[Newsbot]

Title: 22-year jail term would be a �crushing� sentence for sex attacker, argues lawyer
Category: Law & Order
Posted By: N_Fiddledog
Date: 2014-09-26 00:59:46
Canadian

[DrCaleb]

Then make it 23.

[xerxes]

Crush his balls. That'll put it perspectve.

[saturn_656]

Given his history, I do not find leniency to be appropriate.

[ShepherdsDog]

Croosh 'im like jelleh!!

[BartSimpson]

The guy is a threat to society and given his progression he's working his way up to killing someone. Better he be kept safe in jail.

[Zipperfish]

Stupid headline. Of course his lawyer is going to argue that. That's his job. Putting this guy behind bars until his 70s means he is unlikely to be able to harm anyone again.

[bootlegga]

Given his history of repeated offences, I don't think it is long enough actually.

[Delwin]

Although I believe this guy should receive a harsh sentence, people need to get it out of their head that we should be punishing people for crimes they haven't committed yet.

Phrenology as a science was abandoned years ago.

[martin14]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Then make it 23.

Just leave him there to rot away.

Or take him out back and be done with it.

[bootlegga]

Delwin Delwin:

Although I believe this guy should receive a harsh sentence, people need to get it out of their head that we should be punishing people for crimes they haven't committed yet.

Phrenology as a science was abandoned years ago.

I'm not condemning him based on the future, I'm condemning based on his past. From the article;

$1:

The Crown said that the two victims represented the fifth and sixth women who have been harmed by Mavros and that he had a long-standing pattern of brutal and escalating violence against women.

...

Ehrcke found Mavros guilty of strangling a Surrey prostitute to the point of unconsciousness and then sexually assaulting her as well as sexually assaulting his former Vancouver girlfriend.

...

Mavros also faces charges that he strangled an Edmonton prostitute to the point of unconsciousness and the sexually assaulted her.

[Delwin]

I understand that, and I am not singling you out specifically but their seems to be a prevailing attitude of well, this guy committed the same crime, over and over, lets throw him in the deepest darkest hole and let the insects deal with him.

That is not what our justice system is based on.

If you are arguing that we need to extend sentences or punishments progressively for each successive crime because this guy is not getting it, that is fair. If you are arguing that someone poses too great a risk to be free in our society, that is also fair.

What is not fair is an argument that we are unable to effect someone's behavior because they are hardwired that way so we need to punish them excessively for the rest of their lives.


If you are arguing that we are unable to control their behavior because they themselves are in fact unable to control their behavior as a result of an inherent psychological flaw. Then what is being advocated is to punish someone for their genetic makeup. That is not right.

There is a better argument for putting them down humanely, housing them securely, or treating them than there is for punishing them. You don't torture a dog for being rabid or feral.

[ShepherdsDog]

No they are euthanized......is that what you are suggesting?

[Zipperfish]

Delwin Delwin:

I understand that, and I am not singling you out specifically but their seems to be a prevailing attitude of well, this guy committed the same crime, over and over, lets throw him in the deepest darkest hole and let the insects deal with him.

That is not what our justice system is based on.

If you are arguing that we need to extend sentences or punishments progressively for each successive crime because this guy is not getting it, that is fair. If you are arguing that someone poses too great a risk to be free in our society, that is also fair.

What is not fair is an argument that we are unable to effect someone's behavior because they are hardwired that way so we need to punish them excessively for the rest of their lives.


If you are arguing that we are unable to control their behavior because they themselves are in fact unable to control their behavior as a result of an inherent psychological flaw. Then what is being advocated is to punish someone for their genetic makeup. That is not right.

There is a better argument for putting them down humanely, housing them securely, or treating them than there is for punishing them. You don't torture a dog for being rabid or feral.

I agree with this. In this case, the purpose of putting him away is so that he can't harm others. He is unlikely to be much of a threat in his mid-70s.

[wildrosegirl]

I fail to see how this is a problem. General pop, bitch....

Crush away, Bubba.