I don't believe anyone will rejoice, Thirty. I don't believe anyone here has ever said "it wasn't their fault, they were really high".
The Crown would only agree to a plea bargain of this nature if they are fairly sure they won't get a conviction on the murder charges. They're not going to release the full reasons, but unfortunately that's the reality. They either don't have enough evidence, or the case is tainted in some way. It could be one of a number of things, like a key witness who was found to be lying, or a witness who has disappeared. When so many people in the case were already involved in that subculture of using/dealing and the illegal activities that are associated with it, a clean case is very difficult because none of them want the police involved in their business.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
I guess I speak to the sympathetic voice that rears itself on here when speaking to shitheads like these assholes.
From the story we know... it seems like guilt is obvious. They killed and dismembered some guy. The problem is that courts... influenced by the mentality I don't care for so much... would likely absolve them of their guilt because 'they were high and therefore not responsible'.
That's what you need to do in Canada- Hyuk Hyuk eh go figure eh- if you want to kill someone: take drugs before you murder someone or claim that you were really sad that day... and the courts will weep, pardon your crime, and give you a ride to Starbucks for a frappuccino.
All supported by the voice or mentality I take exception to.
I'm short... f**k people who kill others and mutilate them afterwards. There's... quite simply... no excuse. None. And if somebody goes and does something like that... no Starbucks. Nope. If I had it my way... it would be death. But if I can't have it my way... I'd prefer something a little more than massage therapy.
Don't make me cite a 1000 cases like this one that completely legitimizes my post and renders all arguments against absolutely pathetic. I'm sure you can think of 1000 yourself.
There's people around here that will rejoice. "It wasn't their fault. They were really high you know."
But yes... a f**king joke. Canada's penal system is pathetic. It never ends.
I think the penal system can be to lenient...I wonder if the victims mother would have rather the crown pursue 1st degree charges even if there was strong chance of no conviction, I think I would want the crown to try. Plea deals can't be trusted all the ever since the "deal with devil"...
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
I guess I speak to the sympathetic voice that rears itself on here when speaking to shitheads like these assholes.
From the story we know... it seems like guilt is obvious. They killed and dismembered some guy. The problem is that courts... influenced by the mentality I don't care for so much... would likely absolve them of their guilt because 'they were high and therefore not responsible'.
That's what you need to do in Canada- Hyuk Hyuk eh go figure eh- if you want to kill someone: take drugs before you murder someone or claim that you were really sad that day... and the courts will weep, pardon your crime, and give you a ride to Starbucks for a frappuccino.
All supported by the voice or mentality I take exception to.
I'm short... f**k people who kill others and mutilate them afterwards. There's... quite simply... no excuse. None. And if somebody goes and does something like that... no Starbucks. Nope. If I had it my way... it would be death. But if I can't have it my way... I'd prefer something a little more than massage therapy.
Don't make me cite a 1000 cases like this one that completely legitimizes my post and renders all arguments against absolutely pathetic. I'm sure you can think of 1000 yourself.
"From the story we know.... it seems like guilt is obvious". But what do you know other than the limited amount that has been reported in the media? You really have no idea what the strength of the Crown's case is. You have no idea where the weakness in the evidence is. It's obviously there or they would have turned down the plea bargain. The rest of your post I'm not even going to address because it's just inflammatory and doesn't actually address anything that's been suggested by anyone that I've ever read.
lukin, that's a good point about whether it's better to pursue the murder charges even without strong chance of conviction or swallow that bitter pill and at least get a conviction that carries with it jail time and additional legal intervention. Would anyone rather that these guys get acquitted?
And Thirty, were you aware that the maximum penalty for manslaughter is life in jail? Or that this conviction could open the door for a Dangerous Offender hearing, which means an indeterminate sentence? Just because the article says they may be eligible for parole in two years doesn't mean they will get parole in two years.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Often ... you seem well versed in the justice system, so the families in Canada are not consulted? I guess that what jumped out at me is that the victims mother was shocked as well...I just assumed she was consulted about the case. I make no assimptions that I know how the system works, never been involved in the system, thankfully.
