Our judicial system...

[KAG]

I’m starting to hate picking up a paper or turning on the news. More to point our failed judicial system. Every time I hear about a murder, its by someone out on parole, who was known to the police, with an “extensive violent” criminal background as in the case of the recently killed 23 year old bystander shot to death outside a YYZ bar. What the hell was he doing walking our streets?
Or the a$$hole who gets house arrest for killing someone on his 3rd DUI.
It seems these fu*kers keep getting out with a slap on the wrist.

We NEED tougher laws; stiffer sentences and IMO bring back the death sentence!!!

What do you all think?

[C23flyer]

I'm reading an excellent book by John Ralston Saul called A Fair Country, which gives background on the evolution of many of our institutions in Canada i.e. universal health care, our judiciary, our approach to military matters. It is a unique perspective which helps to define Canada...something that has been evading the government since Trudeau.

As for your assertions Kag, we need to address the societal issues that contribute to things like violent crime, in addition to shoring up laws that ensure adequate justice is meted out. On another note, the research clearly shows that in states where the death penalty is still in place, violent crime is actually higher. Check the link below:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterre ... thvwithout

[Wilbur]

Major crimes are not deterred by stiffer sentencing because the people committing them typically believe they will not be caught. If 25 years in prison won't deter a person, neither will the noose.

[KAG]

Well releasing them back onto the streets isn't working either.


I have some buddies I grew up with that turned into real bad asses. One guy who lived 3 doors down from me, real nice guy growing up is now in Jail (again, third time). Last time he beat an elderly shopkeeper nearly to death with a baseball bat. He had a good family, good middle class up bringing, and the last time he was released he seemingly got his life back together. Started his own company and within 6 months committed an armed robbery and is now back behind bars. How many chances should society give him before he actually does kill someone?

How would you feel if it was your wife, mother, daughter that was his victim?

[C23flyer]

There are still many aspects of our institutions that are tied to models that are inherently faulty when it comes to applying them to our Canadian landscape. While our education system's strength is in its accessibility and universality, the actual delivery of service is tied to outdated British and French practices of education, and are sadly still Eurocentric. Our curriculum may have been revised in many jurisdictions, but the roots of the tree have not been refreshed and we are still seeing very little context that enriches the learning environment for non-white non-anglo and non-franco students. But like anything worth waiting for, evolution to an improved state is a slow process on our short time-lines. With respect to the justice system, for starters, consider the argument for a return to the kind of justice that our British and French forepeople experienced when they first came to Canada:

http://www.realjustice.org/library/natjust1.html

[. ._]

For open and shut cases, I say hang 'em high!

Something like Paul Bernardo with a witness, videotape and DNA. Yeah, sure.

Anything less, and you run the risk of killing an innocent man, IMHO.

-istp

[Hedley]

I know a fellow, did some serious time a few years back.

He met some scary lifers, who would gladly kill you for a
pack of cigarettes. What was the government going to
do to them to punish them, put them in a maximum
security prison?

Curiously, Canada seems to offer a volume discount
system for atrocious behaviour. Kill one person, kill
100 people, the penalty stays pretty much the same.

My beef with the death penalty is that so many people
are wrongly convicted, based upon incompetent or
corrupt police investigations. DNA evidence has certainly
shown this to be the case recently.

[Driving Rain]

Cop stops me searches 1/2 ton... at 3 am
Cop... What's that?
Me... What's what?
Cop ... What's this for?... picks up baseball bat.
me.... Oh that..
Cop.... Ya That!!!...
Me... you know!!!
Cop... no I don't know!!!
Me... Really? Where you grow up?
Cop... what's that have to do with it?
Me .. Well if you grew up in this country you'd know this as a base ball bat.
Cop .. what do you use it for..
Me ... For playing baseball of course.
Cop.. What's it doing in your vehical?
Me... Well you never know when or where a baseball game might break out.
Cop.. You know I could take this?
Me.. Sure you could and then I'd go buy another

[KAG]

I am actually on the fence about the death penalty. But as ISTP mentioned Paul, that was the one example where there is no doubt of guilt. Maybe in extreme cases such as that. But we do need tougher sentences.

[mcrit]

I really see nothing wrong with the death penalty from a theoretical point of view. I don't view it as a deterent, or as vengence, but rather as a cheap and effective way to remove truely dangerous people from society. Somebody cited Paul Bernardo. He is the perfect example of someone who cannot ever be let loose on his own. It is very expensive to keep him locked up, so executing him is really a good option.
Now, having said that, I do object to the death penalty on some practical grounds. Specifically, I just don't trust lawyers and judges with the power of life and death. There have been too many examples of judges committing acts of stupidity.
So, where does this leave us? As opposed to the death penalty, make a life sentence a LIFE sentence, ie remove people from society for good. People that fall into this category, (and I would not limit it to murderers), should be put in a prision, no money should be spent to try and rehabilitate them. Them should just be 'stored' somewhere out of the way, given a subsistence diet, and be confined to their cells 24/7 (could reduce costs on guards that way).

[Siddley Hawker]

I really see nothing wrong with the death penalty from a theoretical point of view.

I voted yes in the poll, and mcrit sums it up pretty neatly for me. I've no objection to having the death penalty on the books, but again I believe it should be reserved for people like Clifford Olsen, Paul Bernardo or that piece of excrement who murdered three generations of the same family in BC and was recently turned down for parole. I fail to see any reason to keep people like that alive. I dislike 'wince words' and what is called a life sentence in this country is exactly that. It does not mean life in prison, it means twenty five years and yer out, with the added bonus if you find Jesus or Buddha or the Flying Spaghetti Monster while incarcerated, you can pass go and collect $200.00 after fifteen years.

[. ._]

I knew a Scottish prison guard once, and he said the same thing. Wanna shorten your sentence? Find God and BOING! The prison gates fly open earlier. He had seen it hundreds of times.

Handy thing to know.

-istp

[rigpiggy]

I don't have a problem with the death penalty per say, but make it so anybody ie: judge, lawyer, police officer, secretary in the prosecutor's office ad nauseum etc... will be charged with manslaughter if they mislead, lie , exclude ex culpatory evidence, manufacture evidence or otherwise pervert justice.

[Icebound]

...

The REAL problem with the death penalty.... for you anti-tax, anti-big-government, anti-government-spending types....

... is that it is actually MORE costly to the prison system than regular incarceration.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty



But perhaps even more important is the list that you would be lumped with:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html

With the exception of the USA and Japan, virtually NO progressive "western" democracy has the death penalty. It is used mostly by such wonderful places such as China Afghanistan Korea Egypt Pakistan Saudi-Arabia, etc.

The death penalty is a non-starter in progressive society. It is a vengeance knee-jerk by victims, nothing less.

NOW.... I DO agree that victims should be treated much better than they they are. I submit that, in fact, they should be compensated for our failure... that is to say YOUR failure (as a society).... to protect them from evil-doers.

But "punishing" the evil-doers with the death penalty will do nothing but increase our costs and with no benefit from the point of view of deterrent. That has been proven time and again... and as I said.... it's a non-starter anymore.



...
...

[square]

The real question is not whether or not the death penalty should be reinstituted. The question is whether or not it's okay to kill people.

But the real problem is the cost of housing prisoners. That's why "LIFE" in prison, which means 25 years, actually means way less than 25 years, like five to ten. So it's alluring to go ahead and say let's just quickly one-shot the death row candidates and spend the money on cultural development, caring for poor kids, making sure everyone gets the chance to live a healthy productive life. But it's not okay to kill people, we have standards, and that's why we get to take the moral high ground. Let's not take our country hostage and institutionalize violence as a means of control.

[square]

Oh and, as long as we're rattling the saber on how prisoners aren't worth what we shell out for them, I want to add that I agree. What I don't understand is why we haven't just put in the solution that makes sense. Everyone else in the country shells out for their own cost of living. Why don't prisoners? If they want TVs, a nice place, good food, computers, books, etc. they should pay for them. Many of them have money. They can buy the shit off the prison. And if they can't, they can take a job making fire-retardant suits or licence plates or pop cans, whatever. The only things they should get for free are a bed, some basic food and education, just like the rest of the unemployed.

[Driving Rain]

Hate to tell you this Square but the extras like TV, computors and even further education at university or collage is paid for by the prisoners.

The question of prisoners working I have no problem with. However what about the guy who has a business making fireproof suits and the law abiding people who work there. There is no doubt a captive work force can do the work cheaper and that would throw the law abiding business into bankruptcy. That's not fair. This happens in the US with alarming regularity.
State employed Wild-land firefighters in the U.S. can't make a living wage because they are in compitition with prisoner brigades who work for nothing. Ask for a raise and it's "@#$! you we'll get more prisoners."
Instead of capital punishment I'm all for lobotomies, especially for the very violent and sex offenders. Today lobotomies can be done very accurately and still leave someone as a useful member of society albeit without the violent or sexual tendencies and they can be done for pennies with an ice pick like tool. The only trouble with this approach is the Nazis experimented with it so it has a connotation. Too bad it's an idea whose time has come.

[Wilbur]

A life sentence is for the rest of your life. You're either in gaol or on parole, and parole is not automatic. That said, almost all 1st degree murderers do qualify for parole at the 25 year point.

In BC, prison work programs are not permitted to directly compete with private sector businesses, except for doing work for other government agencies and non-profit groups. Prisoners are paid $1.50 to $6.00 per day depending on the job they have, with a few paid a little more if doing skilled work in certain circumstances. They are compelled to work if sentenced, and if they refuse they don't earn all of their remission and will likely face a charge under the correction act. Prisons maintain a trust fund used to purchase amenities such as TV's and recreational equipment, and the fund gets it's money from a mark-up on products sold through the institution's commissary. Prisoners are supplied 3 minimal meals per day (I couldn't feed it to my dog without fear of being bit), uniform clothes, and the cheapest basic hygiene products available. They must buy everything else through the commissary and typically pay about 10% above normal retail in the community.

[square]

Wow, I didn't know that, thanks. How the hell does it still cost 60k+ to house them then? 3 of me could live on that!

[Wilbur]

The two biggest costs for a prison are staff and the capital cost of the buildings. Everything else is peanuts in comparison. That's why capitol punishment is actually more expensive then keeping them in gaol. If you executed all the first degree murders you wouldn't be able to close any institutions or lay off any staff because there simply isn't that many of them. You would just raise the per diem cost for the remaining prisoners, and add on the new expenses associated with conducting an execution. Those expenses, however, would be borne by the provinces because conducting executions was a provinical responsibility.

Notwithstanding costs, there is also the simple fact that death sentences do not deter crime and sometimes the innocent are wrongly convicted. Wrongful convictions can be overturned, the person released and compensated to some extent for the time they spent in prison. But with execution, it's game over. The three witnesses and you move to the execution express lane some states are trying south of the border is insanely stupid. Anyone with even a hint of experience in the justice system knows that witness evidence is horribly unreliable, and bypassing appeal protections on the basis of it propels those jurisdictions back to the stone age. For all its strengths, the US has nothing to teach most of the world on the subject of criminal justice and corrections. Their system is right down there with the other barbarians who focus on punishment and revenge as the solution to crime.

C23, the "Eurocentric" (whatever the hell that is) bafflegab you refer to is hogwash. There isn't a shred of empirical evidence to suggest "Eurocentric" education or justice systems causes crime in any other ethnic group. It's nothing more than nonsense propogated by professional minority advocates (largely based in certain Toronto neighbourhoods) who would find themselves out of work if they didn't have victims of an ethnically different majority to blame for their community's ills.

[C23flyer]

C23, the "Eurocentric" (whatever the hell that is) bafflegab you refer to is hogwash. There isn't a shred of empirical evidence to suggest "Eurocentric" education or justice systems causes crime in any other ethnic group. It's nothing more than nonsense propogated by professional minority advocates (largely based in certain Toronto neighbourhoods) who would find themselves out of work if they didn't have victims of an ethnically different majority to blame for their community's ills.

Whoa, easy there Wilbur. I think you've misconstrued my comments. I was using education as an example of an institution that has been slow to evolve. We ignore to our peril the need to create an inclusive and relevant education system for more than the white majority. Disenfrachised and disengaged youth will find their own means to create commerce, and largely those means will fall in the criminal realm. Our justice system is similarly entrenched in (sorry pal) ideas and philosophies that followed the first Europeans to this country. When you add to that mess, the fact that our neighbours to the south put pressure on our systems of politics, justice and education, you should begin to see why change in our country is so painfully slow. While there are many things to like about the US, GB and France, the truth is that Canada is unique in its history with the tremendous contribution of First Nations and Aboriginal peoples to the survival and growth of immigrant groups. Their practices of justice, governance and peacemaking have influenced our institutions, but we increasingly deny those positive influences and opt for what is not working.

If that is still bafflegab and hogwash for you, then I guess our discourse is finished.

[Wilbur]

Our justice system is very much based on the British (most of Canada) and French (PQ). Restorative justice initiatives have existed in various forms for decades within the youth justice system, most often called diversion programs. BC has started trying new ideas like community courts for druggies, and will soon be rolling out some new programs involving aboriginal communites. Pressure from south of the border is highly over-rated - there isn't any except in the realms of drug policy and perhaps a handful of laws. Any pressure on the justice system (police, courts, corrections) is entirely domestic.

The aboriginal models of restorative justice, such as healing circles and elder's councils have significant limitations that don't often get discussed. Discussions of "traditional" justice never seems to include how seriously violent and chronically problematic individuals were dealt with, but they were often as not banished from the community which often amounted to a death sentence. For community based restorative justice to work, the community has to be willing to accept the criminal back, and have the capacity and resources to treat, support, and guide the individual. Government can provide resources, but many communities lack the human capacity necessary.

In the background of every criminial justice system is the simple reality that not every crook wants to change, and many are not capable of change. I will predict that if the community court in Vancouver's downtown eastside works, it will work by moving new addicts to the the area off the streets and into treatment while the existing addicts will disappear through attrition to their addictions. If that turns out to be true, the area will be significantly different in 3-5 years and the land developers will move in to finish the job by pushing out those who remain.

[mcrit]

C23, you're right. Our justice system is based on some faulty Eurpoean principles, namely the idea that everyone can be rehabilitated (Hence the reason that the system is called Corrections Canada). There are people that just can't be rehabilitated, attempts to rehabilitate them are expensive and cause pain to the rest of society. These people need to be removed. Killing them (which can be done cheaply and is not 'morally' wrong) is an option. Placing them in a cell and not letting them out is also an option which can be done cheaply (prisoners don't need TV or gyms).

[Driving Rain]

There are people that just can't be rehabilitated, attempts to rehabilitate them are expensive and cause pain to the rest of society.

That's because the methods they keep trying don't work
Lobotomies are dirt cheap and very effective 100% of the time. It's just the do-gooders don't have the stomach for it.

[mcrit]

Driving Rain.....yeah....that would work to.