Canadian Cop Killer gets days off

7 views
Skip to first unread message

Sharpjfa

unread,
Oct 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/14/98
to
Another cop killer who benefited from s.745 has been granted day parole.
Vincent Cockriell and John Harvey Miller murdered Surrey RCMP Constable
Roger Pierlet in 1974.The two were hunting for a police officer in
retaliation for the death of Miller's brother during a police chase;
Pierlet was chosen at random. Cockriell was originally sentenced to
death but it was commuted to life. In 1995, after a successful 745
hearing, the National Parole Board granted him unescorted temporary
passes, and last November they granted him day parole.

Sharpjfa

unread,
Oct 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/14/98
to
PAROLEE CHARGED IN MURDERS

Michael Hector was on parole for an armed robbery committed while he was
on parole for an armed robbery. And now he is facing three counts of
first degree murder.

Earlier this year, he allegedly shot Robert McCellum and Kevin Solomon
in a private dwelling, and later shot gas station attendant Blair
Aitkens. There was reportedly a robbery involved as well.

Hector's criminal career dates back to 1982 and has a relatively
consistent pattern of increasingly serious behaviour. He was serving a
13 year sentence for break and enter, theft, robbery, weapons, etc. In
1991, he was on parole for armed robbery when he re-offended.

He was granted day parole in 1994 and full parole (by paper review only
which means the Board did not see Hector) in 1995. Hector's parole board
documents indicate that "...60% of like offenders re-offend..." yet he
had the universal support of his Case Management Team for day parole.

A preliminary hearing is scheduled for April. The trial may take place
this fall.

The National Parole Board and Corrections Canada have ordered an
investigation into the case.

 

Sharpjfa

unread,
Oct 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/14/98
to
TWO BC KILLERS DENIED PAROLE

Two convicted killers have recently been denied parole by the National
Parole Board in B.C. Dale Hicks and Kiyonori Fujimori were both
convicted of manslaughter in unrelated crimes.

Hicks murdered two women in 1992, Karen Rainey and Laurie Woods (mother
of three). He stabbed Karen 17 times and stabbed Laurie 6 times when she
tried to help her roommate. Hicks claimed he was suffering from "cocaine
psychosis" at the time and blacked out only to wake to find blood
everywhere. However, he did not call the police or try to help the two
women. Instead, he drove to a friend's house and picked up a gun, drove
to a park (all while he was suffering from cocaine psychosis) where he
was found by a caretaker. He was charged with second degree murder but
the jury apparently accepted his defence and convicted him of
manslaughter. The judge gave him ten years.

Fujimori beat Stuart Brown to death in 1993 outside a bar after a
scuffle took place inside the bar. Stuart tried to protect a woman from
Fujimori and was assaulted. When he went outside, Fujimori went looking
for him. Fujimori once again attacked him and repeatedly punched and
kicked Stuart in the head as he lay defenseless on the ground. He was
also charged with second degree murder but pleaded guilty to
manslaughter. He was sentenced to five years.

At the time of Stuart's murder, Fujimori was awaiting trial for a charge
of assault causing bodily harm.

 

Sharpjfa

unread,
Oct 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/14/98
to
OLSON LOSES HIS ATTEMPT TO STRIKE CSC GAG ORDER

Serial child killer Clifford Olson has lost his attempt to have a
CSC-imposed media gag order lifted. He says it violates his rights of
freedom of expression and communication, but CSC says it protects the
families of his victims as well as being necessary for any chances he
has at rehabilitation. The Saskatoon court did not even need to hear
from the Government lawyers before they dismissed his case. He may try
and appeal to the Supreme Court.

BERNARDO DENIED LEGAL AID

Serial killer Paul Bernardo has been denied access to Legal Aid in his
efforts to appeal his convictions for murder. Bernardo is granted an
automatic appeal given the seriousness of the charges. He says that the
jury selection was flawed, psychiatric evidence about Karla Homolka
should not have been allowed and evidence of similar acts he committed
on previous occasions should not have been admitted. The Ontario Court
of Appeal told Bernardo that the issues were quite simple and he could
argue them himself.

JUDGE RECOMMENDS FIVE FEMALE KILLERS BE GRANTED RELEASE

Judge Lynn Ratushny, who was tasked with reviewing dozens of cases of
women who claim to have murdered abusive partners, has recommended that
five women be given complete freedom. She said that two should have been
acquitted because they used self-defence and three others should have
been convicted of manslaughter, not murder. The Solicitor General is not
promising any swift action on the recommendations as his officials need
time to examine them.

National Parole Board

FACTS: TYPES OF RELEASE

Why are offenders released before the end of their sentence of
imprisonment?

By law, all offenders must be considered for some form of conditional
release during their sentence. Just because an offender is eligible for
release, however, does not mean that the release will be granted --
release on parole is never guaranteed. Conditional release does not mean
the sentence is shortened, it means the remainder of the sentence may be
served in the community under supervision with specific conditions. The
National Parole Board must assess an offender's risk when they become
eligible for all types of conditional release, with the exception of
Statutory Release. That's because protection of society is the most
important consideration of any release decision.

TYPES OF RELEASE:

Temporary absence:
•Usually the first type of release an offender may be granted. •May be
escorted (ETA) or unescorted (UTA). •Granted so offenders may: receive
medical treatment; contact with their family; undergo personal
development and/or counselling; and participate in community service
work projects.


Eligibility:

•Offenders may apply for ETAs any time throughout their sentence. •UTAs
vary, depending on the length and type of sentence. Offenders classified
as maximum security are not eligible for UTAs. •For sentences of three
years or more, offenders are eligible to be considered for UTAs after
serving one sixth of their sentence. •For sentences of two to three
years, UTA eligibility is at six months into the sentence. •For
sentences under two years, eligibility for temporary absence is under
provincial jurisdiction. •Offenders serving life sentences are eligible
to apply for UTAs three years before their full parole eligibility date.

Day parole:
•Prepares an offender for release on full parole or statutory release by
allowing the offender to participate in community-based activities. •
Offenders on day parole must return nightly to an institution or a
halfway house unless otherwise authorized by the National Parole Board.


Eligibility:

•Offenders serving sentences of three years or more are eligible to
apply for day parole six months prior to full parole eligibility. •
Offenders serving life sentences are eligible to apply for day parole
three years before their full parole eligibility date. •Offenders
serving sentences of two to three years are eligible for day parole
after serving six months of their sentence. •For sentences under two
years, day parole eligibility comes at one-sixth of their sentence.

Full parole:
•Offender serves the remainder of the sentence under supervision in the
community. •An offender must report to a parole supervisor on a regular
basis and must advise on any changes in employment or personal
circumstances.


Eligibility:

•Most offenders (except those serving life sentences for murder) are
eligible to apply for full parole after serving either one-third of
their sentence or seven years. •Offenders serving life sentences for
first-degree murder are eligible after serving 25 years. •Eligibility
dates for offenders serving life sentences for second-degree murder are
set between 10 to 25 years by the court.

Statutory release:
•By law, most federal inmates are automatically released after serving
two-thirds of their sentence if they have not already been released on
parole. This is called statutory release. •Statutory release is not the
same as parole because the decision for release is not made by the
National Parole Board. •Offenders serving life or indeterminate
sentences are not eligible for statutory release. •The Correctional
Service of Canada may recommend an offender be denied statutory release
if they believe the offender is likely to: •commit an offence causing
death or serious harm to another person; •commit a sexual offence
involving a child; or •commit a serious drug offence before the end of
the sentence.


In such cases, the National Parole Board may detain that offender until
the end of the sentence or add specific conditions to the statutory
release plan. Offenders must agree to abide by certain conditions before
release is granted. These conditions place restrictions on the offender
and assist the parole supervisor to manage the risk posed by an offender
who is on conditional release. Whether on parole or statutory release,
offenders are supervised in the community by the Correctional Service of
Canada and will be returned to prison if they are believed to present an
undue risk to the public. The National Parole Board has the authority to
revoke release if the conditions are breached.


 

Sharpjfa

unread,
Oct 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/14/98
to

Parole: Priority Without Protection
Why was a criminal with a record 'as long as your arm' set free to kill?


Long before June 13, 1992, when 24 year-old Angela Richards was
murdered, her killer had built a criminal history. The public was not
informed about Wayne Alexander Perkin's criminal past, despite the fact
that he was an obvious and violent threat to public safety.
Angela's murder offered further proof and yet another tragic example of
the desperate need for change in Canada's Criminal Code. Perkin, an
offender who had previously committed a violent crime, was on parole at
the time he murdered Angela.
Criminal data on Perkin dates back to the 1960's. His crimes escalated
in violence until he ultimately reached the criminal capacity of taking
an innocent life. It was Canada's criminal justice system that allowed
Perkin to grow more and more dangerous.
After weapons offences and several periods of incarceration, he sexually
assaulted a female tenant in the building of which he was manager. He
was charged with kidnapping and unlawful confinement, administering a
noxious substance, assaulting the woman with a hammer, and threatening
to kill her if she did not cooperate.
He was convicted of some of the charges and sentenced to three years in
prison. The Crown successfully appealed, and Perkin's sentence was
increased to six years. Since sentences are served concurrently, he was
paroled after serving only 30 months.
Had Perkin not been released so easily through our parole laws, Angela
Richards would be alive today. The fact that the justice system
continues to fail to protect the public and fails to prevent further
tragedies is shocking and inexcusable.
The tenants living in the Langley, B.C. apartment complex were unaware
of Perkin's past when he took up residence there following his release
from prison in 1989. He was free to live next to and later kill Angela
Richards, his neighbour across the hall.
Richards was killed on the evening of June 13, 1992. Her body lay
decomposing for an entire week before being discovered. As was stated
later by the judge at Perkin's sentencing, 'Perkin meanwhile maintained
his daily routine, still the neighbour across the hall.'
Although Perkin was suspected soon after Richards' body was discovered,
it took until May 5, 1993 to charge him with the murder. Nearly 11
months of pain and anger were endured by Angela's family and friends as
they learned the prime suspect in the murder had refused to provide the
RCMP with blood or hair samples. Furthermore, Perkin was on parole,
which added to the RCMP officers' frustration in bringing charges in the
case.
After Perkin was formally charged in May, 1993, the first in a long list
of judicial hurdles was the September preliminary hearing. Once it was
clear that there was sufficient evidence to warrant a trial, May 28,
1994 was set as the date for the hearing. This, however, was pushed
ahead six weeks and the trial was rescheduled for February 14.
The trial was scheduled to take place at the New Westminster Supreme
Court and was expected to last three weeks. New Westminster is the same
city where Angela Richards grew up, was an elementary school May Queen,
a high school homecoming queen and a representative in a Miss New
Westminster Pageant.
Although the defence initially chose a trial by judge and jury, the
defence's request for a mistrial after eleven days forced both the Crown
and the defence to agree to dismiss the jury and continue the trial
before Justice Ian Josephson alone. Though the testimony of previous
witnesses was read into the transcripts, a new trial officially began on
March 7, 1994.
The trial was marred by a great deal of legal wrangling, and included
another mistrial application, a stay-of-proceedings request, a week's
delay and a successful defence argument to bring in another witness.
The court heard that Wayne Perkin knocked Angela Richards unconscious
and stabbed her twelve times. The motive for his actions was that he
needed to prevent her from telling his wife that he had made sexual
advances toward the much younger Richards. What should have been a
relatively simple case took ten weeks, concluding on April 21, 1994.
At the June 30 sentencing, five weeks after the second degree murder
conviction, Justice Josephson cited several reasons for an increase in
the minimum sentence. He set parole eligibility at 18 years based on the
fact that Perkin showed no remorse for the crime, and the murder bore a
disturbing similarity to his aggravated sexual assault of the young
woman in 1986. Both women had been alone and were defenceless, and
Perkin was on parole at the time of both crimes.
The last reason, his violation of parole, illustrated one of the most
frustrating and incomprehensible aspects of Angela Richards' murder.
Wayne Perkin had manipulated and slipped his way through the system. He
had previously been behind bars where he could not hurt anyone.
'Had he served a six-year sentence (for the first crime), my sister
would be alive today,' Angela's sister Corinne Schafer said to TV
cameras outside court.
More than two full years had passed between Angela's murder and Perkin's
sentencing. After two years of silence, those deeply affected could
finally speak. 'He should have still been there (jail),' said Lorna
Richards, Angela's mother, moments after the guilty verdict was read.
With regard to Perkins prior violence, she added, 'He only got six
years, he did less than three. And he's out in time to kill my
daughter.'
The tragedy also got the attention of the people who have the power to
do something about the justice system. Randy White, Reform Member of
Parliament for Fraser Valley, said after attending the conviction, 'This
is just another example of how the system doesn't work.'
Even though countless people spoke of a widespread lack of faith in the
Canadian criminal justice system, perhaps no one is more compelling than
retired RCMP member Dennis Osse. A 26-year veteran at the time, Osse
said in May of 1993, following Perkin's arrest, though not aired on TV
until conviction, 'This is my personal opinion...our society, our system
has let her down. I say that primarily because I'm sure if this young
woman had been aware of who was living next door to her, she would have
chosen to reside somewhere else.'
The silence was broken. After the June 30 sentencing, UTV reporter Kate
Corcoran stated; 'Justice Ian Josephson listed several reasons for the
sentence, among them Perkin's cool-headedness, saying Perkin 'cleaned
the scene and moved items to throw investigators off...carried on life
in a normal fashion while Richards' body lay decomposing.'
Even an hour after the sentencing, family and friends still stood with
mixed emotions and confusion outside the courthouse. Corinne Schafer
said to television crews and other reporters, 'I'm upset obviously, it's
ridiculous, look at the background of him, look at him. Whose daughter
is he going to live next to in 18 years when he's out on parole for
God's sake...I wanted no parole, he cannot handle parole obviously. He
was on parole when he killed my sister, he doesn't know what parole
is...why should he ever be allowed to go on parole again?'
Wayne Perkin was also charged with a multitude of other offences between
the times of his arrest and trial. This was after a woman finally felt
safe coming forward, knowing that he was in custody and facing lengthy
incarceration. She had been victimised by Perkin in 1986, but fear for
her personal safety had prevented her from coming forward.
In August, 1994 the preliminary hearing yielded three new charges
against Perkin. He will be facing another trial commencing March 20,
1995 on charges of indecent assault, gross indecency and the sexual
assault of the other female tenant.

