Quote: Originally Posted by karrie
If anyone else cares to ask in a reasonable manner, by all means, it's the sort of conversation I don't mind engaging in. You (perhaps it's just that I'm not in the best of moods today) are coming off condescending and rude, and don't really spark a desire to converse at this point.
Sorry, I just really don't understand your position. And I'm in a position where I get quite frustrated when people say things that just don't make sense to me. Let me attempt to explain my perspective.
A first degree murder conviction would have meant that he was found guilty of having planned and committed the murders. If this had been a single murder (i.e. he had only murdered one person) he would have faced a 25 year sentence without the possibility of parole.
In the case of Robert Pickton however, he was convicted of six murders. The jury found him guilty of six counts of second degree murder which carries a maximum sentence of 25 years per offense. So in his case, he faces a maximum of 150 (6 x 25) years in prison.
Second degree murder means that the jury did not find him guilty of premeditation. It also means that he is eligible for parole if is not designated a dangerous offender. However, given the gravity of the situation, it is unlikely that he will ever be eligible for or receive parole. So his punishment for the crimes remains essentially unchanged -- regardless of whether he was convicted of first or send degree murder.
So we can reasonably expect that the finding of the jury will have no impact on his sentence. He will spend the rest of his life behind bars no matter what -- which is the worse that can happen to him under Canadian law.
So what element is missing that you could find so troubling? Just the premeditation part. The jury felt that he was too stupid to have planned these murders. And they're probably right in thinking so. However, being too stupid to have planned a murder doesn't mean that you're too stupid to have committed a murder. Any idiot can take the life of another. It is remarkably easy to end a life, and it doesn't require much thought.
So does being too stupid to plan a murder mean that you must have had help commiting the murder? No! Not at all. We don't know how many women Mr. Pickton had on his farm. He may have invited 200 women to his farm and only killed 49. So it's plausible to assume that he did not bring women to his farm with the intent of killing them. The murders could have just been spur of the moment type things. i.e. He was there. She was there. Something in his head said, "kill her."
Does the fact that he was a mass murderer mean that there was premeditation? No! Absolutely not! There may have been 200 women at his farm. It's possible that something happened with these 49 women that made him kill them. Were they drunk and high and things got out of hand? Were they involved in some kinky form of sexual perversion that went terribly awry? Who knows? All we know is that the crown didn't make the case for first degree murder, and the jury didn't find that Mr. Pickton had the ability to plan nor the intent of killing these women when he brought them to his farm... Or, encountered them on his farm.
So was the jury correct in finding the man guilty? I don't know. Was the jury correct in finding him guilty of second degree murder and not first degree murder? Probably! It's quite possible that he was really only guilty of six counts of manslaughter.
Last edited by warrior_won; Dec 10th, 2007 at 05:51 PM..