Medicine Hat pedophile murders 12 year old girlfriend's family

[Antithesis]

Right, I'm with you ... I think it is sad that money has to be considered when creating and maintaining a justice system, but it is a reality. And I'm with you on the "Ask the parent whose child got sexually abused by someone who had a past record of sexually abusing children, had been incarcerated for the crime many times, but was still released only to reoffend yet again. Ask them how much they would have paid to keep that from happening to their child." part ... but the same argument has to be turned around, whether it is right or wrong or you agree with it or not -- you also have to ask the same parent who is struggling to make ends meet, pay their rent, all of those things, which is more important: money to pay for their rent and food, or paying extra taxes to keep a criminal in jail who committed a terrible crime - against someone they don't know.

Of course, then the argument would be raised that this person isn't paying much in taxes to begin with, but still, it is an argument designed to raise a point, not be 100% correct in every situation.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Does such a program even require an increase in taxes? If you offset it with earlier parole for reformed non-violent offenders... Basically let ten guys out a year earlier to keep the one really bad guy in ten years longer? Not sure if the demographics warrant it, but an ideological shift in the penal system such as you have suggested does not necessary require more funding. Would you let 10 repentant freudulent accountants out of prison early to keep one unrepentant rapist in there for life? I think most people would.

I have no idea if one could offset the other, if the cost would balance out as per your suggestion. All I was saying is you can not lump all criminals together and then ask the general public if they are willing to pay more to keep them all behind bars for a longer period of time. As you have pointed out, some rehabilitate and once released, get on with their life and are no longer dangerous in any way, shape or form. I can't say about the rest of the public, but for me, I would be willing to release them earlier if the money saved would keep the very dangerous ones behind bars longer. And I would be willing to pay more period, just to keep them off our streets.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Antithesis

Right, I'm with you ... I think it is sad that money has to be considered when creating and maintaining a justice system, but it is a reality. And I'm with you on the "Ask the parent whose child got sexually abused by someone who had a past record of sexually abusing children, had been incarcerated for the crime many times, but was still released only to reoffend yet again. Ask them how much they would have paid to keep that from happening to their child." part ... but the same argument has to be turned around, whether it is right or wrong or you agree with it or not -- you also have to ask the same parent who is struggling to make ends meet, pay their rent, all of those things, which is more important: money to pay for their rent and food, or paying extra taxes to keep a criminal in jail who committed a terrible crime - against someone they don't know.

Of course, then the argument would be raised that this person isn't paying much in taxes to begin with, but still, it is an argument designed to raise a point, not be 100% correct in every situation.

Being poor does not equate to not having a social conscience as to what is right or wrong and what you are willing to pay for what is right.

[Antithesis]

Originally Posted by redforever

Being poor does not equate to not having a social conscience as to what is right or wrong and what you are willing to pay for what is right.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, I think you are misunderstanding. What I am saying is that for some people, having a 'social conscience' isn't an option ... for some people, the money is simply not there to spend more on the justice system through taxes ... for some people it would literally be a choice between a place to live and having food and keeping someone in jail for longer. All I'm raising through my post is the idea that it is not simply a matter of saying, "OK, we are raising taxes to pay to keep dangerous criminals in jail for longer". Maybe I am misreading what you have said ...

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Antithesis

Whoa, whoa, whoa, I think you are misunderstanding. What I am saying is that for some people, having a 'social conscience' isn't an option ... for some people, the money is simply not there to spend more on the justice system through taxes ... for some people it would literally be a choice between a place to live and having food and keeping someone in jail for longer. All I'm raising through my post is the idea that it is not simply a matter of saying, "OK, we are raising taxes to pay to keep dangerous criminals in jail for longer". Maybe I am misreading what you have said ...

I reiterate, being poor does not equate with having a social conscience. It does not have to be one or the other. I agree, there are many poor who have a very difficult time putting food on the table. Does that then make it ok for them to steal or do other crimes? And try to justify the crimes saying, I was starving? There are always options available to you if you have a conscience.

And if the person is that poor that it is the difference between eating and keeping a dangerous offender off of our streets, then an increase in taxes likely will not affect them.

[Antithesis]

Originally Posted by redforever

I reiterate, being poor does not equate with having a social conscience. It does not have to be one or the other. I agree, there are many poor who have a very difficult time putting food on the table. Does that then make it ok for them to steal or do other crimes? And try to justify the crimes saying, I was starving? There are always options available to you if you have a conscience.

And if the person is that poor that it is the difference between eating and keeping a dangerous offender off of our streets, then an increase in taxes likely will not affect them.

I don't understand how you are making the leap from me saying "some people can not afford an increase in their taxes" to "poor people can steal stuff because they can't afford to buy it." I know that you aren't saying that this is my argument, but the two things are completely unrelated.

A person could agree with you full well that murderers and sexual offenders need to be put in prison for life all they want, but anyone, given the choice between providing for their family and paying more in taxes to keep people in jail, will choose their family. It has nothing to do with agreement with any one group on this issue.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Antithesis

I don't understand how you are making the leap from me saying "some people can not afford an increase in their taxes" to "poor people can steal stuff because they can't afford to buy it." I know that you aren't saying that this is my argument, but the two things are completely unrelated.

A person could agree with you full well that murderers and sexual offenders need to be put in prison for life all they want, but anyone, given the choice between providing for their family and paying more in taxes to keep people in jail, will choose their family. It has nothing to do with agreement with any one group on this issue.

And you will also find in our society that those who can afford it the least, give the most because they are principled people with a conscience. I know what you are getting at however. But at the same time, for the desperate poor out there, most programs that require an increase in taxes will not affect them.

