Justice is never for the victims!

Remove all ads!

I would've thought you'd applaud muggers. They're living the conservative dream. They live by the core conservative tenets: 1) Every man for himself, and 2) Money goes to those who have ability. And rapists! Hell, they're taking some of the power away from evil feminist b**** women from hell and back to poor victimized men.

It would be great if you or anyone else could link to an actual case that has actually happened where some childhood sob story has actually gotten someone off the hook in court. Or if you could somehow back it up that "the liberals" want to let criminals do what they please and to hell with everyone else.

In Finland people get away with pretty light sentences for sexual crimes. Bad, yes. At the same time, drug or finance related criminals get heavy sentences. This doesn't spell out "bleeding heart liberal" to me. It seems more like "Raped? Look at what she's wearing! And the b**** is probably lying anyway, they do that all the time." Conservative attitudes. "What, someone took our hard-earned money? Lock 'em up and throw away the key!" Conservatives. And the end result is the same: people complain about the justice system being unfair and too easy on the criminals.

 

I resemble that remark....

 

I think what you'd see is more of a reduction to a core than an expansion of that core. What I mean is that, while the percentage of break-ins that turn violent would increase, the total numbers probably wouldn't much. Those that are willing to commit such acts wouldn't be detered, and so would continue on as they had, while those who just wanted some quick cash would have to be truely desperate to attempt anything. Of course, once they were, they wouldn't stop at anything, so there would be some increase of violent break-ins, but I doubt it'd be significant.

 

Well, he didn't get off the hook, but close enough. Read it and weep:

I myself do not give a flying <you know what to insert here> about the fact this guy is "psychologically fragile" or that he had a difficult home life growing up -- if his father is alive, then that man should be punished, but millions of people have difficult childhoods, and they don't end up raping their own daughters. For what he did he gets a grand total of . . . 30 months?

No one that I've spoken to believes that this girl "brought it on herself", so so much for that attitude being prevalent amongst people of my political persuasion.

To be fair, nothing in the article indicates that it was a liberal judge who made the ruling. Likely she was only following sentencing guidelines written by the legislative branch of government.

 

But if that's true - that the judge was only following sentencing guidelines, then it defeats your arguement. The challenge was to find someone who was let off the hook because of a childhood sob story, and this guy is going to prison. Moreover, if the judge was following sentencing guidelines, then it is very possible that his sob story didn't even earn him a reduced sentence.

That said, I agree that 30 months is short, that he would have got a heck of a lot more in the US, and that I have no idea if this sentence is appropriate for raping someone (regardless if it's your daughter or a stranger - the law usually doesn't care) in Canada.

 

The current Canadian government is a conservative government, actually, so I don't see what liberalism has to do with the case.

That said, I do agree that 30 months is far too little, and that his sob story is just pathetic. What I find odd is that the judge gave such a short sentence even though what he says sounded as if he didn't consider the story to be a good enough excuse.

 

You owe no duty to a burglar. If he slips on a slippery floor and dies or if a loose bar falls on him and maims him, you shouldn't have to pay any damages. You should only pay damages if you actually use excessive force and by excessive I mean a wide margin of unproportionality. Like you shoot a guy that has a knife. You want to be on the safe side. The criminal court lets you off (or not). You may still be found liable to some extent for some reason in the civil court and that's not necessarily bad. Also if a burglar gets killed or maimed by a trap you set. By getting maimed, I mean something permanent, not just leaving a permanent mark.

But if someone manages to get hurt without you directly intending to harm him, it's too much when he's allowed to sue you.

I remember one situation in which a rapist and murder of an underaged girl was called an animal by the victim's mother. And he sued. I don't remember or even really know what grounds it was dismissed on, but as far as I remember, they found something formal.

Honestly, if I were the judge, I would dismiss that claim on whatever ground I could think about.

