Steal a car? Decapitate a woman? Only serve two years

[Tik-Tok]

Ohhhh Canada, our home and fucked up land.


Teens jailed in carjacking decapitation

Two teenaged girls who pleaded guilty to manslaughter and car theft in a botched carjacking that left a woman decapitated last year have been sentenced to two years in custody plus one year conditional supervision in the community.

But with time served that means the teens will serve another year in custody before their conditional sentence starts.

Source (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2012/08/16/mb-portage-decapitation-carjacking-teens-mcivor.html)

[C_Dave45]

They tried to push her out but she got tangled in the seatbelt and was dragged down the road and eventually decapitated.

Good God!! :barf:

Another example of our joke of a justice system.

[Disoblige]

Hmm. Manitoba.
Hmm. Natives.
Hmm...

[Sugarphreak]

...

[eglove]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
What a horrible way to die.

How does the judge even justify giving a sentence that light? "Boys will be boys"

Girls will be girls

[gretz]

"girls will be girls"

edit ^^ you bastard lol

[clem24]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
How does the judge even justify giving a sentence that light? "Boys will be boys"

Blame the Young Offenders Act. They said the maximum sentence for this was 3 years, and they got 2 plus 1 more of conditional supervision.

[dj_patm]

Young offenders act should stop at 15. I mean at 14 years old I knew exactly what the consequences were of what I was doing.

[XylathaneGTR]

Originally posted by dj_patm
Young offenders act should stop at 15. I mean at 14 years old I knew exactly what the consequences were of what I was doing.
To a degree...
I would argue that the capacity to understand consequences and the impacts of their actions to others is there, but I would be surprised if any 14 year old criminal were thoroughly thinking things through prior to the act.

Given the circumstances, these two should be held accountable for their actions, and limitations by the young offenders act should not apply.

[sputnik]

Originally posted by clem24


Blame the Young Offenders Act. They said the maximum sentence for this was 3 years, and they got 2 plus 1 more of conditional supervision.

This.

[nonofyobiz]

Originally posted by XylathaneGTR

To a degree...
I would argue that the capacity to understand consequences and the impacts of their actions to others is there, but I would be surprised if any 14 year old criminal were thoroughly thinking things through prior to the act.

Given the circumstances, these two should be held accountable for their actions, and limitations by the young offenders act should not apply.

they know the difference between right and wrong. Everyone should have to face the consequences for their crimes based on how serious the crime. We (society) seem to make excuses for everyone and everything.

OK, the intent to murder and decapitate a person wasn't there, but what kind of sentence should you get for stealing a car, abduction, and then leaving the girl pretty much naked out on the side of the road. Those crimes in themselves seems to me to be worth 2 to 3 years. The fact she ended up decapitated and dead at the end of it, that's just the icing on the cake for these two geniuses.

Not like jail is going to accomplish anything. Sending these two girls to prison for an extended period of time is just going to cement their place in this world and useless pieces of shit. They sounded remorseful so maybe they'll be able to turn their shit around one day and live decent lives. i dunno.

I think we should bring back hard labour. Then at least criminals are doing something and it's not just a holiday lol

[googe]

Originally posted by nonofyobiz


Not like jail is going to accomplish anything. Sending these two girls to prison for an extended period of time is just going to cement their place in this world and useless pieces of shit.

This

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by nonofyobiz


Not like jail is going to accomplish anything. Sending these two girls to prison for an extended period of time is just going to cement their place in this world and useless pieces of shit. They sounded remorseful so maybe they'll be able to turn their shit around one day and live decent lives. i dunno.



Just curious here, let's say they really wanted to, and suceeded in "cleaning up". How the hell are they going to get any decent job with a criminal record like that?

Shit, if that was my situation, I 'd probably end up returning to crime.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[CompletelyNumb]

Originally posted by nonofyobiz
I think we should bring back hard labour. Then at least criminals are doing something and it's not just a holiday lol

:werd:

[eiysa101]

Fuck that noise. I also hate how they won't release the lil shits name due to that youth act

[dexlargo]

Originally posted by Seth1968


Just curious here, let's say they really wanted to, and suceeded in "cleaning up". How the hell are they going to get any decent job with a criminal record like that?

Shit, if that was my situation, I 'd probably end up returning to crime. Because they are under 18, five years after they complete their sentences (so 7 years from now), assuming they don't get convicted of any other crimes - the record is expunged. So, this won't be a barrier to getting a decent job once they turn what? 22? 23?

If they clean themselves up, it's not a problem.

[Seth1968]

Fair enough.

So same question, but they're over 18.

EDIT:

Example,

A 22 year old guy makes a stupid mistake and gets 3 years for armed robbery. He completely cleans up, and gets a college degree in jail. After 2 1/2 years, the parole board agrees he truly has changed and is no threat to society. So they congratulate him and tell him to enjoy his new life....BUT they don't expunge his record so he can't get any decent job!

He becomes depressed, turns to drugs and/or crime, and becomes a further burden on society.

I'm not arguing for or against any type of punishment, but rather the hypocrisy in our justice system that only seems to serve the "revolving door" motto, and keep justice system workers employed and very wealthy.

[CompletelyNumb]

Where do you come up with this stuff? Having a criminal record won't stop anyone from making a decent living.

[dj_patm]

Social experiment.

Whose the worse "criminal"... These girls or the c63 AMG drunk?

One party commited a crime that had clear intent and it went horribly wrong, resulting in a death while the other commited a crime without the intention of there being a victim and it went horribly wrong and resulted in a death.

[dexlargo]

Originally posted by Seth1968
Fair enough.

So same question, but they're over 18.

EDIT:

Example,

A 22 year old guy makes a stupid mistake and gets 3 years for armed robbery. He completely cleans up, and gets a college degree in jail. After 2 1/2 years, the parole board agrees he truly has changed and is no threat to society. So they congratulate him and tell him to enjoy his new life....BUT they don't expunge his record so he can't get any decent job!Robbery is an indictable offence, so in that situation now, 5 years after completing all of his sentence he could apply for a pardon. There's a new law coming in that changes that making it tougher, and I think it changes it to 10 years after completing the sentence he can apply for a 'criminal record suspension'. Which means that the criminal record isn't wiped, it just appears to be clean until he gets convicted of something else, then the suspension is lifted and all of the record is back in effect.

So there's still a mechanism for that.


Originally posted by CompletelyNumb
Where do you come up with this stuff? Having a criminal record won't stop anyone from making a decent living.Some people make a good living with a criminal record, but you can't deny that some options are not available to you if you have one.

For some (most?) people, there's also a certain social stigma that they feel from having a criminal record.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by dexlargo

For some (most?) people, there's also a certain social stigma that they feel from having a criminal record.

:werd:

When I first moved to Calgary in '96, I went to a temp agency looking for work. Had to fill out a questionnaire on a computer. The guy next to me abruptly got up and walked out when the question "Are you bondable?" came up.

Confused the hell out of me, because they were simply asking so they would know not to put him in certain jobs requiring it. The few I got through them certainly didn't require being bonded.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by CompletelyNumb
Where do you come up with this stuff? Having a criminal record won't stop anyone from making a decent living.

As a self-employed drug dealer? :rofl:

There are many jobs require background checks. Especially IT. Wait til your boss fire your ass when you don't have clearance to enter Q9 to Telus datacenters.

Most with criminal records will probably have to be their own boss. Or work close to minimum wages.

[FraserB]

Originally posted by dj_patm
Social experiment.

Whose the worse "criminal"... These girls or the c63 AMG drunk?

One party commited a crime that had clear intent and it went horribly wrong, resulting in a death while the other commited a crime without the intention of there being a victim and it went horribly wrong and resulted in a death.

Intent in these cases should not matter. Someone died during the commission of a crime, should be first or second degree murder not matter what the precipitating offense was.

[CompletelyNumb]

Originally posted by Xtrema
Most with criminal records will probably have to be their own boss. Or work close to minimum wages.

That's a mighty small box you're thinking in.


