# The Youth Criminal Justice Act = BS.



## absolutetotalgeek (Sep 18, 2005)

Ridiculous.



> Young people have a right to protection under the charter.


If you kill someone or are involved with killing someone in a premeditated fashion, you have no rights, period. These little pricks should be turned into fertilizer.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

If you are responsible enough to make the decision to end someone else's life, you are entirely responsible enough to deal with the consequences.

Period.

And, I don't need to hear some bleeding heart response, thankyouverymuch.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

FeXL said:


> If you are responsible enough to make the decision to end someone else's life, you are entirely responsible enough to deal with the consequences.


You seem to be missing the basis of adult responsibility, upon which is founded silly things like, er, voting and running for public office.

If you are not "responsible" enough to make the decision, but you make it anyway then...your logic fails.

Let a four year old decide about the household bills for a few months. Being able to make the decision does not mean being fully responsible. It just means that you are not a deer in the headlights.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Beej said:


> You seem to be missing the basis of adult responsibility, upon which is founded silly things like, er, voting and running for public office.


Ah, Beej...

What about non-adult responsibility, (ie under 18)? Does it exist? If so, at what point? When it is convenient? Do tell...



Beej said:


> If you are not "responsible" enough to make the decision, but you make it anyway then...your logic fails.


So, guilty but insane rests well with you?

How about guilty but underage?

If you have made the decision & executed it, then you should be responsible for it, no matter what your age or mental condition.

If you wanna pi$$ with the big dogs...



Beej said:


> Let a four year old decide about the household bills for a few months. Being able to make the decision does not mean being fully responsible. It just means that you are not a deer in the headlights.


If you let a four (or 10 or 16 year old) year old make household decisions and decide to abide by them, it is by your choice. They have to pass through your screen, first. 

If they decide to leave what is normal, rational or legal behaviour, without your blessing, then there should be little or no recourse, especially in matters regarding life & death.



> (from the news article)
> "It's still a tough row to hoe for him," she said.


How tough is the parent's row?



> (again, from the news article)
> Yuzwenko said the court will have to consider things such as the age of the accused, his background and the crime's circumstances to determine how he should be sentenced.


Shouldn't even be a factor. Get real, people. A life was taken.



> (again, from the news article)
> "He had to prove that his life, liberty or security of the person were being impacted, which they were by the fact that the sentence was going to be life - and that was not within the principle of fundamental justice," Yuzwenko said.


What about Nina's life, liberty or personal security?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

This case itself is very sickening. The kids who did this are really demented screw ups. The problem is we can't let our emotions take control. While a lot of us would like to torture these punks to death, is that really how we exhibit our civility?


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

No emotions cloud any of my observations.

I say this this with as much cold impartiality as can be mustered.

This murderer should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of adult law, sans torture.

Where was his civility upon execution of this crime?

I'm not a proponent of death sentences. Times like this make me reconsider...


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

FeXL said:


> No emotions cloud any of my observations.
> 
> I say this this with as much cold impartiality as can be mustered.
> 
> ...


No emotions? It's very clear that you are being very emotional about this.

Civility? It's what separates us from the savages, unless you want to be one yourself.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> No emotions? It's very clear that you are being very emotional about this.
> 
> Civility? It's what separates us from the savages, unless you want to be one yourself.


Please, elaborate on what makes you feel I am being emotional about this.

I ask again: Was he being civil when he perpetrated his crime?


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

To quote a number of infamous characters from Doctor Who:

EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE!...

The whole Young Offender's Act is entirely offensive to all sensibilities. I say exterminate the killers, well, except the executioner - they'd have to be exempt (or it would just be suicide people looking for the job). Why not just have an automatic Kervorkian Machine do the job, a death dispenser for those who dispense death, appropriately controlled by a Windo$e box - it would actuate when the BSOD comes up...

And why stop there? Execute all of the corrupt politicians who scam the ratepayer of their hard earned money - money that could be used to, say, purchase a swanky new Mac...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

FeXL said:


> What about non-adult responsibility, (ie under 18)? Does it exist? If so, at what point? When it is convenient?
> .............
> If you have made the decision & executed it, then you should be responsible for it, no matter what your age or mental condition.


I think these two excerpts sum up the discontinuity. Society has, rightly in my opinion, decided that age does matter. By necessity, there is some arbitrariness to that decision, but the lines are there. 16 for driving, 18 for voting, 21 (?) for public office, etc. But you do not want any such lines in the justice system? 

