Crime and Punishment

While unsophisticated citizens think crime and punishment have simple solutions, (they do), the solutions are rarely the ones repeated by US 'let's get tough on crime' policies of Nixon, Reagon, Bush.

I always enjoy Mr. Tielemen's independent voice, but that doesn't mean he is always correct in his views.

First, crime in BC (and Canada, and the US) is NOT a priority of our elites. Never has been, never will be. That's the first thing people are never told. Our elites do have priorities, which are VERY important to them: low taxes, pro business, increase profits, extract more resources, expand the military. When our elites want something, WE know about it. Crime, and punishment, are consequences of these policies, which are rooted in aims that care little about social justice and the greater good.

But to keep the public mollified, every now and then an elite will go on a 'safe streets' or 'tough on crime' spree (so to speak), and the media will trumpet this as something important. But it isn't because it does nothing.

How simple is it to address rising crime? Crime rarely arises in advanced socialist societies with generous social programs and participating democracies. Crime always arises in unjust societies, unequal societies, where all the wealth is hoarded by the elites, and the majority of citizens are left to fend for themselves. Sort of like BC under the Cambpell regime.

Solutions are actually quite simple. Raise the minimum wage; remove corporate control over government policy; nationalize our oil and use the money--generously--for everyone's benefit. Of course, monopoly capitalists, Bay Street money traders and our elites will recoil in horror at terms like 'generous' (the word rarely escapes their lips except perhaps at a spelling bee) and 'sharing'. These are akin to words like socialism and terrorism.

But everyone else knows what is intuitively correct about how to share our wealth, and how to reduce crime. One day hopefully we'll be in charge.

Great coverage of an issue that should be discussed more often.

Crime and Punishment

Changing our Social programs is a good start to help fight the rising crime we experience. But it is only a start. "Maybe" it will change and reduce the number of future criminals. But what do we do about outr already prolific criminals of the present? These ones simply cannot and will not be changed.

The problem with our society is that we no longer want to deal with These people.

But how do you go about changing the Judiciary? Was it not a Judge who released this guy who killed six people? You have to start to change the Judiciary here first. The Judges have to start to take the safety and protection of the population as a priority over the well being of the criminal.

How many people do drunk drivers have to kill before we no longer allow them to ever get behind the wheel again? It just goes on and one.

When has anybody ever heard of a Judge being removed from the bench? When are we ever allowed to bring into question any of their decisions? A judge would have to commit Murder in this country for any disiplene to occur. And with the way our criminals are papered in this country, that may not even be enough for us to get tough.

Our Judges are appointed here. Who has appointed the vast majority of our Judges? Who has been the governing party of this country for most of the past 40 years?

Judicial appointments are not widely nor well understood

There is a general misunderstanding about how judges are appointed in Canada. Only at the level of the Supreme Court is there any 'political' involvement.

An Advisory Committee on Judicial Appointments is established in each province and territory to assess the qualified lawyer. Each committee consists of seven members of the bench, the bar and the general public. The Committees are asked to assess candidates on the basis of three categories - "recommended", "highly recommended" or "unable to recommend" for appointment. All Committees consultations and proceedings take place on a
confidential basis.

Judges of the provincial court and superior court of the provinces and territories who wish to be considered for an appointment of judgeship of the Federal Court must also apply in writing to the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs.

Judges of the provincial court are not assessed but commented by the advisory committees. Judges of the superior court of provinces and territories are not
assessed or commented by the advisory committees and are considered for elevation to higher judicial office subject to consultations by the Minister of
Justice only.

Is this a travesty of justice?

Who knows? This article is so full of misunderstandings of the Canadian criminal justice system that I don't even know where to begin.

"On Friday, Surrey Provincial Court Judge Ellen Gordon allowed Sophon Sek to be released from jail on bail, over Crown prosecutor objections, despite facing manslaughter charges in the Oct. 19, 2007 murder of six people, including two innocent victims."

Murder and manslaughter are legal constructs. Regardless of how one feels as a friend or family member of the victim doesn't change this. Mr. Sek cannot be, at once, guilty of murder and manslaughter.

"Irving faced two second-degree murder and six attempted murder charges, but those were reduced to criminal negligence causing death and criminal negligence causing bodily harm, not that it made any difference. That's because Irving pleaded not guilty by reason of mental disorder -- two psychiatrists testified he was suffering from delirium due to alcohol withdrawal and did not know what he was doing."

