Harper wants to name and shame 14 year-old car thieves
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 10 Next
ziggy @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:55 pm
well.I didnt post the title to the thread either or it would have been correct.
14 used to be juve and 14 to 16 might have got you into adult court so it makes a big difference.
If it was 14 then it could be 12 years old,if over 14 then it wouldnt be juve.
EyeBrock @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 3:10 pm
I'm not so sure about this one. Some kids just kinda grow out of being criminals.
I agree (ish) with the sentiment that there are a proportion of young offenders who are just on a rampage and could not give a shite about the system, but the other 90% of YO's never re-offend.
Shaming those who want to rehabilitate serves no purpose.
Maybe we could look at '3 serious offences and your name is released'?
That would be easy enough to administer and be fairer than naming and shaming for the first offence. 3 indictable offences is a fair target.
Mustang1 @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 3:29 pm
mtbr mtbr:
here you go Mr Pompus...did your mommy and daddy buy you any new toys lately?
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s ... 006&no_ads
Prisoners exercise their right to vote
Updated Wed. Jan. 11 2006 10:13 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
Friday was voting day for prisoners across Canada. About 35,000 were eligible to vote, and many seemed to be voting Liberal in order to protect privileges that Conservatives threaten to take away.
"We're all voting for the Liberals, just because we want to keep our vote," Jeff Power, an inmate at Manitoba's Stony Mountain facility told CTV Winnipeg. "We don't want to lose rights like our TVs, stuff like that."
The Conservative Party is showing better results in the campaign polls than it has seen in years, and some hardened criminals are nervous. Many of them, like Power, voted Liberal today primarily to keep the Tories out of office. They're worried the party will claw back benefits they have received under Liberal rule.
Power, who is serving a six-year sentence for drug trafficking and robbery, was one of 177 inmates who cast his ballot Friday in the Stony Mountain facility. He proudly displayed his Liberal stripes, with a Maple Leaf and Liberal 'L' shaved into the side of his head and outlined in red.
"Everyone is afraid the PCs are going do dehumanize inmates," Power said.
And from cell to cell, prisoner after prisoner told CTV Winnipeg they were voting Liberal, with no exceptions.
There's no question, Harper supports harsher policies for those who break the law. The Liberals are also promising tougher sentences for criminals, especially for violent and gun-related crimes. But the Tory platform -- and Harper's position against allowing prisoners to vote -- is what seems to have struck fear in inmates' hearts.
"No, I don't agree with prisoner voting," Harper has stated plainly.
At least one of his opponents feels differently.
"The courts don't sentence by taking away citizenship, and citizens have a right to vote in this country," said New Democrat Leader Jack Layton.
The 2004 election marked the first time inmates were allowed to cast a ballot, thanks to a 2002 Supreme Court of Canada decision that ruled it was contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to bar prisoners from voting.
Before the decision was made, prisoners serving sentences of two years or more were barred from voting. The court ruling gave all prisoners the right to vote regardless of the length of their sentence.
Today there are about 36,000 prisoners in jails across the nation and 25 per cent of them are expected to vote.
Like other Canadians, they have beliefs and ideals they want to defend with their vote.
"Myself, I have a family, I have children and grandchildren. So I'm really concerned about their futures," said Dennis Malcolm, a convicted murdered.
But not everyone agrees that prisoners should have the right to vote. Jack McLaughlin, a victims' rights advocate whose son was murdered in 2000, believes criminals forfeit some of the privileges of citizenship.
"Prisoners should not be allowed to vote. They must give up some privileges when they go to jail," McLaughlin told CTV Winnipeg.
For the moment though, every vote counts. And if the race remains close, those votes could play a vital role in electing the next government.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s ... 006&no_ads
Prisoners exercise their right to vote
Updated Wed. Jan. 11 2006 10:13 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
Friday was voting day for prisoners across Canada. About 35,000 were eligible to vote, and many seemed to be voting Liberal in order to protect privileges that Conservatives threaten to take away.
"We're all voting for the Liberals, just because we want to keep our vote," Jeff Power, an inmate at Manitoba's Stony Mountain facility told CTV Winnipeg. "We don't want to lose rights like our TVs, stuff like that."
The Conservative Party is showing better results in the campaign polls than it has seen in years, and some hardened criminals are nervous. Many of them, like Power, voted Liberal today primarily to keep the Tories out of office. They're worried the party will claw back benefits they have received under Liberal rule.
Power, who is serving a six-year sentence for drug trafficking and robbery, was one of 177 inmates who cast his ballot Friday in the Stony Mountain facility. He proudly displayed his Liberal stripes, with a Maple Leaf and Liberal 'L' shaved into the side of his head and outlined in red.
