Canadian senator recommends giving murderers rope inside their prison cells

Status
Not open for further replies.
I definitely feel for him, he suffered a horrible loss. Does anyone know more about how his daughter died and who killed her?
 
It saddens me to see our neighbors in the north becoming more and more batshit insane like us.

fa4lv.jpg
 
If the senator was really worried about wasting money we could always dissolve the senate and save ourselves 100 million a year. Then we could put that money into projects that are worthwhile and actually do something (maybe).
 
Original article said:
“That’s not my call. I think he is a significant asset to the committee in terms of representing the concerns of the victims of crime. He has a huge credibility in Quebec, especially with respect to the tragedy that befell his family and the loss of his daughter,” Runciman said. “So, I think he’s a valuable member of the committee.”

No he doesn't.

People here just know he's batshit insane and went insane because his daughter was killed by a repeat offender.

Yeah, people feel bad for him, but it doesn't make him credible (he's always saying these insane things).
 
If the senator was really worried about wasting money we could always dissolve the senate and save ourselves 100 million a year. Then we could put that money into projects that are worthwhile and actually do something (maybe).

We should also break away from the Monarchy and save ourselves even more.

I don't know, traditions are hard to break. And I much prefer an elected senate serving 10 year terms as the reflective body that slows down any populist mob driven reforms from the house with perhaps equal representation by province.

They'd also be less prone to being voted out by waves and the political fortunes of certain parties in fickle provinces like Quebec.

As for the this senator's comment, it's kind of sad what happened to him, and I do believe being the victim of a repeat offender does give a person some insight but this particular suggestion verges on being punitive. And it's completely against what our justice system is about.
 
No he doesn't.

People here just know he's batshit insane and went insane because his daughter was killed by a repeat offender.

Yeah, people feel bad for him, but it doesn't make him credible (he's always saying these insane things).

What other crazy stuff has he said? Also sometimes extreme grief can cause you to say extreme things, it doesn't necessarily mean that you are insane. Frankly I'm someone who is on the victims rights side of things and support the death penalty for heinous murders like the one committed on his daughter, so I am a bit biased.
 
A man who is still grieving for a lost daughter should not be appointed to anything, least of all the Canadian Senate. It's even richer that he's sitting on the Crime Bill committee which intends to imprision more people and hand out longer sentences.

Axe to grind much, eh buddy?
 
A man who is still grieving for a lost daughter should not be appointed to anything, least of all the Canadian Senate. It's even richer that he's sitting on the Crime Bill committee which intends to imprision more people and hand out longer sentences.

Axe to grind much, eh buddy?

The Canadian senate rubber stamps legistation. They sit in committees and go on fact finding missions.

It's not a very important post politically. Senators have traditionally not been immune for speaking their minds, precisely because the post is relatively meaningless in terms of policy. It's a quirk that I don't mind, until of course they can reform it or eliminate it entirely.
 
One could argue less murderers = more life. Crazy hey.

Our system is already pathetically favouring the criminals, heaven forbid victims get some justice.

Wa ... What?
Maybe you are talking about Canada, in which case I'm ignorant. But if you are talking about Amerca you are crazy.

Also, fun fact- murderers are the least likely of offenders to be recidivist, repeat offenders!
 
That's dumb.

Open prisoner's cell while he's sleeping, two or three guards hold him down while another guard chokes him out with the noose. Hang up his corpse.

"Oh well, I guess he just killed himself then."
I'm pretty sure you can detect that in a medical exam...

I guess somebody doesn't see prison as a source of rehabilitation.

Did you not read the article at all, he says that this should be an option for people who are beyond rehabilitation, which like it or not, those people exists.

Some people just simply cannot be rehabilitated, serial murderers are the first to come into mind. What does society have to gain by locking these people up indefinitely, for decades on end at huge expense? Maybe death isn't the right option, but at least do something with them. Force these people to give back to society in some way or another. Need to send someone into unknown space? Why not pull out a serial-killer? I've sure science has plenty of usage for living humans that are beyond the point of anything morally human.
 
This is why people who've experienced a heart-wrenching personal tragedy shouldn't be in positions to make decisions that deal with the consequences of those tragedies.

This is why people who haven't experienced a heart-wrenching personal tragedy should not decide how to punish someone.
 
