CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 12349
PostPosted: Thu Jan 27, 2011 6:50 am
 


romanP romanP:
A person who has no regard for human life is a person who understands the consequences of their actions, but doesn't care and commits the crime anyway. A person who is unaware of the consequences of their actions is probably ignorant or simply does not have enough life experience and personal development to know better.

So what? I don't much care what causes them to be a danger to my family.

romanP romanP:
To suggest that there are evil people is to suggest that there are people born into a social vacuum, who then live their life in a social vacuum. It is to say that such a person is not human, was not raised by other humans, has never interacted with other humans, and thus is completely alien to anything to do with humans. With the exception of extremely rare cases of feral children, this does not happen. To say that a person is evil is to attach mystical, superstitious, and emotional definition to something which should not be defined by any of those qualities. This child is not a superman or a demon, he is a human child who has done something he will probably not fully comprehend for several more years, if he ever does. Sending him to prison for life will probably not help him ever understand.

The problem with what you're saying, to me, is I don't care whether we "help him understand". I don't care what circumstances in life (social, physical, developmental, whatever) led someone to kill another. There are four legitimate goals of sentencing: deterrence, punishment, rehabilitation and segregation. Rehabilitation is trumped by the other three, especially when we are talking about violent crimes. If you kill, say "Buhhh-bye" to society...FOREVER. I'd prefer the simplicity of capital punishment, but, if the majority of my fellow citizens prefer life in prison, fine, I can live with majority-rule. But a killer should never get to walk free in society again...EVER.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Edmonton Oilers
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 8533
PostPosted: Thu Jan 27, 2011 8:12 am
 


Gunnair Gunnair:
hurley_108 hurley_108:
Gunnair Gunnair:
Wonder if prison has spongebob sheets?

Have fun, kid, if you're guilty, you deserve it.


At 11??? My 12 year-old nephew barely has (as in sometimes he doesn't) the maturity to not bang his knife and fork on the table at family dinners, and you expect someone younger than that to have the maturity to comprehend the finality and consequences of death? Not likely.


Oh well. Guess he shouldn't have shot and killed his pregnant step mom and then went to school.


Kay. I took physics at University, and one of the things you're taught to do in physics is look at the boundaries. The boundaries here are birth and the age of majority. Nobody disputes that a person who commits such a crime at 18 or older is fully responsible and can and should be judged as an adult. But also, the physical incapacity aside, nobody reasonable would think that a baby can be held criminally responsible for anything they might do.

So somewhere in there the situation changes. At some point a person develops the ability to be held criminally responsible for their actions. In Canada, to my lay understanding, at 12 we deem children to be of limited criminal responsibility and at 18 we deem them to be adults and of full criminal responsibility (mental issues aside). In some cases we can try those between 12 and 18 as adults, but that determination has to be made on the basis of the person's state of mind - it is not a function of the crime of which they are accused. A six year-old can pick up a gun and shoot someone, but there's no way in hell they appreciate the magnitude of that action as much as an 18 year-old and so they must be treated differently.

I'm more or less comfortable with the system as it is in Canada. As far as one can simply use age as a determinant of maturity, I think 12 is a reasonable age at which we should start to expect kids to be held to the standards of law. I hope there is some capacity in this country to treat kids younger than this who commit crimes, even if it's not in the legal system, but I disagree that an 11 year-old is as amture and as responsible for his actions as an 18 year-old.

It seems obvious you disagree - that at 11 children are as responsible for their actions, great or small, as an adult and should be treated as such. I'm curious - at what age do you think they develop that?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33492
PostPosted: Thu Jan 27, 2011 9:39 am
 


As i say, if they're old enough for life in prison, they're old enough to drive, vote, etc.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Thu Jan 27, 2011 9:48 am
 


andyt andyt:
How would you establish he's reformed?


I don't need to worry about that unless some horrible fate befalls me and I become Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Thu Jan 27, 2011 9:52 am
 


romanP romanP:
How do you know if he has any remorse for what he did?


