As the name implies "Dangerous Offender Status" can be applied to anyone that has committed a violent crime.
Pickton: Found Guilty - Second Degree
- Thread starter Kreskin
- Start date
As the name implies "Dangerous Offender Status" can be applied to anyone that has committed a violent crime.
According to the article, he poked 'em b4 he killed 'em. Not quite sure if he raped 'em or if the sex was consentual. I'm pretty sure they didn't consent to being murdered though.
I'm not sure that the "dangerous offender" designation would make much of a difference in this particular case. If he gets 6 consecutive life sentences, it'll be 60 years before he's eligible for parole. He's 58 years old now.
The article mentioned something about still going to to trial for 20 other murders or something. Those sentences could really pile up.
They call the "overlapping" sentences "merged" sentences. Even if he were to become eligible for parole in his lifetime, he wouldn't be granted parole. This is the man who said, "You're making it sound like I'm more of a mass murderer than I really am." lmfao
Me either... And I could have all of this wrong too. That's the beauty part about being a regular Joe on a forum like Canadian Content... Our opinions mean jack squat. No one will take our opinions into consideration when it comes time for sentencing, so we're free to be as wrong as we want to be. No one's life or property hangs in the balance. Ya gotta love free speech, eh?
:violent1:Hopefully, he's gone for good. In the kaboose, the crowbar hotel, for the rest of his natural.
What do Pickton and Conrad Black have in common?
Overwhelming arrogance/stupidity in their belief that they wouldn't get caught.
OR, compulsive drive to "do it again"
OR, they enjoyed their accomplishments
"Lord Black" cost people (and the judiciary) a bundle
So did Pickton.
Both seem to believe that the law doesn't apply to them.
Green River killer displayed these traits also.
Ted Bundy too.
Could it be that a psycho is a psycho, one type is deified (until he's caught out), the other looked upon as vermin and the police "are doing their very best" (not sharing info, etc.) to catch him.
I dunno. Just an observation.
:tard:(reel deep, Nug)
What do Pickton and Conrad Black have in common?
Overwhelming arrogance/stupidity in their belief that they wouldn't get caught.
OR, compulsive drive to "do it again"
OR, they enjoyed their accomplishments
"Lord Black" cost people (and the judiciary) a bundle
So did Pickton.
Both seem to believe that the law doesn't apply to them.
Green River killer displayed these traits also.
Ted Bundy too.
Could it be that a psycho is a psycho, one type is deified (until he's caught out), the other looked upon as vermin and the police "are doing their very best" (not sharing info, etc.) to catch him.
I dunno. Just an observation.
:tard:(reel deep, Nug)
Dexter...
There you go again with that non-linear thinking....
Another contributor to CC suggested that a post I offered wherein I called the actions around Latimer selfish...was incorrect....
That's OK, I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again....
When we make decisions regarding the terrible unnecessary or accidental or intentional death/murder (militarism/security) of some other human being I don't think that decision or that opinion represents a consensus.... We face our mortality with through an extremely narrow and highly personal window on reality....
I'm not sure how the notion of 'selfishness' wouldn't come into play when cogitating these matters but somehow the argument seems to be that when a society "decides" when a murder or death is "right" or "wrong" that this adjudication is somehow osmotically absorbed into the individual's cognitive and psychological complex....
Robert Latimer and Robert Picton.....
There you go again with that non-linear thinking....
Another contributor to CC suggested that a post I offered wherein I called the actions around Latimer selfish...was incorrect....
That's OK, I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again....
When we make decisions regarding the terrible unnecessary or accidental or intentional death/murder (militarism/security) of some other human being I don't think that decision or that opinion represents a consensus.... We face our mortality with through an extremely narrow and highly personal window on reality....
I'm not sure how the notion of 'selfishness' wouldn't come into play when cogitating these matters but somehow the argument seems to be that when a society "decides" when a murder or death is "right" or "wrong" that this adjudication is somehow osmotically absorbed into the individual's cognitive and psychological complex....
