Emergency Alert for Dangerous Persons

[Acey]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

I'm a huge bleeding heart but I've said before I don't have a problem keeping dangerous people locked up indefinitely. I don't see someone commiting a crime as heinous as this ever seeing daylight again.

This is my exact position. It sounds better when you say it.

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by Acey

This is my exact position. It sounds better when you say it.

Do you also agree that they should be given freedom if they can prove they're no longer a danger after serving their sentence?

[Acey]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

Do you also agree that they should be given freedom if they can prove they're no longer a danger after serving their sentence?

Yes, but I also think people who kill 50 people should be more severely punished than people who kill 3 people.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Convicted of what? Assaults? Shoplifting?Nobody is going to lock somebody up and not parole them if it’s for some petty prior convictions. The fact that the previous crimes weren’t divulged is telling. Just trying to amp up the “fire the horrible parole board, Canada is a joke!” angst.

Did you read the article ggg posted in post 97? The previous convictions were enough that he shouldn't have been out. Beating a police officer, stabbing, robbery with a firearm, domestic violence, etc. 59 convictions by age 31. This isn't a guy who smoked some weed and shoplifted. He is a repetitive violent criminal - for the protection of everyone else he should have been in prison.

I'm not saying 3 strikes and you're out. But 50 strikes seems like enough chances to me.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Acey

Yes, but I also think people who kill 50 people should be more severely punished than people who kill 3 people.

Paul Bernardo, who killed two people, was recently denied parole after serving 25 years. It took the parole board less than an hour to make their decision. Should this suspect be taken alive and found guilty of murdering 10 people you can be sure he will see similar treatment.

I'm really not sure what you're ranting about here. The system appears to be working.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I'm really not sure what you're ranting about here. The system appears to be working.

Except for the repeat violent offender who shouldn't have been out and just killed 10 people.

[icarus]

Also, Clifford Olson, who murdered 11 people, was denied parole all three times he applied for it during his lifetime.

[Acey]

My claim was never that parole boards are too lenient, though given the severity of Sanderson's crimes I don't see how you can tell me this man should have been out.

I just still disagree with the striking down of parole ineligiblity periods being stacked for heinous crimes. If you're so convinced it will be denied with the unparalleled degree of excellence seen in our parole boards, then the difference is really just semantics, no?

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by Acey

My claim was never that parole boards are too lenient, though given the severity of Sanderson's crimes I don't see how you can tell me this man should have been out.

I just still disagree with the striking down of parole ineligiblity periods being stacked for heinous crimes. If you're so convinced it will be denied with the unparalleled degree of excellence seen in our parole boards, then the difference is really just semantics, no?

Which convicted first-degree mass murderers granted parole under these current policies are you most concerned about?

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by Acey

Except for the repeat violent offender who shouldn't have been out and just killed 10 people.

Acey, you've always seemed like a reasonable person, but you seem to be making emotional arguments based on limited information.

Of course, in hindsight, we can say he shouldn't have been released but we don't have all the facts that the parole board had at its disposal. We also don't know what happened to him after his release that caused him to go on a killing spree that is far beyond what he's done in the past.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Convicted of what? Assaults? Shoplifting?Nobody is going to lock somebody up and not parole them if it’s for some petty prior convictions. The fact that the previous crimes weren’t divulged is telling. Just trying to amp up the “fire the horrible parole board, Canada is a joke!” angst.

https://globalnews.ca/news/9107920/s...medium=Twitter


But his parole records recount almost two decades of crime, as well as drug and alcohol abuse, and associations with gang members, pimps and drug dealers.

His most recent convictions were for assault, assault with a weapon, assaulting a police officer, uttering threats, mischief and robbery.

According to parole records obtained by Global News, in July 2017, Sanderson showed up at his ex-girlfriend’s house and “acted in a threatening manner, made comments about a gang, and damaged property.”

While the children hid in a bathtub, he punched a hole in the bathroom door before going outside and throwing a cement block through the side window of a car. He had fled before the police arrived.

Days later, during an argument with an employee at a “First Nations band store,” Sanderson “tried to fight the victim, and then threatened to murder him and burn down his parents’ house.” Again, police could not find him.

In November 2017, he threatened an accomplice, hitting him in the head with a firearm and stomping on his head. He then made the accomplice rob a fast food restaurant with a firearm, his parole records indicate.

The following April, while drinking at a home, he stabbed two men with a fork. He then went outside and beat a victim who lost consciousness in a ditch. Sanderson returned to the home and kicked in the door.

He was finally arrested in June 2018, after telling police they would have to shoot him. As he was being put into a police car, he kicked an officer in the face and head repeatedly, the parole board wrote.

In February 2021, he was transferred to a healing lodge. He was freed in August 2021 on statutory release.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by Yamer

Corrected. You want 'tweet' in your brackets instead of 'twitter'.

