5-year-old, grandparents disappear from Calgary home

[Minnie]

Originally Posted by Christie Blatchford

The whole press conference was a curiously bloodless (and unnecessarily careful)...business,

What a cow. Is there some reason there needs to be bloodletting? Any reason the press here needs to be as stupid and ridiculous as CNN usually is, for example? I'm glad such care has been taken, for the most part. Regardless of the 'Story', behind all of that is a family grieving and dealing with their worst nightmare.

Aside from all of that, how completely overwhelming this must all be for that family. The story has been so public and the public so desperate to help that I think they sometimes forget that this family is already dealing with so much, and that they're adding another layer of stress to what this family is already dealing with by all jumping in and overwhelming them with offers and insistence of help in one form or the other. Perhaps the best way to help is to just back the eff off, and let them grieve with some privacy, even though the whole event has been so very public. While I think most people have good intentions, good intentions can quickly become too much for people to bear.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by fredr123

What's the rationale behind sentencing someone to multiple consecutive life sentences?

Doesn't "life" currently actually only mean 25 years before they are likely to get out on parole? So I think consecutive ones would actually up that. 2 would be 50, etc. So that maybe someone would actually serve "life".

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

I believe in freedom of the press, but she is rightfully being slammed for such a disgusting piece. Jeopardize an investigation into a murdered kid because you feel entitled to instant information. Who the hell do you think you are? Seriously - eff off. I wish that I could say I expect better from her and the Herald...

I find it curious how many people don't understand the role of the media. Sandwiched between the irrational Rick Bell and Bruce Dowbiggin hate is the fact that a lot of people seem to miss the whole point of these people being paid to provide their opinions. Sure you may disagree with their opinion just like any poster here in a thread but at the end of the day they are just doing the job they are paid. Some are really bad at their jobs like Eric Francis but vitriol spewed at some of these people is more offensive than their take.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I find it curious how many people don't understand the role of the media. Sandwiched between the irrational Rick Bell and Bruce Dowbiggin hate is the fact that a lot of people seem to miss the whole point of these people being paid to provide their opinions. Sure you may disagree with their opinion just like any poster here in a thread but at the end of the day they are just doing the job they are paid. Some are really bad at their jobs like Eric Francis but vitriol spewed at some of these people is more offensive than their take.

The medias job shouldnt be to provide opinion, the medias job should be to provide accurate fact based stories.

CNN and the talking heads ruined the media.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Ensuring that that person is never, ever let out of prison.

If this guy is guilty (or if it turns out to be someone else), I'd be proud of the Canadian justice system if the guilty person got max for each sentence. 25+25+10. 60 years before the possibility of parole.

Of course, the father in me wants that 60 years to be just for killing the child.

I understand and completely respect that sentiment. At some point, though, multiple life sentences becomes a bit silly. Look at this list of the longest prison sentences. Someone in the USA got 30,000 years in prison? One guy was sentenced to 21,250 years in jail, but on appeal he had it successfully lowered by 500 years. Arial Castro plead guilty to over 900 counts and got a sentence of life in prison with no possibility of parole (which I'm fine with)... plus 1000 years. What's the point of that?

And some of these guys are still eligible for parole! (although I doubt they would ever be let out)

I suppose this is one way of really emphasizing the seriousness and brutality of these crimes. If you want to say someone needs to go to jail forever and never be let out, I get that. Arguing over 21,250 years in jail or 19,750 is completely pointless. Giving someone 30,000 years in jail? Waste of time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ison_sentences

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I find it curious how many people don't understand the role of the media. Sandwiched between the irrational Rick Bell and Bruce Dowbiggin hate is the fact that a lot of people seem to miss the whole point of these people being paid to provide their opinions. Sure you may disagree with their opinion just like any poster here in a thread but at the end of the day they are just doing the job they are paid. Some are really bad at their jobs like Eric Francis but vitriol spewed at some of these people is more offensive than their take.

