Gagetown soldiers charged with drug trafficking
- Thread starter 043
- Start date
- Status
the 48th regulator
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
2023 said:
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
Stop perpetuating the myth. If you have something relevent to say, on either subject, then do it.
dileas
tess
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
IF these individuals are found guilty they are most likely done consider the fate of those sent home from A Stan.
Well
I am glad to see there are so many judge, jurors and executioners on this site. What happened to innocent until proven guilty. I happen to know one of the individuals and I KNOW he is innocent. Put yourselves in his place. Accused, reputation tarnished, tour lost, and he did nothing. Don't be so quick to jump on the accusation bandwagon.
I am glad to see there are so many judge, jurors and executioners on this site. What happened to innocent until proven guilty. I happen to know one of the individuals and I KNOW he is innocent. Put yourselves in his place. Accused, reputation tarnished, tour lost, and he did nothing. Don't be so quick to jump on the accusation bandwagon.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
2023,
Please review what you said and take a second to rethink if you want it to be their. Edit it out if your second thought tells you it was not appropriate. I would suggest you edit it out.
48th is being polite to you.
Now on to these accused 5, what a shame they did this. They will have tarnished their unit and the public view unfortunately. They will pay and good on the investigators rooting out some more less then acceptable that got past the door.
Please review what you said and take a second to rethink if you want it to be their. Edit it out if your second thought tells you it was not appropriate. I would suggest you edit it out.
48th is being polite to you.
Now on to these accused 5, what a shame they did this. They will have tarnished their unit and the public view unfortunately. They will pay and good on the investigators rooting out some more less then acceptable that got past the door.
Get a grip!
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Caper,
Good point that is why most of us are using the words accused.
G2G.....WTF are you talking about? I only suggest 2023 re read his post which I don't want to quote so he can edit it....the "edited out four letter word" part. If I quote it then I have to edit it out once he makes the right choice.
Good point that is why most of us are using the words accused.
G2G.....WTF are you talking about? I only suggest 2023 re read his post which I don't want to quote so he can edit it....the "edited out four letter word" part. If I quote it then I have to edit it out once he makes the right choice.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 210
CFNIS has been (unfortunately) getting a fair bit of practice at this sort of investigation.
Edmonton, Valcartier, now Gagetown.
WhileCaptain Scarlet (ummmm sorry What's that in German?) is quite right to say "If Convicted" the track record CFNIS has on these types of investigations speaks for itself.
I will be withholding my mighty wrath from striking down these individuals until after the trial(s), but the damage to themselves and their units is already done.
Caper09: I applaud you for standing by your bud (Seriously), but keep in mind, the guys in Edmonton did all their business downtown. No one on base knew a thing until the civy cops called.
Edmonton, Valcartier, now Gagetown.
While
I will be withholding my mighty wrath from striking down these individuals until after the trial(s), but the damage to themselves and their units is already done.
Caper09: I applaud you for standing by your bud (Seriously), but keep in mind, the guys in Edmonton did all their business downtown. No one on base knew a thing until the civy cops called.
- Reaction score
- 22,049
- Points
- 1,360
3rd Horseman said:
That's exactly my point. You chastise 2023 for the PTSD comment, then you merrily sail along with "what a shame", "they will have tarnished..." and "they will pay." HS qualified his comments about "if convicted" at the very beginning of the thread...you didn't. The contrast between your position towards 2023 and your tone/words immediately following the chastisement is startling, espsecially since it's all in the same post.
G2G
INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY
I'm going against the grain here but if convicted, two years in club Ed, then kick 'em out of the forces is a suitable punishment in my mind.
Criminal sentencing is supposed to use the minimum restriction necessary to accomplish its goals. Look at the roles and goals of sentencing:
Specific deterrence
General deterrence
Denunciation
Rehabilitation
Punishment
Separation from society
Two years in club Ed and a dishonourable is as good an act of deterrence as anyone in the forces could possibly need to see. Anything beyond that has no value added in deterring others from committing those crimes.
Denunciation of the crime is clearly accomplished throughout the C.F. community through the imprisonment itself as well as the fact that they're deemed unworthy of serving the country. I can eprsonally think of no greater shame for a soldier than that.
