Change of law needed

[JLM]

There should be a law passed stating that individuals who pose a threat to public safety can be incarcerated indefinitely so cases like the following don't land back on the street while they pose a threat.
Abbotsford police warn public of Stephen Andrew Beszedes's release - British Columbia - CBC News (Sorry Bones)

 

[SLM]

Somebody beat you to that one.

Dangerous offender designation

 

[Curious Cdn]

There should be a law passed stating that individuals who pose a threat to public safety can be incarcerated indefinitely so cases like the following don't land back on the street while they pose a threat.
Abbotsford police warn public of Stephen Andrew Beszedes's release - British Columbia - CBC News (Sorry Bones)

Who's going to decide whether you pose a threat to public safety and what criteria are they going to use to decide whether to scoop you up or not? Do we leave it up to the police to decide?

There is a long, long list of types that the police don't like whether they are doing something illegal or not. Thirty years earlier, they would have filled up their cells with gay people using "public safety" as their criterion.

There is a precedent for this sort of foolishness that most of you won't remember. In October 1970, after the War Measures Act was invoked and suspects with links to terrorism were being arrested by the hundreds and being held without rights, the mayor of Calgary had the police there arrest groups of Hippies under the umbrella of the War Measures Act. What threat did the pose? Well, they had long hair, dressed funny, listened to loud music that was clearly not Christian and they like to smoke dangerous drugs. They were obviously a part of the insurrection in Quebec.

 

[tay]

Who's going to decide whether you pose a threat to public safety and what criteria are they going to use to decide whether to scoop you up or not? Do we leave it up to the police to decide?

There is a long, long list of types that the police don't like whether they are doing something illegal or not. Thirty years earlier, they would have filled up their cells with gay people using "public safety" as their criterion.

There is a precedent for this sort of foolishness that most of you won't remember. In October 1970, after the War Measures Act was invoked and suspects with links to terrorism were being arrested by the hundreds and being held without rights, the mayor of Calgary had the police there arrest groups of Hippies under the umbrella of the War Measures Act. What threat did the pose? Well, they had long hair, dressed funny, listened to loud music that was clearly not Christian and they like to smoke dangerous drugs. They were obviously a part of the insurrection in Quebec.

 

[SLM]

Who's going to decide whether you pose a threat to public safety and what criteria are they going to use to decide whether to scoop you up or not? Do we leave it up to the police to decide?

There is a long, long list of types that the police don't like whether they are doing something illegal or not. Thirty years earlier, they would have filled up their cells with gay people using "public safety" as their criterion.

There is a precedent for this sort of foolishness that most of you won't remember. In October 1970, after the War Measures Act was invoked and suspects with links to terrorism were being arrested by the hundreds and being held without rights, the mayor of Calgary had the police there arrest groups of Hippies under the umbrella of the War Measures Act. What threat did the pose? Well, they had long hair, dressed funny, listened to loud music that was clearly not Christian and they like to smoke dangerous drugs. They were obviously a part of the insurrection in Quebec.

That has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the OP's question/proposal or the article in the link.

Unless you're championing the release from prison of an individual with a long history of sexual violence.

Abbotsford police have issued a public notification that Stephen Andrew Beszedes, released from prison today, plans to live in their city and has a history of sexual assault and drugging victims.


Beszedes, 50, has been convicted of robbery, sexual assault, causing bodily harm by criminal negligence, and using drugs to incapacitate his victims.

You might have been right about that, had the post actually been relevant to topic of the thread.

 

[Cannuck]

Let's lock people up because of what they might do...yup, sounds good to me.

 

[Curious Cdn]

Let's lock people up because of what they might do...yup, sounds good to me.

... my point exactly.

 

[Cannuck]

It's a silly thread about a silly idea. Only the nuttiest nutters would support it.

 

[JLM]

Somebody beat you to that one.

Dangerous offender designation

Thanks, SLM. I guess I misworded the title of the thread, as I indeed was aware of the law, but think it must be a little weak or those enforcing it must be a little weak. Just too many cases of potential killers and rapists being released.
Contrary to the drivel posted by a certain feeble minded individual, I was only advocating continued incarceration for a person who has proven to be a real threat, but his own actions.

 

[Cannuck]

Thanks, SLM. I guess I misworded the title of the thread...

Yes, you should have titled it "Hey, I've Got Another Silly Idea"

 

[davesmom]

Who's going to decide whether you pose a threat to public safety and what criteria are they going to use to decide whether to scoop you up or not? Do we leave it up to the police to decide?

There is a long, long list of types that the police don't like whether they are doing something illegal or not. Thirty years earlier, they would have filled up their cells with gay people using "public safety" as their criterion.

There is a precedent for this sort of foolishness that most of you won't remember. In October 1970, after the War Measures Act was invoked and suspects with links to terrorism were being arrested by the hundreds and being held without rights, the mayor of Calgary had the police there arrest groups of Hippies under the umbrella of the War Measures Act. What threat did the pose? Well, they had long hair, dressed funny, listened to loud music that was clearly not Christian and they like to smoke dangerous drugs. They were obviously a part of the insurrection in Quebec.

The police don't sentence criminals; judges do.
Public safety should be the number one priority. If there is any indication that the person will reoffend it isn't responsible to give him another chance.
Although I would be in favour of a 'three strikes' law for anything but murder.