Robert Pickton

_TNA_ · Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 2:42 pm Post subject: Robert Pickton

So the jury gave their verdict today and said he is guilty of only second degree murder!!!! He gets a Life time sentence, and parole in 10, but for first degree it is life time sentence and 25 years for parole.
And you know what the difference is between 1st and 2nd degree? First is that he planned the murders. Obviously he planned them, who just decides "hey let's go chop off someones head and feet, then stick them in the freezer?" JUSTICE these days!

What is your guys opinions on this trial?

mike · Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 3:38 pm Post subject:

He was convicted of 6 murders.
He's charged with another 20 murders.
What is the chance of granting parole for a person like that? 0.0000000001%.

People should just be content with the fact that this person was caught by the authorities and put away.. the difference of the conviction is immaterial.
_________________

my style diary

missally · Supermodel Joined: 06 Dec 2006 Posts: 687 Smiles: +6 415

^ Wow... If that was one or both of your parents would you be going "oh its okay, at least he got caught." ? I wouldn't be. Saying that 15 years doenst matter and isn't important? 15 years is a long time. He shouldn't have commited the crime if he can't handle the punishment.
I think we should bring capital punishment back.

_TNA_ · Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 6:12 pm Post subject:

I just feel awful for the families. I cannot believe what they are going through. And I don't understand how it is NOT first degree. Holy frick.

mike · Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 6:14 pm Post subject:

Capital punishment?
If we start bringing in hypothetical punishments into the equation that changes everything.
If that was currently used in our legal system, then I would be all for it in this case.

Back to the current situation: in 10 years he will get a parole hearing. What will happen? It will be denied. The man is being dubbed Canada's most notorious serial killer. No one will ever grant him freedom. The fact that the hearing will be 15 years sooner will have no bearing on his walking the streets once again. He's in prison and he will stay in prison the rest of his life. Let him have a million parole hearings - he's not going anywhere!
_________________

my style diary

boarderlinefrenzy · Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 6:23 pm Post subject:

The difference between first and second degree murder is that first degree is premeditated, second degree is when the person just goes crazy and kills on the whim, like in the begining of Minority Report.
_________________

“Imagination is the highest kite one can fly”
~Lauren Bacall

amyamy8 · Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 7:02 pm Post subject:

parole in 10 years, that is crazy. and the fact that he was only guilty of second degree murder is also pretty bad.
_________________

alexisgeek · Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 12:17 am Post subject:

I think it's dumb. Lock him away and throw away the key. Seriously.

But mike/fashion_boy (seriously, I liked the name "fashion_boy" A LOT better Razz

) is right. The difference of the conviction is immaterial, HOWEVER regardless of how long he's in prison "for life" ("life" is 25 years... I would hardly call that a "life sentence". "life" to me, I think should be 50 years, but whatever) it matters to the victim's family how long he's sentenced for. It's an abstract idea... in some twisted (but true) way, it's like putting a price on a victim's life. The accused could get 30 years in prison for killing a victim. Or 10 years. or 22 years... It all depends. However many years he will get, the family will feel that justice has or has not been served.

I think that, for doing mass murders like Pickton did, since he took and wasted lives, he should serve time for the number of years of each of his victim's life that he wasted. I think one of the victims' name was Serena Abbotsway? I think she was like 27-something? So he'd get 27 years time. Then some of his other victims was like 30-something years? Get another 30-something years on top of his 27 years. How many is he accused of killing? something like 30 or 46 or something? I'm guessing on average, the age of the women would be like 30 years old. So what's 30 years times 46? 1380. So he should serve 1380 years in prison.

Capital punishment doesn't do anyone any good. Yes, the victim's families feel that they get justice. But really, it's just a quick fix. It's more painful for the accused/suspect/guilty to have to sit in prison for the longest time and think about what they did or how they got there. The problem with this, of course, is that it costs like... I think it was something like a $1,500,000 per prisoner per year to keep them in there? That's because they get meals three times a day, entertainment, services etc. It really drives up the cost. So for people like Pickton - the psychos (let's ignore the ones who plead insanity for sake of this post), keep them in isolation. Give them food only once or twice a day. I wouldn't say torture them, but surround their walls in 4-inch thick plastic with the pictures of their victims behind it so they have to see their victim's faces every day for the rest of their lives.

Sure, it's a little extreme. But sometimes... it just makes sense.

mike · Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:47 pm Post subject:

^I see what you are saying with the "price of a life" idea, but when a person has 6 sentences it doesn't really matter. If it was the case that he had only murdered 1 woman and he got life with parole after 25 years that would be horrendous.
He's already 58 years old so in reality he might only serve 1 (or possibly 2) of his sentences before he expires.

I think that capital punishment system of wining and dining until they are executed is stupid. Why are mass murders privy to luxuries? They did horrible things and taxpayer dollars are being spent for their pampering.

Sentencing is tomorrow so we'll see what happens.
The parole hearings can always be pushed further than 10 years. The jurors will give their recommendations on that.
_________________

my style diary

_TNA_ · Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:17 pm Post subject:

How can that not be premeditated what he did? Like GAHHH. It pisses me off.

Nothing Better · Supermodel Joined: 31 Dec 2006 Posts: 829 Smiles: +16 417

^^Alexisgeek, the problem with the version of sentencing according to the age he killed them at is not right because if you kill your 10-month old baby, it is just as bad as killing a 28 or a 78 year old.

