/mass... and cases where torture and excessive cruelty are evident... and any case where a child (or children) are the victim(s) of a violent and premeditated homicide.
So zero support for the Glossip punishment ?? Even for the guy who committed the actual murder ?
Some numbers to support innocent people released due to shitty prosecutions and human inadequacy. And yes now we have DNA but many in jail aren't convicted by DNA and they don't have this saving gift as those released in article below.
If you are okay with death penalty you are okay with a few innocents thrown In to satisfy your thirst for revenge. No debate on this. Just admit it.
If we were 100% assured that through forensic science we would never convict anyone wrongfully again... would you...
1. Support the application of the DP in cases such as the Cheshire Murders where bondage, rape, torture and murder of the horrific variety occurred?
2. Refute the application of it and insist on the same sentence drug dealers serve?
If you choose #2... let's be honest... you care much more about the psychotic killers than you do seeking appropriate justice for the event and for Dr. Petit (he himself a former staunch opponent of the DP who abruptly changed his course of thinking once directly affected). No debate on this. Just admit it.
3. refute the application of it, but not insist on the same sentence drug dealers serve. apples and oranges.
it's not "caring about psychotic killers". it is absolutely ridiculous to keep claiming this. I am speaking from an objective position. and you HAVE TO. I'm not looking at the victim, I'm not looking at the criminal.
justice + emotion = chaos.
which is why I also disagree with victim impact statements. for the justice system to put, say, a murdered high school coach above, say, a murdered homeless man without family or friends, to me is not blind justice. it's favouritism.
Yes, I completely agree with the bolded portion. I think that victim impact statements generally do not serve justice. The fact that some victims or family members happen to be more eloquent, or better connected, or more comfortable speaking up in court or to crowds of media should in no way affect the sentence handed down to the perpetrator. that simply makes victims/family doubly victimized. And why do the victim impact statements only seem to be used to make a sentence harsher? What if, for instance, a victim of a crime whose belief system valued forgiveness and compassion submitted a victim impact statement asking that the perpetrator not be punished - would that be given any credence? And if not, why not?
That is stupid. Victims of crime need to be heard and felt. The justice system has no time for criminals.
edit - I really hope that you are not a lawyer. Because any lawyer reading this certainly would disagree. Any victim would not hire you.
. No, I'm not a lawyer - why on earth would you think that? (But FYI, I've heard lawyers express similar sentiments).
Feel free not to hire me for anything at all, PJfan.
Think it's more of allowing victims families to begin closure. Probably not fair but needed. I am on victims side. I do though hope the judge can see through th
So for those of you strongly advocating for victim impact statements to be taken into account in sentencing - how can you justify this actually making a difference in how someone is sentenced? This puts the onus on the victim of a crime, and/or their family members, to participate in the whole court process even if they can't, or don't want to, for fear that their non-participation would be the reason that the perpetrator got a lesser sentence - to my mind, that's a completely unfair burden to put on someone who is grieving. What about those who are disenfranchised from the legal system? Many groups of individuals have historically (and currently) been badly treated by the legal system; this includes first nations peoples, sex trade workers, immigrants, etc. Now they have to participate in a system that has victimized them in order to see justice for their loved ones? And, as HFD said, what about the homeless or those without any family? No-one to speak for them, so they're less important to the court?
Justice can not depend on how loudly and how long someone can talk.
For the record, I'm not advocating for victim impact statements to carry any influence with regards to sentencing. I do think that the opportunity to address the mutant that destroyed your life should be provided to any victim that seeks it in their impossible journey towards closure or comfort of some sort.
I think the courts and the laws of our land should rule in the interests of victims without them urging anything.
Agree. Think it's important for victims.
Callen, how did you intend to complete your sentence "see through th". Seems you got cut off.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Some numbers to support innocent people released due to shitty prosecutions and human inadequacy. And yes now we have DNA but many in jail aren't convicted by DNA and they don't have this saving gift as those released in article below.
If you are okay with death penalty you are okay with a few innocents thrown In to satisfy your thirst for revenge. No debate on this. Just admit it.
If we were 100% assured that through forensic science we would never convict anyone wrongfully again... would you...
1. Support the application of the DP in cases such as the Cheshire Murders where bondage, rape, torture and murder of the horrific variety occurred?
2. Refute the application of it and insist on the same sentence drug dealers serve?
If you choose #2... let's be honest... you care much more about the psychotic killers than you do seeking appropriate justice for the event and for Dr. Petit (he himself a former staunch opponent of the DP who abruptly changed his course of thinking once directly affected). No debate on this. Just admit it.
