The Canadian Guitar Forum banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,993 Posts
ST handled the news with grace and dignity. Having lived about 15 minutes down the road from Clinton, I've heard a lot of tongue wagging about this case, and most folks agree he got the royal shaft. The rush to find a perp blinded everyone involved at the time and they should be ashamed and repentent. Bastards all, especially the Crown.

Anyway, ST is a folk hero about whom there should be songs written and recompense given.

Peace, Mooh.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,643 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
ST handled the news with grace and dignity. Having lived about 15 minutes down the road from Clinton, I've heard a lot of tongue wagging about this case, and most folks agree he got the royal shaft. The rush to find a perp blinded everyone involved at the time and they should be ashamed and repentent. Bastards all, especially the Crown.

Anyway, ST is a folk hero about whom there should be songs written and recompense given.

Peace, Mooh.

Songs have been written
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,665 Posts
Now...what is that argument in favour of the death penalty again?????? I can never remember why capital punishment is considered a good idea.
Now, it's not that simple and you know it!:smile:

They did not have DNA testing in those days. Or lots of other stuff, for that matter. No one has ever suggested the death penalty should be mandatory! Just an option when the evidence is truly overwhelming.

There's a world of difference between a Truscott case from so long ago and that of Paul and Karla Homolka.:eek:

Doesn't matter. In Canada we have neither life imprisonment OR the death penalty! If Truscott's case had been tried today he likely would never have been convicted. The true evidence was obviously on his side. Still, if he HAD have been convicted the judge would have looked at his age, his time served waiting for trial (counts double against the sentencing time!) and the usual host of other factors and he either would have served six months in a halfway house or (even more likely) released into a counselling program!

Perhaps this should be a new thread...

:food-smiley-004:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,643 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
...here's a reminder: the belief that killing is okay when the "good guys" do it.

-dh
Well, I didn't meant o start this discussion off but...


As years have passed I've softened my stance on Capital punishment quite a bit.

While I have no problems with some individuals being eliminated permanently (as far as we know), I guess I would say that yes, some deserve to die. Some others deserve to live. Can you give them life?


Anyway, even with DNA, clerical mistakes can happen.

If ONE innocent person is executed, all bets are off in my opinion. That alone makes it impossible for me to support capital punishment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,740 Posts
I guess I would say that yes, some deserve to die.

...no argument here. in fact, in many cases i believe they deserve much worse than death.

i just don't believe human beings should be killing each other, for any reason.

but, we keep coming up with new and interesting rationalizations for killing each other, nonetheless.

-dh
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,665 Posts
Apparently he isn't familiar with the case:eek:?


Why would he be stunned about Truscott's aquittal?


Bizarre.

He may be the only one. he seems resentful that Truscott may seek financial compensation.

Bloody right he should.
Oh, I think Lynn Harper's father would be quite familiar with the case!

Sadly, someone who had suffered a loss like his would certainly crave the closure of the guilty one being found and punished. Asking him to accept that Stephen was innocent is asking him to accept that the real killer of his daughter will likely never be found, as well as destroying any faith he had in the system working like it should.

I have a deeper fear when I hear such stories about the State wrongfully convicting innocents, or giving ridiculously light sentences for heinous crimes or total screwups like the Karla Homolka deal. These type of incidents strike right to the heart of our heritage of British Common Law!

Long ago there was no court or police force. Everyone settled things on a personal level. Someone killed a member of your family so you killed one of his. Things usually escalated into full scale wars.

One of the greatest acts in our culture becoming civilized was the legal concept that crime and punishment was the jurisdiction of the crown and king, not the individual citizen. The crown would provide a trial, so that the truth would likely prevail and innocents would not be unfairly punished. Civil disputes went before a judge and not simply a clan raid on a neighbour's flock. A murderer must be proven such and punishment came from the crown and not a personal vendetta.

Later this evolved to include giving up arms. Civil protection was the responsibility of the State. We took guns off the street. No more chance of some drunk in a bar starting a shootout, or someone in a bad mood taking potshots at a neighbour.

This all worked because the vast majority of citizens could see that this was a better way! The State was perceived as doing a better job of justice than could ordinary citizens on their own, or of protecting citizens as individuals.

So what do people start to feel today when they get constantly hit with news items of how the State is blowing it? They imprison the innocent with trumped up trials, let the guilty off with a slap on the wrist and most horrible of all we see incidents were some nutbar like Marc LePine at that Quebec school or Columbine in the States can shoot scores of innocents before the police can stop them, BECAUSE NO CITIZEN IN THE SITUATION HAS THE MEANS TO PROTECT HIMSELF!

I've always believed that vigilantes aren't always guys who love to put gun racks in their pickup and shoot mailboxes for the fun of it. Some must be citizens who for what must seem like good and logical reasons after seeing the State fail to compensate or protect them or their loved ones, decide they have no choice but to do it on their own.

No one can expect perfect justice! It's a real world, after all. Still, how many screwups can we accept and still keep faith?

