# Some murderers deserve to be forgive more than others



## Reccesoldier (4 Apr 2007)

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070403/dragging_death_070403/20070403?hub=Canada


> VANCOUVER -- British Columbia's appeal court reduced the sentence Tuesday of a teenager who dragged a gas station attendant to a gruesome death over a tank of gas, ruling that the original sentence didn't properly account for his youth and his aboriginal background.



 W...T...F???  

This is a dangerous and discriminatory precedent.  Expect this monster to raise it's ugly head each and every time a visible minority is convicted of a crime in this country from now on.

All you white guys out there, the colour of your skin guarantees that you will be punished to the fullest extent of the "law".


----------



## GAP (4 Apr 2007)

+1


----------



## Quag (4 Apr 2007)

Actually, its a weird precedent, seeing as to how traditionally visible minorites were always punished harsher!


----------



## George Wallace (4 Apr 2007)

Decisions such as this only serve to fracture our Canadian "Society" even more.


----------



## ArmyRick (4 Apr 2007)

WTF is what i also say?

I do agree 9 years is inappropriate because 25 years is more suitable !!!

Quag, please explain your remark? I have known lots of visible minority who have been sentenced that got off just as light as anybody else.


----------



## Reccesoldier (4 Apr 2007)

What the hell is wrong with our society?  I can understand individuals not taking responsibility for their own actions, that is a game that has been played since the dawn of time but when the mechanisms in a society begin to make excuses for the (innexcusable) actions and choices of the individual, then, as a society it has failed miserably.


----------



## Quag (4 Apr 2007)

ArmyRick,

I know that you probably know minorities that get off, but traditionally, visible minorities (especially aboriginals) have been treated more harshly by the Canadian judicial system.  Other than pulling up statisitcs, I'm not sure how to explain it more...


----------



## ArmyRick (4 Apr 2007)

Quag, you are making a blanket statement. I don't agree.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (4 Apr 2007)

Quag said:
			
		

> ArmyRick,
> 
> I know that you probably know minorities that get off, but traditionally, visible minorities (especially aboriginals) have been treated more harshly by the Canadian judicial system.  Other than pulling up statisitcs, I'm not sure how to explain it more...




Of course you can explain it.................because it's BS.


----------



## my72jeep (4 Apr 2007)

In my view of the Canadian Justice system of late no native will ever be tried and sentenced for a crime against Canada. IE Ipperwash, Oka, to name a few. But if a WASP grabbed a gun and sized Government land you bet the law would be applied.
My Wife is OPP and I saw the government drag one of its own through the mud to cover its behind. But did ya ever hear of any Natives charged for shooting at the cops in the first place. nope Nada no. Lawyers and Judges cant even decide if the bullet holes in the OPP cruiser are admissible in court.


----------



## Quag (4 Apr 2007)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Quag, you are making a blanket statement. I don't agree.



I agree, I was making a blanket statement by not being specific.

I see the angle some of you guys are working.  Section 718.2 of the Canadian Criminal Code states that "all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are resasonable in the curcumstances should be considered for all offenders, WITH particular attention to the circumstances of aborignal offenders".

However, this does not mean that being aboriginal automatically results in a lesser sentence. 

Instead, one of the purposes of these provisions are necessary to redress the overrepresentation of aboriginal people within Canda's prison populations.  For example, in 1999-2000, the aboriginal people comprised a majority of the prison population in federal and provincial prisons in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and shockingly similar trends are found throughout Canada.

What I was trying to express was that traditionally visible minorities have always been at a disadvantage in the judicial system for many reasons, mainly poverty.

But to look from a more historical context as to why they have been mistreated, one need look no furthur than the immigration policies of Canada.  From 1867 until 1978, the federal government expressly followed a White Canada Policy, favoring Anglo-Saxon White immigrants over visible ethnicities such as African-Americans, Indians, Chinese, and Japanese. Those who were able to overcome this policy were often allowed in temporarily to fulfill a labor need (such as Chinese immigrants who were let in to build the Canadian railway system), then deported. 

