DwayneEMTP Posted July 30, 2011 Author Posted July 30, 2011 A common term that I grew up with is, "You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet." Basically it means that for something good to happen that you often also have to endure some pain as well. Very often a truth of course. My question was this. If you believe that the courts are to lenient, then you seem then to be advocating for them to be harsher so as allow less defense for the scum suckers. If you would choose to do so, in my opinion, you would then be advocating for more innocent people to go to jail so as to ensure that less guilty people would be set free. I was curious if one or more of the innocent people that had to be imprisoned would happen to be those that you held dear instead of a random, idealistic, faceless 'someone', would you then hold the same opinion of the justice system? Dwayne
Happiness Posted July 30, 2011 Posted July 30, 2011 A common term that I grew up with is, "You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet." Basically it means that for something good to happen that you often also have to endure some pain as well. Very often a truth of course. My question was this. If you believe that the courts are to lenient, then you seem then to be advocating for them to be harsher so as allow less defense for the scum suckers. If you would choose to do so, in my opinion, you would then be advocating for more innocent people to go to jail so as to ensure that less guilty people would be set free. I was curious if one or more of the innocent people that had to be imprisoned would happen to be those that you held dear instead of a random, idealistic, faceless 'someone', would you then hold the same opinion of the justice system? Dwayne Im going to take a crack at this and you know me it could be a bit long. Its not that I think their should be less defence not at all. I think that the punishment should suit the crime and in Canada it is really lop sided. When someone kills one intentionally and with malace they should go to jail for life and no parol. I am also a beliver of the death penalty(that will bring alot of flack)in which I think Clifford Olsen should have been subject to(so many problems on so many levels in his case). There are some crimes that are truely caused by mental illness for example http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2009/03/05/mb-li-verdict.html. But the unfortunant issue in this case is that he can be let out of the mental institution as soon as a dr. deems him cured. He has already tried to be release but because of public out rage it didnt happen. I think they should still do a set sentance even if it is in an institution. This man (and I'm very sad to say I grew up calling him uncle Hal)http://www.canada.com/comoxvalleyecho/news/story.html?id=cfdf585e-9830-4745-b53b-f0b4a690accf should never have been let loose. When he was in jail going to trial I happen to be in Victoria and had to deal with the RCMP on the case I asked if I could go watch and was asked if I was abused. Since I was lucky, so lucky and was not abused by him, I was asked not to because if he recognized me he could call me in as a defense witness. So I didnt go. In the artical it states a calander of 1000 documented offences. He did these in the NWT while working as a teacher. Now as I said I called him Uncle Hal so Im going to use this to answer your question. As a child I held this man very dear. As families we did so much together, camping, dinners, ect. I would sit with him at his HAM radio and enjoy his company and loved to talk to so many people from other countries. He was never harmful to me or ever said anything inapproriate. As life went on my parents divorced and he also divorced his wife. When I was newly married and living in Inuvik NWT he had gotten in contact with me and we had a few meetings. At that time being older I had a feeling about him that was different than when I was young but it wasn't anything that would prepare me for what was about to happen. I then moved to where I am now. My ex-husbands mother started to send us clippings about him being arrested (he was my husbands principle and some other cub scout type of thing leader). When I first read them I was abit in disbelief as anyone would be. And deep down I hope that these things were untrue. But alas they were true and when they gave him 13 years for what he did I was discusted. This man should never have been set free EVER. Not long ago I was watching a news artical about an attempted kidnapping and the picture looked exactly like him. I went to my local RCMP and let them know that I though the pic looked like him and they should look into it. They did but I have no idea what has happened after that. He is also suspect in missing children from Colwood but they never could pin it on him. So what if he was innocent......I truely dont know how I would react to be honest, I would hope that our justice system would learn from the mistake and change the law that convicted him. So this is a case from the 1980's. Lets go to this day and age. The police agencies have the ability of forensics. They have a better understanding of the criminal mind and in gerneral have a better understanding of crimes. The innocent going to jail for these types of crimes are less and less because of forensics, what is happening is the old cases before forensics are being vindicated. I utterly hate my justice system where I am. The Judge that comes here is a bleeding heart that accepts the racist card. Oh my son/daughter is being harassed because they are native. Our chief councelor will go and harrass the RCMP for doing their job. It is a vicious cycle and is a system that is more for the crimminal than it is for the victim. So to the end. When I go to the court house and they sentence someone I accept the sentance as it is and I dont go on TV and start a head hunt on someone who is found innoccent. I don't think this is exactly what you wanted in an answer Dwyane but it is the only instance that I have close to speak of. If you want the Justice system to change then you have to lobby, but what ends up happening is that until something devistating happens to you, you dont advicate. Like my sister in law had nothing to do with Mothers against drunk drivers until her daugher was in an accident involving a drunk driver.