If we want to throw kids in with the big dogs, then hand them a license, let them vote etc. and watch the "big dogs" tear them apart should they choose to act like "adults", to be truly impartial about it. After all, age does not matter, does it?


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Beej said:


> I think these two excerpts sum up the discontinuity. Society has, rightly in my opinion, decided that age does matter. By necessity, there is some arbitrariness to that decision, but the lines are there. 16 for driving, 18 for voting, 21 (?) for public office, etc. But you do not want any such lines in the justice system?
> 
> If we want to throw kids in with the big dogs, then hand them a license, let them vote etc. and watch the "big dogs" tear them apart should they choose to act like "adults", to be truly impartial about it. After all, age does not matter, does it?


No argument. Age does matter and, for the most part, the lines are a good thing. However, when certain lines are crossed, they need to be dealt with on an as needed basis.

Would it be appropriate (in this case) for society to sit back and say, ah hell, he's only a kid, let him go?

At what point are his actions deemed serious enough to be dealt with as an adult? Two killings? Ten? A hundred? How many deaths?


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

I think the only question that needs to be asked to determine if he should be tried as an adult is the following: Was he, at 17, old enough to understand what he was doing? Personally, I think there are only exceptional circumstances where a 17 year old *would not* understand that kidnapping, rape, and murder of a 13 year old was a heinous act. To let this "creature" get off with a lighter sentence because he was technically a "juvenile" is a perversion of justice.

Youth court Judge Janet Franklin said:


> "Young people have a right to protection under the charter,"


 My retort to her would be what about Nina Courtepatte's rights under the same charter. She had a right to live, didn't she? Shouldn't the violation of her rights should take precedence over the rights of the accused? Or does an accused have more rights than the victim?


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

MasterBlaster said:


> In Canada the criminal always has more rights than the victims.
> 
> That way the Lawyers can make more money.


No, it's just about "how many innocent people are you comfortable with putting in jail to catch one guilty one?"

due process applies to everyone otherwise we'd have people being shot for speeding

media selective sensationalism makes one much more aware of criminal acts, and let's not forget the media only picks the juicy ones
the old newspaper adage of; "If it bleeds, it leads" is still part of the media mentality

and as for re-visiting the death penalty, study after study shows it is not a deterrent to violent crimes

and let's remember how it's ok to show a inner city person being busted by 12 cops on a tv show of the same name, but the Enron boys got the royal treatment

who was the bigger offender?
the guy holding a rock of crack cocaine or Ken Lay et al who screwed tens of thousands out of their life savings?
what is the social impact of Enron's demise?
how many alcoholics, divorces, violent acts, heart attacks did the lies told by Enron cause?
the Enron execs still had their mansions in certain states that allow leaders of bankrupt companies to hold such mansions (FL and CO if memory serves)

like Michael Moore, in his movie "Bowling for Columbine" asked a tv producer,"why not have a show about 'white collar criminals being busted?' "
the answer; "it wouldn't sell"

somehow we have been programmed that men in nice suits and ties deserve the full protection of the law (Lord Tubby is a great recent example) but we scream for the gallows or guillotine for poor people who are living in squalor and steal and sell drugs


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

FeXL said:


> No argument. Age does matter and, for the most part, the lines are a good thing. However, when certain lines are crossed, they need to be dealt with on an as needed basis.
> 
> Would it be appropriate (in this case) for society to sit back and say, ah hell, he's only a kid, let him go?
> 
> At what point are his actions deemed serious enough to be dealt with as an adult? Two killings? Ten? A hundred? How many deaths?


Considering that he was 17, I do not have a problem. I was just surprised at your statements that implied zero age consideration. Perhaps you just meant in this case, given his age at the upper-edge of the grey "adult" range.

Below certain ages (let's use 8 years old, as an extreme) I do not think any actions can be dealt with as adult actions. They are not by any measure, the actions of adults (ie. zero biological basis). But there is greyness and the Act in question looks to be a reasonable reflection of the grey.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> No argument. Age does matter and, for the most part, the lines are a good thing. However, when certain lines are crossed, they need to be dealt with on an as needed basis.


It's why prosecutors can ask for adult court treatment in certain cases and it's up to the JUDICIARY not the public to make that determination.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> It's why prosecutors can ask for adult court treatment in certain cases and it's up to the JUDICIARY not the public to make that determination.


And that is why we need to ELECT the judiciary so they serve the will of the people, not the bleeding hearts who protect young killers.

I'm with FeXL.

Lock him up and throw away the key.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

You know, I say we grab our pitch forks, storm Parliment Hill, and DEMAND that our justice system be changed!

