Toronto's first homicide of year: Gun-Related

[Jersay]

Man found slumped in car Toronto's first gunshot death of 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

at 15:01 on January 1, 2006, EST.

TORONTO (CP) - The tally of gun-related deaths in Toronto began anew less than five hours into the new year Sunday when police discovered the body of a man slumped over in a car.

Police said they were investigating the city's first homicide of 2006 after finding a man in his early 20s suffering from apparent gunshot wounds.

The victim was taken to Sunnybrook Hospital, but was pronounced dead a short time later. An autopsy was scheduled for Monday.

The death comes after Toronto wrapped up 2005 with 78 homicides - 52 of them gun-related.

New Democrat Leader Jack Layton said the shooting highlights the urgent need to rein in gun crime.

"It once again just underlines the importance of taking immediate action on all fronts with tough laws, and (we've) got to be investing in communities and kids," a campaigning Layton said while visiting a New Year's levee at the Ontario legislature.

"It's that balanced approach that we're pushing for."

Layton also said he supported suggestions to impose "reverse onus" bail conditions on people charged with gun crimes.

Prime Minister Paul Martin agreed Saturday to support a measure that would require those accused of gun crimes to demonstrate why they should be released.

The promise was part of a pledge to Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and Toronto Mayor David Miller, who have vowed to end the gun violence that most recently claimed the life of a 15-year-old Toronto girl.

Layton said he favoured the tougher stance on those accused of a gun crime.

http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/NationalNewsArticle.htm?src=n010119A.xml

 

[Nascar_James]

On the positive side, it is good to see politicians interested in toughening the punishment for those convicted of gun related crimes. I would go one step further and grant provinces there the individual option of re-instating capital punishment for murder 1. I think it is a strong deterrent against murder. Even for those who disagree and say that we will still have gun related killings with capital punishment, capital punishment will bring true justice to the family members of the victims.

 

[FiveParadox]

My qualm with capital punishment is that it cannot be undone if further evidence is uncovered later on. In my opinion, the risk of inadvertantly executing an innocent man or woman is unacceptable. Just my thoughts on the subject.

 

[iamcanadian]

Re: RE: Toronto's first homicide of year: Gun-Related

My qualm with capital punishment is that it cannot be undone if further evidence is uncovered later on. In my opinion, the risk of inadvertantly executing an innocent man or woman is unacceptable. Just my thoughts on the subject.

Yet the risk of innocent people being harmed by criminals is acceptable then? Is it better to excecute an innocent person once in a while if it saves hundreds of innocent people often enough.

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: RE: Toronto's first homicide of year: Gun-Related

Yet the risk of innocent people being harmed by criminals is acceptable then?

I made no such assertion, and even the implication thereof is offensive.

Let me be perfectly clear. The risk of harm to any innocent person is unacceptable. I don't "weight" the values of innocent lives. We need to improve the sentencing system in Canada so as to protect every innocent life (including that of a possibly mis-convicted person), while ensuring that justice is served appropriately.

 

[Suzique39]

Re: RE: Toronto's first homicide of year: Gun-Related

Yet the risk of innocent people being harmed by criminals is acceptable then?

I made no such assertion, and even the implication thereof is offensive.

Let me be perfectly clear. The risk of harm to any innocent person is unacceptable. I don't "weight" the values of innocent lives. We need to improve the sentencing system in Canada so as to protect every innocent life (including that of a possibly mis-convicted person), while ensuring that justice is served appropriately.

I agree , the death penalty is so permenent if you make a mistake theres no making it right. At the same time I think longer sentences for gun crimes should be imposed. A life sentence should not mean 25 years it should mean the rest of a persons natural life.

 

[bevvyd]

The Libs increase the maximum sentence for gun related crimes, but nobody gets the maximum so why not increase the minimum sentence, at least it will be realizes and felt by the criminals.

We need ways of getting guns off the street. Many years ago Victoria held an Amnesty Week in which any person could surrender guns, knives any weapon that they did not want in their possesson. It was a huge success. Sometimes people get 'stuck' with what a former boyfriend or friend have left behind. The point being is that some people get left with all kinds of stuff and giving them a safe way to properly dispose of the items is one way of getting some weapons off the street or away from young kids.

 

[FiveParadox]

A national "Week of Amnesty" program would be a really good idea, in my opinion. I have this perception that when one becomes involved in crime, even if not of one's own volition, it becomes extremely difficult to get out again; crimes may be committed to cover for the original crime, and such crimes could escalate.

If citizens were given the opportunity to "opt out" of the terrible criminal cycle, then this could majorly help Canada to solve its crime problems; it wouldn't be a long-term solution, of course, but it would keep crime somewhat at bay while whatever Government we end up with initiates, debates and passes legislation better suited as a long-term solution.

