Canada upholds a woman's right to choose.

Originally posted by Lucius
Murderers, rapists, and thieves are active dangers to society.

If they intend in doing said crimes a second time, if not, what's the use in jailing them?

Canada would be a much better country if there were no goras living there in the first place.

Originally posted by majid86
Canada would be a much better country if there were no goras living there in the first place.

How the hell is that racist?

Its the world's 2nd largest country but only has a population of 35 million which just makes Canada pathetic.

Just another white-occupied country full of dickheads.

Originally posted by Robtard
Appease some need to punish the girl. If we take the "oh well, what's done is done" attitude then we should probably not have many people behind bars, at least no first time offenders serving jail time, be it murder, rape or theft.

IMO, "crazy" isn't an excuse to dismiss punishment. Call me crazy.

Fair enough, I was looking at it from a US standpoint.

/shrug

incarceration rates for first offenses are very low in Canada, and we, as a rule, do try to keep few people behind bars. Its not perfect by any means...

However, legal philosophy here is more about protecting those in society than it is about punishing the wrongdoer. I can't say I would prefer it the other way.

Originally posted by majid86
How the hell is that racist?

Its the world's 2nd largest country but only has a population of 35 million which just makes Canada pathetic.

Just another white-occupied country full of dickheads.

we are one of maybe 2-3 nations in the world where multiculturalism can be said to be a success...

Originally posted by inimalist
we are one of maybe 2-3 nations in the world where multiculturalism can be said to be a success...

And that will be your downfall 🙂 and i hope it comes more sooner than expected.
I'll only respect Canada as a country when the ethinic minorities take it over.

Originally posted by majid86
And that will be your downfall 🙂

lol, engaging political commentary

you follow canadian politics then?

Cut it out on the racist comments, majid.

Originally posted by inimalist
/shrug

incarceration rates for first offenses are very low in Canada, and we, as a rule, do try to keep few people behind bars. Its not perfect by any means...

However, legal philosophy here is more about protecting those in society than it is about punishing the wrongdoer. I can't say I would prefer it the other way.

Fair enough if that works better overall.

Agreed. It can be argued that sentencing out death-sentences for those who are the most threat to a society (eg murderers, rapist) would serve as the ultimate protection. A dead murderer can't murder again; dead rapist can't rape again.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, engaging political commentary

you follow canadian politics then?

No, i dont follow DANISH politics but i have been to DENMARK at least 3 times. (Toronto, Ottawa, Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver) never been to Montreal or Quebec for that matter.

Originally posted by Robtard
Fair enough if that works better overall.

Agreed. It can be argued that sentencing out death-sentences for those who are the most threat to a society (eg murderers, rapist) would serve as the ultimate protection. A dead murderer can't murder again; dead rapist can't rape again.

I can see that in cases for people who there is no chance of rehabilitation, or who are listed as "dangerous offenders" here, meaning they will never be released again.

The morals of the death penalty in general open a whole different can of worms though.

Originally posted by inimalist
I can see that in cases for people who there is no chance of rehabilitation, or who are listed as "dangerous offenders" here, meaning they will never be released again.

The morals of the death penalty in general open a whole different can of worms though.

Well yes. But tell that to the woman who was raped because the justice system decided that Johnny I-Only-Raped-Once-Before was rehabilitated after serving a few years in the pen and taking anger management classes.

Meh, maybe.

Originally posted by Robtard
Well yes. But tell that to the woman who was raped because the justice system decided that Johnny I-Only-Raped-Once-Before was rehabilitated after serving a few years in the pen and taking anger management classes.

Meh, maybe.

well, when you can describe a system that is 100% effective at preventing crime...

I don't see that as any more egregious than a system that keeps people locked up when they pose no threat to society, that is more interested in punishment than rehabilitation, and that in the end exacerbates the causes of crime than does anything to reduce it.

It is hard to find real quality stats, but the best i can find seem to suggest that America has a recidivism rate of over 67%, whereas Canada has one of 37% (and that canadian figure is a "worst case" number). 37% is 37% too high, but I don't think taking a harsher stance on criminals has ever been shown to be the answer. [the american number is taken from new crimes upto 3 years after initial arrest, the canadian from 2 years, there may be some skew to that]

http://www.primetimecrime.com/Recent/Courts/Sun%20Repeat%20offender.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States#Recidivism

EDIT: by comparison, Norway gets a 20% recividism rate. There are huge cultural reasons why American and Norway aren't good comparisons, but Canada and America are much, much more relevant to eachother

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1986002,00.html#ixzz0n9t8l6FT

Killing a baby isn't murder in Canada. Truly a paradise compared to the corrupt United States.

Originally posted by inimalist
well, when you can describe a system that is 100% effective at preventing crime...

I don't see that as any more egregious than a system that keeps people locked up when they pose no threat to society, that is more interested in punishment than rehabilitation, and that in the end exacerbates the causes of crime than does anything to reduce it.

It is hard to find real quality stats, but the best i can find seem to suggest that America has a recidivism rate of over 67%, whereas Canada has one of 37% (and that canadian figure is a "worst case" number). 37% is 37% too high, but I don't think taking a harsher stance on criminals has ever been shown to be the answer. [the american number is taken from new crimes upto 3 years after initial arrest, the canadian from 2 years, there may be some skew to that]

http://www.primetimecrime.com/Recent/Courts/Sun%20Repeat%20offender.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States#Recidivism

EDIT: by comparison, Norway gets a 20% recividism rate. There are huge cultural reasons why American and Norway aren't good comparisons, but Canada and America are much, much more relevant to eachother

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1986002,00.html#ixzz0n9t8l6FT

If locking up some rapist or murderer for 1 day or 10 years isn't a guarantee that they won't rape/murder someone else once released either way, what is?

Why capital punishment for rape and murder is probably a good idea. Can't you see the simple beauty in that? Moral's aside.

Prison is a waste of a tax dollars. Public flogging is a much more cost-effective solution.

I'd actually be curious to find out how much time has to pass until it is murder and no longer infanticide in Canada.

Because someone can be considered an infant up until around age 3, depending on the definition. Maybe it can just be considered a 14th trimester abortion.

Not utterly certain of the source but this purports to be the law as written:

"233. A female person commits infanticide when by a wilful act or omission she causes the death of her newly-born child, if at the time of the act or omission she is not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth to the child and by reason thereof or of the effect of lactation consequent on the birth of the child her mind is then disturbed. "

So newly born, under specific circumstances which I guess the court has to judge.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Not utterly certain of the source but this purports to be te law as written:

"233. A female person commits infanticide when by a wilful act or omission she causes the death of her newly-born child, if at the time of the act or omission she is not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth to the child and by reason thereof or of the effect of lactation consequent on the birth of the child her mind is then disturbed. "

So newly born, under specific circumstances which I guess the court has to judge.

To me, it seems like a free-pass to murder under the "birthing affected her mental state" clause. Ridiculous.