2 Calgary brothers charged with sex attack on teen

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Otto-matic

http://www.calgarysun.com/2016/12/08...ault-nightmare



Brutal just brutal.

I think the best outcome here is that they get found NCR and shipped off to the psych unit. Very little chance of them ever being out without supervision that way, as close to an indefinite sentence as realistically possible, which I think everyone agrees is a good thing.

[Boblobla]

http://globalnews.ca/news/3496938/se...-calgary-teen/

Is there a chance they get held for longer if they are determined NCR?

[northcrunk]

These two should spend the rest of their lives in prison. Not NCR. #### this system.

[Johnny Makarov]

How did the scumbag dad not get charged in this?

[CaptainCrunch]

How about every resident in the house.

That's a pretty disgusting crime, the victim is going to pay the price for the rest of her life.

[foshizzle11]

NCR? Can't any sane person read what they did to know that they knew exactly what they were doing? If they are NCR, they should be locked up for everyone else's safety, if that means in the psychiatric hospital, then fine.

[CliffFletcher]

Are we getting to the point where we regard all serious crime as a mental health issue? We can't contemplate anyone who has a full understanding of their action doing hideous things to others, so hideous crimes must de facto be the act of the mentally ill?

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Are we getting to the point where we regard all serious crime as a mental health issue? We can't contemplate anyone who has a full understanding of their action doing hideous things to others, so hideous crimes must de facto be the act of the mentally ill?

No, I don't think so. We're just getting a better understanding of mental health. It's progress. In yesteryears, if you did something extremely wrong and couldn't really explain it, it was because you were evil, your soul was corrupt, the devil talked to you. Today we now have the science to know of the electrical and chemical reactions going on in our heads. Sometimes the chemicals are imbalanced and the nerves aren't firing properly.

There's certainly a disconnect as us "normal" people we want to believe we have control over our actions and we understand right from wrong, and that we aren't just doing what we are doing because of some neurons in our brain, so we need to extend that to everyone. But science simply tells us, that isn't always the case. In some situations people have no control of their actions, in others, they don't know or can't understand right from wrong. It's not like FASD is a pseudoscience, it's known to have deliberating effects including diminishing mental capacity. At one point, and I'm not suggesting that is or isn't the case for these two brothers, but at one point we can't hold the same standards of someone "normal" to someone who science tells us has something wrong with them.

Of course the legal system know has a duty to not only dole out justice, but protect society when there is no justice to be had. (And again, not commenting on this case at all).

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

It's not like FASD is a pseudoscience, it's known to have deliberating effects including diminishing mental capacity. At one point, and I'm not suggesting that is or isn't the case for these two brothers, but at one point we can't hold the same standards of someone "normal" to someone who science tells us has something wrong with them.

So where do we draw the line? Low IQ impacts mental capacity and culpability, obviously. Does high IQ increase it? If mental capacity and responsibility are central issues in criminal justice, you could make a scientific case that we should sentence on a sliding scale plotted by intelligence. So someone with an IQ of 120 gets an 8 year sentence for sexual assault, while someone with an IQ of 80 gets a 5 year sentence, because the former presumably has more control and responsibility for his actions.

I don't think that's a wise path to take, and I worry that we're well on our way. Contrary to what we see on TV, most violent criminals have low IQs, awful family histories, and substance abuse issues. Reducing sentencing on the basis that those factors reduce culpability would seriously undermine the public's faith in the justice system and its role in keeping them safe.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

I think the best outcome here is that they get found NCR and shipped off to the psych unit. Very little chance of them ever being out without supervision that way, as close to an indefinite sentence as realistically possible, which I think everyone agrees is a good thing.

These guys need to spend a lot of time in either prison or a secure psych ward somewhere. Their lawyer stated that the FASD was off the spectrum and "It impacts their learning, it impacts their school, it impacts their inhibitions, their speech, it impacts their cognitive abilities, it impacts their knowledge of what's right and wrong." Obviously these guys are a threat to society and probably themselves and shouldn't be walking the streets in any capacity.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

So where do we draw the line? Low IQ impacts mental capacity and culpability, obviously.

