aGENT Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Yay, another racism thread! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 My family is Ukrainian- Jewish, guess I can go to Germany and steal a bunch of things because they were persecuted in 1941. Yes, because that is exactly the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down by the River Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 My family is Ukrainian- Jewish, guess I can go to Germany and steal a bunch of things because they were persecuted in 1941. Based on your analogy, I'd say that you'd likely be found not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armada Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Really? That's quite a sweeping generalization. - So a poor single mother caught stealing to try to feed her kid should be punished the same as anyone else who steals? - A man driving his pregnant wife to the hospital should get the same fine as anyone else who is speeding? A crime can be an example of greed and disrespect by an individual fully aware of such, in which case it should be judged harshly. The punishment should demonstrate that such behaviour will not be tolerated, and give the perpetrator (and any other logical person considering doing the same) a substantial deterrent for offending in the future. But in reality, there are a multitude of other circumstances that can affect a person's judgement and drive them to criminal behaviour. Most people recognize that a child should not be charged the same as an adult, because they don't have the mental and emotional makeup to take full responsibility for their actions. And yet, a person subjected to years of abuse may in fact be more like a child than a fully-functioning adult. Then there's a whole other angle of what a sentence should really be accomplishing. Is incarcerating a girl subjected to abuse, who for the first time lashed out with a grave error, yet really wants to change and is willing to take steps to do so, really in the best interest of anyone? Will locking her up with hardened criminals for years make her a better contributor to society? This girl isn't getting off easy 'because of her native heritage' - she's simply having her circumstances realized and used to shape her sentence. And, unfortunately, abuse is a common circumstance among Native communities. So you're saying its justifiable if you're poor then you can steal to survive from someone who's making a living through his or her business and face a smaller consequence? Or because your wife is pregnant and you didn't call an ambulance, its okay to possibly ruin a family's life by maybe killing someone's dad or mom? There are alternative's to both of those problems. A crime is a crime. I don't understand how we could defend this man because of his background. The purpose of the justice system isn't just punishment. Other important goals include rehabilitation, and deterrence. Agreed but then shouldn't we put him through the same rehabilitation then everyone else? What if one person has a severe mental disorder and the other person had greater control over their actions? Should they bear the same responsibility? What if one person was born FASD? Through no decision of their own they spend life with very poor executive functioning. Should they be sentenced the same way as say, a gang member? Should we punish the 14 year old, whose brain will require another 10 years to fully mature, the same way we punish a 40 year old? I would say this a unique situation. What kind of crime are we talking about here? If they are deemed mentally unfit then they should be sent to the right institution for care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disaronno Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tre Mac Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 The purpose of the justice system isn't just punishment. Other important goals include rehabilitation, and deterrence. How is deterrence going to be effective when one knows that they will receive less punishment, or no punishment, then the average person for the same crime? Same with rehabilitation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down by the River Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 So you're saying its justifiable if you're poor then you can steal to survive from someone who's making a living through his or her business and face a smaller consequence? Or because your wife is pregnant and you didn't call an ambulance, its okay to possibly ruin a family's life by maybe killing someone's dad or mom? There are alternative's to both of those problems. A crime is a crime. I don't understand how we could defend this man because of his background. Agreed but then shouldn't we put him through the same rehabilitation then everyone else? I would say this a unique situation. What kind of crime are we talking about here? If they are deemed mentally unfit then they should be sent to the right institution for care. About 20% of the prison population has a serious mental disorder, so having a mental disorder doesn't mean you will be found NCRMD. In fact, very few individuals with a mental disorder are not responsible for their crimes. So, a large number of the mentally disordered population will end up being found guilty of their crimes. These individuals knew what they were doing was against the law, or at least ought to have known, but did it any way. The question though, is whether their ability to make decisions is bounded by their limited capacity to process information in the same way most people can. If we think the answer is yes, then we consider their mental disorder a mitigating factor when sentencing them. Same thing with people who grew up in a family characterized by an intergenerational transmission of violence/abuse/drugs/alcohol. Someone growing up in such an environment is less likely to develop the types of skills needed to function on a day-to-day basis. Aboriginal people are more likely to grow up in such an environment, hence the specific sentencing guidelines. Don't fret though, an Aboriginal man with a relatively normative upbringing who kills, rapes, etc. is not going to get a light sentence. A judge can decide that their Aboriginal background should not justify a lesser sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down by the River Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 How is deterrence going to be effective when one knows that they will receive less punishment, or no punishment, then the average person for the same crime? Same with rehabilitation? The thing is though, deterrence doesn't really work on anyone other than the people who are unlikely to commit a crime in the first place. Some evidence of this: studies have looked at homicide rates before and after states have implemented the death penalty. Homicide rates did not go down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unknown33429 Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Agreed but then shouldn't we put him through the same rehabilitation