tniuqs Posted July 30, 2011 Posted July 30, 2011 (edited) A common term that I grew up with is, "You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet." Basically it means that for something good to happen that you often also have to endure some pain as well. Very often a truth of course. My question was this. If you believe that the courts are to lenient, then you seem then to be advocating for them to be harsher so as allow less defense for the scum suckers. If you would choose to do so, in my opinion, you would then be advocating for more innocent people to go to jail so as to ensure that less guilty people would be set free. I was curious if one or more of the innocent people that had to be imprisoned would happen to be those that you held dear instead of a random, idealistic, faceless 'someone', would you then hold the same opinion of the justice system? Why would you imprison innocent people (are you under the assumption that a lot of innocent people go to jail) sure, I can believe there are a few errors made, do we change the whole shooting match to release the proven guilty repeat offender back on the streets ? To my way of thinking this is FAR more of a concern that the rare errors, been there at the homicides, have the BDU shirt(s). In a fair justice system one can not favour one over another because they are related or a friend, or have more money. Dwayne The concept of innocent until proven guilty, oddly one is charged and then incarcerated until the judge decides if s/he is a threat .. if this were the idealistic .. no one would be kept behind bars. Edited July 30, 2011 by tniuqs
MedicNorth Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 Ha, MAN I missed this place! Once again, Squint, you missed the point...... We all know that there are people who get free after doing reprehensible things, and when that happens we bitch and complain about the justice system and its lack of teeth. Believe it or not, there are "scum-sucking" defense lawyers who have done exactly what they were supposed to do - get an innocent person freed when the system had mistakenly accused them of crimes. They do a job, one that I would personally find unpleasant at times, but that job is to make sure that innocent people are NOT punished because in the opinion of law enforcement they did the crime. Yes, some guilty people are set free, but as Dwayne asked, would you not rather have some guilty people escape consequences to ensure that one of your loved ones is not wrongly convicted and punished? If you want to get rid of defense lawyers, you would pretty much have to also get rid of the prosecutors.... Much as I like the idea of a world without lawyers, all that would happen is that the government, the judges, or the public would make the decisions simply based upon their opinions. Most of these opinions would be influenced (indeed CREATED) by the media, and we know exactly how fair they are. Either way, you are looking for either a dictatorship, where the State makes all decisions, or anarchy, where anybody can (and will). Look at the bloodshed during the French revolution for example, where if you pissed off your neighbour all he had to do was report you and the guillotine gave you your "just" reward. Hell, we could have trials that were conducted like any American reality show, if you like. It would be great press to have the public voting on the internet after a 30 minute flashy on-air trial with a large-breasted woman as the host. Might be something in that Salut!
tniuqs Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 Ha, MAN I missed this place! Once again, Squint, you missed the point...... We all know that there are people who get free after doing reprehensible things, and when that happens we bitch and complain about the justice system and its lack of teeth. Believe it or not, there are "scum-sucking" defense lawyers who have done exactly what they were supposed to do - get an innocent person freed when the system had mistakenly accused them of crimes. They do a job, one that I would personally find unpleasant at times, but that job is to make sure that innocent people are NOT punished because in the opinion of law enforcement they did the crime. Yes, some guilty people are set free, but as Dwayne asked, would you not rather have some guilty people escape consequences to ensure that one of your loved ones is not wrongly convicted and punished? If you want to get rid of defense lawyers, you would pretty much have to also get rid of the prosecutors.... SEE ABOVE Much as I like the idea of a world without lawyers, +1 for Squint again! all that would happen is that the government, the judges, or the public would make the decisions simply based upon their opinions. Most of these opinions would be influenced (indeed CREATED) by the media, and we know exactly how fair they are. Either way, you are looking for either a dictatorship, where the State makes all decisions, or anarchy, where anybody can (and will). Look at the bloodshed during the French revolution for example, where if you pissed off your neighbour all he had to do was report you and the guillotine gave you your "just" reward. Hell, we could have trials that were conducted like any American reality show, if you like. It would be great press to have the public voting on the internet after a 30 minute flashy on-air trial with a large-breasted woman as the host. Might be something in that Salut!