It's a spectrum obviously, but the ability to tell right from wrong has to be the most important aspect for me. I get that not everyone believes our Justice System should include punishment (as opposed to just rehabilitation), but I mean if you are going to punish someone, I think they need to understand what they did was wrong.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I don't think that's a wise path to take, and I worry that we're well on our way. The fact is, most violent criminals have low IQs, awful family histories, and substance abuse issues. Reducing sentencing on the basis that those factors reduce culpability would seriously undermine the public's faith in the justice system and its role in keeping them safe.

But the Justice System should be not only about punishment but rehabilitation as well, in my mind. Maybe the people you described don't deserve the same punishment, but require longer rehabilitation, so I wouldn't necessarily suggest that shorter sentences for less intelligent people is the next logic step.

In any case, aggravating circumstances like that are already considered. Judges have to consider First Nation status in sentencing now:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...article535585/

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

But the Justice System should be not only about punishment but rehabilitation as well, in my mind. Maybe the people you described don't deserve the same punishment, but require longer rehabilitation, so I wouldn't necessarily suggest that shorter sentences for less intelligent people is the next logic step.

I agree that our justice system is also about rehabilitation. But this is where it gets tricky. FAS and low IQ aren't really things you can rehabilitate your way out of. If you have low or impaired mental capacity, you will likely have low or impaired mental capacity for life. When I was living a town up North I knew a woman who was an expert on treating children who were huffers. Based on the research at the time, she said there was no recovery from it. Once your brain was damaged by inhalants, it stayed damaged. The only point of treatment was to try to help people function in day-to-day living. They would never return to the way they were before. I'm no expert, but I understand FAS is the same.

Which brings us to the third element of our criminal justice system: Keeping the public safe. Is reduced sentencing on the basis of reduced capacity justified if it means putting the public at greater danger by giving lighter sentences to mentally less culpable but still dangerous offenders? I don't think it is.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I agree that our justice system is also about rehabilitation. But this is where it gets tricky. FAS and low IQ aren't really things you can rehabilitate your way out of.


Which brings us to the third element of our criminal justice system: Keeping the public safe. Is reduced sentencing on the basis of reduced capacity justified if it means putting the public at greater danger by giving lighter sentences to mentally less culpable but still dangerous offenders? I don't think it is.

But, that's not quite the argument, at least not mine.

Someone who can't be rehabilitated and a risk to society should not have a reduced sentence, they should really have an indefinite one. Maybe, if they are NCR, just not in jail but a mental institution.

I'd rather these brothers stay locked up in a mental institution, getting the help they can, and even the privileges they are capable of (when experts decide) for the rest of their lives, or at least until experts deem them no longer a threat, than have them out and about from jail in 6 years no matter what.

[aaronck]

These guys will be out way before the emotional scars of that poor girl heal.
Harsh punishment might be a good deterrent, but do we have such a thing in Canada? Vince Li is out and unsupervised. Karla Homolka volunteering at schools, Degrood applied already for less conditions. Natalie Pasqua almost killed another woman 5 years after pushing someone in front of a C train. Daniel Tschetter killed a whole family with his cement truck drunk and was out in less than 5. No sentence longer than 12 years for a cowardly swarming of Lukas Strasser (except the guy who just skipped bail and is still at large) Scary how light a lot of these sentences are, NCR or not.

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by aaronck

These guys will be out way before the emotional scars of that poor girl heal.
Harsh punishment might be a good deterrent, but do we have such a thing in Canada? Vince Li is out and unsupervised. Karla Homolka volunteering at schools, Degrood applied already for less conditions. Natalie Pasqua almost killed another woman 5 years after pushing someone in front of a C train. Daniel Tschetter killed a whole family with his cement truck drunk and was out in less than 5. No sentence longer than 12 years for a cowardly swarming of Lukas Strasser (except the guy who just skipped bail and is still at large) Scary how light a lot of these sentences are, NCR or not.

What would you be deterring someone from if they lack the ability to understand that their actions are wrong?

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

What would you be deterring someone from if they lack the ability to understand that their actions are wrong?

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

If they're incapable of understanding that their actions are wrong, and if its not a curable condition, which I understand FAS is, and on top of it they don't have a obvious support structure (Their dad and one of their girlfriends were present and did nothing.

Then the question of punishment and rehabilitation go out the window and you have to look at public safety and yes deterrence by removing them from society and situations that would test their abilities to understand if their actions are right or wrong.

Situations like this are really why a dangerous offender should exist. Similar to people with psychopathic conditions who are inclined to violence.

