Canadian Politics Redux

1…5657596162…465

Comments

  • Thirty Bills Unpaid
    Thirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 16,881
    polaris_x said:

    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

    polaris_x said:

    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

    I offered you a link to counter your 1 in 10 offhand comment. It serves to demonstrate our penal system isn't exactly kicking ass.

    And you can state what you did as many times as you want: if the current state of our justice system suits you well... good for you. What we have needs refining in my opinion. I might be right with regards to some changes I'd like to see... but I could be wrong too. It's merely how I see things. Should I apologize for that?

    well ... i was making up an example ... you made it about sex offenders ... of which the rate is 12% - 21% which is not egregiously off my made up number ...

    you don't have to apologize for anything ... it's just that your constant labeling of anyone discussing this with you as supporters of rapists is not only wrong - it's getting tired and old ... i could label you as a murder happy red neck in each post ... pretty sure you're not gonna like that ...
    Well... you kind of did. You expressed that I wanted to see them suffer. What's the implication there?

    You took a veiled shot- if not a direct one- and when I fire one back you tell me that's getting old.
    oh dear ... how would you have phrased it then? ... that's the consequence of what you seek ... and the foundation of my point ... making harsher sentences has consequences of which potentially making it harsh for people that otherwise would re-integrate fine ...

    in any case - you've been firing shots all throughout this thread ... i don't care ... i'm just explaining why we keep trying to tell you what you're saying isn't true ...
    You're essentially saying here that your point of view is the correct and only point of view. This, my friend, is not fantastic.

    Your desire for softer, more lenient sentences ultimately means more victims of crime. One can only assume you are okay with that. One can only assume that you are willing to place innocent people at risk so that violent offenders get another chance to live amongst us without hurting anyone. I say this because... that is the reality of what you support.

    It's tough to gauge exactly what the recidivism rates are given the mixed reports, but the overwhelming majority of publications point to an alarming rate. Federal and provincial numbers differ: the provincial rates for re-offending are astronomically high. In Manitoba, within two years, the percentage has been 75% and higher for some categories.

    http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/tom_brodbeck/2010/03/02/13089631.html

    The Vancouver Sun revealed that the federal recidivism number that seems palatable is inaccurate: "While the figure seems impressive, it excludes some important criteria:
    - The 10 per cent refers only to the number of convicted criminals who return to a federal prison within two years of being
    released into society.
    - It does not include people who return to a provincial jail within two years of leaving federal custody.
    - It also does not include people who return to any prison after being back in society for three years or longer."

    http://www.primetimecrime.com/Recent/Courts/Sun Repeat offender.htm
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    how am I remotely saying that!?? ... perhaps that is why you also mistake the fact I want more softer and lenient sentencing ... how many times do I have to repeat that my primary point is that the justice and legal system is complex and that most people do not understand the ramifications of what they are asking ... that's it ... in any case - if you think the justice system is soft now yet crime rates are going down ... how does that jive!? ... you're saying a soft criminal system leads to more victims of crime but yet crime rates are down ...

    you're the one who chooses to use recidivism ... now that it doesn't say what you want - you are gonna discredit it!? ... sure, they are valid points but so, are the points against using the numbers in general ... so, feel free to make your point with something you support ...

    the rates in manitoba are probably higher because we incarcerate aboriginals at an alarming rate ... most of these crimes are for non-violent offenses ... in any case - you brought up the stat and in comps to other countries - it is seen as good ...
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,716
    I have to agree Thirty. You really seem to incorrectly translate what people say when it comes to this topic. I don't really understand why or how you keep ending up on a "desire for softer, more lenient sentences", and regularly make that "oh poor criminals" accusation play. Everyone keeps making it completely clear that that is not what they want or think, and yet you keep deciding that they do, and I just don't get it. The one thing that EVERYONE clearly agrees with is that violent offenders who are a danger to society should not be walking around free. This is obvious, but you keep acting like some think otherwise. :confused: If anyone tries to discuss options - realistic options that will work in the system that we have - you spin it like this. It's not normally how you operate I don't think, so it's strange that you stick to this tactic for this topic alone. Meanwhile, you keep talking about how criminals should be killed..... in a country where there is no death penalty and in a world where vigilantism is extremely dangerous to innocent people.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • oftenreading
    oftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,856
    I'm going to throw a monkey wrench into the mix here, which I probably shouldn't do because I'm too busy with work to fully explain and provide supporting documentation, but...... there's not a lot of proof that longer, harsher sentences lead to better outcomes, less crime, or a safer society. In fact there is some evidence to suggest the latter is true. The obvious exception is for violent offenders who can't be managed any other way than in a custodial situation, and I haven't seen any of us argue that individuals like that shouldn't be in jail.