 

I was -- and am -- trying to tone down my rhetoric. But most of the laws in place right now and the sentencing guidelines that go with them, were not written by the current government. But the name of the party isn't my issue in this case. It's a mindset that crosses political boundaries. A mindset that focuses too much on rehabilitation and not enough of retribution and justice. Of course rehabilitation must be part of the process, but it shouldn't be the only deciding factor.

Even though the Judge didn't seem to buy the excuse, legal precedents and sentencing guidelines written by people too tied up in their own ideology to care about the real victims are possibly what gave this guy such a light sentence. The judge may have had her hands tied by the mindset I mentioned.

 

I think 30 months for years of rape and abuse is ridiculously little, but like Aldeth said, it doesn't look like the sob story had any impact on the sentence.

I can't think of anyone I know, be their political views whatever, who would sympathize with the father, either, so there you go.

I think rehabilitation is important, but a lot of work must be put into it and it shoud be integrated into the prison time, not just assumed to happen with a speech from the parole board. I'm sure it's largely a question of funds.

Even better that rehabilitation is, of course, prevention. I don't think it's a good idea to just build more prisons and toughen the laws and expect crime to go away. Crime stems from poverty and lack of education; it's these issues that need to be tackled first and foremost.

As for criminals sueing when they hurt themselves where they shouldn't be in the first place, they're exploiting a technicality. If the driveway is dangerously slippery, it's dangerously slippery no matter who it is that slips there. It's unfortunate that there's so many lawyers and judges who are all about the letter of the law and not the intent. On the lawyers' part it's obviously greed. On the judges' part, I don't know what the hell it is.

 

I believe that those issues need to be tackled regardless of crime. I also acknowledge that statistically crime rates are higher in places that have poor and uneducated people. However, . . . .

Not all crimes are committed by poor, uneducated people. Those crimes that are committed by poor uneducated people are not excusable because of their situation. Your statement is in and of itself logical and likely based on solid research into the phenomenon. But what I see that drives me into a frothing rage is when that fact is twisted into an excuse for the crime. As I have said before, I don't care if you are poor or if you never finished grade 5, you don't have the right to beat me up and take my wallet. If a rich person does that to me, I want him to spend 10 years in the clink. If a poor person does it, I also want 10 years in the clink for him too. No special treatment for your 'special' circumstances or sob story. No special treatment for the rich person whose daddy is a state senator. Evenhanded justice is what I dream of. Not all poor people commit crimes. It's a pitiful excuse.

 

The thing is, poverty is not an excuse. I haven't really seen it used as such, either. I can't remember seeing cases where saying "but I'm poor!" had led to anything.

Of course all crime isn't committed by poor people, and of course not all poor people commit crimes. It's about numbers, likelihoods. Poverty is a setting and a catalyst, a risk factor, but it doesn't fly to be all fatalistic about it. Likewise it doesn't fly to just appeal to the fact that not all poor people are criminals and pretend poverty is not a factor. But it being a factor (or even a reason) and it being an excuse are different things.

With "tackling poverty" and "punishing criminals" it's not an either-or situation. Poverty causes crime, therefore we must reduce poverty. It doesn't affect whatever legal case is at hand at the moment.

 

There was a lot of abuse of the poor by the wealthy and of the powerless by the powerful back in the time when social divide didn't come down to mere money, influence and prestige. A lord who could easily get away with killing a peasant was hardly poor, at least in comparison to that peasant killed. Same with all the ius primae noctis kind of abuse.

Obviously, much crime comes from being desperate or at least finding yourself screwed over by the system, the regime, the establishment. But not all.

A necessary component of some crimes is a willingness to go against basic moral codes, including those which are ingrained in all men. Hungry peasants will kill their fat greedy lord. Perhaps insolvent debtors will kill a greedy money-lender wanting unfair interest. But people who don't want to work but want to have money are a different problem. People who abuse impunity are yet another.

