Calgary man will serve 10 years for killing pregnant girlfriend

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Technically, what you speak of is more mitigating crime, not actually eliminating it. Domestic violence is a crime... its just not as severe as murder.

It's not mitigating. Domestic murders almost always follow domestic abuse. ex, a woman is abused 3 times and then murdered on the 4th. If that woman found help after #3, there would be no #4. Therefore preventing the 4th crime and reducing the seriousness of the crimes.

Also, if the husband found resources to deal with his anger and problems earlier in life he might not be abusive in the first place. He usually isn't from a squeeky clean happy background.

Broken homes are not always predictors of crime either, there's a large amount of divorced and separated families in our society and its not a disproportionate cause of crime.

It is disproportionate actually

Lets talk poverty, cause its a good example. Poverty is a root cause of crime (and it goes with my example of greed, envy, and in some instances, sloth). But why are the poor more likely to commit crime? Is it to ensure their basic needs? Hardly. The problems lie elsewhere.

There's plenty of reasons. Point is, figuring out what those reasons are, and addressing them will go a long way into crime prevention.

[CaptainCrunch]

I've thought about this, I'm all about rehab for first time offenders, and helping raise thier level of education and giving them a skill, and helping them with employment when they're released.

I'm also all about harsh punishment for each offense after the first offense, and death penalties for multiple or repeat killers, and in the most grusome way possible.

To some extent I understand that poverty can be a precurser to crime, as can bad parenting, but I really don't think that it should be used as an excuse to lower punishment. We all know that its wrong to murder or rape or steal, there's no excuse for committing those crimes, not poverty or a lack of education.

There are examples of plenty of people who have risen above.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

It's not mitigating. Domestic murders almost always follow domestic abuse. ex, a woman is abused 3 times and then murdered on the 4th. If that woman found help after #3, there would be no #4. Therefore preventing the 4th crime and reducing the seriousness of the crimes.

Also, if the husband found resources to deal with his anger and problems earlier in life he might not be abusive in the first place. He usually isn't from a squeeky clean happy background.

What I meant, and I was unclear... its that its limiting the damage. In my view, eliminating the root cause of crime is eliminating the factors that lead to the first instance of violence, not the domestic violence that leads to murder.

It is disproportionate actually

What Ive read states that its not so much divorcees, but households where the parents are detached from the children. I also assumed that you considered divorced and "broken homes" as one and the same. I consider a broken home to be a violent, degenerated one, where the parents could very well be married. Divorced v. Married isn't hugely disproportionate if the parents are still engaged. Thats what the studies i read said.


There's plenty of reasons. Point is, figuring out what those reasons are, and addressing them will go a long way into crime prevention.

I agree... but at the same time, having flimsy penalties, in the name of "rehabilitation" is not the answer. The solution is prevention, coupled with strong penalties to stop re-offenders.

..

[4X4]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

What exactly makes Canada a disaster? I agree it's not perfect, but I'm not sure a more "aggressive" justice system would help much.

It took me about 5 seconds to find out that in 2003 there were 548 murders in Canada. In that same year, there were 657 murders in the state of Georgia, which has about 1/4 the population of Canada, and they aren't afraid to execute people down there. What happened?

How many of those murders were solved? Prosecuted?


As for my earlier comment, Windsor, I am half serious and half ribbing the people that uprise against 'big brother' when ideas like cameras in high traffic areas are tabled.
I don't remember who was that anti camera person(s) in that thread, but their side of the argument was that the crime would just move elsewhere and at the same time, respectable citizens would be under surveillance and that is an infringement on their privacy.
I suppose they have a point, but where are the ideas for how to prevent crime?

You mention things like watching for patterns (abusive household situations). I agree. But not from a preventative stance. If there is a crime committed, punish it already.
The lack of punishment in Canada is pathetic. Time and time again I read about heinous crimes, like the the topic of this thread, receiving ######ed sentences (are you effing kidding me? Eligible for parole after 10 years?).

Its time Canada 'cracked open the constitution' and re-wrote the criminal justice act. Eliminate the faint hope clause is tops on my list. When I was in grade one, two of my classmates were murdered by their father. IT was a pretty famous case around Calgary and most of you have heard their names every five years when that pr*ck re-applies for faint hope. Thankfully he hasn't succeeded, yet. Yet is the key word. Eventually that SOB will walk the streets again. After killing his two kids.
IMO, guys like that get locked up for 40 years before they even get to speak to a parole board.

Guys like the one in this thread need the same punishment. I don't care if you were mad that she 'allegedly' cheated on you, you frickin stabbed her to death, then you tried to evade punishment by attempted suicide.

