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.
Robbery is a violent crime by definition. And you're right - maybe he only committed 10-15 violent crimes and the rest were non-violent.
Can the next guy they let out with that rap sheet rent your basement?
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to bizaro86 For This Useful Post:
Everyone deserves the chance to earn it and rehabilitate, the bar is just significantly higher for certain people, as it should be.
Your opinion is that somebody who commits, for example, 50 murders should be given the chance to rehabilitate. I disagree with this, and there's no book of human code that says you're right nor I.
I'm doing my best to phrase the position that bad people should stay in jail as my opinion, but it seems to not go both ways.
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.
It appears he made some attempt at growth. He was taking psychotropic drugs (doesn't say if prescribed or self-medicating) and had attended a healing lodge. I wouldn't say for certain he still should have been behind bars but some sort of restrictions and court-ordered counselling seems like a good idea.
Society failed this guy before he ever committed a crime and it failed to protect the recent victims. That we can all agree on, but what should have been done to stop these murders isn't 100% certain.
Last edited by DownInFlames; 09-06-2022 at 12:08 AM.
Your opinion is that somebody who commits, for example, 50 murders should be given the chance to rehabilitate. I disagree with this, and there's no book of human code that says you're right nor I.
I'm doing my best to phrase the position that bad people should stay in jail as my opinion, but it seems to not go both ways.
Let’s say the chance of the mass murder rehabilitating is 0.0001%. They’re going to be in prison for the rest of their life anyway, why wouldn’t you attempt to rehabilitate over that period of time? What do you lose?
You seem to think that everyone having a chance at parole is the same as everyone getting out of prison. That’s not what I or anyone else is saying, but that they should have the chance even if it’s 1/10000 that actually earns it.
Your position doesn’t make any sense because if your goal isn’t rehabilitation you should be arguing for the death penalty instead of just holding them until they die in prison. How pointless is that?
Robbery is a violent crime by definition. And you're right - maybe he only committed 10-15 violent crimes and the rest were non-violent.
Can the next guy they let out with that rap sheet rent your basement?
Or maybe ge only committed 5. Or maybe all 59 were violent. My point is we don't know so we shouldn't be speculating whether his release was justified.
I wouldn't rent any part of my home to anyone. And even if I were in that position and refused him that doesn't mean he shouldn't be released. That's what halfway houses are for. Or family.
Your position doesn’t make any sense because if your goal isn’t rehabilitation you should be arguing for the death penalty instead of just holding them until they die in prison. How pointless is that?
It's not pointless if you are of the belief that life in prison is a less severe punishment than death.
I am not the only person who believes this.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Acey For This Useful Post:
It's not pointless if you are of the belief that life in prison is a less severe punishment than death.
I am not the only person who believes this.
I’m assuming this is a conversation even further distanced from the topic than it already is, but how is life spent in a box with limited or no freedoms and no chance at ever getting out and no efforts made to rehabilitate or reason to grow or improve as a person in any way, better?
You’re killing them in prison either way. And based on the amount of time some people spend on death row, it’s not exactly taking a whole lot of life from then anyway. Honest question: does it just make you feel better to know society just kept them locked away until they died instead of just doing it ourselves? If so, why?
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Or maybe ge only committed 5. Or maybe all 59 were violent. My point is we don't know so we shouldn't be speculating whether his release was justified.
I wouldn't rent any part of my home to anyone. And even if I were in that position and refused him that doesn't mean he shouldn't be released. That's what halfway houses are for. Or family.
Ok, how about next door then? The parole system has an obligation to protect Canadians and it failed that obligation in this case.
And we aren't speculating as to it being at least 10 violent crimes, that information has been released. There are more than 10 violent crimes listed in the summary of his parole records posted by global news. In fact, his last set of convictions included 5 violent crimes, and that doesn't include a number of stabbing/beating/domestic violence convictions before that.
And obviously it wasn't justified since he killed 11 people. The only question is whether that's also true without hindsight. And his huge criminal record with repetitive violent crime says hindsight wasn't necessary. Do you really not believe 50 chances is enough?
My point is we don't know so we shouldn't be speculating whether his release was justified.
I'm sorry, what?
Ten murders with a crazy lengthy criminal record and on the run from police.
As you say, you're a bleeding heart . . . but what threshold do you need before would you allow others to even discuss whether their release was justified? Who are you and is this the American "now is not the time" TM right after mass murders after gun violence?
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to chemgear For This Useful Post:
A lifelong imprisonment is far worse than nothing, which is death.
You're right. You're not the only person that believes this. All we ask is that you accept that you're wrong.
Any jurisdiction that has removed capital punishment but maintains life imprisonment, like the Netherlands, believes it to be less severe.
You'll have to take it up with the Netherlands on why they believe it to be less severe... or why death penalty sentences are "reduced" to life imprisonment et al... but it's not particularly a great argument to just say "you're wrong" when all of this strictly a matter of opinion.
Last edited by Acey; 09-06-2022 at 12:35 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Acey For This Useful Post:
Robbery is a violent crime by definition. And you're right - maybe he only committed 10-15 violent crimes and the rest were non-violent.
Can the next guy they let out with that rap sheet rent your basement?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chemgear
I'm sorry, what?
Ten murders with a crazy lengthy criminal record and on the run from police.
As you say, you're a bleeding heart . . . but what threshold do you need before would you allow others to even discuss whether their release was justified? Who are you and is this the American "now is not the time" TM right after mass murders after gun violence?
