... it makes the Keystone Cops look like Seal Team Six.
Absolutely wonderful line!
seal team six - the elite of the elite. they aren't just badasses in a physical sense, they are smart as fuck, comparable to harvard graduates but greater. something like the complete opposite of this thread. knowing everything about nuclear engineering & fluently speaking several languages all while doing 500 push ups, swimming 8 miles in 50 degree water & having a ball of a time running through the dark desert eating bad guys
A recent idiot encounter - waiting for the light to turn green so I can cross the intersection. OK, light's green, I do a quick lookaround as usual, all good, let's go.
Chick in a large SUV in the left-turn lane next to me decides she must abandon that endeavor and get into my lane.
No signal, no looking. All about her, guess she fucked up her navigation at everyone else's expense. "I'm getting in!"
I laid on the horn, swerved and went on my way with her behind me after having cut off someone else.
In my RVM, I see her head down and the beautiful glow of a cell phone.
In the DP thread... I detailed the case of David Shearing who killed a family of six that was camping at Wells Gray Park (near my city). He kept captive the two really young daughters for a few days while he did what he did with them before finishing them off.
This foul individual should have been executed for his obscenity, but this has already been debated in the DP thread- some feel that this sick, pathetic loser deserves life. Both sides to this debate lose because it's not entirely inconceivable that Canada's tissue paper soft penal system will open the doors and...
... allow Shearing to start a new life with...
Idiot Exhibit #2: his wife (the name has been withheld from the public).
It's true. Some idiot married this grotesque human being.
* It wasn't for his looks (he's no Robert Redford to put it nicely) and it wasn't for his intelligence (he's no Einstein either). I'm thinking it's just sheer idiocy of the highest order that led some troll to think she wanted to marry this guy.
Thanks for sharing ... Never read about these crimes. The sad part of our justice is that he had a parole hearing already ... wouldn't surprise me that he gets out some day.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
In the DP thread... I detailed the case of David Shearing who killed a family of six that was camping at Wells Gray Park (near my city). He kept captive the two really young daughters for a few days while he did what he did with them before finishing them off.
This foul individual should have been executed for his obscenity, but this has already been debated in the DP thread- some feel that this sick, pathetic loser deserves life. Both sides to this debate lose because it's not entirely inconceivable that Canada's tissue paper soft penal system will open the doors and...
... allow Shearing to start a new life with...
Idiot Exhibit #2: his wife (the name has been withheld from the public).
It's true. Some idiot married this grotesque human being.
* It wasn't for his looks (he's no Robert Redford to put it nicely) and it wasn't for his intelligence (he's no Einstein either). I'm thinking it's just sheer idiocy of the highest order that led some troll to think she wanted to marry this guy.
Thanks for sharing ... Never read about these crimes. The sad part of our justice is that he had a parole hearing already ... wouldn't surprise me that he gets out some day.
He's had a few parole hearings and the parole board is apparently warming to the idea of releasing him. No shit.
The family has to attend every two years with their petition to keep him behind bars.
His new wife swears he's a changed man and wants to start their life together.
In the DP thread... I detailed the case of David Shearing who killed a family of six that was camping at Wells Gray Park (near my city). He kept captive the two really young daughters for a few days while he did what he did with them before finishing them off.
This foul individual should have been executed for his obscenity, but this has already been debated in the DP thread- some feel that this sick, pathetic loser deserves life. Both sides to this debate lose because it's not entirely inconceivable that Canada's tissue paper soft penal system will open the doors and...
... allow Shearing to start a new life with...
Idiot Exhibit #2: his wife (the name has been withheld from the public).
It's true. Some idiot married this grotesque human being.
* It wasn't for his looks (he's no Robert Redford to put it nicely) and it wasn't for his intelligence (he's no Einstein either). I'm thinking it's just sheer idiocy of the highest order that led some troll to think she wanted to marry this guy.
Thanks for sharing ... Never read about these crimes. The sad part of our justice is that he had a parole hearing already ... wouldn't surprise me that he gets out some day.
He's had a few parole hearings and the parole board is apparently warming to the idea of releasing him. No shit.
The family has to attend every two years with their petition to keep him behind bars.
His new wife swears he's a changed man and wants to start their life together.