Robert Latimer and Robert Picton.....
I find this infuriating... the idea that someone who lured women and murdered them could get off with just second degree murder charges based on technicalities when it was clearly first degree murder, plotted and carried out.
But as frustrated as I am, imagine being one of the people who worked on this case. I know I've spoken before of my friend who worked the dig at the farm, but to see her frustration at this really drives it home for me. If I feel this angry about it, and she's even angrier than me, the FURY that must be building along each step closer and closer to the victims, must have their family in an absolute rage.
But as frustrated as I am, imagine being one of the people who worked on this case. I know I've spoken before of my friend who worked the dig at the farm, but to see her frustration at this really drives it home for me. If I feel this angry about it, and she's even angrier than me, the FURY that must be building along each step closer and closer to the victims, must have their family in an absolute rage.
The lead prosecutor in the case seems to be certain that he will be. I'm making the faith based assumption that the Crown has some familiarity with the law and sentencing.
Aside from the fact that they both faced trial and both were found guilty of having committed a crime, essentially nothing. Conrad Black can in no way be likened to Pickton.
The only difference between first degree murder and second degree murder, is that first degree murder carries a mandatory life sentence. A life sentence can still be imposed on a second degree murder conviction.
The man was found guilty of six counts of second degree murder. That carries a maximum sentence of 150 years in prison. If he's designated a dangerous offender, he will never be eligible for parole. If he's not designated a dangerous offender, he will not be eligible for paraole for at least ten years and possibly 60 years, depending on how he is sentenced.
The jury made the best decision that they could based on the evidence and testimony that was presented them. They made the only decision they could, in their opinion. The jury did not make any sentencing suggestions. So the rest is entirely up to the judge presiding over the case.
You should wait for the man to be sentenced before you offer any condemnation of the judicial process and/or the jury. The man committed the crimes, he was caught, he was prosecuted, he was convicted. He now awaits sentencing. Let the process work.
From what I've read and seen on television, the families and friends of the victims are happy with the verdict. I expect they'll be even happier with the sentence. What the families and friends of the victims were not happy with, was how they were treated by victims services. So there ya go.
Karrie
As I understand it the jury came up with second degree murder because they didn't think Pickton was smart enough to do this by himself and must have had help. What has always bugged me is that other people were living on that farm and apparently nobody saw the women or their bodies. Pigs don't swallow people whole. Is it possible that almost fifty women came to that farm and ended up as pig food and nobody else involved in the running of the farm even noticed. Seems unlikely to me as well.
What's the big deal? How does a first degree murder charge or conviction change anything? I'm really at a loss to understand your line of thought.
Would a first degree murder charge bring the victims back? No!
What's your big hang up on the first degree murder thing? Are you really that anal? Are you so obtuse that the only thing that makes any difference to you is one lousy word?
The man allegedly murdered 49 women. He has been convicted of murdering six of them. He's going to spend the rest of his life behind bars. And the only thing you care about is one lousy word? Give your head a shake, man!
Please, by all means, explain to us how a first degree murder charge would have changed anything. And if you can't offer such an explanation, tell us why it matters to you so much.
It's quite possible that Pickton acted alone in the murders. It is certainly plausible that the others on the farm did not work the farm, and had no idea what was happening on the farm. From what I've read, the people living on the farm were drunk or high most of the time.
To me, the most disturbing part of the whole thing, is that the ham or bacon I ate several years ago may have come from pigs raised on human flesh. I may have indirectly eaten those victims. 8O
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:
I don't believe that after one or two people dying in his presence that he was so stupid that he didn't know more would die. If he's that dumb, they shouldn't have been able to find him guilty of anything because he'd need to be mentally handicapped and not fit to stand trial in the way he did. If he's smart enough to stand trial, then it's reasonable to assume that he was smart enough to realize that the way he was conducting himself was going to result in more deaths.
Would you have preferred that his council had played on his stupidity a bit more and even brought up that he wasn't mentally capable of understanding what was happening? Insanity...mentally incompetent...... Would 5 or so years in a mental institute have been a better verdict and "punishment"?
