185 replies to this topic

[cybercoma]

I agree with you about mandatory minimums though to some degree…………The little old widow that has in her basement (Perhaps even unknown to her) a “trophy” her late husband brought back from the war shouldn’t be treated the same as criminal knocking off a 7/11.……Just as the legal gun owner that sent off his or her paperwork to renew their licence and it’s lost in the mail, shouldn’t be treated the same as one of these shooters….

My point exactly. It doesn't matter what the law is. Mandatory minimums are just that -- mandatory. Regardless of the circumstances. I can't foresee all the possible examples of someone not deserving of the mandatory minimums, of situations where it would be cruel to incarcerate them in a federal penitentiary (because that's where you go if it's longer than 2 years longer, hence 2 years less a day sentences). That's the point. A judge hears the case, every last painful detail is analysed and argued by the Crown and Defence. The judge then determines an appropriate setnence based on those circumstances if the person is guilty, not some minimum legislated by politicking parliamentarians. Frankly, in the interest of all of our rights, I would like to know that I'm going to get a fair shake at a trial, even if I am guilty, and that the judge will decide based on MY situation what kind of sentence particular to me I deserve.

[Derek L]

My point exactly. It doesn't matter what the law is. Mandatory minimums are just that -- mandatory. Regardless of the circumstances. I can't foresee all the possible examples of someone not deserving of the mandatory minimums, of situations where it would be cruel to incarcerate them in a federal penitentiary (because that's where you go if it's longer than 2 years longer, hence 2 years less a day sentences). That's the point. A judge hears the case, every last painful detail is analysed and argued by the Crown and Defence. The judge then determines an appropriate setnence based on those circumstances if the person is guilty, not some minimum legislated by politicking parliamentarians. Frankly, in the interest of all of our rights, I would like to know that I'm going to get a fair shake at a trial, even if I am guilty, and that the judge will decide based on MY situation what kind of sentence particular to me I deserve.

I agree to an extent as to mandatory minimums……….a 20 year old at party with a little pot shouldn’t be put away with Tony Montana, but I’m in favour for them with regards to violent crime.

[cybercoma]

I agree to an extent as to mandatory minimums……….a 20 year old at party with a little pot shouldn’t be put away with Tony Montana, but I’m in favour for them with regards to violent crime.

They're unnecessary, even for violent crime imo. Violent crime has been falling for decades. The vast majority of sentences are appropriate. We're talking an extremely small number that may not actually be sentenced right. That's why we have a system of appeals, so that a single judge does not get the final say.

Sentencing is not broken, so it doesn't need fixing. The mandatory minimum route has a number of shortfalls that have been well documented. Ssee: http://www.elizabeth...df/minsentc.pdf These kinds of legislative changes don't make any sense whatsoever.

Edited by cybercoma, 18 July 2012 - 07:28 PM.

[wyly]

And yet MORE people are stabbed then shot in this country, and a couple of years ago MORE people were killed with a knife then a gun, doesn't really help the theory that were safer if they only use knives.

eeew well done Sherlock awesome powers of logic ya got there ....there's probably a half billion knives in the country, how many illegal handguns do think there are, in the thousands at most...

[wyly]

You're creating a false equivalence between threatening someone and murdering them.

no im not, if a criminal is pointing a gun at you you assume he will do as he says otherwise there is no point in doing so...

[wyly]

I'm going to need to see some stats on handguns used in crime to support this. I know Edmonton had an anomalous year last year. However, without clearly charted statistics on this, it's all just anecdotal. It could be an issue of perception of handgun crime because the overall statistics show that violent crime is down significantly.

no it's not anecdotal 25 deaths in one gang war, and there have others handgun unrelated to the mini war...and a few innocent bystanders got taken down as well...

Edited by wyly, 18 July 2012 - 11:13 PM.

[wyly]

They're unnecessary, even for violent crime imo. Violent crime has been falling for decades. The vast majority of sentences are appropriate. We're talking an extremely small number that may not actually be sentenced right. That's why we have a system of appeals, so that a single judge does not get the final say.

well that makes no sense at all cyber...you're suggesting we be nice to violent offenders? the crime rates haven't falling because we're nice to criminals they've fallen because demographics have changed, the population is aging not because we're lenient or progressive with sentencing...