 

[Roy]

My qualm with capital punishment is that it cannot be undone if further evidence is uncovered later on. In my opinion, the risk of inadvertantly executing an innocent man or woman is unacceptable. Just my thoughts on the subject.

yes, that is why many people who favor capital punishment would like to see DNA evidence before carring in out, make it a requirement. Canada should also look at having concurrent life sentences so multiple killers would not be able to get out of jail on parole. In Canada we need better sentencing and punishment laws. If someone killed my family member, the least the government could do is keep them incarcerated for the rest of their natural lives.....no faint hope BS.

The Libs increase the maximum sentence for gun related crimes, but nobody gets the maximum so why not increase the minimum sentence, at least it will be realizes and felt by the criminals.

basically you have the right idea....we need to forget about attacking law abiding gun owners and instead go after the criminals. Raising the minimum sentences and keeping accused off our streets is the best way.

 

[the caracal kid]

if only crime did not pay.
if only the pay was not desired.
if only people would evolve and understand.

the desire for animalistic justice is just that, animalistic.
"lets kill'em", "lets lock them up".
yes, it is always about "them", isn't it?
there is no understanding, no social conscience, no connection.

a society, a people, are mesured by how all members are treated.
"lock up the criminals", no. it is those crying for tough sentences and death penalties that need to be locked up for their failure to mature to the potential of humanity. You act like dogs, then be dogs.
But it won't be I that does such things to you, for i see the failings of society in creating you and those you desire to suffer.

 

[Roy]

if only crime did not pay.
if only the pay was not desired.
if only people would evolve and understand.

unfortunately robbing a store does pay, and the money is a desired commodity in todays world.....even if you give all who need it a welfare cheque it still wont stop crime.....its not even poor people who commit the crimes half the time.

We do not live in a dream utopia world Caracal Kid, I wish we did, but we don't. It is not animalistic to want stricter sentencing or even justice......justice is not revenge. I don't see whats wrong with sending the people, who takes lives intentionally, to jail and making them stay there for the rest of thier lives....rather than letting them out after a few years. For a person who has DNA evedence indisputeably linking them to the taking of one or many lives....what is wrong with the death penalty? It doesn't make us animals or a monsters or anything....it is simply justice. You can say what you are saying when it doesn't directaly involve you..... but what if it was your little sister, or you mom or dad that was murdered for his wallet? Please look at it from all points of view.

And why dont you respond to my earlier post about sentencing matching the crime.



:wink:

 

[iamcanadian]

Re: RE: Toronto's first homicide of year: Gun-Related

I made no such assertion, and even the implication thereof is offensive.

Let me be perfectly clear. The risk of harm to any innocent person is unacceptable. I don't "weight" the values of innocent lives. We need to improve the sentencing system in Canada so as to protect every innocent life (including that of a possibly mis-convicted person), while ensuring that justice is served appropriately.

If you had to choose executing an inocent person once in awhile in order to stop hundreds of innocent people from being harmed then what?

 

[the caracal kid]

"Please look at it from all points of view. "
how do you know i have not done so?
how do you know what acts have been committed against those i know?
how do you know how i treated those who caused harm?

"And why dont you respond to my earlier post about sentencing matching the crime. "
which post is that?

do you want all crimes against life treated?

no, i speak not of a utopian world.
i do speak of an evolved world.
i speak of an awakened human.
i speak of an understanding, an awareness, a becoming.

is it no surprise that a society that deems life a commodity has its own citizen's lives commoditized.
you do it to the dogs, you do it to the cows, you do it to the chickens, and now it is done to you.
you call it justice. i call it petty vengence.

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: RE: Toronto's first homicide of year: Gun-Related

If you had to choose executing an inocent person once in awhile in order to stop hundreds of innocent people from being harmed then what?

Perhaps you quoted my post without reading it.

I will not exercise in the "weighing" of one innocent life against another. No, I would not knowingly execute one innocent person to save others, but I would also not knowingly place "hundreds of innocent people" in harm's way. It's not black and white; it's not "execute them all," or "set them all free." We need to come up with an appropriate method of sentencing that ensures that the general public is safe, but that innocent lives are not placed at risk, and we need to legislate to that end.

And on a side-note, even experts agree that DNA evidence, while reliable, is not one hundred percent accurate. There remains room for mistakes to be made and, therefore, I would not accept even the most damning DNA evidence as being grounds for execution.

:!: Edit Corrected a formatting problem.

 

[Colpy]

Re: RE: Toronto's first homicide of year: Gun-Related

My qualm with capital punishment is that it cannot be undone if further evidence is uncovered later on. In my opinion, the risk of inadvertantly executing an innocent man or woman is unacceptable. Just my thoughts on the subject.

