|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 21, 2010 7:09:44 GMT -5
Would you grant pardons to violent criminals? This is a pretty onesided opinion, granted, but the way I'm reading it, it's like pardons are handed out like candy. Should there be a blanket policy or would a case-by-case policy be appropriate? ================================================================ Apr 20 2010
08:27 am, Tom Brodbeck Ban pardons for violent criminalsKiller Karla Holmolka is eligible for a pardon in July. Of course she is. This is Canada — land of the criminal coddlers. Some 95% of pardon applications are accepted and 99% that reach the adjudication stage are granted. Unless a criminal is serving a life sentence or is deemed a dangerous offender, pretty much any criminal can get a pardon it seems after living “crime free” for five years. Incredibly, the Criminal Records Act does not permit the National Parole Board to distinguish between offences when reviewing pardon applications. In other words a killer or a rapist gets the same consideration as a guy caught with a few pot plants. Only in Canada. The good news is that the federal Tories plan on tabling legislation soon that would at least allow the NPB to distinguish between crimes. Not sure how far that will go in solving the problem. It might be a good first step. A more reasonable solution would be to amend the act to prevent anyone with a serious, violent conviction from ever getting a pardon. That record should stick with you forever. blog.canoe.ca/raisinghell/2010/04/20/ban_pardons_for_violent_criminals (link) |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 21, 2010 7:54:59 GMT -5
I think this was discussed somewhere else on here maybe? It sounds familiar, as does what I am about to say:
I don't think violent criminals should be out and out banned from getting pardons but rather that they should have to earn them. In fact I think every criminal should have to earn their pardon, no matter their crime.
If it were me I'd institute a system that would force a criminal to perform certain acts, based on their crime. Petty criminals should have to log x hours of community service (where x is a function of the time they served). White collar criminals should have to pay a percentage of the money they took back to those they stole it from (actually, to prevent any impropriety - pay it to the court who will pay it to the victims). Violent offenders should have to participate in an ongoing rehabilitation program (for the rest of their lives - or at least until they are in some way unable to attend them (if a murderer reaches 75 and is dying in a hospital bed I don't think it's fair to revoke his pardonfor not attending his program) as well as make reparations (suitable ones as determined by the parole board) to his victims (again, through a court administered system).
Forgiveness is a special thing. We do not inherently deserve forgiveness. We must earn it through our actions.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 21, 2010 8:46:20 GMT -5
Forgiveness is a special thing. We do not inherently deserve forgiveness. We must earn it through our actions. Well, TNG, here is where I disagree with you. While forgiveness is a special thing, and while we do not inherently deserve forgiveness, we can never earn it. It is a gift given and received. Repentance and contriteness [boy I sound religious today] is the key. I'm not saying flippantly and lightly give it. From the old Newhart show: sorry sorry sorry was saying "overlook what I did" but it wasn't asking for forgiveness -- there's a difference. And Red's parole hearings from The Shawshank Redemption also speak to repentance and redemption: oh yes, I am sorry merely spoken routinely to heartfelt anguish show a difference. Other than that . . . I don't think it should be automatic. Still working through how to do this. Restorative Justice should be involved, though. too many inter-connected departments that aren't connected in Ottawa. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 21, 2010 9:32:35 GMT -5
White collar criminals should have to pay a percentage of the money they took back to those they stole it from (actually, to prevent any impropriety - pay it to the court who will pay it to the victims). They should have to pay it ALL back , even the interest they earned. It is money obtained through illegal means. *************************************** The problem, the huge problem, I have with pardons is that the National databases can be easily fooled. Let's take the most recent case of Graham Janes. If he gets a background check done on him, unless he is working with children, his record will not show up .... also, if he really wants to throw a monkey wrench into the system, all he has to do is change his name and voila, his new name is (incredulously) not linked to the old. I read an article a little while ago that stated that female criminals were increasingly difficult to identify, cause they would marry when released and the system wasn't linked to marriage records. (I should try to find that article ... I think it was about Sheldon Kennedy and that was one of his fears - that Janes changes his name) |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 21, 2010 9:35:33 GMT -5
This is a similar article ....
What's in a name? Graham James pardon case raises identity change concerns
By: Bruce Cheadle And Jim Bronskill, THE CANADIAN PRESS
OTTAWA - Ex-convicts, including sex offenders such as former junior hockey coach Graham James, can avoid having their criminal history checked by legally changing their name.
Name changes in Canada are done at the provincial level, and only two provinces, British Columbia and Alberta, currently demand fingerprints when someone applies.
"Absolutely it's a concern," Supt. Chuck Walker, the director of field services for the Mounties' national criminal database, said Tuesday in an interview.
"We're aware of scenarios where we've actually had convicted persons apply and obtain a legal name change and there is no linkage - no connecting of the dots if you will - until they're picked up and charged (again)," said Walker, who helps oversee the Canadian Police Information Centre, or CPIC.
