Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 07-07-2017, 12:52 PM   #201
Tfong
Draft Pick
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang View Post
Now apply that logic to killing someone with your car. The courts have the ability to consider all factors and proceed accordingly. There is a massive difference between me killing someone while having a medical issue, a pedestrian that popped out into traffic, running someone down intentionally in road rage, drinking and driving, texting and not seeing a red light, etc.

The end result is that someone else is dead, and that sucks. But the law will be applied according to the contributing factors, not in a knee jerk fashion.

Apples to oranges, obviously, but let's not pretend that we'd like the law to be ignorantly black and white.
Yes and this goes into intent and severity. "Exceptions and conditions" as I basically refer to them as. If we remove these then people get the same punishment per damage done to victim regardless of intent and severity. I am fully aware that means sometimes people are put into prison or punished therefore without truly deserving it. But i maintain that the amount of people in this case hurt by this system of "black/white" is less than that of our current system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube View Post
Actually no, it's the difference between whether you believe the justice system benefits society better when operated under a punitive model vs a rehabilitative model.
This is where my view of the justice system usually clashes with others as I sit on the punitive model side versus our current "probability of rehabilitation" model.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov View Post
Removing the concept of moral blameworthiness from our criminal law would be a truly radical departure. A purely consequence-focused criminal law would punish the person who negligently kills another person in a car accident exactly the same as a person who plans the deliberate killing of his wife.

Very few people would call that justice.
This goes back to my argument about exceptions and conditions in order to determine intent and maliciousness of an act. while there would be people that only deserve "manslaughter" punishment but instead get the same punishment as "first degree murder" I reason that this would protect society far better. Basically there would be no probability of "violent murder" reoffenses because the situation would never exist for a violent crime offender to have a chance at the situation again.

Yes I also agree that few would call that justice. Justice is however something we learn as children and growing up, so it is incredibly subject to interpretation. As such it's definition can be changed and adapted.
Tfong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2017, 12:55 PM   #202
Makarov
Franchise Player
 
Makarov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Moscow
Exp:
Default

^ I think your ideas are, frankly, crazy but at least you stick to them (rather than endlessly moving the goal posts like of our other "provocative" posters.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
Makarov is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Makarov For This Useful Post:
Old 07-07-2017, 12:59 PM   #203
rubecube
Franchise Player
 
rubecube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Victoria
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke View Post
And the mistaken idea that these are mutually exclusive ideals.
I've yet to see someone who is firmly in the rehabilitation camp advocate for zero punitive measures. I mean there are the fringe left-wing crazies who want to abolish the prison system altogether, but they're insane.
rubecube is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2017, 01:01 PM   #204
Tfong
Draft Pick
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Default

Haha thanks. I am well aware that social norms dictate my ideas are not "right". Thankfully its not something deemed as illegal in Canada to communicate them
Tfong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2017, 01:02 PM   #205
Jimmy Stang
Franchise Player
 
Jimmy Stang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tfong View Post
Yes and this goes into intent and severity. "Exceptions and conditions" as I basically refer to them as. If we remove these then people get the same punishment per damage done to victim regardless of intent and severity. I am fully aware that means sometimes people are put into prison or punished therefore without truly deserving it. But i maintain that the amount of people in this case hurt by this system of "black/white" is less than that of our current system.
So let me get this straight - you'd rather see an innocent person punished than allowing courts to use proper judgment? That's absolutely abhorrent. Seriously.
Jimmy Stang is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2017, 01:03 PM   #206
PsYcNeT
Franchise Player
 
PsYcNeT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Marseilles Of The Prairies
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube View Post
I've yet to see someone who is firmly in the rehabilitation camp advocate for zero punitive measures. I mean there are the fringe left-wing crazies who want to abolish the prison system altogether, but they're insane.
Don't forget Gavin McInnis' "Proud Boys" circle-jerking club, who also think prisons should be abolished.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm View Post
Settle down there, Temple Grandin.
PsYcNeT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2017, 01:03 PM   #207
FlamesAddiction
Franchise Player
 
FlamesAddiction's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver
Exp:
Default

It's so difficult to not engage people on Facebook over this. One of my friends posted about it and his friends followed by saying Trudeau should step in or outright blaming him for the decision.