"Everyone is afraid the PCs are going do dehumanize inmates," Power said.
And from cell to cell, prisoner after prisoner told CTV Winnipeg they were voting Liberal, with no exceptions.
There's no question, Harper supports harsher policies for those who break the law. The Liberals are also promising tougher sentences for criminals, especially for violent and gun-related crimes. But the Tory platform -- and Harper's position against allowing prisoners to vote -- is what seems to have struck fear in inmates' hearts.
"No, I don't agree with prisoner voting," Harper has stated plainly.
At least one of his opponents feels differently.
"The courts don't sentence by taking away citizenship, and citizens have a right to vote in this country," said New Democrat Leader Jack Layton.
The 2004 election marked the first time inmates were allowed to cast a ballot, thanks to a 2002 Supreme Court of Canada decision that ruled it was contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to bar prisoners from voting.
Before the decision was made, prisoners serving sentences of two years or more were barred from voting. The court ruling gave all prisoners the right to vote regardless of the length of their sentence.
Today there are about 36,000 prisoners in jails across the nation and 25 per cent of them are expected to vote.
Like other Canadians, they have beliefs and ideals they want to defend with their vote.
"Myself, I have a family, I have children and grandchildren. So I'm really concerned about their futures," said Dennis Malcolm, a convicted murdered.
But not everyone agrees that prisoners should have the right to vote. Jack McLaughlin, a victims' rights advocate whose son was murdered in 2000, believes criminals forfeit some of the privileges of citizenship.
"Prisoners should not be allowed to vote. They must give up some privileges when they go to jail," McLaughlin told CTV Winnipeg.
For the moment though, every vote counts. And if the race remains close, those votes could play a vital role in electing the next government.
2006?!? It's 2008, moron - we're talking about this election, idiot. Damn, this is the best you can muster with your grade 6 education?
Besides, 25% of 36,000 will play an electoral role this time? Where? Sorry, Xerox, but where's the CURRENT info. I guess this is the best a stunned twit can offer - old Xerox, no analysis and no relevancy. The joke continues
Dayseed @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 3:36 pm
Hurley,
Over-react much? Firstly, what happens in our courts was never intended to be secret; they're meant to be as public and as transparent as possible. Publication gag orders only serve to protect criminals. When the names of the victims can't be released for fear of identifying who did the killing, it's shameful. According to you, it's better we don't know who among us has been murdered because there's the remote hope that some gang-banger can be reformed. Just tonight on City TV in Toronto, there was a mugshot of a 16 year old gang-banger wanted for murder along with his name because a judge allowed a 5 day publication of his name and identity. I could tell you, but I would have to come here and delete it tomorrow. What an awesome system this is.
Secondly, and more to the point, how many juevenile murderers have actually been reformed? NOBODY FUCKING KNOWS because their names are held in secret. All of these protective efforts could be amounting to a row of shit as violent criminals are unleashed on an unsuspecting public. The empirical evidence is that those people picked up by the police for one murder are already on bail or parole for another. Let's spot the under-18's a free murder, huh?
Allowing publication of car-thief kids isn't this horrible proposition you make it out to be. Why not introduce a little shame back into this world? Since it would be up to judicial discretion, a judge can decide if a youth would benefit from anonymity and reform initiatives or should be made to feel the shame he otherwise doesn't feel.
I'm going to guess neither of you live in Toronto, but it's a fucking shooting gallery here lately, and it isn't the over 50 crowd shooting all the guns. If we want people to take these laws seriously, there has to be some bite. If there are no consequences, people don't take social reforms seriously. Look no further than the anti-smoking crusade. The social stigmas coupled with hefty legal backing have curbed smoking to its lowest levels ever. If people just booed you for legally smoking at the mall, do you think we would have achieved the same success?
There's already social stigma for murder; let's have the law incorporate the same.
ziggy @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 3:40 pm
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
I'm not so sure about this one. Some kids just kinda grow out of being criminals.
I agree (ish) with the sentiment that there are a proportion of young offenders who are just on a rampage and could not give a shite about the system, but the other 90% of YO's never re-offend.
Shaming those who want to rehabilitate serves no purpose.
Maybe we could look at '3 serious offences and your name is released'?
That would be easy enough to administer and be fairer than naming and shaming for the first offence. 3 indictable offences is a fair target.
I agree (ish) with the sentiment that there are a proportion of young offenders who are just on a rampage and could not give a shite about the system, but the other 90% of YO's never re-offend.
Shaming those who want to rehabilitate serves no purpose.
Maybe we could look at '3 serious offences and your name is released'?
That would be easy enough to administer and be fairer than naming and shaming for the first offence. 3 indictable offences is a fair target.
