Canucks Central

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

As a side point, vigilante justice is far more common in the United States... because people realize that the system there doesn't rehabilitate, and things just get worse.

Don't ever get me started on the sex offender registries. One of the lowest recidivism rates of any crime, yet these people are treated worse than Hitler. And in many cases, all for peeing in an alley.

[ozonemania]

@freeweed Thanks for the excellent post above! It inspired me to articulate my thoughts in a post... it's been a while.

Just the other day, I was talking with some friends about the riots, and I remember saying to them: "I hope they catch them all with these pics and videos and they get publicly humiliated! They should broadcast their faces and names along with what they did, for everyone to see."

I am pretty sure that this is a common sentiment among Vancouverites -- yet after having said this I was a bit shocked about what I had just said -- on some level this just wasn't right.

On reflection, this sort of situation is little different in principle to public hangings or stonings, whereby the public are encouraged to participate in carrying out justice. I would argue that in an enlightened society, those sorts of activities would be considered backward, if not barbaric. Yet we see it happening today.

I can understand why we would want this. Such public displays of collective vigilantism and public justice is a catharsis for our own shame, our own embarrassment, our own feelings of anger and sorrow, over the whole incident -- whatever that may be. So really, it seems to me that much of this reaction is due to a need to resolve selfish emotion as much as it is a demand for true justice. They are not mutually exclusive by any means.

I just think we need to have a very clear head about what we are doing here. These are emotional times, we all feel like victims, and that means our ability to make sober and intelligent decisions are at risk.

It is so easy and convenient to play the blame game over how on earth did this happen (again). You can name the City, police, suburbanites, Home team, Rival team, NHL, resources, planning, anarchists, mob mentality, crassness of Vancouverites, etc -- it can go on and on.

Sometimes finding blame is all that we know how to do -- but in the end situations like this, finding something or someone to blame wouldn't have changed the outcome nor does it necessarily prevent it from happening again. (Please note I am not suggesting that police and judicial system should not do their job and prosecute all rioters to the full extent of the law.)

Perhaps, as individuals, the best thing we do is to accept what happened for what it was... and reflect -- look within ourselves, about our own personal responsibility and what each one of us can do to ensure that in the future -- we as a city can and will live up to the (good) reputation we so desire.

Last point... the most disappointing aspect of these riots for me were the masses of people in the fray revelling in the mayhem. Yes, even moreso than the direct instigators of vandalism, violence, looting and destruction. I'm not entirely sure why I feel this way... might have to do with what I was saying in the previous paragraph.

[giallo]

I think what's happening here is that obviously nobody wants this to ever happen again, even if that means destroying these particular looters' personal/professional lives. They are basically the sacrificial lambs for what's perceived to be the greater good ie. by publicly shaming them on an intern(et)ational level, nobody in their right mind will want to participate or even view a riot in the future. It very well may work. And while I certainly agree that they should be known to the public and punished, I'd hate for them to become (like someone else mentioned) repeat offenders due to the sheer amount hate thrown their way. I can't imagine having that much negative attention on me. I'd probably become reclusive and completely anti-social.

I'm far more in to the police going after the violent offenders. The amount of swarming beat-downs and sucker-punches I've seen on youtube that took place during this riot is sickening.

[Cypherus]

The growing affinity to forgive the rioters, or trying to make sense of their behavior is . For instance, the tuxedo shoplifter named Camille deserves the public shaming she's been receiving, regardless if she was caught in the moment. When you're caught in the moment rationality or your consciousness to do the right thing do not become obscure . She made it her own consciousness to participate in looting. Rightfully so she lost her job, and her UBC education may be on the line, if it hasn't been severed already. If someone is a willful looter, chances are their academic honesty and integrity are not in congruent with the overlying values of organizations they work for or study under.

[WarrenC12]

You guys are talking about the justice system in the theoretical sense. I think part of what is fueling this outrage is the public's (right or wrong) perception of the reality of the justice system. That is: slap on the wrist, or getting away scott free, for serious crimes. Especially for first time offenders and/or those under 18.

If, for example, after the 1994 riots, the police and courts had come down hard on the offenders, arrested hundreds, and made the worst of they pay, we may have less public shaming this time around.

[IanS]

IMO, the use of public identification and public shaming for the participants in the riot is entirely appropriate.

The criminal justice system is not really set up to deal with the vast majority of the offensive behaviour we saw during the riot. The vast majority of the offenses committed would not even result in criminal prosecution normally and the resources necessary to arrest and prosecute even a small percentage of the offenders would be enormous. It won't happen and, practically speaking, it can't happen. The police, I expect, are quite properly focusing on the serious offenders or the violent offenders. That's what they should be doing.

