babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » Parolled convict sues board over release.

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Parolled convict sues board over release.
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554

posted 02 January 2002 12:44 PM      Profile for Victor Von Mediaboy   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Convict says he should never have been released from prison.
From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 02 January 2002 12:52 PM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sounds like he is trying to make a bit of money, or a lot of money and then he will never have to work again?

It definitely has a new twist.


From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 02 January 2002 01:02 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It should be an interesting twist for victim's rights groups who blame the parole board for the crimes of a criminal. I'll bet they wouldn't like this guy taking advantage of their arguments!

I wonder if they will be consistent and agree with this guy that the parole board is responsible for his actions, or whether they will raise a hue and cry, saying that he should not get any payment because he is responsible for his own actions!

They're kind of damned if they do, damned if they don't - if they agree with the criminal, then they would support a criminal getting a cash settlement for his crime. But if they disagree with the criminal, then they will be disagreeing with their own premise that the Parole Board is responsible for their victimization. Wouldn't it be interesting to be the lawyer for this one!

[ January 02, 2002: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 02 January 2002 08:33 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think such a suit might possibly make sense in the case of someone judged not criminally responsible due to mental illness, but in this case?

I think we have to step out of the English language and pick a Yiddish word for this suit.

Chutzpah.

People victimized by this person might have a good case though. By using this man as an informant, (by his choice, I might add, negating any liability on the part of authorities, I'd say) the authorities did thrust this man back into a position where the chance for recitivism was high, and they new that when they did it.

That sounds to me like negligence.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 02 January 2002 11:15 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You know what kills me. I'd bet that over 90% of people agree that this lawsuit has no merit.

Just like lawsuits launched against hosts of parties where people drink and leave and drink somewhere else get in an accident and sue. Or christmas party drinkers who drive home after being told not too.

But still they persist. If, like, over 90% of people do not agree with the standards of liability. Why are we incapable of changing them???


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 03 January 2002 12:27 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
But Markbo, do you also disagree with victims of crime suing parole boards for letting dangerous criminals out early? Here's a fer-instance:

If they let some guy out on parole after 1/3 of his sentence despite evidence that he has not made any effort towards rehabilitation and has shown violent tendencies in jail, and he came along and beat you up so badly that you were permanently injured, don't you think the parole board would share some of the responsibility for your victimization for letting the guy out early? Wouldn't you consider suing too-lenient parole boards a legitimate way for a victim to collect damages considering that the crime wouldn't have happened had the person still been in jail?

Of course I'm just being a devil's advocate here. I'm not sure how I feel about the issue. But victim's rights groups certainly seem to feel that way about it. Just wondering what you think.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 03 January 2002 12:35 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm not sure how I feel but I would like to see those lawsuits published. I think its a crime for the gov't to settle them hush hush. If it costs that much then it would force them to change the laws on liability or parole. Either way the situation at hand is unacceptable.

If however these parolees lead model prison lives and just snapped when they got out. The victims should be entitled to nothing. The problem is lies on both sides. Frivolous lawsuits and Negligent parole boards. I'm sure you could find examples of both if the lawsuits were made public. Both issues should be dealt with.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 03 January 2002 12:47 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
True, if the guy was a model prisoner inside, then there's no way for the parole board to know he might be violent, and the victim should get nothing.

However. What I'm saying is, you can't have it both ways. You can't say that the responsibility lies partially with the parole board when it's a victim bringing up the lawsuit, but then say the responsibility completely lies with the perpetrator when it's the criminal bringing up the lawsuit. That's all I meant.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 03 January 2002 09:30 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Isn't parole mandatory after two thirds of the sentence is served? Apart from using the "dangerous offenders act", I don't think much can be done by the parole board, with the law as it is.

How far do we want to go with this? If a violent criminal was not given the maximum sentence by the judge in the first crime, should we be able to sue the judge?

No, I think apart from instances were a person is not criminally responsible, the responsibility has to remain with the criminal, unless some serious incompetance, or malfeasance can be proved.

And, good luck with that.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 03 January 2002 09:40 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think it's a good thing parole is mandatory after 2/3 of a sentence. When judges are sentencing, they KNOW this, and it is taken into consideration when they set the length of the sentence.

I think it is much better for people who have spent time in an institution, where everything is regulated, and everyone tells you what to do every moment of the day, to have the last third of their sentence in the community under supervision. Being on parole isn't a cakewalk either. Despite what people think, parole officers keep a pretty good eye on you. And they adjust the level of supervision accordingly for each person. They do urine tests regularly to make sure you're coping with the outside world without using drugs (or alcohol if addictions is considered one of your problems). Depending on your level of ability to cope in the outside world, you may have to report in to your officer anywhere from once a day to once every couple of weeks. Paroled inmates are often transfered to half-way houses where they are under supervision at night, and they have a curfew.

People who don't like parole after 2/3 of a sentence are usually, I find, misinformed about what it's all about. It's not perfect, and you'll always have people who break parole (after which they are taken back to jail for the remainder of their sentence), but it's better than letting them go on the last day of their sentence, completely unsupervised and unable to cope.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554

posted 03 January 2002 10:17 AM      Profile for Victor Von Mediaboy   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Another benefit of parole after 2/3 of the sentence is that it gives the convict something to look forward to, as well as something to work towards. If they know they will serve 100% of their sentence regardless of their behaviour while behind bars, why would they bother to work towards rehabilitating themselves? You'd just end up with more violence in prison, since the convicts would have less to lose.
From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
NDB
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1234

posted 03 January 2002 11:26 AM      Profile for NDB     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I didn't think government set laws regarding liability because most of the cases are civil - therefore, based on precedent. I guess there is a standard of criminal liability, but what is the relationship? Perhaps a resident lawyer could weigh in on this.

There has been an interesting change in liability over the last century (I studied some cases for a class on business ethics). A much stricter definition has been formed to the point where lawsuits like this don't seem crazy from the petitioner's POV. Think about the American case where the woman sued McDonald's when she spilled hot coffee on herself.

Also, *thread drift warning* there was an ariticle in the G&M recently about the reduction of in the number of jury trials. (The link isn't working)

quote:
The Globe and Mail
Complex laws mean the jury is out
By KIRK MAKIN
JUSTICE REPORTER
Monday, December 31, 2001 – Print Edition, Page A1

Many are called, but fewer and fewer are being chosen.

That centuries-old bulwark of the criminal justice system -- the jury trial -- is dying, throttled by government efficiency experts and the increasing complexity of the law.

"The saddest part is that the jury trial has gone out not with a bang but with a whimper," said Toronto defence counsel Robert Rotenberg. "It has just disappeared."


Mmmmm, satisfying . . .

[ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: NDB ]


From: Ottawa | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554

posted 03 January 2002 11:43 AM      Profile for Victor Von Mediaboy   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
More thread drift: To make G&M links work properly, go to http://makeashorterlink.com.

[ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: Kneel before MediaBoy ]


From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca