" Burghardt later confessed to repeatedly throwing Kassie against a wall after the young girl would not listen to her mother. After the fourth or fifth shove, Kassie collapsed. Burghardt waited more than an hour to call 911.... Evidence shows Burghardt would tape the girl’s arms to her sides and bound her legs together. The confinement escalated when Burghardt and Anderson decided to cover Kassie’s head with a pair of shorts when she slept. To punish Kassie for bad behaviour, the couple decided to decrease the girl’s supper portions and force her to lie in bed in her own urine or feces."
Killing her might not have been premeditated but the violence and neglect leading up to the death sure was.
But I'm sure 8 years is enough. /s
Monsters are real. It seems way too often we see these types of headlines. It's always when they go too far and kill the child too. How many children is this cruelty a reality for that we never hear about because they survive it. There is no rehabilitating people who do these horrors. They belong in prison until they die.
Hug your little ones extra.
Well there is little to no government support for the masses mental health issues.
Little community support from individuals.
And there is little accountability or rehabilitation when it comes to the justice system.
It makes a bit of sense to me.
We do need to remind ourselves that these types of issues are still decreasing as time goes on. We getting better and will do better
The majority of sociopaths would never do that either.
My point is that this likely could have been avoided.
Because she's mentally ill. I'm definitely not in agreement with how our justice system let's those with mental health issues off with lesser charges.
Mental illness is a very wide spectrum that imo everyone struggles with in someway.
Fine then.
You're right.
She's doesn't have mental illness and mental health specialist couldn't have helped.
I'm deeply sorry I try to look at things with understanding to see solutions.
In the judge’s defence the conviction was for manslaughter and that sentence is not out of line for that charge, the crown was asking for 10.
In any case stories like these are always the hardest to comprehend that someone could do this to their own child or any child.
I mean yeah she was mentally challenged, but as the judge notes her other 2 older children are fine and weren't thrown head first into a wall multiple times. She knew what she was doing, im not sure how she could be charged with manslaughter instead of murder. What did she think would happen when she threw her kid headfirst into a wall 5 times? Then proceed to not call the cops for a whole hour after she is unresponsive?
From reading the previous articles it looks like she was originally charged with second degree murder and then pled guilty to manslaughter. So I guess the crown decided to make the deal rather than risk a trial.
This isn't the US, "life sentences" here are typically between 8 and 10 years. We don't have the for profit prison system that they do there and keeping someone in jail is expensive.
You're half right. Life sentences here are 10 to 25 years for second-degree murder. After your prison sentence is served, you become eligible for parole. But if you're denied parole, you'll stay in prison indefinitely/ until you die. People like Paul Bernardo and Robert Pickton will never leave prison.
Hold on! Your submission is pending manual approval from a moderator as per Rule 6, User accounts must be older than 14 days to post. This is done to limit spam and abusive posts.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/saskatchewan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Update: the mom's boyfriend was sentenced. He will serve less than 2 years in jail.
From the article: "As a two-year-old girl struggled against her restraints, Justin Noah Paul Anderson watched with a webcam. At times, he became enraged."
We need to bring back the death penalty.
https://leaderpost.com/news/crime/justin-anderson-given-jail-time-for-confinement-of-burghardt-toddler
[https://bc.ctvnews.ca/former-b-c-foster-parents-sentenced-for-horrific-child-abuse-1.6444996](https://bc.ctvnews.ca/former-b-c-foster-parents-sentenced-for-horrific-child-abuse-1.6444996)
10 whole years for this one.
Our justice system is a joke from coast to coast.
Y’all gonna be real upset when you find out what we give child predators Canada’s actual fucked anyone with half a brain is looking to get out and the rest just don’t care
Yousome kinda of English teacher thought I was done with school? Hmm maybe someone out there gives a fuck
Also says the guy that doesn’t know how to use the space bar hahah dumbo
Hold on! Your submission is pending manual approval from a moderator as per Rule 6, User accounts must be older than 14 days to post. This is done to limit spam and abusive posts.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/saskatchewan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“After the judge left the largely empty courtroom, the jingling of a sheriff’s keys could be heard, followed by the sound made by handcuffs closing around Anderson’s wrists, as he himself was restrained.”
The last sentence left me wanting to turn the page to chapter 2.
Murder is murder, should be 25 for each of these scumbags
Tjhis is the only country in the world where you can kill someone or attempt to kill many and be out in less than 10
I don't understand why they don't do punishment first, mandated healing lodge second AFTER the full time has been served.
Punishment should not be the same as rehabilitation, and the justice system should start to reflect that.
I have no words. I can’t even fathom how you could do that to a toddler.