I would say we need education, fairness, social justice and a system that does not get bent when lobbyists start agitating against some rules. From you don't talk back to dad to you don't steal people's cars, rules need to be there.

On the other, it really isn't really (yes, I know) about rules. It's about attitudes. But shaping attitudes without rules is much more difficult than shaping attitudes with rules. If everyone would play by morality, we wouldn't need law except for stuff that's simply too technical for an immediate moral judgement.

 

Look at this example -- this is what we have to deal with in Canada and we bloody well shouldn't have to -- perhaps the US and Europe isn't like this and that's why so many of you don't get why I get so wound up about how softly we treat criminals in Canada.

 

Tom Brodbeck for me is kind of hit-and-miss. He's often too conservative for my tastes, but other times I think he's bang on. This is an example of the latter:

I couldn't agree more.

 

Why DMC, i'm shocked at you!

Now you know that the elderly home owner should have just stood aside while the youngsters burglarized his home (as he obviously had far too much stuff that he was hoarding & wasn't sharing with those poor wayward waifs.)

I can't believe that you thank he should have defended his own personal property, instead of sharing with these obviously needy innocents.






(Dang, we SO need a sarcasm smiley)
Thats why you should always have at least #1 buckshot loaded so you don't wound them by mistake.
As the cops will tell you, make their job easier by making sure they only have 1 story to listen too, your's.

 

Here's an article that I like that addresses the idea that (gasp!) people should

A: Take responsibility for their own actions and

B: Be held accountable for their own actions.

Spoiler

There is an incident recorded in the Scriptures that makes me laugh and wince at the same time.

As the story goes, Moses, the great deliverer of the Israelites from Egyptian bondage has been on Mount Sinai for 40 days receiving the Ten Commandments from God. He left his brother Aaron in charge of the people during his absence.

But the people grew tired of waiting and their impatience eventually escalated into a near riot. They demanded their second-in-charge make gods to lead them.

Decisively, Aaron told the people to bring all their gold earrings to him, which he melted and fashioned into a golden calf. The people enthusiastically adopted the man-made creation as their delivering god and threw a party in its honour. Both God and Moses heard the commotion and Moses soon descended back down the mountain to confront Aaron and the people. (This is where the story becomes tragic and hilarious at the same time.) When Moses asked his brother what happened, Aaron says all he did was collect the gold and threw it into the fire and somehow a golden calf came out. It's a preposterous claim where Aaron has taken no real responsibility for his actions or the outcome.

Things haven't changed much.

We're still a society that avoids assessing or taking responsibility for our actions.

Last July Vince Weiguang Li of Edmonton brutally murdered a sleeping Tim McLean on a Winnipeg-bound Greyhound bus. Justice John Scurfield ruled Li not criminally responsible, citing mentally ill people should not be convicted when they don't know what they did was wrong. They need to be treated.

While there may be a degree of truth to the verdict, Li had been previously diagnosed as schizophrenic and stopped taking prescribed medication of his own volition, which would inevitably put himself and others at risk. Fifteen months ago Yellow Quill (Saskatchewan) First Nation member, an inebriated Christopher Pauchay took his two underdressed toddlers outside in a severe winter storm with fatal consequences as both girls were later found dead from hypothermia.

Although already a reputed heavy drinker and no claim he had been physically forced against his will to drink that night, Pauchay's community and wife rallied around him asking the courts to spare him of jail time, asserting incarceration would be no benefit. (However, Judge Barry Morgan handed down a 34-month sentence to Pauchay for criminal negligence causing death.)

A just society should consider circumstances and intent when determining sentencing. But what is too often overlooked in cases like these is justice for the victims. To deem someone not criminally responsible or absolve them of consequences because they were drunk or not treating their mental illness devalues both their crime and the people wronged.

Valuing and ensuring justice for victims may do far more to restore sanity to our communities than deflected responsibility or a lenient sentence could.

-- John Mohan is the CEO of Siloam Mission.

Spoilered for your convenience.