Ridiculous Sentencing


SLM
+1
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Pick a few stats and see how many more prisons we need.
Police-reported crime statistics in Canada, 2011
Police reported over 3,800 incidents of sexual violations against children in 2011. The rate of sexual violations against children rose 3% between 2010 and 2011, making it one of the few categories of violent offences to increase in 2011 (Table 5). Among the specific offences included in this category, the rate of invitation to sexual touching (+8%) and luring a child via a computer (+10%) increased, while sexual interference remained stable and sexual exploitation decreased 7%.
The UCR also captures data on incidents of child pornography, which encompasses publishing, distributing and accessing material. Police reported more than 3,100 incidents of child-pornography in 2011, 900 more than in 2010. The rate of child pornography incidents increased 40%, the largest increase of any Criminal Code offence in 2011. It should be noted that fluctuations in the rate of child pornography are most likely reflective of police-based programs and initiatives targeting this particular offence.
Police-reported crime statistics in Canada, 2011

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
I think what you do is you make the "punishment" (incarceration period) fit the crime in a way that actually protects the public and build/open and close prisons accordingly. Does very little good, in my mind, to use statistics to argue for less prisons, for example, if the incarceration of those convicted of, again for example, sexual crimes against children is 5 years for a first offense. The recidivism rate is high for those type of crimes. The incarceration period is insufficient to prevent further crimes being perpetrated, which even if you subscribed to the rehabilitation angle of incarceration as opposed to punishment, argues for a longer sentence.
 
Goober
+1
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

I think what you do is you make the "punishment" (incarceration period) fit the crime in a way that actually protects the public and build/open and close prisons accordingly. Does very little good, in my mind, to use statistics to argue for less prisons, for example, if the incarceration of those convicted of, again for example, sexual crimes against children is 5 years for a first offense. The recidivism rate is high for those type of crimes. The incarceration period is insufficient to prevent further crimes being perpetrated, which even if you subscribed to the rehabilitation angle of incarceration as opposed to punishment, argues for a longer sentence.

I see your point. But as the Stats show we would need a lot more prisons. Just check the rates for child molestation and violent sexual assault. How many are repeat offenders.
I am not saying in any way not to lock them up. I am saying the Govt - Liberal or Con or NDP - will not do it.
 
SLM
+2
#33
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

I see your point. But as the Stats show we would need a lot more prisons. Just check the rates for child molestation and violent sexual assault. How many are repeat offenders.
I am not saying in any way not to lock them up. I am saying the Govt - Liberal or Con or NDP - will not do it.

Crime statistics are part of the consideration, I'm not saying they aren't relevant, they're very relevant of course. But sentence reform needs to be a part of the package as well. As does preventative measures.

If we talk about reducing DUI as a crime, for instance, what are we talking about? It should be many things. First that offenders, a good percentage of whom may be inclined to offend again, are locked up for a sufficient period to prevent repeat offences at least in rapid succession. Second, we do a better job of identifying those who can be rehabilitated and work to get them rehabilitated. Third we teach our children (always starts with children) better, help them to grow up in a society where driving while intoxicated is abhorent to them.

I think the laws themselves pretty much cover the general needs of our society well enough. But it's the other parts of the whole package that need work.
 
tay
#34
Martin Joseph Blake admitting in court to raping his own child. But despite his horrendous crime, he’s getting off with probation.

Blake, 40, of Glasgow, Montana, was initially charged with three felony counts of incest for raping his 12-year-old daughter on multiple occasions. He pleaded guilty (external - login to view) to one felony incest charge in order to have the other two felonies dismissed.

As part of his guilty plea, Blake was sentenced to 30 years in prison, with all 30 years suspended in place of probation (external - login to view) and having to register as a sex offender. Valley County prosecuting attorney Dylan Jensen recommended 100 years in state prison with 75 years suspended (external - login to view) as part of a plea agreement, meaning Blake would spend 25 years in prison.

However, in his ruling, Judge John C. McKeon defended the light sentence (external - login to view) as “quite restrictive,” and said the sentence was appropriate given Blake’s support from family, friends, and the community. Under Judge McKeon’s sentence, Blake will serve 60 days in jail, with credit for 17 days of time served, meaning he only has to spend 43 days in prison.

The kid-gloves treatment Blake received despite the crime is indicative of how embedded rape culture and white privilege is in the American judicial system.

Blake’s public defender, Casey Moore, said the sentence was appropriate, arguing that Blake had already suffered enough.

