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

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » from far and wide   » bc, alberta, saskatchewan   » Colin Thatcher Out On Weekends

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Colin Thatcher Out On Weekends
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 17 March 2006 06:09 PM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From CBC:

quote:
Former Saskatchewan politician and convicted killer Colin Thatcher will taste freedom three days at a time.

Thatcher, who has spent more than 21 years in prison for the 1983 murder of his ex-wife, went before a National Parole Board panel in Winnipeg on Friday seeking 72-hour passes to visit his family.

Former Saskatchewan politician Colin Thatcher has always maintained his innocence in the 1983 murder of his ex-wife. (file photo)
After a two-hour hearing, the panel deliberated for 45 minutes and granted his wish. That means he is eligible to be out of prison without an escort for up to three days at a stretch.



From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Deep Dish
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9609

posted 17 March 2006 11:07 PM      Profile for Deep Dish     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I try not to be one to judge, and this is going to sound like hyperbole.

Thatcher is a monster.


From: halfway between the gutter and the stars | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 18 March 2006 12:07 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The media made much of the fact that he got parole despite maintaining his innocence. Normally the parole board doesn't think you are rehabilitated enough if you won't even admit your guilt.

I guess the system is designed so that when someone is wrongfully convicted they make sure he never gets out of prison, thereby compounding the error.

That said, I have no reason to believe Thatcher is not guilty of the murder.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 18 March 2006 12:09 AM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
They will make sure he doesn't get remarried during one of those passes, won't they?
From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 18 March 2006 12:21 AM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Deep Dish:
Thatcher is a monster.

I saw clips of a CBC movie on the man, and if what I saw was an accurate depiction, I suspect Thatcher may be a psychopath.


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Deep Dish
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9609

posted 18 March 2006 12:32 AM      Profile for Deep Dish     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

I saw clips of a CBC movie on the man, and if what I saw was an accurate depiction, I suspect Thatcher may be a psychopath.

I was something like 9 years old when this happened, I remember the press and publicity but didn't care.

Then I read the book Thatcher wrote, Backrooms. The Saskatchewan prairie sky is not big enough to contain this man's ego. Some of the things he would swear up and down were truth, he would contradict in another part of the book. His snearing and behaviour towards court officials and the imagined snubs of the "old Regina elite" were to much to take.

Also this was a strange article considering what Thatcher did, I would think some things are just unforgivable. I don't know much about her, but I really feel sorry for Joanne Wilson - nobody deserved this.

[ 18 March 2006: Message edited by: Deep Dish ]


From: halfway between the gutter and the stars | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
swirrlygrrl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2170

posted 18 March 2006 02:59 PM      Profile for swirrlygrrl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My mom, and several members of my family are convinced that Thatcher is innocent of actually murdering his wife...though they believe he convinced his son to do it for him.

21 years is a long time to serve...I don't begrudge him too much his weekend passes.


From: the bushes outside your house | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 18 March 2006 03:23 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by swirrlygrrl:
My mom, and several members of my family are convinced that Thatcher is innocent of actually murdering his wife...though they believe he convinced his son to do it for him.

Did they testify?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 18 March 2006 03:24 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by swirrlygrrl:
My mom, and several members of my family are convinced that Thatcher is innocent of actually murdering his wife...though they believe he convinced his son to do it for him.

A lawyer may correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe you need to have done the deed yourself to be convicted of murder, and I don't think it was necessarily the Crown's contention that he did it personally. If they believe he convinced his son to do it, then they don't believe he's innocent of murder from a legal standpoint.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
pookie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11357

posted 18 March 2006 05:47 PM      Profile for pookie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Reality. Bites.:

A lawyer may correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe you need to have done the deed yourself to be convicted of murder, and I don't think it was necessarily the Crown's contention that he did it personally. If they believe he convinced his son to do it, then they don't believe he's innocent of murder from a legal standpoint.


Indeed that was one of the points confirmed in this case. The Crown could advance alternate theories: one, that Thatcher actually murdered his wife; two, that he hired/incited someone else to do it. The jury was free to believe either theory, so long as the members were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt (and they didn't need to be in agreement about which theory, either).


