Conservatives want new law creating life sentences with no parole

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by nik-

and yet here you are

I was just going to say I hope people ignore him. There's actually a pretty decent debate happening in here. No point in derailing it because someone stumbles into the middle of it and craps on the floor.

[Duruss]

This has been an interesting conversation. I like the idea of being able to keep monsters off the streets. But we already have a law to do that as previously stated, what we need is for that law to be clarified and made more useful. As such greater provisions should be put in place to label repeat offenders or those that show no remorse into the "Dangerous Offender " catagory. And even if a person is put in that category they should still be involved in rehabilitation programs.

This new law just seems like political pandering that could easily be struck down as unconstitutional, but of course that would happen after the election due to how long the process takes.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by -TC-

I'd like to see capital punishment instituted...why waste money incarcerating certain types of offenders. bullets are cheap. problem solved.

Bullets are cheap, appeals are not. Nor are lawsuits when the state executes an innocent person. I don't have any studies handy, but I believe life imprisonment with no parole in the US is cheaper than using the death penalty.

Never mind the social cost.

[FLAMESRULE]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Meanwhile:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sex-...tawa-1.2979196



What a GD freakin joke this government is and the mouth breathing horde that supports this type of decision making.

So freaking sad. And it's another reason why I won't be voting PC again for a long time (never again provincially). Harper is an embarrassment to this country.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

Some people just can't be rehabilitated. Every year you read stories about some child molester or paedophile who gets released and then a couple months later he's arrested on the exact same charge. Or the guy who has 20+ drunk driving offences. Or the manipulative psychopath who beats every woman he dates. Spending more money on rehab for those guys isn't going to do anything except waste money on conditions that cannot be fixed.

TBH I'm surprised so many people are against this. While some clarification is needed, this is long overdue. Someone who commits murder, is convicted, only to be out on parole 12 years later and commits murder again, that's a travesty and failure of the justice system. The child molester who raped a bunch of kids, only to be let out early for ''good behaviour'' and is then arrested a couple months later committing the same act? That's a failure and travesty as well. Those people can't be rehabilitated no matter how much resources you toss at them. But every once in a while one of them makes parole and commits those acts again and the public outcry is the same; how did this guy get out and why? Even once is too many. That needs to be stopped. I hope this gets passed. For way to long our justice system has been too lax on criminals like this.

Sure, but if they were getting parole after 12 years, that would have been a second-degree murder under current laws. Are you suggesting that second-degree murders should be increased to life-sentences with no chance of parole? And if so, what would be the implications for the cost facing our prison system, by making prison terms that typically last between 10-20 years stretch out for 30 or 40 years?

Or perhaps you were using 12 years flippantly and aren't actually referring to second-degree murders; instead you think that first-degree murderers are likely to reoffend after 25 years of incarceration? I'd be very curious to know how often in Canadian history someone has between sentenced to 1st degree murder, served a 25 year term (as they would now with the faint-hope clause repealed), and re-committed.

Now, sex crimes are different IMO, because right now the terms are shorter and it seems like there's a higher likelyhood of reoffending. Are there sex offenders who should never see the light of day again? Probably, and there should likely be stiffer parole eligibilities to something like aggravated sexual assault; in my opinion a parole eligibility for aggravated sexual assault that starts at 7 years is too lenient. I'd have no problem with a government starting a debate about what appropriate terms for parole eligibility are for sexual offenses.

Besides, the justice system already has the 'dangerous offender' tag where they can keep a person in prison beyond the length of their prison term. The current government has made it far easier for prosecutors to obtain dangerous offender tags. They've also eliminated the faint hope clause. So in less than 10 years, we've gone from first-degree murderers having the faint-hope clause (potential for parole after 15 years), to no chance of parole for 25 years, plus an increased likelihood of being kept indefinitely. How about we take time to evaluate those changes and see how they work both as a deterrent and in eliminating reoffenders, before stacking more seemingly redundant measures on top of it?

Here's the big problem with the trade-off in the cut to funding that Tinordi linked to: most likely, any new legislation will be grandfathered in, ie. people in prison currently on life sentences will not have theirs extended to life without parole, so it's going to take at least 15 years before we get any improvement in public safety as a result (if such a policy actually improved public safety, which is questionable). Meanwhile, they're defunding a policy that's going to immediately decrease public safety. If the hope is that the loss of these sorts of programs will be offset by harsher sentencing, there's going to be a decade-long gap between when the one is discontinued and when the other makes any difference to the number of potential reoffenders on the streets.

[Caged Great]

Corrections should look at what Norway is doing and copy it.

[troutman]

Probably offends The Charter?

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.

12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Sure, but if they were getting parole after 12 years, that would have been a second-degree murder under current laws. Are you suggesting that second-degree murders should be increased to life-sentences with no chance of parole?

Yeah I actually do think that. If you willfully take the life of another human being, if you extinguish their livelihood and right to live then yeah I do think you shouldn't see the light of day again. Forget rehab in that case. To me it's that black and white. 1st degree, 2nd degree, whichever. But that's another debate for another thread. So I'll just say my bit and leave it at that because threads like this are always an endless circle with nothing getting agreed upon. So I'm glad the Conservatives want to make this a law and I'm of the opinion that it's long overdue.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Here's the big problem with the trade-off in the cut to funding that Tinordi linked to: most likely, any new legislation will be grandfathered in, ie. people in prison currently on life sentences will not have theirs extended to life without parole, so it's going to take at least 15 years before we get any improvement in public safety as a result (if such a policy actually improved public safety, which is questionable). Meanwhile, they're defunding a policy that's going to immediately decrease public safety. If the hope is that the loss of these sorts of programs will be offset by harsher sentencing, there's going to be a decade-long gap between when the one is discontinued and when the other makes any difference to the number of potential reoffenders on the streets.

All true, but anyone responsible for this will be long gone by the time we see the negative effects, so they don't care. It is all pandering to the "base" for short-term gain and damn the consequences.

Or I suppose, if you listen to the Conservatives, we could all be dead at the hands of terrorists before we see how this turns out, so what's the difference?

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

Yeah I actually do think that. If you willfully take the life of another human being, if you extinguish their livelihood and right to live then yeah I do think you shouldn't see the light of day again. Forget rehab in that case. To me it's that black and white. 1st degree, 2nd degree, whichever. But that's another debate for another thread. So I'll just say my bit and leave it at that because threads like this are always an endless circle with nothing getting agreed upon. So I'm glad the Conservatives want to make this a law and I'm of the opinion that it's long overdue.

So self defense too? What about in a war? What about euthanasia? There are many ways to " take the life of another human being".

[Daradon]

To me this does seem like political pandering and probably wouldn't matter much either way. The way the system is now, there is already situations like this, as has been mentioned. Guys like Bernardo are not getting out. So it seems to work fine as it is.

The one thing that was interesting I heard on CBC was that if this law did go through, and this new class of criminal, or criminal punishment was created, it would be up to a parliamentary (cabinet I believe) decision if these people ever did apply for parole. Not the parole board. Which I find very weird.

People here have to remember, that life without parole still just means 25 (or in a few cases 35?) years. So you could still apply for parole after that, even with this new law.

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by John Doe

So self defense too? What about in a war? What about euthanasia? There are many ways to " take the life of another human being".

I think you missed the part where I said 1st deg or 2nd deg, whichever.

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

I think you missed the part where I said 1st deg or 2nd deg, whichever.

Fair enough. Do you believe Robert Latimer should be jailed for life? Do you think he is a threat to re-offend?

[calumniate]

I liked what they did with Justin bourque which was apparently a first - five stacked life sentences and no chance of parole for 75 years. I don't think anyone had a problem with that.

However this law is unsettling. Is the end game designed to save money at any attempt for corrections?

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by John Doe

Fair enough. Do you believe Robert Latimer should be jailed for life? Do you think he is a threat to re-offend?

At the time when those events occurred I was a kid and back then yeah I did think he should have been jailed for life. He took the law into his own hands and ended his daughters suffering. I think he did it out of love and compassion, but at the end of the day, he broke the law. It wasn't his place to change it, and he knew the consequences of his actions.

Now that I'm older I can see that the system failed him because back then there was no outlet for assisted suicide. What parent wouldn't want to do the compassionate thing for their child? I honestly don't know what the law says about situation like that now, but no I don't think he is a threat to re-offend.

Maybe I should have clarified in my earlier post. I was more making reference to the gang bangers and thugs that go around shooting people in the heat of the moment over a drug deal, or the people who get all stab happy and end up shanking a guy outside a nightclub and killing them. Those guys, whether it's 1st or 2nd degree, shouldn't be let out and in my opinion, rehabilitation shouldn't be the main focus with them. Those are the guy who took away someone's right to live who I think should be locked up for life without parole. If you are a convicted drunk driver who killed someone and you are paroled and do it again, you are a threat to society and obviously rehab didn't work. Those guys should be locked away permanently. That's why I agree with what the government is doing.



Then again I'm no lawyer. I'm just a guy behind a computer monitor who has a simple basic understanding of the criminal code. When I hear stories about how a guy killed someone out of anger and he gets out early and the victims family is made to suffer again, or some drunk driver on his 5th conviction kills a family by drinking and driving yet again, I, like many Canadians, get upset about how that could even happen in the first place.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Meanwhile:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sex-...tawa-1.2979196

What a GD freakin joke this government is and the mouth breathing horde that supports this type of decision making.

The program cuts these guy's penis's off? I was under the impression that high risk sex offenders were generally un-rehabilitatable.... short of physical or chemical castration.

Anyways, isn't this program superfluous if they are going to keep these guys in prison for life?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Rerun

The program cuts these guy's penis's off? I was under the impression that high risk sex offenders were generally un-rehabilitatable.... short of physical or chemical castration.

Anyways, isn't this program superfluous if they are going to keep these guys in prison for life?

Maybe try reading the article?

The federal government is cutting funds for a program designed to prevent the most dangerous, high-risk sex offenders from repeating their crimes, just as its own five-year study has found the program dramatically improves public safety and saves money.

Studies have shown that recidivism rates are 70 to 83 per cent lower among participants, and the evaluation finds examples of even greater success. One case site study in south Saskatchewan, for example, finds the support program has been "incredibly successful" by lowering reoffending rates by 95 per cent among participants

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Maybe try reading the article?

So they do cut their penis's off. Glad to hear it.

[Jbo]

I don't know if I should wade into a debate I will admit I don't know every detail about. Having said that, I like the idea of tougher laws on our criminals. 25 years without a chance for parole is not a tough enough sentence on those dangerous criminals in society. However, I do support the idea of rehabilitation.

I wish I had a solution or middle ground, but this is a complicated topic, and I can see both sides of the argument.

Just my .02 cents I guess

[Mike F]

So, in essence the law is designed to notionally protect the public from the release of individuals who parole boards have deemed are sufficiently rehabilitated to return to society.

Can anyone point to instances where parole boards have paroled individuals with life sentences who went on to reoffend? If not, then, yeah, pandering.