But what about Camille Cacnio? She's the UBC student who participated in the riot and then stole some clothing from a store as part of the looting. Apparently, she thought it would be cool to have a souvenir of the riot. Yes, she's a thief and a rioter, but her actual offense (at the least the one she caught on pictures and the one to which she's admitted) is relatively minor. It doesn't make much sense for the police to arrest her. In ordinary circumstances, she'd be no more than a common shoplifter.

This is where the public identification / shaming is effective. Camille's picture has now been posted, she's been identified and, as a result, she's admitted what she did and is returning the goods she stole. If what I've read is true, she's apparently lost her job as a result of her activities as a rioter and looter. I don't know if that's true; I hope it is.

So, here we have an example of someone suffering the consequences of their behaviour. Yes, she's apologized, but does anyone think she would have done it if she hadn't been publicly identified? Of course not.

The same can be said of Alex Prochazka, the mountain biker who may have lost some sponsorship as a result of his activities during the riot. He's sort of "apologized", I think. And Nathan Kotylak, the water polo athlete who tried to set a police car on fire. He's suffered some consequences and has apologized.

These people, and the hundreds of others who participated in the riot, have caused Vancouver... all of us.. a good deal of harm. The criminal justice system really can't get at that kind of harm. That's not a criticism. It just isn't set up to deal with this.

Public shaming, OTOH, is an effective and efficient way to address the problem. Should these people have their lives ruined? Of course not. And they won't. Should they suffer the consequences of their behaviour? Of course they should.

In my view, public identification / shaming is the best way to accomplish that.

[johnjimbc]

I've been watching this from afar, as I'm now back in Washington, DC. But I still pay great attention to Vancouver. I think it is a fascinating city, and BC is beautiful through and through. I know I'll be back every year I can make it, and if circumstances ever allow I'll take on a little cabin or something somewhere in the province.

So it pained me to see all of this unfold, especially with memories of all the good will on the streets of Vancouver during the Olympics still fresh in my (and the world's) mind.

I've hesitated saying too much because I am not there, but I do have some thoughts.

First one is the strangest one. I wasn't really surprised by this. Having been one of the people who witnessed the (thankfully) brief incidents the morning after the start of the Olympics, I saw first-hand (and confronted along with others) the few darlings who decided it would be a good idea to bust windows downtown. What struck me in that incident was the casual disregard, and I mean casual, they displayed. They really didn't appear to be rioting for a cause, and I never even saw any anger. It was more akin to a "gee, we can do this and it's naughty so let's do it" attitude one normally associates to four year olds who get their hands on a box of matches and sneak off into the backyard.

From the countless videos I've seen of the recent riot, the actions seemed much the same. Except in this case, those destructive actions were accompanied with violence aimed at individuals. Strangely that violence appears to have been driven by all sorts, from active rioters to bystanders who almost appeared to jump in as if someone else standing up might spoil their own enjoyment of watching others destroy things.

In both instances (the small Olympic flareup and last week's riot), I was struck by how unprepared the police seemed. Even during the Olympic event, with thousands of security folks spanning the city, the response was shockingly slow and inadequate. I and a group of other people basically resisted and shamed and otherwise "stalled" the rioters while waiting several minutes for a handful of cops to appear, who then basically allowed the protest rioters (who only numbered maybe a dozen) to wander the streets causing additional havoc and disruption. I remember seeing live news reports over an hour later after I'd gone about my business and thinking, "how can this possibly still be going on?"

Now, I happen to be living in a city I love dearly and find fascinating as well. But DC was nearly destroyed, and culturally and economically it rather was destroyed for a time, back in 1968 when riots swept the streets after Martin Luther King's assassination. To this day, parts of the city bear subtle scars from that three day nightmare - parking lots in unusual spots and uneven development on primary streets of commerce. People who lived in the city then - both black and white - still express a profound and universal dismay at how bad the riots were and how shocked they were to see that happen to their city and in their neighborhoods. Many families and individuals left the city after those riots, further destroying the economic vitality to such a degree that it took decades for the city to recover. Today, frankly, I think DC is one of the most livable cities in the US, having so much more to offer than the federal core caricature most people imagine.

My point is this type of flare-up can happen in any city, anywhere, given the right confluence of events. What was sad about last week's event in Vancouver was that it appeared to unfold in such a casual manner. If some people in the Vancouver area are that willing to inflict damage in response to - or in association with - a sporting event, one really has to hope there is never an event which truly triggers a deep-seeded emotional response. The results could be shocking and devastating.

