Corporal Punishment
- Thread starter Infanteer
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 903
- Points
- 1,060
And ... when i say blog, i don't mean one like this: http://www.amyboyer.org/liamsite.htm. Make sure you enter the site, and read all of it.
Nothing on the site is fake - see the disclaimer.
What punishment should Liam recieve, if he was still alive? What about the SOB ISP provider who let him post the trash in the above website? Should the ISP be held liable, criminal or civi liability? What about the private detective/docusearch company who provided the victims information? How wide should the net be cast?
Nothing on the site is fake - see the disclaimer.
What punishment should Liam recieve, if he was still alive? What about the SOB ISP provider who let him post the trash in the above website? Should the ISP be held liable, criminal or civi liability? What about the private detective/docusearch company who provided the victims information? How wide should the net be cast?
- Reaction score
- 903
- Points
- 1,060
Got no heartburn what so ever ... I see worse than that every day. And again, while I agree with some of the substance of your post, the form is piss poor. For example, your comment that society produced Clifford Olsen and Paul Bernardo is overbroad, and casts society into the same pot as those types of deviants with no elaboration or sophistication what so ever. WTF?? You must be referring to a different society of "sane" Canadians than most belong to...
As far as Mike etc., don't look to this call sign to jack you up on that, 'cause it would never happen. Then again, you took ownership for your post, so I agree that it is "buyer beware."
As far as Mike etc., don't look to this call sign to jack you up on that, 'cause it would never happen. Then again, you took ownership for your post, so I agree that it is "buyer beware."
- Reaction score
- 9,198
- Points
- 1,260
No one ever loved Marauder for his poetic abilites; that is my forte. 
To deflect any hard feelings, I'll put this one on track again with a question that a few of you may have a good answer for.
What has led to the state of the prison system that exists today? Is the lighthanded nature that most average citizens seem to disapprove of wrapped up in various pieces of government legislation (tied to the Charter?) or is it due to a certain mindset that has overtaken senior officials with Corrections, one that has a strong aversion to any advocacy of tougher measures and those who would support them.
Or is it a completely different origin? I'm interested to hear peoples ideas, and I got some of my own that I'll dig up from Robert Heinlein.
To deflect any hard feelings, I'll put this one on track again with a question that a few of you may have a good answer for.
What has led to the state of the prison system that exists today? Is the lighthanded nature that most average citizens seem to disapprove of wrapped up in various pieces of government legislation (tied to the Charter?) or is it due to a certain mindset that has overtaken senior officials with Corrections, one that has a strong aversion to any advocacy of tougher measures and those who would support them.
Or is it a completely different origin? I'm interested to hear peoples ideas, and I got some of my own that I'll dig up from Robert Heinlein.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Good question. Here are a few random thoughts.
Prison reform, IMHO, has been going on fairly steadily in the English-speaking world since probably the end of the 19th century. The driving idea always seems to be that if we are somehow more "humane" with these people, they will indeed come to see the error of their ways and be rehabilitated. Believe it or not, the electric chair made its debut as a more "humane" way of executing people (Anybody here seen The Green Mile....??) so although the definition of the term has changed, the intent hasn't. My opinion on this is that it will probably yield some success for those very early in their criminal lives, or those who are not suffering from the more advanced form of anti-social personality disorder or psycopathy, like the Bernardos and Olsons mentioned earlier. For the latter, it has probably never worked and probably never will.
Second, I believe that there is an abiding (if somewhat naive) belief among most of us Canadians that people are all basically good, and will respond properly if dealt with from that premise. This, IMHO, is why we have difficulty dealing as strictly as we should with terrorists and their ilk, and why we get cold feet about things like Kosovo, OEF and OIF when it becomes necessary to whack/smack baddies.(Kosovo may be a bad example, as we led most of the Coalition non-US led air strike packages...) The epitome of this was the apocryphal story that when the events in Somalia were brought up in the House of Commons, one Hon Member stood up and righteously demanded to know why Canadian soldiers on a "peace-keeping" mission were carrying weapons. Once again, this fine and decent trait of ours runs smack into the reality of those who are simply not amenable to normal standards of behaviour, and for whom normal sanctions hold little or no fear.
Third, while I am reluctant to blame politicians for everything because it absolves us of responsibility, I have to say that IMHO the social inclinations and beliefs of many who seem to gravitate to the party currently in power are distinctly woolly. These people are more than likely to be found in the various echelons of the Public Service, including Corrections. I have commented before on these pages about my perception of a few years ago that there was a fairly significant divergence in views between the "front office suits" and the "uniforms" in CSC. In turn, they will apply what they believe to be "enlightened" methods, whether or not there is any empirical evidence to suggest that such measures will actually produce results. Further, I believe that these people would reject empirical evidence that "proved" that measures that they are uncomfortable with might actually be effective.
