Canadian Politics Redux

oftenreading · October 2016

PJ_Soul said:

oftenreading said:
I'm curious about the opinions of those on here about Warren Glowatski. He took full responsibility right from the start, participated in all programs available to him, including a restorative justice program with the Virks, was a model inmate in custody, and got full parole in 2010. I tried to do a quick search to find out what has happened with him since, and absolutely nothing came up, which suggests he hasn't been in any trouble, at least. So, do people think his release was justified, or should he have remained in custody?
I think that rehabilitation is totally possible. People can turn their lives around, and I think there are ways to evaluate that their rehabilitation is real or not. This all depends on the crime of course. I don't think pedophiles can be rehabilitated, so I support court ordered chemical castration. I obviously don't think that psychopaths can be rehabilitated, so if they have committed violent crimes they should stay in prison forever. But yeah, rehabilitation of people without those kinds of anti-social personality disorders is possible and I support giving people a second chance if they reasonably show that they have changed and are no longer a danger to society. I just don't think for one second that Kelly Ellard is rehabilitated. I think she's a sociopath.

I mostly agree with you, but not the part about court-ordered chemical castration. The way our legal system is set up in Canada it can not force anyone to take medication, and frankly I'm not convinced it's a good thing to go down the road of allowing our legal system to make medical decisions. Plus it's also not a straightforward or foolproof situation; it's pretty fiddly, actually, with multiple different medication options and varying rates of success.

Thirty, want to offer an opinion on Glowatski's situation? You have been generally anti-rehabilitation, particularly for serious crimes.

PJ_Soul · October 2016

oftenreading said:

PJ_Soul said:

oftenreading said:
I'm curious about the opinions of those on here about Warren Glowatski. He took full responsibility right from the start, participated in all programs available to him, including a restorative justice program with the Virks, was a model inmate in custody, and got full parole in 2010. I tried to do a quick search to find out what has happened with him since, and absolutely nothing came up, which suggests he hasn't been in any trouble, at least. So, do people think his release was justified, or should he have remained in custody?
I think that rehabilitation is totally possible. People can turn their lives around, and I think there are ways to evaluate that their rehabilitation is real or not. This all depends on the crime of course. I don't think pedophiles can be rehabilitated, so I support court ordered chemical castration. I obviously don't think that psychopaths can be rehabilitated, so if they have committed violent crimes they should stay in prison forever. But yeah, rehabilitation of people without those kinds of anti-social personality disorders is possible and I support giving people a second chance if they reasonably show that they have changed and are no longer a danger to society. I just don't think for one second that Kelly Ellard is rehabilitated. I think she's a sociopath.
I mostly agree with you, but not the part about court-ordered chemical castration. The way our legal system is set up in Canada it can not force anyone to take medication, and frankly I'm not convinced it's a good thing to go down the road of allowing our legal system to make medical decisions. Plus it's also not a straightforward or foolproof situation; it's pretty fiddly, actually, with multiple different medication options and varying rates of success.

Thirty, want to offer an opinion on Glowatski's situation? You have been generally anti-rehabilitation, particularly for serious crimes.

I think it's entirely possible to have laws such as enforced chemical castration (monitored forever of course, to deal with the "fiddly" factor you mention) and still be able to maintain reasonable limits when it comes to the legal system making medical decisions. As is the case with things such as medical treatment being withheld from children and things like that. I think we just need to make sure that the legal system has judges who we can trust to make good, common sense decisions that prevent abuse.

lukin2006 · October 2016

Pumping someone with chemicals to castrate them is ridiculous, what if at a later date they are proven innocent? Even though it is reversible (apparently}, the procedure can leaving negative effects to the body, not to mention lasting mental illness effects...

PJ_Soul · October 2016

lukin2006 said:
Pumping someone with chemicals to castrate them is ridiculous, what if at a later date they are proven innocent? Even though it is reversible (apparently}, the procedure can leaving negative effects to the body, not to mention lasting mental illness effects...