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
Often ... you seem well versed in the justice system, so the families in Canada are not consulted? I guess that what jumped out at me is that the victims mother was shocked as well...I just assumed she was consulted about the case. I make no assimptions that I know how the system works, never been involved in the system, thankfully.
lukin, to the best of my knowledge there is no requirement for the victim/family members to be consulted. The plea bargaining is done between Crown and defense and then offered to the judge. I can well believe that the victim's mother would be shocked. I would have thought that Crown would have told her that there were weaknesses in the case and what the potential outcomes might be but maybe not.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Often ... you seem well versed in the justice system, so the families in Canada are not consulted? I guess that what jumped out at me is that the victims mother was shocked as well...I just assumed she was consulted about the case. I make no assimptions that I know how the system works, never been involved in the system, thankfully.
lukin, to the best of my knowledge there is no requirement for the victim/family members to be consulted. The plea bargaining is done between Crown and defense and then offered to the judge. I can well believe that the victim's mother would be shocked. I would have thought that Crown would have told her that there were weaknesses in the case and what the potential outcomes might be but maybe not.
i believe there are victim impact statements that get considered in sentencing ...
i wish people had a little more objectivity when they discuss the justice system ... it's not like someone sits there and says 1 year for this 3 years for that ... it's very complex ... everyone thinks they no right from wrong but it's not always black and white ...
Often ... you seem well versed in the justice system, so the families in Canada are not consulted? I guess that what jumped out at me is that the victims mother was shocked as well...I just assumed she was consulted about the case. I make no assimptions that I know how the system works, never been involved in the system, thankfully.
Families are relegated to the back row of the court room- their personal interests are never considered. As messed up as that is... Often, many here feel victims have no place whatsoever in trial and sentencing components of murder trials where their family members were killed- this has been argued several times on this forum. Sooo... yes... the attitude I speak to exists (check many pages of the DP thread if you care to investigate).
The families play their parts after the weak sentences have been administered- they are forced to become active every two years once the murderers of their family become eligible for parole... gathering petitions and voicing the their concerns for pending releases. Like this case, they do get to express their shock and disappointment with the initial slap in the face; however, just get over it already- stiff sentences aren't going to bring back your child.
Often ... you seem well versed in the justice system, so the families in Canada are not consulted? I guess that what jumped out at me is that the victims mother was shocked as well...I just assumed she was consulted about the case. I make no assimptions that I know how the system works, never been involved in the system, thankfully.
lukin, to the best of my knowledge there is no requirement for the victim/family members to be consulted. The plea bargaining is done between Crown and defense and then offered to the judge. I can well believe that the victim's mother would be shocked. I would have thought that Crown would have told her that there were weaknesses in the case and what the potential outcomes might be but maybe not.
Sounds good. Even a 1st degree conviction doesn't guarantee life ....
Maybe the crown will apply for dangerous offender status.
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
I guess I speak to the sympathetic voice that rears itself on here when speaking to shitheads like these assholes.
From the story we know... it seems like guilt is obvious. They killed and dismembered some guy. The problem is that courts... influenced by the mentality I don't care for so much... would likely absolve them of their guilt because 'they were high and therefore not responsible'.
That's what you need to do in Canada- Hyuk Hyuk eh go figure eh- if you want to kill someone: take drugs before you murder someone or claim that you were really sad that day... and the courts will weep, pardon your crime, and give you a ride to Starbucks for a frappuccino.
All supported by the voice or mentality I take exception to.
I'm short... f**k people who kill others and mutilate them afterwards. There's... quite simply... no excuse. None. And if somebody goes and does something like that... no Starbucks. Nope. If I had it my way... it would be death. But if I can't have it my way... I'd prefer something a little more than massage therapy.
Don't make me cite a 1000 cases like this one that completely legitimizes my post and renders all arguments against absolutely pathetic. I'm sure you can think of 1000 yourself.
