I Love American Justice

[quote]ConorM wrote:
Well first I am totally against some of the silly drug penalties in the US. People getting convicted for 50 yerars for selling a bit of dope to their friends. Drug policy should be centred around rehabilitation, harsh punishments for known drug barons yes, but not for you poor guy using a bit of acid at the weekends to party.

In terms of murder and rape, I think harsh action needs to be taken. Life sentences for multiple murderers (ie never get out of jail within reason, not 14 years thats not a life sentence). Rapists need to be treated harshly too, although I think if one guy gets convicted on the testimony of one girl the sentence should be realistic (like nearly happened to be Kobe). Serial Rapists, lifetime jail terms no possibility of parole. Remove the archaic death penalty and instill a good appeals system to ensure innocent people get real justice as the court system is not infallible. Its like a built in safety. Just some quickly typed random thoughts.[/quote]

Thank God the irish chimed in.

Let’s outline how the irish would deal with it – just like they deal with everything else: blame the English and get drunk!

Or… Worship national heroes who are either made up or who were hung for being traitors. Seriously, even france doesn’t venerate its losers like the irish do. The french are mildly embarassed about Napoleon, in ireland he would have been reviled for his success and then raised to Godhood for his final defeat.

Or… Try to talk about being “fighters” while having a history even more fraught with getting the shit kicked out of it than Poland or Serbia. Which makes it pound for pound, the country with the worst ass-whipped record in history. Come on, the Nez Perce indians, armed with bows and arrows and a passive culture, did better against armies of warlike men hunting them with repeating rifles and cannons than the irish did against bored minor Norman nobles. The English finally left, not because the Irish ever won a single engagement, (including during your revolution), but because they were so goddamned tired of listening to the bitching.

Or… Try to make the moral high ground in international affairs when in truth, the island of ireland has not made a positive addition to the world since monks huddled terrified in their towers, holding precious books (not written by irish, of course) to keep them away from the Vikings.

Or… Be nasty to irish expatriates because only outside of the depressing irish culture were irish people ever actually able to accomplish anything notable other than binge drinking records or grand champion bitching or shortness contests. So while Irish in the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the US made all sorts of accomplishments, the irish in ireland drank and complained.

Or… Suck money from countries like Germany or the UK where people work for a living and then talk about how using that money to advance out of the Stone Age makes ireland a “Celtic Tiger”! Then vote against Eastern European countries in the same position.

Or… Not talk about how irish cities are all comparable with the worst slums of other countries. Try walking one block off of O’Connell street in any direction and try to argue with that. How about Cork? There’s a great town. Just like Dublin… There’s eight hundred bars, filled with angry midgets, and eight hundred dilapidated Catholic shrines that would embarass any self-respecting medieval peasant anywhere else.

Or… should we look up irish crime rates? Or the fact that irish people have been fleeing the country like rats from a sinking beer barge for hundreds of years?

Instead of learning a long-dead language in schools, every irish child should spend an hour every day repeating this mantra: “It’s always easier to criticize than to do anything useful. If your past is a catalogue of misery, don’t look back.”

[quote]JPBear wrote:

Samsmarts, you are not too smart are you?

What you are referring to in this post is not even the criminal justice system, which I was discussing, but the civil system.

Since you are a retard I will give you a definition to help you out:

Civil Law - Laws dealing with non criminal relationships involving persons, businesses or other organizations. Civil lawsuits seek compensation, rather than punishment, for alleged wrongs.

[/quote]

JPBear brings the crisp, no-nonsense penetration.

vroomy-poo, the more you struggle, the more this will hurt.

Times have changed,
Our kids are getting worse
They won’t obey their parents,
They just want to fart and curse. Should we blame the government, or blame society, or should we blame the images on tv No!

Blame Canada!
Blame Canada!

With all their beady little eyes,
their flapping heads so full of lies

Blame Canada!
Blame Canada!

We need to form a full assault, it’s Canada’s fault! Don’t blame me, for my son Stan, He saw the darn cartoon, and now he’s off to join the klan! And my boy eric once, had my picture on his shelf, but now when I see him, he tells me to fuck myself

Well, Blame Canada!

It seems that everything’s gone wrong since Canada came along

Blame Canada!
Blame Canada!

They’re not even a real country anyway. My son could of been a doctor or a lawyer, it’s a true, Instead he burned up like a piggie on a barbecue.

Should we blame the matches? Should we blame the fire, or the doctor who allowed him to expire. Heck no!

Blame Canada!
Blame Canada!

With all their hockey hubaloo and that bitch Anne Murray too. Blame Canada!
Shame on Canada!

The smut we must stop
The trash we must smash
Laughter and fun
must all be undone
We must blame them and cause a fuss
Before somebody thinks of blaming us!

[quote]JPBear brings the crisp, no-nonsense penetration.

vroomy-poo, the more you struggle, the more this will hurt. [/quote]

Cream,

Other than some intense hatred of various ethic groups, do you have anything useful to add to this discussion.

Did you even read what I wrote at all? You are completely clueless. I’m not even disagreeing with JP per se.

