"Should courts be able to impose a life sentence on a 14-year-old convicted of murder?"
9/23/2008 04:00:00 pm
The Red Star has the same question, opposite result as of 4:30 pm
I find polls like this to be overly simplistic and pointless.One could argue either way case by case.To say "Yes" would count against the possibility for such a person to ever be able to make up or recompense for their acts in a productive manner.To say "NO" would also be counting against the rare instances where you have an autistic 14 year old genius, who commits a heinous act and has shown no remorse or has proven incapable of living amongst the rest of us, But can still contribute to society by other means.(Though, I wouldn't suggest the current "prison" system as it stands.)These aren't really arguments to sway someone to think one way or the other, but to give you an small idea of how "grayish" things can be.And that a simple 'yes' or 'no' doesn't suffice.I could of thought up better examples to use, but I'm counting on anyone who reads this to use their imagination.Personally, I feel the prison system needs to be overhauled and with emphasis on rehabilitation of those who display the potential of being able to come back into society and lead productive lives.Separate the 'dangerous' from the 'crazies' and the 'misguided' from the 'delinquents' and etc, so they aren't disrupting/influencing each others behaviors.I'm sure the Conservatives (here) will work something out thats both humane and sensible while striking the right balance between setting examples through punitive measures, while given plenty of opportunity/re-education to rehabilitate those who wish/able to start over. Reasonably balanced amount of hard labour for those who continually refuse? Solitude for those too dangerous to participate?Possible death penalty for those who knowingly and willingly violate the rights of others in a sadistic fashion? I also think crime needs to be struck at its primary sources (greed/poverty/impulse) to avoid its own perpetuity.This shouldn't be boiled down to "Right or Left" thinking or 'yes' or 'no' questions.These are very grey issues.However. Convicted pedophiles should be dealt with harshly.Anyone who physically/sexually tortures a child should be denied all rights, even life. Such ones forfeit their right to "rehabilitation".No "impulsive" excuse or claim of insanity could justify such actions. The so called "Liberals" have been faaaar to lenient and have essentially promoted it given their lack of judgment or respect for victims in regards to such matters. Yet another reason why no one should be voting "Liberal" this time around.
tao_taierThe question is SHOULD courts be able to impose a life sentence on a 14 year old.If you think that there would NEVER be a case in which a 14 year old was considered by the courts as unlikely to rehabilitate, answer no because there is no need for the courts to have this power.If you think there might me such a case, answer yes and give the courts that option.doug newton
Welcome to Canada where our justice system has been replaced with a "Rehabilitation System" without public approval. Yep the Penal System is dead and now the social tinkers can rehabilitate hardcore killers with bingo and game boy. Thank you leftards for destroying another brick in the foundation of this country. At the rate they are going we'll be holding parades for rapist and pedophiles.
*here's a thought, folks... let's meet in the middle.i'll ease up on life for a first murder... but you agree a second killing means "thug x" absolutely... no ifs, ands or buts... has to ride the needle.that work for everybody?p.s. -- tao... thoughtful thesis... but do you actually have a murder involving an autistic 14 year old genius... or you just pulled that one outta thin air?'cos... and i know these are fightin' words... that's what steffi does.*
Thank you for that, doug newton, but my point was that polls like these dumb down the issues into 'yes or no' terms. Least thats how I look at it.I would say 'Yes' since the whole point of judges is that they have a wide range of options for which they may use for sentencing.If they didn't have such options on hand, they would have less means to determine for themselves-(as that IS there job after all)-what would be considered an appropriate measure for them to deal with such an issue, in the rare case it may ever come up or be necessary.Leaving it to them to shift through the grey.Judges showing judgment as in discernment of the particular case before them and not just the means of punishment. What I was saying to balance that is Life sentence should be a more flexible term than what it is given. I'm sure by what the conservatives mean by Life sentence is that they mean separate from productive society as in not quite prison but something between that and a boarding school perhaps? minus any interaction with fellow inmates or minimal? or based off good/consistent behavior?With psychologist and individual therapy and the like.I don't know. I just throw these ideas out there to get people thinking.Life does only mean 25 years in canada, as far as I know or remember. right?neo conservative,Yes, I did. It was a fictional scenario.Nothing is out side the realm of possibility.I wasn't trying to be funny, if anyone had thought it.I don't expect a death penalty in this country except for extreme or creepy circumstances.Those unnatural situations.Rather then those common, "eye-for-an-eye" mindset, which is still wrong but if a person can still be changed to think otherwise.There should always be some level hard labour, I would think. Giving a person a sense of purpose and achievement after awhile may get them to learn how to appreciate things. Perhaps?
*"tao says... Yes, I did. It was a fictional scenario. Nothing is out side the realm of possibility."too true, tao... david suzuki and his "house full of penguins commercial" illustrates that very point quite nicely.*
Public guillotining! For lefties, they use the dull blade so they have to chop again and again.
Wow, anonymous is on a roll today Neo!I agree that there ought to be a sentencing option available. And Tao, there are other options available already. There are first and second degree murder (premeditated versus not), manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc. Adding the ability to sentence for life on MURDER is important. You cannot tell me that, unless the teen is severely mentally ill or disabled that a 14 or 15 year old doesn't know it is wrong to kill another person, whether for revenge, gain, or for pleasure.
*"kai says... Wow, anonymous is on a roll today Neo!"i remember when i was younger... my pesky little brother used to try follow me around just like this. poor nonny... i guess he just feels frightened and alone... well, except, of course, for his best buddy red tory.*
I was thinking they should add levels of brutality into consideration as an extra variable to determine the sentencing/treatment.Or do they do that already..? I think I was wrong about the Life sentence length being 25 years. I think its 10 here.Which makes sense when applied to youth, since thats a lot of lost time. I don't think they should be letting people go just for serving their time while not actually being rehabilitated. I stand by what I said regarding the death penalty for pedophiles. I can't believe some of them have been allowed house arrest. What a joke.There was a macleans article awhile back that talked about how flawed the Liberal legislation was in dealing with tracking them and informing the public. It went into some really--really troubling details.It boggles the mind that the liberals are still being supported at all. People need to get their heads straight.
Post a Comment