Sentencing is not broken, so it doesn't need fixing. The mandatory minimum route has a number of shortfalls that have been well documented. Ssee: http://www.elizabeth...df/minsentc.pdf These kinds of legislative changes don't make any sense whatsoever.

hey ya lets give dave picton day parole...sorry no...there are lots of soft crimes where criminals can be rehabilitated but when it comes to violent criminals I don't care, these people get what they deserve and more...no pity from me, get them off the streets for 20 years...

[Boges]

http://www.thestar.c...york-schoolyard

Clearly this is Rob Ford's fault.

Edited by Boges, 19 July 2012 - 06:13 AM.

[Wild Bill]

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/crime/article/1228632--man-shot-to-death-in-north-york-schoolyard

Clearly this is Rob Ford's fault.

Oh Boges, it goes back much further than that! Obviously, it started with Mike Harris!

That being said, I am beginning to wonder if once again we are seeing the results of an actual difference in how some people's brains are wired. Could it be that those of a "liberal" persuasion, for want of a better term, are incapable of dealing with such problems?

Many if not all of these social problems are getting worse, not better, despite all the money and different programs being thrown at them. People are being shot at street parties and the call goes up for more community centres! Perhaps (and only perhaps!) there is some merit there but at best it would take a generation to have any effect. We have babes in arms being shot NOW!

It is simple reality that today a gang banger knows that the chances of his being caught are rather low. What's more, even if he IS caught the sentence is liable to be comparatively light! So where is the deterrence?

It is impossible to have a policeman everywhere. How can the police possibly protect us as individuals? The answer is that they can't! They never could!

Police protect us as a group. They cannot prevent those first few victims to some Marc Lepin type of wingnut. They can only respond after the fact, hopefully before the body count grows too large.

The complaint on the Toronto news this morning was that no one will come forth as witnesses to these shootings. What an incredibly asinine attitude of the police to take! Those people are well aware that if they help the police the gang bangers will certainly hurt if not kill them! Including their children!

The police CANNOT protect any witness who comes forth! It is certain that most if not all of those bystanders would love nothing more than to see the thugs arrested but it would be suicide to help the process. Especially when often a gang banger, immediately after being nabbed, is released on bail so he is free to go after whoever "tattled". Even if the perp IS held in custody there is no problem with his associates to find out who to "silence".

In effect, Toronto Police are scolding people for not being willing to commit suicide to help the police do their job!

Meanwhile, the calls go up for more basketball courts.

Any practical suggestion in such matters is ALWAYS shot down by the "lib-left". Mandatory minimum sentences? Oh no, too cruel and what's more, unnecessary. Abolish the Youthful Offenders Act? Oh no, that is also cruel and unusual!

To anyone of a logical, cause and effect type of mind, the situation is plain as the nose on your face. Criminals commit criminal acts because they think they can get away with it! You can only fight that with real deterrence. Unless they think there is a good chance they will be caught AND if caught they will face a SIGNIFICANT sentence then they will not just continue to perform such acts but they will escalate the severity of them!

Calls to do nothing because "they don't shoot babies all that often - the numbers are down" is frankly reprehensible! Tell that to the mother of the baby!

Secondly, we must abandon this false comfort of expecting the police to protect us as individuals. They may be wonderful, dedicated people but they can not do the impossible! To say that reactive protection after an initial murder or murders is sufficient is to condemn us all to a cruel lottery, where if you win you lose!

People must be allowed to defend both themselves and their families and also their property. If the judicial system refuses to change to better protect us as individuals then we must be allowed to do what we can for ourselves. If necessary, we should be allowed to carry guns!

Of course, some folks will go screaming yellow zonkers at the very thought but again, are they incapable of dealing with the facts at hand? Inevitably we hear that if allowed to bear arms people will start shooting each other over the slightest provocation! The streets will become a hail of bullets! Little old ladies will get drunk and shoot their husbands! Husbands will leave loaded rifles beside the cribs of their sleeping toddlers!