    Be cautious about recidivism data. Make sure it's broken down into useful categories and you compare like to like. Many individuals recidivate in minor, nonviolent ways like stealing food, which triggers a breach of conditions charge and a return to custody, but likely never posed a risk to anyone and only ended up in that situation in the first place because they were released from custody with absolutely no institutional planning to give even a tiny chance of successful reintegration.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • lukin2006
    lukin2006 Posts: 9,087
    edited August 2016
    Dangerous offender given day leave to attend Alberta powwow eludes escort and escapes

    http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/dangerous-offender-given-day-leave-to-attend-alberta-powwow-eludes-escort-and-escapes

    And when I read the headlines, I assumed the RCMP would be the escort, not the elder...he was obviously no risk to escape, because the time he served for escaping custody must have taught, so they thaught..you can't make this shit up.
    Post edited by lukin2006 on
    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
  • lukin2006
    lukin2006 Posts: 9,087
    edited August 2016
    Jen Gerson: If this is what happens in the worst sex assault cases, how can any rape victim expect justice?

    http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/jen-gerson-if-this-is-what-happens-in-the-worst-sex-assault-cases-how-can-any-rape-victim-expect-justice

    it appears broken if your a victim...
    Post edited by lukin2006 on
    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
  • Thirty Bills Unpaid
    Thirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 16,881
    lukin2006 said:

    Jen Gerson: If this is what happens in the worst sex assault cases, how can any rape victim expect justice?

    http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/jen-gerson-if-this-is-what-happens-in-the-worst-sex-assault-cases-how-can-any-rape-victim-expect-justice

    I will say this ... for a justice system that's not broken it sure gets a lot of bad press...sheesh...

    F**king joke. And hardly surprising.

    That's about all I'll say about it.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • lukin2006
    lukin2006 Posts: 9,087
    edited August 2016
    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

    lukin2006 said:

    Jen Gerson: If this is what happens in the worst sex assault cases, how can any rape victim expect justice?

    http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/jen-gerson-if-this-is-what-happens-in-the-worst-sex-assault-cases-how-can-any-rape-victim-expect-justice

    I will say this ... for a justice system that's not broken it sure gets a lot of bad press...sheesh...

    F**king joke. And hardly surprising.

    That's about all I'll say about it.


    Victims need better treatment ... I can not defend a system that cares so little about victims and sometimes bends over backwards for criminals. And sorry in this particular case 6-12 years for those crimes seems light...
    Post edited by lukin2006 on
    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
  • lukin2006
    lukin2006 Posts: 9,087
    Mauril Bélanger dead from ALS at 61: MP was driving force behind making O Canada gender neutral

    http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/mauril-belanger-dead-from-als-at-61-mp-was-driving-force-behind-making-o-canada-gender-neutral

    RIP
    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
  • dignin
    dignin Posts: 9,478
    lukin2006 said:

    Mauril Bélanger dead from ALS at 61: MP was driving force behind making O Canada gender neutral

    http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/mauril-belanger-dead-from-als-at-61-mp-was-driving-force-behind-making-o-canada-gender-neutral

    RIP

    RIP
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    so ... what is the primary complaint here!? ... that the judge didn't allow her victim impact statement to be read by her lawyer in court? ... or the potential sentencing?
  • oftenreading
    oftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,856
    polaris_x said:

    so ... what is the primary complaint here!? ... that the judge didn't allow her victim impact statement to be read by her lawyer in court? ... or the potential sentencing?

    Referencing that case, polaris, I am puzzled by why the judge didn't allow the victim impact statement to be read out by someone else. It would be interesting to know the reason. It was reported as if it was simply the whim of the judge but I'm guessing - hoping? - there was some defensible reason for it. Not having it read out doesn't mean it doesn't get considered, though; it means that the public doesn't get to hear it.

    And as for the sentencing - of course the defense is asking for the minimum of what they think they can get away with. That's their job. That's always their job, in ever case. To my mind, that part means nothing. There's no sentence yet; plenty of time to complain when a sentence is handed down. I would agree that, on the face of it, this would seem to warrant the maximum sentence allowable.

