It's also easier to be affluent than poor. To come from a stable two-parent family than be raised by a single parent. To be sober than an addict. To have grown up surrounded by high-achievers than surrounded by slackers. To be educated rather than ignorant.
I don't know which of those background influences are admissible in sentencing. But if one (race) were to be treated fundamentally different from others, I'd want to see some credible evidence to support why it's fundamentally different and more egregious than the others. And some thought given to the outcomes of such a policy (such as the effect on the victims on crime in those communities).
Yeah, I pretty much touched on this in my response to CaptainYooh.
...
If someone grew up locked in a room and was never taught that killing was wrong, and there was therefore a path to rehabilitation, then I might be inclined to consider it. ...
When I was 12 yrs old, running around with a group of other school kids, I remember getting in trouble with some old guy who said something to us. One of the kids started talking back to him and then threw a small stick that hit him in the chest. We walked away, but the oldtimer followed us to school and complained to the principal. He then pointed at me as the culprit. To make things worse, the fellow turned out to be a decorated war veteran. I did not rat out the kid who did it, as that was a taboo. In the ensuing spectacle, I was publicly shamed in front of everyone, then my mom was called and told that I might be expelled for such a "heinous crime".
Only then I told the other kid to come forward, as it was going to be really ugly. He was not what you'd call a "good kid". Bad student, from a poor family with an alcoholic father. After we spoke, he went to the principal and told her the truth. Next day, she called us all again and praised him for doing the right thing, being honest and brave and all that. He was not punished, no consequences whatsoever. He was not even asked to apologize to the old guy. She never apologized to me or my mother either...
The principal took the same path you're suggesting: she gave that kid's personal circumstances a positive special consideration, where I would have gotten expelled for the same crime. Fair?
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
When I was 12 yrs old, running around with a group of other school kids, I remember getting in trouble with some old guy who said something to us. One of the kids started talking back to him and then threw a small stick that hit him in the chest. We walked away, but the oldtimer followed us to school and complained to the principal. He then pointed at me as the culprit. To make things worse, the fellow turned out to be a decorated war veteran. I did not rat out the kid who did it, as that was a taboo. In the ensuing spectacle, I was publicly shamed in front of everyone, then my mom was called and told that I might be expelled for such a "heinous crime".
Only then I told the other kid to come forward, as it was going to be really ugly. He was not what you'd call a "good kid". Bad student, from a poor family with an alcoholic father. After we spoke, he went to the principal and told her the truth. Next day, she called us all again and praised him for doing the right thing, being honest and brave and all that. He was not punished, no consequences whatsoever. He was not even asked to apologize to the old guy. She never apologized to me or my mother either...
The principal took the same path you're suggesting: she gave that kid's personal circumstances a positive special consideration, where I would have gotten expelled for the same crime. Fair?
The outcome of this scenario for you based on your posting on this site appears to be pretty good. So we can say that this situation the way it was resolved did not impact the outcome of your life. You also being a "good kid" likely would not have been expelled.
Do you happen to know what happened to the other kid and where he ended up? And would that outcome have been given improved by him being expelled from school?
The goal especially around youth crime and even into early adulthood is to provide the solution that will incur the lowest cost to society going forward. Considering the criminals past history and the circumstances leading him to the court in considering how best to rehabilitate him is a good idea.
...
Do you happen to know what happened to the other kid and where he ended up? And would that outcome have been given improved by him being expelled from school?..
I do, he's OK. The principal handled the whole thing really bad. First, she hugely overreacted to a relatively minor childish offense and then equally badly under-reacted when she found out who did it. Kinda like "Scent of the Woman" but from the opposite side.
I see this not about the potential outcome of rehabilitation efforts customized for a specific offender but about the judicial consideration for circumstances not applying to all equally. That is a big problem. I hope you are not suggesting that in my example, I should have been thankful to the kid for fessing up and to the principal for not expelling me after all.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
Last edited by CaptainYooh; 04-26-2017 at 06:12 PM.