She's an idiot.
Well, Thirty Bills Unpaid, I'm right with you on your opinion of the "new wife" (although looking at some info on this guy it seems she's not really new since they married quite a few years ago).
It looks like he's had two parole hearings, and was kept in both times. He waived his last hearing in September 2014. Where did you get your info that the board is warming to the idea of letting him out? Everything I've read (which admittedly isn't much) suggests no-one is really recommending he gets out except for Ms. New Wife.
I agree that the structure of the parole hearings seems unnecessarily cruel to the families of the victims. Personally, I don't know why they accept submissions from the families at the parole hearings. The place for family/victim submissions should be the initial sentencing phase. I know people will jump all over this as being insensitive to the families, but if you think about it, what new information is the family realistically going to add after 25 or 30 or 40 years? They are going to continue to be devastated by the loss of their loved one, and they are going to continue to want the offender to remain in prison; that's pretty much a given. What they don't have is any information to add that's relevant to what the board needs to decide, which is around risk for re-offending. It almost seems like a cruel charade, pretending that the family statements mean something when that isn't what the board is taking into account. The families are left feeling like it is their efforts alone that are keeping him in prison, so they go all out, put massive effort into making presentations and getting signatures, and have their lives ripped apart again every two years or so, probably for nothing. Because if the family submissions mean something to the parole board decision, what happens with the offenders whose victims don't have any surviving family, or whose families are too old or infirm to travel, or who don't want to face a media circus? Do they simply walk out of prison?
Thirty Bills Unpaid, you and I are not going to agree on the DP issue, but since we don't have the DP in Canada and since our current legal system does permit these parole board hearings, what do you think about this issue?
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
In the DP thread... I detailed the case of David Shearing who killed a family of six that was camping at Wells Gray Park (near my city). He kept captive the two really young daughters for a few days while he did what he did with them before finishing them off.
This foul individual should have been executed for his obscenity, but this has already been debated in the DP thread- some feel that this sick, pathetic loser deserves life. Both sides to this debate lose because it's not entirely inconceivable that Canada's tissue paper soft penal system will open the doors and...
... allow Shearing to start a new life with...
Idiot Exhibit #2: his wife (the name has been withheld from the public).
It's true. Some idiot married this grotesque human being.
* It wasn't for his looks (he's no Robert Redford to put it nicely) and it wasn't for his intelligence (he's no Einstein either). I'm thinking it's just sheer idiocy of the highest order that led some troll to think she wanted to marry this guy.
Thanks for sharing ... Never read about these crimes. The sad part of our justice is that he had a parole hearing already ... wouldn't surprise me that he gets out some day.
He's had a few parole hearings and the parole board is apparently warming to the idea of releasing him. No shit.
The family has to attend every two years with their petition to keep him behind bars.
His new wife swears he's a changed man and wants to start their life together.
She's an idiot.
Well, Thirty Bills Unpaid, I'm right with you on your opinion of the "new wife" (although looking at some info on this guy it seems she's not really new since they married quite a few years ago).
It looks like he's had two parole hearings, and was kept in both times. He waived his last hearing in September 2014. Where did you get your info that the board is warming to the idea of letting him out? Everything I've read (which admittedly isn't much) suggests no-one is really recommending he gets out except for Ms. New Wife.
I agree that the structure of the parole hearings seems unnecessarily cruel to the families of the victims. Personally, I don't know why they accept submissions from the families at the parole hearings. The place for family/victim submissions should be the initial sentencing phase. I know people will jump all over this as being insensitive to the families, but if you think about it, what new information is the family realistically going to add after 25 or 30 or 40 years? They are going to continue to be devastated by the loss of their loved one, and they are going to continue to want the offender to remain in prison; that's pretty much a given. What they don't have is any information to add that's relevant to what the board needs to decide, which is around risk for re-offending. It almost seems like a cruel charade, pretending that the family statements mean something when that isn't what the board is taking into account. The families are left feeling like it is their efforts alone that are keeping him in prison, so they go all out, put massive effort into making presentations and getting signatures, and have their lives ripped apart again every two years or so, probably for nothing. Because if the family submissions mean something to the parole board decision, what happens with the offenders whose victims don't have any surviving family, or whose families are too old or infirm to travel, or who don't want to face a media circus? Do they simply walk out of prison?
