The Election (no, the Other One)

Remove all ads!

What do you mean by "let off"? In the US, if you are under 18 when you commit a murder, you can still be put on trial and you can still go to jail for a long, long time. However, the death penalty can only be applied to people who were at least 18 when they committed the crime. If you remember the beltway sniper of a few years ago, there were two people involved. John Mohommed, who was about 40, and Lee Malvo, who was only 17. Malvo cannot be executed for his crimes.

 

We don't have the death penalty here at all. You can all guess how I feel about that.

There is a huge difference between making a minor mistake (like stealing apples, to use the one from another thread) and murder. I don't care if the kid is only 16 -- he knows by that point that murder, gang rape, and brutally violent assault is wrong. If he commits such crimes with no reasonable mitigating circumstances, he should be tried and sentenced as an adult, and do hard time.

If you're 16 years old and are honestly not able to comprehend the fact that such actions are wrong, well, you've got a good case for a diminished capacity plea.

If someone raped my 13 year old daughter, I wouldn't give a <insert your favorite expletive here> how young he was or that his mother didn't love him. How can these defense lawyers argue with a straight face that because a kid has a difficult home life that it gives them the right to rape and murder? There has to be accountability. Canada is rife with cases where such crimes get nothing more than a slap on the wrist and the people go out and commit similar or worse crimes again. If that isn't happening in Sweden, then you are a lucky guy, Joacqin. In that sense, I'll be the first to admit your society is superior to mine.

 

**** happens as they say even here. My entire point is that we as a society, both yours and mine has put a limit for when a person is considered an adult and mature enough to take part in society fully. That needs to cut both ways in my opinion. A good example was a case in England a few years back where two very young boys (below the age of ten iirc) murdered an even younger boy. Are they fully responsible for their actions in the same way as a 30 year old? Now of course there is a difference between ten year olds and seventeen year olds but we have still set the limit to 18 for when we consider people adult and responsible enough to vote, drink and such. Of course there needs to be accountability (I think those two boys have been in "juvy" since it happened) but as for trialing people who are not adults as adults is just hypocritical in my opinion. I also think you have a pretty skewed image of the judical system, I have had some insight (not much) in it and it isn't nearly as "bleeding hearted" as the media likes to proclaim. Yes, the media skew things both ways they report in a way that sells first and foremost whatever political agenda they might have comes at a distant second if that and articles proclaiming about criminals getting off sells to people like you cause you get so upset. Even if someone is said to have been "let off" they can usually look forward to many years in one institution or another and constant governmental surveillance.

The rest of your post is about revenge, society doesn't care one whit about revenge or at least it shouldn't in my opinion. If some little twerp rapes and murders your daughter and you want vengeance do it yourself. That is not the job of society but be prepared to take the repercussions of your actions then.

 

This "kid gloves" mentality has got to go. If you are old enough to commit the crime, then you are old enough to face the consequences of your action--up to and inclyuding the death penalty where applicable. All this attempt to go easy on a criminal makes the justice system a laughing stock--until their failures hit close to home.

What I propose for indictable offenses (felonies) is this: First offense we try to rehabilitate you. Second offense, you obviouslty have no intention to be rehabilitated, so you are punished in the draconian fashion that your behaviour warrants. Third offense is the death penalty. For extremely brutal crimes (rape, murder, extreme acts of violence), these steps may be skipped as necessary. It should be about protecting the law abiding citizens, not the criminals who prey upon them.

Back to the election: After the debates, I'm more convinced that we're headed for a Conservative majority. The primary tactic of the Liberals, NDP, Bloc and Green Party is to attack Harper, and they all have suggested economic policies that will make the current situation even worse. The Anti-Harper vote will be split amongst the other three (four in Quebec) parties, while Harper gains support from people that would support the other parties but realize that their leaders are knobs...

 

The US is actually not that far from that standard. We have a "three strikes and you're out" rule where upon being found guilty of a 3rd felony you get life in prison.

 

Just for federal crimes, though. Not all states have implemented this policy (currently, only 26 states).

 

You obviously don't believe in such vigilante behaviour, and it may surprise you to know that I do not either. The whole point of having a society with a judicial system is to eliminate such notions of individual vengeance. The society is supposed to be involved and be neutral and even-handed in its punishment of crime, making sure that "the punishment fits the crime" and that justice is served for the victims.

My complaint is that the table, at the present time, is tilted far too much in favour of the criminal. The modern focus on rehabilitation is, I think, a slap in the face to the victims of heinous crimes. The modern line is that retribution is passe, and that the system should never focus on punishment but only on the needs of the perpetrator. It is that mindset that I cannot tolerate. Certainly there should be some balancing factors or we'll have kids losing their hands for stealing apples (I believe that was your example) but when the crime is truly outrageous, society should not be afraid to punish its criminals severely.

Going back to the Canadian election, Elizabeth May's comment about this whole issue struck many of my friends as a slap in the face to the victims of violent crime -- she looked like she cares more about the criminals than their victims, and that strikes us as repugnant (this was a water cooler discussion at work last night.)

