Canadian Mac Forums at ehMac banner
1 - 20 of 88 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
470 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
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. :mad:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
23,459 Posts
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,903 Posts
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
23,459 Posts
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...

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...

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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,798 Posts
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?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
23,459 Posts
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...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,798 Posts
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...
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
23,459 Posts
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?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,427 Posts
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...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,903 Posts
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?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
23,459 Posts
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
835 Posts
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?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,050 Posts
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
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,903 Posts
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
31,013 Posts
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.
 

·
Resident Curmudgeon
Joined
·
86,940 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,798 Posts
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!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
31,013 Posts
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......
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
15,709 Posts
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?
 
1 - 20 of 88 Posts
Top