[DrCaleb]

martin14 martin14:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Prison for life is not a reasonable sentence for an intent to do harm. Possession of a legal substance, legitimate or not, is also not a reason to jail someone for life.

Should I bold that, so everyone reads it?

So, because I catch you with your hand inside the cookie jar, but you fail to get the cookie, you should get a walk ?

The crime is in the intent and planning, not just the execution of it.

By that rationale, the cops should have let the boys finish and detonate the bomb,
so to secure a better prison sentence.

You are projecting again Martin. I said none of those things.

[andyt]

Yeah, but you thought them when you wrote what you did. I'll get commander kai to prove it to you if you dare to argue.

[Zipperfish]

He'll have lots of time for thoughtful deliberation now. One thing I noted about his comments is that it's all "me, me, me."

[commanderkai]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I think you both missed my point.

Jonny_C Jonny_C:

Two tonnes of ammonium nitrate.

You realize how many people that could have killed?

And he gets parole when? Probably 10 years or less. -->>He should be in prison for life.<<<---

Prison for life is not a reasonable sentence for an intent to do harm. Possession of a legal substance, legitimate or not, is also not a reason to jail someone for life. He intended to use fertilizer in a bomb. That's why this guy is doing 10 years.

Should I bold that, so everyone reads it?

It helps a bit knowing more of what you were trying to say. You basically focused on the relatively safe nature of ammonium nitrate without adding in other chemicals, instead of the sentence and that he doesn't deserve life just for having ammonium nitrate.

That being said, I disagree with you. 20 years, with time served and chance for parole? Are you kidding? He was fully willing to plan and conspire a plot to commit the murder of as many Canadians as he possibly could. The Oklahoma City bombing resulted in 168 deaths and close to 700 injuries.

There is a significant difference of getting ammonium nitrate for legitimate purposes, and for what Saad Khalid intended. I could get the same amount of time for planning ONE murder, compared to him, who planned dozens, if not hundreds.

Retribution certainly plays a role in the justice system. Johnny_C's opinion is perfectly valid, viewing the intent of a man wanting to murder so many people who can be released in far less time than the 20 years he was sentenced to is perfectly legitimate.

[andyt]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

He'll have lots of time for thoughtful deliberation now. One thing I noted about his comments is that it's all "me, me, me."

He's got what, 13 years left. But he'll get parole for sure after 2/3 of that, possibly after 1/3 with his recent seeing of the light.

I don't trust his conversion here. Not that necessarily he's lying, but that he could easily be reconverted once he gets out. Some flare up in the Muslim world that Canada's involved in in the Muslim world, and bob's your uncle.

In this case a longer sentence is about protecting the public rather than retribution.

[Delwin]

From Appeal Decision:

[13] And that is what the respondent did, with the assistance of Saad Gaya, another co-conspirator. The sentencing judge made the following findings in this regard:

The offender [the respondent] also gave and relayed instructions to Gaya, including telling him on June 1 that he would pick him up the next morning but that it would not be from Gaya’s house, and that he was to take his beard off and bring $4,000 and food. When arrested, Gaya had over $9,000 in his backpack.

On June 2, on instructions from Amara, Saad Khalid and Gaya bought a large quantity of corrugated boxes and plastic bags and drove to the industrial unit in Newmarket. They assembled the boxes and lined them with garbage bags as they were to empty the ammonium nitrate into the boxes and stack them. They were then to destroy the ammonium nitrate bags. They were to put a dot on the bags so they would know if it was replaced as occurred in the London bombings when the authorities switched the bags. In order to put wax on the door and the doorframe so that it would be obvious if the door was opened, they brought two candles as directed.

After the arrest, police found step-by-step instructions to the offender and Gaya outlining what they were to do at the industrial unit.

[14] The respondent’s involvement did not end there. In concluding that the respondent was not just a “gofer”, as he maintained, and that “his degree of responsibility remain[ed] relatively high”, the sentencing judge referred to the respondent’s overall involvement in the plot as follows:

He is an intelligent young man, not one with learning deficits who might not have been able to put together what he got himself into. There is no reduction because of the wilful blindness finding reference R. v. Sidhu (2009), 242 C.C.C. (3d) 273 (Ont. C.A.) at para. 17. He was not just a gofer. No doubt, he bought the electrical components, tried to rent one house and did rent two industrial units, was prepared to do reconnaissance in downtown Toronto, bought the boxes and bags and assembled them, and unloaded the purported ammonium nitrate.

He also recruited a third member making sure he would not cause any trouble and was a good candidate. He said the candidate should be picked on how useful they will be. Getting others involved in the scheme is an aggravating factor in itself. He told his accomplices that they had to be alert to security measures because Amara was being followed. There was no room for error. It was not a joke. They were not cooking biryani. It was not the cool club. He wanted them to meet every week to keep everyone updated. While that was his wish, it was not going to happen. He also had input into the date of the bombings, moving it forward. He gave and relayed instructions to Gaya. He was not someone who just sat by waiting for his next assignment without providing input.

[15] The electrical components mentioned by the sentencing judge were located at the respondent’s home following his arrest. They consisted of six light/dark relay switches and a PMK 160 circuit board designed to function with a cellular phone and capable of receiving a visual signal through a photo-sensor unit. The PMK 160 circuit board could be used at close or long range.

http://www.ontariocourts.ca/decisions/2 ... CA0861.htm

It was a little more than having fertilizer, plus he plead guilty so it's not like there is a question of intent.

"There was no room for error. It was not a joke. They were not cooking biryani. It was not the cool club."

Gotta love lawyer humor.

[DrCaleb]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Retribution certainly plays a role in the justice system. Johnny_C's opinion is perfectly valid, viewing the intent of a man wanting to murder so many people who can be released in far less time than the 20 years he was sentenced to is perfectly legitimate.

I think that the only point on which we disagree. There is no crime of intent in Canadian law that carries with it a life sentence that I know of. Attempted murder does (239(b) ), but you have to actually attempt murder, not just intend to murder.

[commanderkai]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

commanderkai commanderkai:

Retribution certainly plays a role in the justice system. Johnny_C's opinion is perfectly valid, viewing the intent of a man wanting to murder so many people who can be released in far less time than the 20 years he was sentenced to is perfectly legitimate.

I think that the only point on which we disagree. There is no crime of intent in Canadian law that carries with it a life sentence that I know of. Attempted murder does (239(b) ), but you have to actually attempt murder, not just intend to murder.

I don't agree with life, but I do agree that 20 years for planning a terrorist attack is not enough, especially when intending to kill dozens, if not hundreds, and not blowing up a few mailboxes or an empty building. I completely agree that any parole in this situation would be laughable.

[Zipperfish]

Retribution has no useful role in the criminal justice system, in my opinion. When it comes to recent research in neroscience and psychology the hand-wringing left and the hang-'em-high right are comeplety out to lunch.

When a dog tries to bite an innocent bystander, we don't assess its intent. The dog bit because it was in its nature to bite. We don't put the dog down the as an act of retribution. We kill it to remove the threat. People, like dogs, are animals. Do away with the notion that there is free will at play, and it becomes much simpler to deal with.

People don't change either. The idea of transformative change is another conceit of our justice system. If this guy was prepared to kill before, he'll be prepared to kill again. Clearly, his comments of regret serve his own interests and that's the spirit in which they should be taken.