Victor Chang's killer released from prison

[Hurlshort]

3 years for watching someone beat a child to death seems about right. Emotionally I'd love to lock him up and throw away the key, but the judge is right that he doesn't pose a threat and it is a waste spending money locking him up for decades.

 

18 years for premeditated murder is completely foreign to me. In the US he'd have a good shot at death row in many states, and at least one life sentence would be guaranteed.

Do you really think it's that different from doing it himself? Carrying out justice is not a waste of money, it's the most important function the government has.

 

It is entirely different. It is actually the definition of different. One is an action, the other is inaction.

[Wrath of Dagon]

3 years for watching someone beat a child to death seems about right. Emotionally I'd love to lock him up and throw away the key, but the judge is right that he doesn't pose a threat and it is a waste spending money locking him up for decades.

 

18 years for premeditated murder is completely foreign to me. In the US he'd have a good shot at death row in many states, and at least one life sentence would be guaranteed.

Do you really think it's that different from doing it himself? Carrying out justice is not a waste of money, it's the most important function the government has.

 

It is entirely different. It is actually the definition of different. One is an action, the other is inaction.

I don't think it's morally different. If I have the opportunity to prevent someone from being killed, and I stand by and do nothing, then it's still murder. I'm not a lawyer, but I believe the law sees it the same way.

[Gorgon]

Well philosophically doing nothing is just as much an action as doing something. That is to say both choices carry unique results.

 

In these legal instances it would depend on whether there was any physical threat to yourself. i.e. if you watched a 6 year old strangle another 6 year old and did nothing, that would carry with it the most extreme result imaginable. Your inaction would make you accomplice to murder.

[Walsingham]

Viewing inaction as culpability when you have teh pwoer to intervene? That's a mighty sticky wicket...

[Killian Kalthorne]

I do think that we need a completely new punishment system in the US that focuses on the the end result of the crime more than the motivation of the crime. I also think that we should have harsher penalties all around on crime. The removal of parole and longer minimal sentences would be a good start. I would break down crimes into 2 groups and 8 catagories:

 

 

 

Misdemeanor D: 3 Months in prison, $1000 fine

 

Misdemeanor C: 6 months in prison, $2000 fine

 

Misdemeanor B: 9 months in prison, $4000 fine

 

Misdemeanor A: 1 year in prison, $8000 fine

 

Felony D: 5 years in prison, $100,000 fine

 

Felony C: 15 years in prison, $250,000 fine

 

Felony B: 25 years in prison, $500,000 fine

 

Felony A: Life in prison, $1,000,000 fine.

 

 

 

The criminal will serve only the highest level penalty. As for multiple criminal acts in a single crime, 2 misdemeanor Ds make one misdemeanor C, 2 misdemeanor Cs make one Misdemeanor Bs, and so forth and so on. So lets say a person did an criminal act that brings up 3 Misdemeanor Bs, 2 Felony Ds, and a Felony C, the final equation would be 1 Misdemeanor B, 1 Misdemeanor A, and 1 Felony B. Since Felony B is the highest that would be the punishment dished out.

 

Watching a child get killed without doing anything I would measure as a Felony D crime.

[Hurlshort]

It is terrible to watch something like this happen and not intervene, and 3 years is a pretty serious sentence. But it's not anywhere near the same as going through with the action yourself.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I don't think there's anything sticky about it, unless you're putting yourself in danger, as Gorgon said.

 

Edit: Let me change the scenario to make it more obvious. Let's say someone is locked in a small room where he'll suffocate unless you let him out. You choose to not let him out. You think that's not murder?

Edited October 27, 2009 by Wrath of Dagon

[Killian Kalthorne]

Did we put him in the room?

[Rostere]

Of course there must be some kind of punishment, so that crime doesn't pay. I.e., if you steal money from someone you should repay that person. This kind of punishment will only work to deter rational people from criminal activity, however.

 

Additionally, there should be some kind of incarceration punishment to break up criminal gangs and help protect society from the worst criminals. But ultimately, punishment in itself is only cruel. You will always have to look at what you're trying to achieve when you punish someone. Real criminals should be taken care of by a social safety net, just like people with mental disorders. And just like a person with Tourettes can eventually learn how to suppress his/her tics, so a can a criminal learn how to become a productive member of society. Also, I believe that almost all of the people who commit crimes who are not "criminally inclined" do so because of a poor/bad social upbringing and background. You should work towards minimum segregation in a society. It is, as always, by far preferable to work preventively.

[Walsingham]

Rostere made me think.

 

It seems to me that we are altogether too hung up on the concept of justice in the justice system <sic>. What we really want is bad things not to happen. The problem is that there are myriad ways in which a bad thing may occur. In order to effectively pre-empt it and mitigate it what is required are not broad blanket prohibitions and punishments but functional and organisationally agile troubleshooters who could be trusted to punch the bejaysus out of anything which looked like it was contributing towards the badness. Whether that happened to be a rogue meme, an enraged pterodactyl, or a poorly supervised toddler with a fork.

[213374U]

Additionally, there should be some kind of incarceration punishment to break up criminal gangs and help protect society from the worst criminals. But ultimately, punishment in itself is only cruel. You will always have to look at what you're trying to achieve when you punish someone. Real criminals should be taken care of by a social safety net, just like people with mental disorders. And just like a person with Tourettes can eventually learn how to suppress his/her tics, so a can a criminal learn how to become a productive member of society. Also, I believe that almost all of the people who commit crimes who are not "criminally inclined" do so because of a poor/bad social upbringing and background. You should work towards minimum segregation in a society. It is, as always, by far preferable to work preventively.