To this day, the "White Canada Policy" can be seen in many judgements of high class actions, in which the participants are white.  There are many studies released surrounding this "phenomena" for lack of a better term.  I'm not saying this is always the case, and in fact to say such would be the furthest from the truth.  All I was trying to say was that visible minorities have always been at a disadvantage in Canadian judicial systems.



			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Of course you can explain it.................because it's BS.



Mr. Monkhouse, I believe you are an officer of the law. You must see it everyday how visible minorities end up with the short end of the stick a bulk of the time.

I don't want to start an argument or anything, I just was just trying to say that aborignals don't always get off so light.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (4 Apr 2007)

Quag said:
			
		

> Mr. Monkhouse, I believe you are an officer of the law. You must see it everyday how visible minorities end up with the short end of the stick a bulk of the time.
> I don't want to start an argument or anything, I just was just trying to say that aborignals don't always get off so light.



You are correct on both accounts,they don't always get off any lighter,  but no one should get treated differently by the 'system' or it makes today as much as a sham as it was back when some did get shafted because of who they were.


----------



## Quag (4 Apr 2007)

I completely agree.  Personally, I do not feel that we should have such a double standard in law, afterall, isn't the cornerstone of our judicial system that EVERYBODY is EQUAL before the law.

Unfortunately, our forefathers and even our colleagues that we have elected / been appointed have felt it necessary to implement provisions such as 718.2.

This provision was given credibilty by the Supreme Court of Canada to recoginze the broad systemic and background factors affecting Aboriginal people.

This is where I personally call BS. 

But can there ever be a judicial system that is flawless and not corrupt?  I would say no, as even theoretical systems have flaws (much the same way Marx's Communism is).  Where there is power, there is always going to corruption.  It's the human condition .

So what do I suggest (even though no one was asking ;D); we recognize the short comings of our judicial system, vent about it over beers with buddies, and soldier on.


----------



## Reccesoldier (4 Apr 2007)

Quag said:
			
		

> Instead, one of the purposes of these provisions are necessary to redress the overrepresentation of aboriginal people within Canada's prison populations.  For example, in 1999-2000, the aboriginal people comprised a majority of the prison population in federal and provincial prisons in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and shockingly similar trends are found throughout Canada.



So, if I understand this, you are either saying that Aboriginals are rounded up because they are aboriginals and thrown in Canada's jails for no reason, or that Aboriginals who have brushes with the law are convicted of crimes at a rate so significantly above that of the rest of the criminal population as to constitute the majority of the population of Canadian prisons.  Which is it?




> What I was trying to express was that *traditionally* visible minorities have always been at a disadvantage in the judicial system for many reasons, mainly poverty.


 Emphasis mine...  And that is where I start turning into the angry bald man as my daughter would say.  Not only is justice supposed to be blind but justice also should be devoid of any kind of prejudicial memory.  There can never and will never be anything that resembles equality as long as we allow any such caveat into our legal pronouncements, discussions or system.



> But to look from a more historical context as to why they have been mistreated, one need look no further than the immigration policies of Canada.  From 1867 until 1978, the federal government expressly followed a White Canada Policy, favoring Anglo-Saxon White immigrants over visible ethnicities such as African-Americans, Indians, Chinese, and Japanese. Those who were able to overcome this policy were often allowed in temporarily to fulfill a labor need (such as Chinese immigrants who were let in to build the Canadian railway system), then deported.


  Fantastic examples of historical facts being used to skew the current system! Using the exact same logic, since multiculturalism there has been a disproportionate amount of immigration from these visible ethnicities so shouldn't we be taking "action" to combat this influx?  Of course not... That would be discriminatory!!! Repeat after me... I AM A HYPOCRTE!



> I don't want to start an argument or anything, I just was just trying to say that aborignals don't always get off so light.



And I am not saying that *anyone* should but discrimination and historical revisionism and judicial advocacy and special status' are destroying the concept, function and validity of our judicial and societal system.