Thirty Bills Unpaid, you and I are not going to agree on the DP issue, but since we don't have the DP in Canada and since our current legal system does permit these parole board hearings, what do you think about this issue?
I follow this case in real time- the incident happened in Clearwater right outside of Kamloops and our city and our region has never forgotten it. The local media reminds us of it every two years. I can tell you that he did waive his last parole hearing, but he has not lost interest in attaining his 'freedom'. There are advocates that speak to his 'change' and publically encourage the opportunity. With our mentality... it's simply not far fetched to see it happen. Canada is rife with countless parole cases that have proven to be- if not distasteful- disastrous.
I'm a little confused as to what you are asking of me.
Are you asking me about the DP? The DP thread has many submissions from myself on the subject- it's been debated at length and I am in favour of it in certain situations given the nature of the crime (serial, mass, child, torture) and with iron clad evidence (video, survivor testimony). This case fits the bill- Shearing is a lower form of life than a mosquito or worm in my opinion.
Are you asking me about our parole system? It's broken in my opinion. Obviously parole opportunities must exist and there are decent people who have simply made mistakes that need re-entry to society, but I feel it has been demonstrated too many times that many parole boards have not done their due diligence before rubber stamping applications.
Are you asking me if victim impact submissions have their place in the parole process? I think they do. I feel that in cases such as this one, the family has the right to be heard. We can say that their sorrow bears no weight on whether or not the criminal is at risk to re-offend, but I've always felt that excluding those most personally affected by these types of cases in the process is not in the interest of justice. It's my opinion, but justice in these types of cases is not about protecting the public at large as much as it is about serving the memories of the dead and the needs of the grieving survivors. This was thrust upon the family and telling them to "get over it already" instead of allowing them to express their pain and rage is not something I'm good with.
In the DP thread... I detailed the case of David Shearing who killed a family of six that was camping at Wells Gray Park (near my city). He kept captive the two really young daughters for a few days while he did what he did with them before finishing them off.
This foul individual should have been executed for his obscenity, but this has already been debated in the DP thread- some feel that this sick, pathetic loser deserves life. Both sides to this debate lose because it's not entirely inconceivable that Canada's tissue paper soft penal system will open the doors and...
... allow Shearing to start a new life with...
Idiot Exhibit #2: his wife (the name has been withheld from the public).
It's true. Some idiot married this grotesque human being.
* It wasn't for his looks (he's no Robert Redford to put it nicely) and it wasn't for his intelligence (he's no Einstein either). I'm thinking it's just sheer idiocy of the highest order that led some troll to think she wanted to marry this guy.
Thanks for sharing ... Never read about these crimes. The sad part of our justice is that he had a parole hearing already ... wouldn't surprise me that he gets out some day.
He's had a few parole hearings and the parole board is apparently warming to the idea of releasing him. No shit.
The family has to attend every two years with their petition to keep him behind bars.
His new wife swears he's a changed man and wants to start their life together.
She's an idiot.
Well, Thirty Bills Unpaid, I'm right with you on your opinion of the "new wife" (although looking at some info on this guy it seems she's not really new since they married quite a few years ago).
It looks like he's had two parole hearings, and was kept in both times. He waived his last hearing in September 2014. Where did you get your info that the board is warming to the idea of letting him out? Everything I've read (which admittedly isn't much) suggests no-one is really recommending he gets out except for Ms. New Wife.
I agree that the structure of the parole hearings seems unnecessarily cruel to the families of the victims. Personally, I don't know why they accept submissions from the families at the parole hearings. The place for family/victim submissions should be the initial sentencing phase. I know people will jump all over this as being insensitive to the families, but if you think about it, what new information is the family realistically going to add after 25 or 30 or 40 years? They are going to continue to be devastated by the loss of their loved one, and they are going to continue to want the offender to remain in prison; that's pretty much a given. What they don't have is any information to add that's relevant to what the board needs to decide, which is around risk for re-offending. It almost seems like a cruel charade, pretending that the family statements mean something when that isn't what the board is taking into account. The families are left feeling like it is their efforts alone that are keeping him in prison, so they go all out, put massive effort into making presentations and getting signatures, and have their lives ripped apart again every two years or so, probably for nothing. Because if the family submissions mean something to the parole board decision, what happens with the offenders whose victims don't have any surviving family, or whose families are too old or infirm to travel, or who don't want to face a media circus? Do they simply walk out of prison?