Really? So here is a PM that they apparently hate and don't trust, and they want him to behave like a dictator? Would he even have the authority to change anything? I understand a Minister may have to sign off on it, but is a rubber stamp just like the Queen signing off on a Canadian passport.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
FlamesAddiction is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2017, 01:09 PM   #208
Tfong
Draft Pick
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang View Post
So let me get this straight - you'd rather see an innocent person punished than allowing courts to use proper judgment? That's absolutely abhorrent. Seriously.
Only if you're looking at it from a personal lens.

I would rather see a few people punished more severely than they deserved (not innocent because they still killed someone), than to see anything higher than a 0% chance of reoffense (which means someone died and it could've been prevented).

Whats your trade off?

Again you only consider "proper judgement" based on how we (and yourself) have been raised in our current generation. If we were raised in a system where this was the norm, you wouldn't bat an eye about it. Thats how adaptable "justice" is.

Last edited by Tfong; 07-07-2017 at 01:14 PM.
Tfong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2017, 01:15 PM   #209
PsYcNeT
Franchise Player
 
PsYcNeT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Marseilles Of The Prairies
Exp:
Default

You know who really understands justice? Rodrigo Duterte.

What a model.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm View Post
Settle down there, Temple Grandin.
PsYcNeT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2017, 01:19 PM   #210
Tfong
Draft Pick
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PsYcNeT View Post
You know who really understands justice? Rodrigo Duterte.

What a model.
Only did a quick google, is that the guy that has hit squads taking down cartels and drug traffickers in Malaysia without trial?
Tfong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2017, 01:22 PM   #211
Wormius
Franchise Player
 
Wormius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Somewhere down the crazy river.
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tfong View Post
Only did a quick google, is that the guy that has hit squads taking down cartels and drug traffickers in Malaysia without trial?
You forgot about drug addicts.
Wormius is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2017, 01:44 PM   #212
iggy_oi
Franchise Player
 
iggy_oi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormius View Post
You forgot about drug addicts.
If they didnt try illegal drugs in the first place they wouldn't have gotten addicted and wouldn't have been killed.(not a fan of green text so I'll clarify that I'm being sarcastic)
iggy_oi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2017, 01:46 PM   #213
Oling_Roachinen
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Exp:
Default

And people that the cops claim are drug addicts because the cops, like the government, are corrupt and now have open season to kill anyone they don't like.
Oling_Roachinen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2017, 02:22 PM   #214
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: California
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tfong View Post
Only if you're looking at it from a personal lens.

I would rather see a few people punished more severely than they deserved (not innocent because they still killed someone), than to see anything higher than a 0% chance of reoffense (which means someone died and it could've been prevented).

Whats your trade off?

Again you only consider "proper judgement" based on how we (and yourself) have been raised in our current generation. If we were raised in a system where this was the norm, you wouldn't bat an eye about it. Thats how adaptable "justice" is.
Would this be for all outcomes or just criminal outcomes?

If a person runs a red because they aren't paying attention they get the same punishment as a drunk driver and the same punishment as a guy who murders is wife for trying to leave him?

I think from a loss of benefit to society and cost of imprisonment standpoint society would be worse off.

Punishment is not a deterrent so we don't have less crime.

What's the value in your proposal outside of revenge?
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2017, 02:58 PM   #215
Tfong
Draft Pick
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG View Post
Would this be for all outcomes or just criminal outcomes?

If a person runs a red because they aren't paying attention they get the same punishment as a drunk driver and the same punishment as a guy who murders is wife for trying to leave him?

I think from a loss of benefit to society and cost of imprisonment standpoint society would be worse off.

Punishment is not a deterrent so we don't have less crime.

What's the value in your proposal outside of revenge?
Sorry I don't understand what you mean by outcomes vs criminal outcome. You me convicted vs not convicted? Or negligence vs manslaughter vs murder?

