Jane Creba Trial: JSR Charged, Controversy!

[Admiral Beez]

It's strange, to me, that many in Canada think we should treat people as well as we treat pets, claiming the latter are far better treated. However, if a dog attacks someone, the opposite occurs, with many calling for human-style justice. Of course in Canada, when a dog attacks someone, no one is asking about its mental state or illness, parents, circumstances of upbringing or anything else, we simply put the dog to death and move on. Perhaps we should treat people as we do our pets.

 

[Whoaccio]

I would prefer organ harvesting to the death penalty. It seems pointless to load someone up with potassium chloride when they have perfectly functioning bodies to harvest from. Obviously following proper health checks, we could take; a kidney, skin, blood (lots of blood), hair, potentially liver tissue, bone marrow and potentially more. It a very real sense, they would be giving back to the community.

I can understand the feeling that the justice system is to lax on "career" criminals, but I am hesitant of demands to deliver vengeance as opposed to actual justice. In particular, potential rehabilitation of an offender should be the utmost concern for the correctional system, not necessarily vengeance. On the flip side, I am under the impression (could be wrong) that the majority of violent crimes are committed by people with prior criminal convictions, which would suggest we aren't adequately assessing a convicts likelihood to re offend.

 

[lordmandeep]

I do not support the death penalty apart from the most heinous of all crimes possible.

On the flip side, I am under the impression (could be wrong) that the majority of violent crimes are committed by people with prior criminal convictions, which would suggest we aren't adequately assessing a convicts likelihood to re offend.

Imo if people are routinely charged with serious crimes, they should be denied bail, and be far easier to convict and lock up in jail. Clearly they are not learning their lesson and need to be off our street causing havoc. That is when I think its very important to bring back past convictions, however having actual evidence of the recent crime is still essential. The crown can say that this man did it due to the evidence and his past is bad, so do not show no compassion to this waste of a life...

Tell me if a person gets charged with shooting someone goes to jail, and is charged again, why is he given bail? So suggest Public safety is not as important as being fair, here is really crossing the line of stupidity and recklessness. Things like these need to be changed in our system.


If the other side can bring up compassion, the crown must be able to bring up the past criminal history.

That imo is fair ^^^^^

 

[scarberiankhatru]

A 'three violent strikes and you're harvested' rule would be nice, as per Whoaccio's post.

It takes at least two to gunfight, and if 20 thugs were involved in a shooting like that Boxing Day, all 20 should be charged with murder. I'd also lower the young offender threshold to at least 15...if you're old enough to drive, you're old enough to not shoot strangers in the street.

 

[syn]

A 'three violent strikes and you're harvested' rule would be nice, as per Whoaccio's post.

It takes at least two to gunfight, and if 20 thugs were involved in a shooting like that Boxing Day, all 20 should be charged with murder. I'd also lower the young offender threshold to at least 15...if you're old enough to drive, you're old enough to not shoot strangers in the street.

I agree. By 15 all but the most clueless understand the consequences of their actions...at least when it comes to something like shooting someone.

 

[fieras]

... or allow everyone to carry concealed firearms and let the people suss it out since the cops ain't up for it

 

[Voltz]

... or allow everyone to carry concealed firearms and let the people suss it out since the cops ain't up for it

Exactly the kind of thinking that is needed in this country, what criminal would risk committing robbery or rape if they stood a good chance of being shot to death by their victim?

But I'm afraid that the mere concept of protecting one's self is something almost foreign to most canadians, many seem to have this delusional belief that their government is always there to protect them. So such a law would not fly in this country, even though it technically already exists....

 

[doady]

But didn't that the cops shoot and kill that teenager in Montreal-Nord during the summer? Seems to me like they are already putting their guns to good use, so no need for the rest of us to be packing too.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Exactly the kind of thinking that is needed in this country, what criminal would risk committing robbery or rape if they stood a good chance of being shot to death by their victim.

I remember reading somewhere that if you have a gun in the house you're far more likely to get yourself killed or injured by it, or with it, than ever kill an intruder. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for self defense, but if you're going to have a gun, you'd better know how to use it.