I see nothing wrong with them being given the chance to end their lives. They should be able to come up with a more efficient and humane way than hanging though.
 
This is why people who haven't experienced a heart-wrenching personal tragedy should not decide how to punish someone.

There's a reason the justice system doesn't work like that.

I think the idea is insane. Can you imagine how much pressure this would put on the guards? They would basically have to stand by and watch someone hang him/herself.

Also, offering lifers the chance to hang themselves because of economic reasons is borderline psychopathic.
 
This is why people who haven't experienced a heart-wrenching personal tragedy should not decide how to punish someone.

Punishment should not be based on emotion and a desire for revenge. It's supposed to be rational, impartial, and intended to keep people safe.
 
I'm pretty sure you can detect that in a medical exam...



Did you not read the article at all, he says that this should be an option for people who are beyond rehabilitation, which like it or not, those people exists.

Some people just simply cannot be rehabilitated, serial murderers are the first to come into mind. What does society have to gain by locking these people up indefinitely, for decades on end at huge expense? Maybe death isn't the right option, but at least do something with them. Force these people to give back to society in some way or another. Need to send someone into unknown space? Why not pull out a serial-killer? I've sure science has plenty of usage for living humans that are beyond the point of anything morally human.

I dunno, it just seems to me like it's more like society is encouraging murderers to kill themselves in a "society no longer wants you or has use for you" way, which doesn't really seem to do much to encourage those who don't kill themselves to be more positively active in society if they do get out.


Not to mention how many real prison murders would be covered up if you gave everybody nooses.
 
What happens when an innocent person ends up committing suicide with it, after not being able to handle prison?
 
Why would criminals need a rope? Criminals in the Canadian justice system have it so easy. You can murder a few people and get out in 10 and have 3 hots and a cot every day.
 
I dunno, it just seems to me like it's more like society is encouraging murderers to kill themselves in a "society no longer wants you or has use for you" way, which doesn't really seem to do much to encourage those who don't kill themselves to be more positively active in society if they do get out.

Yeah, but my argument and certainly this senators argument, is that there are people, who will never contribute positively to society in any intentional way. Some people are just pure evil, they won't ever change, all they will do is hurt others. What do you do with those?

I'm saying killing them seems a waste when scientific, and especially medical research, has plenty of uses for living human specimens.

I would say, instead of the death penalty, if someone is found absolutely 100% guilty of a very heinous crime, they their punishment should be to forfeit their life to science. If you've murdered something or a string of people, your debt to society should be repayed by being a tool to help cure cancer or aids.
 
Wa ... What?
Maybe you are talking about Canada, in which case I'm ignorant. But if you are talking about Amerca you are crazy.

Also, fun fact- murderers are the least likely of offenders to be recidivist, repeat offenders!

Yes, I was reading an article on this in the Edmonton Journal about the so-called "Lifers" (ie. murders) who got parole after serving time. Most of them are actually fairly active citizens after years and years, but are still monitored by their parole officers.

Most people don't realize that repeat offenders are usually in-and-out of prisons because their sentences are served concurrently. Add to the fact that these crimes (ie. assault, theft, etc) have relatively short sentences, they're back out on the streets faster (ie. less rehabilitation) to commit more crimes.
 
Why would criminals need a rope? Criminals in the Canadian justice system have it so easy. You can murder a few people and get out in 10 and have 3 hots and a cot every day.

Could you cite your sources please? I'm really interested in hearing about a person who's murdered one person, let alone more and get out in 10 years....

edit; I found an interesting article from December 2010.... now, is this sentence the norm here in Canada? I'd think not... >_>
 
What happens when an innocent person ends up committing suicide with it, after not being able to handle prison?

Well, I don't think denying them the right to end their life is the answer. Innocent people in prison is always a shitty situation.
 
Well, I don't think denying them the right to end their life is the answer. Innocent people in prison is always a shitty situation.

Jailed innocents will always be a fact of our antagonistic justice system compared to the investigatory systems in some parts of Europe. Evidence is presented and argued.
 
Jailed innocents will always be a fact of our antagonistic justice system compared to the investigatory systems in some parts of Europe. Evidence is presented and argued.
why is it that there's always some unspecified system in europe that's better than ours but no one actually specifically mentions what and why
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom