Canadian Politics Redux

Thirty Bills Unpaid

oftenreading said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

oftenreading said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

lukin2006 said:

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

Which is most of the time around here lol!

Cheers.

lukin2006

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

lukin2006 said:

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.

lukin2006

In this particular case we will have to wait until sentencing for the final outcome.

lukin2006

polaris_x said:

oftenreading said:

lukin2006 said:

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.

polaris_x

lukin2006 said:

polaris_x said:

oftenreading said:

lukin2006 said:

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 ...

oftenreading

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.

lukin2006

polaris_x said:

lukin2006 said:

polaris_x said:

oftenreading said:

lukin2006 said:

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

Thirty Bills Unpaid

oftenreading said:

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?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

polaris_x said:

lukin2006 said:

polaris_x said:

oftenreading said:

lukin2006 said:

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.

oftenreading

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

oftenreading said:

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.

PJ_Soul

oftenreading said:

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 completely agree with you oftenreading.

lukin2006

Victim frustrated with justice system

http://www.chathamdailynews.ca/2016/08/09/victim-frustrated-with-justice-system

Another recent example of a victim...

As to often question as to victim involvement. Victim of crime should be kept informed throughout the process...I don't think that's to much to ask. I tend to think the justice system is underfunded as to why victims are often left frustrated, just how I feel.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

lukin2006 said:

Victim frustrated with justice system

http://www.chathamdailynews.ca/2016/08/09/victim-frustrated-with-justice-system

Another recent example of a victim...

As to often question as to victim involvement. Victim of crime should be kept informed throughout the process...I don't think that's to much to ask. I tend to think the justice system is underfunded as to why victims are often left frustrated, just how I feel.

The courts would have 'kicked it up a couple notches' if the table was turned though. If the bouncer had smacked the idiot... he'd have been in a heap of trouble.

Our penal system is weak. Pathetic might be the more appropriate term. Good Canadians are tired of it. Revisions are necessary.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

An excerpt from an article supporting my position:

In 2001, Dean Robert Zimmerman was sentenced to jail for brutally raping, tormenting, and torturing his pregnant wife in an attack that lasted over 48 hours. He not only repeatedly assaulted her, but he also broke her nose and threatened to cut her unborn baby from her belly. And this attack took place while he was out on parole for the earlier violent rape of a 19-year-old woman.

Then, after serving less than four years in jail for that horrific attack, the guy was released and, on January 1, 2005, he committed yet another vicious attack, this time a nine-hour sex assault/torture session involving a toilet plunger and a 24-year-old Edmonton woman.

http://www.straight.com/blogra/canadian-justice-system-so-broken-its-criminal

Thirty Bills Unpaid

In the late 90s, an Angus Reid poll showed 70% of Canadians had little faith in the penal system and thought sentencing was too light for criminal behaviour.

A more recent study reveals the same attitudes exist: But research shows Canadians also see the courts as too slow to deliver justice, and judges as handing out sentences that are too lenient.
The research indicates the public believes victims are too often ignored in the justice system, and that prisons do a poor job of rehabilitating offenders.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/study-finds-canadians-have-little-confidence-in-justice-system-1.1689727

Policy makers think they know best I guess: early releases for violent rapists that were served laughable sentences to start with. If nobody here is empathetic with scumbags... our courts sure seem to be.

polaris_x

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

In the late 90s, an Angus Reid poll showed 70% of Canadians had little faith in the penal system and thought sentencing was too light for criminal behaviour.

A more recent study reveals the same attitudes exist: But research shows Canadians also see the courts as too slow to deliver justice, and judges as handing out sentences that are too lenient.
The research indicates the public believes victims are too often ignored in the justice system, and that prisons do a poor job of rehabilitating offenders.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/study-finds-canadians-have-little-confidence-in-justice-system-1.1689727

Policy makers think they know best I guess: early releases for violent rapists that were served laughable sentences to start with. If nobody here is empathetic with scumbags... our courts sure seem to be.

everyone should read the full text of the link ...

it's what i talked about before about misconceptions of our justice system ... people need to be educated ... thanks for pointing that out ...

Thirty Bills Unpaid

polaris_x said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

In the late 90s, an Angus Reid poll showed 70% of Canadians had little faith in the penal system and thought sentencing was too light for criminal behaviour.

