Mandatory minimums

General Forums General Chat
21

I see you’re trying to bait me into an intellectual discussion. In real life maybe. On the internet not so much.

The poster was an idiot plain and simple. Complaining about the existing stats and studies calling them inaccurate without providing proof of said statements or even which studies are not factual and why.    

You’re clearly new here so I’ll be nice for now. I rarely do my own research on topics here and sure as fuck don’t do other peoples for them.  

When they want to have a grown up discussion without  their ‘logical’ arguments supported by nothing more than their mothers overly inflated sense of pride in their childs intelligence then maybe just maybe I’ll have the willingness to put in some effort.

Until then I will not waste my time and will simply call them a fucking moron.

22

Sorry Jesus did not realize I said who you vote for, I did not. It has to be Conservative for sure though, just the way you come off so self righteous and sure of yourself, and Ideas. Must be lonely on that pedestal, spewing profanities at the commoners. Or you could very well be a Bloc Quebecois disguised as a westerner. With all the swearing and the lack of ambition to do the necessary work to support facts, and comments.
  No, probably a nutless, part-time worker, living off of your parents. Mad at the world, and more so yourself for not fullfilling your childhood dreams of becoming an astronaut or teacher, or at the very least a human being that can engage in basic conversation. With a handle like Jesus one would have to think at the very least you are a LOSER, with serious mommy and daddy issues.
  Kid Havoc, MMA fights are sanctioned, refereed, judged, and there is medical staff on premises. Plus the fighters want to fight, the same does not apply to streetfighting. And, you do not drink and drive,plain and simple.

23

[quote=“gum”]
It is a shame that you answered they way you did.  If you disagreed with the statements and opinions given, I would have liked to hear your reasons why.

To reiterate:

  1. Crime stats are inaccurate because they only reflect crimes reported to police.  Many crimes are not reported to police.

If you disagree with the above statement, say so and why.[/quote]

This is an unsupported statement, an opinion not backed up by fact.

[quote]2. Saying “studies have shown…” in an argument is not helpful unless you can actually say which studies you are referring to.

If you disagree with the above statement, say so and why.[/quote]

The United States has had mandatory minimums for years, and their stats say they haven’t worked.

[quote]

  1. No one knows whether mandatory minimum sentences work or not, because there have been no good studies to prove it one way or another, instead emotion and politics decide the matter instead of science.

If you disagree with the above statement, say so and why.[/quote]

See answer above.

[quote]

  1. There have been advances in medicine in the past several decades which have made injuries which would have previously been fatal, now survivable.  Thus the murder rate goes down while the number of people with permanent life-altering injuries goes up.

If you disagree with the above statement, say so and why.[/quote]

Whether or not people survive violent crime is not part of the argument.

Mandatory minimums would affect lesser crimes more than murders. Murders also occur in prisons. If you are in prison for life, what deterrent is there if you have nothing left to lose.

Now defend your own statements of emotion and opinion.

24

Last time I check, Jesus is not a “BQ supporter” or some random hobo from Quebec.

Anybody who can’t stand Jesus here are just being sissies. =.=

And by the way and seriously, please write in a form that I can easily read without having to squint by eyes or having to break your comment into 2 or 3 paragraphs.

Other than that, it’s seems like you’re living in a very sheltered life.

25

  I have to agree with Soggy, mandatory Minimums are wrong. But regardless of that, the court system needs to be stronger. Life is Life(i.e.25 years), not 10 years and out because of good behavior. Consistent sentencing would help to level the court system off as well.
  But what the hell do I know, I will just continue to pay my taxes and let the politicians figure it out,BLAH. PLA you need bigger text to read what was written, or is this a grammar thing?. Plus I am an atheist so to me Jesus does not exist. And we all live sheltered lives, you included. But just for you I will brush up on my grammar,I hope you see an improvement over the coming months.

26

You agree with me and yet I infer from your next statement that you do not (consistent sentencing). As stated in the editorial, judges require discretion in sentencing to reflect circumstances of the crime. Repeat offenders would get a higher sentence than a first time offender, taking into account any level of violence in the crime. Mandatory minimums would take this away.