From: there's no "there" there | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 18 March 2006 06:19 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Does everyone remember how JoAnn Wilson died?

quote:
JoAnn Wilson's body was found in the garage of her Regina home on Jan. 21, 1983. The 43-year-old woman had been bludgeoned 47 times with a sharp instrument before being shot in the head.

What contract killer hits his victim 47 times in the head before shooting her in the face?

What kid does that to his mother?

With all due respect, swirrly, and given that I do not believe in capital punishment ... I begrudge Colin Thatcher every breath he has taken since the day that overprivileged bastard, who was brought up to believe that he was a master of the universe, took out his murderous spoiled-brattish impulses on JoAnn's head.

Whoever turned JoAnn Wilson's head into hamburger, and it is hard to believe that anyone but Colin could have been that maddened during the murder, he was as responsible as was Charles Manson for all those California murders, and it is an outrage that he should ever live another day as a free man again.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 18 March 2006 08:41 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I take it you're not a big believer in rehabilitation.
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 18 March 2006 08:45 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
There is not even the slightest reason to believe Thatcher has been rehabilitated.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 19 March 2006 12:29 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Really? The parole board was of a different opinion.

Your comment is beside the point, anyway. The question is whether rehabilitation of murderers is even a possibility.

It appeared to me that skdadl was ruling that out.

[ 19 March 2006: Message edited by: M. Spector ]


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 19 March 2006 01:23 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wow. This is a huge gap in my cultural knowledge, I guess, because I've never heard of this guy before. Sounds charming.

I don't really mind him getting weekend passes either, after serving 21 years. I do suspect, however, that if he were of a different race or class, proclaiming his innocence and applying for parole after conviction of as brutal a crime as that, the answer might have been different.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 19 March 2006 02:36 AM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
I do suspect, however, that if he were of a different race or class, proclaiming his innocence and applying for parole after conviction of as brutal a crime as that, the answer might have been different.

Or if he was another race or class and the parole board did approve his release, there probably would have been outcry.

The strange thing though, is that I thought conservatives were supposed to be tough on crime. Where's the public outrage over Thatcher?


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Deep Dish
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9609

posted 19 March 2006 03:48 AM      Profile for Deep Dish     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
With all due respect, swirrly, and given that I do not believe in capital punishment ... I begrudge Colin Thatcher every breath he has taken since the day that overprivileged bastard, who was brought up to believe that he was a master of the universe, took out his murderous spoiled-brattish impulses on JoAnn's head.

I totally agree. This man has not been rehabilitated at all, not only did he not acknowledge his crime he never once seemed to care that the mother of chidren was murdered. He blames all his problems on someone else like his assaults on guards, and I have no doubt he lays in his prison bunk thinking this was all a conspiracy against him or that the people were just too stupid to see she deserved it.

I do suspect, however, that if he were of a different race or class, proclaiming his innocence and applying for parole after conviction of as brutal a crime as that, the answer might have been different.

You are probably right, most of the murders in Regina go largely unnoticed and I suspect nobody cares much when the murderers go free. Most of these crimes happen in the poor parts of the inner city. It is a shame people don't seem to care much.

The thing is that Thatcher isn't sick like a lot of other Regina murderers, this wasn't a reaction to a life of mistreatment, he wasn't poor, uneducated, or ignorant, Mrs Wilson wasn't murdered in a hazy fog of events that veered out of control at some party. Thatcher is a man who had everything anyone could want in this life - his Dad led the province and Colin took it upon himself to play God, I firmly believe he thought he was more powerful than the system.

To the gallows with Thatcher

[ 19 March 2006: Message edited by: Deep Dish ]


From: halfway between the gutter and the stars | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 19 March 2006 04:07 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
[drift] I hope this isn't considered too flippant for this thread, but I can't help commenting that every time I see this thread title on the TAT page I am irresistably reminded of this...