 

[Voltz]

But didn't that the cops shoot and kill that teenager in Montreal-Nord during the summer? Seems to me like they are already putting their guns to good use, so no need for the rest of us to be packing too.

Of course not everyone should be armed, in fact I would say that very few people should even be able to. But if someone is competent and qualified, then why not?

In very few situations are the police able to save a victim of a crime before it happens, such as that family in Oshawa that was stabbed to death last week, by the time the police made it to the scene it was already to late, I'm sure the dead victims think the police put their guns to good use by shooting the criminal after they had all been stabbed.

 

[Voltz]

I remember reading somewhere that if you have a gun in the house you're far more likely to get yourself killed or injured by it, or with it, than ever kill an intruder. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for self defense, but if you're going to have a gun, you'd better know how to use it.

That statistic is flawed because it does not count the intruders who are just wounded or who are scared away, and that happens more often than actually killing one.

It is even less true in Canada because of mandatory firearms safety training and testing before getting a license, and because of safe storage laws.

And I agree completely that gun owners need to know how to safely use their guns.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I think we also need to acknowledge that the vast majority of gun violence victims outside of famiy domestic issues in Canada are involved themselves in criminal activity.

Look at home invasions involving firearms for instance, it generally seems that the criminals were after drugs, drug money or after someone involved in crime.

Yes, Jane Creba was an innocent victim (BTW, if Jane had been armed, she'd still be dead), but IMO, by far, most victims of gun crime are themselves involved in crime.

The Police have said it themselves, that if you stay out of high risk (i.e. gangs) or criminal activity, Toronto is a perfectly safe place to live.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

does the death penalty really deter certain types of people from doing certain crimes? most people who do really fucked up shit are really fucked up themselves and don't care about being killed. they may actually prefer death to rotting in a cage for their entire lives.


does not having a death penalty make people wanna go out and commit serious crimes because they know they won't be killed? probably not. having a death penalty won't do much because serious criminals engage in all kinds of risk that can end their life anyway. if they don't care about that risk, they won't care about the death penalty. i think the only people the death penalty punishes is those who did no crime at all; people who are wrongly accused. one moment you can be 100% certain of something and the next, 100% uncertain.


maybe a true deterrent would be to foster a sense of uncertainty in these people. maybe they would stop and think before acting. alot of times, when they do these serious crimes, they're soo sure as to why they are doing them.

 

[Admiral Beez]

does the death penalty really deter certain types of people from doing certain crimes?

I've always thought that a weak argument against the death penalty. Just like the death penalty, the threat of prison does not deter certain people from doing certain crimes.

The death penalty is not about deterence, is about threat elimination. A violent dog doesn't fear Animal Control's leathal needle when it considers attacking and killing a person...it simply does it. Those that commit first degree murder are no better than the violent dogs we put to death every year.

That said, I do not support the death penalty in Canada, because I do not trust the justice system to get it right, and thus innocent people will be put to death. But that doesn't mean I don't understand and support the sentiment.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

I've always thought that a weak argument against the death penalty. Just like the death penalty, the threat of prison does not deter certain people from doing certain crimes.

The death penalty is not about deterence, is about threat elimination. A violent dog doesn't fear Animal Control's leathal needle when it considers attacking and killing a person...it simply does it. Those that commit first degree murder are no better than the violent dogs we put to death every year.

That said, I do not support the death penalty in Canada, because I do not trust the justice system to get it right, and thus innocent people will be put to death. But that doesn't mean I don't understand and support the sentiment.

i'm against it because of the possibility of killing an innocent person.


one must also consider the message we would send by legalizing the death penalty; that it's okay to kill a living person. even though these people are already dead on the inside, it still would send a message to those with weak minds.


also, there is a difference between a dog and a person. as humans, we are bias to our own kind.


i get you when you talk about eliminating a threat but we have to think about any unintended consequences caused by the process. you don't wanna fix one thing and break two others in the process for example.