Rehabilitation: If Club Ed doesn't rehabilitate and discipline an offender, nothing will.
Punishment: See above.
Separation from society: No, strictly speaking, a necessary factor in this case. Certainly they'll be out of circulation long enough for any drug contacts they have to move on to other dealers or suppliers. Unless there is demonstrable harm to people other than those voluntarily purchasing the drugs supplied, there's no need to deem them a clear and present danger to society and separate them longer than necessary.
Moreover, factor in other rehabilitative factors: At least one, if not several or all of them have families and kids. That's been conclusively shown to be a stabilizing force in criminal reform. It's likely that these guys found themselves in a comfortable pattern of 'safely' offending which has now been rather harshly interrupted. Odds of them slipping back into this lifestyle are rather slim, especially if they have families to look after when they get out.
Now, there may be other aggravating or mitigating factors at play here, but from when I've read this is my take on it.
Out of curiosity, when one is sentenced to, say, 2 years in detention barracks, is there any system of parole?
I'm going against the grain here but if convicted, two years in club Ed, then kick 'em out of the forces is a suitable punishment in my mind.
Criminal sentencing is supposed to use the minimum restriction necessary to accomplish its goals. Look at the roles and goals of sentencing:
Specific deterrence
General deterrence
Denunciation
Rehabilitation
Punishment
Separation from society
Two years in club Ed and a dishonourable is as good an act of deterrence as anyone in the forces could possibly need to see. Anything beyond that has no value added in deterring others from committing those crimes.
Denunciation of the crime is clearly accomplished throughout the C.F. community through the imprisonment itself as well as the fact that they're deemed unworthy of serving the country. I can eprsonally think of no greater shame for a soldier than that.
Rehabilitation: If Club Ed doesn't rehabilitate and discipline an offender, nothing will.
Punishment: See above.
Separation from society: No, strictly speaking, a necessary factor in this case. Certainly they'll be out of circulation long enough for any drug contacts they have to move on to other dealers or suppliers. Unless there is demonstrable harm to people other than those voluntarily purchasing the drugs supplied, there's no need to deem them a clear and present danger to society and separate them longer than necessary.
Moreover, factor in other rehabilitative factors: At least one, if not several or all of them have families and kids. That's been conclusively shown to be a stabilizing force in criminal reform. It's likely that these guys found themselves in a comfortable pattern of 'safely' offending which has now been rather harshly interrupted. Odds of them slipping back into this lifestyle are rather slim, especially if they have families to look after when they get out.
Now, there may be other aggravating or mitigating factors at play here, but from when I've read this is my take on it.
Out of curiosity, when one is sentenced to, say, 2 years in detention barracks, is there any system of parole?
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
Good2Golf said:
As the Judge said "March the guilty bastard in."
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 184
- Points
- 710
3rd Horseman said:
:
I suppose that is why you posted the four letter acronym over once again?
Thoughts not being communicated by motor functions and being lost in translation in the written word?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Good2Golf said:
Actually I said Accused! My issue was was not with his comments other than the reference to "four letter word to remain edited". Only that word is the issue.
I did not want to but you have drawn me into it. Bun fight over.
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 184
- Points
- 710
Brihard said:
Yes. For good behaviour, the sentence is reduced fractionally. However, this still does not negate the transfer after Release to a Federal Institution.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Caper: Yes, we do have an innocent until proven guilty burden of proof in our criminal justice system and yes, these accused have every reason to believe that the prosecutors will have to bear the onus to prove beyond a doubt that they are guilty. However, in my decades of lawyering I've only ever seen a handful of examples where the accused was wrongly convicted or they were wrongly accused. The 18,000 federal inmates and the thousands of provincial bucket inmates pretty much speak to the diligence of investigating agencies and prosecutors that those accused of a crime were in fact guilty of the said crime. If the prosecutor can not beyond a reasonable doubt led evidence that will in all likelihood afford a finding of guilt, then your buddy will be acquitted and life goes on.