Sorry... we now return you to your regularly scheduled thread, already in progress... [/drift]

From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 19 March 2006 09:31 AM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
Note to Windows users... that site tries to install stuff on your computer. Don't go there.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 19 March 2006 09:42 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
M. Spector, I do in fact try to believe in rehabilitation, although given my deep suspicions about the primitive nature of our current psychotherapies, it is a hard faith to hold. As honest as I can be? I don't know.

But I am not a hangin' judge, and I detest lynch-mob psychology as well.

However, except for his last line, I agree with what Deep Dish has written. Colin Thatcher was brought up to believe that he was God, and he has never shown the slightest sign that he has grasped that it is wrong to kill other people who get in your way.

He has even been happy, it appears, to allow speculation to go on that one of his children was in fact the murderer.

To me, until the day comes that we are sure we can treat men who have been spoiled to the point that they turn into psychopaths, we have to consider them a perpetual risk and keep them locked up.

Deep Dish, I am very sorry that you wrote that last line. I was with you up to there.

[ 19 March 2006: Message edited by: skdadl ]


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 19 March 2006 09:43 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Note to Windows users... that site tries to install stuff on your computer. Don't go there.


... or get rid of Window$...

[ 19 March 2006: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
pookie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11357

posted 19 March 2006 09:50 AM      Profile for pookie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
I take it you're not a big believer in rehabilitation.

It's pretty clear that Thatcher is not rehabilitated since he has never admitted the crime. The parole board made its decision, apparently, solely on the basis of risk to the community.

The larger question: is there ever a point where the sentence of such a person (assuming he is guilty course) can be commuted or modified? Is risk to the community the most compelling factor? Or can we continue to hold him because he's a monster who hasn't yet taken responsibility for his actions?

In the Gaol/Jail thread I suggested that if you really examine our use of the prison system, the root of our desire to so, is retribution. Thatcher provides a pretty good example of that.


From: there's no "there" there | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Andy (Andrew)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10884

posted 19 March 2006 04:58 PM      Profile for Andy (Andrew)   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think that the parole board needs to assess risk when he's out - not punish him. His children, already deprived of a mother, want to see him in his senior years and want him to have a relationship with his grandchildren. One son is a lawyer.

I see no reason to not allow this. There is no reason to believe he's going to do this again when he's out.


From: Alberta | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 19 March 2006 05:12 PM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, I don't know about that. Someone walking around with the kind of rage that can inflict 47 blows to the head is certainly capable of a recurrence.
From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 19 March 2006 05:24 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree, SLB. This case really bothers me.

I don't think that retribution is the issue. I'm not into retribution, not at all. But I am into safety, and I don't think the courts have ever been given any sign at all that Thatcher gives a hoot about murdering anyone who is in his way.

From all I have read, he managed to pathologize his children as well, so I'm not sure how strong that argument should be. Unite the happy family? The Manson family? The Addams family?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 19 March 2006 05:46 PM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My preference would be for him to be escorted when on the passes. It may be that the reason he is being given unescorted time is due to a lack of resources, because I would hope that given the circumstances of the case, that Thatcher's actions would be monitored until the end of his sentence, so that perhaps some more insight on his interactions with society can be gained.
I would be careful about allowing him access to his family - that's perhaps the most worrying aspect of this.

Of course, this all raises questions about the ability of the state to restrict an individual's freedom once a sentence is served (or largely served), and forces us to ask where the line is between allowing a man his freedom after detention, and protecting society from an unrepentant killer (assuming that he is - and it very much seems like he is). That's a quandry to give any civil libertarian a headache.

Certainly, I don't know what to do with Colin Thatcher.


From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 19 March 2006 05:53 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This "Risk Assessment" approach in (the Federal) government is a kind of "simple actuarial analysis" of government. To some degree then, the leniency towrds Thatcher is a result of imposing a neo-conservative ideology on government by reducing spending to calculated risks.

I'd like to read the ruling of the Board, if such a thing is available to the public.

Oh yea. The idea of running into Messr. Thatcher in same alley or lane while he's in Winnipeg intrigues me. i wonder if I could incite a crowd to beat the crap our of him, or whether I'd insist on doing it myself. Whoops! momentary weakness...

Even if this guy denies his guilt the experiences in prison must have had an effect on him.