I can see Aboriginal offenders getting special considerations, as European colonialists came here, killed many in battle, stuck them on reserves, and tries to eradicate their culture through forceful assimilation by the Government and the Catholic Church in residential schools. Our First Nations people deserve compassion.
People in Canada with African descent? No. That's ridiculous. Nobody forced any Black person to come to this country. If they want special treatment, let them move to a country that will accommodate them.
I do, he's OK. The principal handled the whole thing really bad. First, she hugely overreacted to a relatively minor childish offense and then equally badly under-reacted when she found out who did it. Kinda like "Scent of the Woman" but from the opposite side.
I see this not about the potential outcome of rehabilitation efforts customized for a specific offender but about the judicial consideration for circumstances not applying to all equally. That is a big problem. I hope you are not suggesting that in my example, I should have been thankful to the kid for fessing up and to the principal for not expelling me after all.
I'm saying you being a good student and a first offence wouldn't have gotten expelled anyways. Your background and history would have been considered in dolling out the punishment. I do agree she likely over reacted to you but disagree that she under reacted to the second kid. Context is important and outcome of a judicial process is important.
Under the current law posted in the 2nd reply the assessment of the context of the offenders background is to be considered for all offenders.
There is no special treatment here based on race just a reminder to consider it for specific races.
...I do agree she likely over reacted to you but disagree that she under reacted to the second kid. Context is important and outcome of a judicial process is important...
Yes, it is. But my example was a caricature of how the special consideration could affect the outcome of the judicial process. In essence, two people could be punished differently for the same (not similar; same) committed crime based on considerations given to their personal backgrounds. That should not happen.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
Yes, it is. But my example was a caricature of how the special consideration could affect the outcome of the judicial process. In essence, two people could be punished differently for the same (not similar; same) committed crime based on considerations given to their personal backgrounds. That should not happen.
I disagree with you,
The system should be focused on the best rehabilitation approach for each person especially for first offenders. You are looking at the Justice system as being a tool of punishment which in my opinion should be secondary to its focus on rehabilitation.
We also sentence based on personal background all the time, past criminal history is regularly considered as deserving of an increased severity for the same act. Why shouldn't mitigating factors for the action be considered as well?
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
I can see Aboriginal offenders getting special considerations, as European colonialists came here, killed many in battle, stuck them on reserves, and tries to eradicate their culture through forceful assimilation by the Government and the Catholic Church in residential schools. Our First Nations people deserve compassion.
People in Canada with African descent? No. That's ridiculous. Nobody forced any Black person to come to this country. If they want special treatment, let them move to a country that will accommodate them.
This not only makes little sense, but telling a group of people to "move" if they don't like the systemic racism present in our western society is not only ignorant, it's borderline hateful.
Nobody is asking for special treatment, nor is it being suggested. What is being suggested is a simple consideration of negative treatment already present. Read better or grow up.
This not only makes little sense, but telling a group of people to "move" if they don't like the systemic racism present in our western society is not only ignorant, it's borderline hateful.
1) Can you cite some societies that Western society can learn some lessons from regarding toleration of diversity and acceptance of differences?
2) Are all inequalities of outcome due to systemic oppression?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
I can see Aboriginal offenders getting special considerations, as European colonialists came here, killed many in battle, stuck them on reserves, and tries to eradicate their culture through forceful assimilation by the Government and the Catholic Church in residential schools. Our First Nations people deserve compassion.
People in Canada with African descent? No. That's ridiculous. Nobody forced any Black person to come to this country. If they want special treatment, let them move to a country that will accommodate them.
Of course a guy with an Israel flag as his avatar would make a post like this.
Isn't being born in this country being forced to "come to this country"?
The Following User Says Thank You to calgaryblood For This Useful Post:
1) Can you cite some societies that Western society can learn some lessons from regarding toleration of diversity and acceptance of differences?
2) Are all inequalities of outcome due to systemic oppression?