I don't think there has ever been a sympathetic voice for murderers here. Perhaps a sympathetic voice for mental illness, but never have I seen anyone even come close to suggesting what you keep saying about people's sentiments about this on the boards. I don't really understand where you're getting this idea. Being against the death penalty is a far cry from the feelings you're trying to tie to people. And I have honestly never met anyone in Canada who doesn't think sentences in Canada for violent offenders are often way too light.
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
Often ... you seem well versed in the justice system, so the families in Canada are not consulted? I guess that what jumped out at me is that the victims mother was shocked as well...I just assumed she was consulted about the case. I make no assimptions that I know how the system works, never been involved in the system, thankfully.
Families are relegated to the back row of the court room- their personal interests are never considered. As messed up as that is... Often, many here feel victims have no place whatsoever in trial and sentencing components of murder trials where their family members were killed- this has been argued several times on this forum. Sooo... yes... the attitude I speak to exists (check many pages of the DP thread if you care to investigate).
The families play their parts after the weak sentences have been administered- they are forced to become active every two years once the murderers of their family become eligible for parole... gathering petitions and voicing the their concerns for pending releases. Like this case, they do get to express their shock and disappointment with the initial slap in the face; however, just get over it already- stiff sentences aren't going to bring back your child.
Good times I'm sure.
Thirty, you weren't even talking about victim involvement in your rant. You were off on a whole other tangent about Starbucks and leniency in sentencing.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
It would be nice if victims were always consulted and involved more in the process...i guess if the crown does not have a reasonable chance to get a 1st degree conviction, then I would say at least a criminal conviction is better than an out right acquittal.
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
Often ... you seem well versed in the justice system, so the families in Canada are not consulted? I guess that what jumped out at me is that the victims mother was shocked as well...I just assumed she was consulted about the case. I make no assimptions that I know how the system works, never been involved in the system, thankfully.
Families are relegated to the back row of the court room- their personal interests are never considered. As messed up as that is... Often, many here feel victims have no place whatsoever in trial and sentencing components of murder trials where their family members were killed- this has been argued several times on this forum. Sooo... yes... the attitude I speak to exists (check many pages of the DP thread if you care to investigate).
The families play their parts after the weak sentences have been administered- they are forced to become active every two years once the murderers of their family become eligible for parole... gathering petitions and voicing the their concerns for pending releases. Like this case, they do get to express their shock and disappointment with the initial slap in the face; however, just get over it already- stiff sentences aren't going to bring back your child.
Good times I'm sure.
Thirty, you weren't even talking about victim involvement in your rant. You were off on a whole other tangent about Starbucks and leniency in sentencing.
Often ... you seem well versed in the justice system, so the families in Canada are not consulted? I guess that what jumped out at me is that the victims mother was shocked as well...I just assumed she was consulted about the case. I make no assimptions that I know how the system works, never been involved in the system, thankfully.
Families are relegated to the back row of the court room- their personal interests are never considered. As messed up as that is... Often, many here feel victims have no place whatsoever in trial and sentencing components of murder trials where their family members were killed- this has been argued several times on this forum. Sooo... yes... the attitude I speak to exists (check many pages of the DP thread if you care to investigate).
The families play their parts after the weak sentences have been administered- they are forced to become active every two years once the murderers of their family become eligible for parole... gathering petitions and voicing the their concerns for pending releases. Like this case, they do get to express their shock and disappointment with the initial slap in the face; however, just get over it already- stiff sentences aren't going to bring back your child.
Good times I'm sure.
Thirty, you weren't even talking about victim involvement in your rant. You were off on a whole other tangent about Starbucks and leniency in sentencing.
It came up.
Am I free to comment on the subject?
Of course you're free to comment. Just don't claim I was speaking to one issue when I was speaking to a different one.
I always welcome your comments, Thirty. Even when you're wrong
Post edited by oftenreading on
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Often ... you seem well versed in the justice system, so the families in Canada are not consulted? I guess that what jumped out at me is that the victims mother was shocked as well...I just assumed she was consulted about the case. I make no assimptions that I know how the system works, never been involved in the system, thankfully.
Families are relegated to the back row of the court room- their personal interests are never considered. As messed up as that is... Often, many here feel victims have no place whatsoever in trial and sentencing components of murder trials where their family members were killed- this has been argued several times on this forum. Sooo... yes... the attitude I speak to exists (check many pages of the DP thread if you care to investigate).
