Families fret over likely Supreme Court challenges of consecutive murder sentences

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Locke

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?

In the UK it used to be called Queen's or majesty's pleasure.

Which meant a indeterminate sentence.

[GGG]

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.

Are you pro death penalty then? The entire concept of not using the death penalty is what if the person was innocent. So by the same logic if I am not comfortable that at some point in time an innocent person will endure this sentence then it is not a valid punishment. One thing we know for certain in a system that relies on reasonable doubt and the financial ability of a defendant to pay a lawyer is that innocent people will be convicted.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by GGG

Are you pro death penalty then? The entire concept of not using the death penalty is what if the person was innocent. .

Uh, no no it's not.

That can be someone's argument but not mine. You could have someone tell me they did it, I could see them do it, and we can have video of them doing it and I would still be against the death penalty. I'm sure others would be as well.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Uh, no no it's not.

That can be someone's argument but not mine. You could have someone tell me they did it, I could see them do it, and we can have video of them doing it and I would still be against the death penalty. I'm sure others would be as well.

So you do not care what happens to someone like David Milgard once legally convicted? The fact that we regularly convict innocent people should not be considered at all in determining the constitutionality of a punishment?

That seems cruel, essentially you are saying I know the system will screw up but I don't care about the outcome for the people the system screws over.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

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.

Is it?

658 cases of murderers paroled between 1975 and 1990. 78 per cent were not charged with any crime after release. 13 per cent had parole revoked due to a technical breach of parole conditions. 9 per cent were charged with an indictable offence. Only a third of those indictable offences were against a person, the rest were narcotics and property crime. A total of 5 committed another murder.

So fewer than 1 per cent of paroled murderers kill again. Which is no consolation to those killed. But it's hardly an all-too-common occurrence.

http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/research/fo...042c-eng.shtml

People can make their case for harsher sentencing in murder cases. But the facts don't support deterrence or public safety as legitimate reasons.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by GGG

So you do not care what happens to someone like David Milgard once legally convicted? The fact that we regularly convict innocent people should not be considered at all in determining the constitutionality of a punishment?

That seems cruel, essentially you are saying I know the system will screw up but I don't care about the outcome for the people the system screws over.

What are you talking about?

I said innocence should have no bearing on the sentence. They are already convicted and found guilty. If there's the potential that they are innocent, I really don't think they should have been found guilty (duh) but that's a fault on the trial not the sentencing. You can't base sentencing on the possibility of them being innocent because that screws with the whole system.

And if you are basing it on them being innocent, 75 years or 25, does it really matter? Any time locked up is cruel and unusual to an innocent person. There's other avenues for a potentially innocent person to take, sentencing is not one of them.

Just imagine if a judge based his sentencing on the potential of the person not being guilty, that would instantly cause a mistrial and pretty much ensure the guy's freedom ha.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

What are you talking about?

I said innocence should have no bearing on the sentence. They are already convicted and found guilty. If there's the potential that they are innocent, I really don't think they should have been found guilty (duh) but that's a fault on the trial not the sentencing. You can't base sentencing on the possibility of them being innocent because that screws with the whole system.

And if you are basing it on them being innocent, 75 years or 25, does it really matter? Any time locked up is cruel and unusual to an innocent person. There's other avenues for a potentially innocent person to take, sentencing is not one of them.

Just imagine if a judge based his sentencing on the potential of the person not being guilty, that would instantly cause a mistrial and pretty much ensure the guy's freedom ha.

I think you are missing a key point in my original argument. An innocent person will be sentenced to whatever punishment you have established. I'm not advocating that the possibility that Garland is innocent be considered in the constitutionality of his sentence

I am saying the the fact that an innocent person will eventually be sentenced needs to be considered in the constitutionality of any sentence. If you are not comfortable sentencing an innocent person to 75 years in jail then you shouldn't be comfortable with that sentence existing.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by GGG

I am saying the the fact that an innocent person will eventually be sentenced needs to be considered in the constitutionality of any sentence. If you are not comfortable sentencing an innocent person to 75 years in jail then you shouldn't be comfortable with that sentence existing.

I'm not comfortable sentencing an innocent person to a year in prison though.

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadi..._of_Sentencing

Factors of sentencing. It does not, and never will, include the potential of innocence.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

I'm not comfortable sentencing an innocent person to a year in prison though.

We do that regularly in the current system. If you aren't comfortable with the conviction of innocent people then outside of a few case which don't rely on circumstantial evidence how can you be comfortable with the Justice system.

The end result of our current system is that innocent people serve time. If we as a society aren't comfortable with the trade off between the wrongful conviction rate of x% and protecting our society from the guilty than the justice system is a failure.

And this is the crux of my point. Whether a punishment is cruel or unusual needs to consider that an innocent person will serve it and does the societal benefit of the guilty serving this punishment outweigh the harm of the innocent person.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

I'm not comfortable sentencing an innocent person to a year in prison though.

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadi..._of_Sentencing

Factors of sentencing. It does not, and never will, include the potential of innocence.

TO the edited point I didn't say the sentence a judge should give Garland. It's the constitutionality of the sentence in general that I was debating.

