Robert Pickton. Serial killer. Fed women to pigs. Convicted of...2nd degree murder

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by Asher

This has happened -- Canada keeps them.

Nope. And the guy had fled to Calgary, no less.

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Asher is not entirely correct.

We sent Charles Ng back knowing that the DP was in his furture.

DAmn it!


Sorry! The administrator has specified that users can only post one message every 30 seconds.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You do realize that the DP costs more than merely keeping a man in prison for life in the US right?

Only because we're squeemish about it and loons with more money than sense bring in fat cat lawyers to fight DP sentences. We had a case here in Augusta with a serial killer whose $1M DP sentence defense was paid for by some anti-DP group. He got life.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Richelieu
Nope. And the guy had fled to Calgary, no less.

It took Calgary mall security guards (at my local mall) to catch the guy the yanks couldn't.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Richelieu
Nope. And the guy had fled to Calgary, no less.

So the US doesn't really have to drop the DP for fugitives in Canada orwas this a unique case in Canadian law?

[Asher]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
So the US doesn't really have to drop the DP for fugitives in Canada orwas this a unique case in Canadian law?

The supreme court has ruled that Canada cannot deport criminals facing the death penalty, except in "exceptional circumstances" -- which are, in true Canadian fashion, not defined.

In this case, it was a serial killer with a mountain of evidence including videotapes of the serial killer committing his crimes. Plus, he had shoplifted and therefore deserved to die anyway.

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by Asher

The supreme court has ruled that Canada cannot deport criminals facing the death penalty, except in "exceptional circumstances" -- which are, in true Canadian fashion, not defined.

Another "notwithstanding" clause perhaps? Man, this country is ****ed up.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Wezil



Our new government seems to be waffling on this now. There is currently a dirtbag Cdn facing the DP in (I believe) North Dakota. The Harper Tories are making no effort on his behalf. Where they hope to go with this and how our courts will react is not clear.

I wouldn't understand why Harper would want to raise this issue even though it is somewhat popular. (IIRC Canadians poll as being somewhat in favor of the DP) But it strikes me as an issue that would cause people to see Harper as being even more right wing so even if a majority supported his action on the issue, it might overall hurt his popularity.

I cannot see the courts getting involved at all in what government does or does not do with respect to people convicted in DP cases in other jurisdictions. The courts have no power to effectively extend protections to persons not in Canadian custody. So what would they do ?-- dictate what foreign policy steps a government must take? That seems too interventionsist even for the canadian SCC

[Flubber]

Originally posted by notyoueither


No. We have Dangerous Offender status.

Indefinite incarceration.

NYE

WE have both-- Dangerous offender status has nothing to do with concurrent or consecutive sentences.

Personally I hate concurrent sentences and have never understood the logic-- " I convict you of 27 counts of break and enter and sentence you to 4 months on each count-- to be served concurrently" -- So the crook serves 4 months.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Flubber


I wouldn't understand why Harper would want to raise this issue even though it is somewhat popular. (IIRC Canadians poll as being somewhat in favor of the DP) But it strikes me as an issue that would cause people to see Harper as being even more right wing so even if a majority supported his action on the issue, it might overall hurt his popularity.

I cannot see the courts getting involved at all in what government does or does not do with respect to people convicted in DP cases in other jurisdictions. The courts have no power to effectively extend protections to persons not in Canadian custody. So what would they do ?-- dictate what foreign policy steps a government must take? That seems too interventionsist even for the canadian SCC

I hear you. There is little political gain in fighting for that sort of dirtbag.

It is a matter of consistency however. A punishment our courts have deemed a violation of human rights would be so no matter where it is administered.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Flubber
Personally I hate concurrent sentences and have never understood the logic-- " I convict you of 27 counts of break and enter and sentence you to 4 months on each count-- to be served concurrently" -- So the crook serves 4 months.

You pay for the most serious offence. The rest are "freebies" (except of course at parole time...). It is absurd.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Flubber


NYE

WE have both-- Dangerous offender status has nothing to do with concurrent or consecutive sentences.

Personally I hate concurrent sentences and have never understood the logic-- " I convict you of 27 counts of break and enter and sentence you to 4 months on each count-- to be served concurrently" -- So the crook serves 4 months.

Can you show us a case that drew consecutive sentences?

And I didn't say they were related.

I mentioned what the Canadian justice system uses to throw away the key.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Wezil


You pay for the most serious offence. The rest are "freebies" (except of course at parole time...). It is absurd.

yup

[Flubber]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Can you show us a case that drew consecutive sentences?

And I didn't say they were related.

I mentioned what the Canadian justice system uses to throw away the key.

OK-- oh this backgrounder indicates for murderers we are not as easygoing as some people seem to believe

http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/news/nr/2005/doc_31690.html

In comparison to most other Western democracies, sentences of imprisonment in Canada are lengthy and have been increasing in recent years. A 1999 international comparison of the average time served in custody by an offender on a life sentence for first degree murder shows that Canada exceeds the average time served in all countries surveyed including the United States , with the exception of U.S. offenders serving life sentences without benefit of parole.

Average Time Spent in Custody

Australia 14.8 years United States life without parole 29 years
Belgium 12.7 years United States life with parole 18.5 years
England 14.4 years
New Zealand 11 years
Scotland 11.2 years Canada 28.4 years
Sweden 12 years

Consecutive sentences are not precluded at all-- and they are used in lesser offences -- see the CC at s 718 which confirms their applicability

§ 718.2: A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:



(c) where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh;

But for some reason in murder cases it seems like its always concurrent-- I think there might be a rule against consecutive lif sentences but am not sure. Perhaps their theory is that after 25 years things should be left to the parole board no matter how many people get killed. IT does SOUND odd to say that someone gets consecutive 'life" sentences. BUt since life does not really mean life perhaps judges should have a "No parole EVER" option for folks like Pickton


It seems that the debate now in Canada is about having mandatory minimums or mandatory consecutive sentences for certain crimes.

[Wezil]

I'm not a fan of mandatory minimums (cookie cutter justice) but I do favour consecutive sentences.