Originally Posted by rrtt

I completely disagree that he should go to jail (especially for 14 years). He made a mistake! Yes, it was an extremely silly, stupid, dense thing to do, but nonetheless, it was a mistake. He caused $3 million dollars in damage and caused 580 people to find temporary homes, but that wasn’t his intend. I’m sure he didn’t think that his actions would end up sending 4 people to the hospital. He could have killed someone, but he didn’t. He wasn’t thinking of the consequences...plain and simple. For the past year, he has been ridiculed and kicked out of school. I am pretty sure that no other university will accept him. He has a criminal record and will now have a hard time getting a job. He has already wasted a year of his life. It was a mistake and I doubt he will do anything like that again. It seems like he has learned that his actions can have grave consequences....he doesn’t deserve to go to jail for 14 years.

I am sure everyone has done something silly before (although not to this scale). Maybe I am just naive and I want to believe in the good in people, but I don’t think he is “likely to repeat”. I think everyone deserves a second chance.

If there was a dislike button, I'd press it on this comment.

This is what real life is all about. I don't care what has happened to this person so far. Yes, he has a criminal record, and yes, he probably won't get accepted to another school. That's too f-ing bad. He caused a ton of damaged and upset hundreds of people's lives because of his stupidity. He injured people and could have killed people. He deserves his punishment. Once he serves his time, then he's free to make up for lost time.

You commit a crime, you pay the price. End of story. There's no free passes in this world.

Originally Posted by J-Met

I say this, however, not knowing his intent. If he is in fact a pathological arsonist with an intent to harm and do damage, of course he should not be permitted to participate in society. But if he's just someone who made a stupid mistake, then honestly what good is giving him such a harsh sentencing going to do?

It shows that there are consequences for your actions. You can't go around getting drunk and doing stupid sh*t and then getting away with it. People need to learn that they are responsible for thier actions! Our justice system needs to toughen up, and I'm tired of hearing "oh, he just made a mistake... let him go!" Yes, he made a mistake, and now he has to pay the price.

Don't want to go to jail? Don't do stupid sh*t.

Originally Posted by Taunton

If there was a dislike button, I'd press it on this comment.

This is what real life is all about. I don't care what has happened to this person so far. Yes, he has a criminal record, and yes, he probably won't get accepted to another school. That's too f-ing bad. He caused a ton of damaged and upset hundreds of people's lives because of his stupidity. He injured people and could have killed people. He deserves his punishment. Once he serves his time, then he's free to make up for lost time.

You commit a crime, you pay the price. End of story. There's no free passes in this world.

If there was a dislike button, I would use it on your comment. But there is no dislike button, so let’s not dwell on irrelevant things.

No one is saying that he should not get punished. He definitely should. No one is suggesting that he get a “free pass”. He definitely shouldn’t. He should pay for his crime. But prison isn’t the only punishment out there... To quote J-Met: “The goal of the criminal justice system should not be revenge, or retribution. It should be the protection of the innocent form those who mean to do them harm, and if there is reason to believe that this person will not do further harm, I don’t think imprisoning him for the rest of his life is really a smart course of action.”

Not sending someone to prison and giving someone a free pass are two totally different things.

He should go to jail. I don't see any other option being viable. Like I said, you've got to have some intent when you do something that serious. I don't really believe that there is any level of drunk that would allow a person to still be conscious enough to do something like this and yet think that it's not serious/there will be no consequences.

Originally Posted by rrtt

No one is saying that he should not get punished. He definitely should. No one is suggesting that he get a “free pass”. He definitely shouldn’t. He should pay for his crime. But prison isn’t the only punishment out there... To quote J-Met: “The goal of the criminal justice system should not be revenge, or retribution. It should be the protection of the innocent form those who mean to do them harm, and if there is reason to believe that this person will not do further harm, I don’t think imprisoning him for the rest of his life is really a smart course of action.”

Unfortunately is IS about retribution. The point of court and punishment is for criminals to pay back their debt to society. This is why we have courts with juries - the people (the society) decide on the verdict and often the sentence. And for what reason? Because the criminal committed a crime against their society. Saying "there are other punishments" is ridiculous. What other punishments matter? Community service with probation? That's BS! Send him to prison where he will miss what life as a free man is like. I know if I committed a heinous crime and was sentenced to probation, I'd be breathing a sigh of relief. It's a slap on the wrist, and that's not what is needed. Also, it's not just about the perpetrator. It's about setting and maintaining standards. If you commit a crime, you will be punished... not treated like a 5 year old, "oohh you just made a mistake (setting a building full of people on fire)... we'll let you go do some volunteer hours to make up for it". Does it sound as ridiculous to you as it does to me yet?

He deserves to go to jail, and hopefully he will for a long time.