I tend to weigh negatives against positives, likelihood against unlikelihood, . In this case, I think the positives and unlikelihoods outweigh the possible and very unlikely negatives. If we were arguing the death penalty, I would agree with you. Also, I would support giving the pedophile a choice. Stay in prison, or accept chemical castration. As far as what if he were innocent... that is a case by case thing, but how many wrongly accused people are or have been in prison for sexually abusing children? I'm not talking about 'some student said the teacher molested her' cases, or those awful cases where there is a nasty divorce and the kid is coached by a parent. I'm talking about habitual child abusers... most of whom are actually upfront about their crimes once caught.

oftenreading · October 2016

I'm still a no on the idea of the criminal justice system being able to force people to take medication. It's not within their area of expertise. I deal regularly with the legal system (in a professional capacity, of course

) and don't have confidence that they would get this right.

lukin2006 · October 2016

Thats the response I expected

Capital Punishment not okay in case of a miscarriage of justice

Chemical Castration okay even in the case of a miscarriage of justice because the positives outweigh the negatives, unless you are innocent, wonder if the innocent would feel that it was positive for society...

And how the fuck am I to know how many prisoners in Canada are innocent, I just assumed that why we abolished the death penalty, just in case of wrongful conviction, probably the same reason we no longer allow corporal punishment, or chemical castration just in case of a miscarriage...hahahahahahah.

PJ_Soul · October 2016

lukin2006 said:
Thats the response I expected

Capital Punishment not okay in case of a miscarriage of justice

Chemical Castration okay even in the case of a miscarriage of justice because the positives outweigh the negatives, unless you are innocent, wonder if the innocent would feel that it was positive for society...

And how the fuck am I to know how many prisoners in Canada are innocent, I just assumed that why we abolished the death penalty, just in case of wrongful conviction, probably the same reason we no longer allow corporal punishment, or chemical castration just in case of a miscarriage...hahahahahahah.

Lol. News flash: the death penalty is irreversible. Chemical castration is not. That is why I specifically put the "chemical" in front of the "castration". That is a very important distinction. These are not comparable things at all. Plus, taking a life vs taking an uncontrollable sex drive. Hmm. Not exactly equal, lol.

Thirty Bills Unpaid · October 2016

oftenreading said:

PJ_Soul said:

oftenreading said:
I'm curious about the opinions of those on here about Warren Glowatski. He took full responsibility right from the start, participated in all programs available to him, including a restorative justice program with the Virks, was a model inmate in custody, and got full parole in 2010. I tried to do a quick search to find out what has happened with him since, and absolutely nothing came up, which suggests he hasn't been in any trouble, at least. So, do people think his release was justified, or should he have remained in custody?
I think that rehabilitation is totally possible. People can turn their lives around, and I think there are ways to evaluate that their rehabilitation is real or not. This all depends on the crime of course. I don't think pedophiles can be rehabilitated, so I support court ordered chemical castration. I obviously don't think that psychopaths can be rehabilitated, so if they have committed violent crimes they should stay in prison forever. But yeah, rehabilitation of people without those kinds of anti-social personality disorders is possible and I support giving people a second chance if they reasonably show that they have changed and are no longer a danger to society. I just don't think for one second that Kelly Ellard is rehabilitated. I think she's a sociopath.
I mostly agree with you, but not the part about court-ordered chemical castration. The way our legal system is set up in Canada it can not force anyone to take medication, and frankly I'm not convinced it's a good thing to go down the road of allowing our legal system to make medical decisions. Plus it's also not a straightforward or foolproof situation; it's pretty fiddly, actually, with multiple different medication options and varying rates of success.

Thirty, want to offer an opinion on Glowatski's situation? You have been generally anti-rehabilitation, particularly for serious crimes.

I did offer a perspective a few posts ago.

PJ_Soul · October 2016

oftenreading said:
I'm still a no on the idea of the criminal justice system being able to force people to take medication. It's not within their area of expertise. I deal regularly with the legal system (in a professional capacity, of course ) and don't have confidence that they would get this right.

But the system already does that. It still prevents people from turning to doctor assisted suicide in a lot of cases, and it has been known to force parents to provide children with medical treatments against their will. It also recently convicted parents for not providing care to a child because it was their will to use alternative treatments. I do not personally think that the slippery slope theory has to be invoked when it comes to this issue. I feel that it can maintain a logical level on a case-by-case basis.

oftenreading · October 2016

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

oftenreading said:

PJ_Soul said:

oftenreading said:
I'm curious about the opinions of those on here about Warren Glowatski. He took full responsibility right from the start, participated in all programs available to him, including a restorative justice program with the Virks, was a model inmate in custody, and got full parole in 2010. I tried to do a quick search to find out what has happened with him since, and absolutely nothing came up, which suggests he hasn't been in any trouble, at least. So, do people think his release was justified, or should he have remained in custody?
I think that rehabilitation is totally possible. People can turn their lives around, and I think there are ways to evaluate that their rehabilitation is real or not. This all depends on the crime of course. I don't think pedophiles can be rehabilitated, so I support court ordered chemical castration. I obviously don't think that psychopaths can be rehabilitated, so if they have committed violent crimes they should stay in prison forever. But yeah, rehabilitation of people without those kinds of anti-social personality disorders is possible and I support giving people a second chance if they reasonably show that they have changed and are no longer a danger to society. I just don't think for one second that Kelly Ellard is rehabilitated. I think she's a sociopath.
I mostly agree with you, but not the part about court-ordered chemical castration. The way our legal system is set up in Canada it can not force anyone to take medication, and frankly I'm not convinced it's a good thing to go down the road of allowing our legal system to make medical decisions. Plus it's also not a straightforward or foolproof situation; it's pretty fiddly, actually, with multiple different medication options and varying rates of success.

Thirty, want to offer an opinion on Glowatski's situation? You have been generally anti-rehabilitation, particularly for serious crimes.
I did offer a perspective a few posts ago.

Sorry - somehow I totally missed that in the series of posts.

mookeywrench · October 2016

Bump to get open threads on page 1

lukin2006 · October 2016

Not worth bumping, compared to the entertainment south of us, Canadians Politics are boring...lol

PJfanwillneverleave1 · October 2016

^^^
Agree.
Trudeau is going to sign the EU trade deal that Harper negotiated.
Boring.

lukin2006 · October 2016

^^^Even the standoff with Belgium was boring...

HughFreakingDillon · October 2016

i'd take boring politics any day over the fucking circus in the states.

HughFreakingDillon · November 2016

jesus it's good to be canadian.

jeffbr · November 2016

From the Economist: Liberty Moves North

HughFreakingDillon · November 2016

jeffbr said:
From the Economist: Liberty Moves North

jeffbr · November 2016

HughFreakingDillon said:

jeffbr said:
From the Economist: Liberty Moves North

When you talked about boring politics vs the US circus it reminded me of this from the article:
"Irredeemably dull by reputation, less brash and bellicose than America, Canada has long seemed to outsiders to be a citadel of decency, tolerance and good sense. Charles Dickens, bewildered by a visit to America in 1842, found relief in Canada, where he saw “public feeling and private enterprise in a sound and wholesome state; nothing of flush or fever in its system.” Modern Canada’s social safety net is stronger than America’s; its gun-control laws saner. Today, in its lonely defence of liberal values, Canada seems downright heroic. In an age of seductive extremes, it remains reassuringly level-headed."

I'm a Canada fan. I've had people who have known me for years ask if I was an ex-pat from Canada, because I tend to point north when asked about what I'd like to see in our country (and I always sing your anthem louder than mine at sporting events, lol). At some point I'm going to make my 2.5 hour drive north permanent. I've about had it with the US. Sooner rather than later depending on our election results!

HughFreakingDillon · November 2016

jeffbr said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

jeffbr said:
From the Economist: Liberty Moves North

When you talked about boring politics vs the US circus it reminded me of this from the article:
"Irredeemably dull by reputation, less brash and bellicose than America, Canada has long seemed to outsiders to be a citadel of decency, tolerance and good sense. Charles Dickens, bewildered by a visit to America in 1842, found relief in Canada, where he saw “public feeling and private enterprise in a sound and wholesome state; nothing of flush or fever in its system.” Modern Canada’s social safety net is stronger than America’s; its gun-control laws saner. Today, in its lonely defence of liberal values, Canada seems downright heroic. In an age of seductive extremes, it remains reassuringly level-headed."

I'm a Canada fan. I've had people who have known me for years ask if I was an ex-pat from Canada, because I tend to point north when asked about what I'd like to see in our country (and I always sing your anthem louder than mine at sporting events, lol). At some point I'm going to make my 2.5 hour drive north permanent. I've about had it with the US. Sooner rather than later depending on our election results!

I think level headed is a great way to describe Canada. in a world full of extremes, Canada remains calm and doesn't freak out.

Canadian Politics Redux

Comments

Categories