Isn't that why a lot of people grumble so much? Saying those people (meaning the poor) contribute nothing towards most programs but yet are the same ones who use the services of those programs. In other words, they put nothing in, but take the most out? It is not so much a matter of money as it is having a social conscience, and no matter what your wealth or lack of wealth, you are willing to help your fellow man and make this a safer country.

And should those of us, who are more comfortable than others, not be willing to help those who don't have many choices in life? So then should we not be willing to shoulder more of the cost that might be associated with keeping violent offenders behind bars for longer periods of time? Like I say, it is all about having a social conscience.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by redforever

And you will also find in our society that those who can afford it the least, give the most because they are principled people with a conscience. I know what you are getting at however. But at the same time, for the desperate poor out there, most programs that require an increase in taxes will not affect them.

Isn't that why a lot of people grumble so much? Saying those people (meaning the poor) contribute nothing towards most programs but yet are the same ones who use the services of those programs. In other words, they put nothing in, but take the most out? It is not so much a matter of money as it is having a social conscience, and no matter what your wealth or lack of wealth, you are willing to help your fellow man and make this a safer country.

And should those of us, who are more comfortable than others, not be willing to help those who don't have many choices in life? So then should we not be willing to shoulder more of the cost that might be associated with keeping violent offenders behind bars for longer periods of time? Like I say, it is all about having a social conscience.

And you will also find people who won't. People complain about paying too much taxes as it is. Do you honestly think the average joe who is not directly affected by a crime would be willing to shell out even more taxes to keep people in jail longer? If you do, then you have more faith in the human race than I do.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

And you will also find people who won't. People complain about paying too much taxes as it is. Do you honestly think the average joe who is not directly affected by a crime would be willing to shell out even more taxes to keep people in jail longer? If you do, then you have more faith in the human race than I do.

Each and everyone of us is affected by crime whether we like to think we are or not. Do you have a deadbolt on your house even if you live in a safe neighborhood and your house has never been broken into? How many of you walk your children to school, whether or not you or any one else in your social circle has ever had a child that has been molested? Do you bemoan the fact that costs in department stores are very high but forget that shoplifting plays a major role in that price you have just paid? Are you afraid to walk in some areas, take public transportation in some areas, live in some areas, even if you have never been accosted?

The discussion was not whether all criminals should be locked up for longer periods of time. The discussion was whether the very hardened criminals should be locked up for longer and if you would be willing to pay more to have those people off the streets, in other words, those who have shown they will not rehabilitate, those who are very dangerous, those with pasts that show they are repeat offenders and the like.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by redforever

Each and everyone of us is affected by crime whether we like to think we are or not. Do you have a deadbolt on your house even if you live in a safe neighborhood and your house has never been broken into? How many of you walk your children to school, whether or not you or any one else in your social circle has ever had a child that has been molested? Do you bemoan the fact that costs in department stores are very high but forget that shoplifting plays a major role in that price you have just paid? Are you afraid to walk in some areas, take public transportation in some areas, live in some areas, even if you have never been accosted?

The discussion was not whether all criminals should be locked up for longer periods of time. The discussion was whether the very hardened criminals should be locked up for longer and if you would be willing to pay more to have those people off the streets, in other words, those who have shown they will not rehabilitate, those who are very dangerous, those with pasts that show they are repeat offenders and the like.

But you're basically talking like you know for sure people would be willing to pay more taxes. All I'm saying is, don't be surprised if not everyone is as willing to up their taxes signficantly as you would be, that's all. And I guess it would depend on how much more taxes, and I have no idea.

[ken0042]

I was poking around, and in 2004 it cost the state of Massachusetts $48K to house a maximum security inmate. So using those numbers, it would cost every Canadian $1.66 per year to house the top 1000 worst offenders.

So, if there's 10,000 offenders on the list, it comes in at $16.60 per year which wouldn't even be a blip on most people's paycheques. But of course I don't know how many inmates we are talking about either.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Antithesis

Whoa, whoa, whoa, I think you are misunderstanding. What I am saying is that for some people, having a 'social conscience' isn't an option ... for some people, the money is simply not there to spend more on the justice system through taxes ... for some people it would literally be a choice between a place to live and having food and keeping someone in jail for longer. All I'm raising through my post is the idea that it is not simply a matter of saying, "OK, we are raising taxes to pay to keep dangerous criminals in jail for longer". Maybe I am misreading what you have said ...

No it wouldnt. The people you are talking about are pretty much off the tax roster to begin with. The additional taxes would be paid for by the middle and uppler classes.

[urban1]

Dont know what to think of this. Is there any punishment that can fit this crime?

Can this girl be rehabilitated to be productive in society and stay out of the justice system in future?

My biggest worry is that the way the law works, once shes completed the 8 1/2 years and walks out the door , thats the end of it... no monitoring of her, no follow-up, no help for her, no nothing since she was a minor when the crime happened.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl.../National/home

Alberta girl sentenced in murders


DAWN WALTON
Globe and Mail Update
November 8, 2007 at 1:34 PM EST

MEDICINE HAT, ALTA. — An Alberta girl convicted of murdering her parents and little brother will serve an 8 ½year sentence, an Alberta court ruled today.

The girl, now 14, but just 12 at the time of the slayings, will spend 4 ½ years in custody and four years under supervision. She will have completed her sentence by the age of 22.

The girl, known only as J.R., will serve her sentence under the little used Intensive Rehabilitative Custody and Supervision or IRCS program, which involves a spell in a psychiatric hospital, young offenders centre and a group home.

Only about 30 young people across the country have been sentenced under an IRCS order.