Thirty Bills Unpaid, you and I are not going to agree on the DP issue, but since we don't have the DP in Canada and since our current legal system does permit these parole board hearings, what do you think about this issue?
I follow this case in real time- the incident happened in Clearwater right outside of Kamloops and our city and our region has never forgotten it. The local media reminds us of it every two years. I can tell you that he did waive his last parole hearing, but he has not lost interest in attaining his 'freedom'. There are advocates that speak to his 'change' and publically encourage the opportunity. With our mentality... it's simply not far fetched to see it happen. Canada is rife with countless parole cases that have proven to be- if not distasteful- disastrous.
I'm a little confused as to what you are asking of me.
Are you asking me about the DP? The DP thread has many submissions from myself on the subject- it's been debated at length and I am in favour of it in certain situations given the nature of the crime (serial, mass, child, torture) and with iron clad evidence (video, survivor testimony). This case fits the bill- Shearing is a lower form of life than a mosquito or worm in my opinion.
Are you asking me about our parole system? It's broken in my opinion. Obviously parole opportunities must exist and there are decent people who have simply made mistakes that need re-entry to society, but I feel it has been demonstrated too many times that many parole boards have not done their due diligence before rubber stamping applications.
Are you asking me if victim impact submissions have their place in the parole process? I think they do. I feel that in cases such as this one, the family has the right to be heard. We can say that their sorrow bears no weight on whether or not the criminal is at risk to re-offend, but I've always felt that excluding those most personally affected by these types of cases in the process is not in the interest of justice. It's my opinion, but justice in these types of cases is not about protecting the public at large as much as it is about serving the memories of the dead and the needs of the grieving survivors. This was thrust upon the family and telling them to "get over it already" instead of allowing them to express their pain and rage is not something I'm good with.
Yes, it was your last point I was asking your opinion on. And I'm certainly not telling anyone to "get over it already", nor would I ever do that. The families themselves are saying clearly that they find this process to be an awful, wrenching one that disrupts their lives when, in many cases, they have found some measure of peace decades after their loss. Does it overall benefit them to have them feel that they need to go through this every two years, or not? Do they want to do this, or do they just feel they must?
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
In the DP thread... I detailed the case of David Shearing who killed a family of six that was camping at Wells Gray Park (near my city). He kept captive the two really young daughters for a few days while he did what he did with them before finishing them off.
This foul individual should have been executed for his obscenity, but this has already been debated in the DP thread- some feel that this sick, pathetic loser deserves life. Both sides to this debate lose because it's not entirely inconceivable that Canada's tissue paper soft penal system will open the doors and...
... allow Shearing to start a new life with...
Idiot Exhibit #2: his wife (the name has been withheld from the public).
It's true. Some idiot married this grotesque human being.
* It wasn't for his looks (he's no Robert Redford to put it nicely) and it wasn't for his intelligence (he's no Einstein either). I'm thinking it's just sheer idiocy of the highest order that led some troll to think she wanted to marry this guy.
Thanks for sharing ... Never read about these crimes. The sad part of our justice is that he had a parole hearing already ... wouldn't surprise me that he gets out some day.
He's had a few parole hearings and the parole board is apparently warming to the idea of releasing him. No shit.
The family has to attend every two years with their petition to keep him behind bars.
His new wife swears he's a changed man and wants to start their life together.
She's an idiot.
Well, Thirty Bills Unpaid, I'm right with you on your opinion of the "new wife" (although looking at some info on this guy it seems she's not really new since they married quite a few years ago).
It looks like he's had two parole hearings, and was kept in both times. He waived his last hearing in September 2014. Where did you get your info that the board is warming to the idea of letting him out? Everything I've read (which admittedly isn't much) suggests no-one is really recommending he gets out except for Ms. New Wife.