1) Everyone is guilty until proven innocent

2) Public executions to serve as a reminder to everyone about whatever

3) Bannish lawyers, as they only get in the way of public vengeance

Only when we have resorted to 19th century law can we truly move forward in our society!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Lock him up and throw away the key.
> __________________


and you're exactly a sterling representative of the mob mental case that informs why NOT to election judges.

Let's elect your doctors and firemen next....did your dad get "elected" to the police force..did the people on his beat "elect" him.?? Why not - mob rules in your weird ontology.

Total idiocy......


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

True, there was little concept of "adulthood" until the mid-19th century. Young people were seen as younger adults, just as responsible but with none of the rights (owning property, etc.) that adults enjoyed.

20th century legislation attempts to draw the line between youth and adult responsibility. Apparently some people believe that young people of any age can be responsible for their actions and deserve the same sentences that adults receive. Where do we draw the line then?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

HowEver said:


> Where do we draw the line then?


Certainly not at 17 for a murderer.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> and you're exactly a sterling representative of the mob mental case that informs why NOT to election judges.
> 
> Let's elect your doctors and firemen next....did your dad get "elected" to the police force..did the people on his beat "elect" him.?? Why not - mob rules in your weird ontology.
> 
> Total idiocy......


Not that I would call YOU an idiot, but it is thinking like yours that is a prime example of why the juvenile justice system is currently so screwed up. I guess there must be some middle ground neither of us can find?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

'Twasn't just me....



> - "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
> - Benjamin Franklin
> 
> "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
> -- Thomas Jefferson


Citizens have no business voting for the judiciary or influencing them in any way other than through the election of the parliamentary representative...period....full stop.

You want to change the constitution or the Charter - have at it. The mechanism is there.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

The youth Criminal Justice Act was properly named. 

Some members of this fair land want the "Let's Perpetrate Vengeance on Criminal Youth and Let the Vengeance be Mine Act."

Unfortunately this Act of Parliament has not been passed. Apparently the Queen is more merciful than many of your run of the mill Ehmacer.

Judge not, lest you be judged. It's easy to be in judgment when there isn't any shadow of a future involved.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> It's why prosecutors can ask for adult court treatment in certain cases and it's up to the JUDICIARY not the public to make that determination.


I wasn't attempting to make any determination. I expressed an opinion, much the same as you have a myriad of times on these fair boards. Is your opinion any more or less valid than anyone else's?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Citizens have no business voting for the judiciary or influencing them in any way other than through the election of the parliamentary representative...period....full stop.


That is your opinion and yours alone. There are many who would disagree with your opinion. To act like you are some overlord looking down on peons who disagree is shameful. People who share such overbearing attitudes have been defeated throughout history. 

Respect for the opinions of others is something not freely given by you often and certainly not in this case. And that is your shortcoming.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Many of the reactions I'm seeing here are BS. Just because the guy doesn't have to prove why he shouldn't be tried as an adult, doesn't mean he won't be.
That people would object to the judge saying the youth is entitled to protection under the Charter is truly sad. Get this people. THE CHARTER APPLIES TO EVERYONE! YOUNG OR OLD, MALE OR FEMALE, WHITE, BLACK, BROWN or PINSTRIPED, GUILTY OR INNOCENT. This is how it should be. We have a legal system to sort out this kind of mess. Let it run PART of its course before freaking out about decisions that haven't even been made yet.
<sarcasm> Oh my God! the prosecutor has to argue why this jerk should be tried as an adult! What a travesty!</sarcasm>
I'm glad there are checks and balances in our justice system and quite frankly the hang 'em high types make me want to puke. There is a reason laws about these things are not made when people are frothing at the mouth and I'm glad of it. 
As far as I'm concerned the best result is a fair trial run by the rules of our democracy. People who object to this are basically objecting to all our legal system because they think those who commit heinous acts deserve to rot (etc). While this may be true (deserving to rot) it is not a reasonable excuse to forget all the rules and procedures that SET US ABOVE THOSE WHO COMMIT HEINOUS CRIMES. Get it? Or does this just make me a bleeding heart?
If it does that I thank the God I don't believe in for such small graces.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> Or does this just make me a bleeding heart?


Yep.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> That is your opinion and yours alone.


Not true. I agree with MacDoc 100%. So this opinion is not his alone. In fact I'm sure there are many more in Eh Mac who would agree with us on this position let alone in the rest of society.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> Yep.