3. refute the application of it, but not insist on the same sentence drug dealers serve. apples and oranges.
it's not "caring about psychotic killers". it is absolutely ridiculous to keep claiming this. I am speaking from an objective position. and you HAVE TO. I'm not looking at the victim, I'm not looking at the criminal.
justice + emotion = chaos.
which is why I also disagree with victim impact statements. for the justice system to put, say, a murdered high school coach above, say, a murdered homeless man without family or friends, to me is not blind justice. it's favouritism.
Yes, I completely agree with the bolded portion. I think that victim impact statements generally do not serve justice. The fact that some victims or family members happen to be more eloquent, or better connected, or more comfortable speaking up in court or to crowds of media should in no way affect the sentence handed down to the perpetrator. that simply makes victims/family doubly victimized. And why do the victim impact statements only seem to be used to make a sentence harsher? What if, for instance, a victim of a crime whose belief system valued forgiveness and compassion submitted a victim impact statement asking that the perpetrator not be punished - would that be given any credence? And if not, why not?
That is stupid. Victims of crime need to be heard and felt. The justice system has no time for criminals.
edit - I really hope that you are not a lawyer. Because any lawyer reading this certainly would disagree. Any victim would not hire you.
Victims of crime are heard. It's just from the very back of the court room and when they are gasping: once when details about their loved ones surface and a second time when they hear the laughable sentences we typically see.
And I disagree with your statement about the justice system not having any time for criminals. In Canada, we most certainly do. We roll out the red carpet for our murderers and rapists and give them the best we can under the circumstances. The pendulum has swung way too far and it was pushed by some of the same attitudes on display here.
Some numbers to support innocent people released due to shitty prosecutions and human inadequacy. And yes now we have DNA but many in jail aren't convicted by DNA and they don't have this saving gift as those released in article below.
If you are okay with death penalty you are okay with a few innocents thrown In to satisfy your thirst for revenge. No debate on this. Just admit it.
If we were 100% assured that through forensic science we would never convict anyone wrongfully again... would you...
1. Support the application of the DP in cases such as the Cheshire Murders where bondage, rape, torture and murder of the horrific variety occurred?
2. Refute the application of it and insist on the same sentence drug dealers serve?
If you choose #2... let's be honest... you care much more about the psychotic killers than you do seeking appropriate justice for the event and for Dr. Petit (he himself a former staunch opponent of the DP who abruptly changed his course of thinking once directly affected). No debate on this. Just admit it.
3. refute the application of it, but not insist on the same sentence drug dealers serve. apples and oranges.
it's not "caring about psychotic killers". it is absolutely ridiculous to keep claiming this. I am speaking from an objective position. and you HAVE TO. I'm not looking at the victim, I'm not looking at the criminal.
justice + emotion = chaos.
which is why I also disagree with victim impact statements. for the justice system to put, say, a murdered high school coach above, say, a murdered homeless man without family or friends, to me is not blind justice. it's favouritism.
Yes, I completely agree with the bolded portion. I think that victim impact statements generally do not serve justice. The fact that some victims or family members happen to be more eloquent, or better connected, or more comfortable speaking up in court or to crowds of media should in no way affect the sentence handed down to the perpetrator. that simply makes victims/family doubly victimized. And why do the victim impact statements only seem to be used to make a sentence harsher? What if, for instance, a victim of a crime whose belief system valued forgiveness and compassion submitted a victim impact statement asking that the perpetrator not be punished - would that be given any credence? And if not, why not?
That is stupid. Victims of crime need to be heard and felt. The justice system has no time for criminals.
edit - I really hope that you are not a lawyer. Because any lawyer reading this certainly would disagree. Any victim would not hire you.
. No, I'm not a lawyer - why on earth would you think that? (But FYI, I've heard lawyers express similar sentiments).
Feel free not to hire me for anything at all, PJfan.
Think it's more of allowing victims families to begin closure. Probably not fair but needed. I am on victims side. I do though hope the judge can see through th
So for those of you strongly advocating for victim impact statements to be taken into account in sentencing - how can you justify this actually making a difference in how someone is sentenced? This puts the onus on the victim of a crime, and/or their family members, to participate in the whole court process even if they can't, or don't want to, for fear that their non-participation would be the reason that the perpetrator got a lesser sentence - to my mind, that's a completely unfair burden to put on someone who is grieving. What about those who are disenfranchised from the legal system? Many groups of individuals have historically (and currently) been badly treated by the legal system; this includes first nations peoples, sex trade workers, immigrants, etc. Now they have to participate in a system that has victimized them in order to see justice for their loved ones? And, as HFD said, what about the homeless or those without any family? No-one to speak for them, so they're less important to the court?
Justice can not depend on how loudly and how long someone can talk.
For the record, I'm not advocating for victim impact statements to carry any influence with regards to sentencing. I do think that the opportunity to address the mutant that destroyed your life should be provided to any victim that seeks it in their impossible journey towards closure or comfort of some sort.
I think the courts and the laws of our land should rule in the interests of victims without them urging anything.
Agree. Think it's important for victims.
Callen, how did you intend to complete your sentence "see through th". Seems you got cut off.
Quoting feature. So "I would hope the judge would see testimonies for what they are and not show favoritism in setting penalties due to number of family members testifying during penalty phase. So killing homeless less time than person with people showing.
I have been reading up on what the effect of the victim impact statements is supposed to be and it seems to be a fine and somewhat blurry line. The judges are required to read and take them into account, but are not supposed to allow them to affect the "quantum" of the sentencing. To make it more complicated, it's clear that the statements have directly impacted the length/severity of sentences at times, as appeal courts have overturned judges' decisions and imposed harsher sentences where it was argued that the judge did not adequately consider the ongoing impact of the crime on the victim, based on the victim impact statements. So to me it's clear that they have had the effect of increasing sentences above what would have been given had no-one submitted such a statement.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
I'm sure the last thing a murderer wants is to have their victim's family speak to how they've been impacted.
I'm pretty sure murderers would prefer the courts think of the victims as letters string together on a page in the form of a name- a faceless non entity.
Murderers do their best to minimize their actions seeking as little punishment as possible. I am not in favour of victim impact statements influencing sentences- I'm in favour of courts working on behalf of the victims regardless. From my way of thinking, in my country, I don't think this is being done. Simply put... we are too lenient.
I'm sure the last thing a murderer wants is to have their victim's family speak to how they've been impacted.
I'm pretty sure murderers would prefer the courts think of the victims as letters string together on a page in the form of a name- a faceless non entity.
Murderers do their best to minimize their actions seeking as little punishment as possible. I am not in favour of victim impact statements influencing sentences- I'm in favour of courts working on behalf of the victims regardless. From my way of thinking, in my country, I don't think this is being done. Simply put... we are too lenient.
We go in circles here. My only point is that justice is not being served if it does not also apply to the less popular of the victims.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Comments
Can you clarify when I have often described the ways in which you wish these people to be put down? That's kind of a big assertion to just casually toss out there.
-EV 8/14/93
"If one is for the death penalty they are okay with a few innocents thrown in the mix".
What can't be disputed is you throw it out there to agitate. I'm not biting any more.
They didn't need him to testify though- the two scumbags were caught leaving the house high fiving each other after raping the inhabitants and leaving them tied up to be consumed by the flames they had set.
It's easy to be impartial when you aren't invested.
-EV 8/14/93
It is black and white. There is no grey. The justice system is not perfect. Far from it. Want to execute? Then you are okay with the risks of killing innocent people. Fight and scramble all you want. Ultimately you know.
Agitation is by product not intent.
Victims of crime need to be heard and felt.
The justice system has no time for criminals.
edit - I really hope that you are not a lawyer.
Because any lawyer reading this certainly would disagree.
Any victim would not hire you.
Feel free not to hire me for anything at all, PJfan.
And I disagree with your statement about the justice system not having any time for criminals. In Canada, we most certainly do. We roll out the red carpet for our murderers and rapists and give them the best we can under the circumstances. The pendulum has swung way too far and it was pushed by some of the same attitudes on display here.
Justice can not depend on how loudly and how long someone can talk.
I think the courts and the laws of our land should rule in the interests of victims without them urging anything.
We may still have a different interpretation of just what your second point means, but overall it's good.
I can accept our laws as they currently stand, but swallowing them is like a swallowing a spoonful of cod liver oil sometimes. If people would leave other people alone... we wouldn't need these discussions about where the bar should be with regards to 'punishment'.
I've detailed conditions I feel warrant the DP many times.
Serial/mass... and cases where torture and excessive cruelty are evident... and any case where a child (or children) are the victim(s) of a violent and premeditated homicide.
I have been reading up on what the effect of the victim impact statements is supposed to be and it seems to be a fine and somewhat blurry line. The judges are required to read and take them into account, but are not supposed to allow them to affect the "quantum" of the sentencing. To make it more complicated, it's clear that the statements have directly impacted the length/severity of sentences at times, as appeal courts have overturned judges' decisions and imposed harsher sentences where it was argued that the judge did not adequately consider the ongoing impact of the crime on the victim, based on the victim impact statements. So to me it's clear that they have had the effect of increasing sentences above what would have been given had no-one submitted such a statement.
I'm pretty sure murderers would prefer the courts think of the victims as letters string together on a page in the form of a name- a faceless non entity.
Murderers do their best to minimize their actions seeking as little punishment as possible. I am not in favour of victim impact statements influencing sentences- I'm in favour of courts working on behalf of the victims regardless. From my way of thinking, in my country, I don't think this is being done. Simply put... we are too lenient.