Could both be right, pardons granted to guilty as well as innocent people? I'm pretty sure I'm right, but just didn't cover all situations. :smile
I'm not positive but I'm pretty sure I heard Milgaard was pardoned)Good thing there is no death penalty here.
- Thread starter Unforgiven
- Start date
Could both be right, pardons granted to guilty as well as innocent people? I'm pretty sure I'm right, but just didn't cover all situations. :smile
I'm not positive but I'm pretty sure I heard Milgaard was pardoned)It is not I who is confused. I DO know the difference between PARDON and PAROLE, as I have posted.
DO YOU? If so, tell me and the world. Your explanation (or more likely, your spin) is awaited.
It does not matter to whom the pardon is granted. Pardon is NOT parole. Parole is earned by by felons who go through the channels: From Max to med. And then to minimum. It needs to be EARNED.
If a felon does not EARN it, he/she will not get parole. He/she will be in prison for life. But he/she still get a PARDON from the Prime Minister.
Hell, I am getting tired of arguing with uninformed idiots.
Parole is part of sentencing. Part of your sentence as determined by the court, may be served under parole (ie., out in world under court and sentencing restrictions).
A pardon is something you may apply for AFTER your sentence is served, that essentially locks your criminal record and keeps it from public view so that you may apply for jobs, travel, be bonded, etc., without your past impeding it.
Could both be right, pardons granted to guilty as well as innocent people? I'm pretty sure I'm right, but just didn't cover all situations. :smile
No... a person proven innocent doesn't need a pardon.
Pardons Canada | Pardon FAQs
Years ago one of our twins died unexpectedly at a month old. We fed them and changed them
and put them to bed. When I went in a short time later to check on them before we turned in
one of the girls was already blue. Today you ask what might have been? There is nothing that
can be done. Unfortunately this poor woman was traumatized twice, once by the death of her
child and secondly by the justice system which is designed to protect us all.
It should also be remembered the death penalty in Canada was not designed for circumstancial
evidence cases, as in committing manslaughter or a lesser charge than first degree murder.
I once totally condemned the death penalty in all cases, however today we have a whole new class
of evil on the streets. Child killers, violent rapists and people without a shred of conscience and
the belief the law does not apply to them. For this reason I think the death chamber door has to
be opened just a crack to accommodate some of these people.
I agree with the concept that it will not deter one person from killing someone, it will not give an
enraged person that pause for second thought. These cases were not designed with the death
penalty in mind anyway. Death penalty cases are and should be reserved for those who
commit a violent crime with forethought and planning. Contract killings, killing police or judges,
raping and killing women and kids, that sort of thing.
I also think it should be extended to human traffickers, hard core drug dealers who sell to
children. There is a difference between selling to adults who can make up their own minds to
engage in stupidity and kooking children into the drug world.
It must also be cases where the evidence is more than circumstantial. Today DNA and other
evidence is much more clearly defined, however case like this demand that the evidence be
strong and accurate.
and put them to bed. When I went in a short time later to check on them before we turned in
one of the girls was already blue. Today you ask what might have been? There is nothing that
can be done. Unfortunately this poor woman was traumatized twice, once by the death of her
child and secondly by the justice system which is designed to protect us all.
It should also be remembered the death penalty in Canada was not designed for circumstancial
evidence cases, as in committing manslaughter or a lesser charge than first degree murder.
I once totally condemned the death penalty in all cases, however today we have a whole new class
of evil on the streets. Child killers, violent rapists and people without a shred of conscience and
the belief the law does not apply to them. For this reason I think the death chamber door has to
be opened just a crack to accommodate some of these people.
I agree with the concept that it will not deter one person from killing someone, it will not give an
enraged person that pause for second thought. These cases were not designed with the death
penalty in mind anyway. Death penalty cases are and should be reserved for those who
commit a violent crime with forethought and planning. Contract killings, killing police or judges,
raping and killing women and kids, that sort of thing.
I also think it should be extended to human traffickers, hard core drug dealers who sell to
children. There is a difference between selling to adults who can make up their own minds to
engage in stupidity and kooking children into the drug world.
It must also be cases where the evidence is more than circumstantial. Today DNA and other
evidence is much more clearly defined, however case like this demand that the evidence be
strong and accurate.
lol.... you're hilarious when you can't back yourself up.
Explain how SLM was talking about parole and not pardons.
Could both be right, pardons granted to guilty as well as innocent people? I'm pretty sure I'm right, but just didn't cover all situations. :smile
I'm positive you're not.
Read about eligibility here:
Pardons
Eligibility Information
A person applying for a pardon must have done the following:
- completed their sentence (including parole) and have paid any fine or financial penalty
- completed any probation period
- have served a required waiting period
- demonstrated that he or she is a law-abiding citizen
- other criteria may apply
Why do you want Pardon to equal Parole? They are NOT the same thing. Try Google. Kids know how....
Yukon Jack- We don't want to get W.W.3 started here, I have no reason to question Karrie about the example she gave, so I have to defer to that and admit I'm not "absolutely correct", albeit damn close. :lol:
Maybe you do, but your post quoting SLM didn't offer any evidence of that. Be an honourable man and admit you misunderstood what was written.
Tonington- I have absolutely no argument with that as it applies to a rightfully convicted person, but if after conviction the person was found to be innocent, common sense would tell me that would preclude those conditions. Or are we not into common sense? :smile:
lol... JLM... you don't start world war 3 if you say 'this is what I thought it meant', someone says 'no actually it means this in a legal sense', and you say 'ah, okay.'. It's when you say 'you're an idiot for thinking otherwise' or the other person says 'I can't believe you're so stupid you didn't know that', that WW3 erupts. Like SLM said, in colloquial terms, pardon tends to equate to being found innocent, not solely what it means in a legal sense.
That is EXACTLY what I have been saying all along, but the uninformed try to swing it otherwise.
Which is a far cry different from your original claim that pardons relate to innocence, to which Jack replied you are "absolutely right", to which you then sounded unsure, though you were pretty sure you were right.
I took that to mean you still thought that your original claim was the correct one, which it clearly is not.
And no, I'm not into common sense, I'm into good sense. To me there's a huge difference.
I'd go one step further and say NEVER for a single crime- but yeah, Olson, Homolka, Bernardo, should have a seat in Old Sparky.
Yeah, that was that Smith Bitch- remember it vividly.
Jumping to Yukon Jack's defence, it's quite plain he did in post #21, I quote......." SLM, do you realize that there is a great difference between 'pardon' and 'parole'?"
Advise to you, karrie and you, SLM:
Get a dictionary and educate yourself reading the definition of the two words PARDON and PAROLE.
Then get a cheap lawyer you can afford and let him/her explain to you the same difference, legally.
Then let him/her explain to you why you are wrong and I am right.
Comedy? More like a Grade II confrontation between the top and the bottom of the class, who started it.
Then once you have been properly spanked (figuratively) go and hide.