[kEiThZ]

Shows you how little compassion Harper has. He has kids. Can he seriously think 14 year olds are the same thing as hard core criminals?

I think 14 year olds have the potential to be hard core criminals. Indeed there are several kids I knew who didnt make it to 20 because of gang activity.

While I don't agree with the policy as expressed by Harper, I certainly think a 14 year old can form criminal intent. And if that's the case and he/she commits first or second degree murder, do we then not give them stiff sentences because of the young offender's act? The YOA while largely adequate for the petty crimes most juveniles commit fails miserably to punish and/or protect the public from youth who commit serious violent crime. And that's exactly why you are seeing widespread public support for this policy. The public understands this explicitly.

When we have guns showing up school and kids getting shot by their peers, it is highly unlikely that a few years in a juvenile prison will be seen by the public as an effective deterrent sentence or one that rehabilitates the individual.

 

[Hydrogen]

Can we judge all fourteen year olds on the basis of the few who could be deemed as hard core criminals? Moreover, how can one know if a fourteen year old will actually be a hard core criminal for life if that individual is only fourteen years of age?

A solid portion of all crimes are carried out by young males, and violent behaviour among males tends to start dropping off after thirty years of age. One of the best things we can say about criminal behaviour right now is that its motivations are not well understood. The angry or seemingly violent teenager may not turn out to be that way at all in ten years. It would be very unfortunate to presume that a person who is neither a child, but not quite an adult, could be labeled as a hard core criminal so early in life. In no way should this be viewed as an excuse for the criminal behaviour of a teenager, but knowledge of future criminality derived from such actions seems lacking.

 

[jade_lee]

Nobody appears to be connecting the dots here. Harper certainly supports incarceration of 14 year olds to adult sentences in the case of murder because Harper has sat back and done nothing to protect a Canadian kid rotting in Gitmo, and Harper needs the support of his base to lend credibility to his incredulous ineptitude on the file of Omar Khadr. Omar Khadr has not had a trial, he has not been convicted of any crime. A fair trial appears to be out of Omar's reach as American prosecutors are quiting and even the highest court in America claims the trial process is flawed in Gitmo but the hope of a a trial moves forward. Harper claims he trusts the American's to serve a Canadian kid accused of murder fairly. Why is that? What type of person claims to care about Canadians yet lets a kid rot in Gitmo and shows no compassion what so ever to the circumstances of this particular Canadian kid's life within a family caught up in war? Harper does not recognize Canadian law once again and he puts the horse before the cart with respect to going through the correct channels to change the law.

Are you people here convinced that youth prisons are uniquely different from adult prisons? If so how so? The notion of "crime schools" within our prison walls is based in truth. Go talk to the prison subculture, that is the people locked up now or those who have been locked up previously. Talk to those who work within the prison system. They are certainly a diverse group but all would agree that prison does nothing to improve the circumstances of anyone locked up and in fact the experience usually has a negative impact on the offender. The behaviour happening within our prison walls is nothing to be proud of and certainly not serving the public well considering the money we pour into the system as it is.
Yes I realize there are those who agree with extreme punitive measures but if these measures make people worse than what they were and then these same people are set free, what is the point of it all? What message do we send to youth ? That we as adults have all the power and that they will listen to us or else! When has that ever worked?

 

[kEiThZ]

Nobody appears to be connecting the dots here. Harper certainly supports incarceration of 14 year olds to adult sentences in the case of murder ...

So what? The current legal system supports incarceration at any age for murder. We are not talking about an accidental death from roughhousing here. We are talking about pre-meditated actions leading to someone's death. I doubt you will find many in Canada who argue for no penalty if a 14 year old intentionally kills someone.

Are you people here convinced that youth prisons are uniquely different from adult prisons? If so how so?

For one, everyone in there is a youth...and the programs are catering to youth rehabilitation.

The notion of "crime schools" within our prison walls is based in truth.

You watch way too much American television. There is no evidence at all that recidivism increases owing to incarceration. Some individuals re-offend simply because they are prone to re-offend. But there is scant evidence that putting someone in prison in Canada breeds them to be criminals. Furthermore, there has never been evidence that Canada's prisons are anything like those south of the border.

