[News] Vancouver 2011 Riot - first conviction

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Lanny'sDaMan

And if it had of been some troll looking dude he would have been convicted with shoplifting at the very least (criminal record). Gender bias hard at work. :/

That may be true of the system but I would hope a guy would be treated the same way for a couple bottles of water and a bag of chips.

Having said that, I think a part of the charges that go in with their probations, conditional discharges and lack of criminal charges should be to shift some of the $3M cost of charging these people off of the taxpayers and onto the rioters.

[BACKCHECK!!!]

Anybody wearing a Canucks jersey while committing an offense should end up with a record.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Lanny'sDaMan

And if it had of been some troll looking dude he would have been convicted with shoplifting at the very least (criminal record). Gender bias hard at work. :/

Frankly I doubt it, the cost associated with any punishment would be too great and wouldn't fit the crime. The actual cost of the products is around $3.00. It seems to me that giving someone a criminal record over 3 dollars would be pretty obscene regardless of gender.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Wolven

That may be true of the system but I would hope a guy would be treated the same way for a couple bottles of water and a bag of chips.

Having said that, I think a part of the charges that go in with their probations, conditional discharges and lack of criminal charges should be to shift some of the $3M cost of charging these people off of the taxpayers and onto the rioters.

Indeed, that is part of the reason why people are sentenced with conditional discharges: so that the community avoids another person with a criminal record who, due to that criminal record, struggles to find employment and integrate with society and therefore draws heavily on community resources.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

A year later and only 2 people now sentenced. Beyond pathetic.

Originally Posted by VO #23

Some of that has to do with the stringent charge-approval standards in B.C., but the biggest issue is a lack of funding in the justice system. The provincial government has just kept cutting and cutting - the system was stretched about as far as it could go before this high-profile and resource-intensive incident.

I realize those quotes are quite old, but an update from the Miss Congeniality story:

Six full-time Crown prosecutors assisted by three staff administrators have approved 719 charges against 236 of those suspects, at a cost of $3 million.

More than 130 people have entered guilty pleas, and at least 66 people have been sentenced. An additional $53,000 has been spent on legal services.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Frankly I doubt it, the cost associated with any punishment would be too great and wouldn't fit the crime. The actual cost of the products is around $3.00. It seems to me that giving someone a criminal record over 3 dollars would be pretty obscene regardless of gender.

She wasn't charged with shoplifting, she was charged with breaking and entering and participating in the riot. How much she stole in the process in not important.

If someone robs the corner store for $20, is it any less of crime than robbing another corner store for $100?

It's the act that is the crime, not the profit from it.

[Bill Bumface]

^Do you actually think she's ever going to do it again?

Would you rather her get a good job and contribute to the economy or be stuck at 7-11 due to her record?

I agree what she did is a crime and is terrible, but a little cost/benefit goes a long way in looking at slapping a record on her.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

^Do you actually think she's ever going to do it again?

Would you rather her get a good job and contribute to the economy or be stuck at 7-11 due to her record?

I agree what she did is a crime and is terrible, but a little cost/benefit goes a long way in looking at slapping a record on her.

A lot of people with criminal records won't be repeat offenders. Also, a criminal record doesn't mean you have to work at 7-11. You might be surprised the number of people with good jobs that have criminal records.

Her name is mud now whether or not she has a record. All a potential employer has to do is Google her name (and bet most employers do that).

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

A lot of people with criminal records won't be repeat offenders. Also, a criminal record doesn't mean you have to work at 7-11. You might be surprised the number of people with good jobs that have criminal records.

Her name is mud now whether or not she has a record. All a potential employer has to do is Google her name (and bet most employers do that).

Exactly, the cost is already massive in comparison to the actual crime that occurred. Did she act foolishly, undoubtedly. Was it a crime, most definitely. Does it necessitate a criminal record that closes even more doors than have already been closed. I don't think so. At this stage I have no doubt that she has already learned her lesson and there is no point to any further punishment.

As per your prior post I do think that the actual items stolen does play a part in this, if she tried to torch a police car. Yeah that would be different. If she initially broke the windows.

[Locke]

So what is that now, still like 2 people convicted?