Presuming the outcome is always death in this case of the victim under my series of thoughts, it would all be murder.

I'm not proposing the usage of punishment as a deterrence. However in the case of a drunk driver or a person running a red light and killing someone in the process, we have now removed a person from society that a) drinks and drives and b) runs traffic lights.

Anecdotally, people that drink and drive and/or run red lights are not usually isolated incidents. People that tend to do these things will do so habitually so realistically I think the chance of them killing someone else by committing this act would be less because the person is no longer in society.

I have to admit, there is an significant chance of loss benefit to society if like for example a scientist or someone was making a significant contribution to society DUIed and killed someone. But typically how often does that occur? It would be a risk for sure because we are now taking them out of society and they are no longer able to contribute. Though on the other hand, there have been cases where someone that has contributed to society and DUIed, and just went on a downward spiral in life and no longer contributed to society in a significant manner anyways (Lindsay Lohan?).

The value is that it completely removes the chance of a re-offensive action. It also means there are no precedents to be exploited that would allow people to escape the system.
Tfong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2017, 03:24 PM   #216
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: California
Exp:
Default

It only completely removes the chance of reoffense if it's a life sentence. If the goal is to prevent future crime shouldn't we lock up everyone who gets a DUI above a certain amount for life. If the goal is to prevent reoffending doesn't it make more sense to only punish the action and not the outcome.

A person who didn't kill someone but drove just as drunk has a similar risk to kill again as the drunk driver who killed someone.

A person who gets in fights in bars and stabs someone has a similar risk to kill again regardless of if the stabbing victim lives or dies.

Intent and the actions leading to the incident have far more to due with the likelihood of reoffend than the outcome does.
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2017, 03:29 PM   #217
cal_guy
Scoring Winger
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Exp:
Default

Former crown prosecutor Sandy Garossino describes just how weak the case against Omar was.

http://www.nationalobserver.com/2017...dr-isnt-guilty
cal_guy is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to cal_guy For This Useful Post:
Old 07-07-2017, 03:31 PM   #218
ResAlien
Lifetime In Suspension
 
ResAlien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Exp:
Default

Interesting watching someone essentially argue for life under totalitarian rule. Takes all sorts I suppose.
ResAlien is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ResAlien For This Useful Post:
Old 07-07-2017, 03:31 PM   #219
Tfong
Draft Pick
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG View Post
It only completely removes the chance of reoffense if it's a life sentence. If the goal is to prevent future crime shouldn't we lock up everyone who gets a DUI above a certain amount for life. If the goal is to prevent reoffending doesn't it make more sense to only punish the action and not the outcome.

A person who didn't kill someone but drove just as drunk has a similar risk to kill again as the drunk driver who killed someone.

A person who gets in fights in bars and stabs someone has a similar risk to kill again regardless of if the stabbing victim lives or dies.

Intent and the actions leading to the incident have far more to due with the likelihood of reoffend evidence than the outcome does.
I'm not saying to not punish the act itself. Those would undergo whatever punishment those acts would carry in those cases. I just wouldn't deem it the same act as where a person actually died.

That being said, attempted murder i think still carries max life sentence like murder anyways so there is indication of punishment of the intent as well as the outcome. So yes you could still sentence someone that doesn't kill to a punishment equal to murder. But when you're at the murder stage, there would be no difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ResAlien View Post
Interesting watching someone essentially argue for life under totalitarian rule. Takes all sorts I suppose.
While media does play a role in how my thoughts turned into what they are today, I have a University degree and a minor in law and society (irony?fate?serendipity?) with course specializations in war history and can't say I always thought like this. Or did I but merely didn't know it? Hard to say on that count. I like to think i bring a unique perspective to things. Homegrown Canadian with immigrant parents too!

Last edited by Tfong; 07-07-2017 at 03:38 PM.
Tfong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2017, 03:56 PM   #220
powderjunkie
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Exp:
Default

Yeah, but bow does this payout affect Jankowski?
powderjunkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:35 PM.

Calgary Flames
2024-25




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021 | See Our Privacy Policy