    Also bear in mind that the defense is forwarding the information on mental health conditions like FASD and schizophrenia as mitigating factors but it doesn't necessarily work that way. Either or both could just as easily be seen as aggravating factors in sentencing, particularly the FASD, if it is seen as increasing the individual's risk due to lack of treatibility. I've got to say, as someone who works in a related field, FASD is a huge and seemingly intractible problem in the health system and criminal justice system, as well as other ministries. These individuals have permanent brain damage, through no fault of their own. The areas responsible for judgement and impulse control are particularly affected and it is a horrible, frustrating condition to live with. Many of these individuals that I've met hate their own behaviour but, almost by definition, can't stop it in the moment. I know that some on here will read that as an excuse or being "soft on crime" or "wanting to give them a latte" or some such drivel, but it's simple fact. Imagine growing up like that, living your life like that; forever screwing things up for yourself, alienating people, hurting people, even those that you love. That doesn't mean I'm not in favour of people being in custody if they pose a danger to others, it just means that I understand some of the driving factors of that risk.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    oftenreading said:

    polaris_x said:

    so ... what is the primary complaint here!? ... that the judge didn't allow her victim impact statement to be read by her lawyer in court? ... or the potential sentencing?

    Referencing that case, polaris, I am puzzled by why the judge didn't allow the victim impact statement to be read out by someone else. It would be interesting to know the reason. It was reported as if it was simply the whim of the judge but I'm guessing - hoping? - there was some defensible reason for it. Not having it read out doesn't mean it doesn't get considered, though; it means that the public doesn't get to hear it.

    And as for the sentencing - of course the defense is asking for the minimum of what they think they can get away with. That's their job. That's always their job, in ever case. To my mind, that part means nothing. There's no sentence yet; plenty of time to complain when a sentence is handed down. I would agree that, on the face of it, this would seem to warrant the maximum sentence allowable.

    Also bear in mind that the defense is forwarding the information on mental health conditions like FASD and schizophrenia as mitigating factors but it doesn't necessarily work that way. Either or both could just as easily be seen as aggravating factors in sentencing, particularly the FASD, if it is seen as increasing the individual's risk due to lack of treatibility. I've got to say, as someone who works in a related field, FASD is a huge and seemingly intractible problem in the health system and criminal justice system, as well as other ministries. These individuals have permanent brain damage, through no fault of their own. The areas responsible for judgement and impulse control are particularly affected and it is a horrible, frustrating condition to live with. Many of these individuals that I've met hate their own behaviour but, almost by definition, can't stop it in the moment. I know that some on here will read that as an excuse or being "soft on crime" or "wanting to give them a latte" or some such drivel, but it's simple fact. Imagine growing up like that, living your life like that; forever screwing things up for yourself, alienating people, hurting people, even those that you love. That doesn't mean I'm not in favour of people being in custody if they pose a danger to others, it just means that I understand some of the driving factors of that risk.
    I believe it was written that the Judge was trying to protect the victim's identity - I'm not sure and definitely agree that there should be a reason why he didn't allow for it to be read.

    Definitely, the mental health issues are significant and a major factor. It doesn't mean that they shouldn't serve time but if they get 12 years like the friends and family of the victim seek - then would that mean justice was served or no?
  • Thirty Bills Unpaid
    Thirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 16,881
    oftenreading said:

    polaris_x said:

    so ... what is the primary complaint here!? ... that the judge didn't allow her victim impact statement to be read by her lawyer in court? ... or the potential sentencing?

    Referencing that case, polaris, I am puzzled by why the judge didn't allow the victim impact statement to be read out by someone else. It would be interesting to know the reason. It was reported as if it was simply the whim of the judge but I'm guessing - hoping? - there was some defensible reason for it. Not having it read out doesn't mean it doesn't get considered, though; it means that the public doesn't get to hear it.

    And as for the sentencing - of course the defense is asking for the minimum of what they think they can get away with. That's their job. That's always their job, in ever case. To my mind, that part means nothing. There's no sentence yet; plenty of time to complain when a sentence is handed down. I would agree that, on the face of it, this would seem to warrant the maximum sentence allowable.