At least it doesn't make me a hypocritical fascist who pretends to support democracy but in reality doesn't.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> Not true. I agree with MacDoc 100%. So this opinion is not his alone. In fact I'm sure there are many more in Eh Mac who would agree with us on this position let alone in the rest of society.


The fact remains that he issues such pronouncements like a feudal lord. Looking down on all who dare disagree is what is distasteful.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

> And that is why we need to ELECT the judiciary so they serve the will of the people, not the bleeding hearts who protect young killers.
> 
> I'm with FeXL.
> 
> Lock him up and throw away the key.


  Are these words uttered by the followers of democracy or followers of fascism?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Vague usage of terms BigD, especially considering, as MD pointed out, direct democracy and, in addition, the Workers' Party at the heart of the most well-known form of fascism. It's amazing what people can justify doing to others once a given collective feels righteous.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> Are these words uttered by the followers of democracy or followers of fascism?


They are of course my words and I stand by them.

Until we toughen the punishment of juveniles, they will continue to commit horrible acts of murder. That to me is unacceptable and I am not alone in that opinion, just like you do-gooder types who believe you are not alone in your opinions.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

SINC said:


> They are of course my words and I stand by them.
> 
> Until we toughen the punishment of juveniles, they will continue to commit horrible acts of murder. That to me is unacceptable and I am not alone in that opinion, just like you do-gooder types who believe you are not alone in your opinions.


When we toughen the punishment of juveniles and they still commit horrible acts of murder oh what shall we do then oh what shall we do  

I do good  thank U


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> Until we toughen the punishment of juveniles, they will continue to commit horrible acts of murder.


Prove it. You can't because harsher punishments don't deter crime. But let's see you stand by your words. Prove that harsher punishment would deter this type of crime.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> Prove it. You can't because harsher punishments don't deter crime. But let's see you stand by your words. Prove that harsher punishment would deter this type of crime.


Good question, but not answerable, nor provable. At least not until we toughen the laws. Ask me again when that happens.


----------



## Greenlion (Nov 19, 2002)

SINC said:


> Good question, but not answerable, nor provable. At least not until we toughen the laws. Ask me again when that happens.


No need to wait....there are many examples of states that have much more punitive laws for young offenders, and crime in general. 

I'm guessing Texas, Florida and a bunch of other US states for instance. All of these situations have been studied and as far as I'm aware, none show a positive correlation between harsher penalties and lower violent crime rates. None. Ever.

Don't work. Never has. 

Get it?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Who cares whether harsher penalties deter others. The family and society deserves justice and closure. Rape has never been about sex, rape is about control, domination, power and violence. Rape AND murder is a sociopathic act that has the making of another Bernardo.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Greenlion said:


> No need to wait....there are many examples of states that have much more punitive laws for young offenders, and crime in general.
> 
> I'm guessing Texas, Florida and a bunch of other US states for instance. All of these situations have been studied and as far as I'm aware, none show a positive correlation between harsher penalties and lower violent crime rates. None. Ever.
> 
> ...


Sure I get it. Violent murderers in this country are not punished severely enough. Do-gooders pamper them, let them out early only to kill again. Like kps says, who cares?

Lock them up and throw away the key. They are inhumane and deserve no less.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Greenlion said:


> No need to wait....there are many examples of states that have much more punitive laws for young offenders, and crime in general.
> 
> I'm guessing Texas, Florida and a bunch of other US states for instance. All of these situations have been studied and as far as I'm aware, none show a positive correlation between harsher penalties and lower violent crime rates. None. Ever.
> 
> ...


I love how everyone distances themselves from the States as much as posible until they need them for trying to prove their argument. The States is not Canada, they have the right to bare arms and they have 10x the population of Canada.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> Sure I get it. Violent murderers in this country are not punished severely enough. Do-gooders pamper them, let them out early only to kill again. Like kps says, who cares?
> 
> Lock them up and throw away the key. They are inhumane and deserve no less.


Aside from name-calling, can you at least offer anything substantial to show why elected judges are an improvement?

How does an elected judge magically make everything right?
Are there not ethics issues with some elected judges?
How do you know an elected judge won't favour those who supported them during their campaign?
What about instances where a judge makes decisions based on what they percieve as the popular choice as opposed to the _correct_ decision?

From what I see south of the border... it doesn't look so good.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

Having the prosecuction argue/ prove, why a young offender should be tried as an adult sounds more sensible than having to prove that a youth should be tried as a youth.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> sounds more sensible than having to prove that a youth should be tried as a youth.