Sharpjfa

unread,
Oct 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/14/98
to
Section 745: A 40% Discount on Life Sentences

A little-known section of Canada's Criminal Code gives murderers
sentenced to life in prison the opportunity to apply for a reduction of
up to 40% in time served. Nearly three out of four applicants get a
reduction. Their victims never will.
Section 745 -- Background and Foreground


Background
In 1976, capital punishment for convicted murderers was eliminated in
Canada and replaced with mandatory life imprisonment. People convicted
of first degree murder had to serve a minimum of twenty-five years in
prison while those convicted of second degree murder had to serve
between ten and twenty-five years (to be determined by the judge at the
time of sentencing) before becoming eligible for parole.
At the same time, Section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada was
introduced, producing a loophole to these sentences. Section 745, simply
put, states that if a person has been convicted of first or second
degree murder and has served fifteen years of the sentence, he/she is
allowed to apply to the court to ask for a reduction in the number of
years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole. In effect, the
offender is asking for a reduction of their original sentence.
On receiving the application for review, a judge brings together a jury
to decide whether or not to reduce the time to be served. The jury will
hear about the character of the applicant, his/her conduct while serving
the sentence, the nature of the original offence and anything else the
judge might deem necessary. The jury can decide to reduce the number of
years of imprisonment without parole, set a time in the future for
another hearing, or deny the application outright. Two thirds of the
jury must agree on the decision: it need not be unanimous.
The Crown cannot retry the original offence at this time. As John
Nunziata, Member of Parliament for York South-Weston, stated, 'It must
be remembered that during the reviews, the jury cannot take into account
the circumstances of the crime or the notorious character of the inmate
due to that crime. They can only hear evidence of how he has behaved in
an institution.'
The jury is only allowed to hear the nature of the offence, not the
chilling details.

Sharpjfa

unread,
Oct 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/14/98
to
Some of the over 600 'lifers' who will be able to apply for review under
Section 745 are listed below:

柊nthony Speciale, 47, is serving 'life' with no chance of parole for 23
years for the 'point blank range' shooting slayings of Stanley Norman,
33, and Bill Lianzakis, 30, and his brother Paul 23, in Toronto in 1977.
百aul Betesh, 44, and Ronald Kribs, 47, are serving first degree murder
terms for the brutal sex-slaying of a 12-year-old shoe shine boy,
Emmanuel Jaques, in July, 1977.
紐onald Neely, 53, went on a murder rampage in November, 1977 when his
wife moved out with their four children. He killed his 13-year-old son
with a shotgun and wounded two of his daughters. Family members fear
that if he gets out early, he'll 'finish them off'.
匹raig Alfred Munro, 43, will be eligible for judicial review in March,
1995. He was a career criminal out on mandatory supervision when he
murdered 30 year-old Metro Toronto policeman Michael Sweet during a
robbery. The officer, a father of three, bled to death as Munro and his
younger brother ignored Sweet's pleas to think of his family.
謬errance Derek Musgrave, 38, will be eligible to apply for a judicial
review in January, 1996. He is serving a life term without parole for 18
years for the 1981 murder of 43 year-old North York store owner Cathy
Maruya. Her body had 28 stab wounds. Musgrave was out on mandatory
supervision at the time of the murder.
疋aniel James Wood, 41, will become eligible to apply for early release
in July, 1997. He is serving two life terms for the March, 1979 murder
of Merla Laycock in Calgary and the July, 1982 murder of Judy Anne
Delisle, 38, of Toronto. A Calgary police detective described Wood as
'the most evil man I have ever laid eyes on.'

These offenders will also be able to apply for review on the following
dates:

匹lifford Olson, August 12, 1996 匹olin Thatcher, May 7, 1999 菱elmut
Buxbaum, July 23, 1999 柊llen Legere, November 19, 2005

Perhaps these are the people Justice Committee Chair Warren Allmand was
referring to when he said:


"to keep them in for 25 years in my view is a waste of resources, a
waste of a person's life ... Sometimes they catch their wives fooling
around or vice versa and they kill and it's murder, but they've never
committed another crime in their lives."


Of 43 cases heard as of March 31, 1994, 19 applicants were given
permission to apply for parole and 13 had their period of ineligibility
reduced. Eleven applications were rejected. (Hamilton Spectator, June 6,
1994) The range of clemency depended on the province. In 74% of cases
the original sentence given for the crime of murder has been changed.
If you want these people back on the streets earlier than a judge and
jury did, then do nothing. They will trickle out on their own. If you
don't want them out early, then do any of the following:

Desmond Coughlan

unread,
Oct 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/14/98
to
Dans message <19981014034332...@ng111.aol.com>, daté le 14
Oct 1998 07:43:32 GMT, shar...@aol.com (Sharpjfa) a écrit:

> PAROLEE CHARGED IN MURDERS
>
> Michael Hector was on parole for an armed robbery committed while he was
> on parole for an armed robbery. And now he is facing three counts of
> first degree murder.

What does this have to do with the abolition of the death penalty? Mr
Hector was not in prison for murder, and so would not have been
eligible for execution, irrespective of how vociferously capital
punishment had been pursued in that particular jurisdiction.

Unless, that is ... you're advocating the death penalty for those
convicted of armed robbery.

What next? Assault, shoplifiting, homosexuality (down, Don!!),
jaywalking?
----
Desmond Coughlan |Restez zen ... Unix peut le faire
dcou...@pratique.fr
www.pratique.fr/~dcoughla

Desmond Coughlan

unread,
Oct 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/14/98
to
Dans message <19981014034507...@ng111.aol.com>, daté le 14
Oct 1998 07:45:07 GMT, shar...@aol.com (Sharpjfa) a écrit:

> TWO BC KILLERS DENIED PAROLE
>
> Two convicted killers have recently been denied parole by the National
> Parole Board in B.C. Dale Hicks and Kiyonori Fujimori were both
> convicted of manslaughter in unrelated crimes.
>
> Hicks murdered two women in 1992,

No he didn't. As you deathies often tell us to stick to legal
definitions of murder, you should do the same. Legally, this
individual is not a murderer.

You can't have your bread and eat it too, as my mother often says. :)

[rest snipped]

Osmo Ronkanen

unread,
Oct 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/14/98
to
In article <19981014034507...@ng111.aol.com>,

Sharpjfa <shar...@aol.com> wrote:
>TWO BC KILLERS DENIED PAROLE
>
>Two convicted killers have recently been denied parole by the National
>Parole Board in B.C. Dale Hicks and Kiyonori Fujimori were both
>convicted of manslaughter in unrelated crimes.
^^^^^^^^^^^^

>
>Hicks murdered two women in 1992, Karen Rainey and Laurie Woods (mother
>of three).

Now it is murder? How?

Osmo


Rev. Don Kool

unread,
Oct 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/14/98
to
Desi Coughlan <dcou...@pratique.fr> wrote:
> shar...@aol.com (Sharpjfa) wrote:

> > PAROLEE CHARGED IN MURDERS
> >
> > Michael Hector was on parole for an armed robbery committed while he was
> > on parole for an armed robbery. And now he is facing three counts of
> > first degree murder.

> What does this have to do with the abolition of the death penalty? Mr
> Hector was not in prison for murder, and so would not have been
> eligible for execution, irrespective of how vociferously capital
> punishment had been pursued in that particular jurisdiction.
>
> Unless, that is ... you're advocating the death penalty for those
> convicted of armed robbery.
>
> What next? Assault, shoplifiting, homosexuality (down, Don!!),
> jaywalking?

Actually young Kevin Pope's "religion" would probably support the
execution of homosexuals as they already consider them an
"abomination".

Yours in Christ,
Don


--
********************** You a bounty hunter?
* Rev. Don McDonald * Man's gotta earn a living.
* Baltimore, MD * Dying ain't much of a living, boy.
********************** "Outlaw Josey Wales"
http://members.home.net/oldno7

Fly2wheel

unread,
Oct 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/14/98
to
Send him (them) to the chair.

Fly2wheel

unread,
Oct 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/14/98
to
Don't let Paul Bernado out because he's a nosence to the people and society.
He's a cold blooded killer and should be left behind bars where he belongs for
the rest of his natural life.
Karla Homolka shouldn't be allowed out of jail either; because she was also
involved in the killings of the teenagers which Paul Bernado killed.

Sharpjfa

unread,
Oct 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/15/98
to
In Canada:

'It must >be remembered that during the >reviews (for early parole of a life
sentence) the jury cannot take into account

>the circumstances of the crime or the notorious character of the inmate
>due to that crime. They can only hear evidence of how he has behaved in
>an institution.'

It must be remembered that Spragge has been talking about the life sentence,
where Canadian prisoners must serve at least 25 years before being eligible for
parole. In reality, the overwhelming majority of lifers - 74% - are granted
release dates before their alleged minimum time has been served.

Great system. Sounds as bad as US, with the exception that at least our parole
boards get to consider the specific nature of the crimes. It is truly
astounding that this is kept from Canadian parole consideration.


sharpjfa


>The jury is only allowed to hear the nature of the offence, not the

>chilling details.><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Canadian Cop Killer gets days off
>From: shar...@aol.com (Sharpjfa)
>Date: Wed, Oct 14, 1998 04:01 EDT
>Message-id: <19981014040128...@ng111.aol.com>

></PRE></HTML>

John G. Spragge

unread,
Oct 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/15/98
to
Sharpjfa wrote:

> In reality, the overwhelming majority of lifers - 74% - are granted
> release dates before their alleged minimum time has been served.

I'd love to know where you got this, since the evaluation I last
checked shows that a grand total of 1% of offenders sentenced
to life-25 had received parole through section 745.

Section 741 reviews do not take place automatically, and as of
1992 only 20% of the eligible offenders had applied, with a
success rate of about 50%. The success rate of offenders
applying for section 745 hearings does not indicate the
proportion of lifers granted the ability to apply for parole.

Success at a section 745 hearing does not grant a release date,
or anything remotely like it. It merely grants the right to ask.
The Canadian parole board does not grant releases lightly
or easily, and it considerably distorts the laws to refer to a
section 745 result as a "release date".

> It is truly
> astounding that this is kept from Canadian parole consideration.

Try to keep your comments to something you remotely understand;
or, conversely, try to read up on the laws you criticize before taking
them on.

1) As I have posted repeatedly, and you haven't contradicted, the
average US murderer gets out after 6 years. The section 745 hearing
can't take place until the offender has served at least 15 years.

2) Section 745 hearings do not grant parole. They simply move up the
date at which the offender can apply for parole. An offender granted
the right to apply for parole in a 745 hearing still has to get past the
full parole board; and the parole board can and does (by explicit policy;
see: http://wwlia.org/ca-parol.htm) take all factors, including the details
of the original crime, into account.

--
J. G. Spragge ------------------------ standard disclaimers apply
For essays on crime and punishment, politics, and network issues:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~spragge

Frisettes

unread,
Oct 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/16/98
to


AND????


--We will only start to be free of will when we realize that we are not.--

Sharpjfa

unread,
Oct 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/16/98
to
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Canadian Cop Killer gets days off
>From: "John G. Spragge" <spr...@umich.edu>
>Date: Thu, Oct 15, 1998 06:41 EDT
>Message-id: <3625D16D...@umich.edu>

>
>Sharpjfa wrote:
>
>> In reality, the overwhelming majority of lifers - 74% - are granted
>> release dates before their alleged minimum time has been served.
>
>I'd love to know where you got this.

Fromthe group you recommended CAVEAT

> since the evaluation I last
>checked shows that a grand total of 1% of offenders sentenced
>to life-25 had received parole through section 745.

And, Spragge, let's fully disclose. Oh, a difficult concept for you? Try
anyway.

>
>Section 741 reviews do not take place automatically, and as of
>1992 only 20% of the eligible offenders had applied,

And tell the NG why only 20% have applied. Oh come on Spragge, this full
disclosure thing isn't so difficult, is it?

> with a
>success rate of about 50%. The success rate of offenders applying for section
745 hearings does not indicate the
>proportion of lifers granted the ability to >apply for parole.
>

Let's fully disclose now Spragge.

>Success at a section 745 hearing does not grant a release date,
>or anything remotely like it. It merely grants the right to ask.
>The Canadian parole board does not grant releases lightly
>or easily, and it considerably distorts the laws to refer to a
>section 745 result as a "release date".