You seem to have a deeply held belief that there isn't a choice component in crime, or that the influence of that choice is of almost negligible weight anyway. Do we have to believe that all criminals have some sort of excuse in the shape of an abusive father or a depressed neighborhood? Why this urge to suppress accountability and embrace the idea that all human beings are fundamentally powerless and mere products of the circumstances surrounding them? I see how this thinking makes justifying a nanny state so much easier, but please, I'd like to see some hard evidence (as opposed to mere belief) before I accept I'm just a puppet of fate without a shred of free will.

 

Further, I'd like to know what you mean exactly by "learn how to become a productive member of society", because that sounds awfully vague and bordering the clich

Edited October 27, 2009 by 213374U

[alanschu]

Do you really think it's that different from doing it himself? Carrying out justice is not a waste of money, it's the most important function the government has.

 

Actually I'd say it's quite a bit different than doing it himself. In fact, Stanley Milgram demonstrated that it's actually not that hard to coerce people into doing things they don't want to do (not saying that the guy was coerced to standing by and watching) with his famous experiment in the early 60s. It was certainly had interesting results as far as I'm concerned. Though Milgram's experiement was about coercing people into doing the act themselves, rather than simply watching or other forms of inaction.

 

Link

 

 

Assuming that the justice system is similar in the UK as it is in Canada, the courts would explicitly require that the man demonstrate both the actus reus and mens rea of the crime. It's shocking and horrifying, but certainly in the letter of the law he shouldn't be penalized for more (assuming that the legal system doesn't equate accomplices to the principal criminal). He didn't actually torture and kill the child.

Edited October 27, 2009 by alanschu

[alanschu]

I guess my anger at this case is mainly at the stupidity of the crime and the loss of a man who contributed so much to the community.

 

I guess the thing to do there is to ask yourself if you'd still feel the same way if it was some random vagrant that was killed.

Edited October 28, 2009 by alanschu

[Walsingham]

I guess my anger at this case is mainly at the stupidity of the crime and the loss of a man who contributed so much to the community.

 

I guess the thing to do there is to ask yourself if you'd still feel the same way if it was some random vagrant that was killed.

 

You're asking how would I feel if they'd kidnapped and ransomed a vagrant?

[Wrath of Dagon]

Did we put him in the room?

I don't think it matters. May be he accidentaly locked himself in. May be you did it initially as a joke. The crime is not letting him out, not how he got there in the first place.

[Killian Kalthorne]

I don't think it matters. May be he accidentaly locked himself in. May be you did it initially as a joke. The crime is not letting him out, not how he got there in the first place.

 

However if he wasn't in there in the first place he wouldn't have gotten killed. If he was forced in the room then the person who forced him in is culpable for the death. If he placed himself in the room then his death is his own damn fault and should be considered a suicide. In either case I would have done nothing to put him or out of danger. One should be able to choose not to act for or against an individual or his or her plight, maintaining a detached neutral stance.

[Gorth]

Isn't it a criminal offense in a number of countries not helping people to avoid dying if you can?

 

I know for sure that I would love to bash some skulls on gawkers and onlookers at traffic accidents etc. who would rather enjoy a macabre show rather than doing something helpful, like getting the &^%$ out of the way.

[Hiro Protagonist]

Maybe they don't want to help because of litigation? You help someone and they die, you're up for manslaughter.

 

edit: I just found a link to a story where a woman tried to sue volunteers giving medical assistance.

Edited October 28, 2009 by Hiro Protagonist

[Killian Kalthorne]

Maybe they don't want to help because of litigation? You help someone and they die, you're up for manslaughter.

 

Or you pull a guy out of a burning car which then aggravates a spinal injury from the crash and the result makes him paraplegic. That person in turn sues you.

[Hiro Protagonist]

Isn't it a criminal offense in a number of countries not helping people to avoid dying if you can?

 

I know for sure that I would love to bash some skulls on gawkers and onlookers at traffic accidents etc. who would rather enjoy a macabre show rather than doing something helpful, like getting the &^%$ out of the way.

 

And not all countries have the good samaritan law.

[Hurlshort]

Nobody is arguing that the guy deserved to walk for not stepping in to stop the abuse. He is going to serve a minimum of 3 years in prison. That's a hefty sentence. But I agree with the judge that 25 years is excessive for an act of inaction.

[alanschu]

Yeah Alberta I am pretty sure has a law like that. I remember studying it, but that was in the late 90s.

 

I believe Quebec has a law along the lines of, if you're medically trained (a nurse or a doctor I believe), and don't provide help, you're liable.

 

 

You're asking how would I feel if they'd kidnapped and ransomed a vagrant?

 

LOL, of course I'm referring to the murder. Though they'd probably get less of sentence if it was the kidnapping and ransoming of a vagrant, due to the absurdity of it hahaha. Insanity might hold up in that regard

[Humodour]

I believe in Australia the law on things liek first aid is that if you don't have a certificate you're not legally obliged to help, but if you DO have one, you are.

 

Gorth/Hiro/Humanoid/whoever can correct me if I'm wrong.

[Gorth]

I am not really up to speed on those things. Besides, my latest first aid certification is 15+ years old

[alanschu]

Bah, mine is only 11!