Originally Posted by reeves

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.

Thanks for posting this Reeves. The bleeding hearts need a taste of reality.

To everyone recommending jail time...
The United States has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prison inmates. If you honestly believe that prison is an effective deterrent or a method of rehabilitation, then one of the most developed countries in the world with one of the harshest justice systems should be the safest, right? Honestly, do some reading before you spout off draconian "do the crime pay the time" crap, because most of the time that kind of talk makes people sound like ignorant rednecks. The amount it costs to keep someone in prison is absolutely insane and if that money was better invested in programs and education for non-violent offenders, I honestly believe we'd be living in a safer place.

A prison system is designed to keep dangerous elements away from society because they are incapable of living with others without endangering their lives. Now I'm not too familiar with this Pardoe fellow, but I haven't heard of any mention of a criminal past that involved violent or dangerous behaviour. Incarcerating someone for a drunken mistake is simply going to turn him into a criminal, instead of an idiot... there's a reason jail is called "con college" after all! So you're going to take a young guy who was on his way to a university degree from a prestigious university and turn him into a bitter ex-con who'll probably be stealing your hub caps in 5 years. Great trade!

The fact is that this guy is going to have to carry a criminal record with him for many years and is going to have a reduced quality of life because of it. The guy didn't do the crime with a motivation to cause harm, he did it because he was a drunken idiot. Now I'm not going to be a dick and speculate about the guy, so I'm just going to speak in general and about myself... A lot of young men without a strong father figure in their lives, like myself, have done a lot of stupid things to fulfill the macho male archetype. Sadly, we are told this means hiding your insecurities behind sarcasm and risk taking behaviour. I was very lucky that I was able to work with kids as a swimming instructor and a camp counselor/director, because it made me a lot more responsible and aware of the effects of my actions, but many guys are not given a chance to take on this role. So maybe we should be better educating our young men, what with the high divorce rate and the amount of dads taking off in downtown toronto, to deal with their insecurities in other ways instead of sending them to prison.

I believe that perhaps Emerson should get a very short prison stay to show him the end result of going down the wrong path followed by a couple years of probation and counselling. Call me a liberal wacko if you want, but if you can show me any study that prisons make us safer, that is simply how I feel. In another note, if anyone is familiar with Bill C-15 currently before congress (yes, our dickless Liberal party signed off on this thing even though it was put forward by a government they don't support) it may soon be possible to serve a minimum PRISON TERM for sharing a joint on campus. Thanks a lot hard-on-crimers, you're turning us into a prison state

Originally Posted by Afzal

Legal drinking age should be 24

Nice try bud, but prohibition doesn't work. Theres going to be school kids getting wasted off their face in Ancaster from hand sanitizer come Monday morning, so move on.

Originally Posted by zombiejesus

To everyone recommending jail time...
The United States has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prison inmates. If you honestly believe that prison is an effective deterrent or a method of rehabilitation, then one of the most developed countries in the world with one of the harshest justice systems should be the safest, right? Honestly, do some reading before you spout off draconian "do the crime pay the time" crap, because most of the time that kind of talk makes people sound like ignorant rednecks. The amount it costs to keep someone in prison is absolutely insane and if that money was better invested in programs and education for non-violent offenders, I honestly believe we'd be living in a safer place.

A prison system is designed to keep dangerous elements away from society because they are incapable of living with others without endangering their lives. Now I'm not too familiar with this Pardoe fellow, but I haven't heard of any mention of a criminal past that involved violent or dangerous behaviour. Incarcerating someone for a drunken mistake is simply going to turn him into a criminal, instead of an idiot... there's a reason jail is called "con college" after all! So you're going to take a young guy who was on his way to a university degree from a prestigious university and turn him into a bitter ex-con who'll probably be stealing your hub caps in 5 years. Great trade!

The fact is that this guy is going to have to carry a criminal record with him for many years and is going to have a reduced quality of life because of it. The guy didn't do the crime with a motivation to cause harm, he did it because he was a drunken idiot. Now I'm not going to be a dick and speculate about the guy, so I'm just going to speak in general and about myself... A lot of young men without a strong father figure in their lives, like myself, have done a lot of stupid things to fulfill the macho male archetype. Sadly, we are told this means hiding your insecurities behind sarcasm and risk taking behaviour. I was very lucky that I was able to work with kids as a swimming instructor and a camp counselor/director, because it made me a lot more responsible and aware of the effects of my actions, but many guys are not given a chance to take on this role. So maybe we should be better educating our young men, what with the high divorce rate and the amount of dads taking off in downtown toronto, to deal with their insecurities in other ways instead of sending them to prison.

I believe that perhaps Emerson should get a very short prison stay to show him the end result of going down the wrong path followed by a couple years of probation and counselling. Call me a liberal wacko if you want, but if you can show me any study that prisons make us safer, that is simply how I feel. In another note, if anyone is familiar with Bill C-15 currently before congress (yes, our dickless Liberal party signed off on this thing even though it was put forward by a government they don't support) it may soon be possible to serve a minimum PRISON TERM for sharing a joint on campus. Thanks a lot hard-on-crimers, you're turning us into a prison state




Nice try bud, but prohibition doesn't work. Theres going to be school kids getting wasted off their face in Ancaster off hand sanitizer Monday morning, so move on.

