Give each murderer a rope in their cell...

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Joborule

DESS approves of this.

Maybe Tinordi is DESS

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Dion

Maybe Tinordi is DESS

[puckluck]

Originally Posted by SebC

Tinordi can't be DESS because he is SebC's second account? ... That explains the Kipper hate.

[KelVarnsen]

Originally Posted by Dion

Maybe Tinordi is DESS

DESS has already posted in this thread, and not as Tinordi.

[Russic]

I knew a cop growing up who is basically scum of the earth. Everybody in the town I grew up in seems to know him. One night he pulled over a man who had been suffering depression and accused him of being drunk (no evidence, breathalizer or blood sample). Put him in a cell, berated him, the whole 9 yards. When the guy was eventually released, he went home and hung himself in a barn.

That example is pretty specific, but the point is some people would kill themselves who were totally innocent. Why it's a bad idea is pretty clear to see in my opinion.

That all being said, I totally get why it was said. This man has suffered a great loss and I don't for a minute blame him for having those thoughts. I've lost someone myself and as a result I probably wouldn't mind if anybody caught driving over .08 got a single 9mm bullet to the back of the knee. The problem is I realize that's not logical and if I were in a position of authority I probably wouldn't voice it publicly.

[VO #23]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Yeah well since half the time people dont actually get first degree murder, the jokes aren't really jokes, they're serious. Second degree minimum is 10 years if I'm not mistaken. And then there's the guys that get some really pathetic conviction like manslaughter after they kill four people while driving drunk down the wrong way of a highway and they're out in four years.
And as far as first degree murder goes, there was the "faint hope clause" that let guys out after 15 years if they qualify.
So before you go calling everyone else dumb, maybe you should do a little learning.

Thanks, I've done a bit of learning about the law considering I'm about to begin my last semester of law school.

The MINIMUM sentence for second-degree murder is 10 years, but it goes up to 25. Being convicted of second-degree murder is no joke (and FYI, first-degree murder is generally more cut and dried because of the specific intent requirement). Unless the Crown sees fit to drop the charge to second-degree murder, that's the charge an accused will face should they be convicted.

And the "faint hope" clause is long gone, so who really cares about it now? It's yesterday's news.

My original point stands. Being convicted of first-degree murder brings with it a very serious penalty. I know a lot of people here think the system is soft and judges are stupid, but they couldn't be more wrong when considering the complex decisions that need to be made at trial and during sentencing within the framework developed by YOUR elected officials.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by puckluck

Tinordi can't be DESS because he is SebC's second account? ... That explains the Kipper hate.

I get the you're joking... but it's actually because their personalities are so far apart that to be the same person they'd have to be schizo.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by VO #23

A conviction for first-degree murder in Canada brings with it a minimum 25-year jail term with no chance of parole. The "wait 5 years and just get paroled!" jokes are ridiculous. Some of you should learn about the laws in this country before opening your dumb mouths.

Sorry I actually though first degree murders actually got paroled in 5 years. I didn't realize I needed green text for it. Heaven forbid I make a tongue in cheek comment that is old as time and people get a kick out of it.

I'm well aware of the laws in this country as I deal with them every day and have an active role within the law community. I by no means consider myself smart (I'm not a law degree student) but I am far from dumb and am well aware of the politics and the circumstances that go into cases on why first degree sticks sometimes and why things get plead down. Do I need to point the ridiculous list of cases where peoples lives have been taken and it gets plead down to less?

I appreciate your education in law school, but surely you can agree that sentencing in this country is inadequate and inappropriate among certain cases.

[VO #23]

Originally Posted by jar_e

Sorry I actually though first degree murders actually got paroled in 5 years. I didn't realize I needed green text for it. Heaven forbid I make a tongue in cheek comment that is old as time and people get a kick out of it.

I'm well aware of the laws in this country as I deal with them every day and have an active role within the law community. I by no means consider myself smart (I'm not a law degree student) but I am far from dumb and am well aware of the politics and the circumstances that go into cases on why first degree sticks sometimes and why things get plead down. Do I need to point the ridiculous list of cases where peoples lives have been taken and it gets plead down to less?

I appreciate your education in law school, but surely you can agree that sentencing in this country is inadequate and inappropriate among certain cases.

