Emergency Alert for Dangerous Persons

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by Acey

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.

Let's excuse the Netherlands, mostly because they have nothing to do with this.

But when I do that it makes everything else you say a silly association.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

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.

I think a determination that "the system is fundamentally broken" as opposed to "these individual parole board members failed" is a reasonable conclusion here, and I agree we don't have enough information yet to determine which is the case.

If the parole board doesn't consider the risk factors from their own studies on what makes parolees likely to commit homicide after release doesn't it seem reasonable that they should change the system and start considering that?

[chemgear]

Interesting considering the other reporting identifying "medium-to-high and high risk categories to reoffend" (nevermind the mass murders of course).


https://globalnews.ca/news/9107920/s...-report-shows/

Saskatchewan stabbing suspect was not considered a risk by parole board, report shows

Seven months before the mass killing in rural Saskatchewan, a parole official ruled that the key suspect did not pose a danger and that releasing him would help him become a “law-abiding citizen.”

“The Board is satisfied that your risk is manageable in the community, if you live with your [blacked out] maintain sobriety and employment, and continue with developing supports, including getting therapy,” the board wrote.

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I think a determination that "the system is fundamentally broken" as opposed to "these individual parole board members failed" is a reasonable conclusion here, and I agree we don't have enough information yet to determine which is the case.

If the parole board doesn't consider the risk factors from their own studies on what makes parolees likely to commit homicide after release doesn't it seem reasonable that they should change the system and start considering that?

I also think it's hilarious you started your post with "I'm not ignoring anything" and selectively removed from the quote my last paragraph where I asked you why you're ignoring my question about how many convictions and/or violent crimes you think is a reasonable number for release. Because imo if this guy violated parole/orders 20+ times in the past (as per chemgear's quote above) I dont know why society should give him another chance.

You edited your post to add the last paragraph. I answered it right after. I do agree that this is a systemic failure. I already said as much. That doesn't mean his last release was not appropriate.

I'm not arguing what should have happened in a perfect world, just what should happen under the justice system as it is now.

I hope they find him soon. We all agree on that.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I think a determination that "the system is fundamentally broken" as opposed to "these individual parole board members failed" is a reasonable conclusion here, and I agree we don't have enough information yet to determine which is the case.

If the parole board doesn't consider the risk factors from their own studies on what makes parolees likely to commit homicide after release doesn't it seem reasonable that they should change the system and start considering that?

There is nothing about this guys history that would suggest he is likely to commit a murder other than in some accidental drunken fight with one of his drinking buddies, which is where almost all of his violence occurs, he has exactly the same history as just about every junkie on the downtown eastside in Vancouver or any other skid row in Canada

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

You edited your post to add the last paragraph. I answered it right after. I do agree that this is a systemic failure. I already said as much. That doesn't mean his last release was not appropriate.

I'm not arguing what should have happened in a perfect world, just what should happen under the justice system as it is now.

I hope they find him soon. We all agree on that.

Sorry about that re:edit. I realized it after I posted and took that paragraph out as I saw you had responded later. My apologies.

I think the system should have some sort of checks and balances for repeat violent offenders. I'm not talking about US style "3 possession felonies = life in prison) but after you have multiple convictions for violent crime maybe longer sentences start becoming appropriate.

I don't think a starting place of "why was this person with 59 convictions of which at least 10 were violent crimesand the vast majority of the homicide risk factors on the street with the opportunity to be murdering people" is reasonable. That's a bad result and we as a society should try and prevent it in the future.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by Yamer

Let's excuse the Netherlands, mostly because they have nothing to do with this.



But when I do that it makes everything else you say a silly association.

This very country we live in has decided life imprisonment is not as bad as the death penalty, so it's not really a silly association.

The other thing that makes it less severe is the potential for evidence to exonerate someone in the future, though that's not really applicable in a mass murder scenario.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

There is nothing about this guys history that would suggest he is likely to commit a murder other than in some accidental drunken fight with one of his drinking buddies, which is where almost all of his violence occurs, he has exactly the same history as just about every junkie on the downtown eastside in Vancouver or any other skid row in Canada

This isn't someone who has 3 charges for bar fights. Domestic.violence, violence against children, he beat up a cop, plus multiple fire arms offences. Couple of quotes below.

--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 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.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

This isn't someone who has 3 charges for bar fights. Domestic.violence, violence against children, he beat up a cop, plus multiple fire arms offences. Couple of quotes below.

--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 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.

59 convictions since turning 18. That's roughly 5 criminal convictions every single year since being an adult. Nevermind the likely criminal acts that not prosecuted or not enough evidence was gathered.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by chemgear

59 convictions since turning 18. That's roughly 5 criminal convictions every single year since being an adult. Nevermind the likely criminal acts that not prosecuted or not enough evidence was gathered.

He was also incarcerated and not generating new convictions for awhile, so as a rate it's actually higher than that.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

He was also incarcerated and not generating new convictions for awhile, so as a rate it's actually higher than that.

Sorry, you are right. My math would be wrong considering the time served of 4+ years.