What is wrong with minimum sentences for certain crimes? What is wrong parties in the house agreeing on something that has the best interest of society in mind? The laws are made for a reason and judges are appointed with essentially no accountability. The elected officials don't like the fact that criminals are walking away unpunished and have introduced legislation to change that. What is the problem with that?

Arson endangering life should carry a minimum sentence .Emerson endangered the lives of nearly 600 people, including a handful of people who went to hospital for severe smoke inhalation.

......

Originally Posted by Afzal

Legal drinking age should be 24

Originally Posted by maverick1990

He'll most likely get a year or two's probation. Be pretty wrong if he went to jail actually... sounds like he was just being really stupid and it got out of hand, he prbly deserves a second chance at life.

Originally Posted by dabulls

What is wrong with minimum sentences for certain crimes? What is wrong parties in the house agreeing on something that has the best interest of society in mind? The laws are made for a reason and judges are appointed with essentially no accountability. The elected officials don't like the fact that criminals are walking away unpunished and have introduced legislation to change that. What is the problem with that?

Arson endangering life should carry a minimum sentence .Emerson endangered the lives of nearly 600 people, including a handful of people who went to hospital for severe smoke inhalation.

I'm not even going to touch whats wrong with putting someone in jail for something that is, at worst, a public health problem so I won't open that can of worms and assume you are talking about minimum sentences for violent crimes... but lets just say that our justice system needs to always lean to the side of the accused (innocent until proven guilty, mistrials for not following procedures etc) and minimum sentences shift the balance on that scale towards the crown and takes power away from judges. Politicians are NOT judges and those roles should NEVER be confused.

Once again, show me a study that proves minimum sentences work. You can't, but I can show you testimony from the other side of the argument...

Originally Posted by zombiejesus

I'm not even going to touch whats wrong with putting someone in jail for something that is, at worst, a public health problem so I won't open that can of worms and assume you are talking about minimum sentences for violent crimes... but lets just say that our justice system needs to always lean to the side of the accused (innocent until proven guilty, mistrials for not following procedures etc) and minimum sentences shift the balance on that scale towards the crown and takes power away from judges. Politicians are NOT judges and those roles should NEVER be confused.

Once again, show me a study that proves minimum sentences work. You can't, but I can show you testimony from the other side of the argument...

The only problem I have with the mandatory minimum is that its a blanket policy for all crimes, and theres a lot that dont deserve it. But I do think it should exist for anything involving someones death, and stupid shit that shouldnt happen, like drunk driving.

Originally Posted by zombiejesus

Thanks a lot hard-on-crimers, you're turning us into a prison state

Personally, I'm more worried about it becoming a police state. The police are always getting more power, abusing the power they have, and causing a lot of unnecessary harm to people, especially with all this tazer bullshit lately. And they get away with it all. To be a prison state, we have to do something wrong. in a police state, you just have to exist.

Originally Posted by reeves

Personally, I'm more worried about it becoming a police state. The police are always getting more power, abusing the power they have, and causing a lot of unnecessary harm to people, especially with all this tazer bullshit lately. And they get away with it all. To be a prison state, we have to do something wrong. in a police state, you just have to exist.

First of all- it's TASER. Not tazer- TASER.

Secondly. I've never worked in law enforcement and I doubt any of you have here either but until you've walked a mile in the officers shoes how can you criticize.

The cops be them campus police at mac or more recently at Western as we saw on youtube, City police or the Mounties at the Vancouver airport have a job to do. People resist them and the officers have to keep their safety in mind.

I have extensive martial arts training, and I can tell you if you are in a fight with someone and they don't want to put their arm in a certain position that you probably won't be able to do it. The police need the ability to taser or pepper spray someone who is resisting their lawful instructions or trying to assault them.

I read on CNN ( I think) that no one has ever died as a direct result of being tasered- that was a study done by a group of coroners.

The police have a helluva job to do and need the tools to do it.

Originally Posted by reeves

The only problem I have with the mandatory minimum is that its a blanket policy for all crimes, and theres a lot that dont deserve it. But I do think it should exist for anything involving someones death, and stupid shit that shouldnt happen, like drunk driving.

And arson damaging property and arson endangering life!

Originally Posted by reeves

Personally, I'm more worried about it becoming a police state. The police are always getting more power, abusing the power they have, and causing a lot of unnecessary harm to people, especially with all this tazer bullshit lately. And they get away with it all. To be a prison state, we have to do something wrong. in a police state, you just have to exist.

I've dealt with a lot of great cops, but at the same time I've also heard horror stories about polce officers. I'll say this: a lot of the idiots back home who spent all high school hitting bongs, hopping cars, and didn't get into university; are now in police foundations...

