Serial killer Olson threatens to sue federal government over benefits

[gaspasser]

Which does not justify allowing Internet lynching parties.  If you feel that your conscience would be eased by posting such comments, I am certain you can find somewhere else to do it.  Here, we can try and expect people to debate the facts and get beyond unnecessary emotional outbursts.

Every one of those wrongly convicted individuals was convicted because the judge/jury felt that the case was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Seems it's gang up on BYTD Day for typing the same things everyone else is typing.  Seems a there's lots of advocates for Capital Punishment here.

Au Revoir.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Seems a there's lots of advocates for Capital Punishment here.

And there's nothing wrong with that.  A well reasoned post supporting (or against) the death penalty shows a lot more intelligence and responsibility that simply posting any variation on the theme of "killl 'im", which has been consistently discouraged on the forum for some time because it adds nothing and makes those who do so look like the Neanderthals that some would accuse all CF members of being. When one person posts such a simplistic view, it is always followed by others doing the same in an infantile attempt at some sort of primitive bonding ritual by those who would form a lynching party in other times. To put it simply, if someone can't make their point in a rational and civilized manner, they can exercise their simplistic sense of "free speech" somewhere else.

As a final point for all, note that this thread was about "Old Age Security and Guaranteed Income Supplement payments for convicts" and perhaps that is what the discussion should have focused on.

 

[GAP]

I think that was exactly his point..........

oh............

 

[Jarnhamar]

Why in the world not....This is a free country, and yes CF members have an opinion AND a vote.

What happens if you go on Global TV, identify yourself as a Canadian soldier and state your opinion that the liberals/conservitives etc.. are a bunch of morons and wankers? 

 

[mariomike]

What happens if you go on Global TV, identify yourself as a Canadian soldier and state your opinion that the liberals/conservitives etc.. are a bunch of morons and wankers?

I recall reading this, about that:

A member of the CF is permitted to talk to the Press as a 'civilian', but not identify themselves as a member of the CF and bring controversy onto the CF or the Government.

Letter from Clifford Olson to the Government of Canada:
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2010/07/08/OLSON.JPG

 

[medicineman]

Clifford Olsen has basically been in solitary confinement since the 80's - every so often, he starts beaking off to let people know he's still alive and does his utmost to stir up a hornet's nest because he gets off on causing chaos and kicking back to see what happens.  On a personal note, I wouldn't lose sleep over him not waking up one morning - along with thousands of other kids in BC that time frame, I was pretty much afraid of going out of doors much for awhile because of that wackjob.  He shouldn't be in effect rewarded for what he's done, nor should anyone else doing hard time.

:2c:

MM

 

[Brad Sallows]

It isn't that a case needs to be made "for" the death penalty.  As long as we - through our government - are willing to allow foreign innocents (eg. non-combatants)  to be accidentally killed by our armed forces, there isn't really an objection to be made against deliberately killing our own guilty criminals.  The restraint against a government killing a non-citizen, who is emphatically not subject to its powers by any reasonable standard, should be greater than against killing those theoretically subject to its powers; the restraint against killing innocents should be greater than against killing criminals, particularly criminals of a predatory nature.

The case needs to be made "against" the death penalty.  And the simplest and most compelling objection is that for a not unbearable annual maintenance cost, a convict's life is preserved against the possibility evidence might later surface which casts doubt on guilt.

 

[57Chevy]

It isn't that a case needs to be made "for" the death penalty.  As long as we - through our government - are willing to allow foreign innocents (eg. non-combatants)  to be accidentally killed by our armed forces, there isn't really an objection to be made against deliberately killing our own guilty criminals.  The restraint against a government killing a non-citizen, who is emphatically not subject to its powers by any reasonable standard, should be greater than against killing those theoretically subject to its powers; the restraint against killing innocents should be greater than against killing criminals, particularly criminals of a predatory nature.

The case needs to be made "against" the death penalty.  And the simplest and most compelling objection is that for a not unbearable annual maintenance cost, a convict's life is preserved against the possibility evidence might later surface which casts doubt on guilt.

What does that have to do with this guy threatening to sue the government over receiving
benifits.

 

[1feral1]

I read his letter (thanks MM), and what a load of crap. Gotta love his grammer though  :nod:

Whatever happened to the good ole days when the crims in gaol did not even get to vote?

As far as I am concerned they forfieted these rights and rights to any penions etc when they were sentanced.

One day, people will get sick and tired of the way things are, maybe not in our lifetimes, things will turn 180 degress back to when victims had rights and crims had hard labour and the gallows.

Olson and other like minded crims are nothing but paracites on society. They have it too good, too many rights, and back in the SHU should be laying in straw, with a bucket as a toilet, stale bread and stale water in a 5 by 7 cell with no heat!

Oops, edited for spelling

 

[57Chevy]

As a free and lawful taxpaying Canadian citizen, my constitutional rights extend throughout the Nation, and while I am abroad.
As this man is confined within the boundaries of a prison, then so should his rights be.
I think that would be Constitutional.

 

[Jarnhamar]

It isn't that a case needs to be made "for" the death penalty.  As long as we - through our government - are willing to allow foreign innocents (eg. non-combatants)  to be accidentally killed by our armed forces, there isn't really an objection to be made against deliberately killing our own guilty criminals.  The restraint against a government killing a non-citizen, who is emphatically not subject to its powers by any reasonable standard, should be greater than against killing those theoretically subject to its powers; the restraint against killing innocents should be greater than against killing criminals, particularly criminals of a predatory nature.

Brad, this tipped the scales in my internal debate. I agree with this 100%.