“I’m not asking that he be given a slap on the wrist,” Moore said in his argument in the courtroom. “He did spend 17 days in jail, and he did lose his job.”

However, Jensen said even if the other two felonies were dismissed, it still doesn’t mean the crime he admitted to committing wasn’t still heinous.

“A father repeatedly raped his 12-year-old daughter,” Jensen said.

Jensen told local media he was “disappointed” by Judge McKeon’s ruling. He declined to comment further.

Watch KRTV’s coverage of the Blake sentencing below:

Montana father gets probation after he admits to raping 12-year-old daughter (external - login to view)
 
tay
#35
Texting driver killed a 79-year-old man. Her sentence: 4 days in jail


http://www.thespec.com/news-story/6916467-texting-driver-killed-a-79-year-old-man-her-sentence-4-days-in-jail/ (external - login to view)
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
#36
Quote: Originally Posted by tayView Post

The kid-gloves treatment Blake received despite the crime is indicative of how embedded rape culture and white privilege is in the American judicial system.

It is statements like this one that really show the bias of the media. They are not quoting anybody on this. This is the "opinion" of the reporter that a) these terms exist b) are the reason for the light sentence. But even if both of these exist, this is not a reporting of facts this is a blatant statement of opinion as fact.


As for the sentence, yes it was far too light. But when somebody suggests minimum sentences, the lefties go all ape sh-it over that so without the minimums, this is what you get.
 
Danbones
#37
Crime > Violent crime > Murder rate: Countries Compared
...us 14th
...canada 80th
Countries Compared by Crime > Violent crime > Murder rate. International Statistics at NationMaster.com (external - login to view)

wow! us style sentencing will sure help bring down our crime rates
 
davesmom
#38
Our justice system has become a joke. Much of the leniency is pc; some of it is forced because governments have spent their resources on so many unimportant issues and have let our prisons become inadequate to hold the number of criminals. As the population increases, so does the need for bigger facilities. Government does not take that into consideration.


A number of decades ago, rehabilitation became the main goal of the justice system. While it is good to give prisoners the chance to rehabilitate, it is not something that can be forced on a career criminal who chooses that way of life. I think a 'three strikes, then out' system would have been a good thing.


On top of light sentencing, we now see convicted criminals let out after serving only 1/3 of the sentence, probation for dangerous offenders, bail granted for everyone and much more catering to the criminal element. We can expect to see the situation get worse in the future.


Ask a police officer or a corrections officer what they think of the system. Just the term 'corrections officer' instead of 'jail guard' says a lot. Or 'police service' instead of 'police FORCE', as it used to be called.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by davesmomView Post

A number of decades ago, rehabilitation became the main goal of the justice system. While it is good to give prisoners the chance to rehabilitate, it is not something that can be forced on a career criminal who chooses that way of life. I think a 'three strikes, then out' system would have been a good thing.

We tried that in California. It led to massive prison overcrowding, people being sentenced to life without parole for non-violent, technical crimes, and all that fun stuff.


Quote:

On top of light sentencing, we now see convicted criminals let out after serving only 1/3 of the sentence, probation for dangerous offenders, bail granted for everyone and much more catering to the criminal element. We can expect to see the situation get worse in the future.

Well, worse in the sense of "better." Crime in Canada in 2013 was at a low not seen since 1969.

Canada?s crime rate: Two decades of decline (external - login to view)


Quote:

Ask a police officer or a corrections officer what they think of the system. Just the term 'corrections officer' instead of 'jail guard' says a lot. Or 'police service' instead of 'police FORCE', as it used to be called.

It's OK. They still use plenty of force. Like those Mounties that beat up that guy on a bike? And this guy. . .

Mountie dodges discipline after punching man | CTV Vancouver News (external - login to view)
 
Danbones
#40
Yeah, it's now police services, because calling them a force too clearly describes their new jackboot practices...and we don't do old speak anymore:
it's new speak now
 
Bar Sinister
+1
#41
Ridiculous sentencing is sticking people in prison for non-violent crimes for the type of extended sentences common in the USA, a policy that has resulted in the USA having the largest prison population in the world.

Quote: Originally Posted by DingusView Post

Think yourself lucky. Here in England, if you sexually abuse children for 5 decades, you get an OBE, fame fortune and nonorary degress. If you are a terrorist and preach hate against the citizens that you have chosen to live among, you get welfare benefits, free health care, subsidised housing and police protection. If you head up the BBC and are incompetant, work for the BBC for just 54 days, and know NOTHING about programmes naming (wrongly) paedophile MPs, and (wrongly) covering up prominent celebraties carrying out "kiddie fiddling" abuse and rape of minors, you et to resign with a 1/2 million pound pay off. GREAT Britain. - yeah right.