Seth's story was ridiculous to the max though. Guy has a record and can't get a white collar job so he turns to a life of drugs or crime? Wtf. Go work in the oil patch until you get your pardon. Make more money than any of these "jobs" you weren't able to get. Or perhaps trades, no record checks there.


I'm willing to bet that of any 6 figure jobs available, the percentage of jobs requiring a clean record are fewer than the ones not.

Limit your options? Sure. But anyone who's willing to put some effort into their life won't be affected by it.

[dj_patm]

Originally posted by FraserB


Intent in these cases should not matter. Someone died during the commission of a crime, should be first or second degree murder not matter what the precipitating offense was.

So if you were speeding and you got in a fatal accident, you should be charged with Murder?

I thought thats why we had a manslaughter charge...

There is a difference between wanting to kill somebody, regardless of premeditation or spur of the moment and accidently killing someone

[FraserB]

Originally posted by dj_patm


So if you were speeding and you got in a fatal accident, you should be charged with Murder?

I thought thats why we had a manslaughter charge...

There is a difference between wanting to kill somebody, regardless of premeditation or spur of the moment and accidently killing someone

An accident is "Oh shit, I just hit that piece of debris on the road and hit a pedestrian" not "I know I'm drunk and shouldn't be driving becuase I know the risks, but I'll get behind the wheel of 5000lbs of steel anyways".

Commission of a criminal code offense. I should have made that clear.

[dj_patm]

Originally posted by FraserB


An accident is "Oh shit, I just hit that piece of debris on the road and hit a pedestrian" not "I know I'm drunk and shouldn't be driving becuase I know the risks, but I'll get behind the wheel of 5000lbs of steel anyways".

Commission of a criminal code offense. I should have made that clear.

So you don't believe in Manslaughter charges?

What if you got in a street fight and punched someone hard enough that they ended up dying (pre-existing condition, unlucky shot, hit their head on something...etc), you don't think that person should be able to plead guilty for manslaughter instead?

There was never intent to KILL somebody.

[94boosted]

Originally posted by CompletelyNumb

But anyone who's willing to put some effort into their life won't be affected by it.

If someone is willing to put some effort into their life they wouldn't have a criminal record in the first place....just saying.

If you fuck up seriously enough to get a criminal record your life should be more difficult. Especially considering the joke of a criminal justice system we have in this country as evidenced in this thread.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by 94boosted


If someone is willing to put some effort into their life they wouldn't have a criminal record in the first place....just saying.

If you fuck up seriously enough to get a criminal record your life should be more difficult. Especially considering the joke of a criminal justice system we have in this country as evidenced in this thread.

:closed:

[clem24]

Originally posted by FraserB


Intent in these cases should not matter. Someone died during the commission of a crime, should be first or second degree murder not matter what the precipitating offense was.

LOL do you even know the definition of first and second degree murder? If we tried everyone who caused a death with either one of those charges, there would NEVER be a conviction. :facepalm:

[dexlargo]

Originally posted by clem24


LOL do you even know the definition of first and second degree murder? If we tried everyone who caused a death with either one of those charges, there would NEVER be a conviction. :facepalm: I read FraserB's post as his opinion of how the law should be different, not how it is actually currently applied - a comment about social policy.

I think he does know the definitions, or at least is aware that murder requires some knowledge/intent of the consequences. So I don't think he deserves a facepalm.

That said, I disagree with his opinion. I think that the core of what makes murder so bad is the very fact that the person either knew that death would likely result from their unlawful act or that they in fact intended to cause death. Applying the charge of murder to any and all criminal acts that cause death regardless of knowledge/intent reduces the effect of the 'murderer' label on people who truly intended to kill.

[clem24]

Originally posted by dexlargo
I read FraserB's post as his opinion of how the law should be different, not how it is actually currently applied - a comment about social policy.

I think he does know the definitions, or at least is aware that murder requires some knowledge/intent of the consequences. So I don't think he deserves a facepalm.


No I think he deserves a facepalm. First and second degree murder are very clearly defined. I think he would have nothing to say if we just renamed "manslaughter" to "3rd degree murder" (i.e. a catch all for all other cases where death results without intent).