If he doesn't go to prison, it will essentially be giving him a free pass. It will be like saying "you can get drunk and light a building on fire without facing any consequences". Don't tell me he's already faced enough, because he hasn't, and anything less than prison isn't enough. This is really not that much different than drunk driving... it could easily be argued that it is worse. I have no sympathy and I want to see him given a real punishment - hard time.

Maybe I am just naive

Yes, you've proven your naïveté.

Originally Posted by Taunton

Unfortunately is IS about retribution. The point of court and punishment is for criminals to pay back their debt to society. This is why we have courts with juries - the people (the society) decide on the verdict and often the sentence. And for what reason? Because the criminal committed a crime against their society. Saying "there are other punishments" is ridiculous. What other punishments matter? Community service with probation? That's BS! Send him to prison where he will miss what life as a free man is like. I know if I committed a heinous crime and was sentenced to probation, I'd be breathing a sigh of relief. It's a slap on the wrist, and that's not what is needed.

He deserves to go to jail, and hopefully he will for a long time.

If he doesn't go to prison, it will essentially be giving him a free pass. It will be like saying "you can get drunk and light a building on fire without facing any consequences". Don't tell me he's already faced enough, because he hasn't, and anything less than prison isn't enough. This is really not that much different than drunk driving... it could easily be argued that it is worse. I have no sympathy and I want to see him given a real punishment - hard time.

Yes, you've proven your naïveté.

I agree whole heartedly Taunton. If people get the idea that they can endanger the lives of hundreds of people, and all they will have to do is spend a week serving soup to the homeless, they're gonna go nuts. I'm sure Mr. Pardoe has had a ton of time to think about what he has done, but I don't think that's enough. That being said, the best I can do is wait until January 26th and find out what the courts think.

One minor point of clarification though: Juries do not determine sentencing. In Canada, Juries are permitted to make recommendations as to the type and length of sentence, which are then presented to the judge through the Crown prosecutor. It is up to the judge to actually determine the sentence, to ensure that it is consistent with the goals of the legal system.

i totally agree with the fact that i think he should serve him in jail because what he did is inexcusable , but i also think he should serve some (well A LOT) community service .. cuz when in jail, hes not doing anything.. like at least with community service, he can give something back to society.. and putting another person in jail just takes money from taxpayers..

Originally Posted by pinkpiggydoe

i totally agree with the fact that i think he should serve him in jail because what he did is inexcusable , but i also think he should serve some (well A LOT) community service .. cuz when in jail, hes not doing anything.. like at least with community service, he can give something back to society.. and putting another person in jail just takes money from taxpayers..

Sure... it's called penal labour - unpaid work whilst in prison. Not sure if it is practiced in Canada or not, but there's another version called "non-punitive" penal labour, which means the prisoner gets paid for their work.

I don't agree with non-punitive penal labour, but some people think that punitive penal labour is like slavery, and that's another discussion altogether.

Originally Posted by Taunton

Unfortunately is IS about retribution. The point of court and punishment is for criminals to pay back their debt to society. This is why we have courts with juries - the people (the society) decide on the verdict and often the sentence. And for what reason? Because the criminal committed a crime against their society. Saying "there are other punishments" is ridiculous. What other punishments matter? Community service with probation? That's BS! Send him to prison where he will miss what life as a free man is like. I know if I committed a heinous crime and was sentenced to probation, I'd be breathing a sigh of relief. It's a slap on the wrist, and that's not what is needed.

He deserves to go to jail, and hopefully he will for a long time.

If he doesn't go to prison, it will essentially be giving him a free pass. It will be like saying "you can get drunk and light a building on fire without facing any consequences". Don't tell me he's already faced enough, because he hasn't, and anything less than prison isn't enough. This is really not that much different than drunk driving... it could easily be argued that it is worse. I have no sympathy and I want to see him given a real punishment - hard time.

Yes, you've proven your naïveté.

This is where you are wrong. The point of the court and punishment is NOT solely for criminals to pay back their debt to society. If this was the point, sending criminals to prison would be worthless. Sending criminals to prison DOES NOT help them pay back their debt to society. It actually ends up costing society more since taxpayers have to pay for the upkeep of facilities, the guards and the food, clothing, and medical care for the inmates. Criminals pay back their debt to society through community service, which according to you is “BS”.

The point of the court and punishment is rehabilitation. The point of our justice system is to prevent crime and help criminals become productive, responsible citizens who can contribute to society. Like mentioned, if there is reason to believe that a person will not do further harm, imprisoning him for the rest of his life is NOT a smart course of action.

It may be naive of me to think that Pardoe is remorseful and therefore he will not be a repeat offender, but it is also naive of you to think that prison is the only “punishment that matters”.

Giving a harsh sentence can have other uses besides retribution as well. One of which is that it acts as a deterrent for others.

