7yo Girl Did Not need to Die

[AtlantisKelowna]

I've already agreed with you on this. It's a poor situation that costs a lot of money. The criminals would generally prefer we don't spend the $150k/year on their incarceration. Do you have any suggestions for how to fix such problems?

Claiming criminals deserve the same rights as law-abiding citizens is the only example I need

This is an interesting statement. Most view rights as universal, that's why they're called "human rights". Can you maybe explain how your thought process works with regard to variable rights? Where else would you like to see different rights for different types/classes of people? Personally - I prefer the idea of equal rights for all but am interested in at least considering your approach if you could explain it more.

What more is there to explain? If you take someone's life intentionally why should you then retain any rights? You take a life and your rights go away with that life, a pretty simple concept really.

When criminals don't have the opportunity to drag the case thru court for years on end and have very little chance of finding a legal loophole because "my rights were violated" then and only then will our system start deterring crime. The system is too soft and is only that way because a criminal has the same rights as those who have never broken the law or taken away the life of an innocent person.

Stop wasting resources on trying to rehabilitate the scum of society and invest it in the people who deserve it.

[TylerM4]

OK, but those processes are in place to ensure "fair" trail and punishment. And even with them in place, miscarriage's of Justice still occur, we still hear stories about "the wrong person was found guilty", etc.

What you're referencing is the right to a fair trial. Not "the rights of a criminal".

Only thing worse than not appropriately punishing a criminal is punishing the wrong person.

[AtlantisKelowna]

OK, but those processes are in place to ensure "fair" trail and punishment. And even with them in place, miscarriage's of Justice still occur, we still hear stories about "the wrong person was found guilty", etc.

What you're referencing is the right to a fair trial. Not "the rights of a criminal".

Only thing worse than not appropriately punishing a criminal is punishing the wrong person.

In this day and age with technology, forensic abilities, and many other advanced tools there are very few cases of wrongful conviction. A few decades ago it might have been a much bigger issue.

Im very aware of the court proceedings and process, I've sat thru and watched how unfair the system is to the victim. The rights of a criminal often benefit them when it comes to a "fair" trial because it's more about ensuring they have been well looked after and less about the crime committed.

There have been dozens of examples of this and in many cases, guilty people have been allowed to walk away because their rights were violated while in detention awaiting a court date or due to some stupid technicality in evidence gathering. If the evidence proves anything it should not be dismissed for any reason even if the accused had rights violated. When someone had their life taken away the only objective should be finding out who did it by any means necessary.

You can keep citing all the BS law that gives these scum bags protection but you must realize that you are on the wrong side of the issue.

[TylerM4]

So how do you propose we shortcut the judicial system without wrecking our recent track record of wrongful convictions?

From the wording above, sounds like you believe RCMP should be allowed to detain and search whoever they want whenever they feel like it?

Perhaps pick one of those dozens of examples you mention and detail how the process should be changed? It would be great if you could acknowledge the intent of the "right" when describing how to bypass it.

[AtlantisKelowna]

From the wording above, sounds like you believe RCMP should be allowed to detain and search whoever they want whenever they feel like it?

Not entirely, but close. If there is reasonable suspicion that said person could be involved or possess valid evidence then yes. Obviously, a guilty person would not want that and some innocent might not either. The simple fact is if you are innocent you don't have much to worry about and instead of citing rights maybe consider being a good person and understanding, there is a much bigger issue at hand than a few moments of inconvenience.

A little off-topic but just recently a drug dealer found in possession of a large number of hard drugs was allowed to walk because the police didn't have a reason to pull him over but did. Must have been a lucky guess on the police officers' part. Under different circumstances, the amount of drug in his possession would have landed him a decade in prison but due to a technicality, he's off supplying his junkies again.

This is just one example of the joke of justice we serve.

Perhaps pick one of those dozens of examples you mention and detail how the process should be changed? It would be great if you could acknowledge the intent of the "right" when describing how to bypass it.

Im not going to play your game. You've drawn a line in the sand so stay there with the degenerates of society that feel criminals deserve equal rights.

[TylerM4]

Not entirely, but close. If there is reasonable suspicion that said person could be involved or possess valid evidence then yes. Obviously, a guilty person would not want that and some innocent might not either. The simple fact is if you are innocent you don't have much to worry about and instead of citing rights maybe consider being a good person and understanding, there is a much bigger issue at hand than a few moments of inconvenience.

This is how it is already. What exactly would you propose is changed? Will need to get into the details.

A little off-topic but just recently a drug dealer found in possession of a large number of hard drugs was allowed to walk because the police didn't have a reason to pull him over but did. Must have been a lucky guess on the police officers' part. Under different circumstances, the amount of drug in his possession would have landed him a decade in prison but due to a technicality, he's off supplying his junkies again.

This is just one example of the joke of justice we serve.

So what you're advocating for here is "RCMP can pull people over anytime they want for any reason". Have you considered why the limitations were put in place? People were being harassed, the power was being abused. But honestly I don't hate this.

Im not going to play your game. You've drawn a line in the sand so stay there with the degenerates of society that feel criminals deserve equal rights.

I find it very telling when people criticize a system but are unable or unwilling to suggest a better way. And falling back to villainizing me as the reason instead of dealing with the topic is just the cherry on the cake. Completely clear what I'm dealing with here and it's a waste of my time.

[common_sense_guy]

I'm for the death penalty for certain things. If they can't be rehabilitated or be a productive member of society or the prison population. and /or it was extremely violent or torturous..