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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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...

 

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?

 

.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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!

 

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......

 

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?

 

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?

 

Where do we draw the line then?

Certainly not at 17 for a murderer.

 

'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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Or does this just make me a bleeding heart?

Yep.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

That's too confusing.

 

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

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

Some may find this interesting.

 

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.

 

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.