Good thing there is no death penalty here.

[YukonJack]

Misinformation and fear are tossed around like a political football by all parties, it's part of the basic rhetoric. The truth, as per usual, is somewhere in the middle of what gets bandied about on the election trail. And in the press. "Everything is working the way it is supposed to" does not sell as a news headline. Large grains of salt need to be consumed along with just about every news article or political speech, imho.

There are some egregious errors and large loopholes littered throughout our Justice System, the Charles Smith debacle and Homolka/pardon issue are highlights of them. But then the politicians use them as soundbites and the news outlets run with it, before long we're back to fear and misinformation.

Pardons Canada, to my understanding anyway, has long been "rubber stamping" pardons. Just because you may be entitled to apply for a pardon it should not necessarily follow that you should be entitled to receive a pardon. Homolka got all the big press of course, but if I recall correctly, it was also around the same time that it was reported that, three years after release from prison, Graham James also received his pardon. And I believe he then went to Spain and then Mexico to coach junior hockey there. Kind of seems like an accident waiting to happen, doesn't it? But that doesn't mean I think pardons themselves are a bad idea. In fact, I've known people who've received them and, in my opinion, they've earned them. Operative word being earned.

With Dangerous Offender legislation, I've been led to believe that, unless you're talking about a Bernardo or Olsen, it's actually not that simple to label someone a dangerous offender. I may be wrong on that, that's just my understanding. But there are people that commit crimes so heinous and frightening that I do believe it's in the publics best interest and safety that they never see the light of day. Personally, I'd lump the majority of pedophiles in this category.

The entire Charles Smith debacle, to me, highlights the most practical arguement against Capital Punishment. Basically, you just never really truly know the entire truth and you can't ever really know. There is a reason the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt and not beyond all doubt.

SLM, do you realize that there is a great difference between 'pardon' and 'parole'?

 

[SLM]

SLM, do you realize that there is a great difference between 'pardon' and 'parole'?

Of course. Where do I imply otherwise?

 

[YukonJack]

Of course. Where do I imply otherwise?

In your post #19.

Third paragraph.

Pardon is when one gets a free pass from previous wrongdoings. Parole is when an offender is given a second chance, but is NOT absolved of any previous wrongdoing.

 

[Unforgiven]

In your post #19.

Third paragraph.

Pardon is when one gets a free pass from previous wrongdoings. Parole is when an offender is given a second chance, but is NOT absolved of any previous wrongdoing.

Seems to me that pardon is used correctly in context of the message and not at all confused with parole. Perhaps you should re-read the post.

 

[karrie]

Seems to me that pardon is used correctly in context of the message and not at all confused with parole. Perhaps you should re-read the post.

I agree. She refers to someone being pardoned three years after their release (clearly not the same as parole), and being pardoned making someone able to travel out of country and put children at risk in new places. It's pretty clear she's not talking about parole.

 

[YukonJack]

OK, so if a murderer who served 25 years, is he/she pardoned or paroled?

Did his/her sentence say "25 years before eligible for" - was it pardon or parole?

Think and Google before you post.

 

[karrie]

OK, so if a murderer who served 25 years, is he/she pardoned or paroled?

Did his/her sentence say "25 years before eligible for" - was it pardon or parole?

Think and Google before you post.

First, explain what that has to do with the topic of pardons. Just because parole means something else, doesn't mean she wasn't talking about pardons when she was talking about pardons.

 

[YukonJack]

First, explain what that has to do with the topic of pardons. Just because parole means something else, doesn't mean she wasn't talking about pardons when she was talking about pardons.

karrie, come on! Surely you know the difference between parole and pardon.

What your post, above, claims is that just because somebody is expert on how to cook spaghetti he/she is also an expert on how to eat it without getting indigestion.


Or something like that. Pardon is not parole. Parole is nor pardon. not even close.

 

[karrie]

Or something like that. Pardon is not parole. Parole is nor pardon. not even close.

Explain where she was confused. Because the paragraph you cited, she was very clearly talking about pardons, with no confusion to anyone but you.

 

[YukonJack]

Explain where she was confused. Because the paragraph you cited, she was very clearly talking about pardons, with no confusion to anyone but you.

Did she mean that an offender convicted of murder and sentenced to life with no chance of PAROLE for 25 years or no chance of PARDON for 25 years?

The LAW says 'no parole'. Which means that a convicted murderer, even if he/she is released on PAROLE will still be subject to scrutiny, but if he/she had PARDON, he/she would have a worry-free life like you and me or any other person in the country.

Why does it take so much to understand the difference? If you can't, explain to me why and how PARDON equals PAROLE. Have you even looked at and read his/her post? Or are just trying top be obtuse?

 

[Unforgiven]

karrie, come on! Surely you know the difference between parole and pardon.

What your post, above, claims is that just because somebody is expert on how to cook spaghetti he/she is also an expert on how to eat it without getting indigestion.


Or something like that. Pardon is not parole. Parole is nor pardon. not even close.

Ok you know, because you're confused and I am a nice guy I'll sort it out for you.

SLM was talking about pardons nor paroles in the context that when you've served what ever sentence for a crime you've been convicted of, upon being of good behaviour and not being arrested you can apply for a pardon of your conviction. Which means that if granted, the conviction will not appear on any searches or back ground checks unless you are again arrested and the police search a deeper level of the data base only available to them for this purpose. It is common practice to rubber stamp pardons if the criteria is met for no violent and minor offenses. This is the part about pardons SLM was addressing and to which I agree. It shouldn't be just a matter of paperwork and there should be more serious consideration to handing out pardons.

Pardons nor parole. Everyone in the discussion understands the difference and only you were confused with the change of direction and the subject of paroles and pardons the SLM raised.