I'll take the 6 counts of second degree, with a possible 20 more down the road, over the possibility of an insanity or diminished mental capacity plea any day of the week.
You're right gerry.... I'd prefer any sentence over no sentence.
It's just that, and I have to admit it's an emotional issue for me, the family who have dealt with this, the people who have worked this case, deserve to have their horror addressed with an appropriate sentence. You don't spend months sifting through pig **** looking for bits of people in unknown numbers if what's occurred was an unplanned murder. But I guess it's a bit too close to personal for me.... there's good reason the judicial system is run the way it is... to keep emotional people like me from having a say.
It's just that, and I have to admit it's an emotional issue for me, the family who have dealt with this, the people who have worked this case, deserve to have their horror addressed with an appropriate sentence. You don't spend months sifting through pig **** looking for bits of people in unknown numbers if what's occurred was an unplanned murder. But I guess it's a bit too close to personal for me.... there's good reason the judicial system is run the way it is... to keep emotional people like me from having a say.
I don't mean any offense, but the investigation would have involved rumaging through pig**** even if the pig had done the killing. You don't halt a murder investigation simply because there is no evidence of premeditation.
What I found interesting about the case, was that there was a female(?) who testified against Robert Pickton. She testified that she was very high at the time and stumbled into the barn where she witnessed Mr. Pickton carving up a body.
We also know from published reports that Mr. Pickton discovered that injecting winsheild washer fluid was a "good way to kill jumkies." So I'm wondering why he didn't kill this particular junkie who had witnessed him carve up a body?
We can establish from this that Mr. Pickton had more "junkies" on his farm than he actually murdered. So we can say that he did not murder every female junkie on his farm. Why is that? It's quite possible that he had no intention of killing the women he brought to his farm. If he had brought them to the farm with the intent of killing them, why didn't he kill them all?
What did Mr. Pickton mean when he said, "You're making it out to be that I'm more of a mass murderer than I really am"? Was he saying that he wasn't intending to kill them? Was he saying that he brought a lot of women to his farm but only killed a small fraction? Was he saying that the actual victims were killed through some bizarre occurrence that was unique to only them?
The more I read of this case, the more I am convinced that the jury was right in finding a verdict of second degree murder. It doesn't sound to me that there was any premeditation. And I don't think that this is owing only to his diminished intellect. I think the evidence shows that there is real doubt as to whether there was premeditation.
Remember too, that I have no emotional attachment to these women, Mr. Pickton, or the case. So...
injecting people with foreign substances that you've found to be good for killing in the past... that's premeditation. Why he chose only certain murder victims is a mystery warrior, but it doesn't mean that just because he/they was/were picky, that they didn't bring them there to screen them for murder. Maybe there was just something about certain women he liked and he decided not to kill them. Not all serial killers kill everyone they get within their range. It doesn't change the fact that they're still out to murder.
I don't think that's what happened. The guy ran a pig farm, where they had big drunken parties involving prostitutes. All the crown proved is that Picton disposed of bodies.
Picton is a scumbag and he deserves life. But finding body parts on his farm only prove he was involved, not that he was the killer. I never heard any evidence that proves Picton actually killed these women. Maybe he did, but maybe he didn't. It doesn't make sense that he actually did this by himself.
I suspect what happened is that someone Picton knows killed a prostitute at one of his parties. Picton disposed of the body rather than going to the cops. He probably got paid serious cash and decided disposing bodies was a lucurative business. People into killing prostitutes began using Picton as a disposal service.
Yes the crimes were horrific. As a result, police were under a lot of pressure to pin these heinous crimes on someone. What really happened or who did what to whom probably became secondary to locking someone up for these crimes. Picton was close to the events for sure, but I doubt he was the only person involved.
While people might feel better about locking up Picton, likely all the police did was shut down a body disposal service. Desperate drug addicted prostitutes have continued to disappear in Vancouver even after Picton was arrested.