The parole board didn't have a time machine so the murders weren't considered. I already said hindsight makes the decision look bad but it doesn't mean they didn't do their job.
The parole board was obligated to release him after he served two thirds of his sentence. He violated his parole and was sent back to prison. A few month later he was re-released. Why? Only the parole board knows. You can speculate when you have all the information they did.
"It is really hard to comprehend the the scale of of these crimes.
What we received were Myles Sandersons parole documents and they paint a disturbing picture of an explosively violent offender whose criminal record started young. The documents outline 20 years of violence, 59 convictions of assault, assault with a weapon, uttering threats, assaulting a police officer, robbery and a long history of alcohol and drug abuse. It specifically mentions cocaine. And there is disturbing history of intimate partner violence. It also speaks of him as a perpetrator of intimate partner violence, forcing his way into his ex-girlfriends home, punching a hold in the bathroom door, frightening the children who were hiding there. Throwing a cement block at a woman's vehicle through the windshield. Kicking a police officer in the face, threatening to murder a band store employee. And in 2018 it details how he stabbed two men with a fork.
And even though while incarcerated he didn't follow the rules, he was transferred to a minimum security healing lodge. And although rated as highly likely to reoffend, he was granted release . . . and we know that in May he was unlawfully at large."
I’m assuming this is a conversation even further distanced from the topic than it already is, but how is life spent in a box with limited or no freedoms and no chance at ever getting out and no efforts made to rehabilitate or reason to grow or improve as a person in any way, better?
I'm not even fully disagreeing with you here, there's obviously an argument and a whole debate to be had about which is more severe. Every civilized country on this planet has decided the death penalty is worse, so I'm kinda going with that in the context of ranking punishments.
I mention the Netherlands as I believe they are one of only a few who don't have what's clearly defined as parole for life sentences.
The Following User Says Thank You to Acey For This Useful Post:
You can speculate when you have all the information they did.
You seem pretty dead set on ignoring the information that has been released. From the study on post-release homicides you posted and excerpts from the parole documents released he had at least 12 of the 15 major risk factors for committing a homicide after release. That isn't speculation, those are the facts we have so far.
So the parole board released someone with a major history of violent crime, who has previously violated parole, and who had the vast majority of the risk factors they themselves had previously identified for committing homicides while on parole.
I think it's pretty speculative to say that was a defensible course of action - this is someone who was going to re-offend. It only made the news because it was a spree of murders and not just another grab bag of assaults and robberies.
You've also been steadfast in ignoring my question about how many chances are enough. I think "50 strikes" is a reasonable upper limit before you don't get to be part of society anymore. What do you think? Is there any number of times someone can repeat violent crime for you to think they should forfeit their freedom?
Last edited by bizaro86; 09-06-2022 at 12:59 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to bizaro86 For This Useful Post:
Parole records reveal Saskatchewan suspect's violent history
Myles Sanderson had a history of explosive violence, according to Parole Board of Canada documents from February of this year.
Over two decades, Sanderson, 30, racked up 59 convictions for assault, assault with a weapon, uttering threats, assaulting a police officer, and robbery. Roughly half of the offences were for breaches or failure to comply with pre-existing orders. Because of his violent behavior he has a lifetime prohibited weapons ban.
While incarcerated Sanderson had trouble following the rules and got in trouble twice for possessing contraband. Despite those issues, in February of 2021 his security classification was reduced and he was transferred to a healing lodge.
Risk assessment tools found Sanderson to be at a medium-to-high and high risk categories to reoffend.
You seem pretty dead set on ignoring the information that has been released. From the study on post-release homicides you posted and excerpts from the parole documents released he had at least 12 of the 15 major risk factors for committing a homicide after release. That isn't speculation, those are the facts we have so far.
So the parole board released someone with a major history of violent crime, who has previously violated parole, and who had the vast majority of the risk factors they themselves had previously identified for committing homicides while on parole.
I think it's pretty speculative to say that was a defensible course of action - this is someone who was going to re-offend. It only made the news because it was a spree of murders and not just another grab bag of assaults and robberies.
I'm not ignoring anything. Thise 15 points aren't considered by parole boards, are they? I don't know and you don't either.. They don't have limitless power and can't just keep someone in prison if they've met their parole conditions. Did he? Again, we don't know.
It sure seems like he shouldn't have been released but that's doesn't matter. The law states who gets released and unless you can prove the parole board didn't follow the law they did their job.
I'm being pendantic but it's pretty annoying seeing people judge the justice system based on what they feel it should be and not what it actually is.
You've also been steadfast in ignoring my question about how many chances are enough. I think "50 strikes" is a reasonable upper limit before you don't get to be part of society anymore. What do you think? Is there any number of times someone can repeat violent crime for you to think they should forfeit their freedom?
List 50 violent crimes he committed and I'll answer you. My point is you're specualting, aka making #### up.
There are thousands of guys out there with records like this, most are low level violent offenders until they OD, get to old or to injured to continue to get into fights, unless you are suggesting we institute life without parole for them for low level violent crime then they all get out of jail after a year or two at most, there is nothing in this guys record that would get him more than a couple of years for most of his offences, denying him parole just makes means he isnt supervised on release and is likely to do more crime not less.
You cannot look at his previous criminal record which is utterly unremarkable and common and then assume the thousands posssibly tens of thousands of low level criminals with a history of violence are all a threat to become mass killers and so we should look them all up for life in some multi billion dollar hundreds of new federal jails network you would have to build to enact this variation of 'three fights and your out' rule
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