Richard B the EMT Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 First, we'll kill all the lawyers Shakespear (?)
tniuqs Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 Shakespear (?) Isn't he a media person as well ? The world according to Squint: Monetary rewards for Lawyers, hence forth removed then you will have a fair justice system. Proven Criminals should have no "rights" A little something for North .. note blindfold, I don't see any coins on the scales. cheers
DwayneEMTP Posted August 1, 2011 Author Posted August 1, 2011 ...but as Dwayne asked, would you not rather have some guilty people escape consequences to ensure that one of your loved ones is not wrongly convicted and punished?... MN, there is not a snowballs chance in hell that he's ever actually going to answer this questions which is why he continues with all of the bullshit verbal ballet each time it's raised. For as many intelligent opinions as he has here he will continue to debate this angry schoolboy logic all week if he must. He sometimes seems to believe that as long as he giggles enough, or appears disappointedly amused at the opinion of others that those here will confuse that with sound logic and intelligent debate. Squint, a continued rant about how you want every guilty person to be punished to the fullest extent of the law does not answer the question. I can get your same opinion from the uneducated, the unemployed, the hefty housewife or a child. No one is asking if guilty people are going free based on the efforts of defense lawyers, people are asking to what degree you are willing to go to prevent that from happening. How many innocent lives are you willing to sacrifice to make sure that the guilty rarely if ever go free. Because, see, that is the system. Unless of course you've developed a fool proof judicial system that you've just not chosen to share with us yet.... And to answer your question. Should Dylan be killed by someone released due to a 'loophole' by some 'scum sucking defense lawyer', yeah, I would be unhappy. But I would still not choose to put your innocent children in jail to help insure that my innocent children mile be slightly safer in the future. Dwayne ...Monetary rewards for Lawyers, hence forth removed then you will have a fair justice system. Ahhh...so then the judicial system can be pure and honest and honorable like your government? Outstanding plan. ...A little something for North .. note blindfold, I don't see any coins on the scales... She is blind, not deaf or stupid....Just sayin'.. Dwayne
tniuqs Posted August 1, 2011 Posted August 1, 2011 (edited) Quoting MN ...but as Dwayne asked, would you not rather have some guilty people escape consequences to ensure that one of your loved ones is not wrongly convicted and punished?... Poor English to start with .. note corrections. Ok not only poor logic to assume that a "when a guilty person is acquitted" has any bearing on the complete inverse of "an innocent being wrongly convicted" it becomes a non question from a intelligence point of view. Then factor in the personal tone of "loved one" well the question is skewed based on an expected emotional response only, real justice has no emotions. MN, there is not a snowballs chance in hell that he's ever actually going to answer this questions which is why he continues with all of the bullshit verbal ballet each time it's raised. <snip for reason's most obvious> Unless of course you've developed a fool proof judicial system that you've just not chosen to share with us yet.... And to answer your question. Should Dylan be killed by someone released due to a 'loophole' by some 'scum sucking defense lawyer', yeah, I would be unhappy. But I would still not choose to put your innocent children in jail to help insure that my innocent children mile be slightly safer in the future. Ahhh...so then the judicial system can be pure and honest and honorable like your government? Outstanding plan. She is blind, not deaf or stupid....Just sayin'.. Some Canadian stats http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/crime/ I will tell you what, with a 68 % chance of re offending as a pedafile well touch my kids and just see what happens, it would be a zero chance of re offending . Edited August 1, 2011 by tniuqs