Distortion, Spragge? Please review your posts and fully disclose. OK?

>
>> It is truly
>> astounding that this is kept from Canadian parole consideration.
>
>Try to keep your comments to something you remotely understand;
>or, conversely, try to read up on the laws you criticize before taking
>them on.

See Spragge, I knew that you would finally understand how to understand
deterrence and brutalization. You're too easy. The NG will appreciate your
lesson in logic and will now expect you to start following your own advice.
Now, Spragge work on full disclosure. OK.



>
>1) As I have posted repeatedly, and you haven't contradicted, the
>average US murderer gets out after 6 years. The section 745 hearing
>can't take place until the offender has served at least 15 years.

OK NG, Spragge is beginning, accidently, to fully disclose. Let's see, as
Spragge revealed:

> since the evaluation I last
>checked shows that a grand total of 1% of offenders sentenced
>to life-25 had received parole through section 745.

And when did 745 become law. And how many murderers have qualified to apply
for early release? And how many of those have early release dates? And how many
are eligible for early release dates?

To show how Spragge doesn't fully disclose. Example: a law is passed, oh in
1976, say s 745, whereby murderers can apply for early parole - thus making a
Life-25 sentence, not a life-25 sentence.- and the s 745 provision says that
all murder cases, including life-25 cases (which is a life sentence, eligible
for parole in 25 years, which when granted a s 745 provision is really a
life-15 sentence) may apply for this s 745 benefit. Well, what if was say, the
year 1991, how many life-25 sentences would have been granted a s 745? Well
none of course.

And what if Canadians rightly dislike s 745 they can get rid of it, right. Yes
and no. If murderers committed their crimes when s 745 was the law, it will
always apply to them. Or 100% of all those criminals. And 100% of all criminals
from 1979-1998 will fall under s 745. And 74% of all those who have applied for
s 745 have been granted it. S 745 can be revoked for all future criminals.

And when Canadians start seeing the steady flow of murderers being released
way to early, the will, hopefully repeal this pathetic law. See Spragge, its
lot like the American criminal justice system. Totally disrepect the jury or
the judge.

See NG>


>2) Section 745 hearings do not grant parole. They simply move up the
>date at which the offender can apply for parole. An offender granted
>the right to apply for parole in a 745 hearing still has to get past the
>full parole board; and the parole board can and does (by explicit policy;


Ahhh, yes. But the parole board doesn't get to hear any of the details of the
gross brutality of the murder and the suffering of the victims, do they? The
law prohibits that, doesn't it? The parole board can only review the
performance of the criminal while in prison. Pathetic. So a serial pedophile
hasn't got a record of attacking children while in prison. Good boy. Let's let
him out early. Nice system.

>see: http://wwlia.org/ca-parol.htm) take all factors, including the details
>of the original crime, into account.

Well, not quite. I believe that CAVEAT stated that under s 745 the parole
board is restricted in what information they can hear about the details of the
crime. Spragge, what does s 745 say specifically on this?


and of course, there is that wonderful day parole:

>Another cop killer who benefited from s.745 has been granted day parole.

Wonderful system in Canada.

Why does CAVEAT want s 745 repealed?

See, how it works, Spragge? Canada passes laws to subvert the will of the
juries. As a matter of fact, wasn't s 745 and the Life-25 law passed at the
same time? Thus making Life-25 a joke the day it was passed? Sounds like an
American criminal justice sytem, doesn't it?

Work hard and it can be changed. See how it works Spragge?

Sharpjfa

John G. Spragge

unread,
Oct 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/16/98
to
Sharpjfa wrote:

> Fromthe group you recommended CAVEAT

I checked. More precisely, you pulled an entire paragraph off their
web site and posted it without attribution. If you'd included the
cite from their web, http://www.caveat.org/, other users could
look it up and discover why they don't support the restoration of
capital punishment.

[ a bunch of insulting nonsense about "full disclosure" snipped ]

"Sharpjfa" posted a grossly incorrect estimate of the number of lifers
who had obtained early release dates. I corrected him with the information
that only 20% of inmates had even applied for the early release provisions.
The "full disclosure" nonsense came up because "Sharpjfa" made the
assumption I had referred to 20% of the whole pool of lifers, not of those
eligible.

Apparently without doing any research to confirm this assumption (which
may explain how "Sharpjfa" generally jumps to his conclusions about the
"dishonesty" of the abolitionist movement), "Sharpjfa" constructed an
elaborate supposition about "disclosure".

I will now correct this particular error as well. When I referred to 20%,
I meant, naturally, 20% of the eligible offenders. The information
comes from the following URL, for anyone who feels like verifying it:
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/crd/forum/e042/e042f.htm


> The parole board can only review the
> performance of the criminal while in prison. Pathetic.

I don't see much excuse for ignorance at any time; in this case, where I
have posted many references to sources for the facts, I see none at all.
But I can certainly see how "Sharpjfa" maintains this frenzy of denial.
Ignore facts and references, do no research (unless someone spoon feeds
you, and probably not even then), and add adjectives such as "pathetic"
to describe a system you make no effort to understand.

To put it plainly: the parole board does, by explicit policy, consider the
gravity of the original offence, and sets, as its first priority, the safety of
the public. Anyone interested in the actual policy of the Canadian parole
board can find it here: http://wwlia.org/ca-parol.htm

> Well, not quite. I believe that CAVEAT stated that under s 745 the parole
> board is restricted in what information they can hear about the details of the
> crime.

It wouldn't hurt to make an effort to understand the system before you criticize
it. Section 745 of the criminal code doesn't give the parole board a role
in the decision to reduce the period of parole ineligibility. That job goes
to the courts, and specifically a regular jury. See the following link for details:

http://canada.justice.gc.ca/News/Communiques/1996/doc745_en.html

David E. Wallace

unread,
Oct 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/17/98
to
In article <3625D16D...@umich.edu>,

John G. Spragge <spr...@umich.edu> wrote:
>1) As I have posted repeatedly, and you haven't contradicted, the
>average US murderer gets out after 6 years. The section 745 hearing
>can't take place until the offender has served at least 15 years.

He may not have contradicted that figure, but I did. Check DejaNews
if you want the details (under the title "California Prison Terms
for Murder"). I posted (1): data from a primary source
(California Dept. of Corrections) showing that the tiny percentage
of California murderers who were paroled at all (around 0.1%) served
12-17 years before first parole, and (2): data from a secondary/tertiary
source (almanac quoting data from a named FBI report) showing that average
time served for murder, *excluding those sentenced to some form of life or
death sentence*, was over 8 years. In other words, the small fraction of
murderers given the lightest sentences still served more than 30% longer
sentences than you claim is the average for all murderers.

In support of your figure, you cited an Atlantic Monthly article
which quoted that figure without citing a source. That is at
best a tertiary source that is not remotely comparable to the
sources I cited above. That article is a very good source on what
it feels like to be a close relative of a murder victim (the main
point of the article), but I consider it a poor source of statistical
data. The author clearly was not analyzing the data he cited very
critically, since some of his numbers failed a basic plausibility
test, or appear to contradict other data that he cited. One example I
remember: he claimed that the number of unsolved murders over the last 20
years meant there were at least that many murderers walking around free
today (and then he went on to inflate the latter number based on even more
supposition). Didn't he stop to think that some murderers could have
killed multiple victims, could be imprisoned for other crimes, or could
have died or been killed themselves (a fairly common fate among rival
gang bangers and drug dealers)?

If that 6 year statistic isn't totally bogus, it must be
misunderstood and stripped of its context. My best guess is that
it might represent the average term served by persons convicted
of homicide who get released. That would mean it mostly represents
the term for manslaughter, mixed in with some of the shorter 2nd degree
murder terms. That might get you close to 6 years. But if my
guess is true, then you are basically comparing the U.S. term
for manslaughter with the Canadian term for 1st degree murder,
which is hardly an apples-to-apples comparison.

If you really want to compare U.S. and Canadian incarceration terms
for murder fairly, you need to find better sources. Primary sources
are best in principle if you can collate and interpret them yourself;
peer-reviewed academic studies may be best for the non-professional like you
or me. If you really want to understand what typically happens to a person
convicted of murder over time, a good cohort study would be ideal
(take all the persons convicted of murder in a given year, say 20
years ago, and then report on what they got sentenced to and what
happened to them after 5, 10, 15, and 20 years). Let me
know if you find such a study - that goes well beyond the resources
of my local public library. Magazine articles for the general public
tend to be well down on the pecking order of reliable sources in general.

To quote the final paragraph of my article from last year:

At least the Almanac cite makes it clear that you are only looking at the
least severe sentences for murder. The Atlantic Monthly quote lacked this
crucial qualification, claiming "A convicted murderer in the United
States is released after spending, on average, just six years in prison."
(Vol. 280, No. 3, September 1997, p. 75). I believe that this quote is
not only wrong, but gives a dangerously misleading impression of the
true state of American justice for convicted murderers. As such, it does
not well serve either opponents or supporters of the death penalty who
wish to understand the facts about capital punishment.
--
Dave Wallace (wal...@netcom.com)
It is quite humbling to realize that the storage occupied by the longest
line from a typical Usenet posting is sufficient to provide a state space
so vast that all the computation power in the world can not conquer it.

Sharpjfa

unread,
Oct 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/17/98
to
Spragge doesn't comprehend full disclosure, or possibly doebn't approve of it.

><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Canadian Cop Killer gets days off
>From: "John G. Spragge" <spr...@umich.edu>

>Date: Fri, Oct 16, 1998 13:48 EDT
>Message-id: <362786D0...@umich.edu>


>
>Sharpjfa wrote:
>
>> Fromthe group you recommended CAVEAT
>
>I checked. More precisely, you pulled an entire paragraph off their
>web site and posted it without attribution. If you'd included the
>cite from their web, http://www.caveat.org/, other users could
>look it up and discover why they don't support the restoration of
>capital punishment.

Oh, Spragge, CAVEAT because they are against DP, are cited. But the Canadian
people, a majority of whom support it, are discounted by Spragge. Classic
anti-dp elitism and logic.

>
>[ a bunch of insulting nonsense about "full disclosure" snipped ]

To Spragge full disclosure is insulting.


>
>"Sharpjfa" posted a grossly incorrect estimate of the number of lifers
>who had obtained early release dates. I corrected him with the information
>that only 20% of inmates had even applied for the early release provisions.

Go back to the context of my response. You know, were I said you were so easy.
The context was that Hey Spragge can comprehend something when he wants to. I
wanted to show the NG that if you "wanted" to comprehend you could. This was a
"gotcha" . Maybe you didn't want to get it. I had previously posted CAVEAT's
description of s 745. Obviously you missed it. Predictable.

>The "full disclosure" nonsense came up because "Sharpjfa" made the
>assumption I had referred to 20% of the whole pool of lifers, not of those
>eligible.

No such assumption.

>
>Apparently without doing any research to confirm this assumption (which
>may explain how "Sharpjfa" generally jumps to his conclusions about the
>"dishonesty" of the abolitionist movement), "Sharpjfa" constructed an
>elaborate supposition about "disclosure".

You missed it Spragge.

But Spragge, the parole board allows the case to go to the judge. Full
disclosure of the crimes and suffering are not presented to the board. That was
the point.

sharpjfa


Sharpjfa

unread,
Oct 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/17/98
to
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Canadian Cop Killer gets days off
>From: wal...@netcom.com (David E. Wallace)
>Date: Sat, Oct 17, 1998 06:04 EDT
>Message-id: <wallaceF...@netcom.com>

>
>In article <3625D16D...@umich.edu>,
>John G. Spragge <spr...@umich.edu> wrote:
>>1) As I have posted repeatedly, and you haven't contradicted, the
>>average US murderer gets out after 6 years. The section 745 hearing
>>can't take place until the offender has served at least 15 years.

Sharp: Spragge is mixing all murders for US and only Life-25 murders fo Canada.
Typical anti-dp dishonesty. Spragge is intentionally comparing two distinct
categories of criminal and punishment.To compare equal categories of criminals,
one would look only at that class of US murderers who actually receive a life
sentence. This would show how a lifer in Canada compares to a lifer in US.

Spragge is correct, the average murderer in the US is released after 5.9 years.
I believe that was as per Dr. John DiIulio, Jr.s research for those murderers
released in 1991. I suspect the average is better for 1997-98.

Wallace replies:>He (Spragge) may not have contradicted that figure, but I


did. Check DejaNews
>if you want the details (under the title "California Prison Terms
>for Murder"). I posted (1): data from a primary source
>(California Dept. of Corrections) showing that the tiny percentage
>of California murderers who were paroled at all (around 0.1%) served
>12-17 years before first parole, and (2): data from a secondary/tertiary
>source (almanac quoting data from a named FBI report) showing that average
>time served for murder, *excluding those sentenced to some form of life or
>death sentence*, was over 8 years. In other words, the small fraction of
>murderers given the lightest sentences still served more than 30% longer
>sentences than you claim is the average for all murderers.
>

Sharp: This cones from Spragge's inability to comprehend issues, or his
intentional desire to decieve.

Wallace:>In support of your (Spragges) figure, you cited an Atlantic Monthly


article
>which quoted that figure without citing a source.

Sharp: Again, I believe Spragge was accurrate on the 6 years. But it was from
all murderers released and, I believe, from 1991. Spragge's intentional
deception or lack of comprehension was evidenced by him comparing all released
murders in the US to only that category of Canadian murderers which fall within
LIfe-25 sentencing.