Having said all of that, I was heartened to hear of the fast, active response of residents to the riots, cleaning up the damage the next morning. I often felt while living in Vancouver that folks sometimes took their communities for granted. There weren't many examples downtown of homegrown groups working on community issues outside their own apartment buildings and condominiums. Here in DC, I am constantly struck, and sometimes have to laugh, at the sheer number of neighborhood groups actively working on areas of interest . . . organizing food markets, street festivals, park clean-ups, public gardens, public arts, etc. In Vancouver, it often seemed residents would forgo that type of active participation because the city did a mostly decent job of creating and maintaining public events.

My hope is that from this incident will rise a stronger sense of ownership of residents to their own neighborhoods, one that goes beyond worrying about noise and sight lines, instead focusing on engaging their neighbors so they can collectively work to maintain and enhance their neighborhoods . . . being more directly engaged within their own communities rather than waiting for the city or others to do so on their behalf.

Downtown needs to evolve into more of a neighborhood and community one immerses themselves in, rather than a pretty picture one looks at for a bit before going inside.

[MrOilers]

Originally Posted by IanS

IMO, the use of public identification and public shaming for the participants in the riot is entirely appropriate.

Agreed.

Don't want people to post your face online and drag your name and identity through the mud? THEN DON'T COMMIT CRIMINAL ACTS IN PUBLIC!

Problem solved.

[crazyjoeda]

Originally Posted by Cypherus

The growing affinity to forgive the rioters, or trying to make sense of their behavior is . For instance, the tuxedo shoplifter named Camille deserves the public shaming she's been receiving, regardless if she was caught in the moment. When you're caught in the moment rationality or your consciousness to do the right thing do not become obscure . She made it her own consciousness to participate in looting. Rightfully so she lost her job, and her UBC education may be on the line, if it hasn't been severed already. If someone is a willful looter, chances are their academic honesty and integrity are not in congruent with the overlying values of organizations they work for or study under.

I agree, for these people to say they made a mistake and just got caught in the mob mentality is a complete cop out. They're only sorry they got caught. These people wanted to be part of the mob and took advantage of an opportunity to commit crimes in an environment where they perceived they would not face any consequences.

They made choices and I hope all of them face the serious consequences they deserve.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by IanS

These people, and the hundreds of others who participated in the riot, have caused Vancouver... all of us.. a good deal of harm. The criminal justice system really can't get at that kind of harm. That's not a criticism. It just isn't set up to deal with this.

Public shaming, OTOH, is an effective and efficient way to address the problem. Should these people have their lives ruined? Of course not. And they won't. Should they suffer the consequences of their behaviour? Of course they should.

In my view, public identification / shaming is the best way to accomplish that.

Very true. There's now a sense that you CAN'T get away with that kind of stuff just because you're in a crowd. The criminal-like ones were the ones that were covered up with a facemask. They were pre-meditated. They're also the ones that won't be caught.

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I feel the exact same.

And now i am reading how many of these people will be charged because our judicial system is so pathetic and weak that even having photographic and video evidence of someone smashing public / private property and stealing goods is not enough to hold up in court for a conviction!!!!!!!

I am sorry, I am all for innocent until proven guilty and checks and balances but things have now gone way to far towards the cilivil liberties bs.

And I hate to say it, knowing this is actually what fuels much of the vigilantly behavior in people now, because we all know that our legal system will not punish them, so these shame websites are the only way they will face any consequences!!!!

thats normal - we have video surveillance in our building's underground parking and we've had the occasional break in and they have been caught on camera but the police don't even use it they say it won't hold up in court we don't need it - the criminal's get the benefit of the doubt every time

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by logan5

You've posted an anonymous letter, so really until there's a name attached, it should not be taken seriously. But that doesn't matter to you because you're hellbent on stringing up as many people as possible. Only then will you're thirst for vengeance be satisfied. There seems to be a group of 4 or 5 of you in this lynch mob, and many more throughout cyberspace. Maybe now you have a better understanding of mob mentality.

Granted I might be speaking some strong rhetoric (which is usually the point in a rhetorical debate) but I've never encouraged any kind of lynching or vigilante justice. I don't want these criminals to be lined up and shot. I've even questioned the morality of the public shamming in some of my posts, so don't imply that I am some vengeful blood thirsty mob.

Just because I say people should be made an example of, doesn't mean I want them all drawn and quartered and their heads placed on spikes outside Rogers Arena and their limbs sent to the four corners of downtown so when people cross the bridges they see what can happen. Messages can be sent and examples made in other ways than violence.