That's too confusing.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

MannyP Design said:


> How does an elected judge magically make everything right?
> Are there not ethics issues with some elected judges?
> How do you know an elected judge won't favour those who supported them during their campaign?
> What about instances where a judge makes decisions based on what they percieve as the popular choice as opposed to the _correct_ decision?


Same thing could be said about appointed judges... 

That's why we have an appeals process.

There is no easy answer and the judicial system is flawed and imperfect as any other system trying to be everything to everyone.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

kps said:


> Same thing could be said about appointed judges...
> 
> That's why we have an appeals process.
> 
> There is no easy answer and the judicial system is flawed and imperfect as any other system trying to be everything to everyone.


Exactly. I want to know why SINC thinks elected judges will suddenly change the system for the better.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

MannyP Design said:


> Exactly. I want to know why SINC thinks elected judges will suddenly change the system for the better.



Historically, with the Liberal government in power federally more often than the Conservative government, and therefore overall appointing more, and more important (and for some, more impartial) judges and justices, opponents of such governments seek other ways to influence the justice system. Ending the appointment of judges and instituting the American-type popularity contest takes judge selection out of the hands of "politicians" and into the hands of fundraisers, special interests, lobbyists and big business, into the hands of whoever can afford to influence judges by way of financing their election funding.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Your average voter is too stupid to make intelligent election decisions.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

If this person was over 18 at the time of the crime (I take it that's what determines whether they're chargedas a youth or adult), would we still be having this debate? NO Are there any special circumstances why the person should be sentenced as an adult? NO

In my view the person is a youth and should be sentenced as a youth.

Now if youth sentences are in question, then they should be changed, or if the age of responsibility is in question, then it should be changed.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MannyP Design said:


> Exactly. I want to know why SINC thinks elected judges will suddenly change the system for the better.


That's easy. If a judge screws up and makes a mistake that costs another life down the line, there is currently no regress for his error except by politicians or peers. Time after time when this occurs, judges go on to make other bad decisions.

If they were elected and the public did not appreciate their actions, they would be removed come election time.

It is called accountability.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> That's easy. If a judge screws up and makes a mistake that costs another life down the line, there is currently no regress for his error except by politicians or peers. Time after time when this occurs, judges go on to make other bad decisions.
> 
> If they were elected and the public did not appreciate their actions, they would be removed come election time.
> 
> It is called accountability.


Mmm..turnstile justice. Don't like the decisions? Elect someone else! Don't like an interpretation of the law? Elect someone else? Want a judge to spin the justice system to your liking? Elect someone else! Don't like the checks and balances of our current system with appeals? Elect someone else!

Because you as an average citizen know SO much more about the law than lawyers and judges! :yawn:


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Some in Ehmaclanders are not happy that the Canadian Justice System is not about punishment or vengeance. 

The victims of crime are not required to prosecute criminal matters. The criminal Justice system does not deal with the redress of a grievance for a victim. Except for direct evidence and impact statements, victims of crime have little to do with the criminal justice system. 

As long as citizens fail to grasp these basic points they will forever frustrated by the criminal justice system.

I posed the question, for readers to ponder, when does democracy segue into fascism.

It is interesting when citizens take the trappings of democracy and freedom and subvert them. Wanting the "cheques" but not the balances. The financially secure are all for buying protection and enforcement. Whether it works or not.

If they can't have everyone imprisoned they shall imprison themselves in gated communities and private (police) security. 

The judicial system always escapes their grasp (double entendre intended.) 

Who is being feudal? Who is lording over the masses. When the few can control the many with dollars only then will the powerful few be secure or will they?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> That's easy. If a judge screws up and makes a mistake that costs another life down the line, there is currently no regress for his error except by politicians or peers. Time after time when this occurs, judges go on to make other bad decisions.
> 
> If they were elected and the public did not appreciate their actions, they would be removed come election time.
> 
> It is called accountability.


Right... and accountability has had such a perfect track record for those in elected positions.

Nothing is ever so perfect than something imagined in your mind.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MannyP Design said:


> Nothing is ever so perfect than something imagined in your mind.


And nothing is as imperfect as the current youth criminal justice system. It needs fixing and very soon.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> And nothing is as imperfect as the current youth criminal justice system.


A bunch of yahoos with torches, pitchforks and some extra rope trying to elect a judge that will ignore the law sounds more imperfect.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Fact remains it does not work very well in far too many situations. Time for change.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

SINC said:


> Fact remains it does not work very well in far too many situations.


easy to say now prove it with facts (not opinion) please Do Gooder or even bestter with just the facts.