I know that he doesn't have any remorse for his actions and that's evidenced by the kid killing his mother and unborn sibling and then callously going about his day in an obvious effort to cover his tracks and to provide himself with an alibi.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 12349
PostPosted: Thu Jan 27, 2011 10:34 am
 


hurley_108 hurley_108:
Kay. I took physics at University, and one of the things you're taught to do in physics is look at the boundaries. The boundaries here are birth and the age of majority. Nobody disputes that a person who commits such a crime at 18 or older is fully responsible and can and should be judged as an adult. But also, the physical incapacity aside, nobody reasonable would think that a baby can be held criminally responsible for anything they might do.

The crime of murder requires specific intent. While a baby mostly likely (excepting a Stewie from 'Family Guy' scenario) cannot form the specific intent to kill, children certainly can. I don't care if a child is 6 or 16. If they commit an act with the intention to kill, they ought to forfeit their freedom for life.

hurley_108 hurley_108:
So somewhere in there the situation changes. At some point a person develops the ability to be held criminally responsible for their actions. In Canada, to my lay understanding, at 12 we deem children to be of limited criminal responsibility and at 18 we deem them to be adults and of full criminal responsibility (mental issues aside).

And that's a mistake to use an arbitray age to declare someone capable of criminal intent. That is an error in our legal system. Violent youth crimes ought to be examined on a case-by-case basis to determine intent. If the mens rea exists and it's specific intent to kill, then it should be life (or death) regardless of the child's age. Now I concede that, in children (especially children under 12), specific intent homicides are likely to be extremely rare. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't anticipate the possibility and deal with it harshly should it occur. In the case of this 11 year-old, it seems like the intent to kill existed.

hurley_108 hurley_108:
In some cases we can try those between 12 and 18 as adults,

We used to transfer children aged 14-17 to adult court in some cases. Not anymore. We sentence youth as adults for violent offences, if they're over 14, but we don't try them as adults. The YCJA changed that. All youth are tried in Youth court now.

hurley_108 hurley_108:
but that determination has to be made on the basis of the person's state of mind - it is not a function of the crime of which they are accused. A six year-old can pick up a gun and shoot someone, but there's no way in hell they appreciate the magnitude of that action as much as an 18 year-old and so they must be treated differently.

I totally disagree with that. When it comes to violence, the action and the intent are the relevent pieces of information. The age is inconsequential and so is any appreciation the offender may or may not have for their actions.

hureley_108 hureley_108:
I'm more or less comfortable with the system as it is in Canada. As far as one can simply use age as a determinant of maturity, I think 12 is a reasonable age at which we should start to expect kids to be held to the standards of law. I hope there is some capacity in this country to treat kids younger than this who commit crimes, even if it's not in the legal system, but I disagree that an 11 year-old is as amture and as responsible for his actions as an 18 year-old.

I'm comfortable with Canada's system insomuch as cases involving extremely violent young offenders are rare. But I think it is a serious flaw in our legal system to set arbitrary ages that absolve responsibility for ones actions. That determination should be done on a case-by-case basis and should allow, in rare cases like this one from Pennsylvania, for the possibility of imposing very serious sentences on very young offenders.

hurley_108 hurley_108:
It seems obvious you disagree - that at 11 children are as responsible for their actions, great or small, as an adult and should be treated as such. I'm curious - at what age do you think they develop that?

Every person is different. There is no arbitrary age. Again, when it comes to specific intent homicides, where the CLEAR intent of the action is to kill, there should be no lower limit on age. Most 11 year-olds likely wouldn't be capable of committing a 1st degree murder. But THIS 11 year-old is and should be treated as an adult.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33492
PostPosted: Thu Jan 27, 2011 10:45 am
 


hurley_108 hurley_108:


I'm more or less comfortable with the system as it is in Canada. As far as one can simply use age as a determinant of maturity, I think 12 is a reasonable age at which we should start to expect kids to be held to the standards of law. I hope there is some capacity in this country to treat kids younger than this who commit crimes, even if it's not in the legal system, but I disagree that an 11 year-old is as amture and as responsible for his actions as an 18 year-old.



I think we've pretty well nailed it in Canada. What I would like to see is more teens sentenced as adults tho. That way they get a record. If they've committed murder the max sentence they can receive is 10 years. I'm fine with that as long as they get a lifetime of parole. If they screw up, they go back in, if they can keep their noses clean they can try to make something of their lives. And all cons should be given more assistance with that, it would reduce recidivism and save us money in the end.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 50938
PostPosted: Thu Jan 27, 2011 10:53 am
 


andyt andyt:

I think we've pretty well nailed it in Canada. What I would like to see is more teens sentenced as adults tho. That way they get a record. If they've committed murder the max sentence they can receive is 10 years. I'm fine with that as long as they get a lifetime of parole. If they screw up, they go back in, if they can keep their noses clean they can try to make something of their lives. And all cons should be given more assistance with that, it would reduce recidivism and save us money in the end.

I totally agree with you.
Records shouldn't be cleared anyway the day you turn 18, regardless.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23565
PostPosted: Thu Jan 27, 2011 4:56 pm
 


hurley_108 hurley_108:
Gunnair Gunnair:


Oh well. Guess he shouldn't have shot and killed his pregnant step mom and then went to school.


Kay. I took physics at University, and one of the things you're taught to do in physics is look at the boundaries. The boundaries here are birth and the age of majority. Nobody disputes that a person who commits such a crime at 18 or older is fully responsible and can and should be judged as an adult. But also, the physical incapacity aside, nobody reasonable would think that a baby can be held criminally responsible for anything they might do.

So somewhere in there the situation changes. At some point a person develops the ability to be held criminally responsible for their actions. In Canada, to my lay understanding, at 12 we deem children to be of limited criminal responsibility and at 18 we deem them to be adults and of full criminal responsibility (mental issues aside). In some cases we can try those between 12 and 18 as adults, but that determination has to be made on the basis of the person's state of mind - it is not a function of the crime of which they are accused. A six year-old can pick up a gun and shoot someone, but there's no way in hell they appreciate the magnitude of that action as much as an 18 year-old and so they must be treated differently.

I'm more or less comfortable with the system as it is in Canada. As far as one can simply use age as a determinant of maturity, I think 12 is a reasonable age at which we should start to expect kids to be held to the standards of law. I hope there is some capacity in this country to treat kids younger than this who commit crimes, even if it's not in the legal system, but I disagree that an 11 year-old is as amture and as responsible for his actions as an 18 year-old.

It seems obvious you disagree - that at 11 children are as responsible for their actions, great or small, as an adult and should be treated as such. I'm curious - at what age do you think they develop that?


It depends. I would argue there are those at 18 that are as immature in their understanding as a 12 year old. And I've met some pretty mature 12 year olds. I might have more sympathy with your point of view if this was an act of passion, but the facts don't seem to support that. This is an 11 year old that planned to kill his pregnant stepmom, and upon completuion of that act, opted to carry on with the morning's routine and go to school.

Sorry if you think that I'm being unreasonable or just plain mean, but frankly, I see no value in this POS... none. Let him rot.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23565
PostPosted: Thu Jan 27, 2011 4:57 pm
 


andyt andyt:
Gunnair Gunnair:
andyt andyt:
The problem with what we do currently, send them to juvie, is that it just hardens the kid and makes him a better criminal. So if there was any chance he would reform, it's lessened by putting him in juvie for 3 years, which is the max you can give someone sentenced as a minor. So we need to reform the prison system if we don't just want to release tougher criminals on the streets.

OTOH, Wayne Glowaki, who helped kill Reena Virk, did his ten years (adult sentence max for underage) and seems to have reformed himself. He's made peace with Virk's family and is speaking in schools about what he did. So it can be done.

Gunnair - why not just execute him if you feel an 11 year old is totally responsible for his actions?


One rule - you said it. Now you plan to cherry pick.

Surprise!


Nice try. You can do better, I hope.


I don't really need to. You're a one rule guy, though apparently only when it suits you.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 3941
PostPosted: Thu Jan 27, 2011 6:37 pm
 


Lemmy Lemmy:
romanP romanP:
A person who has no regard for human life is a person who understands the consequences of their actions, but doesn't care and commits the crime anyway. A person who is unaware of the consequences of their actions is probably ignorant or simply does not have enough life experience and personal development to know better.