I disagree that sentencing in Canada can broadly be categorized as "inadequate and inappropriate". That statement won't sit well with the 'lock em up and throw away the key' crowd, but decades of serious research demonstrate that systems emphasizing long prison sentences, based on the principal of punishment, just simply don't work. The fact of the matter is, judges (while not infallible) do have lengthy histories as lawyers, know the justice system quite well, and more often than not prescribe sentences that fall within the range of acceptability.

As for pleading down, this does happen but probably less than you'd think. Unlike in the U.S., where prosecutors often go after convictions purely for numbers sake (so the DA can campaign on them), the Crown here plays a quasi-judicial function that guides how they act based on what is just. If justice would be obtained by dropping a first-degree murder charge to a second-degree murder charge, the Crown will make adjustments accordingly. The motivations are not (or should not) be convenience in conviction, but rather ensuring a just result.

With respect to the article that this was posted under, I think it comes down to a problem of extrajudicial punishment. By and large, those who are convicted of murder (whether first- or second-degree) have a long road ahead of them. They may have even been falsely convicted (this happens with alarming frequency). To put them in a cell, staring 25 years in a face, and greet them with a piece of rope to facilitate their suicide is disgusting. I'd like to think that we, as a society, are better than that.

Also, I'd like to apologize for my earlier remark as well, that was totally out of line. It was just a joke and I flew off. I hope you can accept my apology.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by VO #23

I disagree that sentencing in Canada can broadly be categorized as "inadequate and inappropriate". That statement won't sit well with the 'lock em up and throw away the key' crowd, but decades of serious research demonstrate that systems emphasizing long prison sentences, based on the principal of punishment, just simply don't work. The fact of the matter is, judges (while not infallible) do have lengthy histories as lawyers, know the justice system quite well, and more often than not prescribe sentences that fall within the range of acceptability.

As for pleading down, this does happen but probably less than you'd think. Unlike in the U.S., where prosecutors often go after convictions purely for numbers sake (so the DA can campaign on them), the Crown here plays a quasi-judicial function that guides how they act based on what is just. If justice would be obtained by dropping a first-degree murder charge to a second-degree murder charge, the Crown will make adjustments accordingly. The motivations are not (or should not) be convenience in conviction, but rather ensuring a just result.

With respect to the article that this was posted under, I think it comes down to a problem of extrajudicial punishment. By and large, those who are convicted of murder (whether first- or second-degree) have a long road ahead of them. They may have even been falsely convicted (this happens with alarming frequency). To put them in a cell, staring 25 years in a face, and greet them with a piece of rope to facilitate their suicide is disgusting. I'd like to think that we, as a society, are better than that.

Also, I'd like to apologize for my earlier remark as well, that was totally out of line. It was just a joke and I flew off. I hope you can accept my apology.

Having spent many years in the criminal justice system I would like to take issue on two points here, first the idea that long sentances don't work, they work perfectly, in fact incarceration is the only response with an almost 100% success rate, for the period of incarceration criminals rarely commit more crime.
What the research refers to is incarcerations ability to effect behaviour when criminals get back into the community, and here I agree it is less effective, but what researchers routinely ignore is the efficacy of the alternatives to incarceration, which are all equally ineffective. The reality has always been that peoples behaviour changes as a responce to the negative consequeces of that behaviour, incarceration is about the only negative consequence society can apply, as such it is often the reason criminals search out treatment apon release.

your second point, that judges as ex lawyers are well qualified to meet out sentances that are acceptable is correct but misses the point, while giving a life time petty criminal a 6 month sentance for his 300th crime is acceptable to the criminal justice system it is in no way acceptable to the community he preys on.

[MarchHare]

The United States now spends some $200 billion on the correctional system each year, a sum that exceeds the gross domestic product of twenty-five US states and 140 foreign countries.

[...]

A prisonless society where murderers were systematically executed and rapists were automatically castrated wouldn’t be the most humane society imaginable, but it would be light-years ahead of the status quo.

What a stupid article. It ignores two very important facts: 1) you can't have a prisonless society unless you intend to punish all crimes with the death penalty or castration, not just murder and rape and 2) the reason America's prison system costs so much is because of the war on drugs. The vast majority of people serving time in US prisons are there for drug-related crimes, not murder or rape. Statistically, violent crime has been decreasing in the US for decades.

[MoneyGuy]

How about extending this to rapists and child molestors?

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Russic

I knew a cop growing up who is basically scum of the earth. Everybody in the town I grew up in seems to know him. One night he pulled over a man who had been suffering depression and accused him of being drunk (no evidence, breathalizer or blood sample). Put him in a cell, berated him, the whole 9 yards. When the guy was eventually released, he went home and hung himself in a barn.

