# What we have here is failure to punish/CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD



## Yrys (23 Jan 2007)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070120.wxcoblatch20/BNStory/National/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20061204.wxbikers04



> The phrase that leapt out at me in the parole-eligibility report that was prepared for Kuldip Singh Samra's faint-hope hearing was this: "Mr. Samra is well-known for his baking at Ferndale."
> 
> Well, that's good. Mr. Samra is a convicted multiple murderer who fled Canada and evaded justice for a decade and who, even now, blames his victims for making him shoot them -- but God forbid he shouldn't be baking up a storm and otherwise broadening his horizons at the Ferndale (minimum security) Institution.
> ...
> ...


----------



## Exarecr (23 Jan 2007)

Thanks for"cooking up" this little tidbit of info. Nothing like a little rage in the pm to work up an appetite for supper. Sad thing is, this kind of foolishness is the norm in our prison system.


----------



## IrishCanuck (23 Jan 2007)

Interesting article.

I really get tired of the "Club Fed" statements. It's a minimum security facility, its taking away his freedom, thats the worst thing you can do.

If the problem lies in the classification system, in asking how did he get to minimum security, I can see the validity of the article.

That being said, if he is a model inmate and does his mandatory time in max then medium, there is no reason to keep him out of minimum.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (23 Jan 2007)

I tried about three different ways to respond to the above post but actually knowing the system, and realizing this kid is getting fed drivel from his books and professers it's probably just as well that he maybe gets the chance to work in the system someday and he will look back on this post and chuckle at his naiveness.


----------



## Yrys (23 Jan 2007)

IrishCanuck said:
			
		

> reason to keep him out of minimum.



well, maybe because he's felling the victim there, so next time
he fell that somebody is going thug on him when not giving him what he want,
he will go KABOUM ?

Time done has no relation to how you conduct yourself, seem to me.

Just a thought...


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (23 Jan 2007)

I am not familiar with this case but my question is this.
What is the point of posting an article written by someone else without any comment?
What is your purpose in posting it? ???


----------



## geo (23 Jan 2007)

I think he posted it because it was written by Christine Blatchford.


----------



## IrishCanuck (24 Jan 2007)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I tried about three different ways to respond to the above post but actually knowing the system, and realizing this kid is getting fed drivel from his books and professers it's probably just as well that he maybe gets the chance to work in the system someday and he will look back on this post and chuckle at his naiveness.



Maybe I am, but I can't learn until you enlighten me.

I have no experience admittedly.

The only position I hold on the subject of corrections is this:

--If you want incarceration's objective to be punishment, thats fine. If that's what society wants we should do it. 

--When people suggest "locking up" offenders for long lengths of time as justice I compare it to putting a dog in a cage for a long time, and shaking the cage and kicking the cage, and spitting on the dog while in the cage. (This is not a depiction of CSC officers)
-> The dog is not going to come out of the cage reformed, if nothing else, he's going to be just slightly annoyed.

-Then in my opinion, people have their justice, but they should not be surprised if the offender recidivates.(The offender could recidivate no matter what the system, lets be honest.)

And finally to quantify my opinion on that analogy, this may be the case for only a few dogs out of a hundred. Maybe the rest of the dogs are scared straight into behaving.


----------



## neko (25 Jan 2007)

A dog's thought process is a wee bit different from a human's, so stating that one thing won't work with dogs does not provide validation that it won't work with humans.  For example' generally one needs to punish or reward a dog immediately or the act, good or bad is forgotten, this is not the case with most humans.


----------