Sidebar: What if his psychopathology is the result of an injury to his brain?


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 19 March 2006 06:00 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Screaming Lord Byron:
Of course, this all raises questions about the ability of the state to restrict an individual's freedom once a sentence is served (or largely served), and forces us to ask where the line is between allowing a man his freedom after detention, and protecting society from an unrepentant killer (assuming that he is - and it very much seems like he is). That's a quandry to give any civil libertarian a headache.
That issue doesn't apply in Thatcher's case because he is under a life sentence. A life sentence is exactly that - it lasts for life. That doesn't mean the sentence is necessarily served in prison, but if you are allowed out on parole, you are still "serving your sentence" until the day you die.

There is no civil liberties issue in Thatcher's case. As long as he is serving his sentence he has no "right" to do so outside of prison. That's a privilege that can be revoked as easily as it can be granted.

This is not a case like Karla Homolka, for example, who has served her sentence in full and is now no longer under supervision.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 19 March 2006 09:03 PM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I guess I should have paid more attention it school - I had always assumed the 'life' was just a euphemism for 25 years - so I must plead ignorance here. What sort of supervision would Thatcher be under after the end of the prison portion of his sentence?

[ 19 March 2006: Message edited by: Screaming Lord Byron ]


From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 19 March 2006 09:18 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
All right, I may regret it, but time for a comment.

What business is it of ours to second-guess the legitimate authorities on this parole decision??

Do we (you) know something about the case or about Thatcher that they don't?

If the authorities made a wrong decision based on law or fact or their jurisdiction, the Crown can appeal it and let the courts decide.

I find this public discussion of "what should we do with _________" (fill in the blank of anyone convicted of a heinous crime) to be contrary to our democratic system and the decisions society makes about farming out citizens' decision-making power to various bodies.

If, on the other hand, the whole parole / sentencing system is flawed, by all means expose the flaw and repair it.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 19 March 2006 10:21 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Screaming Lord Byron:
What sort of supervision would Thatcher be under after the end of the prison portion of his sentence?
If the parole board lets him have open-ended parole (not just weekends) he would have to report periodically to a parole officer for the rest of his life. And if he violates parole by committing another criminal offence (doesn't have to be murder) he can be required to serve the rest of his life sentence in prison.

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 19 March 2006 10:25 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Screaming Lord Byron:
I guess I should have paid more attention it school - I had always assumed the 'life' was just a euphemism for 25 years - so I must plead ignorance here. What sort of supervision would Thatcher be under after the end of the prison portion of his sentence?

My understanding is that he will have to continue reporting to parole officers for the rest of his life. Homolka won't.

A life sentence, as I understand it, can be given for a number of crimes, but for most of them you're eligible for parole after seven years. For second degree murder you're not eligible till you've served 10 years, and for first degree murder or high treason it's 25 years.


From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
saskganesh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4203

posted 19 March 2006 11:43 PM      Profile for saskganesh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by swirrlygrrl:
My mom, and several members of my family are convinced that Thatcher is innocent of actually murdering his wife...though they believe he convinced his son to do it for him.

21 years is a long time to serve...I don't begrudge him too much his weekend passes.



Yep. thats my theory. I read Backrooms as well, and there are some odd gaps in his account, that led me to consider that he wasn't the murderer, but was taking the fall for someone else.

I can't see him taking the blame and going to jail for anyone other than his son.


From: regina | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
pookie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11357

posted 20 March 2006 12:00 AM      Profile for pookie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I will probably regret this too, but...

According to published reports the man has not presented any problems in prison. Still, he is now a "psychopath" for whom there is insufficient evidence that he will not murder "anyone who gets in his way".

Where is the evidence that he is a psychopath? Has he actually been diagnosed? Or, is it simply that we think that all vicious murderers (or people who hire vicious murderers) are psychopaths?

I must say, I think the public safety angle is really weak. Seems to me that it is more his privilege and power - and allegedly reprehensible behaviour as regards, e.g., his children - that is spurring the reaction on this thread.

Just to be clear, I don't have a problem with a retributive approach to criminal law, and certainly not applied to Thatcher. At least it is a more straightforward approach, particularly as applied to elderly offenders.