The families play their parts after the weak sentences have been administered- they are forced to become active every two years once the murderers of their family become eligible for parole... gathering petitions and voicing the their concerns for pending releases. Like this case, they do get to express their shock and disappointment with the initial slap in the face; however, just get over it already- stiff sentences aren't going to bring back your child.
Good times I'm sure.
Thirty, you weren't even talking about victim involvement in your rant. You were off on a whole other tangent about Starbucks and leniency in sentencing.
It came up.
Am I free to comment on the subject?
Of course you're free to comment. Just don't claim I was speaking to one issue when I was speaking to a different one.
I always welcome your comments, Thirty. Even when you're wrong
Often ... you seem well versed in the justice system, so the families in Canada are not consulted? I guess that what jumped out at me is that the victims mother was shocked as well...I just assumed she was consulted about the case. I make no assimptions that I know how the system works, never been involved in the system, thankfully.
Families are relegated to the back row of the court room- their personal interests are never considered. As messed up as that is... Often, many here feel victims have no place whatsoever in trial and sentencing components of murder trials where their family members were killed- this has been argued several times on this forum. Sooo... yes... the attitude I speak to exists (check many pages of the DP thread if you care to investigate).
The families play their parts after the weak sentences have been administered- they are forced to become active every two years once the murderers of their family become eligible for parole... gathering petitions and voicing the their concerns for pending releases. Like this case, they do get to express their shock and disappointment with the initial slap in the face; however, just get over it already- stiff sentences aren't going to bring back your child.
Good times I'm sure.
I agree, I don't think it an over reach to consult victims. I believe many us states consult victims and make them part of the process. I myself am only sympathetic when mental health is involved. I at one time was sympathetic when drugs and alcohol are involved ... not the case anymore, its used to often to excuse stupid violent behaviour that should be no excuse anymore.
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
Often ... you seem well versed in the justice system, so the families in Canada are not consulted? I guess that what jumped out at me is that the victims mother was shocked as well...I just assumed she was consulted about the case. I make no assimptions that I know how the system works, never been involved in the system, thankfully.
lukin, to the best of my knowledge there is no requirement for the victim/family members to be consulted. The plea bargaining is done between Crown and defense and then offered to the judge. I can well believe that the victim's mother would be shocked. I would have thought that Crown would have told her that there were weaknesses in the case and what the potential outcomes might be but maybe not.
i believe there are victim impact statements that get considered in sentencing ...
i wish people had a little more objectivity when they discuss the justice system ... it's not like someone sits there and says 1 year for this 3 years for that ... it's very complex ... everyone thinks they no right from wrong but it's not always black and white ...
I think most people just want consistency in the criminal justice system. Oh i agree, I don't think their is a requirement to consult victims, I was commenting that it would be nice if it was mandatory that they consult victims as to why the crown is going forward with certain charges, and often, pointed out that they may have. I'm certainly not suggesting that victims should decide what charges should be filed ... that has to be left up to the experts...if they don't have the evidence, they don't have the evidence...just seems awful gruesome crime to only get manslaughter is what is shocking to the victim.
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
Often ... you seem well versed in the justice system, so the families in Canada are not consulted? I guess that what jumped out at me is that the victims mother was shocked as well...I just assumed she was consulted about the case. I make no assimptions that I know how the system works, never been involved in the system, thankfully.
lukin, to the best of my knowledge there is no requirement for the victim/family members to be consulted. The plea bargaining is done between Crown and defense and then offered to the judge. I can well believe that the victim's mother would be shocked. I would have thought that Crown would have told her that there were weaknesses in the case and what the potential outcomes might be but maybe not.
i believe there are victim impact statements that get considered in sentencing ...
i wish people had a little more objectivity when they discuss the justice system ... it's not like someone sits there and says 1 year for this 3 years for that ... it's very complex ... everyone thinks they no right from wrong but it's not always black and white ...