 

[medicineman]

As a free and lawful taxpaying Canadian citizen, my constitutional rights extend throughout the Nation, and while I am abroad.
As this man is confined within the boundaries of a prison, then so should his rights be.
I think that would be Constitutional.

This asshat violated the rights of what, 11 kids that we know off, not to mention the rights of their families.  The fact that he is doing hard time vs being worm food somewhere is about as far as his rights should go.  Ooops, forgot, I'm paid to protect his rights...no subtle irony there eh?

MM

 

[Jarnhamar]

This idiot violated the rights of what, 11 kids that we know off, not to mention the rights of their families.  The fact that he is doing hard time vs being worm food somewhere is about as far as his rights should go.  Ooops, forgot, I'm paid to protect his rights...no subtle irony there eh?

MM

Should someone like this retain his rights?
Should we afford criminals who spend their life preying on others causing constant pain and suffering the same rights  we afford a law abiding citizen or even petty criminal?

 

[Edward Campbell]

Should someone like this retain his rights?
...

That's the right question. The right answer is: No, but ...

Those who violate the rights of others by breaking the laws we make to 'regulate' ourselves and the business of living, working and trading together, must face sanctions which ought to include the temporary loss of most civil rights. But: Each individual offender must be afforded the opportunity to earn back almost all civil rights by demonstrating reform: acceptable conduct.

Most of us who are or were n the military understand the carrot and stick very well and we know they work pretty well together, too. Our justice system needs to understand that punishment and rewards are both useful tools when used in tandem - generally punishment followed by the opportunity to demonstrate reform and then the 'reward' of rejoining society as a full fledged member with all (or almost all) the rights 'good' citizens enjoy. But 'rewards' are incentives and incentives work only when there is something to be gained. Civil rights must be taken away before they can be earned back.

 

[57Chevy]

Civil rights must be taken away before they can be earned back.

But, I would not go as far as that, at least not revoked completely.
As I mentioned, their civil rights should remain intact within the confines of the prison.
That way, they would be able to exercise/practice their basic rights amongst the other inmates.
Thus helping them to learn to be good citizens and perhaps to finally reintregate society.

Good point ER on "sanctions", as we as a country make use of such on other Nations.

 

[SeanNewman]

....Someone should take it upon themselves to make a class action lawsuit and sue the whole lot, right across the board, for the breach of all the victims' basic constitutional rights.

Our boss, MND Peter MacKay, was involved with law before he made it into politics and made victims' rights one of his priorities. 

While I can not put words into his mouth or his mind, this is from his Wiki page: "MacKay has publicly stated that the major impetus for his entry into federal politics was his frustrations with the shortcomings in the justice system, particularly his perception that the courts do not care about the impact crime has on victims."

Yay, we have a cool boss who shares our values!

 

[gaspasser]

Yes ! And Pete has a large can of whoop ass at his disposal   
I wonder why Gen. Hillier didn't get into politics ?Oh, yeah, he pissed off people in politics in order to get his troops stuff.

But I digress, we need politicians who are willing to take a stand for the weak and start pushing laws that reflect what the people want, not just what the government THINKS they want. 
I think its funny that the people whose rights we try to protect use those rights to violate the rights of others...and the world keeps turning...I'm getting dizzy  ???

 

[ModlrMike]

I think that unfortunately, Olsen would win the case. The precedent WRT voting rights for the incarcerated virtually assures it. His legal team will argue that incarceration does not deprive persons of their Charter rights. Such incarceration is only a limitation on their right to mobility, which does not extend to all of their rights in general.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Olson's pension threat insults victims: minister
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/07/09/bc-clifford-olson-pension-lawsuit.html

Serial killer Clifford Olson's threat to fight to keep his old age pension is "deeply insulting to his victims and their families," says Canada's human resources minister.

Olson, one of Canada's most notorious serial killers, is threatening to take the federal government to court over its plan to end pension payments to federal inmates like himself.

In a written statement sent to CBC News Friday, Human Resources Minister Diane Finley said: "Canadians are outraged that prisoners like child-killer Clifford Olson are receiving taxpayer-funded benefits.

"Prisoners already have their basic needs met in prison by taxpayers," she said.

"We will not forget the crimes committed by Clifford Olson and his desire to maintain his taxpayer-funded entitlements is deeply insulting to his victims and their families. This bill is the fair and right thing to do."

Last month, the government announced a bill that would end pension payments to some federal prisoners.

The move came after it was revealed that Olson was eligible to collect $1,100 a month in seniors benefits and income supplements.

The new bill would deprive about 400 federal prisoners of about $2 million a year in benefits if it becomes law.

Olson has spent the last 28 years in prison for killing at least 11 boys and girls in British Columbia.

He has sent a three-paragraph letter to Ottawa saying he looks forward to a court case if his old age pension is taken away.

His retirement benefit money has been put in trust. He was also paid $100,000 by the RCMP to lead them to the bodies of his victims. That money was put in trust for his estranged wife and son.

 

[SeanNewman]

For those of you who work in corrections, what sorts of work do criminals do while inside that contributes to society?

I don't mean for themselves like getting a degree or learning skills, but the forced labour kind.  A little more give and a little less take.

I'm sure they're not all making license plates. 

While I agree they shouldn't be working 20 hour days like in Auschwitz, I do think they should be working their asses off and performing a service to justify some of that $100k+/yr it costs to hold them.

Obviously escape risks would have to be mitigated if it were outside the prison, but I would think all sorts of small businesses could be assisted by free labour, especially in today's world where a lot of the work could be done by computer inside the walls.