I completely understand that columnists are paid for their opinions. I respect their right to those opinions, but that does it make them immune to criticism either. When Rick Bell rambles on with misinformation and rhetoric, he can be called out on it. And when Blatchford advocates for information being made public that could interfere with the successful prosecution of an alleged child killer, she also deserves to be called out on it.

Opinions pieces sell papers and generate clicks. I get that. A provocative piece is going to generate more clicks. A newspaper would be a boring place if the opinions were all neutral and palate pleasing. But criticism of those opinions is part of it, and garbage will be critiqued as garbage.

I may not like her opinion (obviously), but I'll always defend her right to say it and get paid for it.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by fredr123

I understand and completely respect that sentiment. At some point, though, multiple life sentences becomes a bit silly. Look at this list of the longest prison sentences. Someone in the USA got 30,000 years in prison? One guy was sentenced to 21,250 years in jail, but on appeal he had it successfully lowered by 500 years. Arial Castro plead guilty to over 900 counts and got a sentence of life in prison with no possibility of parole (which I'm fine with)... plus 1000 years. What's the point of that?

And some of these guys are still eligible for parole! (although I doubt they would ever be let out)

I suppose this is one way of really emphasizing the seriousness and brutality of these crimes. If you want to say someone needs to go to jail forever and never be let out, I get that. Arguing over 21,250 years in jail or 19,750 is completely pointless. Giving someone 30,000 years in jail? Waste of time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ison_sentences

FWIW, when I was in law school in the US, I took a Sentencing survey course as an elective. We studied the development of sentencing in the US, death penalty, constitutional challenges, etc. I do remember one lecture/discussion on this topic of multiple life sentences and "damning a person to prison for years beyond their reasonable life expectancy".

One of the reasons for the multiple life sentences (where one on its own would suffice to keep the criminal locked up until he/she died) was acknowledgement of each victim in the form of sentencing. Apparently, this developed out of victim's families being upset when a person would be sentenced to life in prison for multiple murders since it appeared to only acknowledge one crime/victim/death. Handing out multiple life sentences (one for each victim) was to help the victims' families have a better connection with justice.

As for the "+1000" years, we really didn't get a solid understanding of how/when/why it developed. Assuming this isn't for other crimes committed during murder (ie. defendant is found guilty of murder but also guilty of armed robbery, kidnapping, evading and tampering with evidence) a few discussion points (from my memory) were: acknowledging especially heinous/multiple crimes in comparison to "regular crimes" of the same crime family, judges appearing tough on crime for re-election purposes, the justice system as a whole appearing tough on crime stemming out of the 80s Reagan era, a sense of "blood lust" and revenge for victim's families (even if the ultimate sentence could never be carried out - ie. life in prison +250 years).

Honestly, I've never been a fan of sentences for multiple serious crimes that run concurrently (that's a whole different kettle of fish). Obviously a person only has one life and therefore can never serve multiple life sentences, but when you look at it from the victims' family point of view, I support multiple life sentences for each victim. Even if it is duplicative, if it helps the family identify the justice for their loved one separate and apart from other victims (of a single or multiple acts), why not?

As for the "+1000", I can't see how it is effective as a deterrent or any other benefit (aside from being related to other crimes committed requiring sentencing). For me it's not so much a waste of time, but almost makes a mockery of the severity of a life (or multiple life) sentences.

[Huntingwhale]

Brutal article. It's nice to see people voicing the complete opposite of what the author thinks should be done.

[CaptainCrunch]

To me if someone is willing to commit multiple violent acts that leads to multiple concurrent sentencing then its more a mechanism of public safety and ensuring that person never ever gets out of prison.

And I have no problem with that whatsoever.

at that point it goes from deterrent to what it should be, taking a extremely dangerous person who for whatever reason didn't stop after the first act and putting him in a deep dark hole where he'll never see the light of day.

Personally in the case of violent crime, or multiple offenses whether performed during the same course of action or separately they should bring back sentences with the attached to the Queens Pleasure, which means the sentence doesn't end until the government says it ends.

[Antithesis]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

Brutal article. It's nice to see people voicing the complete opposite of what the author thinks should be done.

The rare case of being proud of things posted in a comments section of a news article.