 

More proof that Dion is an idiot. He can't even understand a simple question, and has to have the question repeated 3 times. He blames it on his hearing problem. Bulls**t. It's an English comprehension problem. How does this guy expect to be able to operate on the national and international stage?

The drama starts at the 1 minute mark.

 

Yeah, the Guy is an idiot. That poor english thing will hurt the Liberals outside of Quebec. Conservative Majority here we come!

 

The Liberals and the NDP might join forces in an unholy alliance -- wouldn't THAT just suck the big one?

I know it's unlikely, but it is possible. God help us.

 

Doesn't matter. In any given riding, the guy that gets elected is the one with the most votes. I see the Liberal, NDP and Green party splitting the anti-Harper vote. This will leave the Conservative candidate the most votes among the candidates on the list. I believe that this will occur in over 155 of the 308 ridings across Canada. That's the Conservative majority...

 

The results are in. The final number for the Conservatives is 143 seats. 12 short of the majority. Basically it sends a message that no party deserved a majority government, and that they are to stop acting like children. All three of the main party leaders were talking about co-operation. The message was clear that they need to get to work and find answers to the economic crisis.

Rumours have it that senior Liberal members will try to have a convention to review Stephane Dion's leadership in light of their losses and the Conservative gains. If this does not occur, then I give the government 6 months and we'll be discussing this again around May 24...

 

No way that Layton, Dion and Duceppe would bring down the government in 6 months. The Canadian public has spoken and let them know in no uncertain terms -- particularly the Liberals -- that their policies are not wanted in Canada at this time. Harper may not have got the majority that you and I were hoping for, Gnarff (sorry to say "I told you so" ) but he did gain 16 seats, while the Liberals lost several.

If they were stupid enough to force an election, Harper and the Conservatives would be able to cast them (quite rightly, IMHO) as greedy, undemocratic fat cats who care nothing about the stability of the government and the well-being of the citizens therein. The electorate would punish them brutally at the polls -- worse than they were already punished.

They'll wait at least 18 months before they start threatening to bring the House down. Even then, Harper will likely be able to toss enough bones to the BQ crowd to maintain their support, though that will likely be at Alberta's expense.

Aside from Harper's still insufficient gains, the only person who could truly be anything close to positive about the election results would be Jack Layton -- he gained around 7 seats and pretty well came off as the best leader of the bunch, though his party and its policies are so anathema to most Canadians that he must know he could never, ever, in a million years, get even a minority government -- the best he could hope for would be some sort of pathetic coalition. Still, he made strides and has every reason for his smile.

 

I just don't trust these parties to set aside their partisan bickering for the good of the nation.

Layton's ideas are sound, it's how he plans to pay for them that is screwed up. Putting billions into the hands of the middle class would increase spending, and thus benefit the economy, but if that rubs Corporate Canada the wrong way, they pack up their tent and go somewhere that will play ball. that leaves these Canadians without jobs, doing more harm to the economy than good. Perhaps Layton could work with Harper to find a way to put some money back in the hands of the people without alienating the corporations, then the recession may be nerfed...

 

Sorry for the Thread Necromancy, but it hasn't been long enough to justify a new thread yet. Less than 6 weeks after all the partry leaders were all talking about co-operation, the poop flinging resumes in Ottawa as it was before, with the Conservatives setting out a plan to deal with the economy, and everyone else complaining about it, and threateng to topple the government. Remember LKD's comment about the Liberal NDP unholy alliance? If the Bloc Quebecois, who will do almost anything to spite the Conservatives, hold the final card.

Basically, Harper's conservatives planned to cap MP pay hikes, prevent public sector employees from striking for two years, and cut federal funding of political parties. And the Liberals and NDP are accusing him of partisan politics. So responsible financial policy is that offensive tot he Liberals?

So expect the next election sometime in February...

 

Many economists say the way governments should deal with a recession is to increase spending, not cut it. There’s nothing wrong with cutting internal expenditures (which the Conservatives proposed), but they didn’t say they were going to do anything to actually stimulate the economy.

Anyway, Harper is an idiot. He basically put forward a plan that would put opposition parties out of business by cutting their funding. Did he really expect them to just accept that? Yes, the Opposition is looking to defeat the government on the basis that it isn't doing anything to address the economic situation, but big deal. The Conservatives were either arrogant or naive; in any case, they deserve what's coming. They complain about the opposition going against democracy, but what is proposing something that essentially eliminates political competition if not undemocratic? There won't necessarily be an election soon if the opposition parties can form a coalition, and convince the governor general to let them run the country without an election, or at least bring Harper under control (he's already dropped the party funding idea).

I reluctantly voted conservative in the last election because I didn't see any alternatives, but I hoped for a minority because I really don't trust Harper. My worst fears have been realized, but thankfully there is a minority government, so something can be done about it.

 

Sadly I have to disagree with you on this one, Splunge. As a taxpayer, I do not one one penny -- not one! -- of public funding going into the coffers of the filthy NDP. Or, even worse, into the coffers of the BQ.