The question is what the incarceration and programs should be like then. Since they're incapable of understanding right from wrong the concept of punishment is irrelevant.

Lock them away in a mental facility, give them some kind of job or responsibility like making furniture, or some other self esteem building job and leave them there, because they can't be trusted in society.

[PepsiFree]

Agreed Captain, that's the issue though. An appropriate living facility doesn't really exist for people whose ability stops them from telling right and wrong (and who have acted out in a violent way).

Should there be an automatic life sentence of minor labour and below average living conditions for those who cannot be rehabilitated after committing violent crime? Can we know for sure that an offender can't be rehabilitated or helped? And what's the limit to the crime?

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

If they're incapable of understanding that their actions are wrong, and if its not a curable condition, which I understand FAS is, and on top of it they don't have a obvious support structure (Their dad and one of their girlfriends were present and did nothing.

Then the question of punishment and rehabilitation go out the window and you have to look at public safety and yes deterrence by removing them from society and situations that would test their abilities to understand if their actions are right or wrong.

Situations like this are really why a dangerous offender should exist. Similar to people with psychopathic conditions who are inclined to violence.

The question is what the incarceration and programs should be like then. Since they're incapable of understanding right from wrong the concept of punishment is irrelevant.

Lock them away in a mental facility, give them some kind of job or responsibility like making furniture, or some other self esteem building job and leave them there, because they can't be trusted in society.

So, I'm pretty sure you're actually just advocating for NCR at this point?

If they are found guilty, given Canadian laws, time served and aggravating circumstances, they likely only stay locked up for a couple years. Even the crown prosecutor is asking for only 12 years minus time served. With the chance of early release, along with the probability they don't get the max sentence given the aggravating circumstances, the bonus time for time already served, we're looking at a pretty good chance that Cody Manyshots is out around his 30th birthday. In any case, he's out before he's 35. It doesn't matter if he is rehabilitated or repents for his actions.

But if they are found NCR, they could be held indefinite as long as they pose a risk to the public, as decided by the review board and expert testimony. If they aren't rehabilitated, if they still pose a risk, they don't get released.

Protecting the public is actually the purpose of the NCR:
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/c...rr06_1/p1.html

The rationale for this separate stream is that, while the accused is not criminally responsible for his or her behaviour, the public may still require protection from future dangerous behaviour. Therefore, the goal of a Review Board is to conduct an individual assessment of the accused and subsequently craft a disposition that both protects the public and attempts to provide opportunities to treat the underlying mental disorder.

Until an NCRMD accused is given an absolute discharge, he or she will remain under the authority of the Review Board. In general, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the indeterminate nature of this scheme does not violate an NCRMD accused's liberties protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, the disposition is also not considered to be punitive in nature. As stated in R. v. Winko:

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by aaronck

These guys will be out way before the emotional scars of that poor girl heal.
Harsh punishment might be a good deterrent, but do we have such a thing in Canada? Vince Li is out and unsupervised. Karla Homolka volunteering at schools, Degrood applied already for less conditions. Natalie Pasqua almost killed another woman 5 years after pushing someone in front of a C train. Daniel Tschetter killed a whole family with his cement truck drunk and was out in less than 5. No sentence longer than 12 years for a cowardly swarming of Lukas Strasser (except the guy who just skipped bail and is still at large) Scary how light a lot of these sentences are, NCR or not.

Welcome to Canada.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by aaronck

These guys will be out way before the emotional scars of that poor girl heal.
Harsh punishment might be a good deterrent, but do we have such a thing in Canada? Vince Li is out and unsupervised. Karla Homolka volunteering at schools, Degrood applied already for less conditions. Natalie Pasqua almost killed another woman 5 years after pushing someone in front of a C train. Daniel Tschetter killed a whole family with his cement truck drunk and was out in less than 5. No sentence longer than 12 years for a cowardly swarming of Lukas Strasser (except the guy who just skipped bail and is still at large) Scary how light a lot of these sentences are, NCR or not.

You can't lump Vince Li and Matthew DeGrood in with the rest of those cases though. The circumstances were nothing alike and the framework in place was, and is being, used. If these two are found NCR, they will most likely be in custody much longer than if they were found guilty.

I do agree that the other cases you mentioned did result in sentences that were much too short.