[CaptainCrunch]

I hate that haughty little look that people get when they know they pulled things over. The only reason why most of these rioters are the least bit sorry is because they got caught. If they didn't they'd hang out with their ######y friends bragging about getting away with it.

I'm fine with the concept of the conditional charge, but I'm hoping that the community service is a little more involved.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Frankly I doubt it, the cost associated with any punishment would be too great and wouldn't fit the crime. The actual cost of the products is around $3.00. It seems to me that giving someone a criminal record over 3 dollars would be pretty obscene regardless of gender.

Except it cost so much more than 3 dollars.

Police costs, jailing costs, prosecutionn and court costs...etc etc.

You cant just let her slide simply because the $$ amount is less than some one who stold a stereo or something more valuable.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Except it cost so much more than 3 dollars.

Police costs, jailing costs, prosecutionn and court costs...etc etc.

You cant just let her slide simply because the $$ amount is less than some one who stold a stereo or something more valuable.

Costs that would continue to rise if a more punitive punishment was handed down. This is the more economical solution.

Actually I think it makes more sense to let the small things slide in a situation such as this (and 3 dollars is a small thing) and instead focus on those who were instigators and did serious damage to public/private property, ie the water polo player.

[jammies]

You can't consider just costs, but also deterrence. The message I get from all these discharges is "Riot away! Even if you're caught, we'll just tell you that you've been naughty and send you on your way!"

[puckluck2]

Stealing things during a riot is totally exploiting the situation and should be punished more harshly than in normal circumstances.

What message would they be sending? It's ok to steal small items during a riot?

What a joke Vancouver is and the whole Canadian justice system is. If this happened in the U.S you'd have thousands in jail the next week.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

Stealing things during a riot is totally exploiting the situation and should be punished more harshly than in normal circumstances.

What message would they be sending? It's ok to steal small items during a riot?

What a joke Vancouver is and the whole Canadian justice system is. If this happened in the U.S you'd have thousands in jail the next week.

And if there is a justice system I want Canada to avoid it is the United States. It is a costly albatross of a system that is as inefficient as it is costly. Seriously look at the costs associated with putting someone into prison. The riots were awful and reflected poorly upon Vancouver and Canuck fans and no one is saying it is okay to steal small items but to spend thousands punishing someone for stealing $3 seems like an awful use of time resources.

Edit: Conditional discharges along with lengthy community service punishments (ie 250 documented hours over the course of a year) working at a job such as sweeping the streets in a high visibility vest that says RIOTER on it (supplied by their own funds) would be a great punishment that would benefit the community. Prison/jail time for minor theft does neither.

Also nearly any property crime is exploiting a situation.

[sun]

lol who riots and steals bottled water?

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by sun

lol who riots and steals bottled water?

For all we know the bottled water was just to keep her hydrated enough so she could go rob more higher end stores.

[HOOT]

And we wonder why they rioted again after 1994? hopefully for the greater good of Vancouver, and the rest of Canada, they never make the cup finals again.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

She wasn't charged with shoplifting, she was charged with breaking and entering and participating in the riot. How much she stole in the process in not important.

If someone robs the corner store for $20, is it any less of crime than robbing another corner store for $100?

It's the act that is the crime, not the profit from it.

This is one of the oldest and greatest dilemmas that theories of justice must reconcile. For instance:

Mr. Whiteacre drinks a bottle of wine with dinner and drives home. During the drive, he has a minor lapse in attention and crosses the centre line. Luckily, there are no other cars on the road, and he pulls back into the correct lane. Mr. Blackacre also drinks a bottle of wine with dinner and drives home. During the drive, he has a minor lapse in attention and crosses the centre line. Unluckily, at just that moment, the Greenacre family (father, mother, two daughters) were driving home on the very same stretch of road travelling in the opposite direction. Mr. Blackacre's vehicle strikes the Greenacres' vehicle, killing both Mr. and Mrs. Greenacre instantly, and critically injuring the two daughters.

Are Mr. Whiteacre and Mr. Blackacre equally morally blameworthy? Their conduct and intentions were identical. Due purely to luck, the consequences of their conduct was catastrophically different.