Go talk to the prison subculture, that is the people locked up now or those who have been locked up previously. Talk to those who work within the prison system. They are certainly a diverse group but all would agree that prison does nothing to improve the circumstances of anyone locked up and in fact the experience usually has a negative impact on the offender.

I have worked with reservists who were prison guards and none of them would support your assertion that prison in and of itself, increases the likelihood of re-offending. If that's the case, should we just not send people to prison at all? Shouldn't we just let any murderer go cause hell sending him to prison would just make him more likely to kill.

The behaviour happening within our prison walls is nothing to be proud of and certainly not serving the public well considering the money we pour into the system as it is.

Prove it. You spout a lot of crap on here, without providing any proof whatsoever. Prison is not a fun place to be, but I doubt our prisons are dens of abuse by any stretch of the imagination. And there is an easy way to stay out....don't commit crimes!

...but if these measures make people worse than what they were and then these same people are set free, what is the point of it all?

Because most of society does not believe that prisons make people worse. And for the most dangerous prisoners (Paul Bernado, Robert Pickton, etc) society believes that the removal of these individuals protects them. The latter alone justifies their incarceration. Would you feel safe living next to a serial killer?

What message do we send to youth ?

That committing serious offenses resulting in grave injury to others has serious consequences. And that society will not tolerate such actions from anyone once you have the ability to for intent and you understand the difference between right and wrong. And if by 14 you cannot figure out that murder is wrong...well there is padded cell that is more than appropriate....

...That we as adults have all the power and that they will listen to us or else! When has that ever worked?

Millions of school kids listen to their teachers everyday simply because they are the grown-ups....

 

[kEiThZ]

The issue here is one of criminal intent...can a 14 yo form that? And one of potential, can 14 yo be rehabilitated? For me, its a yes and yes.

But the problem we have here is a YOA, that releases youth as soon as they turn 19 (or shortly thereafter) regardless of whether they are ready for society or not.

I object to trying any youth as an adult period (if we judge 18 yo to be able to be tried as adults than perhaps we should be giving them all the other rights too). But I also object to sentences that end as soon as the individual is no longer a youth or barely past adult age.

Harper's policy on this is not the solution. But that does not mean, this policy does not need to be changed. We need to discuss the age of majority in this country. It needs to be lowered...and perhaps the YOA needs to be scoped better....

 

[adma]

How about automatic public guillotinings of young offenders

 

[Hydrogen]

Nobody appears to be connecting the dots here. Harper certainly supports incarceration of 14 year olds to adult sentences in the case of murder because Harper has sat back and done nothing to protect a Canadian kid rotting in Gitmo, and Harper needs the support of his base to lend credibility to his incredulous ineptitude on the file of Omar Khadr.

That's a really, really, really long line between the dots. You have to be willing to push your pencil long and hard to do so. You are the only one doing it.

Harper does not recognize Canadian law once again and he puts the horse before the cart with respect to going through the correct channels to change the law.

Khadr isn't in Canada.

A fair trial appears to be out of Omar's reach as American prosecutors are quiting and even the highest court in America claims the trial process is flawed in Gitmo but the hope of a a trial moves forward.

How could he not be getting a fair trial if the trial has yet to happen?

Go talk to the prison subculture, that is the people locked up now or those who have been locked up previously.

Have you talked with them all?

They are certainly a diverse group but all would agree that prison does nothing to improve the circumstances of anyone locked up and in fact the experience usually has a negative impact on the offender.

You do understand that incarceration is a form of punishment? It is supposed to be a negative experience.

What message do we send to youth ?

The message we should send: don't break the laws; understand why those laws exist. Otherwise you risk punitive measures that will curtail your freedoms - which could include incarceration.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Can we judge all fourteen year olds on the basis of the few who could be deemed as hard core criminals?

Every criminal, not matter what age, is judged as an individual. What Harper is doing is giving the Judge an option of an adult life sentence when they wish to apply it.