1. No, but I'm assuming we're leading the pack. Do you have experience living in other societies that proves differently? Admittedly, my experience is limited to western society, but never in my life have I been taught that being better than the next guy means you have nothing to improve upon. I don't believe we've run out of work to do. Do you?
2. Maybe? and I'm struggingly to see the point you're making, can you clarify? This topic is about recognising systemic racism during the sentencing procedure, as we recognise things like major systemic factors that impact homeless people, for example.
Do you deny the existence of systemic racism Cliff? Because it seems like that's what you're getting at, or at very least denying the relevance of it in society.
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
The system should be focused on the best rehabilitation approach for each person especially for first offenders. You are looking at the Justice system as being a tool of punishment which in my opinion should be secondary to its focus on rehabilitation...
Rehabilitation is just one of the justice system components. I don't believe the system should be giving some components more focus than others. Not everyone needs rehabilitation after committing an offense or a crime and not everyone could be rehabilitated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
...
We also sentence based on personal background all the time, past criminal history is regularly considered as deserving of an increased severity for the same act. Why shouldn't mitigating factors for the action be considered as well?
Mitigating factors are mitigating factors; no dispute here. I return to the same premise where we've started: all other things being equal, the proposed change could have the same judge sentence two criminals for the SAME crime differently based only on their cultural/racial background; thus, making their background a mitigating factor. That is wrong. I only argue that point.
Here's another example: a Palestinian immigrant desecrating a Canadian synagogue, because he is really angry about his family's difficult situation back in Gaza vs. a white supremacist doing the same thing out of simple hate. If I understand your line of argument correctly, the first guy's background should be given a special positive consideration in deliberating a verdict, severity of offense and sentencing, while the second guy should not be given this consideration. (BTW, I totally appreciate that one of them could be a repeat offender with history of similar incidents; granted.) But assuming that there are no such other factors, I argue they should both receive the same treatment by courts regardless of their cultural and racial background.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainYooh For This Useful Post:
Of course a guy with an Israel flag as his avatar would make a post like this.
How are Israel and Canada different. Both countries are predominantly inhabited by people of European ancestry. Both had different ethnic groups living there, only to lose their status as the predominant culture, once outside settlers arrived. The only difference really, is in Israel, the Jews were in Palestine for 2,000 years, so they had a significant history in the Holy Land, even though their numbers never really exceeded 10% of the population, for centuries. Keep in mind that despite our assurances that Canada is the most tolerant country in the World, we have always had blood on our hands, when it comes to how we treated our First Nations people:
I haven't bothered to read through the whole thread because, well these threads tend to be fairly predictable, but my two cents worth as someone with forty years of working with offenders of all races both in the UK and Canada from minor thefts to rape and murder, is that they almost all come from the same kind of god awful background you wouldn't want raise a dog in, there is no difference between being the white trash offspring of a crack addict growing up next door to a native family on the DTES and being the native kid that the white trash kid hangs out with, smokes weed with, learns to steal with, joins a gang with.
If you are a lifetime criminal you are mostly illiterate, struggling with addiction issues, FASD and sundry other symptoms of a neglected and abused childhood, race is not the issue
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
1. No, but I'm assuming we're leading the pack. Do you have experience living in other societies that proves differently? Admittedly, my experience is limited to western society, but never in my life have I been taught that being better than the next guy means you have nothing to improve upon. I don't believe we've run out of work to do. Do you?
2. Maybe? and I'm struggingly to see the point you're making, can you clarify? This topic is about recognising systemic racism during the sentencing procedure, as we recognise things like major systemic factors that impact homeless people, for example.
Do you deny the existence of systemic racism Cliff? Because it seems like that's what you're getting at, or at very least denying the relevance of it in society.
PepsiFree, I can voice my opinion if choose to do so. What gives you the right to be a social justice warrior, and tell others to "grow up" for their opposing views? Maybe you need to accept that people will not have the same viewpoint as yourself. What would you do about systemic racism if you were in charge of things? How would you change things?