If people know that they can be spending 20 years in prison for a crime they'll be a lot less likely to commit it than if the sentence was only probation. If the ultimate goal of the criminal justice system is to prevent more crime (and that is the only justification for its existence), then harsh sentences are needed. I know that whenever this topic gets brought up I use Singapore as an example, but there is a reason they have such low crime rates.

Originally Posted by michelle

He should go to jail. I don't see any other option being viable. Like I said, you've got to have some intent when you do something that serious. I don't really believe that there is any level of drunk that would allow a person to still be conscious enough to do something like this and yet think that it's not serious/there will be no consequences.

Agree.

They let Karla Homolka get a degree from Queen's.... and she was completely guilty, wtf

This kid doesn't deserve 14 years but they should definitely give him a few years to think about it and to grow some balls meanwhile.

You guys are missing one of the key considerations when it comes to sentencing- sentencing has to provide a deterrent to future criminals. Giving a kid who endangers the lives of hundreds of people is not a deterrent.

Think of it like this. you are out drinking and have recently heard about Mr. Pardoe getting probation. You think to yourself " Shit, probation ain't bad.." and you set the elevator on fire because the last guy who did it got probation.

Now, say Mr. Pardoe gets jail time ( which he should) and you are out drinking and think about lighting an elevator on fire and endangering hundreds of people and you heard that he got jail time. You think to yourself " shit, last guy who did this went away for 2 years.... no way it's worth giving up 2 years of my life"

If Pardoe is sentenced to jail, it will give deter other would be arsonists and cause them to think twice before willful endangering the lives of hundreds and hundreds of people.

Originally Posted by J-Met

I do think his intent should be considered in sentencing. If he is genuinely remorseful, do you honestly think he is going to a be a repeat offender?

I know when something bad like this happens, everyone lets emotion take over rational thought, but is putting someone in jail for the rest of their life honestly a good thing if there is a decent chance they will turn their life around? How does this contribute to the greater good of society? Whats harm has been done has already been done.

How is it better for society to have someone willfully disregard our laws, and not suffer the consequences, and to have a nation of people see that someone can break our laws, and get away with virtually no punishment? It's thinking like this that got those kids in Britain that bashed a 2 year old to death for fun released with secret new identities and clean records. Those kids (now about 26ish) could hypothetically be running a daycare. Would you want your kid there? Damage is already done, and all.

Originally Posted by J-Met

The goal of the criminal justice system should not be revenge, or retribution. It should be the protection of the innocent form those who mean to do them harm, and if there is reason to believe that this person will not do further harm, I dont think imprisoning him for the rest of his life is really a smart course of action.

The goal IS protection of the innocent. A guy did something that endangered innocent human life, got caught, plead guilty (admitting he knew it was wrong), and now is being punished. Imprisoning him for the length of time appropriate to the crime is fitting.

Originally Posted by J-Met

I say this, however, not knowing his intent. If he is in fact a pathological arsonist with an intent to harm and do damage, of course he should not be permitted to participate in society. But if he's just someone who made a stupid mistake, then honestly what good is giving him such a harsh sentencing going to do?

His intent doesn't matter, or at least shouldn't.

Criminal Code of Canada:

"Arson -- disregard for human life
433. Every person who intentionally or recklessly causes damage by fire or explosion to property, whether or not that person owns the property, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life where

(a) the person knows that or is reckless with respect to whether the property is inhabited or occupied; or

(b) the fire or explosion causes bodily harm to another person."

He meets both (a) (he knew it was inhabited) and (b) (he had 4 people hospitalized), so why should he be exempt from the rules, simply because he made a stupid mistake while drunk? If he is, then shit....who wants to go drinking and do stupid, highly dangerous, illegal stuff and blame it on alcohol next weekend?

Originally Posted by rrtt

The point of the court and punishment is rehabilitation. The point of our justice system is to prevent crime and help criminals become productive, responsible citizens who can contribute to society. Like mentioned, if there is reason to believe that a person will not do further harm, imprisoning him for the rest of his life is NOT a smart course of action.

Again, the Criminal Code of Canada:

"The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:

(a) to denounce unlawful conduct;
(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;
(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;
(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;
(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and
(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community."

Rehabilitation is one -possible- objective. But a judge can throw the book at someone to deter the masses from committing the same crime if he or she so chooses. Rehabilitation is not a requirement.

If the judge thinks that this would set a precedent for other 19 year olds to get liquored up and be stupid, then it most definitely is a good course of action to nip it in the bud.

Originally Posted by macsci

They let Karla Homolka get a degree from Queen's.... and she was completely guilty, wtf

Man, I was pissed about that whole deal. They wanted Paul so bad that they let her off ridiculously easy. I remember as a kid in Toronto, there "Have you seen this man?" ads on the TTC busses with a sketch of the Scarborough Rapist. Then he upgraded it to murder, and law enforcement got tunnel vision. Never mind the lady who video taped her husband raping her 15 year old sister. Thats not sick at all...