I really don't have time to get into this, but I'll write a long post later.

boarderlinefrenzy · Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:25 pm Post subject:

^maybe you could serve how much they have left to live.

say you kill a tenth month old baby, then you would have to serve 74 and two months.

if you kill over the age of 45 or 50, then you serve a default of however many years, depending on the certain situation.
_________________

“Imagination is the highest kite one can fly”
~Lauren Bacall

treecow_ · Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 8:11 pm Post subject:

I think that it's wrong that they're only calling him guilty of second degree murder...but really, I'm just glad that he's going to be behind bars and not harming anyone else so it really doesnt matter, I guess.
_________________
used to be 'sw33tlilhugz' on the old f18. (;

electricpearls · Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 8:53 pm Post subject:

^^I don't think that works though. There isn't a guarantee that the child will live to be 75... he could have lived to be 100, he could have lived to be 30. Life expetancy for our whole nation varies and is all just an average. I think the most current updated life expentancy as of 2005 is 80 (thank you Social Studies class).

I just hope Robert Pickton rots in jail, that's all.

The one thing I hate in the Canadian legal system that has NOTHING to do with this is the murdering of a fetus before it has left the womb...

EX. Laci Peterson and her 8 month old fetus were murdered by the husband. In California, he was charged with both deaths. In Canada, he would have only been charged with Laci's death.

Here, an individual has zero rights until they are born.
_________________

was a long and dark december,
from the rooftops i remember there was snow,
white snow.

alexisgeek · Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 12:29 am Post subject:

emcee · Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 12:42 am Post subject:

To be honest, we can't really say if it was truly pre-meditated without knowing all of the evidence - which we don't. Not to mention the fact that the jury has to reach a unanimous decision on the verdict, so obviously there HAS to be compromising done while they deliberate, no? It is really important to recognize that the prosecution and defence's arguments will have varying degrees of impact on each individual juror; the fact that the defence may have disproved the prosecution's evidence likely would have swayed at least one person. And don't forget, it's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. As in, they have to be COMPLETELY sure that he had premeditated the murders. I don't think I can really describe how hard that is for the Crown to prove...especially with the inconsistencies of some of the evidence, and the fact that the defense did break down character evidence of some of the Crown's key witnesses.

And another big issue when it came to the trial was the exclusion of certain evidence...it shows a huge disrepancy in the criminal justice system, and perhaps even a lack of proper training or protocol. I read on CBC today that there have been issues with permissibility of evidence - I don't know if it's been tampered with or not, but apparently if James allowed it to be used, it would've swayed the jury towards a first-degree murder charge.

In any case, there are another twenty charges to deal with...I do really doubt that a parole board will let him out (and our Attorney General thinks that too...)

emcee · Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 12:49 am Post subject:

And the whole capital punishment issue? Its use is definitely way too inconsistent to be even considered a possibility. First of all, its unrealistic to think that overall, offenders even rationally plan out their actions - it's been proven that the majority of criminal offences are spur-of-the-moment, impulsive crimes, so it would defeat the whole idea of hedonistic calculus, because most criminals DON'T employ hedonistic calculus.

And THEN, you've got its actual application, which, by the record, seems quite inconsistent to me - so many inmates on death row have been acquitted upon the emergence of new evidence, and even worse, some have been killed and then proven innocent. I honestly don't think that we can justify killing a few innocent people who we THINK might be guilty cause we think the punishment is appropriate for those who actually are guilty. It's unfair, and really sends the wrong message about our criminal justice system, not to mention overall defeat the purpose of the system.

electricpearls · Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 3:53 pm Post subject:

^^I'm pro-choice. I understand the cirumstance of which an individual may want an abortion... ex. young, rape, etc. I personally wouldn't get an abortion but a) i've never been pregnant in the first place and b) i respect other's decisions.

I'm just merely stating an example of how flawed our legal system is over MANY things, the fetus thing being one of them. It doesn't have to do with abortion persee.

If you were stabbed in the abdomen and your baby died (and you planned on having this baby and all) then shouldn't the individual be charged with the death of the baby? The only way they could be charged in Canada is if the baby was born alive but later died of complications due to the wound.
_________________

was a long and dark december,
from the rooftops i remember there was snow,
white snow.

amyamy8 · Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:03 pm Post subject:

UPDATE: Justice James Williams has sentenced serial killer Robert Pickton to life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years.

http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/TopStories/ContentPosting.aspx?newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20071210%2fpickton_sentence_071211&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V2&showbyline=True
_________________

SUGARR* · Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:05 pm Post subject:

its not 1st degree because he didn't kill ALL of them.
he borught some of the women to the farm, they worked or something, adn they got to leave. or that's waht i've been told.

its childish to say that he should get first degree jsut ebcause of so many people he killed.
the whole first degree second degree things really doesn't make too much sense sometiems. i think however many years before a hearing for parole is issued should depend on the case itself; not whether he planned it or not, or if it was accidental.
in this case, he clearly deliberatly killed the women. just becuae some of htem got away doesnt mean that he didn't plan it. maybe he just never got that far.
_________________
formerly sugarr
*

_TNA_ · Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:05 pm Post subject:

^yeah, he killed them all.

emcee · Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 1:22 am Post subject:

Well, he wouldn't be charged with murder if he didn't kill them all. He is charged with 26 charges of murder - this trial was only for the first 6. He wouldn't be charged with murder if there was no evidence proving that he had in fact murdered these women; the Crown only brings charges forward if there is enough proof to build a case against an individual after all.

_TNA_ · Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 7:06 pm Post subject:

^Exactly.