Wallace:That is at >best a tertiary source that is not remotely comparable to


the
>sources I cited above. That article is a very good source on what
>it feels like to be a close relative of a murder victim (the main
>point of the article), but I consider it a poor source of statistical
>data. The author clearly was not analyzing the data he cited very
>critically, since some of his numbers failed a basic plausibility
>test, or appear to contradict other data that he cited. One example I
>remember: he claimed that the number of unsolved murders over the last 20
>years meant there were at least that many murderers walking around free
>today (and then he went on to inflate the latter number based on even more
>supposition). Didn't he stop to think that some murderers could have
>killed multiple victims, could be imprisoned for other crimes, or could
>have died or been killed themselves (a fairly common fate among rival
>gang bangers and drug dealers)?
>
>If that 6 year statistic isn't totally bogus, it must be
>misunderstood and stripped of its context. My best guess is that
>it might represent the average term served by persons convicted
>of homicide who get released.

Sharp: that is exactly what it means.

Wallace:That would mean it mostly represents


>the term for manslaughter, mixed in with some of the shorter 2nd degree
>murder terms. That might get you close to 6 years. But if my
>guess is true, then you are basically comparing the U.S. term
>for manslaughter with the Canadian term for 1st degree murder,
>which is hardly an apples-to-apples comparison.

Sharp: Yo're right Wallace, that is exactly what Spragge is doing. Revealing
Spragge's astounding ignorance or willful deception. Take your pick.

>
Wallace: >If you really want to compare U.S. and Canadian incarceration terms


>for murder fairly, you need to find better sources. Primary sources
>are best in principle if you can collate and interpret them yourself;
>peer-reviewed academic studies may be best for the non-professional like you
>or me. If you really want to understand what typically happens to a person
>convicted of murder over time, a good cohort study would be ideal
>(take all the persons convicted of murder in a given year, say 20
>years ago, and then report on what they got sentenced to and what
>happened to them after 5, 10, 15, and 20 years). Let me
>know if you find such a study - that goes well beyond the resources
>of my local public library. Magazine articles for the general public
>tend to be well down on the pecking order of reliable sources in general.
>
>To quote the final paragraph of my article from last year:
>
>At least the Almanac cite makes it clear that you are only looking at the
>least severe sentences for murder. The Atlantic Monthly quote lacked this
>crucial qualification, claiming "A convicted murderer in the United
>States is released after spending, on average, just six years in prison."
>(Vol. 280, No. 3, September 1997, p. 75). I believe that this quote is
>not only wrong, but gives a dangerously misleading impression of the
>true state of American justice for convicted murderers.

Sharp: I believe it is accurrate for 1991 murderers released.

Wallace: As such, it does


>not well serve either opponents or supporters of the death penalty who
>wish to understand the facts about capital punishment.
>--
>Dave Wallace (wal...@netcom.com)
>It is quite humbling to realize that the storage occupied by the longest
>line from a typical Usenet posting is sufficient to provide a state space
>so vast that all the computation power in the world can not conquer it.

></PRE></HTML>

John G. Spragge

unread,
Oct 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/17/98
to
Sharpjfa wrote:

> ... I had previously posted CAVEAT's
> description of s 745. ...

To judge from your conflation of the parole board and the jury under
section 745, you didn't understand it.

> No such assumption.

You clearly suggested I had included ineligible offenders in the
category of "lifers" up for parole.

> But Spragge, the parole board allows the case to go to the judge. Full

> disclosure of the crimes and suffering are not presented to the board. ...

Wrong.

First of all, the parole board does not send the case to "the judge". The
parole board does not see an inmate eligible to apply for a section 745
hearing until a jury has ruled. The issue goes to a jury (and a judge)
before, not after, the parole board gets it.

John G. Spragge

unread,
Oct 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/17/98
to
David E. Wallace wrote:

> In support of your figure, you cited an Atlantic Monthly article


> which quoted that figure without citing a source.

The Atlantic Monthly has as good a reputation as any journal of public
opinion. I don't trust their facts blindly, but neither do I dismiss them
without good evidence which takes all the factors which can trigger
release into account.

> If that 6 year statistic isn't totally bogus, it must be
> misunderstood and stripped of its context.

The "context" you have left out includes the substantial number of
offenders, including murderers, released under court orders to
relieve prison overcrowding. These releases tend not to show up
on the regular parole and probation statistics.

Frisettes

unread,
Oct 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/18/98
to
On 14 Oct 1998 07:56:18 GMT, shar...@aol.com (Sharpjfa) wrote:

[snipped]

And?


What is the purpose of this litany of well-known facts on the functioning
of the Canadian Justice System (also thin on argumentative logic)? We all
know that the Canadian Justice model is tamer than its American
counterpart: that is because the simplistic «tough on crime» stance has
more to do with demagogy than crime control.

However, I suspect that Sharpy is tired of Canadians saying that they don’t
need CP because their criminality levels are far lower than American ones -
and could serve as an example to US law-makers - , so therefore he is
chipping away *specifically* at the Canadian Justice System for reasons
other than any logical argumentative purpose at all.

Frisettes

unread,
Oct 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/18/98
to


AND?

Frisettes

unread,
Oct 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/18/98
to
On 15 Oct 1998 04:32:47 GMT, shar...@aol.com (Sharpjfa) wrote:

>In Canada:
>
> 'It must >be remembered that during the >reviews (for early parole of a life

>sentence) the jury cannot take into account

>>the circumstances of the crime or the notorious character of the inmate
>>due to that crime. They can only hear evidence of how he has behaved in
>>an institution.'

That is called rehabilitation. Although I disagree with the idea of
rehabilitation as primary justification for a Crime & Punishment system
(for it doesn’t occur as often as it should), this is still important to
consider, for the simple reason that you are who you are at an
infinitesimal point in time, and your past actions cannot be used to
incriminate you in the present for it is not the same person (with obvious
limitations to this principle, of course)

>It must be remembered that Spragge has been talking about the life sentence,
>where Canadian prisoners must serve at least 25 years before being eligible for

>parole. In reality, the overwhelming majority of lifers - 74% - are granted


>release dates before their alleged minimum time has been served.
>

>Great system. Sounds as bad as US, with the exception that at least our parole
>boards get to consider the specific nature of the crimes.

With the additional exception that this "lax" system duly denigrated also
contributes to a criminality level 5 to 6 times lower than it’s neighbour
to the South. But don’t expect Sharpy to tell you that either.

Frisettes

unread,
Oct 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/18/98
to
On 16 Oct 1998 07:57:57 GMT, shar...@aol.com (Sharpjfa) wrote:

Isn’t mud-slinging fun?!

Sharpjfa

unread,
Oct 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/19/98
to
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Canadian Cop Killer gets days off
>From: fris...@total.net (Frisettes)
>Date: Sat, Oct 17, 1998 21:14 EDT
>Message-id: <36293f4a...@news.total.net>

>
>On 14 Oct 1998 07:56:18 GMT, shar...@aol.com (Sharpjfa) wrote:
>
>[snipped]
>
>And?
>
>
>What is the purpose of this litany of well-known facts on the functioning
>of the Canadian Justice System (also thin on argumentative logic)? We all
>know that the Canadian Justice model is tamer than its American
>counterpart: that is because the simplistic «tough on crime» stance has
>more to do with demagogy than crime control.

Interesting theory. The facts don't support it, but interesting theory.

>
>However, I suspect that Sharpy is tired of Canadians saying that they don’t
>need CP because their criminality levels are far lower than American ones -

Oh, I thought Canada had as many criminals per capita as the United States.

>and could serve as an example to US law-makers - , so therefore he is
>chipping away *specifically* at the Canadian Justice System for reasons
>other than any logical argumentative purpose at all.

Not at all. Just pointing out, that unfortunately Canada has many of the same
problems as does US system. This goes back to the discussions with Spragge
whereby I stated that US could, and is, improving its criminal justice system
and retains dp. And he would talk about Canadian sytem. I'm sure both systems
need great improvement.


sharpjfa>


>
>--We will only start to be free of will when we realize that we are not.--

></PRE></HTML>

Frisettes

unread,
Oct 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/19/98
to
On 19 Oct 1998 04:11:31 GMT, shar...@aol.com (Sharpjfa) wrote:

>><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Canadian Cop Killer gets days off
>>From: fris...@total.net (Frisettes)
>>Date: Sat, Oct 17, 1998 21:14 EDT
>>Message-id: <36293f4a...@news.total.net>
>>
>>On 14 Oct 1998 07:56:18 GMT, shar...@aol.com (Sharpjfa) wrote:
>>
>>[snipped]
>>
>>And?
>>
>>
>>What is the purpose of this litany of well-known facts on the functioning
>>of the Canadian Justice System (also thin on argumentative logic)? We all
>>know that the Canadian Justice model is tamer than its American
>>counterpart: that is because the simplistic «tough on crime» stance has
>>more to do with demagogy than crime control.
>
>Interesting theory. The facts don't support it, but interesting theory.

What facts? Being tough on crime doesn’t mean anything. Criminology 101. It
answers a popular need, almost always demagogic at election time, but
little actual thought here.

>>However, I suspect that Sharpy is tired of Canadians saying that they don’t
>>need CP because their criminality levels are far lower than American ones -
>
>Oh, I thought Canada had as many criminals per capita as the United States.

Where did you get that from?

>>and could serve as an example to US law-makers - , so therefore he is
>>chipping away *specifically* at the Canadian Justice System for reasons
>>other than any logical argumentative purpose at all.
>
>Not at all. Just pointing out, that unfortunately Canada has many of the same
>problems as does US system. This goes back to the discussions with Spragge
>whereby I stated that US could, and is, improving its criminal justice system
>and retains dp. And he would talk about Canadian sytem. I'm sure both systems
>need great improvement.

I would prefer to say that although I’m relatively satisfied with the
current system, I think it is still clear that the Crime & Punishment
stance needs to be revised and restudied in most Western countries,
including Canada. Not mere improvements and administrative hanky panky.

Sharpjfa

unread,
Oct 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/20/98
to
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Canadian Cop Killer gets days off
>From: fris...@total.net (Frisettes)
>Date: Mon, Oct 19, 1998 02:47 EDT
>Message-id: <362adf56...@news.total.net>

>
>On 19 Oct 1998 04:11:31 GMT, shar...@aol.com (Sharpjfa) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Canadian Cop Killer gets days off
>>>From: fris...@total.net (Frisettes)
>>>Date: Sat, Oct 17, 1998 21:14 EDT
>>>Message-id: <36293f4a...@news.total.net>
>>>
>>>On 14 Oct 1998 07:56:18 GMT, shar...@aol.com (Sharpjfa) wrote:
>>>

>>>What is the purpose of this litany of well-known facts on the functioning
>>>of the Canadian Justice System (also thin on argumentative logic)? We all
>>>know that the Canadian Justice model is tamer than its American
>>>counterpart: that is because the simplistic «tough on crime» stance has
>>>more to do with demagogy than crime control.
>>
>>Interesting theory. The facts don't support it, but interesting theory.
>
>What facts? Being tough on crime doesn’t mean anything. Criminology 101. It
>answers a popular need, almost always demagogic at election time, but
>little actual thought here.

I know that facts may be elusive to you. You may wish to research recidivism
rates for mandatory early release, parole, and probation. Furthermore, you may
wish to review the literature on longer sentencing and how such sentences
protect the innocent. If getting "Tough on criem" means just talking about it,
I agree with you. But if it means doing all those responsible factors which
reduce victimization, then such tough on crime efforts are anything but your
"doesn't mean anything". Unless, of course you meand that victimizations are
irrelevant to you. Which is not what I believe you are saying.



>
>>>However, I suspect that Sharpy is tired of Canadians saying that they don’t
>>>need CP because their criminality levels are far lower than American ones -

>>
>>Oh, I thought Canada had as many criminals per capita as the United States.
>
>Where did you get that from?

Don't you look ar data, or doesn't that mean anything to you either?



>
>>>and could serve as an example to US law-makers - , so therefore he is
>>>chipping away *specifically* at the Canadian Justice System for reasons
>>>other than any logical argumentative purpose at all.
>>
>>Not at all. Just pointing out, that unfortunately Canada has many of the
>same
>>problems as does US system. This goes back to the discussions with Spragge
>>whereby I stated that US could, and is, improving its criminal justice
>system
>>and retains dp. And he would talk about Canadian sytem. I'm sure both
>systems
>>need great improvement.
>
>I would prefer to say that although I’m relatively satisfied with the
>current system, I think it is still clear that the Crime & Punishment
>stance needs to be revised and restudied in most Western countries,
>including Canada. Not mere improvements and administrative hanky panky.