Here in Hamilton we've had a rash of unforgivable screwups by the system. Cases like that of Michael Dixon, who stepped off a Go Bus after returning home for work and immediately was roughed up and arrested as a robber!. The officers refused to check with the bus driver, or even consider that the report said a white robber while Mr. Dixon was black! He spent months in jail before finally the charges were dropped. Meanwhile our local police chief felt it was appropriate that the offending officers be docked ONE day's pay! There are many more incidents but you get the idea.

If the confidence of the people in their institutions gets shaken up too severely, bad things can happen. Nobody in their right mind WANTS vigilantism but what do you do if it's no longer logical to trust the system, by clear evidence?

.02

:food-smiley-004:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,643 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Oh, I think Lynn Harper's father would be quite familiar with the case!

Sadly, someone who had suffered a loss like his would certainly crave the closure of the guilty one being found and punished. Asking him to accept that Stephen was innocent is asking him to accept that the real killer of his daughter will likely never be found, as well as destroying any faith he had in the system working like it should.

I have a deeper fear when I hear such stories about the State wrongfully convicting innocents, or giving ridiculously light sentences for heinous crimes or total screwups like the Karla Homolka deal. These type of incidents strike right to the heart of our heritage of British Common Law!

Long ago there was no court or police force. Everyone settled things on a personal level. Someone killed a member of your family so you killed one of his. Things usually escalated into full scale wars.

One of the greatest acts in our culture becoming civilized was the legal concept that crime and punishment was the jurisdiction of the crown and king, not the individual citizen. The crown would provide a trial, so that the truth would likely prevail and innocents would not be unfairly punished. Civil disputes went before a judge and not simply a clan raid on a neighbour's flock. A murderer must be proven such and punishment came from the crown and not a personal vendetta.

Later this evolved to include giving up arms. Civil protection was the responsibility of the State. We took guns off the street. No more chance of some drunk in a bar starting a shootout, or someone in a bad mood taking potshots at a neighbour.

This all worked because the vast majority of citizens could see that this was a better way! The State was perceived as doing a better job of justice than could ordinary citizens on their own, or of protecting citizens as individuals.

So what do people start to feel today when they get constantly hit with news items of how the State is blowing it? They imprison the innocent with trumped up trials, let the guilty off with a slap on the wrist and most horrible of all we see incidents were some nutbar like Marc LePine at that Quebec school or Columbine in the States can shoot scores of innocents before the police can stop them, BECAUSE NO CITIZEN IN THE SITUATION HAS THE MEANS TO PROTECT HIMSELF!

I've always believed that vigilantes aren't always guys who love to put gun racks in their pickup and shoot mailboxes for the fun of it. Some must be citizens who for what must seem like good and logical reasons after seeing the State fail to compensate or protect them or their loved ones, decide they have no choice but to do it on their own.

No one can expect perfect justice! It's a real world, after all. Still, how many screwups can we accept and still keep faith?

Here in Hamilton we've had a rash of unforgivable screwups by the system. Cases like that of Michael Dixon, who stepped off a Go Bus after returning home for work and immediately was roughed up and arrested as a robber!. The officers refused to check with the bus driver, or even consider that the report said a white robber while Mr. Dixon was black! He spent months in jail before finally the charges were dropped. Meanwhile our local police chief felt it was appropriate that the offending officers be docked ONE day's pay! There are many more incidents but you get the idea.

If the confidence of the people in their institutions gets shaken up too severely, bad things can happen. Nobody in their right mind WANTS vigilantism but what do you do if it's no longer logical to trust the system, by clear evidence?

.02

:food-smiley-004:


My reference to Harper's father not being familiar with the case was sarcasm.


I can't begin to understand the grief Harper must have endured, but even so, how could he fail to support Truscott?

The evidence seems to clearly indicate that he was wrongfully convicted. How could his suffering and the ongoing humiliation of him and his family possibly bring closure to this tragedy.

I can only say that I would hope I would want to see this horrible injustice reversed to whatever extent is possible if it was my child that had been murdered.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,643 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
I can't imagine how you can set aside emotions. In the late 50's everybody had complete faith in "the system" to act fairly and appropriately. We're more jaded now. But then the Harper family must have been convinced taht Truscott was guilty as charged. They would have no reason to believe otherwise.

O/T, but on a similar emotional note...The doctor who operated on Walter Gretzky's aneurism did so only hours after he learned his daughter had been murdered. I can't imagine the pain and grief he must have felt, but he managed to put it aside and save Walters life. Somewhere he must have flipped a switch that said a second person didn't have to die.

I am sypathetic enough to accept that Mr. Harper is uncomfortable with the acquittal. This is not the same as Morin or Milgard where DNA provided proof of innocence. The Truscott case is not black and white. Unfortunately.
It may not be black and white, but it's clear enough that Truscott could not have committed the crime.

I am sympathetic toward Mr Harper, but not enough to have any reservation with Truscott's acquittal. It's long overdue.

Two wrongs do NOT make a right.


As always, just my opinion.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top