By the same token, I feel strongly that a pot-smoking, flaming homosexual, pro-abortion, and anti-big business hippie would probably also be angry if any tax dollars go into the Conservative coffers. If he wants to put money toward the Green party, the NDP, or even the Marijuana party, then he should have every right to do it, and I should have the right to donate money to the Conservatives or the ASP (Alberta Separation Party -- I know the real name is different but I like the sound of ASP. Please bear in mind, though, that I am only exaggerating to make a point and would never, ever donate to a separationist party.)

Bottom line, no one should, even indirectly, have to fund a party whose positions he finds repugnant.

The Conservatives backed down on this one, though, at least according to what I heard on the radio this morning. That might take the wind out of the whole "coalition" thing but IMHO the Liberals ought to be ashamed of themselves. The population of Canada told them quite clearly in the election that they have no interest in the Liberals -- they lost what, 19 seats (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm a little fuzzy.) The NDP have a little bit more of a leg to stand on in that they got 10 more seats than before, but they still have less than the Conservatives, Liberals, or even the BQ, for God's sake.

However, I have to agree that Harper was stupid. Perhaps he's trying to get a feel for his opponents -- as in "how far can I push these buggers?" Guess he found out that severing the left's access to the public purse strings is the surest way to rile them, notwithstanding the fact that the Conservatives would lose more money than the other parties. But then, the Conservatives don't have to worry about money because average Canadians support them voluntarily without being forced to by tax laws.

 

Well, not really the “average” Canadian:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081115/conservative_convention_081115/20081115?hub=Canada

175,000 people annually are hardly representative of the “average” citizen of a country with a population of over 30 million. I will grant you that the Conservatives are more successful at fundraising than the other parties. However, and while I couldn’t find any data to back this up, I suspect that people who support the Conservatives are, on average, more wealthy than those who support other parties, and therefore are generally more financially able to donate. This is because Conservatives are perceived as being more “friendly” towards those who accumulate wealth. However, I feel that those who are less financially well-off should still be entitled to vote for a party that represents and protects their interests; apparently, LKD doesn’t feel the same way, and he’s certainly entitled to his opinion.

I should add that the current system of financial support (roughly $2 per vote) ensures that fringe parties don’t get much money. It’s only those parties that have relatively wide-spread popularity that get any meaningful level of financing.

Well, if that were true, then by extension, one could argue that no person's tax monies should be used for any purposes that (s)he disagrees with. So basically you're saying that a person should be able to specifically direct where his/her tax dollars are spent. Conceptually, I'm not going to try to disagree (nor agree, for that matter) with you, because that's a whole different discussion. Pragmatically, however, that's pretty much unworkable.

 

Whoa, whoa, whoa! When did I say they can't vote for the party of their choice? Of course they should vote for who they wish. They should also be able to support who they wish, and NOT support those they do NOT wish to support.

Going back to my previous example, a sanctimonious, self-righteous, morally upright, judgemental, right-wing prude (we'll call him "LKD"!) should be able to vote for and financially support the party that best represents his views (the Conservatives).

The pot-smoking, hemp wearing, vegetarian, pro-choice homosexual (we'll call him "LKD's former brother in law") should be able to vote for and financially support the party that best represents his views (NDP or Marijuana).

Both men should be able to rest safely in their beds knowing that their tax dollars are not going to support parties that do not represent their views.

I hope people can notice the exaggeration, sarcasm, and humor in the two overly exaggerated examples there.

I don't see that extension as being valid, Splunge my friend, in that support for parties is significantly different than a public works project. I think that parties should be self-sufficient in terms of finances, and do their own fundraising. I don't think that's unfair because if applies across the board. If I said "the Conservatives should get public funds for their campaigning and the other parties should not" then of course I'd be being stupid. I just argue that it is the parties' job to generate funds for their election campaigns, not the taxpayers.

On a similar note, do the NDP still get tons of money from unions? And correct me if I'm wrong, but corporate donations are now verboten, are they not? If so, that seems to be a little unfair (not that it's really done the NDP any freaking good toward getting anything close to a majority) I happen to advocate the corporate donation ban but I think it should also apply to unions and religions and pretty well any other group -- those groups can contribute in other ways but all donations should be from private citizens. Lots of rich people will support both the Liberals and Conservatives, and the NDP will always have a lock on anyone from the left wing, some of whom are also quite wealthy. The Marijuana party probably has some very wealthy supporters, as sales of that fine product generate brisk revenues.

 

You didn’t. But what you said is that they should have to pay for it. I’m saying that I don’t see a problem with providing them with reasonable choices, whether or not they are financially able to do so. Much like I don’t have a problem with providing people with a basic standard of living if they lack the means to do so themselves.

I saw the humour. Although rather than calling this hypothetical “LKD” “morally upright”, “morally uptight” would have been funnier.

I disagree that it’s fundamentally different. Society benefits from having more than one political party, and I don’t think it’s unfair for society to contribute funds to ensure such options are available. The fact that you or I might object to where funds are directed is, IMO, somewhat irrelevant; if there is a significant “greater good”, then that should override individual concerns. And again, I’ll go back to the comment in my previous post – in order for a party to get any meaningful level of financial support, they need a significant number of votes (and I believe that they need a minimum of 2% of the popular vote to get any funds at all).

I wonder if the other countries have similar public funding for political parties?