then everyone else? No, because rehabilitation for some might be medication, rehabilitation for other might be long term psychological help, rehabilitations for others can be simply help in improving social skills that help them deal with certain situations. All of these types of programs are generally available to offenders. If one person needs medication to reintegrate into society, it may not make sense to incarcerate them for a long period of time. The thing is though, deterrence doesn't really work on anyone other than the people who are unlikely to commit a crime in the first place. Some evidence of this: studies have looked at homicide rates before and after states have implemented the death penalty. Homicide rates did not go down. That just means that the death penalty is not a more effective deterrence than life imprisonment; it does not mean deterrence doesn't work. All criminal justice system incorporates deterrence to some extent. The fact you are likely to go to prison for something does reduce the likelihood of a person doing something. How is deterrence going to be effective when one knows that they will receive less punishment, or no punishment, then the average person for the same crime? Same with rehabilitation? It's still a deterrent. People aren't going to commit crimes if they spend relatively less time than a person of a different race. The point I was making is that it's not just about punishment. Rehabilitation should be self explanatory. If someone is a criminal despite being extremely bright and having great social skills, then it will take longer to rehabilitate them than someone who just needs to be on medication for some type of mental disability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Nice to see that at least a few people are thinking rationally, rather than taking the race bait. (D-Money, DBTR and of course, Warhippy) I suggest people actually look past the sensationalist "Lesser sentence because of heritage" and see the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 My family is Ukrainian- Jewish, guess I can go to Germany and steal a bunch of things because they were persecuted in 1941. you don't have to go to Germany when you can get vengence against Canada for this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Canadian_internmen The Ukrainian Canadian internment was part of the c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 How is deterrence going to be effective when one knows that they will receive less punishment, or no punishment, then the average person for the same crime? Same with rehabilitation? It just is. Special treatment under the law creates equality. Don't argue.. just listen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Reverse discrimination at its finest. Nah, 2 tier citizenship that's all. Oh....did I post that in the wrong thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Nah, 2 tier citizenship that's all. Oh....did I post that in the wrong thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awalk Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Nah, 2 tier citizenship that's all. Oh....did I post that in the wrong thread? hahahah I found it funny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockout Casualty Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Nah, 2 tier citizenship that's all. Oh....did I post that in the wrong thread? This story is going to get blown out of proportion because CBC purposefully chose to present just the right amount of detail to get people pissed off, but not enough detail to understand the decision. S. 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code REQUIRES the judge to consider the individual's aboriginal heritage as part of their sentencing decision. The law is not "you must give an Aboriginal person a lighter sentence". The judge could have given the offender a sentence equal to that of a white person. The purpose of the law is to ensure that things like systemic abuse, alcoholism, poverty, etc., in the family of origin are taken into consideration. Guess what? The same factors are also considered mitigating factors for a white person, a black person, an Asian person, etc. If a white person who commits a crime comes from a family background characterized by systemic abuse and poverty, these circumstances will likely be considered mitigating factors at sentencing. The law is simply meant to enforce judge's consideration of Aboriginal-specific mitigating factors. EDIT; BUT, if a judge isn't very articulate, or lazy, s/he may simply decide to award a more lenient sentence simply because of skin colour. This is not the purpose of the law. Hey, at least you got some internet points for making a joke, even if it misrepresents the situation for laughs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Sikes Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 The thing is though, deterrence doesn't really work on anyone other than the people who are unlikely to commit a crime in the first place. Some evidence of this: studies have looked at homicide rates before and after states have implemented the death penalty. Homicide rates did not go down. But repeat offenders did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slegr Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 To the OP, the article says "CBC also notes that Judge Harris referred to the recent Truth and Reconciliation Report depicting years of “cultural genocide” as well as Vanichuk’s “broken, addicted family” as reasons why the defendant is also a victim of abuse." The judge would have heard the defendant and made this assessment. It's unfortunate that you and some others who have commented on this thread do not realize the modern day affects of this cultural genocide. Many Aboriginal Canadians were raised by abusive parents, or grew up in government care as a result of policies, law and racism that ran rampant (and still continues, even within this thread). Many Canadians are just learning about the horrors of residential schools because our own education system ignored a real history. Probably most who read this thread have no idea what Indian hospitals were, yet we had them in BC. (And many Aboriginal Canadians who were forced to go to an Indian hospital never made it out.) Those who have lived a life of privilege have done so at the expense of others in this province. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webster6 Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 Yeah I think I'm just gonna back away from this display of fireworks. New thread please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeremyCuddles Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 As an Aboriginal myself I think this is stupid. She gets off lighter because she is Aboriginal? Makes us seem like savages. "Oh she's Aboriginal? Rioting is just what they do. Let her off easy." Not to mention as a Canucks fan she brought shame to us as a whole. Hit her with the full force of the law dammit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.