Weird, on Tapatalk it shows correctly with the Twitter tags so I assumed that was right. Thanks.

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by Yamer

Which convicted first-degree mass murderers granted parole under these current policies are you most concerned about?

This study found 0.3% of convicted murderers under supervised release killed again. 0.3% of people who committed murder while on supervised release had prior homicide convictions. That's not 0 but can we accept that number? It's hard to say because the numbers aren't statistically significant enough. I'd like to see a broader, more current, study.

https://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/research/005008-b50-eng.shtml

[Acey]

Originally Posted by Yamer

Which convicted first-degree mass murderers granted parole under these current policies are you most concerned about?

That's my point. So what difference does it make? If you are, in fact, commited to consistently denying parole to mass murderers then all you've lost by striking this down is... what? The fallacy of the possibility of parole for heinous crimes?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

Acey, you've always seemed like a reasonable person, but you seem to be making emotional arguments based on limited information.

Of course, in hindsight, we can say he shouldn't have been released but we don't have all the facts that the parole board had at its disposal. We also don't know what happened to him after his release that caused him to go on a killing spree that is far beyond what he's done in the past.

I dont think you need hindsight to say that someone who has committed over 50 violent offenses is likely to continue committing violent crime. The odds on bet wasn't that he murdered 11 people, but it wasn't that he re-integrated into society as a productive caring person either. The odds on bet here was that he breaks into someone's house and assaults them. The fact that he murdered that person and 10 others wasn't as predictable - but this is a man who should have been behind bars.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by Acey

That's my point. So what difference does it make? If you are, in fact, commited to consistently denying parole to mass murderers then all you've lost by striking this down is... what? The fallacy of the possibility of parole for heinous crimes?

Context.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I dont think you need hindsight to say that someone who has committed over 50 violent offenses is likely to continue committing violent crime. The odds on bet wasn't that he murdered 11 people, but it wasn't that he re-integrated into society as a productive caring person either. The odds on bet here was that he breaks into someone's house and assaults them. The fact that he murdered that person and 10 others wasn't as predictable - but this is a man who should have been behind bars.

...well that's what I would have thought, but I'm not on the parole board and don't have all the facts. When he's not committing 50 violent crimes he was surely doing great things for his community.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

This study found 0.3% of convicted murderers under supervised release killed again. That's not 0 but can we accept that number? It's hard to say because the numbers aren't statistically significant enough. I'd like to see a broader, more current, study.

https://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/research/005008-b50-eng.shtml

Interesting study. 11 more deaths to add to those from the 83 who were convicted of homicides while on parole from that study. The risk factors in the study were:


: 1) A significant history of violence; 2) Early commission of a violent crime (juvenile criminal history); 3) A very violent pre-, per- and post- MO (the death of the victims was followed by the suicides of two assailants and a third was shot by police); 4) A relatively short lapse of time between release and recidivism; 5) A lack of remorse; 6) A complete lack of empathy for the victim or victims; 7) Criminal opportunities associated with a very conspicuous criminal lifestyle; 8) Membership to a criminal group or organization; 9) Abuse of multiple substances dating back more than 15 years; 10) Diagnosed mental health problems 11) A violent family background; 12) A dysfunctional family background; 13) Repeated escapes or attempts to escape; 14) Repeated parole failure; 15) Varied involvement or failure in programs appropriate to the offender’s risk level.

Seems like nearly all of these were present in this case PRIOR to Myles being released (7/10/13 haven't been reported, but the rest all have to various degrees)

@downinflames the 0.3% is the percent of murders. So 0.3% of homicides were committed by someone on release from a previous homicide. It doesn't say what percentage of people who were released committed another homicide. And 12% (10/83) of homicides committed by men on release were committed by those with previous homicide convictions, while the other 73 were committed by those (like Myles Sanderson) who were on release from other crimes.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Acey

That's my point. So what difference does it make? If you are, in fact, commited to consistently denying parole to mass murderers then all you've lost by striking this down is... what? The fallacy of the possibility of parole for heinous crimes?

How is that your point?

If how you’ve framed it is true, you’re just mad they added a useless pretence that won’t affect anyone? That’s really your point? I don’t believe that.

The difference that it makes it that people can earn the chance at parole. The fact that mass murderers often don’t doesn’t mean they couldn’t. Everyone deserves the chance to earn it and rehabilitate, the bar is just significantly higher for certain people, as it should be.

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by Acey

...well that's what I would have thought, but I'm not on the parole board and don't have all the facts. When he's not committing 50 violent crimes he was surely doing great things for his community.

Again, you have no proof he committed 50 violent crimes. I only see a handful listed in the article. For all we know the rest are drug and robbery offences.