Katie's Revenge

[cplcaldwell]

I would respectively disagree with exemjingo, but only to a degree...

The Criminal Code says;

236. Every person who commits manslaughter is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and

(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.1


IMHO, The real bad news will be when this cretin gets less than the max he is liable for.....



1The Criminal Code of Canada, Part VIII, 236

 

[zipperhead_cop]

The only thing wrong with the original story is that it should have been the State putting the label on the a$$hat and it should have been a brand, not a tattoo.

Oh, and the brand should press through the front, to the back.  :skull:

 

[exsemjingo]

Wouldn't that kill him?... oh, right.
Maybe you can answer this, Zipperhead.  Why is it that when the death penalty is discussed in this country, the immediate argument against it is 'what happens to the wrongfully convicted?'  The result is usually an end to the discussion, as happened in Parliament in 1968 when we abolished the death penalty.

Why doesn't anyone ever suggest death sentences for repeat offenders?  Real bad guys don't stop at one crime.

 

[gnome123]

The world has a lot of odd balls out their. Those two examples are going to be the bottom feeders in the prison. I hope their time seems an eternity and makes them think of what they had done.

 

[Kat Stevens]

The only problem with that is these shytbirds ENJOY thinking about what they've done.  A wood chipper should be in the yard of every prison that houses these sub-humans.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Wouldn't that kill him?... oh, right.
Maybe you can answer this, Zipperhead.  Why is it that when the death penalty is discussed in this country, the immediate argument against it is 'what happens to the wrongfully convicted?'  The result is usually an end to the discussion, as happened in Parliament in 1968 when we abolished the death penalty.

Why doesn't anyone ever suggest death sentences for repeat offenders?  Real bad guys don't stop at one crime.

It is probably as simple as the liberal MSM are so controlled (led?) by the left that since that isn't on their agenda it won't happen. 
So far as repeat offenders, as far as the court system is concerned, every time you go to court it is like your first time and you have a clean slate for the trial.  Sadly, this seems to carry over to sentencing well.  If people could get their heads around the idea that a mad dog should be put down, regardless that it walks on two legs, then we would be getting somewhere. 
I liked the suggestion of a Canadian version of the three strikes rule.  Three convictions and on the third one you do seven whole years.  No time off, no early release.  After the seven years (which is not in a Club Fed environment, but definitely an emphasis on education and counselling AFTER they have completed their hard labour tasks for the day in the sub-arctic camp they are in), you are on parole for fifteen years with rigid conditions.  If you get convicted again within that time frame, you are gone for life.  After the fifteen years, you simply get another seven and go back on parole again for another 15. 
So start building prisons.

 

[brihard]

Wouldn't that kill him?... oh, right.
Maybe you can answer this, Zipperhead.  Why is it that when the death penalty is discussed in this country, the immediate argument against it is 'what happens to the wrongfully convicted?'  The result is usually an end to the discussion, as happened in Parliament in 1968 when we abolished the death penalty.

Why doesn't anyone ever suggest death sentences for repeat offenders?  Real bad guys don't stop at one crime.

Tell me, what's the recidivism rate for murderers and other violent offenders?

I'll point you in the right direction- Google a Canadian publication called 'Juristat' and start reading.

For anyone to advocate the death penalty without having immediately on hand information such as recidivism rates, false conviction rates, and the like smacks of reactionary and ignorant attitudes towards the criminal justice system.

Zipperhead- I get where you're coming from. I've gotta get to my sociology and law classes right now, but when I get back I'll try to make a note to dig up some of the research done on what's actually proven beneficial in criminal reform and what impacts prisons have been shown to make. This should be an interesting discussion.

 

[spud]

I'll point you in the right direction- Google a Canadian publication called 'Juristat' and start reading.

Ahem. Is "Juristat" not a publication issued by Stats Canada? I think most of us that have a clue realize that statistics can be made to look however you want them too; and when it comes to our government agencies all bets are off. If you really want a good luck at the justice system try reading Michael Harris's "Con Game".

The gangs control the prisons, drugs are rampant,the guards are effectively neutered and administration is concerned with...well...the administration. In this case the inmates are running the asylum. Pertinent to the subject of capital punishment.....probably not. Pertinent to the subject of government objectives and statistics....I think so.

potato

p.s. Liberal lefties need not fear, we will coddle prisoners for many years to come.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Tell me, what's the recidivism rate for murderers and other violent offenders?

I don't know and frankly I don't care.  Recidivism for violent offences is huge, as many offences come under this category.  There are not too many multiple murderers that I am aware of, but that has nothing to do with the problems in the legal system. 

I'll point you in the right direction- Google a Canadian publication called 'Juristat' and start reading.

Yeah, thanks.  I think I've been pretty good at finding my own info thus far.  And stats don't mean squat. 
"There are deceptions, there are lies and then there are stats". 

For anyone to advocate the death penalty without having immediately on hand information such as recidivism rates, false conviction rates, and the like smacks of reactionary and ignorant attitudes towards the criminal justice system.

Okay, you may wish to dial down your text book zeal a notch.  I work in the system and my attitudes come from experience. 
And remember, a turned over conviction is not a "false" conviction.  A lack of a conviction does not necessarily indicate an existence of innocence, but in some cases just a failure of the system to work the right way.

Zipperhead- I get where you're coming from. I've gotta get to my sociology and law classes right now, but when I get back I'll try to make a note to dig up some of the research done on what's actually proven beneficial in criminal reform and what impacts prisons have been shown to make. This should be an interesting discussion.

I don't believe that this is the thread for it.  There is already a thread about "Judges are everything that is wrong in Canada" started by a wise individual.  Feel free to bring your book learnin' there and have at 'er.
Feel free to read it through before you start "serving" me.  :
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/49073/post-430088.html#msg430088

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Tell me, what's the recidivism rate for murderers and other violent offenders?

HUGE..and I've got 17 years of watching the revolving door so don't....


Anyways, taking ZC's advice this is locked and that other discussion can be done in the "Judge" thread.

 

[Infanteer]

For anyone to advocate the death penalty without having immediately on hand information such as recidivism rates, false conviction rates, and the like smacks of reactionary and ignorant attitudes towards the criminal justice system.

Nah, it's just when you get guys with 48 prior convictions getting picked up (yet again), you can see why I'm skeptical of putting them back in jail where they can write their book.  When perverts or guys who are "known to police" getting arrested for serious crimes such as murder (like the Toronto shootings) or abduction of a minor (like the dude in Saskatchewan) and you know these fellows have done something along the same lines before (gang violence/pedophilia/etc), the noose doesn't seem like a bad option.

As for having ignorant attitudes towards criminal justice system, if that means I'm fed up with the the lawyers, courts and politicians who are failing society, then I guess you can call me reactionary and ignorant.  I'm sure you can be pleased with the way your progressive ways have helped things along.