Reverend Blair Reverend Blair:
Publishing the names, or not publishing the names, seems pretty stupid to me. I don't see how publishing the names is going to act as a deterrent or give the families of victims some sense of retribution. I don't see how not publishing the names does anything but giving the families of the perpetrator temporary relief from the press.
If you want to know the facts of not publishing the names, that won't happen. See Hurley's disastrous missteps in addressing that. I think the retributive sense of publishing names comes from the idea that there is no longer a slant towards trying to rehabilitate the offender at the expense of the victim. I don't support a blanket clause of publishing the names, I can think of examples where that wouldn't work as intended. If the bullied snaps and kills the bully, rehabilitation is an option. Gangbanger shooting other gangbanger in the name of carving out drug turf, not so much.
$1:
How many adult murders, where the names are published, are there in Canada every week? How many of those names can you recall? Maybe if the crime directly affected you, but then you'd know the name anyway.
I can recall quite a few. Of course, the more sensational are easier to remember. But you're right, memory is recent and fades quickly. I certainly don't remember the name of every murder convict in Canada. In Toronto just recently, there was a manslaughter trial for one person who stabbed another person in a McDonald's drive-thru last summer. I totally don't recall the incident at all, let alone who was involved.
$1:
I'm not looking for a blanket compassion for murderers either. That's a ridiculous claim. I've said that tougher sentences are needed. What I am looking for is fact-based laws, not emotional appeals by the anti-science, anti-intellectual party. I am looking for something that actually changes the situation.
I suggested the blanket compassion angle because I didn't understand your end-goal with all of the calls for consideration of motives for murder. But, two things. Firstly, there simply isn't a record for the recidivism rate of juvenile murderers. It's old ground that Hurley mangled. Publishing the names would allow for tracking to find out what that rate is. Of course, you don't have anything to compare it to before we allowed name publishing, so... Secondly, justice isn't a science. It's man's hubris to impose fairness in society. Emotional appeals are a legitimate basis to temper laws. If we had strict reason, then theft would be theft, regardless of whether you're stealing bread for kicks or for sustanence. The bread-owner is still deprived of his goods in either case, so why make distinctions? Ah yes, the emotional component of compassion for the person driven to theft by necessity rather than theft by caprice.
$1:
The need for retribution by victims varies widely, depending on the situation and the people involved. Consider the "Not in My Name" movement in the US...victim's families who oppose the death penalty for the killers of their loved ones. If we are going to give the victims say, then it should go both ways.
If the family of a murder victim doesn't want the name of the murderer published so they can assist in his rehabilitation, they can fill their boots. No arguments here.
$1:
And this law is about far more than murder. It is about criminal negligence. It is about theft, especially auto theft. It is about selling drugs. Those things, and more, are all part of the Conservative proposal.
It's up to the Judge's discretion whether to publish the names or not. It's not an automatic thing. I've read the published proposed changes to the YCJA. They're over-due.
Forum Junkie 