Now here's another little reality, most first time accused will plead their innocence as, "This is the first time I've ever been in trouble." What that means to those in the legal/law enforcement/incarceraton business is that it's the first time that person as been caught carrying on with their criminal behaviour. Very few first time offenders or accused are also new to the life of criminal behaviour and activity. Actually very few people are completely innocent of any criminal behaviour at any point in their life - from the shop lifting as a kid, to accepting the cashier's error of overchanging and not returning the money, to the intentional dangerous driving, to trying to sneak home in your own car after a night at the mess and a few drinks that got you slightly over the limit, to giving your 18 year kid a pack of smokes etc. It's all a matter of time that anyone engaging in that type of behaviour will get caught. and the deer caught in the headlight looks surface and the comment, "this is the first time I've ever been in trouble" are uttered.
And then this reality, as I mentioned above, there are a few incidents of a person being wrongly accused and worse a few more have fallen through the cracks to be wrongly convicted as well. However, in light of those very much publicized cases, LEO, and their agencies on the whole, do a careful investigation before information is laid to have the person charged with a crime. The prosecutor's office is also careful at reviewing the case prior to the formal charges with numerous thresholds to be met. With the current condition of our judicial system being overstretched in its resources, it is unlikely that much guesswork and judicial fishing trips for guilty persons are going on in the civilian and military courts. There isn't enough time in the day to deal with all of the what ifs and could bes... there is a very large percentage that your buddy had enough evidence against him to bring about charges which the prosecutor felt that given a fair and impartial trial of his peers which are presented with the evidence would in all likelihood be able to make a finding of guilt and convict.
The comments so far on this thread have all stated quites clearly, alleged and IF convicted. I haven't seen anyone as yet, rendering a finding of guilt.
Now to the numbered person who made the comment on PTSD, any one familiar with defences of drug offences knows that the small "I" insanity defence would only go to mitigate sentencing AFTER conviction. It cannot be offered as a defence to the alleged crime. As for your implications of PTSD being crap (and please clarify of you meant anything else), can you please post your credentials to which I would hope include either a designation of psychiatry or psychology and your publications and research that discounts the disorder.
As for the speculation to the actual sentence should a finding of guilt be rendered, unless the accused are now being charged under an act other than the NDA, it all just speculation.
Now here's another little reality, most first time accused will plead their innocence as, "This is the first time I've ever been in trouble." What that means to those in the legal/law enforcement/incarceraton business is that it's the first time that person as been caught carrying on with their criminal behaviour. Very few first time offenders or accused are also new to the life of criminal behaviour and activity. Actually very few people are completely innocent of any criminal behaviour at any point in their life - from the shop lifting as a kid, to accepting the cashier's error of overchanging and not returning the money, to the intentional dangerous driving, to trying to sneak home in your own car after a night at the mess and a few drinks that got you slightly over the limit, to giving your 18 year kid a pack of smokes etc. It's all a matter of time that anyone engaging in that type of behaviour will get caught. and the deer caught in the headlight looks surface and the comment, "this is the first time I've ever been in trouble" are uttered.
And then this reality, as I mentioned above, there are a few incidents of a person being wrongly accused and worse a few more have fallen through the cracks to be wrongly convicted as well. However, in light of those very much publicized cases, LEO, and their agencies on the whole, do a careful investigation before information is laid to have the person charged with a crime. The prosecutor's office is also careful at reviewing the case prior to the formal charges with numerous thresholds to be met. With the current condition of our judicial system being overstretched in its resources, it is unlikely that much guesswork and judicial fishing trips for guilty persons are going on in the civilian and military courts. There isn't enough time in the day to deal with all of the what ifs and could bes... there is a very large percentage that your buddy had enough evidence against him to bring about charges which the prosecutor felt that given a fair and impartial trial of his peers which are presented with the evidence would in all likelihood be able to make a finding of guilt and convict.
The comments so far on this thread have all stated quites clearly, alleged and IF convicted. I haven't seen anyone as yet, rendering a finding of guilt.
Now to the numbered person who made the comment on PTSD, any one familiar with defences of drug offences knows that the small "I" insanity defence would only go to mitigate sentencing AFTER conviction. It cannot be offered as a defence to the alleged crime. As for your implications of PTSD being crap (and please clarify of you meant anything else), can you please post your credentials to which I would hope include either a designation of psychiatry or psychology and your publications and research that discounts the disorder.
As for the speculation to the actual sentence should a finding of guilt be rendered, unless the accused are now being charged under an act other than the NDA, it all just speculation.
- Status
Similar threads
