|
Is the story of Luka Magnotta big in the US? (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Intellekshual |
| Jun Lin's missing hand and foot have been delivered to elementary schools in Vancouver. I wonder where the missing head will end up. Omg this story is disturbing as . :nervous: |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
the issue you seem to not grasp is that a criminal law is still bound by common law. You fail to see that this individual would never be considered a dangerous reoffender, not to mention the actual law has not once ever been used to detain someone indefinitely. It was implemented to keep track, not to hide people away in a prison cell. Common law would circumvent any sort of ruling of indefinite detention and that would just not fly given the precedent of other killers being released considered dangerous and liekly to reoffend. Paul Bernardo will be released and i don't think you can get much worse than that.
So i understand how you think it is a law, but when you put it into practice, it is not of much use. The sort of people that people would want to apply this law have a lawyer competent enough to point out someone else who did something similar who was released after the bill was implemented in 1977 therefore to deny him freedom is to go against the established precedent which trumps what is actually on paper.
I think your misunderstanding of the legal system in general would lead one to jump to conclusions. Its ok. Everyone wants to pretend they are a lawyer. Maybe try not being such a condescending dick when you talk about a subject you don't really seem to know that well. |
|
|
| wienerschnitzel |
| quote: | Originally posted by Intellekshual
Jun Lin's missing hand and foot have been delivered to elementary schools in Vancouver. I wonder where the missing head will end up. Omg this story is disturbing as . :nervous: |
:nervous: |
|
|
| wienerschnitzel |
| The news is now reporting that another foot has been found in a Montreal neighbourhood. |
|
|
| OrangestO |
So how many feet did this Chinese guy have?
One was sent to a politician, one sent to Vancouver and now Montreal?
I count three :rolleyes: |
|
|
| wienerschnitzel |
| quote: | Originally posted by wienerschnitzel
The news is now reporting that another foot has been found in a Montreal neighbourhood. |
Lol 3rd foot is a fake.. |
|
|
| OrangestO |
| quote: | Originally posted by wienerschnitzel
Lol 3rd foot is a fake.. |
Prosthetic fake, or fake as in doesn't exist?
:p |
|
|
| wienerschnitzel |
| They really found a fake foot.. Now the police are trying to determine if it was deliberate or just bad timing lol |
|
|
| Vivid Boy |
| I hear theyre letting him go because the victim he supposedly killed only has 2 feet. which means....they got the wrong guy! |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Looney4Clooney
the issue you seem to not grasp is that a criminal law is still bound by common law. |
You're incorrect here. The Constitution is the paramount law in the country and takes priority over all. Statute law takes priority over Common law, common law only takes priority when there is an absence of applicable statute. So, since the Criminal Code of Canada is a statue it takes priority over common law.
| quote: | | You fail to see that this individual would never be considered a dangerous reoffender, |
it is "dangerous offender" not reoffender. Read s.753 of the CCC (linked earlier) it will give you the criteria necessary for dangerous offender status of which recdivism is not one.
| quote: | | not to mention the actual law has not once ever been used to detain someone indefinitely. |
As of April 2008 (most recent numbers I could find) there were 374 dangerous offenders in Canada serving indefinate sentences. As of 2009 there have been 455 persons sentenced as dangerous offenders. Only 26 people have ever had their dangerous offender status lifted. I cannot find numbers on how many dangerous offenders have died behind bars but the presumption is that most people who are given dangerous offender status will die behind bars; certainly at least two have (Basil Madden and Clifford Olsen did in the last couple of years) which is sufficient to show that at very minimum two people actually served natural life sentences. Just doing some basic math; if there were a total of 455 persons declared dangerous offenders, 26 had that status lifted, and 374 current dangerous offenders (as of 2008) then a minimum of 55 dangerous offenders have died in prison; subsequently, actually served a natural life sentence.
| quote: | | It was implemented to keep track, not to hide people away in a prison cell. Common law would circumvent any sort of ruling of indefinite detention and that would just not fly given the precedent of other killers being released considered dangerous and liekly to reoffend. Paul Bernardo will be released and i don't think you can get much worse than that. |
Again, common law is below statute and statute below the constitution. Dangerous offender status and indefinite sentences have been deemed constitutionally acceptable (see SCC case R. vs. Lyons)
you can read it (well people capable of reading can anyway) here
So i understand how you think it is a law, but when you put it into practice, it is not of much use. The sort of people that people would want to apply this law have a lawyer competent enough to point out someone else who did something similar who was released after the bill was implemented in 1977 therefore to deny him freedom is to go against the established precedent which trumps what is actually on paper.
| quote: | | I think your misunderstanding of the legal system in general would lead one to jump to conclusions. Its ok. Everyone wants to pretend they are a lawyer. Maybe try not being such a condescending dick when you talk about a subject you don't really seem to know that well. |
the above is entirely based on your erred conclusion that I don't understand the law or legal system. It's funny because of the two of us I clearly have the better grasp on the Canadian legal system. As far as being a condescending dick... you got me there; however, in my defence, your understanding of the law and issues at play is so poor that you deserve every bit of my condescention.
Now, since it is abundantly clear that you either know nothing of the law or are simply a troll there appears to be little to be gained from further discussion with you. I would like to say that this has been fun but in a battle of wits defeating an unarmed man is not all that entertaining; so this is just plain tiresome.
I recommend you drop the 4Clooney, as it would be a more accurate description. |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
of the 2 people mentioned, one was in a psych ward , so not the same rules, and the other died before his sentence was fulfilled. He applied for parole ie early release in 2010, died in 2011. You sure like to smudge the facts.
And i did not say supersede , i said it was bound. Which it is. Any decision that has a precedent that goes against that decision will have a very hard time getting that decision not overturned. Regardless of what any other rule states. The judge could , but he/she won't which is the very point of common law. None of it is a guarantee, it is just a precedent. For the purposes of practicality, common law tends to supersede statutory law. This is the whole point. It eventually becomes a written statute if people think it is important. You will be hard pressed to find any judge that will go against what has been set as precedent unless you introduce and amendment which did happen in 2006 but since then , there have been enough cases to pretty much guarantee that nobody will ever spend the rest of their life in prison. Nobody has.
You seem to think textbook law is how law works in practice. You find a particular piece of text, use it in its context without looking at the big picture and I think this conflates your understanding of how things actually work. Every thing you say, in its own context is correct, but you don't put the pieces together. And the arrogance in how you do it is kinda misplaced.
And the criteria for dangerous offender is pretty much reliant on the issue of setting a pattern. 1 kill is not a pattern and won't ever get that designation not withstanding ty lawyers. Of the 10 or so criteria, only 1 refers to the particular crime and the details. A judge is not going to hand out such a label without checking at least 2 boxes. |
|
|
| TheTrinity |
| quote: | Originally posted by Intellekshual
THOSE WHO DON'T USE THEIR HEADS DON'T NEED THEM! |
nobody is using their heads !!
are you saying the apocalypse is justifiable?
no ing way !! |
|
|
|
|