 

[Brian69]

This initiative only targets youth convicted of violent crimes (e.g., manslaughter, murder or aggravated assault) so I fail to see why it generates sympathy for the offenders. This isn't targeted at petty criminals so it will not turn young thieves into hardened criminals because that isn't the target. Rather, it is going after youth who hard already gone on to violent and dangerous actions, so these offenders are already in the same boat as violent adult offenders and not simply in danger of going down that road.

This is an issue in which polls consistently back Harper's action, so it's not as if he's going against the will of the people here. Yes, crime is down in general but that's no reason to go soft on violent thugs. The public is already tired of stories of violent young offenders playing the system because they are fully aware of how it works. A 14 year might not be as mature as an adult but if they don't know the difference between right and wrong by that age (or, more specifically, the consequences of murder or other cruel acts) then the only other word that fits their description would be sociopath because immature just doesn't cut it.

 

[Hydrogen]

Every criminal, not matter what age, is judged as an individual. What Harper is doing is giving the Judge an option of an adult life sentence when they wish to apply it.

Then first give those fourteen year olds all the rights as adults. If, as an individual, the person in question is fourteen, and is a minor, then that person cannot be judged as an adult unless they are first recognized as being an adult person.

 

[sgcondo]

Isn't life sentence = indefinite with no chance of parole for 25 years? And dangerous offender status is indefinite with no chance of parole indefinitely?

Incidentally, I support the latter form of sentence for people who are considered to be high risks to re-offend. I just think that ridiculous sentences for people who are not likely to re-offend is a silly waste of taxpayer money to assuage some strange revenge complex in the hearts of social conservatives.

I will prefer to keep death punishment for murder - specialy murdere for small kids, rape+murder .. if you give criminal a life time jail
( until natural death) , it might be ok... but who know in future get parol or something else...this will be lesson for other criminals....

 

[Admiral Beez]

Then first give those fourteen year olds all the rights as adults. If, as an individual, the person in question is fourteen, and is a minor, then that person cannot be judged as an adult unless they are first recognized as being an adult person.

That's a strawman argument, and you know it. I suppose your suggestion is that if we don't let 14 year olds drive cars, drink alcohol, vote, etc...we shouldn't give them adult responsibilities like adult sentencing. Well, if that works for you, then fine, go with that.

 

[Hydrogen]

Are fourteen-year-olds minors, yes or no?

If you don't want these individuals voting, driving, drinking, buying cigarettes over the counter and whole host of other things, you do so on the basis that they lack the maturity to do so. There is nothing "strawman" about these facts is there? If we view these people as minors under the law, then they should not be punished as adults under the law.

Seems to me that this desire to hand out adult sentencing to fourteen-year-olds is more about vengeance or frustration with young offender laws than with justice or rehabilitation.

 

[kEiThZ]

Seems to me that this desire to hand out adult sentencing to fourteen-year-olds is more about vengeance or frustration with young offender laws than with justice or rehabilitation.

I strongly agree. Perhaps its time to debate about what an appropriate age of majority is.... 19 is ridiculously high for Ontario. I find it appalling that we can deploy privates younger than that to Afghanistan but they can't have a beer at their mess in Ontario. At the very minimum 18 throughout the country seems fair.

I agree with Hydrogen. Society should not be able to have it both ways, apply adult rules when we feel it is warranted. And particularly so in criminal trials where we are deciding on the individual's maturity after the fact and based on the gravity of the offence. That does not seem fair at all. If a 14 yo is not mature enough to know what they are doing, then they simply are not mature enough to stand trial as an adult. It's ridiculous to say that if they stole something the legal system would not consider them an adult, but if they killed someone they should be tried as an adult.

What this discussion should be about is what the appropriate sentence should be for serious crimes for youth. Is 10 years for murder like that given to an adult for 2nd degree appropriate? It would seem to me that 10 years given in a combination of youth detention/rehab facility and an adult prison seems appropriate. In the worst case here, we are talking about releasing an individual at 28 for second degree, or at 43 for first degree murder. That's plenty of time to have a productive and fulfilling life....especially given that the individual's victims were not so lucky.

 

[afransen]

Also, if minors aren't bound by contract law, why should they be eligible for life sentences?