----------



## Greenlion (Nov 19, 2002)

*What's the Rush....*



SINC said:


> Fact remains it does not work very well in far too many situations. Time for change.


Can we at least wait until those working in the system familiarize themselves with Youth Criminal Justice Act which replaced the Young Offenders Act only 5 years ago?

The YCJA was only enacted in 2002. It's not like we've had a long time to evaluate.


----------



## Greenlion (Nov 19, 2002)

BigDL said:


> Some in Ehmaclanders are not happy that the Canadian Justice System is not about punishment or vengeance.
> 
> The victims of crime are not required to prosecute criminal matters. The criminal Justice system does not deal with the redress of a grievance for a victim. Except for direct evidence and impact statements, victims of crime have little to do with the criminal justice system.
> 
> ...


Excellent point re: revenge. No system can be expected to meet the criterion that all victims of crime will be satisfied with the punishment meted out to the criminal, which is what some in this discussion seem to be suggesting IS the criterion for justice served.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Probably the best thing to do is to ignore the rantings of people who don't have a clue how the criminal justice system works.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> Probably the best thing to do is to ignore the rantings of people who don't have a clue how the criminal justice system works.


Good point gt, I've just put you on ignore. 

Seriously, not many people have a clue how it works, but many victims will tell you it does not work in _their_ favour.

Until that perception changes, the act remains flawed.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> Probably the best thing to do is to ignore the rantings of people who don't have a clue how the criminal justice system works.


LOL! Then this thread would be dead, as I don't think any of us are lawyers or judges.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

SINC said:


> Good point gt, I've just put you on ignore.
> 
> Seriously, not many people have a clue how it works, but many victims will tell you it does not work in _their_ favour.


Good point but the system isn't designed to work in their favour but works in the systems favour for all the peoples.

You're once again disappointed.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> Seriously, not many people have a clue how it works, but many victims will tell you it does not work in _their_ favour.


And what is their favour?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Native Law Centre of Canada | Sentencing Circles: A General Overview and Guidelines

Some may find this interesting.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Beej said:


> And what is their favour?


The system is their favourite. Then the society in my view. Also the view of lawyers of my acquaintance.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> And what is their favour?


A just sentence for taking a life and that is a life sentence.

Not life as the judiciary in Canada sees it, but life. You know, lock them up and throw away the key so they die in jail. That kind of life. After all, that is the sentence they gave the person they killed.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

What does that accomplish? I have no interest in "justice" as simply a symmetrical pursuit for crime and punishment (eye for an eye). I can understand why people consider it that way (it is a deeply subjective concept), but I do not see it as such.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

It accomplishes closure for the family of the victim, as in the culprit "got what he gave", and can never do it again to anyone else.

Anything less is not enough in the eyes of the victim's families.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

That would not give me closure nor do I consider closure to be above common laws. Every family would require its own specific closure meaning that crimes would depend upon the subjective need for closure. Sounds like a socialist closure welfare system.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> That would not give me closure nor do I consider closure to be above common laws. Every family would require its own specific closure meaning that crimes would depend upon the subjective need for closure. Sounds like a socialist closure welfare system.


While you present yourself as a very forgiving person, I suspect if a loved one of your own was brutally murdered, you would seek another kind of closure. Call it a hunch.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

First of all, the last person to make a reasonable judgement would be one in such a heightened emotional state. In such a state, dismembering and other various practices may seem to be justice. Second, while not murdered, a family member of mine was viciously attacked and put into a temporary coma and has not yet fully recovered (and never will; the victim is quite old).

Sorry Sinc, but you resorted to the weak, "walk a mile" argument and stepped onto a mine. Care to backtrack to facts?


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Further to Beej's point perhaps the "closure" required for victims of crime lay within the victim. 

Forgiveness though hard to muster will ease the pain whereas carrying the grudge only further poisons the carrier of the grudge.

The Amish forgave outlined here Amish Forgive, Pray And Mourn, Amish Mourn Victims Of School Shootings, Urge Forgiveness Of Killer - CBS News and carry on.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I'm not Amish.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Evidently not, but you do have egg on your chin.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> I'm not Amish.


Evidently. Now how can you say what is fair, what is just, what would satisfy the victim and the victims families when your views are so far askew from people like the Amish?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

No egg Beej. I talk to far too many victims in the course of a year to know different. They nearly all want their pound of flesh. Eye for an eye and all. My bet is one day they will get it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

double


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

Has anyone here read the article? Hahahaha....

Basically what it says is this...... if you are not an adult, you can get a lesser sentence for anything that you do wrong under the law. All you have to do is ask to be tried as a youth and use the Charter of Rights in your favour, that's according to the article, not my opinion or words. 