Anyways, crime is not a new things and neither is severe punishment. If prisons worked then we'd have a crimeless society. Never before in human history have we had the resources, the knowledge, and the ability to rehabilitate criminals in opposed to throwing them in a concrete time-out for a few years. Probably because the closest we've come is a pastor telling people that they're born convicts and can't help what they do until they psycicly communicate their guilt to some dude who was born 2000 years agoand walks on water, instead of instilling the golden rule printed in the same book. In fact, I've never heard the golden rule until I was in grade 9! I think that honestly a bottom up approach to crime, likely based around the golden rule (treat others the way you'd like to be treated) is the only way to better society. The current model of crime "A" + observation of crime "A" by a LEO = punishment "B" makes morality a benefit/cost problem instead of a guide for life and the treatment of others.

Originally Posted by dabulls

First of all- it's TASER. Not tazer- TASER.

Secondly. I've never worked in law enforcement and I doubt any of you have here either but until you've walked a mile in the officers shoes how can you criticize.

The cops be them campus police at mac or more recently at Western as we saw on youtube, City police or the Mounties at the Vancouver airport have a job to do. People resist them and the officers have to keep their safety in mind.

I have extensive martial arts training, and I can tell you if you are in a fight with someone and they don't want to put their arm in a certain position that you probably won't be able to do it. The police need the ability to taser or pepper spray someone who is resisting their lawful instructions or trying to assault them.

I read on CNN ( I think) that no one has ever died as a direct result of being tasered- that was a study done by a group of coroners.

The police have a helluva job to do and need the tools to do it.

Took that spelling mistake a personally, huh?

No, I have not done law enforcement. But during my brief stint as a security guard, we did get a crash course in self defense from OPP constables. Im a fairly big guy (6', 230 lbs), with a fair amount of experience fighting in my younger years, and when they told me to come at them and try to knock them down, they tossed me around like a rag doll. I never got close to them.

These guys have years of training and experience, and all sorts of tools at their disposal. shocking people shouldn't be one of them. They get into the police force knowing that they could potentially be put in life threatening situations. Tasering someone for not following instructions is not something that should happen.

And that guy at the Vancouver airport died. Apparently 4 RCMP officers were threatened so badly by a 40 year old with a stapler that required electrocuting him 5 times. How is that right, at all?

Canada alone has over 20 taser related deaths, btw. They dont die from the tasering, they die from the heart attack the taser causes.

Originally Posted by reeves

Took that spelling mistake a personally, huh?

No, I have not done law enforcement. But during my brief stint as a security guard, we did get a crash course in self defense from OPP constables. Im a fairly big guy (6', 230 lbs), with a fair amount of experience fighting in my younger years, and when they told me to come at them and try to knock them down, they tossed me around like a rag doll. I never got close to them.

These guys have years of training and experience, and all sorts of tools at their disposal. shocking people shouldn't be one of them. They get into the police force knowing that they could potentially be put in life threatening situations. Tasering someone for not following instructions is not something that should happen.

And that guy at the Vancouver airport died. Apparently 4 RCMP officers were threatened so badly by a 40 year old with a stapler that required electrocuting him 5 times. How is that right, at all?

Canada alone has over 20 taser related deaths, btw. They dont die from the tasering, they die from the heart attack the taser causes.

You and I have read different studies apparently.

The guy in BC died from positional asphyxia- from the cops laying on his back- not from the taser.

the dude who died in peel after being tased when he trashed a hotel room died because of the huge amount of cocaine in his system- not the taser.

bottom line is don't break the law and you don't get tased.

Originally Posted by zombiejesus

Honestly, do some reading before you spout off draconian "do the crime pay the time" crap, because most of the time that kind of talk makes people sound like ignorant rednecks. The amount it costs to keep someone in prison is absolutely insane and if that money was better invested in programs and education for non-violent offenders, I honestly believe we'd be living in a safer place.

Couldn't have said it better myself!

Originally Posted by dabulls

You and I have read different studies apparently.

The guy in BC died from positional asphyxia- from the cops laying on his back- not from the taser.

the dude who died in peel after being tased when he trashed a hotel room died because of the huge amount of cocaine in his system- not the taser.

bottom line is don't break the law and you don't get tased.

In Somalia I hear that "Don't break the law and you don't get your hands chopped off" works well too but it doesn't necessarily mean its right. People aren't tased as a punishment, they are tased in order to get them under control to keep an officer safe, so the concept of breaking the law results in a tasing is flawed. I don't know, I think the issue is that tasers are being used in place of physical restraint, when it should be instead reclassified to the same category as batons and bean bag launchers. I don't have a very strong opinion either way, I think tasers are pretty benign... Its the facedown takedowns that you used to see on COPS that really mess people up! Might as well rewrite the Miranda warning to "you have the right to lie there and choke on the pavement until we spin your lifeless body over".

Originally Posted by reeves

The only problem I have with the mandatory minimum is that its a blanket policy for all crimes, and theres a lot that dont deserve it. But I do think it should exist for anything involving someones death, and stupid shit that shouldnt happen, like drunk driving.

Lets start exiling drunk drivers to Nunavut!
Think about it, no roads and its harder to kill someone drunk driving a snowmobile Read Crime and Punishment, exile actually seems like a pretty cool concept!