----------



## Quag (4 Apr 2007)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> So, if I understand this, you are either saying that Aboriginals are rounded up because they are aboriginals and thrown in Canada's jails for no reason, or that Aboriginals who have brushes with the law are convicted of crimes at a rate so significantly above that of the rest of the criminal population as to constitute the majority of the population of Canadian prisons.  Which is it?



I think you missed the whole point.  What I was saying, if you read what I wrote more carefully, is that because of the higher than normal incarceration rates of Aboriginal people, there are provisions in place to try to reduce the rates.  Hence, making many people like yourself think that Aboriginals "always get off so easy".



			
				Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Emphasis mine...  And that is where I start turning into the angry bald man as my daughter would say.  Not only is justice supposed to be blind but justice also should be devoid of any kind of prejudicial memory.  There can never and will never be anything that resembles equality as long as we allow any such caveat into our legal pronouncements, discussions or system.


  

Ok, I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, but I think what you are trying to say is that by stating that traditionally visible minorities have been at a disadvantage, it will neither improve nor foster a change.  WAKE UP!  It's not people saying this that is the problem.  It's a fact in the reality that visible minorities continue to face discrimination and prejudice in a modern context.  If anything, by saying this, it brings further awareness to the problem.

If you want something that resembles equality in our judicial system, you must work to create multicultural equality across the spectrum of everyday life.

Inequality is not a new problem.  Nor are there and fast and easy solutions to this problem.  It is a problem that has occurred from the very beginning of mankind, and the trend is not looking very optimistic as it stands right now.



			
				Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Fantastic examples of historical facts being used to skew the current system! Using the exact same logic, since multiculturalism there has been a disproportionate amount of immigration from these visible ethnicities so shouldn't we be taking "action" to combat this influx?  Of course not... That would be discriminatory!!! Repeat after me... I AM A HYPOCRTE!



Once again, this is a "fuddled statement".  I think you are comparing my historical context to the aboriginals incarceration rates.  Am I right?  If so, I must point out to you that not all paradigms are interchangeable, and while it would be nice and to your advantage to use this comparison, as the old saying goes, apples and oranges don't mix. 

I think you are missing the mark again.  This historical fact is a clearly demonstrated example of how ethnic minorities have been mistreated by the predominantly white society in Canada.  I was using it to show that even since the birth of Canada, minorities have taken the brunt of blows, whether they be in the legal system, workforce, or lifestyle.  Want a further "fantastic example"?  Read up on the history of Canadian labour law, paying particular attention to the struggles of unions.

In regards to your hippocrate statement, resulting to ad Hominen attacks will not suffice here.



			
				Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> And I am not saying that *anyone* should but discrimination and historical revisionism and judicial advocacy and special status' are destroying the concept, function and validity of our judicial and societal system.



I finally agree with you.


----------



## Quag (4 Apr 2007)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> This is a dangerous and discriminatory precedent.  Expect this monster to raise it's ugly head each and every time a visible minority is convicted of a crime in this country from now on.
> 
> All you white guys out there, the colour of your skin guarantees that you will be punished to the fullest extent of the "law".



Further, this is hardly a dangerous nor discriminatory precedent, as when dealing with cases like this, the part you emphasized is purposely added to comply with Section 718.2.  Decisions like this have been handed down many, many times before.  It's nothing new to the law scene.  Do I agree with it?  Absoulutely not!

I take offence to your last statement.  Pretty easy to make assumptions from what you read in the media, and what you see from the outside, eh?  Do you not feel statements like that further the divide?


----------



## proudnurse (4 Apr 2007)

I feel that it is a sad day for the victims family. I bet they are the ones that are hurting the most through all of this, knowing that the person that murdered your loved one only gets put away in prison for a short time. I hope that when he does get out someday, that this does not happen ever again. That is what I would worry about the most, with a crime with such a violent nature is the possibility of this person re-offending. 