From: there's no "there" there | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Politics101
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8962

posted 20 March 2006 12:05 AM      Profile for Politics101   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
If Thatcher would admit to the murder he probably would already be on parole but if you won't admit to your crime parole is usually denied - that is one reason why David Milgaard spend so many years in prison.

With modern DNA evidence it should be fairly easy to confirm Thatcher's guilt or innocence - the fact that this doesn't seem to be taking place could lead one to believe that he really is truly guilty.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 20 March 2006 12:11 AM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by pookie:
Indeed that was one of the points confirmed in this case. The Crown could advance alternate theories: one, that Thatcher actually murdered his wife; two, that he hired/incited someone else to do it. The jury was free to believe either theory, so long as the members were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt (and they didn't need to be in agreement about which theory, either).

It was something like that with Peter Demeter back in the 70s, if I remember right. He was convicted of having hired "person or persons unknown" to kill his wife.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Euhemeros
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11067

posted 20 March 2006 12:54 AM      Profile for Euhemeros     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
A life sentence, as I understand it, can be given for a number of crimes, but for most of them you're eligible for parole after seven years. For second degree murder you're not eligible till you've served 10 years, and for first degree murder or high treason it's 25 years.

As I remember, a life sentence is always 25 years (but parole is different as stated above). However, if you kill one or fifty people, you serve all you sentences consecutively so that you only serve 25 years in total (assuming you were convicted of all the murders at the same time). Of course, there is an option where the Crown can declare someone a "dangerous offender"... I believe they can keep someone in jail indefinitely once someone is declared that.


From: Surrey | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 20 March 2006 01:27 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Euhemeros:
As I remember, a life sentence is always 25 years (but parole is different as stated above).
No, a life sentence is a life sentence. If you commit first degree murder, you are sentenced to life, and you must serve at least the first 25 years of that sentence in prison. But the sentence is not over at 25 years. The parole board can keep you inside forever.

As for the idea that Thatcher is taking the fall for his son or someone else: if that were the case, why would he continue to proclaim his innocence? If you want to cover for the real killer, you would confess. It would also get you out on parole sooner.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238

posted 20 March 2006 01:34 AM      Profile for obscurantist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Euhemeros:
you serve all you sentences consecutively so that you only serve 25 years in total

I think you meant to say "concurrently." "Consecutively" is one after the other, while "concurrently" means simultaneously.


From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 20 March 2006 01:36 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Yossarian:

I think you meant to say "concurrently." "Consecutively" is one after the other, while "concurrently" means simultaneously.


Are you sure? Maybe "consecutively" is one after the other, and "concurrently" is one before the other?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 20 March 2006 01:38 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Euhemeros:

However, if you kill one or fifty people, you serve all you sentences consecutively so that you only serve 25 years in total (assuming you were convicted of all the murders at the same time).

So let me get this straight: If I'm planning to murder two people, I'm better off doing them at the same time than (say) a few months apart?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Euhemeros
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11067

posted 20 March 2006 04:48 AM      Profile for Euhemeros     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I think you meant to say "concurrently." "Consecutively" is one after the other, while "concurrently" means simultaneously.

Yeah..., thx. .

quote:
So let me get this straight: If I'm planning to murder two people, I'm better off doing them at the same time than (say) a few months apart?

Not necessarily. you just have to make sure you get convicted for both at around the same time. So if you actually serve a full life sentence and you get convicted (or sentenced, whatever) a month a part, you'd end up serving 25 years plus on month minus time served before your conviction.


From: Surrey | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
pookie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11357

posted 20 March 2006 10:35 AM      Profile for pookie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Deleted cuz I don't want to get into the whole party/principal thing right now.

[ 20 March 2006: Message edited by: pookie ]


From: there's no "there" there | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 20 March 2006 02:48 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I totally agree. This man has not been rehabilitated at all, not only did he not acknowledge his crime he never once seemed to care that the mother of chidren was murdered.