I’m telling JP to bring some serious information and some serious solutions to the table instead of basically complaining about how “horrible” it is in Canada.

Grab a clue dipshit.

[quote]vroom wrote:
JPBear brings the crisp, no-nonsense penetration.

vroomy-poo, the more you struggle, the more this will hurt.

Cream,

Other than some intense hatred of various ethic groups, do you have anything useful to add to this discussion.

Did you even read what I wrote at all? You are completely clueless. I’m not even disagreeing with JP per se.

I’m telling JP to bring some serious information and some serious solutions to the table instead of basically complaining about how “horrible” it is in Canada.

Grab a clue dipshit.[/quote]

There are no “ethic groups” that I dislike, except those “ethic groups” whose ethic is laziness, mindless dislike of the US, those with a lack of physical strength or stature, those with no ability to form positive opinions or to step away from criticism and do something positive, and people who call me “dipshit” (and make me cry).

That’s why I never agree with you about anything. Wait a minute… I just noticed how the list above applies to you, too. Word for word.

[quote]vroom wrote:

Perhaps we should pass some mandatory minimum sentences for certain types of crimes? I certainly don’t have any problem with that.

However, I’d also like the judge to be able to give leeway when there are truly extenuating circumstances.
[/quote]

The mandatory minimum sentences got us into some of this mess. One size does not fit all. When those exceptional circumstances where the person in question did not deserve the minimum sentence inevitably came up, our system tried to create a way to let them off easier. This is why certain defenses (such as the battered wife syndrome defense or the “I didn’t actually mean to kill him” defense, or the self defense defense) came to be used not to lower the sentence, but to lower the charge in order to escape an unfair minimum.

The only problem is, once these were established as legitimate defenses to murder, the burden of proof was reversed. You don’t need to prove you didn’t actually mean to kill someone, the prosecution must prove you did.

Now everyone uses these defenses. Just recently there was a woman in Vanderhoof who found out her boyfriend was cheating on her. She kicked down his door in rage (even though she had a key) and plunged a knife 6 inches into his groin. As he lay on the floor bleeding to death she ran down to the river to try and dispose of the evidence, then went home and washed her bloody clothes. She successfully used the “I did not mean to kill him defense” and the murder charge was replaced with a manslaughter conviction. Now her lawyer is trying to argue for a two year community sentence.

Or take a man in Ontario a few years ago. It was well documented that he hated his wife and even loved to flaunt his young girlfriend in front of her. She disappeared one day and he reported her missing to police. Several weeks later her various body parts began washing ashore in plastic bags. He admitted he had shot her and then completely dismembered her body with his meat cutting equipment, even cutting off her head and of all her finger tips separately so as to stop anyone from identifying her. He successfully used the “self defense” defense. The prosecution simply could not prove that she wasn’t waving a gun at him at the time he shot her. I believe he served two years in jail for that crime.

Even Clifford Sleigh tried to use the “I didn’t mean to” defense just a month ago in the kidnapping, rape and murder death of eight year old Corrine Gustavson. Even though he raped the little girl so violently that the coroner said she would have died of blood loss had he not smothered her to death, Sleigh’s lawyers tried to have the charge reduced to manslaughter based on the idea that he did not know his actions would actually kill the girl.

Just some thoughts on minimum sentences. I could talk all day about justice issues, but I have to get some work done.

Anyways…

It’s horseshit that this case took so long to bring to court. While this guy got to live his life out the guys he murdered were buried half a century ago. He’s not too old to have his head cut off.

JPBear, you act as if lawyers don’t try to get their clients off here in America. People get away with murder every day here. In my hometown I knew of police snitches that got away for years on drug or rape charges because they fed the cops little snippets of often times false info.

America isn’t the Pantheon of Justice you think it is. Like anything else shades of grey abound.

JP,

I think “reverse trials” are a problem all over the place now. However, in the cases you mention, I really don’t know the facts. They certainly sound bad the way you present them.

Cream,

Looks like I missed the letter N. Anyway, I’m not sure you actually know anyone with the qualities you mention.

However, you do fit the bill pretty well when it comes to lack of ability to form a positive opinion or step away from criticism.

You are also still a dipshit.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
This is a hate crime and the old guy should fry.

The bible says an eye for an eye.

The hate crime designation doesn’t apply in this case. It happened before the PC race-based crime designation was created.

I agree the bastard should fry - but should he fry simply because one of the victims were black? Does a white man killing a black man mean more than a white man killing two white men?

It’s a stupid, stupid designation created to make folks feel better.[/quote]

The MSM blows this up because it is good info-tainment.

The old dude should fry because he killed 3 people.

AmeThe American justice system is no where near perfect, but it does get a lot of cases right.

They finally caught up to this low life scum bag. It just took them too long.

JPBear, it is nice to see a Canadian say they love America and not be sarcastic. I love Canada, it is a great country too.

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
HORSE SHIT.

Brilliant rebuttal[/quote]

As is yours. Don’t you have some research to be doing?

If you have a problem with me - have the fucking balls to say it.

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
The MSM blows this up because it is good info-tainment.