 

[karrie]

OK, so if a murderer who served 25 years, is he/she pardoned or paroled?

Did his/her sentence say "25 years before eligible for" - was it pardon or parole?

Think and Google before you post.

Okay, I can't see anywhere that she discussed "25 years before eligible for.... " I can only find one post where she references pardons, and she never uses the word parole in the whole post, she is always, concisely, discussing pardons.... one time she is discussing someone who was already out for three years (thus, parole is not an issue, pardon is the only thing you can apply for), and the other time she is discussing the pardon Homolka applied for.

Misinformation and fear are tossed around like a political football by all parties, it's part of the basic rhetoric. The truth, as per usual, is somewhere in the middle of what gets bandied about on the election trail. And in the press. "Everything is working the way it is supposed to" does not sell as a news headline. Large grains of salt need to be consumed along with just about every news article or political speech, imho.

There are some egregious errors and large loopholes littered throughout our Justice System, the Charles Smith debacle and Homolka/pardon issue are highlights of them. But then the politicians use them as soundbites and the news outlets run with it, before long we're back to fear and misinformation.

Pardons Canada, to my understanding anyway, has long been "rubber stamping" pardons. Just because you may be entitled to apply for a pardon it should not necessarily follow that you should be entitled to receive a pardon. Homolka got all the big press of course, but if I recall correctly, it was also around the same time that it was reported that, three years after release from prison, Graham James also received his pardon. And I believe he then went to Spain and then Mexico to coach junior hockey there. Kind of seems like an accident waiting to happen, doesn't it? But that doesn't mean I think pardons themselves are a bad idea. In fact, I've known people who've received them and, in my opinion, they've earned them. Operative word being earned.

With Dangerous Offender legislation, I've been led to believe that, unless you're talking about a Bernardo or Olsen, it's actually not that simple to label someone a dangerous offender. I may be wrong on that, that's just my understanding. But there are people that commit crimes so heinous and frightening that I do believe it's in the publics best interest and safety that they never see the light of day. Personally, I'd lump the majority of pedophiles in this category.

The entire Charles Smith debacle, to me, highlights the most practical arguement against Capital Punishment. Basically, you just never really truly know the entire truth and you can't ever really know. There is a reason the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt and not beyond all doubt.

 

[JLM]

My understanding is pardons are granted after a person has been found to be unjustly convicted of a crime and is generally an indication of innocence - parole is just being released from secure custody and serving out your time in the neighbourhood under certain conditions. Does that sound about right?

 

[Unforgiven]

My understanding is pardons are granted after a person has been found to be unjustly convicted of a crime and is generally an indication of innocence - parole is just being released from secure custody and serving out your time in the neighbourhood under certain conditions. Does that sound about right?

No it's not.

 

[karrie]

My understanding is pardons are granted after a person has been found to be unjustly convicted of a crime and is generally an indication of innocence - parole is just being released from secure custody and serving out your time in the neighbourhood under certain conditions. Does that sound about right?

Nope. My dad is definitely guilty of driving under the influence, but, three years out from his conviction, if he'd had no other traffic violations, etc., he could apply for a pardon. A pardon is essentially a way of expunging your record so that you can find work, and travel across borders, without your past limiting you.

 

[SLM]

In your post #19.

Third paragraph.

Pardon is when one gets a free pass from previous wrongdoings. Parole is when an offender is given a second chance, but is NOT absolved of any previous wrongdoing.

Parole is actually when a convicted felon is released prior to the end of his/her sentenced term being fulfilled, obstensibly for good behaviour. While out on parole, an individual is still technically serving their sentence, hence parole provisions, but they are allowed to do so while not being incarcerated. Link for further edification: Parole Board of Canada (PBC)- Parole

For $150.00, waiting the required time and meeting certain other criteria, a person with a criminal record can obtain a pardon, which seals their criminal record. Link for further edification: Pardons

I've re-read my original post, I honestly don't see where it was confusing. I was not stating my opinions on parole (I can do so if you'd like), I was stating my opinion on pardons which was related to prior posts regarding Karla Homolka and whether or not she had received one. My opinion stands.

Thank you to both Karrie & Unforgiven, your defense is appreciated.

 

[YukonJack]

My understanding is pardons are granted after a person has been found to be unjustly convicted of a crime and is generally an indication of innocence - parole is just being released from secure custody and serving out your time in the neighbourhood under certain conditions. Does that sound about right?

You are absolutely correct, JLM. It takes an exceptionally ignorant person not to see the facts.

I am not going to waste any more time on this topic, since I know that wrestling pigs only gets one dirty. And pigs like it.

 

[karrie]

You are absolutely correct, JLM. It takes an exceptionally ignorant person not to see the facts.

I am not going to waste any more time on this topic, since I know that wrestling pigs only gets one dirty. And pigs like it.

If you can't clarify where you got confused, that's fine, but don't try to blame it on others.

 

[SLM]

If you can't clarify where you got confused, that's fine, but don't try to blame it on others.

I think the confusion is in the belief that a pardon means that a criminal conviction is reversed, or that the individual is found to be innocent of the original crime. Since that actually is not the case, that's where the root of the confusion lies.

I know someone who was convicted of a crime, sentenced to prison, released on parole, completed the parole and then applied for the pardon. His original conviction was not overturned, he was not found to be innocent of the original crime. But because of he is now a model citizen, he was given his second chance.

If it was really that easy to overturn a conviction, I'm sure Steven Truscott or David Milgard would have gone that route many years ago.

 

[karrie]

I think the confusion is in the belief that a pardon means that a criminal conviction is reversed, or that the individual is found to be innocent of the original crime. Since that actually is not the case, that's where the root of the confusion lies.

I suppose you're probably right.