You and I are in total agreement, on this issue.

sharpjfa

Frisettes

unread,
Oct 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/21/98
to
On 20 Oct 1998 19:35:49 GMT, shar...@aol.com (Sharpjfa) wrote:

>><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Canadian Cop Killer gets days off
>>From: fris...@total.net (Frisettes)
>>Date: Mon, Oct 19, 1998 02:47 EDT
>>Message-id: <362adf56...@news.total.net>
>>
>>On 19 Oct 1998 04:11:31 GMT, shar...@aol.com (Sharpjfa) wrote:
>>
>>>>Subject: Re: Canadian Cop Killer gets days off
>>>>From: fris...@total.net (Frisettes)
>>>>Date: Sat, Oct 17, 1998 21:14 EDT
>>>>Message-id: <36293f4a...@news.total.net>
>>>>
>>>>On 14 Oct 1998 07:56:18 GMT, shar...@aol.com (Sharpjfa) wrote:
>>>>
>
>>>>What is the purpose of this litany of well-known facts on the functioning
>>>>of the Canadian Justice System (also thin on argumentative logic)? We all
>>>>know that the Canadian Justice model is tamer than its American
>>>>counterpart: that is because the simplistic «tough on crime» stance has
>>>>more to do with demagogy than crime control.
>>>
>>>Interesting theory. The facts don't support it, but interesting theory.
>>
>>What facts? Being tough on crime doesn’t mean anything. Criminology 101. It
>>answers a popular need, almost always demagogic at election time, but
>>little actual thought here.
>
>I know that facts may be elusive to you.

Talk about constructive debate. Start off with a gratuitous insult.

> You may wish to research recidivism
>rates for mandatory early release, parole, and probation. Furthermore, you may
>wish to review the literature on longer sentencing and how such sentences
>protect the innocent.

Ahh, the refreshing "Although I make no sense, here are my references: read
them and leave me alone." I didn’t come here to be lectured, nor to read a
damn book of yours: I’ve got tons of them available for reading. I came
here to read you and others. If you can’t prove what you’ve got to say,
then don’t hide behind your hat and blame the interlocutor’s stupidity.
That would be stupid.

>If getting "Tough on crime" means just talking about it,
>I agree with you.

All of it, not just the talk. The talk is greeted by the masses. The action
makes them feel better. Although very little actual progress actually
happens. It’s like having a nation with cars that don’t have renewable gas
tanks: the solution? Buy a new car! No. That’s not answering the problem,
that’s just trying to avoid it, and in the end you’ll end up paying for the
lack of perspective.

>But if it means doing all those responsible factors which
>reduce victimization, then such tough on crime efforts are anything but your
>"doesn't mean anything". Unless, of course you meand that victimizations are
>irrelevant to you. Which is not what I believe you are saying.

The victim is part of it. But crime is deplorable not just because of the
end victim, but of the whole environment, the lives of the convicted, the
families destroyed on both sides, all of it is deplorable. When there are
alternatives which actually lead to a better life for all.

>>>>However, I suspect that Sharpy is tired of Canadians saying that they don’t
>>>>need CP because their criminality levels are far lower than American ones -
>
>>>
>>>Oh, I thought Canada had as many criminals per capita as the United States.
>>
>>Where did you get that from?
>
>Don't you look ar data, or doesn't that mean anything to you either?

No, I am merely questioning where the hell did you get such a preposterous
piece of BS as that. Anybody can see that there is a large gao between the
two. That is if you’ve been to Canada at all. I know I’ve been all over
Canada and the US: there is a marked difference, which all data and common
sense corrobate. This declaration of yours may end up haunting you. You
calim the supremacy of statistics ( while it is clear that statistics can
say anything: only the human deducive mind can conclude anything. Number
always lie if you let them).

>>>>and could serve as an example to US law-makers - , so therefore he is
>>>>chipping away *specifically* at the Canadian Justice System for reasons
>>>>other than any logical argumentative purpose at all.
>>>
>>>Not at all. Just pointing out, that unfortunately Canada has many of the
>>same
>>>problems as does US system. This goes back to the discussions with Spragge
>>>whereby I stated that US could, and is, improving its criminal justice
>>system
>>>and retains dp. And he would talk about Canadian sytem. I'm sure both
>>systems
>>>need great improvement.
>>
>>I would prefer to say that although I’m relatively satisfied with the
>>current system, I think it is still clear that the Crime & Punishment
>>stance needs to be revised and restudied in most Western countries,
>>including Canada. Not mere improvements and administrative hanky panky.
>
>You and I are in total agreement, on this issue.

No. I tried that a few weeks ago. You refused to question the principle of
Crime & Punishment, in your new days as active member of this group. You
claimed you didn’t want to waste your time on that issue. Such dogmatism is
not easily forgotten. Nor forgiven. Nor allowable.

Unless you changed your mind, of course.

Sharpjfa

unread,
Oct 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/21/98
to
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Canadian Cop Killer gets days off
>From: fris...@total.net (Frisettes)
>Date: Tue, Oct 20, 1998 23:22 EDT
>Message-id: <362d4fab...@news.total.net>

>
>On 20 Oct 1998 19:35:49 GMT, shar...@aol.com (Sharpjfa) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Canadian Cop Killer gets days off
>>>From: fris...@total.net (Frisettes)
>>>Date: Mon, Oct 19, 1998 02:47 EDT
>>>Message-id: <362adf56...@news.total.net>
>>>
>>>On 19 Oct 1998 04:11:31 GMT, shar...@aol.com (Sharpjfa) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Subject: Re: Canadian Cop Killer gets days off
>>>>>From: fris...@total.net (Frisettes)
>>>>>Date: Sat, Oct 17, 1998 21:14 EDT
>>>>>Message-id: <36293f4a...@news.total.net>
>>>>>
>>>>>On 14 Oct 1998 07:56:18 GMT, shar...@aol.com (Sharpjfa) wrote:
>>>>>

<snip>

>>
>>>>>However, I suspect that Sharpy is tired of Canadians saying that they
>don’t
>>>>>need CP because their criminality levels are far lower than American ones
>-

>>>>
>>>>Oh, I thought Canada had as many criminals per capita as the United
>States.
>>>
>>>Where did you get that from?
>>
>>Don't you look ar data, or doesn't that mean anything to you either?
>
>No, I am merely questioning where the hell did you get such a preposterous
>piece of BS as that. Anybody can see that there is a large gao between the
>two. That is if you’ve been to Canada at all. I know I’ve been all over
>Canada and the US: there is a marked difference, which all data and common
>sense corrobate. This declaration of yours may end up haunting you.

"The drop in property crimes - burglary, larceny and auto thefts - has been
so large that the Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand and Canada now have
overall crime rates as high as the United States, and just as many criminals
per person, . . . "

"Some explanations for the fall in property crime are similar to those given by
law enforcement officials and criminologists for the drop in violent crime in
the past several years: improved police tactics, a decline in the teen age
population, greater community involvement, and longer prison sentences."

Fox Butterfield, New York Times, "Property Crime Take Big Drop: U.S. Rates on
Par with Canada and Australia", via Rocky Mountain News, 12 Oct, 1997

Certainly, the violent crime rate in the U.S. still excedes that of Canada. My
concern is that the overall crime rate, which is now higher in Canada than the
U.S. is a sign that Canada is also facing serious problems, socially, including
criminal justice. Such must be recognized and solutions found, prior to
increases in violent crime.

The U.S. waited too long to look at solutions and because of that things got
completely out of hand. Citizens must become actively involved. The polititions
won't do it without a push.

"One in three people in England and Wales said they had been a victim of crime
. . ." . Of the 11 countries in the survey (including US) the counties with
the highest rates of robbery, assault and sexual assault were Engalnd and
Wales.

Predictably, the populations fearing walking alone at night were England and
Wales, followed by Scotland, Canada and the US.

Violent crime rates are now higher in England and Wales than in the US. Why?
Probably because politicians and social scientists failed to observe and react
to obvious warning signs. And the innocent suffer.

See Jason Bennetto, "Violent Crime Puts Britons in Fear of Dark", Independent,
30 July 1997.


" . . . more than 30% of people in England and Wales had been crime victims in
1995, compared with between 24 to 27 percent in the United States, Canada,
Scotland, France and Switzerland . . .".

See World Digest, Star Tribune, "England: Worst in crime survey", 28 May 1997


Canadian crime problems are becoming frighteningly like classic USA failures.

For example: break and enter crimes are caught and charged in only 12% of
cases. But only two thirds of those cases are reported. Canadians thus showing
the same low confidence that US victims often show in their system. Those 12%
caught and charged have only a 65% chance of being convicted, and then only a
61% chance of serving prison time. Such crooks can expect a 7.6 day sentence,
but since only two out of three are reported, anticipated incarceration time
for break and enter is only 5 days. Tragically, this sounds just like the US.

See "Canada At A Glance", PM Segment, Resource News International, 10 September
1998


>You
>calim the supremacy of statistics

No I don't. Nor have I.

> ( while it is clear that statistics can
>say anything: only the human deducive mind can conclude anything. Number
>always lie if you let them).
>
>>>>>and could serve as an example to US law-makers - , so therefore he is
>>>>>chipping away *specifically* at the Canadian Justice System for reasons
>>>>>other than any logical argumentative purpose at all.
>>>>
>>>>Not at all. Just pointing out, that unfortunately Canada has many of the
>>>same
>>>>problems as does US system. This goes back to the discussions with Spragge
>>>>whereby I stated that US could, and is, improving its criminal justice
>>>system
>>>>and retains dp. And he would talk about Canadian sytem. I'm sure both
>>>systems
>>>>need great improvement.
>>>
>>>I would prefer to say that although I’m relatively satisfied with the
>>>current system, I think it is still clear that the Crime & Punishment
>>>stance needs to be revised and restudied in most Western countries,
>>>including Canada. Not mere improvements and administrative hanky panky.
>>
>>You and I are in total agreement, on this issue.
>
>No. I tried that a few weeks ago. You refused to question the principle of
>Crime & Punishment, in your new days as active member of this group. You
>claimed you didn’t want to waste your time on that issue. Such dogmatism is
>not easily forgotten. Nor forgiven. Nor allowable.

I don't recall the discussion, nor do I recall making such a statement. If I
did, what context? I have always advocated improvements in criminal justice
systems and a reevaluation of priorities and procedures. So I doubt your
assertion. Since you claim I posted, as per your assertion, I challenge your
claim and ask that you produce the post which supports your claim. You won't
find it, or if you do, such post will not support your claim.

sharpjfa


>
>Unless you changed your mind, of course.
>
>
>--We will only start to be free of will when we realize that we are not.--

></PRE></HTML>

John G. Spragge

unread,
Oct 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/21/98
to
Sharpjfa wrote:
Fox Butterfield, New York Times, "Property Crime Take Big Drop: U.S. Rates on
Par with Canada and Australia", via Rocky Mountain News, 12 Oct, 1997
The FBI Uniform Crime Reports don't exactly agree with Mr. Butterfield. I include here
a table from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports and Statistics Canada.

                      Canada            United States
                 1995       1996  |     1995     1996
----------------------------------+--------------------+
Homicide          1.9        2.1  |      8.2      7.4  |
Robbery         102.4      106.0  |    220.9    202.4  |
Burglary       1319.4     1324.8  |    987.1    943    |
Vehicle Theft   545.9      601.0  |    560.4    525.9  |
Theft          2913.7     2838.9  |   3043.8   2975.9  |
----------------------------------+--------------------+

In all but one category, the US leads Canada by a fair margin. As well,
Canada has the least serious offences; we have about the same theft
rate as the US., but half the robbery rate and under a third the homicide
rate. And the Canadian homicide rate (and overall violent crime rates)
have stayed on a steady downward trend since 1976 (the year we abolished
capital punishment).

[ extensive quotes of British crime rates snipped ]

Canadian crime problems are becoming frighteningly like classic USA failures.

Quoting British and Welsh crime rates and then "reasoning" about Canada's
crime "problem" doesn't cut it. Nor does quoting statistics on property crime
in a discussion group, and in a context, dealing with much more serious
offences.

[ "guestimates" of unreported crimes snipped ]

See "Canada At A Glance", PM Segment, Resource News International, 10 September
1998

A more exact source for this cite would help.

Just to point out the obvious,  unlike crime statistics where the prosecutor
has to prove the charges in a court, researchers in a "victimization study"
can freely extrapolate from the answers they get; and they usually have
biases, if not actual agendas. In one Canadian "victimization" study recently,
it turned out the researchers had written it up as a "violent act" for a man to
disagree with a woman. Needless to say, they turned in some very
questionable results on dating violence.

Sharpjfa

unread,
Oct 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/21/98
to
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Canadian Cop Killer gets days off
>From: fris...@total.net (Frisettes)
>Date: Tue, Oct 20, 1998 23:22 EDT
>Message-id: <362d4fab...@news.total.net>
>

Well then read your criminology 101 book. You say you have material - read it.
Increased incarceration and longer prison senteces, reduced parolel and
probation - you know, tough on crime - all protect the innocent and help
reduce crime rates. You know, criminology 101 - a jailed rapist can't attack
your sister.

>
>>If getting "Tough on crime" means just talking about it,
>>I agree with you.
>
>All of it, not just the talk. The talk is greeted by the masses. The action
>makes them feel better.

My lord man, criminolgy 101, remember? Tough on crime action works. What a
shock!

> Although very little actual progress actually
>happens. It’s like having a nation with cars that don’t have renewable gas
>tanks: the solution? Buy a new car! No. That’s not answering the problem,
>that’s just trying to avoid it, and in the end you’ll end up paying for the
>lack of perspective.

Your logic doesn't allow you to find multiple solutions to solve a problem. I
assume you're alluding to social problems here. Well, incarceration is a
consequence for illegal behavior. Showing people that negative actions require
payment is a positive. In addition many Americans are involved in programs to
benefit child and adult offenders. The government also has such programs.
Multiple approaches are used and are necessay. I believe violent offenders have
free will and elect to harm others. It's a choice. I will concentrate on
punishing offenders and assisting victims. You can continue your work with
criminals. Both are valid areas. Neither should be neglected. Lowering crime
and recidivism rates by all methods is a positive.

