Down by the River Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Frist degree murder charges are typically, but not necessarily, indicative of pre-meditation. Murder that occurs in the commission of another offence (such as sexual assault, kidnapping, etc.) can result in first degree murder charges. Since the Crown is suggesting there was no prior relation between victim and accused, it is not likely the offence was premeditated. It is possible that other charges are forthcoming (such as sexual assault) which substantiates the first degree murder charges. Also, for those who think Not Criminally Responsible due to Mental Disorder (NCRMD) means that the individual will escape 'punishment', they are incorrect. While they may not be incarcerated, they will be admitted to a type of institution with their stay there may be indeterminate. Indeterminate sentencing is significantly more harsh than a determinate sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ocular Patdown Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 http://www.vancouver...3622/story.html No way.. this is unbelievable.. this sick bastards only getting 6 years of prison. He's caused Delta an entire lifetime of pain, and all he's receiving is 6 years, and 4 years of supervised release. This just pisses me off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiburon Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 As for his name, everyone here in Delta already knows who it is since it's such a close community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 They're just simply stating what the maximum a youth can receive in terms of jail time. Once convicted under these terms, you can bet the Crown will submit an application to receive an adult charge ie: 25 years prison with eligibility of parole after 25. As for his name, everyone here in Delta already knows who it is since it's such a close community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down by the River Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 The Crown has already stated its intention to seek an adult sentence. In this case since murder is one of the presumptive offences, the accused will have the burden of proving why an adult sentence should not be imposed and persuade the court that a youth sentence will be sufficient to hold the youth accountable. Ultimately the decision will be in the hands of the sentencing judge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 As for his name, everyone here in Delta already knows who it is since it's such a close community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 The reverse onus clause of the presumptive offence section of the YCJA was struck down by R.v. D(B.). I'm paraphrasing, but using quotation tags for formatting purposes Bala, N., Carrington, P., & Roberts, J. (2009). Evaluating the YCJA after five years: A Qualified Success. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, pp. 132-167. Cesaroni, C., & Bala, N. (2008). Deterrence as a principle of youth Sentencing: No effect on youth, but a significant effect on judges. Queens Law Journal 34, pp. 447-482. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 It is unlawful under the Youth Criminal Justice Act for any person to publish his name or any identifying information as he was under 18 at the time of the alleged offence. Identity of offender not to be published 110. (1) Subject to this section, no person shall publish the name of a young person, or any other information related to a young person, if it would identify the young person as a young person dealt with under this Act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Don't think it really matters on the sentence length in this case. That dad is so pissed off. I don't think that kid stands a chance once he's out. Her dad is friends with some hells angels members on top of that, right? yup, he's screwed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 What are the odds there's HA types already in jail with nothing better to do but get revenge for a friend of the crew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Ya but can't individuals tell each other to their hearts content? So no you can't put it on here as this is the public, but you could simply email the name to one person if you want can't you? In the battle of the government trying to withhold information (right or wrong) vs. the internet at the end of the day the internet is going to win..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarvis Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Since e-mail is not considered a secure means of communication, who knows what a court might rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brahma Bull Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 What are the odds there's HA types already in jail with nothing better to do but get revenge for a friend of the crew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Since e-mail is not considered a secure means of communication, who knows what a court might rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverpig Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 And if published it would be unlawful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 E-mail wouldn't stand as evidence, would it? You can deny it. It's still very hard for the courts to use internet documents or communication as actual evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Since it's not secure how would the court know it was even you that sent it?] I don't think the courts are going to chase down people that are effectively using modern word of mouth. Life sucks if you spend all your time worrying about what MIGHT get you into trouble, especially when common sense tells you that it won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarvis Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 E-mails are used as evidence every day in the courts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Yes, but you're able to deny that it was sent by you. IP addresses are not sufficient evidence of involvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pimpcurtly Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Insanity plea won't work if it's believed that the murder was pre-meditated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.