That example is pretty specific, but the point is some people would kill themselves who were totally innocent. Why it's a bad idea is pretty clear to see in my opinion.

That all being said, I totally get why it was said. This man has suffered a great loss and I don't for a minute blame him for having those thoughts. I've lost someone myself and as a result I probably wouldn't mind if anybody caught driving over .08 got a single 9mm bullet to the back of the knee. The problem is I realize that's not logical and if I were in a position of authority I probably wouldn't voice it publicly.

Well if I was put away for 25 years - innocent or not - I would like the option to quit the game early without resorting to picking away at a vein with a spring from my mattress.

[Hilch]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

What a stupid article. It ignores two very important facts: 1) you can't have a prisonless society unless you intend to punish all crimes with the death penalty or castration, not just murder and rape and 2) the reason America's prison system costs so much is because of the war on drugs. The vast majority of people serving time in US prisons are there for drug-related crimes, not murder or rape. Statistically, violent crime has been decreasing in the US for decades.

Agreed! Over half of all prisoners in the US are in there for drug related offences, with nearly 3/4 of them in there for small possessions. This is the problem for many reasons but mainly because jails are privatized and because the unions for law enforcement and corrections fight for it and put a ton of money in lobbying to keep punishment tough for mostly harmless crimes. It's disturbing watching the War on Drugs spending $10,000,000,000 a year but then they have to lay off teachers, nurses and other public employees. Not to mention they complain about the debt but continue to spend, spend, spend on something they will never, ever stop!

[firebug]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

What a stupid article. It ignores two very important facts: 1) you can't have a prisonless society unless you intend to punish all crimes with the death penalty or castration, not just murder and rape and 2) the reason America's prison system costs so much is because of the war on drugs. The vast majority of people serving time in US prisons are there for drug-related crimes, not murder or rape.

Agreed. Did you read the article, as that is one of its main thrusts?

From the article:

Meanwhile, back on the battlefield of the war on drugs, crack continues to be consumed in nearly the same quantities as in 1990. But a huge price drop destroyed the handsome margins of the crack trade and virtually eliminated the violence associated with it. The crack-crime epidemic is gone, but the incarceration complex it fomented lives on. As a result, one in three black baby boys can expect to spend part of his life in prison.

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Statistically, violent crime has been decreasing in the US for decades.

True - but only if you fail to include violent crime perpetrated on prisoners (which the government doesn't). Since a huge proportion of prisoners are sentenced based upon non-violent drug offenses they receive a far greater punishment than what most ethical people would consider fair.

What has been done in the US is that violence has not been diminished but rather segregated.

If you are white -> all is good, you are the safest you have ever been.

If you are minority -> tough break, don't drop the soap.

[firebug]

Originally Posted by Hilch

Agreed! Over half of all prisoners in the US are in there for drug related offences, with nearly 3/4 of them in there for small possessions. This is the problem for many reasons but mainly because jails are privatized and because the unions for law enforcement and corrections fight for it and put a ton of money in lobbying to keep punishment tough for mostly harmless crimes. It's disturbing watching the War on Drugs spending $10,000,000,000 a year but then they have to lay off teachers, nurses and other public employees. Not to mention they complain about the debt but continue to spend, spend, spend on something they will never, ever stop!

As discussed in the article:

Of course, not everyone has made out badly from the country’s prison-construction binge. Telephone companies run up impressive profits from prisoners forced to call collect. Defense contractors have signed lucrative contracts selling paramilitary equipment to local law enforcement agencies. Rural communities have benefited most of all. Not only does the criminal justice sector employ 2 million people, including more than 500,000 correctional officers, most of them in rural areas, it also helps to inflate the local population of prison zones for the purposes of congressional districting and social spending. Schoolchildren learn that in 1787, slave-holding states reached a compromise with free states that allowed nonvoting slaves to count as three-fifths of a human for the purposes of apportioning congressional seats. Counting a slave as a fraction of a man seems like a vivid manifestation of the way the United States dehumanized Africans. Today, thousands of people are removed from urban districts, where public money is urgently needed, and shipped upstate, where each counts for a full person. In this way, prisoners bolster the voting power of rural districts, while being unable to vote themselves. Perhaps this is the reason why, as criminal justice surveys indicate, rural whites form by far the most punitive demographic.