The old dude should fry because he killed 3 people.
[/quote]

I think that is why he should fry as well.

But whether it was the media, or others, this case was more about racism than murder.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
In the eighteenth century you could get hung for stealing a loaf of bread, but it didn’t help with their crime problem all that much. People figured: get hung, starve, what’s the big deal?

Rehabilitation and post-release placement also reduce recidivism. Not as showy as an execution, I know, but actually a helluva lot cheaper.

We approach the problem these days with mandatory sentencing and three strikes laws: we just lock up the recidivists. Sounds swell and surefire, but it’s still too expensive and the next thing you know the corrections officer’s union is running your state (no wonder poor Ah-nold looks so strung out)

HORSE SHIT. [/quote]

Gee Rain, which parts? You do know that a major plank of Ah-nold’s platform as governor - and one he is striving to live up to - is to bring more rehabilitation and post-release placement to the problem as it sits in California?

And I’m quite sure Ah-nold would agree that that union’s influence with the legislature is a bad problem for his program.

I understand Texas is having trouble funding its schools.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
HORSE SHIT.

Brilliant rebuttal

As is yours. Don’t you have some research to be doing?

If you have a problem with me - have the fucking balls to say it. [/quote]

I am not attempting to refute anyones arguments with unsubstatitiated opinions. If you disagree, at least say why.

Yes, I do have research I should be doing. I am working on a study exploring the effect of race, age, and sex on perceptions of leadership. Thanks for asking.

And yes, I do have a problem with you, but I seem not to be allowed to elaborate on it. That didn’t take balls. This is an online forum, not a saloon.

[quote]JPBear wrote:
samsmarts wrote:
There is some bad in that as seen with the holmoka(sp?) case for example but their are also some very good points to that, because you dont see people running into parked cars or spilling coffee on themselves in hopes of getting loony amounts of compensation.

Samsmarts, you are not too smart are you?

What you are referring to in this post is not even the criminal justice system, which I was discussing, but the civil system.

Since you are a retard I will give you a definition to help you out:

Civil Law - Laws dealing with non criminal relationships involving persons, businesses or other organizations. Civil lawsuits seek compensation, rather than punishment, for alleged wrongs.
[/quote]

Due the stricter punishments in their criminal system they also have larger compensations in their civil system. The systems go hand in hand dumbass.

You couldnt figure that out, yet you call me a retard?

[quote]JPBear wrote:
samsmarts wrote:

If you were really intending on dicussing the differences in legal system, the punishments and compensations between two countries you would have provided more evidence and information rather than a simple “i bet in Canada he would have” statement.

Read my other posts dipshit.[/quote]

Too bad they came only after you got flamed about your original post. Your intentions at the start as many pointed out were only to make Canada look bad. Rather than discussing the issue of legal systems and what system of punishment works best.

You can back track all you want bitch but most here know what your intentions were.

Canadians contemplating stiffer sentencing along the lines heretofore fashionable here in the states should take a careful look at the California experience.

A good way to do this is by checking the (free) editorial archives of the LATimes - for pieces from both the right and the left, and then following up with some deeper research on Google.

California has constitutional limitation of property taxes, and between that and the corrections budget they are a bit stuck on making necessary improvements elsewhere.

But just as much as the economics, there is a political motivation for Ah-nold in smacking down that corrections officer’s union. Those guys basically terrorized the legislature by going after single, particular, uncooperative representatives and rubbing them out with the ‘soft on crime’ number and their rather shockingly large political war chest, making grisly examples for the others. They are the 600 lb gorilla in the statehouse. And they are one of the reasons Ah-nold is forced to threaten bypassing the legislature with referendums to amend the state constitution (which at this point, BTW, is about the size of a good novel)

[quote]samsmarts wrote:

Due the stricter punishments in their criminal system they also have larger compensations in their civil system. The systems go hand in hand dumbass.
[/quote]

I can almost hear the gears in your brain grinding away as fast as they can.

Stop it. You are going to hurt yourself.

JPBear,

Just for once, I would love to see you pull your head out of your ass…

Sansmarts is right - you posted for no other purpose than to rag on Canada, got called on it and now you’re trying to recover…be a big girl and admit that you were just in a snotty mood and wanted some ass-pats from a few of the US cheerleaders that can be found around here.

The horrible examples that you cite could just as easily come from south of our border - swap out “Hamilton, ON” with “Portland, OR” an no one would have thought it was unusual. Here’s a news flash - scumbags get off easily in BOTH countries and continue to do shockingly repulsive things.

Let’s remember, one of the underlying reasons for early parole, light sentences, etc. is overcrowding in the penal system. This occurs in BOTH countries and I believe that it’s actually worse in the US. There just is not enough room to house these criminals.

60 years sounds likes the hammer of justice was applied to Killen, but it could’ve been 1000 years for what it’s worth - the old fuck will be dead in 10 years anyway. This sentence is something that looks good in the papers.

Don’t forget, the ‘Dangerous Offender’ provision in our Criminal Code will ensure that Bernardo will NEVER get out of prison…and he walked in in his early 30’s (I believe, maybe younger?). Now that’s a REAL 60 year sentence.