What I want is for messages to be sent through our existing the legal system. People who commit crimes need to be charged and face punishment. And this was a serious event so the punishments should reflect that. If most people walk away without even a charge against them, then it only sends the message that next time, most people can do whatever they want and won't be charged. We did nothing after the riots in '94, and the VERY next time we are in the finals again, another riot happens. No messages were sent then, and if none are sent now, what hope do we have of instilling a sense of personal responsibility in people?

What I want is to see our laws actually enforced. And there are laws governing riots. The Riot Act was read to the crowd on numerous occasions, and people felt it was completely within their rights to ignore it. What kind of a society do we live in, when people just ignore the orders of police at the scene of an emergency because they feel like it? There was a complete lack of respect for the law, and a complete ignorance of the consequences of ignoring police orders at a scene of a riot.

There are videos out there where you can clearly hear the orders being issued to go home, and most people just milled about, continuing on enjoying the riot. What kind of society is that where people feel they have more rights than other people, where the right for them to fuck shit up (or enjoy watching it) is greater than the right for others to be safe?

People feel they have the right to always do what they want, even when that interferes with other people's (ie most of society) right to have a safe and peaceful life. Until people realize that their rights to do anything are not 100% absolute, people will continue to act selfishly in a time of crisis. And the only way to make people think about what they are doing is if there are consequences attached to the wrong decisions.

Yes, there will always be trouble makers and people that thumb their noses at police, but where would we be if we didn't enforce drinking and driving for example? Yes, people still drink and drive, but do you really think that it would be the same number of people doing it if there were no road checks, and when people were caught there was no punishment?

And just like there is a spectrum of punishments for drinking and driving, there is a spectrum of punishments for rioting. Just getting behind the wheel while drunk is a crime, even if you don't get in an accident, and the punishments reflect that. Drinking and driving is a lighter sentence than if you were in an accident that damaged a car, which is less than the sentence for injuring or killing a person. But they are all crimes for which examples are made every day. And that keeps an even larger number for drinking and driving than if we did nothing.

Just being at the riot is a crime, and people should face punishment for choosing to stay, just like people should face harder sentences for participating and looting, and just like people should harsh sentences for harming other people, and face extreme sentences for inciting it. There are different levels of crimes in any situation, and it is for the courts to decide the real punishment, but if not every degree of crime is made an example of (with any kind of sentence) then there is no reason for people to think it ever will.

I don't think everyone should be thrown in jail and the key thrown away (although after the riot act was read, this is technically an allowable sentence for anyone who does not go home). But people who have committed crimes need to be punished, or what hope do we have to make some people think about the consequence of their actions?

While the majority of people in our society are good, with most of the population not being anywhere near the riot (either staying away completely or leaving beforehand/during), there is a fringe element in society that behaves with no empathy towards other people. And without laws that are enforced, these people who only think about themselves will just continue to take advantage of the rest of society for their own gain or pleasure.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Granted I might be speaking some strong rhetoric (which is usually the point in a rhetorical debate) but I've never encouraged any kind of lynching or vigilante justice.

What I want is for messages to be sent through our existing the legal system. People who commit crimes need to be charged and face punishment.

It's fine to provide the police with pictures and video to facilitate justice through our legal system, but it's another thing to post names and pictures of people in public forums without giving them the benefit of due process. Young people have been kicked out of school, fired from their jobs, and had their reputations ruined. Maybe that's what they deserved, but that's not for the public to decide.

So I ask you and others this...what's your motive for posting names of suspected rioters in these public realms? The only answer can be that you are trying to apply your own form of justice, one that exists outside the boundaries of our society. That's a nice way of saying vigilante justice.

I'm really uneasy with all this surveillance and outing of individuals. While it can be useful, it can also be kinda dangerous, and it needs to be scrutinized as closely as possible.

Anyways, this is a great article about the riot and our legal system.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/06/20/f-vp-henry.html

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by logan5

Young people have been kicked out of school, fired from their jobs, and had their reputations ruined. Maybe that's what they deserved, but that's not for the public to decide.

You are mistaken. Those are precisely the kinds of things that are appropriate for the public (i.e., private citizens and private organizations) to decide. Being admitted to a college program, or having a job with a company, or being well thought of by your peers are not things to which people have a fundamental right. On the contrary. Scholarships, jobs, and good opinion are benefits or privileges that are conferred on a person at the discretion of the provider. In taking such things away, we do not deprive a person of anything to which he is fundamentally entitled.

