Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus
Granted I have not read every single comment, but it seems to me what people are demanding is that those who committed crimes should be held accountable for their actions, according to our duly enacted system of laws. Does demanding that the rule of law (including all its due process and rules of evidence) be fully applied to those who have committed offences under the Criminal Code of Canada constitute a "lynch mob" to you?
|
What a lot of you seem to be forgetting (or maybe just ignorant of) - "rule of law", "due process", and the Criminal Code of Canada do not include permanently branding criminal offenders for life. Our justice system has allowances for repentance and rehabilitation, which is why people serve limited sentences for most crimes - and why pardons exist. Once a person pays their debt to society, they are entitled (at least according to every modern Western legal system I've ever heard about) to begin their lives anew and attempt re-joining society. Hell, the entire YOA exists to avoid giving children the equivalent of a life sentence for most crimes.
The Internet changes all that. Water polo boy will never, ever be able to escape his one bad thing. And don't get me wrong, by no means do I excuse what he did. As far as I'm concerned, 5 years hard labour sounds appropriate as punishment. BUT THAT'S IT. Once his time is served, he should be free to get on with his life and try to become a productive member of society. It's one of the cornerstones of our entire justice system and always has been. Otherwise you effectively turn these people into lifelong offenders. Think about it - how will he ever get a job in the future, when every single employer can Google his name and bring this up? He'll never EVER be able to run for political office, or work with children, or any of a thousand other things where people judge character so strongly. Before the Internet, none of this would be an issue.
Now, you (not you personally Prometheus, but a lot of people here) may think it's OK and just that he faces an entire lifetime of punishment. But you should understand that you're disagreeing with centuries of Western judicial precedent. Our system was never designed to make people criminals for life, except in extremely rare cases - guys like Bernardo and Pickton and Dahmer and the like. And while what happened in Vancouver is abhorrent and disgusts me, I don't think you can quite equate it to serial killers and violent sex offenders.
When someone commits a crime, we basically have 3 options:
1. Kill them, thereby removing the problem. Or keep them in prison for life at tremendous expense to the taxpayer. This option applies regardless of the severity of the crime.
2. Imprison them and make life a living hell for them. Give them no hope for the future, no skills, keep them in a bad environment surrounded by other (usually worse) criminals, and release them with zero chance at anything in life other than returning to crime. This was the method used for much of the past few hundred years, until we realized just what happens to these people when we release them.
3. Attempt rehabilitation. Train them in some sort of skill, try to convince them not to re-offend, and show them HOW to not re-offend. And once they've served their sentence, let them go. It basically amounts to a full re-integration into society.
#1 is what horrific 3rd world dictatorships do. #3 is what modern liberal democracies like Canada attempt to do. #2 is what the US generally is doing, and it's causing huge numbers of repeat offenders. And it's also in many ways what the extreme vigilante vengeance-based justice is going to accomplish thanks to the Internet.
Again, you may personally believe it's acceptable for this dude to be branded a criminal for life, and work the shittiest jobs possible until he's 80. But you must understand that not only are you in disagreement with our entire legal system, you're in the long term creating much more crime. Unless you want to go even more extreme and advocate #1. That's really the only permanent solution without rehabilitation. Does that seem appropriate for someone who stole a few purses? Maybe to some.
I won't even get into this nonsense about posting people's names and addresses and family members and employers. Our legal system has never EVER done that and it's ridiculous to see people even attempting this argument. Minors are the only people where the parents are even involved, but they're still not publicly named and shamed.
The lessons of The Scarlet Letter seem lost on many here.
Anyway, I hope all of these assholes get what's coming to them. By the public providing the police with every possible piece of evidence, and the courts throwing the book at them. And that's it.
Prev
I feel the exact same.
Linear Mode