>>But if it means doing all those responsible factors which
>>reduce victimization, then such tough on crime efforts are anything but your
>>"doesn't mean anything". Unless, of course you meand that victimizations are
>>irrelevant to you. Which is not what I believe you are saying.
>
>The victim is part of it. But crime is deplorable not just because of the
>end victim, but of the whole environment, the lives of the convicted, the
>families destroyed on both sides, all of it is deplorable. When there are
>alternatives which actually lead to a better life for all.
>
>>>>>However, I suspect that Sharpy is tired of Canadians saying that they
>don’t
>>>>>need CP because their criminality levels are far lower than American ones
>-
>>
>>>>
>>>>Oh, I thought Canada had as many criminals per capita as the United
>States.
>>>
>>>Where did you get that from?
>>
>>Don't you look ar data, or doesn't that mean anything to you either?
>
>No, I am merely questioning where the hell did you get such a preposterous
>piece of BS as that. Anybody can see that there is a large gao between the
>two. That is if you’ve been to Canada at all. I know I’ve been all over
>Canada and the US: there is a marked difference, which all data and common
>sense corrobate.

Did you read this in all your books or in Criminology 101?
\

></PRE></HTML>

David E. Wallace

unread,
Oct 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/24/98
to
In article <3628CC56...@umich.edu>,

John G. Spragge <spr...@umich.edu> wrote:
>David E. Wallace wrote:
>
>> In support of your figure, you cited an Atlantic Monthly article
>> which quoted that figure without citing a source.
>
>The Atlantic Monthly has as good a reputation as any journal of public
>opinion. I don't trust their facts blindly, but neither do I dismiss them
>without good evidence which takes all the factors which can trigger
>release into account.

They're not the National Enquirer, certainly. But neither are they
a peer-reviewed journal, where facts are checked by fellow experts
in the field. The statistic in question was not the main point
of the article - it occurred in one paragraph of a long article
(about half the magazine) that was primarily concerned with
presenting the viewpoints of families of murder victims.
No source was quoted for the stat (so you can't look up the
original and find out if the reporter interpreted it accurately or not).
It is contradicted by detailed data from much more reliable sources.
There is other evidence in the article in question that shows
that the reporter was not thinking critically about the statistics
he quoted. All things considered, I do not consider that Atlantic
Monthly article to be a reliable source of statistical information.
You put yourself out on quite a limb when you rest the major
premise of your argument on the reliability of that one stat
without further checking its reliability.

That doesn't mean that the article was a bad article. It
was very effective at its intended purpose of conveying the
anguish felt by the families of murder victims. I don't think
the author made the statistics up. But I also don't think he put a
lot of effort into cross-checking statistics that were really
just a parenthetical aside in support of his main point.

>> If that 6 year statistic isn't totally bogus, it must be
>> misunderstood and stripped of its context.
>
>The "context" you have left out includes the substantial number of
>offenders, including murderers, released under court orders to
>relieve prison overcrowding. These releases tend not to show up
>on the regular parole and probation statistics.

Do you have any evidence that any convicted murderers were released
due to overcrowding and not accounted for in the statistics I quoted,
or are you just speculating that there might be some such?
I will acknowledge the logical possibility that there might
be some prisoners unaccounted for, but it seems unlikely that
there could be anywhere close to the number required to make the
Atlantic statistic an accurate representation of reality for convicted
murderers. To take the California statistics for a moment,
we had 11-12,000 convicted murderers in prison for the two years
in question, of whom 7 were paroled in one year and 17 in the other.
How many murderers would you have to release every year in order to
bring the average time served for murder down to six years?

If you had a steady-state prison population, you would need to release
nearly 2,000 a year from that population around 12,000 to get
a six-year average. Even without a steady-state, you are still
talking about well over 1,000 a year for the two years in question.
I find it extremely implausible that there could be a judge's order
releasing so many murderers every year without being mentioned repeatedly:

1. by the statistical tables put out by the Department of
Corrections in "California Prisoners and Parolees,"

2. by the California newspapers that I read, especially if one
of these hypothetical released murderers were to re-offend, or

3. by the Governor, when he makes his biennial ballot
argument for why we need to pass yet another prison bond issue.

If there was any mention of a judicial order forcing the release of
convicted murderers in any of the above, I missed it. Now it's true
that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence,
but when you have looked in a bunch of logical places for evidence
and failed to find any, I think the burden of proof shifts to
those who want to claim that such evidence exists. I could change
my mind if you could cite some examples of California inmates
convicted of murder who were released early due to a judicial
overcrowding order and not paroled during the period in question.

As far as I can tell, in California we tend to deal with prison
overcrowding by building more prisons and paroling a few more inmates
otherwise close to parole, generally before the judiciary steps in.
That's not necessarily true for county jails: the San Francisco
County Jail was under an overcrowding order a few years ago, which
they dealt with primarily by renting space in other jails for their
inmates. Even when they did release inmates early, they tended to
be inmates serving time for misdemeanors who were within a month or
two of being released anyway. That wouldn't apply to convicted murderers.

As far as the other source, the Almanac statistic didn't mention
anything about parole vs. early release. It just mentioned
average time served by those not serving a life or death sentence.
You could look up the original FBI report to see if there was
any special treatment of early releases (one of the reasons that
reports that cite sources are so important), but for now I would
tend to take it at face value that it covers actual time served,
early release or no.

Sharpjfa

unread,
Oct 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/24/98
to
Table 16. TIME SERVED ON CONFINEMENT BY VIOLENT OFFENDERS RELEASED IN 1992

For Homicide

Average sentence - 149 months, or 12.4 yrs

Average time served - 71 months, or 5.9 yrs

Dr. John DiIulio, Jr., The State of Violent Crime in America, p 36

taken from PRISON SENTENCES AND TIME SERVED FOR VIOLENCE(BJS, April 1995, p 1)

sharpjfa:The time served is inclusive of jail credits and prison time. It is
unclear if jail credits means actual jail time, credits over and above jail
time and/or a combination

Furthermore, the expected punishment for murder was only 1.5 years in 1985 and
rose to only 2.7 years in 1995! (THE REYNOLD’S REPORT, "Crime and Punishment in
the
U.S.", National Center for Policy Analysis, 1997). Expected punishment is
calculated by measuring the probability of being caught, incarcerated, and time

served.

Why have we chosen to be so generous to murderers and so contemptuous
of the human rights and suffering of the victims and future victims?

sharpjfa


><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Canadian Cop Killer gets days off

>From: wal...@netcom.com (David E. Wallace)

>Date: Sat, Oct 24, 1998 03:22 EDT
>Message-id: <wallaceF...@netcom.com>

></PRE></HTML>

p@u.c

unread,
Oct 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/24/98
to
In article <19981024045441...@ng-fc2.aol.com>,

Sharpjfa <shar...@aol.com> wrote:
>Table 16. TIME SERVED ON CONFINEMENT BY VIOLENT OFFENDERS RELEASED IN 1992
>
>For Homicide
>
>Average sentence - 149 months, or 12.4 yrs
>
>Average time served - 71 months, or 5.9 yrs
>
>Dr. John DiIulio, Jr., The State of Violent Crime in America, p 36
>
>taken from PRISON SENTENCES AND TIME SERVED FOR VIOLENCE(BJS, April 1995, p 1)

I'm not sure whether or not you're using the above statistics to
show that LWOP is a sham. I will merely point out that in another BJS
report (July 1997, NCJ-165149, http://www.ojb.usdoj.gov/bjs/fsus94.txt),
which looked at data about time served for felony sentences up through
1994, they stated that "little is known about time served by persons
with sentences of life without parole" after discussing the average
time served by persons with life *with* parole ("[m]urderers. . .with
life sentences released from State prisons in 1994 had served 146
months before their release"). In other words, hard data about LWOP
release rates haven't yet been collected by the BJS.


--
Patrick Crotty
e-mail: prcrotty at midway.uchicago.edu
home page: http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/prcrotty


John G. Spragge

unread,
Oct 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/24/98
to
Sharpjfa wrote:
It would be dishonest to compare Canada's
life-25 eligible murderers  to all US murder cases.
When and if I have satisfactory average figures on offenders released for
homicide offences since abolition in Canada, I will post them. Keep in mind
that as of 1992, the reference year for the study you quote, only 13 first degree
murder offenders had even applied for and received the "faint hope clause"
exemption for their sentences.

In the meantime, I will have to content myself with posting an interpolated table
of offenders. I took the Statistics Canada summary of homicide offences from
1992 to 1997, and divided murders into first and second degree using corrections
Canada figures.
 

+------------------------+-------+
| First Degree Murder    |  27%  | * 15 year minimum
| Second Degree Murder   |  62%  | * 10 year minimum
| Manslaughter           |  10%  |
| Infanticide            |   1%  |
+------------------------+-------+
minimum average homicide sentence  10 years 4 months

As you can see, even if you assume the absolute minimum sentences
(including absolute discharges for manslaughter, a sentence handed
down just once in my memory), homicide offenders in Canada end
up doing an absolute legal minimum average of 1.3 years. If we allow
for actual Canadian parole rates and the rate at which offenders apply
for, and succeed at, section 745 hearings, the average comes up to
over 13 years for all homicides.

Keeping in mind McManus's finding, quoted by Dan Hogg, that
adding 30 months to the average sentence has the same effect as
capital punishment, and it appears that Canada has a system which
should (even by the somewhat questionable econometric
assumptions) work better than the US. The aggregate results obtained
in Canada would seem to bear this out.
 

One must also realise that
Canada's life-25 law, which means a life sentence eligible for parole in 25
years is really a life-15 law, because of the section 745 provision.
If section 745 hearings, at which 20% of inmates succeed, makes Canada's
life-25 into "really" life-15, what do you call American death sentences,
which only end with a legal execution 10% of the time, in the same
"reality".

Sharpjfa

unread,
Oct 25, 1998, 2:00:00 AM10/25/98
to
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Canadian Cop Killer gets days off
>From: p@u.c
>Date: Sat, Oct 24, 1998 12:48 EDT
>Message-id: <F1CC0...@midway.uchicago.edu>

>
>In article <19981024045441...@ng-fc2.aol.com>,
>Sharpjfa <shar...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Table 16. TIME SERVED ON CONFINEMENT BY VIOLENT OFFENDERS RELEASED IN 1992
>>
>>For Homicide
>>
>>Average sentence - 149 months, or 12.4 yrs
>>
>>Average time served - 71 months, or 5.9 yrs
>>
>>Dr. John DiIulio, Jr., The State of Violent Crime in America, p 36
>>
>>taken from PRISON SENTENCES AND TIME SERVED FOR VIOLENCE(BJS, April 1995, p
>1)
>
>I'm not sure whether or not you're using the above statistics to
>show that LWOP is a sham.

Well, no. Spragge had written about the six year average time served for US
murderers. He had been challenged on this, quite fairly.
Spragge was accurrate.

Although Spragge, I believe was making a false comparison between Canada's
Life-25 statute amd that 6 year average. Yhe 5.9 years served represents time
served for all those released from prison in 1972 for homicide. Statutorily,
homicide falls within the full range of homicide crimes, including involuntary
manslaughter through capital murder, and even lesser offenses, if statutorily
relevent to homicides.

To honestly compare Canada's life-25 time served, you would have to look at
only the most severe murders in the US - generally known as first degree
murders and capital murders, crimes which include punishments up to Life
Without Parole and the Death penalty. It would be dishonest to compare Canada's
life-25 eligible murderers to all US murder cases. One must also realise that


Canada's life-25 law, which means a life sentence eligible for parole in 25
years is really a life-15 law, because of the section 745 provision.

> I will merely point out that in another BJS


>report (July 1997, NCJ-165149, http://www.ojb.usdoj.gov/bjs/fsus94.txt),
>which looked at data about time served for felony sentences up through
>1994, they stated that "little is known about time served by persons
>with sentences of life without parole" after discussing the average
>time served by persons with life *with* parole ("[m]urderers. . .with
>life sentences released from State prisons in 1994 had served 146
>months before their release"). In other words, hard data about LWOP
>release rates haven't yet been collected by the BJS.
>

Patrick, thank you for this info. I'm glad someone took the time to review such
material, as did Wallace, regarding California.
>

sharpjfa


>--
>Patrick Crotty
>e-mail: prcrotty at midway.uchicago.edu
>home page: http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/prcrotty
>

></PRE></HTML>

Sharpjfa

unread,
Oct 25, 1998, 2:00:00 AM10/25/98
to
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Canadian Cop Killer gets days off
>From: "John G. Spragge" <spr...@umich.edu>
>Date: Sat, Oct 24, 1998 23:56 EDT
>Message-id: <3632A16F...@umich.edu>


major snip>

>Canada's life-25 law, which means a life sentence eligible for parole
>in 25
>years is really a life-15 law, because of the section 745

>provision.</BLOCKQUOTE>


>If section 745 hearings, at which 20% of inmates succeed, makes Canada's
>
>life-25 into "really" life-15, what do you call American death sentences,
>>which only end with a legal execution 10% of the time, in the same
>"reality".

It is, unfortunately, a similar reality. Actually, so far, only about 8% of
those so sentenced have been executed.

sharpjfa

John G. Spragge

unread,
Oct 25, 1998, 2:00:00 AM10/25/98
to
Sharpjfa wrote:
It would be dishonest to compare Canada's
life-25 eligible murderers  to all US murder cases.
When and if I have satisfactory average figures on offenders released for
homicide offences since abolition in Canada, I will post them. Keep in mind
that as of 1992, the reference year for the study you quote, only 13 first degree
murder offenders had even applied for and received the "faint hope clause"
exemption for their sentences.

In the meantime, I will have to content myself with posting an interpolated table
of offenders. I took the Statistics Canada summary of homicide offences from
1992 to 1997, and divided murders into first and second degree using corrections
Canada figures.
 

First Degree Murder   23% x 15 year minimum
Second Degree Murder  67% x 10 year minimum
Manslaughter          10% x (no statutory minimum)
minimum average homicide sentence  10 years 1 months

As you can see, even if you assume the absolute minimum sentences
(including absolute discharges for manslaughter, a sentence handed
down just once in my memory), homicide offenders in Canada end

up doing an absolute legal minimum average of 10.1 years. If we allow

for actual Canadian parole rates and the rate at which offenders apply
for, and succeed at, section 745 hearings, the average comes up to

about 13 years for all homicides.

Keeping in mind McManus's finding, quoted by Dan Hogg, that
adding 30 months to the average sentence has the same effect as
capital punishment, and it appears that Canada has a system which
should (even by the somewhat questionable econometric
assumptions) work better than the US. The aggregate results obtained
in Canada would seem to bear this out.
 

One must also realise that

Canada's life-25 law, which means a life sentence eligible for parole in 25
years is really a life-15 law, because of the section 745 provision.

If section 745 hearings, at which 20% of inmates succeed, makes Canada's

life-25 into "really" life-15, what do you call American death sentences,
which only end with a legal execution 10% of the time, in the same
"reality".
 
 

--

David E. Wallace

unread,
Oct 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/27/98
to
In article <19981024210438...@ng133.aol.com>,

Sharpjfa <shar...@aol.com> wrote:
>>In article <19981024045441...@ng-fc2.aol.com>,
>>Sharpjfa <shar...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>Table 16. TIME SERVED ON CONFINEMENT BY VIOLENT OFFENDERS RELEASED IN 1992
>>>
>>>For Homicide
>>>
>>>Average sentence - 149 months, or 12.4 yrs
>>>
>>>Average time served - 71 months, or 5.9 yrs
>>>
>>>Dr. John DiIulio, Jr., The State of Violent Crime in America, p 36
>>>
>>>taken from PRISON SENTENCES AND TIME SERVED FOR VIOLENCE(BJS, April 1995, p
>>1)
>>
>>I'm not sure whether or not you're using the above statistics to
>>show that LWOP is a sham.
>
>Well, no. Spragge had written about the six year average time served for US
>murderers. He had been challenged on this, quite fairly.
>Spragge was accurate.

Well, I never thought that either John Spragge or the author of the Atlantic
article that Spragge identified as his source were making the number
up. My issue was that the Atlantic article provided neither the
proper context for the stat nor a citation that one could follow
to find the assumptions and restrictions that lay behind the stat.
The other statistics I cited provide a very different picture
of the typical time served for a murder conviction, which is why
I felt sure that the stat was being misinterpreted. I had guessed
that the most likely context to provide a six year average was if
you included all homicide convictions (including various flavors
of manslaughter), and only included those murder convictions where the
prisoner was eventually released. In that case, you are basically looking
at the average term for manslaughter, with a few murder terms mixed
in to bring up the average.

Thank you for providing the citation. This, at last, is a real cite
that can be followed to find the original study.

> Although Spragge, I believe was making a false comparison between Canada's

>Life-25 statute amd that 6 year average. The 5.9 years served represents time


>served for all those released from prison in 1972 for homicide. Statutorily,
>homicide falls within the full range of homicide crimes, including involuntary
>manslaughter through capital murder, and even lesser offenses, if statutorily
>relevent to homicides.

And this, presumably, is the context I would find if I looked up the
original study (though was the year really 1972, or was that a typo?).
Thank you for providing the context. It appears that both of my
guesses about the context were correct.

Now I can share my concerns about the statistic. Aside from the
confusion over who exactly is covered ("murderers" vs. "persons serving
the less severe homicide sentences"), averaging terms for manslaughter
and murder convictions together is intrinsically misleading.
For example, suppose that all murder convictions without exception
resulted in a sentence of either death or LWOP. Then the only
people counted in the average would be those convicted of manslaughter
or lesser offenses, so the average would drop to around 4-5 years.
On the other hand, if all persons convicted of murder were routinely
released after 10 years, then there would be a lot more murderers
included in the average, so the average would rise to around 8 years
or so. Notice how the better things get (in terms of increasing
punishment for murder convictions), the worse the average tends to look,
and vice versa. That makes it a bad stat to use if you want to understand
what really happens to the typical person convicted of murder.

One should note that a lot of BJS summaries do collect data for
all homicides together. That presumably makes it easier to
compare data from different states, who may have different
definitions for the various subcategories of homicide, but it
causes problems when you want to look at average time served.
Interpret such stats cautiously, if at all.

>To honestly compare Canada's life-25 time served, you would have to look at
>only the most severe murders in the US - generally known as first degree
>murders and capital murders, crimes which include punishments up to Life

>Without Parole and the Death penalty. It would be dishonest to compare Canada's
>life-25 eligible murderers to all US murder cases. One must also realise that


>Canada's life-25 law, which means a life sentence eligible for parole in 25
>years is really a life-15 law, because of the section 745 provision.

Although John has made a big deal about minimum sentences, from
a public policy perspective I think that typical sentences are much
more important. As such, I don't know if the section 745 provision will
really make much difference in practice. Of course, it's hard to know
what the typical experience will be when considering a new law.

>> Patrick Crotty:


>> I will merely point out that in another BJS
>>report (July 1997, NCJ-165149, http://www.ojb.usdoj.gov/bjs/fsus94.txt),
>>which looked at data about time served for felony sentences up through
>>1994, they stated that "little is known about time served by persons
>>with sentences of life without parole" after discussing the average
>>time served by persons with life *with* parole ("[m]urderers. . .with
>>life sentences released from State prisons in 1994 had served 146
>>months before their release"). In other words, hard data about LWOP
>>release rates haven't yet been collected by the BJS.

Note that the stat above is average time served by persons serving
life with parole *who get released*. Many don't, and never will.
The fundamental problem is that it's hard to figure out how
to count "life" in a numerical average without being misleading.
This is even more of a problem with LWOP sentences.

You can still count the number of persons sentenced vs. released, but if
the latter is zero, there isn't much more to say. After a whole
generation of murderers dies off you can say something about the
average time spent in prison, but that takes a long time to
get answers. Cohort studies are probably the best way to go if you want
to understand what happens to convicted murderers over time.

Sharpjfa

unread,
Oct 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/28/98
to
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Canadian Cop Killer gets days off
>From: wal...@netcom.com (David E. Wallace)
>Date: Tue, Oct 27, 1998 18:48 EST
>Message-id: <wallaceF...@netcom.com>

wrote:


>And this, presumably, is the context I would find if I looked up the
>original study (though was the year really 1972, or was that a typo?).

Yes. It's 1992

sharpjfa

Frisettes

unread,
Oct 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/28/98
to
I’ve taken a week off of everything, but I said I’d be back: here I am!


Here it is:


»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»Begin Quote««««««««««««««««««

On 30 Sep 1998 03:23:15 GMT, shar...@aol.com (Sharpjfa) wrote:

>
>><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Texecution: The Lone Star State Tidies Up the Gene
>>Pool Again
>>From: fris...@total.net (Frisettes)
>>Date: Tue, Sep 29, 1998 21:47 EDT
>>Message-id: <36118d3f...@news.total.net>
>>
>>On 27 Sep 1998 05:23:31 GMT, jane...@aol.com (JANEISM4) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>Subject: Re: Texecution: The Lone Star State Tidies Up the Gene
>>>>Pool Again
>>>>From: fris...@total.net (Frisettes)
>>>>Date: Sat, Sep 26, 1998 22:26 EDT
>>>>Message-id: <360d9e9...@news.total.net>
>>>
>>>It would be wrong to accept a punishment based solely on deterrence. Certain
>>>crimes are deserving of execution. The deterrent effect is just a great
>>bonus.
>>
>>As one reasonable person to another (a rare event on this NG), may I ask
>>you exactly why a crime deserves execution? Why does a crime need to be
>>punished, although not for crime control?
>
>I am not avoiding the question. But, the question shows such a wide gap between
>our viewpoints - Why does a crime need to be
>punished . . . ? _- that answering it is a complete waste of my time. For me,
>such a question is so astonishing, it is as if one asked Why breathe? Let's
>move on to another subject..

It is called questioning yourself on received ideas. Try it on... You are
avoiding the subject: it is a legitimate question, the very principle of
Crime & Punishment as an approach to Justice. I know that this isn’t
alt.philosophy, but this is a fundamental question, and if you can’þ answer
it, then don’t hide behind claims of irrelevance. If you can’t question
yourself on principles "imposed" by society, then don’t bother even
posting.

«««««««««««««End quote»»»»»»»»»»»»»»

There is no context to «complete waste of time». If there is, then by all
means, explain yourself.

Frisettes

unread,
Oct 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/28/98
to
On 21 Oct 1998 05:28:22 GMT, shar...@aol.com (Sharpjfa) wrote:

I have one question for you. You quote all these statistics. That’s fun.
You claim a knowledge of crime matters. That’s entertaining. But have you
ever *gone* to these places? How can you claim an understanding of such
matters without even experiencing what you are talking about... classic
symptom of the scholar. Plus, I can tell you that in May murder rates went
up and later in June came down. MY GOD! We must abolish the month of May!
Yearly variations may occur, and some *might* even be related to «tough on
crime», but such are merely temporary effects if any. You must look at
longer term variables, ones whom are much harder to refute than this weak
attempt at proving crime rates are higher/lower in other countries and
extrapolate on the reasons.
Secondly, there is also clear logic. Logic points to other
conclusions on Capital Punishment, which are more philosohpical questions
than anything else.

Plus, I question these researchers’ reliability, for one study can
contradict another using the *same* statistics ! And what of your sources?
Are they reliable? You see, in this age of mass media, question everything,
believe nothing, prove everything: faith is worthless. Assert your freedom.
Do not remain an empty vassal for the sways of pro or con.

Frisettes

unread,
Oct 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/28/98
to

It’s a figure of speech: I have never taken a class on criminology,
although I do read about it. I’ve never studied politics, yet I’m quite
knowledgable on that too. I have no clear syllabus. I merely read whatever
I can sink my teeth in. Which means I read other material than merely
criminology: all fields of human knowledge.

>Increased incarceration and longer prison senteces, reduced parolel and
>probation - you know, tough on crime - all protect the innocent and help
>reduce crime rates. You know, criminology 101 - a jailed rapist can't attack
>your sister.

We have been through this already. The incapacitation effect of Capital
Punishment, you claim I do not understand, as applied more generally to
harsh crime policies.
Mathematically, you are right. However, such effects are short
lived. Look at the greater context. What impact do harsher penalties have?
That is what needs to be looked at. And does it lead to a better society to
incarcerate longer and with less lee-way?

>>>If getting "Tough on crime" means just talking about it,
>>>I agree with you.
>>
>>All of it, not just the talk. The talk is greeted by the masses. The action
>>makes them feel better.
>
>My lord man, criminolgy 101, remember? Tough on crime action works. What a
>shock!

The only «tough on crime» stance which works is a Police State or more
generally an authoritarian State: is that where you want to live?

>> Although very little actual progress actually
>>happens. It’s like having a nation with cars that don’t have renewable gas
>>tanks: the solution? Buy a new car! No. That’s not answering the problem,
>>that’s just trying to avoid it, and in the end you’ll end up paying for the
>>lack of perspective.
>
>Your logic doesn't allow you to find multiple solutions to solve a problem. I
>assume you're alluding to social problems here. Well, incarceration is a
>consequence for illegal behavior. Showing people that negative actions require
>payment is a positive. In addition many Americans are involved in programs to
>benefit child and adult offenders. The government also has such programs.
>Multiple approaches are used and are necessay. I believe violent offenders have
>free will and elect to harm others. It's a choice. I will concentrate on
>punishing offenders and assisting victims. You can continue your work with
>criminals. Both are valid areas. Neither should be neglected. Lowering crime
>and recidivism rates by all methods is a positive.

NO. The intended meaning is that if you have a problem, look at tis
sources, not at its symptoms. For example, you ever heard of cold medicine?
You’re still sick with the cold: it just reduces the symptoms, the latter
being your own body’s defences... so in fact, the remedy makes you sick
even longer, until your body eventually overcomes *the cold*. The point is
that crime is not just a statistical fluke: it ’s a symptom of a greater
problem which unattended may get worse and worse. The proposed solutions do
little for that, and are in my opinion a waste of time and energy trying to
justify them.


