Friday, December 30, 2005

Laws don't reflect modern reality

One is out on parole, the other is a young offender. Shocking, eh?

Neither has been charged with the murder of Jane Creba, although there seems no doubt with the list of charges, that police know they were there.

According to the National Post:

(20 year old) Thompson is facing eight charges relating to Monday’s incident, including pointing a firearm and discharging a weapon “at a large group of unknown persons.” He is also charged with possession of a restricted weapon, possession of a loaded weapon, possession of a stolen weapon and violating the terms of his parole order, issued on Oct. 6. (. . .) Constable Wendy Drummond of the Toronto Police Service said Thompson has not been charged in the fatality or the other casualties. “We are still awaiting forensic tests on the weapon for that,” Const. Drummond said.
So if this guy's bullet hit someone and didn't kill them, or instead hit a wall or a window, he could pretty much get a pass.

The police can only charge them with what's on the books -- but 'discharging a weapon at a large group of unknown persons' is really a charge? Like if the group were smaller, or he knew them, it would be okay?

And if you participate in a gun-battle on a main street, and someone dies -- does it matter if your bullet is the one who struck the victim? Shouldn't all of them be charged with murder if their actions led to her death? And all of them -- regardless of aim, were shooting on a crowded street -- so all of their actions led to her death.

And what of the victims who didn't die? One is still in 'critical condition' -- so modern medicine is able to save this person, and the charge will likely be a less serious 'attempted murder' or some sort of assault with a weapon --- but the intent to kill, or the disregard for this person's life by the gunmen, should not be mitigated by the victim's survival -- the recovery of those who were shot, shouldn't reward the gunmen with lesser charges.

The laws on murder need to be rethought. It shouldn't matter that by luck or through medical intervention, a gun you've discharged doesn't end up killing a person. The death is secondary to the intent or the disregard for human life when it comes to charging and punishing the accused. If the police can prove through ballistics that these men were there and were shooters, should they be any less culpable because their bullets weren't fatal?

Modern medicine has made it so that many who once would have, won't die of injuries inflicted by would-be murderers. Modern weaponry has made it such that the discharging of a weapon can do incredible amounts of damage and can never be excused as accidental, and deaths that result from the discharging of these weapons can never be dismissed as unforseen, or unintentional.

It's time the law caught up.

canadianna

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

At a minimum these guys should be charged with being an accessory to murder.

Junker said...

Accessory to murder sounds about right, plus attempted murder. I wish we had a three strike system like California. He's re-offended at least once. At the third the guy shouldn't see daylight ever again.

You've got a point in that all of the legal semantics involved in charging the guy seem pretty ludicris even if his bullets didn't hit anyone. A young girl lies in her grave, other in hospital for who knows how long. Our legal system needs a way to serious smack down on these fellows.

If I were king, I don't many people would like the length of sentences I'd give every one of those gang bangers.

Tarkwell Robotico said...

OT -

how do I get that clipping from the Sun???

Canadianna said...

Hey Chucker -- I've uploaded it to my computer (I haven't been able to find this section online) you can email me canadi_anna@hotmail.com with your email address and I'll send it to you.

Candace said...

Don't the Americans have a law that bumps up the charge if, while committing a crime, death is the result? Isn't that "aggravated" or "special circumstances" or something like that?

I agree that ALL shooters should be held responsible for Jane's death, not just the guy who was shooting the gun directly at her.

stuffle said...

I totally agree with your "attempted murder" point. I have never understood why a lesser charge is handed out to a perp just because they failed at what they were attempting. Very stupid.

As for your question about the charges getting bumped up here in the US if the crime results in a death, I know we have that, I just don't know what it is called.

Anonymous said...

You're questions are insightful and hard-hitting, comme d'habitude. Update your CV. You should be working for the Justice Department.

Anonymous said...

Oh, and I forgot to say one more thing: Happy New Year 2006.

Sue said...

First off, Happy New Year to you and your family!

Secondly, you've made some very good points and it is incredibly sad that our justice system and laws seem so terribly antiquated. The laws seem to reflect that those that commit dangerous acts are to be protected, at any cost - to the detriment of the victim or family. The whole 'It can't really be that bad' scenario or it's 'just a phase'. Meanwhile, those intent to cause harm thumb their noses. These are sad days for our country.

Canadianna said...

Reward? Rather strange word to use in these circumstances.
You might like to think it's simple, but it isn't.
When you open fire into a crowd and fail to kill someone, that's just dumb luck. You should not be rewarded for your own ineptitude, or the heroic actions of others that might have prevented the deaths of others.