This guy needs a helluva lot longer than 10 years to figure out why you don't kill people.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by JimmytheT

As morbid as it is, I got a small chuckle out of your wording here

Edit: Might I add the sentencing is an absolute joke. First time offender or not, this guy murdered his 17 year old girlfriend because she probably did not want to have an abortion. Now I am pro-choice when it comes to women's decisions, but the fact that he decided she wasn't having this baby by offing her, is sickening.

LOL, it's funny how many people are spouting off without even knowing anything about the crime in question. Holy jumping to a conclusion.

Did you watch the news story?

He and his girlfriend came hoem from a night out together, got in a fight because he thought she was cheating on him, threatened to commit suicide, then snapped, killed her, and then tried to commit "suicide by cop". The judge ruled the guy is showing true remorse and that is was out of character. Additionally, BOTH families agreed with the sentence and hugged outside the courtroom after sentencing.

It doesn't sound like your typical murder case.

And the 10 years is a when he will be eligible for parole, not necessarily when he will be paroled (but I'm guessing he will).

I tend to agree with CaptainCrunch. People make mistakes, let them serve their punishment, try to do what you can so they don't re-offend. If they do, you make the penalties harsher.

Isn't there something on the books like that now, where you can be declared a dangerous offender then they can essentially keep you in jail an indeterminate amount of time? Shouldn't that take care of habitual criminals?

[JimmytheT]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

LOL, it's funny how many people are spouting off without even knowing anything about the crime in question. Holy jumping to a conclusion.

Did you watch the news story?

He and his girlfriend came hoem from a night out together, got in a fight because he thought she was cheating on him, threatened to commit suicide, then snapped, killed her, and then tried to commit "suicide by cop". The judge ruled the guy is showing true remorse and that is was out of character. Additionally, BOTH families agreed with the sentence and hugged outside the courtroom after sentencing.

It doesn't sound like your typical murder case.

And the 10 years is a when he will be eligible for parole, not necessarily when he will be paroled (but I'm guessing he will).

I tend to agree with CaptainCrunch. People make mistakes, let them serve their punishment, try to do what you can so they don't re-offend. If they do, you make the penalties harsher.

Isn't there something on the books like that now, where you can be declared a dangerous offender then they can essentially keep you in jail an indeterminate amount of time? Shouldn't that take care of habitual criminals?

Sure didn't, though I usually do. I made an assumption and it was false.

I concede.

[burns2002]

I think 10 years is much better than the 18 he would have been on the hook for if she had a kid. Plus now there won't be any ugly divorce to go through. Not a bad deal for him.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

What Ive read states that its not so much divorcees, but households where the parents are detached from the children. I also assumed that you considered divorced and "broken homes" as one and the same. I consider a broken home to be a violent, degenerated one, where the parents could very well be married. Divorced v. Married isn't hugely disproportionate if the parents are still engaged. Thats what the studies i read said.

I agree with you on your def'n of broken homes and conclusions. The most important factor is engagement and quality of parenting. Not # of parents in 1 home.

I agree... but at the same time, having flimsy penalties, in the name of "rehabilitation" is not the answer. The solution is prevention, coupled with strong penalties to stop re-offenders.

Completely agree.
I just want more resources for people to get away from troubled lives that lead them lives of crime.
If they have those resources, and still choose to be criminals...punish away.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by 4X4

As for my earlier comment, Windsor, I am half serious and half ribbing the people that uprise against 'big brother'
...
You mention things like watching for patterns (abusive household situations). I agree. But not from a preventative stance. If there is a crime committed, punish it already.
The lack of punishment in Canada is pathetic. Time and time again I read about heinous crimes, like the the topic of this thread, receiving ######ed sentences (are you effing kidding me? Eligible for parole after 10 years?).

I agree. When I suggest we need prevention, I'm not supporting slap on the wrist sentencing. I want to see harsher penalties too.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by burns2002

I think 10 years is much better than the 18 he would have been on the hook for if she had a kid. Plus now there won't be any ugly divorce to go through. Not a bad deal for him.

And it's half true, isn't it? Scott Peterson should have driven that fishing boat all the way up to Victoria.

[CrusaderPi]

Originally Posted by 4X4

And it's half true, isn't it? Scott Peterson should have driven that fishing boat all the way up to Victoria.

Why? He probably wouldn't have caught any fish AND he would have missed Christmas with his old lady.

[Azure]

I find it a bit strange that some of you are so accepting of the chance of a criminal re offending. Lock them up to begin with.

I support harsher penalties from the get go. 40 years minimum for 1st and 2nd degree murder might just help deter some from committing such a vile act.

Of course, when you're in a rage, like this guy probably was, you don't think about such things. I find it sickening, no matter what kind of remorse he has shown, that he'll be out after 10 years.