~Rebecca


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Apr 2007)

Quag said:
			
		

> Instead, one of the purposes of these provisions are necessary to redress the overrepresentation of aboriginal people within Canda's prison populations.  For example, in 1999-2000, the aboriginal people comprised a majority of the prison population in federal and provincial prisons in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and shockingly similar trends are found throughout Canada.



If the incarceration rate is disproportionate, perhaps the amount of criminal acts perpetuated by them is too. I'm surprised his band wasn't given custody so he could attend the traditional healing circle instead of prison.  

I don't care where you came from or what your ethnic, social or financial background is. Do the crime, do the time. We need a "three strikes you're in for good" law.


----------



## Quag (4 Apr 2007)

I think some of you guys might be mistaking me.  I am in complete agreement with you RecceGuy.  

I agree there are some major shambles within our legal system, and it needs to be addressed.  As I stated in previous posts, I'm not going to pretend like I know exactly what the remedy is, because I don't.  

This double standard needs to stop. I can think of two angles one can look at when approaching this problem.

First, it's easy enough to say that we should just do away with the provisions such as the lenient Aboriginal clauses, but I'm not sure that it would work.  We must create opportunities for the Aboriginals to be equal contributors to our society (I'm painting with a big brush, no offence intended), and this would in turn, I think, solve the larger problem of offences committed in general.  

Second, if we incarcerate the Aboriginals at such high rates, then they become more opressed and the vicious cycle continues.  I'm not saying that we shouldn't incarcerate them if they have committted a crime.  I'm just trying to arrive at a utilitarian solution, in which the greatest good for the most amount of people prevails.

So, If we are more lenient, then what are we left with?  Hurt, upset, angry, families and friends of victims? Yes. Confused offenders whom are sentenced way more severe for crimes previously punished at a lesser degree? Yes.

So where is the greater good?  Providing opportunity shows to the Aboriginals that they can be equal contributors in todays society.  

This is where my argument lies.  I believe the reason for the provisions in the criminal code is for something along these lines.  Do I think its right? NO!!  You shouldn't have to be lenient to offenders to show them that there are opportunities for them.  

I grew up untroubled by the legal system, because I sought out opportunities for myself.  Did I need a judge letting me off murder to find them?? No.

So where am I going with this?  I'm trying to show that it is very hard to arrive at a definite solution to this problem.  Leniency was an attempt, and I think it has much (tons of) work to be done to be effective. 

I agree with you RecceGuy that because the incarceration rate is disproportionate, the amount of criminal acts committed by them is as well.  I'll disregard the sentence after that.


----------



## FredDaHead (4 Apr 2007)

Quag said:
			
		

> Second, if we incarcerate the Aboriginals at such high rates, then they become more opressed  and the vicious cycle continues.  I'm not saying that we shouldn't incarcerate them if they have committted a crime.  I'm just trying to arrive at a utilitarian solution, in which the greatest good for the most amount of people prevails.



Being arrested and thrown in jail _because you're a criminal_ is oppression? And I thought the tinfoil hat crowd had a broad definition...



> So, If we are more lenient, then what are we left with?  Hurt, upset, angry, families and friends of victims? Yes. Confused offenders whom are sentenced way more severe for crimes previously punished at a lesser degree? Yes.
> 
> So where is the greater good?  Providing opportunity shows to the Aboriginals that they can be equal contributors in todays society.



And the opportunity cost (or is it cost of opportunity? I slept through economics class...)  is justice and equality. Congratulations.



> So where am I going with this?  I'm trying to show that it is very hard to arrive at a definite solution to this problem.  Leniency was an attempt, and I think it has much (tons of) work to be done to be effective.



A solution that causes more trouble than it fixes is no solution; it's just displacing the problem to get people's attention away.

Every post you make takes you closer to sounding like the tinfoil hat-wearing, troop-bashing, "let's remove every law and tax the wealthy to death" crowd. Seriously.


----------



## Quag (4 Apr 2007)

Frederik, 

Reread some things that you wrote.  Then reread what I wrote.  I never once said that being arrested and thrown in jail because you're a criminal causes oppression.  What I was saying is that if a cycle happens where they know nothing but incarceration without opportunity, then they have a tendency to become oppressed.