His charges were reduced because a judge or jury found him not criminally responsible. You don't just plead this and make it so.

""The bigger issue is the complete and utter silence of this B.C. Liberal government on public safety. Where are they?" Brown asked."

The BC government (Liberal or not) has very little to do with criminal law. Criminal law and the Criminal Code are under federal jurisdiction. So whining that Gordon Campbell isn't doing anything is really beside the point. If you don't like the criminal justice system, complain to Harper.

I'm quite surprised that the Tyee would run an article such as this. It's all sensational.

Where are the reasons that Sek got bail? Just because the Crown objects to bail, doesn't make it so. They have to prove that bail is not warranted, and if they don't, bail is granted.

Same with Irving. There are reasons why he was released. Where are they?

I expect so much more of the Tyee. This is the kind of "editorial" I would expect to read in the Province or the Metro.

Say it isn't so Bill

Very weak, for anybody, let alone Mr. Tieleman.

I won't even bother to support that opinion it is so obvious. Except to say- "Accused killers go free" should merit a large- So What. Now if the story was "Convicted murderers go free", or even "Convicted killers go free" you would have a matter worth discussing.

Tieleman replies to whiners

Bugbear's posted comments show a clear lack of understanding of the situation.

First, Sophon Sek is guilty of nothing at this point. He is charged with the crime of manslaughter in the Surrey Six murders - that is a fact.

Second, there is a ban on publication beyond the facts listed here. Justice Gordon's reasons cannot be discussed in the media,

Third, the Vancouver Sun's excellent reporter Kim Bolan has previously: "revealed that Sek is alleged to have given the killers access to the Balmoral Tower without knowing their plans. Sek was close to another Red Scorpion associate who lived three floors below the death suite in October 2007."

Fourth, on the Brian Irving case, the Crown reduced the charges before it went to the courts, where he plead not guilty. And I never suggested a judge or jury didn't decide he was not guily by reason of mental disorder - that's obvious.

Fifth, the Crown has also now declined to appeal Irving's release from the psychiatric hospital a year earlier than recommended.

Sixth, the Tyee story above links to the BC Review Board decision - anyone can read it.

Seventh, Steve Brown's point is well taken - Gordon Campbell is happy to call in the media to talk about getting "tough on crime" when it's in his interest but where is he now - this is when politicians should be saying the same thing Steve is - that these cases are outrageous.

Eighth, I appreciate the Tyee's willingness to talk about an issue that isn't well covered or debated in other media in BC - the fact that criminals and accused criminals are better treated than their victims.

If those on the left of politics aren't willing to debate these issues and side with ordinary people who are sick of being abused, they will not get or deserve voters support.

Whiners?

A person is charged with manslaughter, and he is released by a judge. Serious charges to be sure. A "manslaughter" is a death that results from the commission of an unlawful act. "Murder" is the intentional killing of a person. So there is quite a considerable difference. People who are charged with murder are certainly not always denied bail, but if you looked at cases you would see that it is not at all uncommon for people charged with causing unintended deaths to be released pending their trial. Should it be, is the question.

You acknowledge he is guilty of nothing at this point. Yet you consider it outrageous that he is released. Pretty straight forward principle that even predates the presumption of innocence: bail should be granted unless it can be established that it is necessary to detain. Historically, necessity was based primarily on risk of flight and related to matters. More recently, preventive detention can be justified by risk to re-offend.

It is not clear at all what you are proposing. Is it that an accused person should be detained in all cases where the allegations are serious and/or the accused notorious? Or are you simply criticizing the judge for the decision, because of what you know of the allegations but cannot publish?

If the later, maybe your criticisms are justified (who can say since you can publish what you heard) but a bad decision is not a design failure and it is not at all clear what you think is wrong with the system or what changes should be made.

That's a bit sensational isn't it? "Sensationalism" is after all journalism intended to provoke strong feeling rather than to be informative or thought provoking.

Your criticisms of the review board decision also seem to suffer from a similar absence of purpose. Is it your view that a patient should be detained in a psychiatric facility every time a psychiatrist thinks it's a good idea (i.e. against review boards in principle), or is that in your expert view this particular decision of the review board was flawed in some unspecified way?