I think most people just want consistency in the criminal justice system. Oh i agree, I don't think their is a requirement to consult victims, I was commenting that it would be nice if it was mandatory that they consult victims as to why the crown is going forward with certain charges, and often, pointed out that they may have. I'm certainly not suggesting that victims should decide what charges should be filed ... that has to be left up to the experts...if they don't have the evidence, they don't have the evidence...just seems awful gruesome crime to only get manslaughter is what is shocking to the victim.
sure ... we just have to try and be a little more objective i think sometimes when we don't necessarily know all the facts and the complexities ...
Okay, I'm going to do my usual shitty job of explaining my position on victim/family involvement in the criminal justice system. Just for you, Thirty!
Up until a finding is made, I don't believe there is really much role for families/victims in the case unless they are being called as witnesses. The finder of fact (judge or jury) need to focus on the facts of the case in order to make a determination of guilty or not guilty, and I can't really see how the impact of violence on the victims, as horrific as it may be, actually affects whether someone is guilty of an offense or not. Except in very rare circumstances, the victims don't have a good understanding of the law; they are certainly not the appropriate ones to determine if a case is strong enough to go to trial, or what the appropriate charges might be.
After a finding of guilt has been made, I think there is a role for victims/families in the sentencing phase. However, I am cautious about the extent of this role. There's a reason civilized societies have moved away from vigilantism. For our justice system to function it needs to be equitable at its core, and not respond to those who happen to yell the loudest or be the best at getting media attention. I have real concerns about victim impact statements having too big a role in determining appropriate sentencing. If that's the case, what happens to the victims of violent crime who don't have family to speak for them, particularly the homeless or otherwise marginalized individuals? Why should their aggressors somehow get a lesser sentence just because no-one is appearing in court and submitting impact statements? What about communities that distrust the police and legal system - should victims from their communities get less regard because no one trusts the courts enough to be willing to submit a statement? And what about victims/family members who just can't face the stress of going to court, but feel they have to or there won't be a just sentence? If you're going to say that this isn't going to happen, that the sentence would be the same - well, then what is the role of victim impact statements? And if these statements don't actually change what the sentence is, why are we doing them? Are we just lying to the victims, placating them, telling them their words mean something in the process when they don't?
For me, it boils down to the fact that the justice system should be able to do its job in a fair way that responds to the facts of the case and treats similar cases similarly, rather than wildly differently depending on who the victims are and who speaks for them.
Thirty (and everyone else), I'd be interested to hear what role you would like to see victims play in the process, in either the trial or sentencing phases.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Often ... you seem well versed in the justice system, so the families in Canada are not consulted? I guess that what jumped out at me is that the victims mother was shocked as well...I just assumed she was consulted about the case. I make no assimptions that I know how the system works, never been involved in the system, thankfully.
lukin, to the best of my knowledge there is no requirement for the victim/family members to be consulted. The plea bargaining is done between Crown and defense and then offered to the judge. I can well believe that the victim's mother would be shocked. I would have thought that Crown would have told her that there were weaknesses in the case and what the potential outcomes might be but maybe not.
i believe there are victim impact statements that get considered in sentencing ...
i wish people had a little more objectivity when they discuss the justice system ... it's not like someone sits there and says 1 year for this 3 years for that ... it's very complex ... everyone thinks they no right from wrong but it's not always black and white ...
I think most people just want consistency in the criminal justice system. Oh i agree, I don't think their is a requirement to consult victims, I was commenting that it would be nice if it was mandatory that they consult victims as to why the crown is going forward with certain charges, and often, pointed out that they may have. I'm certainly not suggesting that victims should decide what charges should be filed ... that has to be left up to the experts...if they don't have the evidence, they don't have the evidence...just seems awful gruesome crime to only get manslaughter is what is shocking to the victim.
sure ... we just have to try and be a little more objective i think sometimes when we don't necessarily know all the facts and the complexities ...
True
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
Okay, I'm going to do my usual shitty job of explaining my position on victim/family involvement in the criminal justice system. Just for you, Thirty!