Exactly

Dead on.

When somebody says "why not the death penalty?' one should reply "Marshall, Milgaard, Morin" and how many since them?

Now for mass murderers, i have a different view.

If you can get three convictions, for three different murders, in front of three different judges and three different juries.......I say off the bugger right after the third trial.

Bye bye Mr. Pickton, and Clifford Olsen....et al.

 

[the caracal kid]

yes, the murderer is dead, long live the murderer.

 

[yballa09]

the desire for animalistic justice is just that, animalistic.
"lets kill'em", "lets lock them up".
yes, it is always about "them", isn't it?
there is no understanding, no social conscience, no connection.

a society, a people, are mesured by how all members are treated.
"lock up the criminals", no. it is those crying for tough sentences and death penalties that need to be locked up for their failure to mature to the potential of humanity. You act like dogs, then be dogs.
But it won't be I that does such things to you, for i see the failings of society in creating you and those you desire to suffer.

What do we do then, because what's happening right now isn't working. Maybe this is the only thing people suggest because it is the only solution that they can come up with that brings a so called "justice" to those perpertrators. You can go on and on about man and his primitive ways, but without any solution it might as well be disregarded.

 

[the caracal kid]

the solution comes from the core of society, but the greedy little piggies coveting their material posessions above all else are exactly as you said "primative".

the first step is to embrace your "brother". a person stands in judgement only of himself. if you do not help in his awakening, then you are not serving any so-called justice, but merely petty vengence. You too are commoditizing life, saying seeing another suffer is worth more than a mere trinket.

the solution is in the awakening of man. it is in social consciousness.

now if you conceed that man will not be anything more than a de-haired ape, fine. Let man remain stunted and unable to awaken his own senses. Stumble through life.

Or

become more.

 

[FiveParadox]

Perhaps under exigent circumstances, the death penalty could be warranted. But to be clear, only under very exigent circumstances; for example, as you stated, Colpy, multiple convictions would be a good reason; although, I think that this would have to be in combination with irrefutable evidence (and enough of it to constitute relatively assured guilt).

However, since the death penalty is such a big deal (which it is, completely), it should not be an arbitrary decision to administer the death penalty. If a Judge, or some other sentencing panel, recommends the death penalty, then the following should occur:

(a) The Minister of Justice should refer the case to the Standing Committee on Justice, or create a Special Committee to study only that case in particular, which shall within thirty days of the reference determine whether or not the case warrants the consideration of the death penalty before the Houses of Parliament.

(b) The Minister of Justice should move, before the House of Commons and before the people of Canada, that the Governor General of Canada do order that [name] be executed on a date to be no less than twelve months from today as established by an Order in Council, and that such an order may be rescinded without notice, with reasonable cause, by an order of a Minister of the Crown.

(c) The motion can be debated for no more than thirty days and, if passed, then the Government shall instruct the Leader of the Government in the Senate to make a similar motion in the Red Chamber; however, the Senate shall have the prerogative to take up to one year, either in a Committee or in the Senate as a whole, to consider in detail whether or not the death penalty should be authorized.

(d) If the motion is defeated in either House, then the matter shall be dropped and a "permanent sentence" (natural life imprisonment) shall be issued in place of the death penalty. If both Houses agree to the motion, then the Governor General shall, by convention, order that the execution take place between twelve and twenty-four months of the Senate granting its consent to the execution.

(e) Any Minister of the Crown, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, or the Governor General, may stay the execution and return the matter to Parliament for further consideration if they believe in good-faith that such an action is necessary.

Note that I proposed a thirty-day limit in the House of Commons to ensure that the issue be debated, but that the Commons still has the time to fully debate and consider its standard governmental and legislative matters. The limit in the Senate was proposed to be one year, because the Senate generally has far more time and resources to consider matters of social policy such as this.

The issuing of the death penalty should be a big deal, it should be publicly debated when warranted, and it should never be easy to issue. This is my opinion, and I'm sure many of you disagree, but I just thought that I'd throw it out there.

 

[Colpy]

Re: RE: Toronto's first homicide of year: Gun-Related

yes, the murderer is dead, long live the murderer.

Ah, my friend, if I knew you I would buy you a dictionary.

There's another word I don't think you know the meaning of.

Seriously, I think there are some things so heinous, so evil, that society can not in good faith tolerate even the existence of the perpetrators.

I understand that this is, in a way, a philosophical question. It depends on your belief system. Does evil actually exist as a force, or is everything explained away by psychology, or sociology, or some other humanitarian, pseudo-scientific equivalent of peering into chicken entrails?

I do believe there are people out there that are evil to the core, that act on that evil, that prey on the innocent without mercy, that feed on the terror and pain of others, and I believe they should be destroyed.

Simple as that.