    Also bear in mind that the defense is forwarding the information on mental health conditions like FASD and schizophrenia as mitigating factors but it doesn't necessarily work that way. Either or both could just as easily be seen as aggravating factors in sentencing, particularly the FASD, if it is seen as increasing the individual's risk due to lack of treatibility. I've got to say, as someone who works in a related field, FASD is a huge and seemingly intractible problem in the health system and criminal justice system, as well as other ministries. These individuals have permanent brain damage, through no fault of their own. The areas responsible for judgement and impulse control are particularly affected and it is a horrible, frustrating condition to live with. Many of these individuals that I've met hate their own behaviour but, almost by definition, can't stop it in the moment. I know that some on here will read that as an excuse or being "soft on crime" or "wanting to give them a latte" or some such drivel, but it's simple fact. Imagine growing up like that, living your life like that; forever screwing things up for yourself, alienating people, hurting people, even those that you love. That doesn't mean I'm not in favour of people being in custody if they pose a danger to others, it just means that I understand some of the driving factors of that risk.
    I can't think of what would be worse: living a life afflicted with FASD... or getting gang raped by two greasy strangers. Understanding some of the causal factors doesn't minimize the crime and doesn't minimize the threat.

    I know, there will be some that will read this submission on behalf of the victim as "bloodlust" or "revenge driven" or some such drivel, but it's a simple fact.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • oftenreading
    oftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,856
    edited August 2016
    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

    oftenreading said:

    polaris_x said:

    so ... what is the primary complaint here!? ... that the judge didn't allow her victim impact statement to be read by her lawyer in court? ... or the potential sentencing?

    Referencing that case, polaris, I am puzzled by why the judge didn't allow the victim impact statement to be read out by someone else. It would be interesting to know the reason. It was reported as if it was simply the whim of the judge but I'm guessing - hoping? - there was some defensible reason for it. Not having it read out doesn't mean it doesn't get considered, though; it means that the public doesn't get to hear it.

    And as for the sentencing - of course the defense is asking for the minimum of what they think they can get away with. That's their job. That's always their job, in ever case. To my mind, that part means nothing. There's no sentence yet; plenty of time to complain when a sentence is handed down. I would agree that, on the face of it, this would seem to warrant the maximum sentence allowable.

    Also bear in mind that the defense is forwarding the information on mental health conditions like FASD and schizophrenia as mitigating factors but it doesn't necessarily work that way. Either or both could just as easily be seen as aggravating factors in sentencing, particularly the FASD, if it is seen as increasing the individual's risk due to lack of treatibility. I've got to say, as someone who works in a related field, FASD is a huge and seemingly intractible problem in the health system and criminal justice system, as well as other ministries. These individuals have permanent brain damage, through no fault of their own. The areas responsible for judgement and impulse control are particularly affected and it is a horrible, frustrating condition to live with. Many of these individuals that I've met hate their own behaviour but, almost by definition, can't stop it in the moment. I know that some on here will read that as an excuse or being "soft on crime" or "wanting to give them a latte" or some such drivel, but it's simple fact. Imagine growing up like that, living your life like that; forever screwing things up for yourself, alienating people, hurting people, even those that you love. That doesn't mean I'm not in favour of people being in custody if they pose a danger to others, it just means that I understand some of the driving factors of that risk.
    I can't think of what would be worse: living a life afflicted with FASD... or getting gang raped by two greasy strangers. Understanding some of the causal factors doesn't minimize the crime and doesn't minimize the threat.

    I know, there will be some that will read this submission on behalf of the victim as "bloodlust" or "revenge driven" or some such drivel, but it's a simple fact.
    I don't believe that my post minimized the crime or the threat. Also, I don't think that any would call your post bloodlust, as you haven't actually suggested any particular sentence. If you were to suggest the DP in this instance, then yes, some might.
    Post edited by oftenreading on
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • lukin2006
    lukin2006 Posts: 9,087
    Health Minister Jane Philpott says she will personally pay back ‘excessive’ limousine expenses

    http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/health-minister-jane-philpott-says-she-will-personally-pay-back-excessive-limousine-expenses

    +1 for government
    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
  • lukin2006
    lukin2006 Posts: 9,087
    Terry Glavin: Canada’s servile relationship with China

    http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/terry-glavin-canadas-servile-relationship-with-china
    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
  • Thirty Bills Unpaid
    Thirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 16,881
    Guy serving three life sentences for raping a bunch of women is out on parole in Vancouver.

    http://www.straight.com/news/755341/police-warn-balaclava-rapist-larry-takahashi-living-vancouver#comment
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • lukin2006
    lukin2006 Posts: 9,087
    It seems a day doesn't go by without a story like that one ... unfortunately.
    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
  • Thirty Bills Unpaid
    Thirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 16,881
    edited August 2016
    lukin2006 said:

    It seems a day doesn't go by without a story like that one ... unfortunately.

    Edit: agreed.
    Post edited by Thirty Bills Unpaid on
    "My brain's a good brain!"
This discussion has been closed.

Categories