What is disgusting in Canada is that as a society we actually have to "question" the exact thought of should this 17 year old be tried as an adult? That's quite disturbing to know that up to an adult age in Canada, you are pretty much excluded from the justice system and the law, because you are a youth and the regular justice system doesn't apply. So for example if the adult age was 18, that means in Canada under the current law for youth, if I was 17yrs of age, I could go out commit as many murders as I wanted, all I would have to do is use the Charter of Rights and argue for a youth trial. In the end I win to be tried as a youth, get early parole and the same person who is 18 and does the same got life and no parole.

Many youths know about this these days, they know what they can get away with. I see it every day where they test the system, not in killing people daily, but in other ways where an adult would actually be punished more than a youth for the same crime.
A good example is theft. That's probably the best example I can give. If a youth walks into a store and steals a t.v., they might get banned from the store, perhaps the parents will have to pay something, but in most cases the youth gets away with it after the police takes a statement they are let go. However, if an adult walks into that same store and does the same thing, they are usually placed in handcuffs and taken to the station, why? because the youth is "protected" under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, sad how that works a little backwards in saying that, but it is true.

Welcome to Canada eh? :lmao:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Yeah, it is a great act isn't it? Gang members now commonly recruit members below the age of 18 to do their killing and make them heros of the gang when they get out three years later.

That is exactly why a 14 year old behind the wheel of a Cadillac belonging to a gang member, ran down and killed a rival in the streets of Edmonton last year.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MacGYVER said:


> What is disgusting in Canada is that as a society we actually have to "question" the exact thought of should this 17 year old be tried as an adult?


Not disgusting at all. We don't treat 17yo kids as adults in any situation. They can't buy cigarettes, alcohol, can't vote, can't sign legal contracts, etc, etc.



MacGYVER said:


> That's quite disturbing to know that up to an adult age in Canada, you are pretty much excluded from the justice systemand the law, because you are a youth and the regular justice system doesn't apply.


That's right. Or would you rather have it that a 6yo kid, who doesn't understand the difference between toy and real, who picks up his dad's handgun and kills his friend, go to jail for the rest of his life? You have to draw a line somewhere. In Canada, that line is at 18yo. You want to reduce it? To what? 16? 14? 12?



MacGYVER said:


> So for example if the adult age was 18, that means in Canada under the current law for youth, if I was 17yrs of age, I could go out commit as many murders as I wanted, all I would have to do is use the Charter of Rights and argue for a youth trial. In the end I win to be tried as a youth, get early parole and the same person who is 18 and does the same got life and no parole.


This statement simply shows you have no concept of how our legal system works, which is why we don't let your 'average' citizen determine how the law should be enforced.



MacGYVER said:


> A good example is theft. That's probably the best example I can give. If a youth walks into a store and steals a t.v., they might get banned from the store, perhaps the parents will have to pay something, but in most cases the youth gets away with it after the police takes a statement they are let go.


If that is your best example, that is quite sad. I've caught a lot of underage shoplifters in my time, and EVERY SINGLE TIME they have been arrested, charged, and taken away in handcuffs. Seeing a 14yo kid cry as he's loaded into the back of a cop car is quite funny. An hour ago, he was the toughest kid in the mall, and now he's crying for mommy.



MacGYVER said:


> Welcome to Canada eh? :lmao:


I hear Saudi Arabi has a much stricter legal system. SHould we adopt their system? What is their crime rate?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> Yeah, it is a great act isn't it? Gang members now commonly recruit members below the age of 18 to do their killing and make them heros of the gang when they get out three years later.
> 
> That is exactly why a 14 year old behind the wheel of a Cadillac belonging to a gang member, ran down and killed a rival in the streets of Edmonton last year.


You talk like this is something new--gangs have ALWAYS recruited young(er) people. The question is how are youth getting influenced and recruited and what can be done to stop it. Simple policing and harsh penalties won't stop it (otherwise the U.S. wouldn't have overflowing prisons.)

So what would you propose?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MannyP Design said:


> So what would you propose?


Sentencing a youth or adult alike. Their crimes are identical.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> Sentencing a youth or adult alike. Their crimes are identical.


And that will stop other youths from committing crimes? Unlikely. Adults show that getting due punishment does not deter crime--at all.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MannyP Design said:


> And that will stop other youths from committing crimes? Unlikely. Adults show that getting due punishment does not deter crime--at all.


You've missed the point again. It stops them from ever committing murder again. (Too many do.) Those that are locked up for life with no parole never get another chance.