A more recent study reveals the same attitudes exist: But research shows Canadians also see the courts as too slow to deliver justice, and judges as handing out sentences that are too lenient.
The research indicates the public believes victims are too often ignored in the justice system, and that prisons do a poor job of rehabilitating offenders.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/study-finds-canadians-have-little-confidence-in-justice-system-1.1689727

Policy makers think they know best I guess: early releases for violent rapists that were served laughable sentences to start with. If nobody here is empathetic with scumbags... our courts sure seem to be.

everyone should read the full text of the link ...

it's what i talked about before about misconceptions of our justice system ... people need to be educated ... thanks for pointing that out ...

Wrong.

That little quip you are pointing out is the opinion of an attorney scuttling to protect the integrity of the system that serves him so well. Canadians are a little more aware of the justice system's failings than you and he seem to suggest- they are in our face on a daily basis.

How come you never commented on this little piece (the post above the one you chose to speak to):

In 2001, Dean Robert Zimmerman was sentenced to jail for brutally raping, tormenting, and torturing his pregnant wife in an attack that lasted over 48 hours. He not only repeatedly assaulted her, but he also broke her nose and threatened to cut her unborn baby from her belly. And this attack took place while he was out on parole for the earlier violent rape of a 19-year-old woman.

Then, after serving less than four years in jail for that horrific attack, the guy was released and, on January 1, 2005, he committed yet another vicious attack, this time a nine-hour sex assault/torture session involving a toilet plunger and a 24-year-old Edmonton woman.

I hope I'm not misrepresenting your position when I say it seems as if you are defending our justice system here because that's sure what it seems you are doing.

PJ_Soul

Terrorist plot stopped, would-be terrorist from Winnipeg killed by police during some kind of confrontation in Ontario. Police had been investigating him for a long time - he was already under a court order not to have any communications with ISIS. The Toronto Transit Commission had been warned, so presumably the attack was planned for mass transit. I would say that it's probably not great that this guy was killed. Keeping him alive for questioning probably would have been better, just in case he knows of others who currently pose a real threat to the public. Of course, I doubt the cops had much choice in the matter. Anyway, I am not sure if the cops were still letting this guy walk around planning a terrorist attack because that is the most informative way to investigate and stop such a plot, or if it suggests a problem with how the courts handle terrorist threats. Until they release more info, I'll assume the former.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/08/11/terror-suspect-aaron-driver-killed-in-southwestern-ontario-police-standoff.html

lukin2006

.

polaris_x

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

polaris_x said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

In the late 90s, an Angus Reid poll showed 70% of Canadians had little faith in the penal system and thought sentencing was too light for criminal behaviour.

A more recent study reveals the same attitudes exist: But research shows Canadians also see the courts as too slow to deliver justice, and judges as handing out sentences that are too lenient.
The research indicates the public believes victims are too often ignored in the justice system, and that prisons do a poor job of rehabilitating offenders.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/study-finds-canadians-have-little-confidence-in-justice-system-1.1689727

Policy makers think they know best I guess: early releases for violent rapists that were served laughable sentences to start with. If nobody here is empathetic with scumbags... our courts sure seem to be.

everyone should read the full text of the link ...

it's what i talked about before about misconceptions of our justice system ... people need to be educated ... thanks for pointing that out ...

Wrong.

That little quip you are pointing out is the opinion of an attorney scuttling to protect the integrity of the system that serves him so well. Canadians are a little more aware of the justice system's failings than you and he seem to suggest- they are in our face on a daily basis.

How come you never commented on this little piece (the post above the one you chose to speak to):

In 2001, Dean Robert Zimmerman was sentenced to jail for brutally raping, tormenting, and torturing his pregnant wife in an attack that lasted over 48 hours. He not only repeatedly assaulted her, but he also broke her nose and threatened to cut her unborn baby from her belly. And this attack took place while he was out on parole for the earlier violent rape of a 19-year-old woman.

Then, after serving less than four years in jail for that horrific attack, the guy was released and, on January 1, 2005, he committed yet another vicious attack, this time a nine-hour sex assault/torture session involving a toilet plunger and a 24-year-old Edmonton woman.

I hope I'm not misrepresenting your position when I say it seems as if you are defending our justice system here because that's sure what it seems you are doing.

dude ... you cherry picked the link you sent to support your bias ... i suggested to everyone to read the entire link instead of just your snippet ... which contained a point that I made earlier ...

my question to you is this ... is there a perfect criminal justice system anywhere in this world!??? ... if so - let me know which country that is ...