Like Westman said,most of them are bragging about it in school,sometimes a bit of attention drawn to the parents might just make them think twice before they steal that next car and maybe kill someone.
Dad might just still have the woodshed and paddle laying around or at that age it might be a drive to the bush for some readin from the book.
Arctic_Menace @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 3:45 pm
All I have to say is: "Good!"
I remember being 14, and I knew exactly what I was doing.
EyeBrock @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 3:46 pm
So we can count on your vote AM?
Dayseed @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 3:47 pm
Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:
All I have to say is: "Good!"
I remember being 14, and I knew exactly what I was doing.
I remember being 14, and I knew exactly what I was doing.
There's footage from a Toronto Police surveillance camera made public, where three teens calmly walk up towards the person they shoot to death. Where's the "Duh, what's a murder??" in that one?
Excusing all teens from responsibility is just as stupid a policy as punishing all teens harshly. The option to dole it out on those teens that deserve it is sorely needed.
Arctic_Menace @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 3:57 pm
Well too fucking bad. Don't do truly stupid shit then.
and yes, I guess I should have been more clear. We should definately dole out serious punishment to the teens that deserve it.
Dayseed @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 4:01 pm
Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:
Well too fucking bad. Don't do truly stupid shit then.
and yes, I guess I should have been more clear. We should definately dole out serious punishment to the teens that deserve it.
and yes, I guess I should have been more clear. We should definately dole out serious punishment to the teens that deserve it.
I guess I should have been clearer too. I was agreeing with your sentiment that sometimes, 14 year olds DO know what they're doing. It's not that they don't understand the consequences, but it's because they don't give a shit ABOUT the consequences.
Regina @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 4:02 pm
Reverend Blair Reverend Blair:
If you read the analysis of the reports though, Regina, you find a couple of things. Youth crime is lower than at its peak, and it corresponds to an increase in the youth population, generally lagging behind that increase a little. So the population has increased more than the crime rate has. That's a net decrease.
The other thing you find when you start digging, and I encourage you to do this, is that increased social spending on everything from housing to literacy programs, job training and creation programs (and the higher paid the jobs, the more effect it has), and a bevy of other things has an impact on crime rates, including youth crime and violent crime.
Tossing people in jail or publishing their names in the papers does not have that effect. In the jurisdictions where that's been tried...and the US is the big one...it has failed.
The other thing you find when you start digging, and I encourage you to do this, is that increased social spending on everything from housing to literacy programs, job training and creation programs (and the higher paid the jobs, the more effect it has), and a bevy of other things has an impact on crime rates, including youth crime and violent crime.
Tossing people in jail or publishing their names in the papers does not have that effect. In the jurisdictions where that's been tried...and the US is the big one...it has failed.
I guess if you want to lump all crime into one and see how it looks then fine, but that would put murder on a statistical par with stealing gum. Violent crimes that include weapons were up 40% in that same time frame along with a 97% increase in drug offences. The young criminals in Canada have raised the bar and look to continue this trend. It appears the youth of today prefer to do drugs and kill people rather than steal the hub caps and cars.
------------------------------------------------
Youth accused of violent crimes account for nearly one-quarter of youth involved in crime
Over the previous 10 years, youth accused of violent offences and "other" Criminal Code offences, such as mischief, bail violations and disturbing the peace have constituted an increasing proportion of youth apprehended by police.
Among young people, the violent crime rate increased 12% during the same period, and since 1991, it has risen 30%. In comparison, the overall violent crime rate in Canada declined 4% between 1997 and 2006.
By 2006, youth accused of violent offences accounted for nearly one-quarter of all apprehended youth. Much of this increase in the rate of youth violent crime has been driven by an increase in youth involvement in assaults. Youth accused of assault represented nearly 80% of those apprehended for a violent crime in 2006. Most youth apprehended for assault were accused of common assault, the least serious form of this offence.
Keeping in mind that youth-perpetrated homicides are infrequent and that the rates can vary greatly from year to year, one of the largest increases in youth crime in the past decade has been in homicide rates, which have risen 41% since 1997.
Constituting a very small percentage (0.05%) of youth crime, homicides represented less than 1% of all violent crimes in which a weapon was present in 2006. About 44% of homicides committed by youth involved a knife, while 17% involved a firearm.
Overall, 84 young people, 72 boys and 12 girls, were implicated in 54 homicides in 2006. Just over one-half (52%) of homicides in which the accused was a youth involved multiple perpetrators, compared with only 15% of homicides that involved an adult accused.
Police reported evidence of gang involvement in 22% of homicides in which a youth was accused, versus 9% of homicides where adults were accused.