Up until a finding is made, I don't believe there is really much role for families/victims in the case unless they are being called as witnesses. The finder of fact (judge or jury) need to focus on the facts of the case in order to make a determination of guilty or not guilty, and I can't really see how the impact of violence on the victims, as horrific as it may be, actually affects whether someone is guilty of an offense or not. Except in very rare circumstances, the victims don't have a good understanding of the law; they are certainly not the appropriate ones to determine if a case is strong enough to go to trial, or what the appropriate charges might be.
After a finding of guilt has been made, I think there is a role for victims/families in the sentencing phase. However, I am cautious about the extent of this role. There's a reason civilized societies have moved away from vigilantism. For our justice system to function it needs to be equitable at its core, and not respond to those who happen to yell the loudest or be the best at getting media attention. I have real concerns about victim impact statements having too big a role in determining appropriate sentencing. If that's the case, what happens to the victims of violent crime who don't have family to speak for them, particularly the homeless or otherwise marginalized individuals? Why should their aggressors somehow get a lesser sentence just because no-one is appearing in court and submitting impact statements? What about communities that distrust the police and legal system - should victims from their communities get less regard because no one trusts the courts enough to be willing to submit a statement? And what about victims/family members who just can't face the stress of going to court, but feel they have to or there won't be a just sentence? If you're going to say that this isn't going to happen, that the sentence would be the same - well, then what is the role of victim impact statements? And if these statements don't actually change what the sentence is, why are we doing them? Are we just lying to the victims, placating them, telling them their words mean something in the process when they don't?
For me, it boils down to the fact that the justice system should be able to do its job in a fair way that responds to the facts of the case and treats similar cases similarly, rather than wildly differently depending on who the victims are and who speaks for them.
Thirty (and everyone else), I'd be interested to hear what role you would like to see victims play in the process, in either the trial or sentencing phases.
I agree with much, if not most, of what you have said.
My problem lies with the fact that our current penal system fails victims... repeatedly and in a grotesque manner. Victims should not have to bemoan their loss before the courts to influence sentences... sentences should simply correspond with the nature of the crime. In Canada... this is not the case- we are soft on crime.
To Lukin's case that we discuss: Canada fails to deal with its worst offenders appropriately. I can handle not sentencing people to death when I feel they should be (Bernardo, Olsen...), but I get really irritated when we serve justice- if thats what we're even going to call it- on the complete other end of the spectrum.
Point blank: do you feel Canada's growing body of work- sentencing murderers- serves society in a beneficial manner and justice?
Often ... you seem well versed in the justice system, so the families in Canada are not consulted? I guess that what jumped out at me is that the victims mother was shocked as well...I just assumed she was consulted about the case. I make no assimptions that I know how the system works, never been involved in the system, thankfully.
lukin, to the best of my knowledge there is no requirement for the victim/family members to be consulted. The plea bargaining is done between Crown and defense and then offered to the judge. I can well believe that the victim's mother would be shocked. I would have thought that Crown would have told her that there were weaknesses in the case and what the potential outcomes might be but maybe not.
i believe there are victim impact statements that get considered in sentencing ...
i wish people had a little more objectivity when they discuss the justice system ... it's not like someone sits there and says 1 year for this 3 years for that ... it's very complex ... everyone thinks they no right from wrong but it's not always black and white ...
I think most people just want consistency in the criminal justice system. Oh i agree, I don't think their is a requirement to consult victims, I was commenting that it would be nice if it was mandatory that they consult victims as to why the crown is going forward with certain charges, and often, pointed out that they may have. I'm certainly not suggesting that victims should decide what charges should be filed ... that has to be left up to the experts...if they don't have the evidence, they don't have the evidence...just seems awful gruesome crime to only get manslaughter is what is shocking to the victim.
sure ... we just have to try and be a little more objective i think sometimes when we don't necessarily know all the facts and the complexities ...
Yes... but it's hard not jumping to conclusions when we've seen this act play out badly many times beforehand.
Okay, I'm going to do my usual shitty job of explaining my position on victim/family involvement in the criminal justice system. Just for you, Thirty!