Are you trying to say that Brits get OBE's for sexual abuse? Or was it the case that someone who got an OBE was later found to be guilty of sexual abuse? There is quite a difference.
 
Remington1
#42
The N. A. Judicial systems need a serious overall, didn't a old pedophile in Montana just get 60-days in jail for repeatedly raping his 12 year old daughter? So, I figure 30 days for rape and 30 days for incest? This judge, a clear enabler of assaults has been on the bench for 22 years! I hope that this so call judge was not blessed with daughters, because obviously he feels raping and incest are acceptable.
 
davesmom
#43
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar SinisterView Post

Ridiculous sentencing is sticking people in prison for non-violent crimes for the type of extended sentences common in the USA, a policy that has resulted in the USA having the largest prison population in the world.



I would agree that there ought to be better sentencing which differentiates between violent and non-violent crimes. As it is, it seems that non-violent criminals are getting harsher treatment than the violent ones.
There is probably a better chance for rehabilitation among non-violent criminals; they can be trained for jobs that will not make it necessary to break the law and always have to dodge justice.
Violent criminals, many of whom are a serious threat to society are getting light sentencing and in too many cases, reoffending. These are the ones, imo, that should probably be isolated from society for life. They are not likely to be rehabilitable.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#44
Quote: Originally Posted by tayView Post

Martin Joseph Blake admitting in court to raping his own child. But despite his horrendous crime, he’s getting off with probation.

Blake, 40, of Glasgow, Montana, was initially charged with three felony counts of incest for raping his 12-year-old daughter on multiple occasions. He pleaded guilty (external - login to view) to one felony incest charge in order to have the other two felonies dismissed.

On the other hand, California just gave a man who repeatedly raped his daughter a more appropriate sentence: 1,503 years.

Good news for him is he'll be eligible for parole in only 501.
 
JLM
#45
Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

On the other hand, California just gave a man who repeatedly raped his daughter a more appropriate sentence: 1,503 years.

Good news for him is he'll be eligible for parole in only 501.


Reminds me of the joke where the convicted guy's lawyer is visiting him in jail right after sentencing. "Hey you should cheer up, I realize the judge gave you three consecutive life sentences, but with any luck at all I'll have you out of here in one".
 
Ron in Regina
+2
#46
In Canada, prison isn't there to protect the public, but to rehabilitate
the offender, and has been that way since the early '70's...and that
change took place under Justin's Father's rule.

Factor the "Gladue" nonsense on top of that...& what we have should
not be a surprise to anyone.

In 1971 Solicitor General Jean-Pierre Goyer, announced in the House
of Commons, that the Trudeau Liberal Government had decided to
emphasis the rehabilitation of criminals, rather than the protection
of society in the administration of the criminal justice system; and
subsequently the Liberal Party while in power totally transformed
sentencing in the criminal justice system.
Last edited by Ron in Regina; Oct 23rd, 2016 at 10:19 PM..Reason: Added the last sentance/paragraph...
 
JLM
#47
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in ReginaView Post

In Canada, prison isn't there to protect the public, but to rehabilitate
the offender, and has been that way since the early '70's...and that
change took place under Justin's Father's rule.

Factor the "Gladue" nonsense on top of that...& what we have should
not be a surprise to anyone.


That is true but I think rehabilitation (if it can be done) is very important. It's a gain for everyone if you can convert a parasite into a contributor.
 
Ron in Regina
+1
#48
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

That is true but I think rehabilitation (if it can be done) is very important. It's a gain for everyone if you can convert a parasite into a contributor.

What if we convert a parasite into still being a parasite, but being back
on the streets repeatedly long before they should be, if ever?

What if someone is convicted of their 76th (or was it 74th?) B&E conviction,
and it happens while they're on probation, and they're just given more
probation (& no further jail time) due to the factors above? Is that Justice?
 
JLM
#49
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in ReginaView Post

What if we convert a parasite into still being a parasite, but being back
on the streets repeatedly long before they should be, if ever?

What if someone is convicted of their 76th (or was it 74th?) B&E conviction,
and it happens while they're on probation, and they're just given more
probation (& no further jail time) due to the factors above? Is that Justice?