Happiness Posted August 2, 2011 Posted August 2, 2011 I found the solution to the crazy world. You Americans have this guy, and I think he should be cloned for ever to remind the criminals of what Prison should be all about. SHERIFF JOE IS AT IT AGAIN! You all remember Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona, who painted the jail cells pink and made the inmates wear pink prison garb. Well......... SHERIFF JOE IS AT IT AGAIN! Oh, there's MUCH more to know about Sheriff Joe! Maricopa County was spending approx. $18 million dollars a year on stray animals, like cats and dogs. Sheriff Joe offered to take the department over, and the County Supervisors said okay. The animal shelters are now all staffed and operated by prisoners. They feed and care for the strays. Every animal in his care is taken out and walked twice daily. He now has prisoners who are experts in animal nutrition and behavior. They give great classes for anyone who'd like to adopt an animal. He has literally taken stray dogs off the street, given them to the care of prisoners, and had them place in dog shows. The best part? His budget for the entire department is now under $3 million. Teresa and I adopted a Weimaraner from a Maricopa County shelter two years ago. He was neutered, and current on all shots, in great health, and even had a microchip inserted the day we got him. Cost us $78. The prisoners get the benefit of about $0.28 an hour for working, but most would work for free, just to be out of their cells for the day. Most of his budget is for utilities, building maintenance, etc. He pays the prisoners out of the fees collected for adopted animals. I have long wondered when the rest of the country would take a look at the way he runs the jail system, and copy some of his ideas. He has a huge farm, donated to the county years ago, where inmates can work, and they grow most of their own fresh vegetables and food, doing all the work and harvesting by hand. He has a pretty good sized hog farm, which provides meat, and fertilizer. It fertilizes the Christmas tree nursery, where prisoners work, and you can buy a living Christmas tree for $6 - $8 for the Holidays, and plant it later.. We have six trees in our yard from the Prison. Yup, he was re-elected last year with 83% of the vote. Now he's in trouble with the ACLU again. He painted all his buses and vehicles with a mural, that has a special hotline phone number painted on it, where you can call and report suspected illegal aliens. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement wasn't doing enough in his eyes, so he had 40 deputies trained specifically for enforcing immigration laws, started up his hotline, and bought 4 new buses just for hauling folks back to the border. He's kind of a 'Git-R Dun' kind of Sheriff. TO THOSE OF YOU NOT FAMILIAR WITH JOE ARPAIO HE IS THE MARICOPA ARIZONA COUNTY SHERIFF AND HE KEEPS GETTING ELECTED OVER AND OVER THIS IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY: Sheriff Joe Arpaio (in Arizona ) created the 'Tent City Jail': He has jail meals down to 40 cents a serving and charges the inmates for them. He stopped smoking and porno magazines in the jails. Took away their weights. Cut off all but 'G' rated movies. He started chain gangs so the inmates could do free work on county and city projects. Then he started chain gangs for women so he wouldn't get sued for discrimination. He took away cable TV until he found out there was a Federal Court Order that required cable TV for jails so he hooked up the cable TV again; only let in the Disney Channel and the Weather Channel. When asked why the Weather Channel he replied, 'So they will know how hot it's gonna be while they are working on my Chain Gangs.' He cut off coffee since it has zero nutritional value. When the inmates complained, he told them 'This isn't the Ritz/Carlton......if you don't like it, don't come back!' More On The Arizona Sheriff: With temperatures being even hotter than usual in Phoenix (116 degrees just set a new record), the Associated Press reports: About 2,000 inmates living in a barbed-wire-surrounded tent encampment at the Maricopa County Jail have been given permission to strip down to their government-issued pink boxer shorts. On Wednesday, hundreds of men wearing boxers were either curled up on their bunk beds or chatted in the tents, which reached 138 degrees inside the week before. Many were also swathed in wet, pink towels as sweat collected on their chests and dripped down to their PINK SOCKS. 'It feels like we are in a furnace', said James Zanzot, an inmate who has lived in the TENTS for 1 year. 'It's Inhumane.' Joe Arpaio, the tough-guy sheriff who created the tent city and long ago started making his prisoners wear pink and eat bologna sandwiches, is not one bit sympathetic. He said Wednesday that he told all of the inmates: 'It's 120 degrees in Iraq and our soldiers are living in tents too, and they have to wear full battle gear, but they didn't commit any crimes, so shut your mouths!' Way to go, Sheriff! Maybe if all prisons were like this one there would be a lot less crime and/or repeat offenders. Criminals should be punished for their crimes - not live in luxury until it's time for their parole, only to go out and commit another crime so they can get back in to live on taxpayers money and enjoy things taxpayers can't afford to have for themselves.
Recommended Posts