So roughly 7 convictions per year every year of his adult life when he wasn't in jail.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

This isn't someone who has 3 charges for bar fights. Domestic.violence, violence against children, he beat up a cop, plus multiple fire arms offences. Couple of quotes below.

--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 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.

yes, he's a mean drunk that threatens people punches holes in walls and has had several drunken fights, there are thousands, tens of thousands of guys out there like this, every skid row junky has a history like this, every kid I have ever looked after has a record like this.

[afc wimbledon]

I'm not trying to argue that this guys isnt a violent drunk or low level criminal, he is, but if you are going to lock up every guy with a history like his for life you are going to need 5 or ten major jails extra per province or more, there are at least 4 thousand in BC that would fit his history, almost none of whom will ever do much more than steal the odd bicycle and get into random fights with which ever poor sap or partner they run into.
Right up until he killed those people this guy was an absolutely unexceptional drunken criminal that would likely continue to offend into his late 30's and then age out of the behaviour, he is not even particularly violent by corrections standards

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I don't think a starting place of "why was this person with 59 convictions of which at least 10 were violent crimesand the vast majority of the homicide risk factors on the street with the opportunity to be murdering people" is reasonable. That's a bad result and we as a society should try and prevent it in the future.

It's almost like there should be a discussion about this. Not sure why some one would try to suppress other people's ability to reflect upon this or gather information about the process about what might have happened on a public forum.

I mean, it's a mass murder in our country that looks to be perpetrated by a criminal with a lengthy history of violence who was already unlawfully at large and "we shouldn't be speculating whether his release was justified." - why the hell not?

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I'm not trying to argue that this guys isnt a violent drunk or low level criminal, he is, but if you are going to lock up every guy with a history like his for life you are going to need 5 or ten major jails extra per province or more, there are at least 4 thousand in BC that would fit his history, almost none of whom will ever do much more than steal the odd bicycle and get into random fights with which ever poor sap or partner they run into.
Right up until he killed those people this guy was an absolutely unexceptional drunken criminal that would likely continue to offend into his late 30's and then age out of the behaviour, he is not even particularly violent by corrections standards

Honestly, I'm not super familiar with the criminal spectrum in BC.

Would there be 4 thousand (even more) violent offenders with this kind of criminal long record that would essentially be unlawfully at large running around committing crimes right now? That would go a long ways to explain this thread:

https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=188665

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by chemgear

It's almost like there should be a discussion about this. Not sure why some one would try to suppress other people's ability to reflect upon this or gather information about the process about what might have happened on a public forum.

I mean, it's a mass murder in our country that looks to be perpetrated by a criminal with a lengthy history of violence who was already unlawfully at large and "we shouldn't be speculating whether his release was justified." - why the hell not?

he did three years, federal time, for a I would assume was several assaults, uttering threats and maybe criminal damage, that's a relatively long sentence for assaults that read as mostly drunken brawls with his associates no serious injuries to the parties concerned, again not condoning the behaviour but it is all pretty minor, the sentence he got was because he has a history of drunken assaults.

Your choice here is to give drunken idiots 3 years for getting into a scrap with his drinking buddies or give every drunken idiot life in jail on the off chance that they might be the one wack job that stabs up the neighbourhood

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Honestly, I'm not super familiar with the criminal spectrum in BC.

Would there be 4 thousand (even more) violent offenders with this kind of criminal long record that would essentially be unlawfully at large running around committing crimes right now? That would go a long ways to explain this thread:

https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=188665

well they arent all unlawfully at large but when you drive through the down town eastside or Whaley or pretty much every homeless area of every town in the province pretty much every guy down there has a history of drunken or drug fueled violence, these areas are incredibly violent, full of men who have grown up the victims of unspeakable violence and instability themsleves, the violence feeds on itself and begats more violence, this guys record isnt that long, trust me on this, I have had many many kids in my house with longer records in their late teens.
One of the 'advantages' of living on a rez is you are way less likely to cop a charge for things compared to living in town

[Alpha_Q]

Originally Posted by Acey

Wrong. The Supreme Court just struck this down. Now it's parole considerations after 25 years no matter how many people you kill, be it 3 or 50.

That's what I'm taking exception to here.

Damn. Not sure what I think about that.

[chedder]

This doesn't sound at all like your average downtown Vancouver junky. From the cbc article:

"The documents say Sanderson threatened to murder a band store employee and then burn down his parents' home.

In 2018, Sanderson stabbed two men with a fork and beat another man until he lost consciousness in a ditch.#In June of that year he repeatedly kicked a police officer in the face while being taken into custody."

Sounds like an extremely violent offender that also threatened women and children.

I'm failing to see why some on here are minimizing his past offenses.

[GGG]

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?

This is way back in the discussion but I think it’s important to consider the alternative.

Here he was let out on statutory release after 2/3rds sentence, then he was brought back into prison for violating terms, then he was released again on parole, then disappeared.

The Parole board is in a tough position here as he gets out at the end of his sentence regardless so is parole the lower risk approach. It increases exposure to the community buy allowing him out earlier but does place conditions and monitoring on him which has been shown to reduce recidivism.

I think the problem comes back to habitual violent offenders sentencing and rehabilitation processes being insufficient.