The opportunity cost is justice and equality.  Congratulations yourself for figuring that out, considering I said that.

A solution that cause more trouble than it fixes is no solution.  Very Good!  Considering I never offered a solution and even inferred that there is no definate solution.  



			
				Frederik G said:
			
		

> Every post you make takes you closer to sounding like the tinfoil hat-wearing, troop-bashing, "let's remove every law and tax the wealthy to death" crowd. Seriously.



I have no idea where you pulled this line out of.  Completely not where I'm going at all with any of my posts... Thanks though.


----------



## Reccesoldier (4 Apr 2007)

Quag said:
			
		

> We must create opportunities for the Aboriginals to be equal contributors to our society (I'm painting with a big brush, no offence intended), and this would in turn, I think, solve the larger problem of offences committed in general.



The bloody hell you say.  What this society owes each and every individual is a short sharp kick in the pants.  
Here are your opportunities... 
Choice 1: Hands, meet bootstraps. 
Choice 2:  Throat punches all around



> Second, if we incarcerate the Aboriginals at such high rates, then they become more opressed and the vicious cycle continues.  I'm not saying that we shouldn't incarcerate them if they have committted a crime.  I'm just trying to arrive at a utilitarian solution, in which the greatest good for the most amount of people prevails.



Dear lord... why is Monty Python playing in my head..."Come see the violence inherent in the system! Help I'm being repressed!!!"  The _utilitarian_ solution is for the citizen to work and play well with the others in the sandbox so's he doesn't end up once again on the receiving end of Choice #2 above.



> So, If we are more lenient, then what are we left with?  Hurt, upset, angry, families and friends of victims? Yes. Confused offenders whom are sentenced way more severe for crimes previously punished at a lesser degree? Yes.



Are you saying that the freaking scum that dragged a *human being* under his car the car he'd stolen for seven kilometers didn't deserve to spend so much time in jail? I wonder if while the victim screamed as the flesh was grated from his bones and then his bones were ground to splinters and pulp if the criminal might possibly have had the time to think about the consequences of his actions?



> So where is the greater good?  Providing opportunity shows to the Aboriginals that they can be equal contributors in todays society.



The greater good?  Jeese, what greater good can possibly be gained as long as people talk about "giving" opportunity?  How about earning opportunity, or seizing it or cultivating it even.



> This is where my argument lies.  I believe the reason for the provisions in the criminal code is for something along these lines.  Do I think its right? NO!!  You shouldn't have to be lenient to offenders to show them that there are opportunities for them.
> 
> I grew up untroubled by the legal system, because I sought out opportunities for myself.  Did I need a judge letting me off murder to find them?? No.
> 
> ...



Two words...  Personal Responsibility, you had/have it, but this ruling says to the entire population that you don't have to take responsibility for even the most heinous acts.  

I draw your attention to my new signature line.


----------



## Quag (4 Apr 2007)

Reccesoldier et. al.,

I agree with you 100 times over.  This cold-blooded killer should never have been let out.  I was merely trying to figure out; a) why he was given a lenient sentence; b) what is wrong with our justice system.  I have a deep interest in the law (it is my major), therefore I love battling with quirks like this.  I can see it is being misconstrued and taken the wrong way, therefore I think it is in my best interest to withdraw from this thread.

Frederik, I can see where you might see far left wing tendencies in some of my posts.  I can assure you I am not, it was just the scholar coming out in me to grapple with yet another flaw in our judicial system.

I will end on this note.  There is NO way that justice was served and a lesson given from this sentencing.  I agree with everyone that the individual should be locked up for a very very long time.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Apr 2007)

Quag said:
			
		

> I will end on this note.  There is NO way that justice was served and a lesson given from this sentencing.  I agree with everyone that *the individual should be locked up for a very very long time.*



Just like this thread will be. This subject has been overdone here before folks. If still interested in the topic, please do a search, for the other enormous threads. Normal caveats apply.

Army.ca Staff


----------