Up until a finding is made, I don't believe there is really much role for families/victims in the case unless they are being called as witnesses. The finder of fact (judge or jury) need to focus on the facts of the case in order to make a determination of guilty or not guilty, and I can't really see how the impact of violence on the victims, as horrific as it may be, actually affects whether someone is guilty of an offense or not. Except in very rare circumstances, the victims don't have a good understanding of the law; they are certainly not the appropriate ones to determine if a case is strong enough to go to trial, or what the appropriate charges might be.
After a finding of guilt has been made, I think there is a role for victims/families in the sentencing phase. However, I am cautious about the extent of this role. There's a reason civilized societies have moved away from vigilantism. For our justice system to function it needs to be equitable at its core, and not respond to those who happen to yell the loudest or be the best at getting media attention. I have real concerns about victim impact statements having too big a role in determining appropriate sentencing. If that's the case, what happens to the victims of violent crime who don't have family to speak for them, particularly the homeless or otherwise marginalized individuals? Why should their aggressors somehow get a lesser sentence just because no-one is appearing in court and submitting impact statements? What about communities that distrust the police and legal system - should victims from their communities get less regard because no one trusts the courts enough to be willing to submit a statement? And what about victims/family members who just can't face the stress of going to court, but feel they have to or there won't be a just sentence? If you're going to say that this isn't going to happen, that the sentence would be the same - well, then what is the role of victim impact statements? And if these statements don't actually change what the sentence is, why are we doing them? Are we just lying to the victims, placating them, telling them their words mean something in the process when they don't?
For me, it boils down to the fact that the justice system should be able to do its job in a fair way that responds to the facts of the case and treats similar cases similarly, rather than wildly differently depending on who the victims are and who speaks for them.
Thirty (and everyone else), I'd be interested to hear what role you would like to see victims play in the process, in either the trial or sentencing phases.
I agree with much, if not most, of what you have said.
My problem lies with the fact that our current penal system fails victims... repeatedly and in a grotesque manner. Victims should not have to bemoan their loss before the courts to influence sentences... sentences should simply correspond with the nature of the crime. In Canada... this is not the case- we are soft on crime.
To Lukin's case that we discuss: Canada fails to deal with its worst offenders appropriately. I can handle not sentencing people to death when I feel they should be (Bernardo, Olsen...), but I get really irritated when we serve justice- if thats what we're even going to call it- on the complete other end of the spectrum.
Point blank: do you feel Canada's growing body of work- sentencing murderers- serves society in a beneficial manner and justice?
Happy to respond in detail with my thoughts this evening. During the day I'm too busy at work and it's too tedious to tap it all out on my phone.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Comments
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/grieving-ontario-mother-livid-after-three-men-get-manslaughter-plea-deal-for-killing-and-dismembering-her-son
Ridiculous to say the least...
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
But yes... a f**king joke. Canada's penal system is pathetic. It never ends.
The Crown would only agree to a plea bargain of this nature if they are fairly sure they won't get a conviction on the murder charges. They're not going to release the full reasons, but unfortunately that's the reality. They either don't have enough evidence, or the case is tainted in some way. It could be one of a number of things, like a key witness who was found to be lying, or a witness who has disappeared. When so many people in the case were already involved in that subculture of using/dealing and the illegal activities that are associated with it, a clean case is very difficult because none of them want the police involved in their business.
I guess I speak to the sympathetic voice that rears itself on here when speaking to shitheads like these assholes.
From the story we know... it seems like guilt is obvious. They killed and dismembered some guy. The problem is that courts... influenced by the mentality I don't care for so much... would likely absolve them of their guilt because 'they were high and therefore not responsible'.
That's what you need to do in Canada- Hyuk Hyuk eh go figure eh- if you want to kill someone: take drugs before you murder someone or claim that you were really sad that day... and the courts will weep, pardon your crime, and give you a ride to Starbucks for a frappuccino.
All supported by the voice or mentality I take exception to.
I'm short... f**k people who kill others and mutilate them afterwards. There's... quite simply... no excuse. None. And if somebody goes and does something like that... no Starbucks. Nope. If I had it my way... it would be death. But if I can't have it my way... I'd prefer something a little more than massage therapy.