It is not about deterring crime. It is all about ridding society of convicted murderers for good.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> Sentencing a youth or adult alike. Their crimes are identical.


There you have it. SINC supports the idea of sending 6yo children to prison.


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> Not disgusting at all. We don't treat 17yo kids as adults in any situation. They can't buy cigarettes, alcohol, can't vote, can't sign legal contracts, etc, etc.
> 
> 
> That's right. Or would you rather have it that a 6yo kid, who doesn't understand the difference between toy and real, who picks up his dad's handgun and kills his friend, go to jail for the rest of his life? You have to draw a line somewhere. In Canada, that line is at 18yo. You want to reduce it? To what? 16? 14? 12?
> ...


First, I haven't seen one person yet especially from yourself with a solution to our corrupt legal system here in Canada. That goes for both the Youth and Adult legal justice system in Canada. Two 17yr olds could be in two different provinces in Canada, and yet in most cases if they did the exact same crime, they are not punished the same, due to the laws in that province and the situation at the time. This could mean on how the local police handle things to how the judge handles things locally. 

Now to get to your post above.

1. Yes, correct. 17 year olds are not adults according to the legal age in Canada. However, that doesn't make them irresponsible citizens, unless they have a mental illness or condition that prevents them from being responsible. 

2. Using a 6yr old kid as an example is not what the article is about, it is about a 17yr old kid who is much closer to our legal age in Canada. But to answer your question, no, at that age and depending on the situation, I would say the blame goes to the parent for not having the gun locked up and put away in the first place. On the other hand, if the kid has gone out with his father and hunted, or his father has shown him how to use the gun, you know take the safety off etc... then that would be different, even though the kid is still innocent by law, he would still be guilty. I hope you understand that one.

3. Actually my example was dead on, I don't know how you can say I don't understand how the legal system works. With my example, it is an example, maybe a little far fetched, but you had to read between the lines a little. Also I'm not sure who you are to judge as to what I know and don't know.

4. I didn't say it was my best example, it was a simple example that everyone could understand. I guess for you next time, I will make that more clear? 
Maybe where you have worked, the teenager or kid has been placed in handcuffs and taken away, but that is NOT how it happens EVERYWHERE and it certainly doesn't happen across the board as a norm in every single circumstance. Many retail stores across Canada, have their own ways of dealing with kids and teens when they are caught. 
Some retail stores have a limit set in $$$ before they decide to go ahead and make an arrest or call the police. Once again, depending on the retail stores policy, a child or teen could get away by having their parents arrive, having them sign the paper work as paper work always gets done no matter what and that child leaves with the parent, no police called and no arrest. Usually the child is then banned from the store for a period of time. So do you get it yet? The law is there, but it can be used in many different ways and it is NEVER consistent. Otherwise EVERY retail store, mall, business would follow one set of rules across the board and we wouldn't have all these different ways of dealing with kids and theft. 
I have seen teens and kids laugh when they get caught, I have seen them cry, I have seen them get angry, and I have seen them have a careless attitude, even when the local police arrive. But once again, the police are not always called, depending on the policy of the business owner.
It gets worse, parents who shop with their kids who are under age, encourage their kids to steal for them, knowing that the Youth Act protects them (the parent) from being caught and responsible for their kids theft. Not all parents are like this, but it does happen, and it is happening more and more these days.

Now to your final question, Saudi Arabia? This is Canada, I don't care what they do in Saudi Arabia. The discussion here is about our Youth Criminal Justice Act and is it the perfect solution? So far, I haven't seen anyone here discuss what the solution should be if the current one does not work for most people. 

So maybe I should start with the questions and perhaps some of you could be more adult like with the answers? 

1. If a 17yr old is not an adult and commits murder in Canada, what punishment or action, if any should be looked at? Is the current system enough? 

I'm under the impression that most of you here, don't think going to jail as a 17yr old for murder is the answer, so SPEAK UP then and let us know what your solution is, how do we handle a 17yr old who has committed murder?


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

There's awful lot of manufactured neocon outrage here about something that hasn't happened, and is far from certain.

First, the Supreme Court has to either deny hearing the appeal or after a hearing uphold the decision of the lower courts.

Presuming it does one or the other (which, of course, is far from certain), all the decision means is that the burden of proof shifts from the youth to Crown, which is where it should be anyway.

Surely, the Crown can justify why this 17-year-old should be raised to adult court for sentencing?

If it can't, the Crown should never have asked the court to raise him in the first place.


----------