There's a few there is just no hope for, I am afraid. I kind of believe in the "three strike system"- I'm not sure it should be indefinitely but at least long enough to get it through their heads things are getting serious..........................maybe something in the order of 5-8 years for their third B & E or assault.
 
Ron in Regina
#50
What if the B&E's are non-violent, and 'just' property crimes?
5-8 years? But what if the perpetrator was spanked (or not
spanked) as a child? What about the Gladeau factor and
rehabilitating the offender with the contents of your garage &
my TV? What if they have an addiction to glue or porn or
Slurpies and need to feed their habit with the sale of your
neighbours BBQ & Lawnmower?
 
Ludlow
#51
Put the slugs under the fowkin jail.
 
Ron in Regina
#52
Quote: Originally Posted by LudlowView Post

Put the slugs under the fowkin jail.

For their rehabilitation?
 
Ludlow
#53
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in ReginaView Post

For their rehabilitation?

You see uhhh, it is much less costly, to eliminate problems than to solve them. Send em on down the line.
 
Ron in Regina
#54
Quote: Originally Posted by LudlowView Post

You see uhhh, it is much less costly, to eliminate problems than to solve them. Send em on down the line.

You mean like, Refugee's are potentially sent down the line? To Canada & elsewhere?
That would be much more cost effective for the exporting Government.
 
JLM
#55
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in ReginaView Post

What if the B&E's are non-violent, and 'just' property crimes?
5-8 years? But what if the perpetrator was spanked (or not
spanked) as a child? What about the Gladeau factor and
rehabilitating the offender with the contents of your garage &
my TV? What if they have an addiction to glue or porn or
Slurpies and need to feed their habit with the sale of your
neighbours BBQ & Lawnmower?


I've always recognized there are "exceptions to every rule", but I wonder after TWO convictions, how many exceptions are left. Considerations have to be made for individual circumstances of course.
 
Ron in Regina
+1
#56
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

I've always recognized there are "exceptions to every rule", but I wonder after TWO convictions, how many exceptions are left. Considerations have to be made for individual circumstances of course.

Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in ReginaView Post

...What if someone is convicted of their 76th (or was it 74th?) B&E conviction,
and it happens while they're on probation, and they're just given more
probation (& no further jail time) due to the factors above? Is that Justice?

The above numbers I didn't pull out of my hat. They're real, and so over the
top that I remember them to this day. I listened to that news story on the
radio about 20yrs ago. On that note...

After TWO convictions, how many exceptions are left? For this dude, at that
point, between 74 & 76, & unless he found his Lord & Savior while still on
probation at that point, I'm assuming that number increased over the last
couple of decades.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#57
I think this case is very effective for rehabilitation. Heck, I bet a hundred bucks he won't ever commit another crime after he gets out in 3519.
 
davesmom
+1
#58
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

That is true but I think rehabilitation (if it can be done) is very important. It's a gain for everyone if you can convert a parasite into a contributor.



The best rehabilitations happened in the prison farms that used to be until our 'liberal' governments closed them down.
Those prisons were self-supporting; they taught inmates trades, everything from farming to carpentry, barbering, mechanics and much more. The prisoners were busy, productive and learned to take pride in their accomplishments.


But then the governments shut them down. Couldn't expect the poor prisoners to actually work and learn, could they? Now prisoners have nothing to do but share ideas on how to commit their crimes more effectively and furtively.


The cat o' nine was also quite effective. One application of that was more than enough to 'rehabilitate' a good many criminals! But cruel and unusual punishment is okay for victims, it seems, but not okay for those who victimize.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#59
Quote: Originally Posted by davesmomView Post


The cat o' nine was also quite effective. One application of that was more than enough to 'rehabilitate' a good many criminals! But cruel and unusual punishment is okay for victims, it seems, but not okay for those who victimize.

Well, except for the ones who died under the lash. Read "The Fatal Shore" for an account of the salutary benefits of the lash.

It is, however, a terrific terrorism tactic. Ask any Southerner. Or any torturer. Which is apparently what you want from the Canadian government.

Violating someone's physical integrity is the ultimate violation. That's why it's a crime in every possible form. And it doesn't cure them. It makes 'em mean.
 
DaSleeper
#60

 

Similar Threads

21
Absolutely ridiculous stories - tell yours
by unclepercy | Mar 14th, 2006
1
Bloody ridiculous!
by Ten Packs | Mar 10th, 2005
no new posts