So what? I don't much care what causes them to be a danger to my family.


Then you are not interested in solving the problem, only in sweeping it under the carpet by state-sanctioned murder with a politically anesthetised label.

$1:
I'd prefer the simplicity of capital punishment


Of course you do. It's much easier to kill the problem away than it is understand why it happened in the first place. But when we murder murderers, it just makes us all murderers. It makes you just as much of a psychopath as the criminal you wish death upon.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 3941
PostPosted: Thu Jan 27, 2011 6:47 pm
 


BartSimpson BartSimpson:
romanP romanP:
How do you know if he has any remorse for what he did?


I know that he doesn't have any remorse for his actions and that's evidenced by the kid killing his mother and unborn sibling and then callously going about his day in an obvious effort to cover his tracks and to provide himself with an alibi.


Doesn't say anything about that either. How do you know he didn't get on the school bus and go about his day because he was scared shitless about what he had just done and needed to run away from it? The truth is that neither you or I know, and this is pure speculation. You cannot say whether he has remorse or not because you do not know what he was thinking when he committed the crime, and you do not know what he is thinking now.

Didn't you just accuse "the left" of being clairvoyant in another thread? And here you are, pretending that you can read minds...


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 12349
PostPosted: Thu Jan 27, 2011 6:55 pm
 


romanP romanP:
Then you are not interested in solving the problem, only in sweeping it under the carpet by state-sanctioned murder with a politically anesthetised label.

Murder is homicide, meaning the killing a human. Murderers don't qualify as humans. Killing murderers is extermination, like vermin.

romanP romanP:
Of course you do. It's much easier to kill the problem away than it is understand why it happened in the first place. But when we murder murderers, it just makes us all murderers. It makes you just as much of a psychopath as the criminal you wish death upon.

We don't need live convicts to undersand why a murder happened. You're really lowering the bar by calling me a psycho based on my position on capital punishment. That's quite a diagnosis. :roll: If anyone's here is demonstrating psychopathy, it's you. You have such little regard for the precious value of a life that you're willing to give a killer the opportunity to kill again. Shame on you.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 3941
PostPosted: Thu Jan 27, 2011 6:57 pm
 


Lemmy Lemmy:
hurley_108 hurley_108:
Kay. I took physics at University, and one of the things you're taught to do in physics is look at the boundaries. The boundaries here are birth and the age of majority. Nobody disputes that a person who commits such a crime at 18 or older is fully responsible and can and should be judged as an adult. But also, the physical incapacity aside, nobody reasonable would think that a baby can be held criminally responsible for anything they might do.

The crime of murder requires specific intent. While a baby mostly likely (excepting a Stewie from 'Family Guy' scenario) cannot form the specific intent to kill, children certainly can. I don't care if a child is 6 or 16. If they commit an act with the intention to kill, they ought to forfeit their freedom for life.


Intent is not enough. The person committing the crime has to understand what they are doing. That is why, when a schizophrenic man cuts off a kid's head on a Greyhound bus, he goes to a mental hospital for the rest of his life and not a regular prison. He did not know what he was doing, as he was having a psychotic break while he murdered the person in the seat next to him. A child who commits a single act of murder is not much different.

And where is the surviving parent in all of this anyway? Does he bear absolutely no responsibility for putting a gun into his child's hands?


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 3941
PostPosted: Thu Jan 27, 2011 7:00 pm
 


Lemmy Lemmy:
romanP romanP:
Then you are not interested in solving the problem, only in sweeping it under the carpet by state-sanctioned murder with a politically anesthetised label.

Murder is homicide, meaning the killing a human. Murderers don't qualify as humans. Killing murderers is extermination, like vermin.


Since you've verified that the basis of your argument here is purely emotional, based on dehumanisation and turning a blind eye to how this situation happened at all, I see no reason to continue discussing this with you. Our laws should not be based on what angry people with torches and pitchforks want.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 50 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.