[MarchHare]

It's always funny to see people discover Christie Blatchford for the first time.

Guys, she's a professional troll. The National Post pays her specifically to write articles and opinion pieces that get people riled up. She's been doing this for decades. If you don't like what she has to say, treat her like you should every other troll: ignore her and move on.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

It's always funny to see people discover Christie Blatchford for the first time.

Guys, she's a professional troll. The National Post pays her specifically to write articles and opinion pieces that get people riled up. She's been doing this for decades. If you don't like what she has to say, treat her like you should every other troll: ignore her and move on.

Its funny because she used to be very credible and well researched, now she's just a mewling harpy.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Its funny because she used to be very credible and well researched, now she's just a mewling harpy.

I'm only speculating, but perhaps she's receiving different editorial direction from the National Post (her employer since 2011) compared to the Globe & Mail (where she worked previously).

[CaptainCrunch]

More then likely, I find her unreadable now, like so many other columnists.

Opinion pieces have been a key part of the media since Og the caveman railed against the rock tax in the daily slate.

It just seems that its gone from having a shred of journalistic integrity and being able to convey their opinion in a professional and somewhat well researched method to who can scream and shout and ignore the facts in the best presented and most sensational manner.

I blame the internet and teenagers personally.

But this isn't the thread for this discussion.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

To me if someone is willing to commit multiple violent acts that leads to multiple concurrent sentencing then its more a mechanism of public safety and ensuring that person never ever gets out of prison.

And I have no problem with that whatsoever.

at that point it goes from deterrent to what it should be, taking a extremely dangerous person who for whatever reason didn't stop after the first act and putting him in a deep dark hole where he'll never see the light of day.

Personally in the case of violent crime, or multiple offenses whether performed during the same course of action or separately they should bring back sentences with the attached to the Queens Pleasure, which means the sentence doesn't end until the government says it ends.

Is that any different from the Dangerous Offender designation? I have no idea, but it sounds about the same.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Slava

Is that any different from the Dangerous Offender designation? I have no idea, but it sounds about the same.

The release on Queens pleasure was ministerial level, basically whoever was running your justice ministry had to sign off on the release and it overrides their parole system.

Basically the idea was you were tossed in a the hole and forgotten about and maybe someone would stumble across your file and review it once you were old and used up.

It used to be the Queen or King in the olden days

I believe that the courts are in charge of the dangerous offender label.

[Cuz]

Apparently, Calgary homicide detectives are in Mexico in relation to this case:

http://www.660news.com/2014/08/05/ne...investigation/

Seems kinda odd if you ask me...

[J Diddy]

The Liknes family have a place in Mexico.

[Badgers Nose]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I find it curious how many people don't understand the role of the media. Sandwiched between the irrational Rick Bell and Bruce Dowbiggin hate is the fact that a lot of people seem to miss the whole point of these people being paid to provide their opinions. Sure you may disagree with their opinion just like any poster here in a thread but at the end of the day they are just doing the job they are paid. Some are really bad at their jobs like Eric Francis but vitriol spewed at some of these people is more offensive than their take.

She wants to titillate her readers with gore. That's her point.

Therefore she deserves the feedback.

Opinions are easy, they require little facts and no intelligence to write up. Modern media is almost all opinion pieces and that's why its waning. It has no value other than the personality spouting it, and most of these writers might s well be anonymous. Research is hard, connecting current events with context requires time and careful thinking.

40 years of experience trolling, she is a pioneer.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

The Liknes family have a place in Mexico.

Can you give a link or other information to substantiate that?

I read that a family member commented that they were selling their household items because they were moving to Mexico. Then the report was, Mr. Likeness had a brother with a place there. Then the report was, they were moving to Edmonton for 6 months and then going to Mexico.

We can't know why the police are going there to investigate, because they're not telling us. Do the alleged moving plans factor into the motivation to kill them at that time, or is this just a coincidence?

This is conjecture, but they could be going there to interview people to find out if their arrival in Mexico was expected, and if so, when. It could fill a few holes, or verify or refute other evidence.