[thrasher22]

Fucking seriously? I can't believe anyone ACTUALLY believes this is just manslaughter.

They might not have gone into the crime planning on killing someone, but there is no way they didn't notice that they were driving down the highway with an someone dragging beside the car.

[clem24]

Originally posted by thrasher22
Fucking seriously? I can't believe anyone ACTUALLY believes this is just manslaughter.

If they charge them with 1st or 2nd degree murder, the onus is on the crown to prove that they intended to kill her at some point. That's almost impossible to do. The next best thing is to try them for the most serious offense where they think they can reasonably get a conviction.

[dexlargo]

Originally posted by clem24


If they charge them with 1st or 2nd degree murder, the onus is on the crown to prove that they intended to kill her at some point.No, that's just one of the ways to get to murder. Maybe we do need to review the definition of murder.


229. Culpable homicide is murder
-(a) where the person who causes the death of a human being
---(i) means to cause his death, or
---(ii) means to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and is reckless whether death ensues or not;
-(b) where a person, meaning to cause death to a human being or meaning to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and being reckless whether death ensues or not, by accident or mistake causes death to another human being, notwithstanding that he does not mean to cause death or bodily harm to that human being; or [basically, if you're trying to kill or seriously hurt someone and you get the wrong guy, it's still murder of that guy - like if you shoot and hit the wrong person.]
-(c) where a person, for an unlawful object, does anything that he knows or ought to know is likely to cause death , and thereby causes death to a human being, notwithstanding that he desires to effect his object without causing death or bodily harm to any human being.So, under point c, there doesn't have to be any intent at all. This has been held by the courts to not apply to impaired driving causing death, because the "unlawful object" must be something beyond the act that causes the death [I don't know if that makes sense] - but it would cover something like putting an explosive on a bank machine to get at the money inside, and the explosion kills a person that the thief didn't intend to get hurt - that kind of thing. It might have been an option in the carjacking case, but I don't know all of the facts of that.

[dj_patm]

Originally posted by dexlargo
No, that's just one of the ways to get to murder. Maybe we do need to review the definition of murder.

So, under point c, there doesn't have to be any intent at all. This has been held by the courts to not apply to impaired driving causing death, because the "unlawful object" must be something beyond the act that causes the death [I don't know if that makes sense] - but it would cover something like putting an explosive on a bank machine to get at the money inside, and the explosion kills a person that the thief didn't intend to get hurt - that kind of thing. It might have been an option in the carjacking case, but I don't know all of the facts of that.

I still don't think that bank thief would be found guilty of murder.
I think that applies to more of a "I'm going to shoot you but I don't want to kill you" defense.

[dexlargo]

^My one sentence didn't give enough information. How about instead I give a real example?

How about a man is in a disagreement with his wife. He puts lighter fluid on a bunch of the things in the house that he doesn't want the wife to take in the divorce and lights them on fire, knowing that his wife and kids are sleeping upstairs. The whole house burns down killing the wife and kids.

This is an example of a case where subsection c has been applied. The unlawful object was mischief to property (i.e. to cause property damage), the dangerous act was setting the fire. The knowledge was that he knew a fire would likely cause death of people in the house.

It was not necessary for the Crown in that case to prove intent to kill the wife and children - just that he meant to burn some shit and that he did it in a way that they could infer that he knew death was a likely result.

That was a Supreme Court of Canada decision in 1981, R v. Vasil.

How would this apply to the car theft?

Unlawful object: Theft of motor vehicle
Dangerous act: pushing owner out of vehicle
Knowledge: This is the question...

Did the girls know that pushing the woman out of the vehicle would likely kill her? That depends on the speed of the vehicle, whether they knew she got tangled in the seatbelt, etc.

If they were going really fast, or knew her neck was caught in the seatbelt, then it would be murder. Trick is proving what they knew. If witnesses can say that the driver was looking at the woman being dragged the whole time, that would probably prove she knew - or if the witnesses can say what the speed was at the time of the woman being pushed out and it was fast enough to make death likely - that would be enough to prove the driver knew it too.

They don't have to intend that she dies, or even that she get hurt.