Calgary man will serve 10 years for killing pregnant girlfriend - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

J pold · 03-20-2007, 05:55 PM

Just herd the about this on a commercial for CTV news, they mentioned that this is the minimum sentence for 2nd degree murder but the article doesn’t say anything in regards to that either way the punishment does not fit the crime IMO

Quote:

Robert Scribner was 21 when he murdered his 17-year-old girlfriend in their home on February 2005.
Court heard that he used a hunting knife to kill her before turning the weapon on himself in an attempt to commit suicide.

http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/RTGAMA...calgary.ctv.ca

iggypop · 03-20-2007, 05:58 PM

How does killing 2 people only merit the minimum sentence for 1 2nd degree murder?

TheDragon · 03-20-2007, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iggypop

How does killing 2 people only merit the minimum sentence for 1 2nd degree murder?

Three words;

Canadian Judicial System.

Thunderball · 03-20-2007, 06:03 PM

Way to go, Canadian Justice System!

I think I threw up in my mouth a little when I read this.

Superfraggle · 03-20-2007, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iggypop

How does killing 2 people only merit the minimum sentence for 1 2nd degree murder?

It was "pregnant girlfriend", not "girlfriend and child". If you want to take up the debate about when life begins, go talk to the pro-lifers demonstrating at the U of C. If I'm not mistaken, though, "fetus" does not equal "people" in the eyes of the law.

edit: to remove off-topic shot

Bring_Back_Shantz · 03-20-2007, 06:19 PM

You guys have to read a little closer.
It says he's eligible for parole after 10 years.
I've actually been reading about this case in the papers every morning, and if I recall correctly he was given a life sentence (25 years I belive it actually is), but he was given the minimum parole eligibility, which means he'll spend a MINIMUM of 10 years (it says this somewhat ambiguously in the article) in jail, and it could be upwards of 25 (though not likely).

Not a very well written article if you ask me because it left out a few critical facts.

Either way, the guy is a nut, and deserves more than he got.

tussery · 03-20-2007, 06:27 PM

At least your country doesn't go around and sentence people to death at random.

J pold · 03-20-2007, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

You guys have to read a little closer.
It says he's eligible for parole after 10 years.
I've actually been reading about this case in the papers every morning, and if I recall correctly he was given a life sentence (25 years I belive it actually is), but he was given the minimum parole eligibility, which means he'll spend a MINIMUM of 10 years (it says this somewhat ambiguously in the article) in jail, and it could be upwards of 25 (though not likely).

Not a very well written article if you ask me because it left out a few critical facts.

Either way, the guy is a nut, and deserves more than he got.

Ah I see your right the article is rather misleading

Mods if you wouldn’t throwing “a minimum of” in the title for clarification that would be great

peter12 · 03-20-2007, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tussery

At least your country doesn't go around and sentence people to death at random.

Yes, completely random. Like Gestapo random? Or like a .5% margin of error random?

Seriously, in all justice this guy should be thrown in a deep hole for a very long time.

Jayems · 03-20-2007, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Not a very well written article if you ask me because it left out a few critical facts.

I think because this is on CTV, it was written for TV and probably the reason it is so short.

rubecube · 03-20-2007, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tussery

At least your country doesn't go around and sentence people to death at random.

tussery · 03-20-2007, 07:24 PM

Wow people evidently can't take the sarcasm of the "at random" part. I understand that this guy should have been senteced to more years, but had it been here in Texas he would have been senteced to death and wasting more tax money than it would cost to sentence him to life in jail. It's not just your judicial system.

rubecube · 03-20-2007, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tussery

Wow people evidently can't take the sarcasm of the "at random" part. I understand that this guy should have been senteced to more years, but had it been here in Texas he would have been senteced to death and wasting more tax money than it would cost to sentence him to life in jail. It's not just your judicial system.

The only reason it costs more is because of the belief we should kill them humanely.

EDIT: And I'd like to see some statistics that show that killing a man is more expensive than feeding, sheltering and looking after his well-being for 30 years.

FireFly · 03-20-2007, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rubecube

The only reason it costs more is because of the belief we should kill them humanely.

EDIT: And I'd like to see some statistics that show that killing a man is more expensive than feeding, sheltering and looking after his well-being for 30 years.

It's not the cost of his living, it's the cost of the legal requirements before you get to that part.

rubecube · 03-20-2007, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FireFly

It's not the cost of his living, it's the cost of the legal requirements before you get to that part.

If you're talking about the appeals and such, wouldn't that be the same as a life sentence?

FireFly · 03-20-2007, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rubecube

If you're talking about the appeals and such, wouldn't that be the same as a life sentence?

No, and I don't recall exactly why, but when you're going to legally kill a guy, there's more red tape to go through. The appeals process is lengthier and he gets more chances I think.

rubecube · 03-20-2007, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FireFly

No, and I don't recall exactly why, but when you're going to legally kill a guy, there's more red tape to go through. The appeals process is lengthier and he gets more chances I think.

Interesting. So is the concept to be blamed or the bureaucracy?

Thunderball · 03-20-2007, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rubecube

The only reason it costs more is because of the belief we should kill them humanely.

EDIT: And I'd like to see some statistics that show that killing a man is more expensive than feeding, sheltering and looking after his well-being for 30 years.

Its a common misconception that it always costs more... it has been, on occasion, more expensive than sticking someone in prison for life. Depends on how many appeals there are, etc.

The question simply put is, are we as a society willing to exceed normal costs to have a more aggressive justice system?

If not, you end up with a revolving door disaster, like in Canada, where many are too cheap to lock dangerous people away for life with no chance of parole... and yet, everyone looks so shocked when a repeat criminal pulls that atrocity in Mayerthorpe.

Devils'Advocate · 03-20-2007, 09:09 PM

What we need is a justice system like in China.

#1 - Defendant is always found guilty
#2 - The suspects hope for the death sentence rather than live in one a Chinese jail.
#3 - Sentences are not only severe, they usually include a good dose of torture by the guards.

That there, THAT would make Canada great.

Winsor_Pilates · 03-20-2007, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Its a common misconception that it always costs more... it has been, on occasion, more expensive than sticking someone in prison for life. Depends on how many appeals there are, etc.

I don't think so. I guees I'll have to go digging through my school books to prove it, but I'm confident it in general is more expensive to use the death penalty.

Quote:

The question simply put is, are we as a society willing to exceed normal costs to have a more aggressive justice system?

well, that depends
Does a more agressive justice system lead to reduced crime?
What if that money was put into crime prevention instead?