27

  Soggy, you rob a store without a gun. Then rob a store with a gun. You saying that the one who robbed the store without a gun should get less time then the one with a gun?. Or you are caught selling weed and then caught selling meth, the weed sentence should be less?.
  Level the playing field, you rob a store you go away for X amount of years regardless. Now if you beat the clerk up then another charge is added X amount of time, smash stuff on the way out another charge. Not, the crook said “please” when asking for the money in the till so cut them slack. He/She/They robbed a store. Should be cut and dry.
  I guess in Canada that is not always the case. A judge should apply judgment for a case set out by Canadian law, not there interpretation,or the circumstances around the crime. I have an open mind and will read more on the topic. But the law is the law and we should all live by it. I guess I was more agreeing with your analysis of gum’s statements. I will definitely be more clear from now on. By the way I am just looking for good debate, being called a Fucking moron by a guy named Jesus is not good debate.

28

The judge’s entire job is to interpret the law and the circumstances surrounding the crime.  The reason Jesus is responding so harshly is because you have a very obvious lack of knowledge on the subject.  I really suggest you build up some background knowledge first.  It’s difficult to have as you said a ‘good debate’ when you’re so clueless on the subject.

29

  Pretty blurred lines you draw, a stored gets robbed with a gun or strong words still pretty traumatic. Meth is in a different category then weed?. Must be a hippie, controlled narcotics are, well, controlled narcotics. Hard to debate anything when you are all so wise and quick to pass judgment. Mandatory minimums NO, Just sentence the criminals and use the resources to help the victims.  I think we have been around long enough to know what the law Say’s. Lawyers interpret the law and Judges pass down judgement based on facts of the case.Rob a store do the time,rob a store and beat the clerk do lot’s of time. Go take a hit from the bong permanent guest and come back with some smartass comment.

30

Life is blurred lines.  Black and white would make things a lot easier but we are in world filled with shades of grey.

That’s pretty much what I was saying, though we have slightly different opinions on what makes some crimes more severe than others.

Lawyers jobs are to present the facts of the case and the Judge must take the presented facts and interpret the law as it applies in that case.

 I don’t think people are too quick and wise to pass judgment, it’s just that most of your arguments have very little to back them up and do little beyond demonstrating that you know less of the issue at hand then you want to admit.  Most of the people in this discussion wish to present things relevant to the topic at hand not bring you up to speed on our legal system.

Although this comment is completely irrelevant to the discussion I will address it anyways because here you have baited me too far into a smart ass comment for me to avoid.  I can say without hesitation that not only do I not smoke marijuana, I have never smoked it.  Is it so hard to believe that someone who doesn’t smoke (any substance) could support it’s legalization?  I may not agree with it based on the medical effects, which has determined my personal stance not to make use of it or tobacco, but from a legal perspective it makes little sense to criminalize it.

I think the main issue here is that you view the law as an infallible set of rules.  I can assure you it is anything but that, there is a long history of laws that were and are draconian and needed to be changed.  One of the most important parts of our legal system is its ability to be flexible and take into account the individual circumstances of each crime.

Edit*  Also, I highly suggest you do your best to avoid making personal attacks or assumptions about people.  Not because they really care what you have to say about them, but it makes it very difficult to take someones argument seriously when they’re busy calling people names.

31

  You got me, i am not a lawyer nor do I work in the court system. The facts that I have read from this thread are vote conservative your a fucking moron. Have an opinion,your a moron. I guess I have to admit that I am in favor of min. sentences. You have showed me the errors in my replies,I apologize for being so naive. Do the crime, Do the time that is my opinion. But opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.
  I guess one just gets tired hearing about all the criminals in town and all over Canada that think our justice system is a joke. Makes us all look weak.

32

Oh I can’t agree with you more.  There’s far to many repeat offenders that are at the 20+ mark.  Our system is obviously failing to deal with people in those situations appropriately, unfortunately mandatory minimums have been shown to not help.  A lot of the frustration you see with people jumping up and down yelling at people supporting the conservatives is the result of that.  In theory the idea of mandatory minimums and many other ideas seem like they would work very well.  Unfortunately they do not, and it can be frustrating seeing the same old ideas tossed out there once again rather than looking into other options.