The consequences imposed by the criminal law, by contrast, involve depriving a person of things to which he (if innoncent) has a fundamental right. In the case of capital punishment (assuming it still existed in Canada), the criminal law deprives a person of his life. In the case of incarceration, the criminal law deprives a person of his liberty. In the the case of fines, the criminal law deprives a person of his property. Thus, since nothing less than a person's fundamental rights are at stake in criminal proceedings, a just society is required to adhere to strenuous rules of process and standards of proof in determining guilt and innocence.

Private citizens and private organizations, however, have no legal power to deprive a person of his fundamental rights. Thus, since the consequences that can be imposed by members of the public are fundamentally different than the consequences that can be imposed by the criminal law, the process that members of the public ought to follow in deciding to impose their brand of consequences is fundamentally different. In a rational world, being confronted with undeniable photographic or video evidence of a person committing wanton acts of theft, violence or destruction is more than sufficient information to justify the public's decision to impose its brand of consequences, i.e., to withdraw a college admission, a job, or its good opinion. Indeed, such a decision in the face of such evidence is morally obligatory in a healthy, rational, ethical society.

[SpongeG]

Alleged riot looter fired from job

A company who fired an employee involved in the June 15 Vancouver riot said its decision was in response to pressure from the public.

Sales manager Patrick Almeida, of Burrard Acura in Vancouver, says he terminated the employment of Camille Cacnio after receiving riot-related complaints about her.

"Saturday morning, I received an email saying that one of our employees was involved in the looting downtown," Almeida told CBC News Wednesday.

That message was followed by a flurry of others, he said, "from threatening phone calls to threatening emails, to upset emails, upset phone calls."

"It's been pretty ugly."

Cacnio had been seen on a widely distributed video, running out of a store during the riot, carrying apparently looted merchandise.

The University of British Columbia student had worked weekends at Burrard Acura for two years.

"She was here. I talked to her. I asked her 'what's this,'" Almeida said. "She really looked at me dumbfounded."

He said he fired Cacnio on the spot.

...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/06/22/bc-rioter-fired.html

[IanS]

Originally Posted by logan5

Young people have been kicked out of school, fired from their jobs, and had their reputations ruined. Maybe that's what they deserved, but that's not for the public to decide.

You are partially correct here.

The school consequence is for the school to decide, not the public.

The job consequence is for the person's employer to decide, not the public.

The reputation consequence *is* for the public to decide. It's the person's public reputation.

None of these consequences fall within the scope of the criminal justice system.

I also note that none of these consequences flow from anyone having their pictures posted online; they flow from the activities which the person chose to undertake (ie. rioting, looting etc). The pictures do no more than let others know what the person chose to do.

[baggab]

Originally Posted by crazyjoeda

I agree, for these people to say they made a mistake and just got caught in the mob mentality is a complete cop out. They're only sorry they got caught. These people wanted to be part of the mob and took advantage of an opportunity to commit crimes in an environment where they perceived they would not face any consequences.

They made choices and I hope all of them face the serious consequences they deserve.

Yep and how many of them will get little to no charges.

If I went downtown at this moment and burned a car down. I'd be placed in jail.

So what if he isn't able to run for public office or never to play water polo for Canada. He'll still be able to do other things. Public shaming is mild and worst case scenario, he can move as he was probably planning to anyways even before the riots.

With that said,
As with all forms of infamy, they all need to work hard to earn our trust again. Nathan could very well run for office if he becomes selfless enough to redeem himself. It's a long road for him and others, otherwise the shaming will continue.

[WarrenC12]

The BCCLA is ranting against ICBC's involvement with their facial recognition technology. They are really starting to piss me off. What a bunch of idiots, what planet do they live on?

Time for a reality lesson for these clowns.

[twoNeurons]

Gotta agree with Prometheus here.

The public "outing" of individuals isn't in and of itself justice. It IS, however, exposing what they did (or where they were) for the public to make up their own minds.

That's a relatively mild form of punishment. What happens after that, from the employer, coach, parents etc. is where the punishment comes in. Now, I think people WILL take it too far if they feel justice isn't done... THAT is where the vigilante justice comes in... the death threats, the prank calls...

I think you can pretty much guarantee that many of these kids won't be participating in the next riot...

[CLC]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

Alleged riot looter fired from job
....

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/06/22/bc-rioter-fired.html

Unfortunately for her, CBC keeps using her looting image when posting news story
Vancouver riot damage and looting cost millions
CBC News Posted: Jun 23, 2011 12:29 PM PT
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/06/23/bc-vancouver-riot-damages.html