I agree that the structure of the parole hearings seems unnecessarily cruel to the families of the victims. Personally, I don't know why they accept submissions from the families at the parole hearings. The place for family/victim submissions should be the initial sentencing phase. I know people will jump all over this as being insensitive to the families, but if you think about it, what new information is the family realistically going to add after 25 or 30 or 40 years? They are going to continue to be devastated by the loss of their loved one, and they are going to continue to want the offender to remain in prison; that's pretty much a given. What they don't have is any information to add that's relevant to what the board needs to decide, which is around risk for re-offending. It almost seems like a cruel charade, pretending that the family statements mean something when that isn't what the board is taking into account. The families are left feeling like it is their efforts alone that are keeping him in prison, so they go all out, put massive effort into making presentations and getting signatures, and have their lives ripped apart again every two years or so, probably for nothing. Because if the family submissions mean something to the parole board decision, what happens with the offenders whose victims don't have any surviving family, or whose families are too old or infirm to travel, or who don't want to face a media circus? Do they simply walk out of prison?
Thirty Bills Unpaid, you and I are not going to agree on the DP issue, but since we don't have the DP in Canada and since our current legal system does permit these parole board hearings, what do you think about this issue?
I follow this case in real time- the incident happened in Clearwater right outside of Kamloops and our city and our region has never forgotten it. The local media reminds us of it every two years. I can tell you that he did waive his last parole hearing, but he has not lost interest in attaining his 'freedom'. There are advocates that speak to his 'change' and publically encourage the opportunity. With our mentality... it's simply not far fetched to see it happen. Canada is rife with countless parole cases that have proven to be- if not distasteful- disastrous.
I'm a little confused as to what you are asking of me.
Are you asking me about the DP? The DP thread has many submissions from myself on the subject- it's been debated at length and I am in favour of it in certain situations given the nature of the crime (serial, mass, child, torture) and with iron clad evidence (video, survivor testimony). This case fits the bill- Shearing is a lower form of life than a mosquito or worm in my opinion.
Are you asking me about our parole system? It's broken in my opinion. Obviously parole opportunities must exist and there are decent people who have simply made mistakes that need re-entry to society, but I feel it has been demonstrated too many times that many parole boards have not done their due diligence before rubber stamping applications.
Are you asking me if victim impact submissions have their place in the parole process? I think they do. I feel that in cases such as this one, the family has the right to be heard. We can say that their sorrow bears no weight on whether or not the criminal is at risk to re-offend, but I've always felt that excluding those most personally affected by these types of cases in the process is not in the interest of justice. It's my opinion, but justice in these types of cases is not about protecting the public at large as much as it is about serving the memories of the dead and the needs of the grieving survivors. This was thrust upon the family and telling them to "get over it already" instead of allowing them to express their pain and rage is not something I'm good with.
Yes, it was your last point I was asking your opinion on. And I'm certainly not telling anyone to "get over it already", nor would I ever do that. The families themselves are saying clearly that they find this process to be an awful, wrenching one that disrupts their lives when, in many cases, they have found some measure of peace decades after their loss. Does it overall benefit them to have them feel that they need to go through this every two years, or not? Do they want to do this, or do they just feel they must?
I wasn't suggesting it was you telling them to "get over it". I was referring to such an attitude, or at least an attitude that ultimately says as much. Your tone is very reasonable and I'm not looking to scrap as much as discuss (until we can place our sights on a new idiot anyways).
I'm not sure to your last questions. I think it would depend entirely on the individuals involved. Some people forgive rather quickly. Some maintain their anger to the day they die. In this case, the family has not gotten over the pain and for whatever reason that motivates them... they petition against DS getting released.
In my mind... for such a case... I wish the system never placed them in the position where they even need to deliberate summoning their energies. If we can't execute such a criminal... then we should at least lock them up in prison and throw away the keys.
I think I have not quite gotten my point across, TBU, and the fault for that is mine. Trying it another way - is the parole board essentially lying to these families? Are they being told that their heart-wrenching submissions mean something to the decision, when really they don't? Is the board simply doing this for appearances sake? That's what I'm concerned about in these cases (or one of the things).
And I think we can agree that there are some individuals that should never be let out, and for whom we should not be going through parole board hearings.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
I can't answer that question, Often. I'd like to think that if a panel was considering a pending release and a portion of it was moved by the testimonials of the family resulting in a denial... then this part of the process is worthwhile for the family.
I'd ask of you: what is the policy with regards to considering victim impact statements when deliberating a parole case? Are they supposed to count to a certain degree? How much influence are such statements afforded?
Well, the website of the Parole Board of Canada says they have to take victim impact statements into account, but doesn't indicate what weighting they give them. The text suggests that more of their concern is around safety planning for the victims/family members if the offender is released, or if the victim/families have information that pertains to current risk (not sure what that would be, unless they are in contact with the offender, or with his associates, etc.). there is a list of literally dozens of different factors that are weighed in the decision. I will see if I can find anything beyond the party line, and if so will let you know.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Well, the website of the Parole Board of Canada says they have to take victim impact statements into account, but doesn't indicate what weighting they give them. The text suggests that more of their concern is around safety planning for the victims/family members if the offender is released, or if the victim/families have information that pertains to current risk (not sure what that would be, unless they are in contact with the offender, or with his associates, etc.). there is a list of literally dozens of different factors that are weighed in the decision. I will see if I can find anything beyond the party line, and if so will let you know.
Nice find. Thanks for this. I'm out at the moment, but will read this further to consider its relevance.
Well, the website of the Parole Board of Canada says they have to take victim impact statements into account, but doesn't indicate what weighting they give them. The text suggests that more of their concern is around safety planning for the victims/family members if the offender is released, or if the victim/families have information that pertains to current risk (not sure what that would be, unless they are in contact with the offender, or with his associates, etc.). there is a list of literally dozens of different factors that are weighed in the decision. I will see if I can find anything beyond the party line, and if so will let you know.
Nice find. Thanks for this. I'm out at the moment, but will read this further to consider its relevance.
Here's the link for the pages I was looking at, if you want to read further.
i've been watching a bit of tv lately. at least im watching educational programming. still i feel horrible about it like a tool or a pile of alligator shit or donkey piles or santa clause poop or elf droppings or mrs. santa clause's stinky bathroom after she's been in there awhile after having a bad case of the shits/pukes as she's quite drunkt up on her favorite.... vodka & milk
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to say she's not an idiot, she clearly is, but just throwing this out there.
I could be giving her too much credit, but think of the money should could make off of being married to him... book deals, movies etc...
An argument could be made that she's not an idiot... and she belongs in the gold digger thread. If this argument was successful... what would that be saying about her values? This is literally shaking hands with the Devil.
While some people scratch and toil everyday of their life and couldn't get a break if somebody was handing breaks out on the street... others fail to see the advantages they have been afforded.
CNN is making this list. The entire network. They can't wait until a plane disappears. They dedicate 24 hour coverage to it. How many friggin people do you need to interview about a plane disappearing?
I think a plane with 200 people on it disappearing is legitimate big news.... and I'm not an idiot. Of course, only an idiot would watch CNN for longer than an hour at a time, since it's basically on a loop. So I also blame then viewers, not the news.
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
I didn't say it wasn't big news. What puts them on this list is that a.ll the other news in the world is discarded and every interview they do is speculation. This is the third aircraft disappearance in a year and this is all you can hear about.
Comments
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
Good to hear from you, man. You've been pretty quiet lately.
A recent idiot encounter - waiting for the light to turn green so I can cross the intersection. OK, light's green, I do a quick lookaround as usual, all good, let's go.
Chick in a large SUV in the left-turn lane next to me decides she must abandon that endeavor and get into my lane.
No signal, no looking. All about her, guess she fucked up her navigation at everyone else's expense. "I'm getting in!"
I laid on the horn, swerved and went on my way with her behind me after having cut off someone else.
In my RVM, I see her head down and the beautiful glow of a cell phone.
Gah!
Any parent/person who smokes in the car with a child is an idiot.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
A definite qualifier for the Idiot Thread.
The family has to attend every two years with their petition to keep him behind bars.
His new wife swears he's a changed man and wants to start their life together.
She's an idiot.
It looks like he's had two parole hearings, and was kept in both times. He waived his last hearing in September 2014. Where did you get your info that the board is warming to the idea of letting him out? Everything I've read (which admittedly isn't much) suggests no-one is really recommending he gets out except for Ms. New Wife.
I agree that the structure of the parole hearings seems unnecessarily cruel to the families of the victims. Personally, I don't know why they accept submissions from the families at the parole hearings. The place for family/victim submissions should be the initial sentencing phase. I know people will jump all over this as being insensitive to the families, but if you think about it, what new information is the family realistically going to add after 25 or 30 or 40 years? They are going to continue to be devastated by the loss of their loved one, and they are going to continue to want the offender to remain in prison; that's pretty much a given. What they don't have is any information to add that's relevant to what the board needs to decide, which is around risk for re-offending. It almost seems like a cruel charade, pretending that the family statements mean something when that isn't what the board is taking into account. The families are left feeling like it is their efforts alone that are keeping him in prison, so they go all out, put massive effort into making presentations and getting signatures, and have their lives ripped apart again every two years or so, probably for nothing. Because if the family submissions mean something to the parole board decision, what happens with the offenders whose victims don't have any surviving family, or whose families are too old or infirm to travel, or who don't want to face a media circus? Do they simply walk out of prison?
Thirty Bills Unpaid, you and I are not going to agree on the DP issue, but since we don't have the DP in Canada and since our current legal system does permit these parole board hearings, what do you think about this issue?
I'm a little confused as to what you are asking of me.
Are you asking me about the DP? The DP thread has many submissions from myself on the subject- it's been debated at length and I am in favour of it in certain situations given the nature of the crime (serial, mass, child, torture) and with iron clad evidence (video, survivor testimony). This case fits the bill- Shearing is a lower form of life than a mosquito or worm in my opinion.
Are you asking me about our parole system? It's broken in my opinion. Obviously parole opportunities must exist and there are decent people who have simply made mistakes that need re-entry to society, but I feel it has been demonstrated too many times that many parole boards have not done their due diligence before rubber stamping applications.
Are you asking me if victim impact submissions have their place in the parole process? I think they do. I feel that in cases such as this one, the family has the right to be heard. We can say that their sorrow bears no weight on whether or not the criminal is at risk to re-offend, but I've always felt that excluding those most personally affected by these types of cases in the process is not in the interest of justice. It's my opinion, but justice in these types of cases is not about protecting the public at large as much as it is about serving the memories of the dead and the needs of the grieving survivors. This was thrust upon the family and telling them to "get over it already" instead of allowing them to express their pain and rage is not something I'm good with.
I'm not sure to your last questions. I think it would depend entirely on the individuals involved. Some people forgive rather quickly. Some maintain their anger to the day they die. In this case, the family has not gotten over the pain and for whatever reason that motivates them... they petition against DS getting released.
In my mind... for such a case... I wish the system never placed them in the position where they even need to deliberate summoning their energies. If we can't execute such a criminal... then we should at least lock them up in prison and throw away the keys.
And I think we can agree that there are some individuals that should never be let out, and for whom we should not be going through parole board hearings.
I can't answer that question, Often. I'd like to think that if a panel was considering a pending release and a portion of it was moved by the testimonials of the family resulting in a denial... then this part of the process is worthwhile for the family.
I'd ask of you: what is the policy with regards to considering victim impact statements when deliberating a parole case? Are they supposed to count to a certain degree? How much influence are such statements afforded?
http://www.pbc-clcc.gc.ca/infocntr/policym/polman-eng.shtml
forensic ass files or whatever.
i need a desk
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
"The more sand that has escaped from the hourglass of our life, the clearer we should see through it." - Jean-Paul Sartre
maybe her sand is jammed up the hour glass.........
Godfather.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to say she's not an idiot, she clearly is, but just throwing this out there.
I could be giving her too much credit, but think of the money should could make off of being married to him... book deals, movies etc...
An argument could be made that she's not an idiot... and she belongs in the gold digger thread. If this argument was successful... what would that be saying about her values? This is literally shaking hands with the Devil.
How's the Pono?
http://nesn.com/2014/12/report-johnny-manziel-threw-party-friday-browns-sent-security-to-find-him-saturday/
An idiot of a different variety.
While some people scratch and toil everyday of their life and couldn't get a break if somebody was handing breaks out on the street... others fail to see the advantages they have been afforded.
Catering to idiots can be lucrative.