[AltaGuy]

I believe that it's reasonable for a parole board to review a case/file/criminal after 15 years no matter how heinous the crime. The original crime(s) will be taken into account, and for the very worst offenders, they simply shouldn't be granted parole. Not reviewing the file of someone in jail for 75 years seems more odd to me than denying parole after 15.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

I believe that it's reasonable for a parole board to review a case/file/criminal after 15 years no matter how heinous the crime. The original crime(s) will be taken into account, and for the very worst offenders, they simply shouldn't be granted parole. Not reviewing the file of someone in jail for 75 years seems more odd to me than denying parole after 15.

But you also have to consider the flipside of that coin. Perhaps it isnt solely about the behaviour of the criminal but the overall message to victims and their families.

"Your family's entire lives, their hopes, dreams accomplishments and even the children's ability to potentially have their own live and children one day were only worth 15 of this guy's years."

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

How can Balfour argue this with a straight face.

The Defender's Credo:

I am a public defender/defense lawyer.
I am the guardian of the presumption of innocence, due process, and fair trial.
To me is entrusted the preservation of those sacred principles.
I will promulgate them with courtesy and respect,but not with obsequiousness and not with fear.
For I am partisan; I am counsel for the defense.
Let none who oppose me forget that with every fibre of my being I will fight for my clients.
My clients are the indigent accused.
They are the lonely, the friendless.
There is no one to speak for them but me.
My voice will be raised in their defense.
I will resolve all doubt in their favor.
This will be my credo: this and the Golden Rule.
I will seek acclaim and approval only from my own conscience.
And if upon my death there are a few lonely people who have benefited, my efforts will not have been in vain.
— James Doherty, 1957

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

In the UK it used to be called Queen's or majesty's pleasure.

Which meant a indeterminate sentence.

Canada's Criminal Code does provide for indeterminate sentences. The Crown must apply to have the offender declared as a "dangerous offender" first. If it succeeds, the Court will impose an indeterminate sentence. I'm not familiar with the specific legal test for "dangerous offender" status but, typically, there will have to be a lengthy pattern of violent offending. An average of ~24 offenders are designated "dangerous offenders" by the courts in Canada each year.

Still, I think many Canadians would be surprised to know that such a thing exists.

[midniteowl]

Originally Posted by Locke

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?

I definitely agree on getting rid of "25 years = Life", life sentence should mean literally, the criminal should served until he or she dies, no parole whatsoever.

[driveway]

I like the fact that the question of if it is cruel and unusual is being brought before the Court. I think it's exactly the kind of question the Court should be ruling on. I personally hope they keep it, but I think the process of taking the question to the Supreme Court is exactly the right one for Canadian society.

[afc wimbledon]

I would rather have a well constructed and liberally applied dangerous offender law than a not so well thought out election promise to appeal to the hang 'em high crowd frankly

[bizaro86]

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.

No I doubt he considered that. I doubt he considered the mother of that little boy either. But I have. I knew her professionally, and had met her son before he passed.

Garland should never get out of prison. Not out of vengeance for that precious little boy, but so he never has the chance to make another little boy's mother go through that ever again.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

No I doubt he considered that. I doubt he considered the mother of that little boy either. But I have. I knew her professionally, and had met her son before he passed.

Garland should never get out of prison. Not out of vengeance for that precious little boy, but so he never has the chance to make another little boy's mother go through that ever again.

When I was young, a couple of my friends from afterschool got murdered by their dad. He was paroled less than 20 years later. Every time I read a story about kids getting murdered, I think about them, and I wonder how the hell that guy is walking free, having killed his son and daughter. I also think about their mother, and how awful her life must be, having to live every day wondering what her kids could have grown up to be.

I have to say that I am not in favour of the death penalty, but not for the right reasons. I want people that do stuff like that to spend maximum time in prison. Death seems like an easy way out. No shoelaces and no sheets. No suicide. Three squares in a cold, damp room, for as long as possible, until they die.

Vengeance aside, I don't think that consecutive sentences are cruel and unreasonable. More like logical and warranted. It's not like if I rack up debt on multiple credit cards, I can pay them all off with the same dollars. You kill one person, 25 years (should be more, but I digress), you kill two people, well, you have to pay off the first one, before you start paying for the second. I don't know how this can be looked at any other way.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by midniteowl

I definitely agree on getting rid of "25 years = Life", life sentence should mean literally, the criminal should served until he or she dies, no parole whatsoever.

I am continually frustrated by this misunderstanding of Canadian sentencing. In Canada a life sentence means you are serving your sentence for literally every single second of your natural life until you die.

There is no 25 years = Life. It's not a real thing.

In the case of a first degree murder, you are not ellligible to be considered for parole (continuing to serve your sentence but with whatever measure of conditional freedom the parole board grants) until you have served at least 25 years.

As for never allowing parole, it is an easy idea to embrace superficially. But right now there are murderers in minimum security jails across Canada with no perimeter fences, who drive vehicles and have access to sharp tools and keys to various segments of the prison. They could escape if they wanted. They could murder other inmates or guards easily. They don't because they are not supposed to. They are trusted to a level exceeding that which is deserved by many people you will ride public transit with tomorrow morning.

I think if many people considered how little difference there can be between being in prison or being on parole for many lifers after they have a quarter century in the system, then they might reconsider the one size fits all 'no parole ever' position.