Enough! You get the idea. I truly believe that those least equipped to deal with the reality of stressful factors like criminal violence have been in control of the system that is supposed to cope with such behavior. As a Utilitarian, I point to the very fact that such violence is happening today as proof that their methods aren't working!

Unless they can come up with methods that DO work and TODAY, not a generation from now, then I say they should get the hell out of the way and allow someone to try other methods.

Meanwhile, the next time some police spokesperson complains about witnesses not stepping forward, someone should let loose with an egg or a tomato or two. Frankly, it is a disgustingly callous approach and they should be chastized for it!

[mentalfloss]

As a Utilitarian, I point to the very fact that such violence is happening today as proof that their methods aren't working!

As a Utilitarian, you should be more concerned about the degree and scope of pain and suffering that is endured by those involved in these situations as well as the likelihood of recurrence.

You can throw that in your cost-benefit analysis, and you would probably find that this whole thing is really not a big deal at all, but it is a good PR opp for the politicians.

Edited by mentalfloss, 19 July 2012 - 09:03 AM.

[Canuckistani]

Unless they can come up with methods that DO work and TODAY, not a generation from now, then I say they should get the hell out of the way and allow someone to try other methods.

What methods? We know that harsh punishment doesn't work, or the US would have no crack dealers or murderers. (Detroit, smaller than TO, has had 180 murders so far this year. TO? 27) You live in your own little dream world, just as much as the people who you say think that basketball courts are the solution.

[wyly]

The police CANNOT protect any witness who comes forth! It is certain that most if not all of those bystanders would love nothing more than to see the thugs arrested but it would be suicide to help the process. Especially when often a gang banger, immediately after being nabbed, is released on bail so he is free to go after whoever "tattled". Even if the perp IS held in custody there is no problem with his associates to find out who to "silence".


Meanwhile, the next time some police spokesperson complains about witnesses not stepping forward, someone should let loose with an egg or a tomato or two. Frankly, it is a disgustingly callous approach and they should be chastized for it!

ignorance reigns supreme once again in the forum, you have no clue how the police operate...the police are very good at being discrete with their sources, gangs have no idea who it is that tips off the police out of the thousands they interview...been there done that, I tipped off the cops to a drug dealer and he got 5yrs and no one is the wiser, my bro did the same sending a rapist to prison for 8 yrs and neither of us had to testify, police will drop a case before they rat on a reliable informant...this is not at all the same as asking someone to testify in court...the community is at fault for protecting the guilty...

Edited by wyly, 19 July 2012 - 09:13 AM.

[Canuckistani]

ignorance reigns supreme once again in the forum, you have no clue how the police operate...the police are very good at being discrete with their sources, gangs have no idea who it is that tips off the police out of the thousands they interview...been there done that, I tipped off the cops to a drug dealer and he got 5yrs and no one is the wiser, my bro did the same sending a rapist to prison for 8 yrs and neither of us had to testify, police will drop a case before they rat on a reliable informant...this is not at all the same as asking someone to testify in court...the community is at fault for protecting the guilty...

Well, there are plenty of quotes out there from the residents involved in the shooting themselves saying you'd be nuts to talk to the police and that people have been killed for it before. So the police definitely need to do a better job in reaching out and building bridges with these people.

[wyly]

What methods? We know that harsh punishment doesn't work, or the US would have no crack dealers or murderers. (Detroit, smaller than TO, has had 180 murders so far this year. TO? 27) You live in your own little dream world, just as much as the people who you say think that basketball courts are the solution.

well basketball courts and a combination of other projects do work, it's no big secret active kids are less involved in crime...

[Canuckistani]

well basketball courts and a combination of other projects do work, it's no big secret active kids are less involved in crime...

They don't, not in a significant way. Yes, social projects are important. But way more important is giving these guys as sense that following the legit way will lead to a better life for them. Ie role models, internships, etc. Another is doing something about drugs, presumably legalize them, to remove them as an option for getting rich quick. I think a big piece is having the people who are in power set an example of how to live in an honest way. As long as the finance boys steal trillions and get away with it, are admired for it, who can blame these guys for trying to emulate them.