Once a person is charged and fingerprinted, the CPIC database will quickly determine if matching prints are on file under a different name, at which point a new alias would be added to the existing file.
James, who pleaded guilty in 1997 to sexually assaulting two of his former teenaged players over a 10-year period, sparked widespread outrage this week when The Canadian Press determined that he'd been granted a pardon in January 2007.
Former NHL star Theoren Fleury lodged a formal complaint with Winnipeg police in January alleging he, too, was abused by James. And another potential complainant has contacted The Canadian Press to allege he was assaulted by James several years before the events for which the junior coach pleaded guilty.
No fresh charges have been laid against James in connection with the new allegations.
Indeed, the former Western Hockey League coach appears to have fallen off the map since surfacing briefly in 2001-03 working a coaching stint in Spain. Even a shocking tell-all autobiography published last October by Fleury failed to elicit any public comment from James.
That's led to speculation the 58-year-old has assumed a new identity.
While legal name changes are "gazetted" in provincial government publications, there's no national system for cross-referencing them to RCMP or other police databases.
Walker said he attended a January workshop that dealt with the issue and was told fingerprinting "would be very unacceptable in certain jurisdictions."
He also raised the matter of marriage name changes, which can obscure a person's past.
"If that woman happens to have a criminal history under her maiden name, how are the two connected? The answer is they are not."
Walker points to British Columbia as a model of how the system should be managed.
For more than seven years, B.C. has required adults seeking a name change to have their fingerprints taken by police or another approved agency. The agency then sends them along with other supporting records to the province's vital statistics agency.
Following registration of the name change, the fingerprints are sent to the RCMP, which does a criminal record check.
An RCMP fingerprint screening is also part of the name-change application process in Alberta.
Procedures vary in other provinces and territories to screen out people seeking a new name for unscrupulous reasons.
In Prince Edward Island, the new name is provided to the RCMP and "such other police authorities as may be prescribed."
Applications in New Brunswick will not be granted if the proposed new name is sought for "fraudulent, misrepresentational or other unlawful purposes" - such as to avoid a court order to pay child support, or to avoid criminal charges or financial obligations.
Ontario residents seeking a name change who have been convicted of an offence must submit a police record check with their application.
And in Nunavut, applicants are asked to declare on the application whether there are any outstanding criminal actions or liens against them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 21, 2010 11:20:14 GMT -5
I'm not saying flippantly and lightly give it. From the old Newhart show: sorry sorry sorry was saying "overlook what I did" but it wasn't asking for forgiveness -- there's a difference. And Red's parole hearings from The Shawshank Redemption also speak to repentance and redemption: oh yes, I am sorry merely spoken routinely to heartfelt anguish show a difference. It wasn't until Red left the textbook answer and talked with his heart did we finally learn he was truly sorry for what he had done. This is the key in my view. There are some cons who are legitimately sorry for what they've done. Some will live with that for the rest of their lives. Still, there are others who feel the textbook answer is all that's required. It cost Red for years. Automatic? No, agreed. However, if what this journalist says about our current pardon policy is fact, then it's possible that those making the decisions are good with textbook answers. And if that is true, it may very well be what you say; one hand not talking to the other at various levels. That, or it could be a very complacent system. Who knows? Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 21, 2010 11:51:40 GMT -5
The problem, the huge problem, I have with pardons is that the National databases can be easily fooled. Let's take the most recent case of Graham Janes. If he gets a background check done on him, unless he is working with children, his record will not show up .... also, if he really wants to throw a monkey wrench into the system, all he has to do is change his name and voila, his new name is (incredulously) not linked to the old. I read an article a little while ago that stated that female criminals were increasingly difficult to identify, cause they would marry when released and the system wasn't linked to marriage records. (I should try to find that article ... I think it was about Sheldon Kennedy and that was one of his fears - that Janes changes his name) That's a great loophole. My name use to be Jane Doe.  While I believe there is a minority of criminals who are truly sorry, I suspect that the vast majority will abuse the system. Unless we have the science to peer into criminal minds, I rather be safe then sorry. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Apr 26, 2010 11:04:54 GMT -5
Pardon is not automatic, You have to complete all your sentences including paying any fines, compensations, etc... Than you wait for a prescribed time (3 to 5 years depending on the crime) during which you've been a law abiding citizen. Then you can apply for it and the National Parole Board will review the request. Pardon does not erase your criminal record, it just separates it from the main criminal database. Pardons can be revoked at all time (and will automatically be if you're convicted again).
To me, it seems like a well framed procedure that allows a criminal to have a normal life after he/she has completely paid his/her dept to society.
Why would you have to wait longer depending on the crime? You already served your time or paid your dues (which length depends on the crime of course) and you've shown to be "good" for the prescribed time. Seems to me that the journalist is more or less suggesting to punish certain offender further than their sentence... Not sure I agree with that.
|
|