Don't make me cite a 1000 cases like this one that completely legitimizes my post and renders all arguments against absolutely pathetic. I'm sure you can think of 1000 yourself.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/07/27/edmontons-balaclava-rapist-gets-day-parole-after-more-than-30-years-in-jail.html
And another ...
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
lukin, that's a good point about whether it's better to pursue the murder charges even without strong chance of conviction or swallow that bitter pill and at least get a conviction that carries with it jail time and additional legal intervention. Would anyone rather that these guys get acquitted?
And Thirty, were you aware that the maximum penalty for manslaughter is life in jail? Or that this conviction could open the door for a Dangerous Offender hearing, which means an indeterminate sentence? Just because the article says they may be eligible for parole in two years doesn't mean they will get parole in two years.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
i wish people had a little more objectivity when they discuss the justice system ... it's not like someone sits there and says 1 year for this 3 years for that ... it's very complex ... everyone thinks they no right from wrong but it's not always black and white ...
The families play their parts after the weak sentences have been administered- they are forced to become active every two years once the murderers of their family become eligible for parole... gathering petitions and voicing the their concerns for pending releases. Like this case, they do get to express their shock and disappointment with the initial slap in the face; however, just get over it already- stiff sentences aren't going to bring back your child.
Good times I'm sure.
Maybe the crown will apply for dangerous offender status.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Am I free to comment on the subject?
I don't know. Maybe people have done a really shitty job detailing their positions or I've done a really shitty job understanding them.
I always welcome your comments, Thirty. Even when you're wrong
Cheers.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Up until a finding is made, I don't believe there is really much role for families/victims in the case unless they are being called as witnesses. The finder of fact (judge or jury) need to focus on the facts of the case in order to make a determination of guilty or not guilty, and I can't really see how the impact of violence on the victims, as horrific as it may be, actually affects whether someone is guilty of an offense or not. Except in very rare circumstances, the victims don't have a good understanding of the law; they are certainly not the appropriate ones to determine if a case is strong enough to go to trial, or what the appropriate charges might be.
After a finding of guilt has been made, I think there is a role for victims/families in the sentencing phase. However, I am cautious about the extent of this role. There's a reason civilized societies have moved away from vigilantism. For our justice system to function it needs to be equitable at its core, and not respond to those who happen to yell the loudest or be the best at getting media attention. I have real concerns about victim impact statements having too big a role in determining appropriate sentencing. If that's the case, what happens to the victims of violent crime who don't have family to speak for them, particularly the homeless or otherwise marginalized individuals? Why should their aggressors somehow get a lesser sentence just because no-one is appearing in court and submitting impact statements? What about communities that distrust the police and legal system - should victims from their communities get less regard because no one trusts the courts enough to be willing to submit a statement? And what about victims/family members who just can't face the stress of going to court, but feel they have to or there won't be a just sentence? If you're going to say that this isn't going to happen, that the sentence would be the same - well, then what is the role of victim impact statements? And if these statements don't actually change what the sentence is, why are we doing them? Are we just lying to the victims, placating them, telling them their words mean something in the process when they don't?
For me, it boils down to the fact that the justice system should be able to do its job in a fair way that responds to the facts of the case and treats similar cases similarly, rather than wildly differently depending on who the victims are and who speaks for them.
Thirty (and everyone else), I'd be interested to hear what role you would like to see victims play in the process, in either the trial or sentencing phases.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
My problem lies with the fact that our current penal system fails victims... repeatedly and in a grotesque manner. Victims should not have to bemoan their loss before the courts to influence sentences... sentences should simply correspond with the nature of the crime. In Canada... this is not the case- we are soft on crime.
To Lukin's case that we discuss: Canada fails to deal with its worst offenders appropriately. I can handle not sentencing people to death when I feel they should be (Bernardo, Olsen...), but I get really irritated when we serve justice- if thats what we're even going to call it- on the complete other end of the spectrum.
Point blank: do you feel Canada's growing body of work- sentencing murderers- serves society in a beneficial manner and justice?