Reverend Blair @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 6:20 pm
$1:
Youth accused of violent crimes account for nearly one-quarter of youth involved in crime
See, I'm not sure where you grew up, but I see this more as a reporting issue than a change. Gang involvement is up, true...and it is a real problem...but the random beatings that everybody I knew when I was a teenager was involved in one way or another are now being reported and recorded. That just didn't happen 25 years ago. We'd kick the shit out of each other, then go home and heal for a week, then do it all over again the next weekend. It wasn't terribly intelligent, but then neither was getting drunk and crashing cars, which was our other main pastime...unless, of course, we could find somebody to have unprotected sex with.
You aren't that much older than I am Regina, you remember how it used to be, I'm sure. Nobody was keeping track though, not the way they do now.
Take away the offenses that don't include guns or knives and the rates drop off considerably.
The same can be said of sexual assaults. They didn't used to get reported because of the stigma attached. Women just didn't come forward and say they'd been raped because they'd be dragged through the mud in court. So it gets reported more now.
So the statistics are skewed to an extent.
Then there's gangs. We never had to deal with those, as a rule. That's where things are really rough now. My nephew, who went to school in small-town Saskatchewan, had a couple of convicted murderers in his class. Nice, eh?
Are they afraid of having their names in the paper? Nope. They were young offenders and their names weren't published and everybody in town knew what they did. It made them tough...somebody not to mess with.
Would putting them in prison have changed anything? Nope. First of all, they look at going to the PA pen as a badge of honour, second of all there are whole bunch of other kids who were involved with the same crimes and were never questioned, never mind charged or convicted. Everybody knew who they were too...they made sure of that.
So what's the solution? Naming them doesn't work. Locking them up doesn't work. They look at those things as proof of how cool and tough they are. Harper will helping them earn a rep.
We're back to social programs again. They work. It's slow and it's frustrating, but the social programs work. When you cut the programs things get worse, which has a whole lot to do with my nephew was sitting in class with convicted murderers.
ridenrain @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 7:05 pm
For example:
$1:
The 17-year-old boy convicted in the dragging death of Maple Ridge gas station attendant Grant De Patie has been sentenced to nine years in prison.
De Patie was dragged for more than seven km to his death under a stolen car last year after trying to stop the young driver from leaving the station without paying for $12.30 worth of gas.
The teen had been drinking heavily before he and friends stole the car, which was low on gas. They then went to the Esso station where De Patie was working to fill it up, and fled without paying.
Teen driver 'deeply sorry' for killing gas attendant
The young offender's identity had been under a publication ban during trial. But now he has been sentenced as an adult, his name can be released. He is 17-year-old Darnell Pratt.
De Patie was dragged for more than seven km to his death under a stolen car last year after trying to stop the young driver from leaving the station without paying for $12.30 worth of gas.
The teen had been drinking heavily before he and friends stole the car, which was low on gas. They then went to the Esso station where De Patie was working to fill it up, and fled without paying.
Teen driver 'deeply sorry' for killing gas attendant
The young offender's identity had been under a publication ban during trial. But now he has been sentenced as an adult, his name can be released. He is 17-year-old Darnell Pratt.
hurley_108 @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 7:46 pm
Dayseed, Ridenrain, EyeBrock, Arctic_Menace, and Westmanguy, let me put this question to you all:
If a 14-18 year-old is mature enough and cognizant enough to know that murder is wrong and thus worthy of having his or her name released as a matter of course, then why do we not allow 16-18 year-olds to vote? Why do we not allow them to drive? Why do we not allow them to gamble or watch R rated movies?
In short: Why is it the right thing to do to expect more responsibility of them but keep from them these privileges?
Zipperfish @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 7:59 pm
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
I'm not so sure about this one. Some kids just kinda grow out of being criminals.
I agree (ish) with the sentiment that there are a proportion of young offenders who are just on a rampage and could not give a shite about the system, but the other 90% of YO's never re-offend.
Shaming those who want to rehabilitate serves no purpose.
Maybe we could look at '3 serious offences and your name is released'?
That would be easy enough to administer and be fairer than naming and shaming for the first offence. 3 indictable offences is a fair target.
I agree (ish) with the sentiment that there are a proportion of young offenders who are just on a rampage and could not give a shite about the system, but the other 90% of YO's never re-offend.
Shaming those who want to rehabilitate serves no purpose.
Maybe we could look at '3 serious offences and your name is released'?
That would be easy enough to administer and be fairer than naming and shaming for the first offence. 3 indictable offences is a fair target.
I was one of those for which a second or third chance actually worked. I was a hellion as a teenager, but snapped out of it around 18. On the other hand, I imagine being in the paper for stealing cars at 15 would have been a badge of honour for me. "Hey look guys, I'm in the paper." Would have mortifed my poor mum, though.
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 10 Next