>
>>>But if it means doing all those responsible factors which
>>>reduce victimization, then such tough on crime efforts are anything but your
>>>"doesn't mean anything". Unless, of course you meand that victimizations are
>>>irrelevant to you. Which is not what I believe you are saying.
>>
>>The victim is part of it. But crime is deplorable not just because of the
>>end victim, but of the whole environment, the lives of the convicted, the
>>families destroyed on both sides, all of it is deplorable. When there are
>>alternatives which actually lead to a better life for all.
>>
>>>>>>However, I suspect that Sharpy is tired of Canadians saying that they
>>don’t
>>>>>>need CP because their criminality levels are far lower than American ones
>>-
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh, I thought Canada had as many criminals per capita as the United
>>States.
>>>>
>>>>Where did you get that from?
>>>
>>>Don't you look ar data, or doesn't that mean anything to you either?
>>
>>No, I am merely questioning where the hell did you get such a preposterous
>>piece of BS as that. Anybody can see that there is a large gao between the
>>two. That is if you’ve been to Canada at all. I know I’ve been all over
>>Canada and the US: there is a marked difference, which all data and common
>>sense corrobate.
>
>Did you read this in all your books or in Criminology 101?

No. It’s actual understanding from personal observations, although not very
scientific, as opposed to Plato’s "semblance of knowledge" often provided
by merely reading without thinking.

Sharpjfa

unread,
Oct 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/28/98
to
Thoughtful and intelligent points by frisette.

><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Canadian Cop Killer gets days off
>From: fris...@total.net (Frisettes)

>Date: Tue, Oct 27, 1998 22:46 EST
>Message-id: <363690c6...@news.total.net>


>
>On 21 Oct 1998 05:28:22 GMT, shar...@aol.com (Sharpjfa) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Canadian Cop Killer gets days off
>>>From: fris...@total.net (Frisettes)
>>>Date: Tue, Oct 20, 1998 23:22 EDT
>>>Message-id: <362d4fab...@news.total.net>
>>>
>>>On 20 Oct 1998 19:35:49 GMT, shar...@aol.com (Sharpjfa) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Subject: Re: Canadian Cop Killer gets days off
>>>>>From: fris...@total.net (Frisettes)
>>>>>Date: Mon, Oct 19, 1998 02:47 EDT
>>>>>Message-id: <362adf56...@news.total.net>
>>>>>
>>>>>On 19 Oct 1998 04:11:31 GMT, shar...@aol.com (Sharpjfa) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Subject: Re: Canadian Cop Killer gets days off
>>>>>>>From: fris...@total.net (Frisettes)
>>>>>>>Date: Sat, Oct 17, 1998 21:14 EDT
>>>>>>>Message-id: <36293f4a...@news.total.net>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 14 Oct 1998 07:56:18 GMT, shar...@aol.com (Sharpjfa) wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>
>><snip>
>>

These are good sources, based on thoughtful and thorough professional
reasearch. I have not been to the North Pole but I know it is cold. I have
travelled extensively throughout Europe. But not Canada, I am sorry to say. My
travel schedule hardly affects the accuracy of these studies.

>Plus, I can tell you that in May murder rates went
>up and later in June came down. MY GOD! We must abolish the month of May!
>Yearly variations may occur, and some *might* even be related to «tough on
>crime», but such are merely temporary effects if any. You must look at
>longer term variables, ones whom are much harder to refute than this weak
>attempt at proving crime rates are higher/lower in other countries and
>extrapolate on the reasons.

Couldn't agree more.

> Secondly, there is also clear logic. Logic points to other
>conclusions on Capital Punishment, which are more philosohpical questions
>than anything else.

Philosophical and moral questions are paramount. This doesn't negate the
relevance of other issues.

questions>


>Plus, I question these researchers’ reliability, for one study can
>contradict another using the *same* statistics ! And what of your sources?

The citations were all given. There sources are in the full stories. They are
groups comparable to the US Justice Departments Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Can retrieve if needed.

>Are they reliable? You see, in this age of mass media, question everything,
>believe nothing, prove everything: faith is worthless. Assert your freedom.
>Do not remain an empty vassal for the sways >of pro or con.

Ditto.

sharpjfa

Sharpjfa

unread,
Oct 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/28/98
to
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Canadian Cop Killer gets days off
>From: fris...@total.net (Frisettes)
>Date: Tue, Oct 27, 1998 23:04 EST
>Message-id: <36369409...@news.total.net>

You misunderstand. The incapacitation effect is execution. It is permanent. You
are confusing incapacitation with deterrence.

> Look at the greater context. What impact do harsher penalties have?
>That is what needs to be looked at. And does it lead to a better society to
>incarcerate longer and with less lee-way?

I support longer sentences, less lee-way and executions.

>>>>If getting "Tough on crime" means just talking about it,
>>>>I agree with you.
>>>
>>>All of it, not just the talk. The talk is greeted by the masses. The action
>>>makes them feel better.
>>
>>My lord man, criminolgy 101, remember? Tough on crime action works. What a
>>shock!
>
>The only «tough on crime» stance which works is a Police State or more
>generally an authoritarian State: is that where you want to live?

Hardly. You limit your application to absolutes. This curtails debate and
reflects lack of broad thinking. Substantial punishments for violent offenders
in no way equates to Police State or authoritarian state.

>
>>> Although very little actual progress actually
>>>happens. It’s like having a nation with cars that don’t have renewable gas
>>>tanks: the solution? Buy a new car! No. That’s not answering the problem,
>>>that’s just trying to avoid it, and in the end you’ll end up paying for the
>>>lack of perspective.

Poor logic, limited application. Sound criminal justice pratices include many
avenues of attack. Your thinking is one track, not multi-track. Broaden your
thinking.

>>
>>Your logic doesn't allow you to find multiple solutions to solve a problem.
>I
>>assume you're alluding to social problems here. Well, incarceration is a
>>consequence for illegal behavior. Showing people that negative actions
>require
>>payment is a positive. In addition many Americans are involved in programs
>to
>>benefit child and adult offenders. The government also has such programs.
>>Multiple approaches are used and are necessay. I believe violent offenders
>have
>>free will and elect to harm others. It's a choice. I will concentrate on
>>punishing offenders and assisting victims. You can continue your work with
>>criminals. Both are valid areas. Neither should be neglected. Lowering crime
>>and recidivism rates by all methods is a positive.
>
>NO. The intended meaning is that if you have a problem, look at tis
>sources, not at its symptoms. For example, you ever heard of cold medicine?
>You’re still sick with the cold: it just reduces the symptoms, the latter
>being your own body’s defences... so in fact, the remedy makes you sick
>even longer, until your body eventually overcomes *the cold*. The point is
>that crime is not just a statistical fluke: it ’s a symptom of a greater
>problem which unattended may get worse and worse. The proposed solutions do
>little for that, and are in my opinion a waste of time and energy trying to
>justify them.

One can and should attack symptoms and problems at the same time. Anything less
is unproductive. Example, your town is flooded durind a violent storm. Your
logic would be to solve the flooding problem. Mine would be to save as many
people as I coduring the flood and after accomplishing that, spend effort to
limit damage of future floods. You and I would both work to solve the flooding
problem. However, I work on symptoms as well, saving as much life and property,
as well. It is best to do both.

>>
>>>>But if it means doing all those responsible factors which
>>>>reduce victimization, then such tough on crime efforts are anything but
>your
>>>>"doesn't mean anything". Unless, of course you meand that victimizations
>are
>>>>irrelevant to you. Which is not what I believe you are saying.
>>>
>>>The victim is part of it. But crime is deplorable not just because of the
>>>end victim, but of the whole environment, the lives of the convicted, the
>>>families destroyed on both sides, all of it is deplorable. When there are
>>>alternatives which actually lead to a better life for all.


Couldn't agree more.

No such post from me. Your confusing my posts with someone else or you
misinterpreted them.

sharpjfa

David E. Wallace

unread,
Oct 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/28/98
to
In article <3633047E...@umich.edu>,

John G. Spragge <spr...@umich.edu> wrote:
>In the meantime, I will have to content myself with posting an interpolated table
>of offenders. I took the Statistics Canada summary of homicide offences from
>1992 to 1997, and divided murders into first and second degree using corrections
>Canada figures.
>
>First Degree Murder 23% x 15 year minimum
>Second Degree Murder 67% x 10 year minimum
>Manslaughter 10% x (no statutory minimum)
>minimum average homicide sentence 10 years 1 months
>
>As you can see, even if you assume the absolute minimum sentences
>(including absolute discharges for manslaughter, a sentence handed
>down just once in my memory), homicide offenders in Canada end
>up doing an absolute legal minimum average of 10.1 years. If we allow
>for actual Canadian parole rates and the rate at which offenders apply
>for, and succeed at, section 745 hearings, the average comes up to
>about 13 years for all homicides.

Ok, but keep one critical point in mind about the average you
are comparing to: offenders who are not released are not counted
in the average (since it was based on offenders released in a given
year). Suppose I take your distribution of offenders, and assume
that all first degree murderers are released after 25 years,
all second degree murderers are released after 12 years,
and all manslaughter offenders are released after 5 years.
That yields an average time to release of 14.29 years, which sounds
impressive.

But now suppose that the parole board gets much more selective, and only
releases 1% of the 1st degree murderers and 20% of the 2nd degree murderers
after those terms (leaving the rest confined for life), while still
releasing 100% of the manslaughter offenders after 5 years.
Now the "average time served" drops to 9.2 years. At a 10% release
rate for the 2nd degree murderers, the average drops to 8 years;
at a 5% release rate it is 7 years, at a 1% release rate it is
5.85 years, and finally, at a 0% release rate for both 1st and 2nd
degree murderers, the average drops to 5 years, the term for manslaughter.
The more selective the parole board gets, the lower the "average time
served for homicide." Do you see the problem with using this stat
as a basis for the comparison between the US and Canada?

Frisettes

unread,
Oct 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/29/98
to

Georaphical locations are no longer as important as they used to. How about
a certain degree of exposure to Canadian culture(s) ? A certain knowledge
of its history(ies)? Talking to Canadians?

>>Plus, I can tell you that in May murder rates went
>>up and later in June came down. MY GOD! We must abolish the month of May!
>>Yearly variations may occur, and some *might* even be related to «tough on
>>crime», but such are merely temporary effects if any. You must look at
>>longer term variables, ones whom are much harder to refute than this weak
>>attempt at proving crime rates are higher/lower in other countries and
>>extrapolate on the reasons.
>
>Couldn't agree more.
>
>> Secondly, there is also clear logic. Logic points to other
>>conclusions on Capital Punishment, which are more philosohpical questions
>>than anything else.
>
>Philosophical and moral questions are paramount. This doesn't negate the
>relevance of other issues.

Statistical tweeking amounts to a general waste of time. That on a poll 505
answered that they would vote [such and such] means that to a question(s)
the pollsters asked, the respondent replied to 50% [such and such]. Any
other analysis is pointless and wrongful, for the opposite is easily proven
as well.

Notice how I left out "moral" questions... Morality is overated. Ethicality
is far more important. Morality is rather oppressive.

>questions>
>>Plus, I question these researchers’ reliability, for one study can
>>contradict another using the *same* statistics ! And what of your sources?
>
>The citations were all given. There sources are in the full stories. They are
>groups comparable to the US Justice Departments Bureau of Justice Statistics.
>Can retrieve if needed.

The *basic* statistics are believable, but the analyses and statistical
derivatives are not. Also, such quoting refers to works which are of your
opinion. That is a direct bias...

Frisettes

unread,
Oct 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/29/98
to
I’ve taken a week off of everything, but I said I’d be back: here I am!

On 21 Oct 1998 05:28:22 GMT, shar...@aol.com (Sharpjfa) wrote:


Here it is:


»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»Begin Quote««««««««««««««««««

On 30 Sep 1998 03:23:15 GMT, shar...@aol.com (Sharpjfa) wrote:

>
>><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Texecution: The Lone Star State Tidies Up the Gene
>>Pool Again

>>From: fris...@total.net (Frisettes)


>>Date: Tue, Sep 29, 1998 21:47 EDT
>>Message-id: <36118d3f...@news.total.net>
>>
>>On 27 Sep 1998 05:23:31 GMT, jane...@aol.com (JANEISM4) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>Subject: Re: Texecution: The Lone Star State Tidies Up the Gene
>>>>Pool Again

>>>>From: fris...@total.net (Frisettes)


>>>>Date: Sat, Sep 26, 1998 22:26 EDT
>>>>Message-id: <360d9e9...@news.total.net>
>>>
>>>It would be wrong to accept a punishment based solely on deterrence. Certain
>>>crimes are deserving of execution. The deterrent effect is just a great
>>bonus.
>>
>>As one reasonable person to another (a rare event on this NG), may I ask
>>you exactly why a crime deserves execution? Why does a crime need to be
>>punished, although not for crime control?
>
>I am not avoiding the question. But, the question shows such a wide gap between
>our viewpoints - Why does a crime need to be
>punished . . . ? _- that answering it is a complete waste of my time. For me,
>such a question is so astonishing, it is as if one asked Why breathe? Let's
>move on to another subject..

It is called questioning yourself on received ideas. Try it on... You are
avoiding the subject: it is a legitimate question, the very principle of
Crime & Punishment as an approach to Justice. I know that this isn’t
alt.philosophy, but this is a fundamental question, and if you can’þ answer
it, then don’t hide behind claims of irrelevance. If you can’t question
yourself on principles "imposed" by society, then don’t bother even
posting.

«««««««««««««End quote»»»»»»»»»»»»»»

There is no context to «complete waste of time». If there is, then by all
means, explain yourself.