This sort of thing has come up before, and it's usually pointed out that having to admit to a crime you (insist you) did not commit in order to get leniency is a bit of a rock and a hard place. And a bit confounding, too: maintain your innocence and you're punished. Declare your guilt and you're free.

Anyway, the guy did 21 years, without any incidents or issues. What concrete reason do we have to believe he's a risk to reoffend? The fact that he seems to "think he's better'n us"? The fact that he's yet to confess?

If everyone who took a life had to serve two decades before getting so much as a weekend pass, I'd probably do a lot less posting to law and order threads.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Deep Dish
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9609

posted 20 March 2006 02:48 PM      Profile for Deep Dish     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What business is it of ours to second-guess the legitimate authorities on this parole decision??

Easy, as society and as Mrs Wilson's community peers we were wronged. This is particularily important in this case, since a lot of people who were closest to her don't seem too concerned.

Thatcher will also be spending a lot of time in the Moose Jaw area, and he is not the kind of guy I want in my neighbourhood.

If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. - John Donne


From: halfway between the gutter and the stars | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 20 March 2006 02:58 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Easy, as society and as Mrs Wilson's community peers we were wronged.

But that's a blanket reason that we can haul out any time we feel a sentence wasn't long enough or harsh enough, or justice wasn't done.

Which would be fine by me, if it passed or failed consistently. Typically saying "This person should have been sentenced to more jail time" doesn't fly around here. What is it about this guy that makes that different? I'm guessing it's his background and social class.

quote:
I do suspect, however, that if he were of a different race or class, proclaiming his innocence and applying for parole after conviction of as brutal a crime as that, the answer might have been different.

This recalls the Stanley "Tookie" Williams thread. He also proclaimed his innocence, and I don't recall the general consensus being that that proved his guilt. Of course it's not a valid comparison, being American versus Canadian jurisprudence. But who here thought an unrepentant, brutal murderer — Tookie — deserved leniency?

Not here.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Deep Dish
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9609

posted 20 March 2006 08:31 PM      Profile for Deep Dish     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But that's a blanket reason that we can haul out any time we feel a sentence wasn't long enough or harsh enough, or justice wasn't done

I think this is the real issue this thread boils down to, how do you punish a guy like Colin Thatcher(since rehabilitation is out of the question for this man) - who seems unmoved by 20+ years in jail without brutalizing the David Milgaards of the world.

You probably can't... so I guess this is where the discussion ends. I think Tookie is a false choice, because nobody I can recall was suggesting he be released from jail.

That said, I fully expect we will see Colin Thatcher on some corporate boards once he achieves full parole - a nice soft landing for those favours he did in the 80's as Energy Minister and not one dime spent looking for the "real" killer or any attempt made to clear his "good" name.

So is it wrong to punish Thatcher any further? Maybe. Has he been punished at all yet? I am not so sure.


From: halfway between the gutter and the stars | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 20 March 2006 08:39 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
No, a life sentence is a life sentence. If you commit first degree murder, you are sentenced to life, and you must serve at least the first 25 years of that sentence in prison. But the sentence is not over at 25 years. The parole board can keep you inside forever.

So it's proved with Peter Demeter, whom I referred to above; according to this page, anyhow, he's still in prison 33 years after conviction, and despite having had a stroke.

[ 20 March 2006: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 20 March 2006 09:19 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
I agree, SLB. This case really bothers me.

I don't think that retribution is the issue. I'm not into retribution, not at all. But I am into safety, and I don't think the courts have ever been given any sign at all that Thatcher gives a hoot about murdering anyone who is in his way.

From all I have read, he managed to pathologize his children as well, so I'm not sure how strong that argument should be. Unite the happy family? The Manson family? The Addams family?


You are making public statements about actual live human beings. Published statements is your source and you dare post such tripe?

I have read the case and I would have convicted on the evidence as well. I also went to school with one of his sons. Many of us have suffered traumas in our lives that are life changing but to say that his children have been pathologised and then to ridicule them by implying in particular that they might be murderous themselves like the Manson family is unacceptable and obnoxious. Who made you the judge of people who have never been charged with any crime and whose only misdeed is to have had their mother brutally murdered and probably by their father.


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca