Families fret over likely Supreme Court challenges of consecutive murder sentences

[Otto-matic]

http://calgaryherald.com/news/crime/...d-8b2aaa72f1d2

The likelihood of looming Supreme Court challenges over provisions that essentially throw away the key for Canada’s worst murderers could rob families of hard-earned justice, say loved ones of victims in two of Alberta’s most notorious mass slayings.

Legal experts believe its only a matter of time before consecutive periods of parole ineligibility, made possible after the federal government enacted legislation in 2011, will be challenged before Canada’s highest court on the grounds the punishment is cruel and unusual, violating the Constitution.

In February, Douglas Garland was sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole for 75 years after a jury found him guilty in the 2014 murders of five-year-old Nathan O’Brien and his grandparents, Alvin and Kathy Liknes, who were taken from the Liknes’ Parkhill home.

A month after the decision, Garland’s lawyers asked the Alberta Court of Appeal to overturn the triple murder conviction, complaining the sentence of three consecutive parole ineligibilities is “excessive and harsh,” among other arguments.

Nathan’s father, Rod O’Brien, said the notion of freedom shouldn’t be in the cards for those convicted of the most heinous crimes.

The lawyer representing Derek Saretzky, who in August was similarly sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole for 75 years in the 2015 killings of two-year-old Hailey Dunbar-Blanchette, her father Terry Blanchette, and senior Hanne Meketech in Blairmore, questioned the fairness of locking up a 22-year-old who would have no chance at freedom until he’s 97.

“One of the grounds of appeal will likely be that the consecutive minimums of 25 years amounts to cruel and unusual punishment and, because of that, that section is unconstitutional,” said Balfour Der, who is challenging Saretzky’s conviction and sentence before Alberta’s top court.

Can we not go easy on criminals who deserve to be behind bars for life.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Otto-matic

Can we not go easy on criminals who deserve to be behind bars for life.

Sorry this is Canada. A nice slap on the wrist will suffice.

But seriously, these guys deserve to spend the rest of their life behind bars (or be ended, but that's another discussion). I don't see any benefit to anyone be visiting these sort of things.

[greyshep]

Shockingly Balfour Der is all over this story.

[Northendzone]

Good grief. What do you really say other than are you for real.

Garland kills three people including a little boy and 75 years is too harsh.

Sarezttky kills three people, including a little girl and once again his sentence is to harsh.

How can Balfour argue this with a straight face.

[Huntingwhale]

"Cruel and unusual''.




I always have a hearty chuckle when I hear something like this coming from the side of the guy who murdered an innocent child and 2 other people, plead not guilty, never disclosed the location of the bodies and never took responsibility for his actions.

The more of these ''cruel and unusual'' punishments get handed out to POS like him, the better off we all are. Then maybe it won't be so ''unusual'' and those killers get what they deserve.

[CaptainCrunch]

Hopefully Balfour loses this, there are some animals that should never be allowed out.

[Bagor]

Can someone explain to me what is the rationale behind concurrent sentences?

[GGG]

The question that should be asked in these cases is If there were an innocent person convicted would this be cruel and unusual. In the cases where concurrent sentences have been applied I would argue the people have been really guilty beyond any possibility of doubt and have a long criminal history before hand so likelyhood of wrongful conviction is low. It also gives an innocent person the opportunity for new evidence to come out to prove his innocence later on which would allow for some remediation.

Permenantly removing someone from society is not cruel or unusual provided they are secured and well treated. If Garland is to win this case it will be around the prison systems in ability to protect him. Not that he deserves it but the hypothetical innocent person in this situation does.

I agree with these types of cases going to the Supreme Court as it is good to have checks on our governments.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Can someone explain to me what is the rationale behind concurrent sentences?

If you are charged with 30 counts of selling marijuana you could get 100 years in prison. That does not make sense.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Can someone explain to me what is the rationale behind concurrent sentences?

It's what you get when the justice system is running a "commit one murder, get two free" sale.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by GGG

The question that should be asked in these cases is If there were an innocent person convicted would this be cruel and unusual. In the cases where concurrent sentences have been applied I would argue the people have been really guilty beyond any possibility of doubt and have a long criminal history before hand so likelyhood of wrongful conviction is low.

Completely disagree with this notion. Nothing about sentencing after a conviction should be based on the concept of "well, he could be innocent" that should really have no bearing and should never happen. If that's the case, they should never have been found guilty in the first place.

Of course it does happen, unfortunately, but that's a problem with the actual conviction and not the sentencing.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Completely disagree with this notion. Nothing about sentencing after a conviction should be based on the concept of "well, he could be innocent" that should really have no bearing and should never happen. If that's the case, they should never have been found guilty in the first place.

Of course it does happen, unfortunately, but that's a problem with the actual conviction and not the sentencing.

I took that post to mean the same standard of treatment should apply as if the person were innocent. Like it's not ok to subject a guilty person to cruel and unusual punishment just because they are guilty. If the person were found innocent some day would we then regret subjecting that person to inhumane treatment. But I'm not sure.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

It's what you get when the justice system is running a "commit one murder, get two free" sale.

Do you really think that people like Garland stop and consider the sentencing guidelines before they stab or shoot someone to death? That they think to themselves it won't be so bad if I get caught for this and do 20 years behind bars. But if it's 40 then nah, it's just not worth it. So I shouldn't murder these people.

[Locke]

You know whats cruel and unusual or excessive and harsh? Being Murdered.

You murder 3 people you serve 3 life sentences. Seems like simple math. You cant serve them all at the same time because then its like only serving 1 despite having murdered 3.

Simple math here. Simple math.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Completely disagree with this notion. Nothing about sentencing after a conviction should be based on the concept of "well, he could be innocent" that should really have no bearing and should never happen. If that's the case, they should never have been found guilty in the first place.

Of course it does happen, unfortunately, but that's a problem with the actual conviction and not the sentencing.

I think the concept of guilt is lost with so many people. Accusations for many people equal guilt, and it is a bad path for society to be on.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Do you really think that people like Garland stop and consider the sentencing guidelines before they stab or shoot someone to death? That they think to themselves it won't be so bad if I get caught for this and do 20 years behind bars. But if it's 40 then nah, it's just not worth it. So I shouldn't murder these people.

Well you have the "longer sentences = less crime" crowd, and there's a big Venn overlap there with the "punishment > rehabilitation" crowd.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Do you really think that people like Garland stop and consider the sentencing guidelines before they stab or shoot someone to death? That they think to themselves it won't be so bad if I get caught for this and do 20 years behind bars. But if it's 40 then nah, it's just not worth it. So I shouldn't murder these people.

I'm more worried about these types of people getting out of prison and murdering someone else, which has been an all-too common occurrence with our justice system. Multiple homicide should be an automatic life sentence with no parole situation

[CaptainCrunch]

I'm not all that concerned about the rehabilitation of those scumbags to be honest, and we shouldn't have to be, throw them down the well and pull up the rope.

[burn_this_city]

I thought the implied intent was to provide gravity to the fact you killed multiple people rather than just one. If you committed a murder and then additional murders to cover your tracks, does it seem just to receive a sentence for one murder?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I thought the implied intent was to provide gravity to the fact you killed multiple people rather than just one. If you committed a murder and then additional murders to cover your tracks, does it seem just to receive a sentence for one murder?

Its an interesting concept.

What if you kill a whole roomful of people? You serve 25 years and you're good?

If thats the case then get rid of the '25 years = Life' idea and eliminate parole and just say:

"You're going to stay here until either they're not dead anymore or you are."

Or is that too harsh?