Just my take. Cheers.
Prison reform, IMHO, has been going on fairly steadily in the English-speaking world since probably the end of the 19th century. The driving idea always seems to be that if we are somehow more "humane" with these people, they will indeed come to see the error of their ways and be rehabilitated. Believe it or not, the electric chair made its debut as a more "humane" way of executing people (Anybody here seen The Green Mile....??) so although the definition of the term has changed, the intent hasn't. My opinion on this is that it will probably yield some success for those very early in their criminal lives, or those who are not suffering from the more advanced form of anti-social personality disorder or psycopathy, like the Bernardos and Olsons mentioned earlier. For the latter, it has probably never worked and probably never will.
Second, I believe that there is an abiding (if somewhat naive) belief among most of us Canadians that people are all basically good, and will respond properly if dealt with from that premise. This, IMHO, is why we have difficulty dealing as strictly as we should with terrorists and their ilk, and why we get cold feet about things like Kosovo, OEF and OIF when it becomes necessary to whack/smack baddies.(Kosovo may be a bad example, as we led most of the Coalition non-US led air strike packages...) The epitome of this was the apocryphal story that when the events in Somalia were brought up in the House of Commons, one Hon Member stood up and righteously demanded to know why Canadian soldiers on a "peace-keeping" mission were carrying weapons. Once again, this fine and decent trait of ours runs smack into the reality of those who are simply not amenable to normal standards of behaviour, and for whom normal sanctions hold little or no fear.
Third, while I am reluctant to blame politicians for everything because it absolves us of responsibility, I have to say that IMHO the social inclinations and beliefs of many who seem to gravitate to the party currently in power are distinctly woolly. These people are more than likely to be found in the various echelons of the Public Service, including Corrections. I have commented before on these pages about my perception of a few years ago that there was a fairly significant divergence in views between the "front office suits" and the "uniforms" in CSC. In turn, they will apply what they believe to be "enlightened" methods, whether or not there is any empirical evidence to suggest that such measures will actually produce results. Further, I believe that these people would reject empirical evidence that "proved" that measures that they are uncomfortable with might actually be effective.
Just my take. Cheers.
N
NavyGrunt
Guest
I don't believe you can reform violent or sexual criminals. I'm all about hanging them high. Not leaving them to rot though. I know its societies fault that they offend that way. We didnt do enough when they were younger and their mothers didnt hug them enough. I understand. Doesnt mean that we have to live at their mercy- granting chances over and over. Hang 'em high and society try and learn what went wrong. Really I cant see any other way.
As for me being liberal. Well in Alberta you can kill a man legally for calling you that >
I just don't believe that anger should be the motive and the death penalty a punishment. I believe that justice and safety the motives and the death penalty is an instrument or insurance policy ensuring it doesnt happen again.
As for me being liberal. Well in Alberta you can kill a man legally for calling you that >
I just don't believe that anger should be the motive and the death penalty a punishment. I believe that justice and safety the motives and the death penalty is an instrument or insurance policy ensuring it doesnt happen again.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Infanteer said:
I'm wondering if it has anything to do with the historically recent rights revolution Canada has endured... The charter is relatively new, and the Canadian Supreme Court has spent much of it's time over the last 22 years interpreting the charter. I can't help but wonder whether Canadian society, now that is has a codified system of rights, has perhaps begun to overuse the charter? How many times have we heard from prisioners that their charter rights have been infringed upon?
I think one thing that needs to be done is the reduction of access to the prisons by the media. No matter what, they ALWAYS paste the corrections systems as being staffed by goons, who routinely abuse prisoners. That we're too tough on them.. Then, when they try to loosen up after getting political pressure, the media again goes after them for being too lenient. I feel bad for corrections, because they are used as scapegoats on both sides of the argument.
So, to express my thoughts, I'd say that the current state of the prison system is such because the government has used it more as a political body, than as a system for punishment/rehabilitation. We spend too much time defending the rights of the poor criminal, and not enough on the rights of the victim.
I wonder how much freedom the higher-ups in corrections have to dictate policy though... I'd imagine the PMO tells them what the (current) policy is, demands that they both follow and endorse it, then change it again in a year or two to reflect the fickleness of our government's consistency. Might be barking up the wrong tree, but those are my thoughts.
T