From what I’ve seen of our justice system there needs to be a bigger focus on rehabilitation.  As a society we are raised with the whole concept of it being crime and punishment.  Retributive justice really does little good in the end, the victims don’t get proper compensation and we’re stuck with criminals we don’t know what to do with.  This is not to say that rehabilitation will work for everyone, there is definitely no blanket solution.

33

Here’s something that would help:  Waste the pedophiles and rapists.  No need to use a bullet, do it Khmer Rouge style with a shovel to the back of the head.  More humane than they deserve.  No parole, no rehab, no sentencing circle if they happen to be FN, in which case its apparently okay to be a sex offender, nobody seems to care anyway what goes on in the villages, least of all the cops and justice system.  We need more vigilante justice.  The villages need to form up their own outfits to deal with this shit.  Waste the sex offenders.  That would bring some attention in a hurry! 

I tell ya, if I was in power some heads would roll…like Bernardo’s, and Olson’s etc…I’d let them out to play with the real criminals.  Offer incentives on the inside to anyone who kills a sex offender. 

our justice system IS a joke, look at Pickton getting tried for only 2 of the murders, wake up he had a fucking factory goin there…you think its not still going on?  There are people who pay big big money for the privilege of raping and killing a woman.  It was a business.  Probably a very profitable one.  Waste the piece of shit, but torture him first to get the information on the others, then go get them.  It’s pretty simple.  We’ll send innocent people over to other countries to get tortured, but we won’t do it to a guy who fed a whole bunch of women to pigs.  That’s fucked.

34

Yeah, we should totally kill them, like the guy in this story:
cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/23 … 2343.shtml
Oh wait…

35

Oh you got me pegged I’m in tears over here.

If you were here long enough you’d understand the fact that people are defending me shows just how fucking retarded you are.

36

  Your a stud, one person kinda defended you “he’s not a member of the BQ” counts I guess. No one else has said anything about you though. Legend in your own mind I gather. I will be around though, and will have some fun and learn a bit while I am at it. Thanks for you encouraging words Jesus.

37

We have now got rid of two for one credit for jail time served prior to conviction.  Good.  To make things fair, if the accused is not found guilty he should be paid compensation by the government for being jailed unfairly.

We will see mandatory minimum sentences.  The majority of people want this.  If that makes the majority of people morons, I guess you either believe in democracy or you don’t.

38

Again you say “their stats say they haven’t worked”.  This is the same as saying “studies have shown…”  or “experts agree…”, a meaningless argument without saying which studies or which experts.  Can you point out the stats which say they haven’t worked?  I didn’t think so.

Whether people survive violent crime or not is part of the argument.  Murder rates have dropped.  The soft on crime group say this means crime is down.  They ignore the fact that murder rates have dropped largely due to advances in trauma care.

As far as murderers committing more murders while they are prison, perhaps they are doing the job that our justice system is afraid to do.

39

Hate to throw some facts into such a well reasoned debate, but here goes.

PURPOSE AND PRINCIPLES OF SENTENCING

Section 718 of the Criminal Code deals with the purpose and principles of sentencing. The section is intended to provide direction to the courts in making sentencing decisions. The following is the text of the purpose of sentencing:

  1. The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:

(a) to denounce unlawful conduct;

(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;

© to separate offenders from society, where necessary;

(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;

(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and

(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community.

The fundamental principle of sentencing is as follows:

718.1 A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

Other sentencing principles include the following:

718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:

(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,

(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on the race, nationality, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability or sexual orientation of the victim, or

(ii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim

shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances;

(b) a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances;

© where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh;

(d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and

(e) all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders.

One other thing: The reason for automatic early parole is so that the parole;e board can keep tabs on released offenders.  Screw up and we haul your ass back to jail.  If the full sentence has been served, there can be no supervision, no leverage to keep offenders on the straight and narrow.

40

Can you show us your evidence that attempted murder rates have increased?