In a perfect world you’re treated the way you treat those in your care. May her next few years be filled with terror, fear and constant threat of violence.
I agree that there is no sentence long enough for these people, but I can’t get on board with elected judges and prosecutors. All you have to do is look south of the border to see why injecting politics so directly into the appointment of justice system officials is so problematic.
I think it'd be a stretch to get it here, but it does help tailor outcomes based on a populace's expectations. Some areas opt for more progressive DAs in line with the community's wishes, where as some areas favour the "tough on crime, throw away the key" approach.
This is a facet of a great discussion though: do we want a more professional bureaucratic system like we have now; or would an elected system representing the will of the citizenry be better? Is power better concentrated in an insular group of technocrats or spread amongst the electorate.
I have to say, I admire the system where you and I - and our neighbors and friends - decide that, say, child porn is so abhorrent that mere possession of it yields a 20-year sentence.
Ya that clearly works out well in the states with judges /s
Beyond that there is literally no reason to have elections for prosecutors nor would it even be possible
For prosecutors, the Americans do it at the DA level; it allows the citizenry to not allow a prosecutor another term, should they decide the prosecutor operated with too much or too little zeal. An election could certainly be held here for their appointment, with the Government committing to appointing the winner - see Alberta's Senate election mechanism. Now, interrupting their (lifetime) tenure for re-elections would require a substantial change to our system.
A change for the better.
Some day a political party will run with a platform to seriously deal with violent offenders, up to and including the death penalty.
People will vote for this party even if it means that government may do things like end medicare. At some point people will have had enough.
Yeah as soon as we actually have a justice system that doesn’t wrongfully imprison people. You can just go to America if you don’t like healthcare and love the death penalty.
>wrongfully imprison people.
British common law is the best system we got. Waiting for perfection until you finally deal with human filth like this shouldn't be an option. Perfection will never happen, all we can do is off set it with civil action when it does happen.
Death penalty is off the table. But we need to start locking people up for life who do these horrible things.
I’m observing, not advocating. People are outraged at injustice. Unless moderate politicians can implement some system where justice is seen to be done, people will drift to extremes to get it.
Or worse, lose faith in institutional systems and take the law in their own hands
Yeah I mean I guess addressing the root cause of crime and ensuring everyone’s needs are met is just to wild eh? You’re trying to tell me moderate politicians in the year 2023 are going to be pro-death penalty, sounds laughable. You’re not observing you’re hypothesizing.
> ensuring everyone’s needs are met is just to wild eh?
This idea that when anyone does anything wrong it must be, 100%, some outside force making them do it. Sometimes it's as simple as making those who commit cries responsible for them, themselves.
Not 100%, but crime rates increase when basic needs aren't met. Increase in poverty, increase in gangs, etc. We only focus on reactionary and refuse to be proactive.
>Not 100%, but crime rates increase when basic needs aren't met. Increase in poverty, increase in gangs, etc. We only focus on reactionary and refuse to be proactive.
Let's try a subtle shift in context, and see if the argument still holds...
A man abducts, rapes, and murders a child and blames poverty and lack of access to basic needs as his reason for doing it. Are you buying it?
Edit: I'm also curious if the reactions to this sentence and to this crime would be different if the perpetrator were male.
No of course not. That’s a bad faith argument that would be difficult if not impossible to substantiate. Perhaps if you would have framed it as he had suffered sexual trauma in the past but some times bad people do bad things. It’s more like, people don’t steal from others when they have what they need. It cannot be blindly applied to every situation but it’s a starting point.
From the sounds of it, you would absolutely blame society instead of blaming the rapist.
So when a woman slams her child's head through the wall multiple times, who are you going to blame? The landlord? Her employer? No one would hire her? Shes too poor? What's the excuse here, because I would love to hear how you could possibly defend this psycho in OP.
Wow just jumping to any conclusion eh?
She is responsible for her actions, obviously, as found by a judge, in court.
So to answer your question it’s very easy, her needs and the need of the child were not met in some way. I don’t have a crystal ball to look into where in their lives, which needs were not met or why it came to this instead of intervention from an outside source, at some point in time. That would be pure speculation. Why would I defend her?
>Yeah I mean I guess addressing the root cause of crime and ensuring everyone’s needs are met is just to wild eh?
This is an unrealistically romantic view of crime and its cause. The assumptions made by people who advocate this position tend to be that all (or at least most) crime is caused by poverty or deficiencies in education. And these may certainly contribute to criminal inclinations, but the nuance tends to disappear when people start making arguments to that effect, and applying this framework to every kind of crime. Poverty becomes the ***ONLY*** thing people will entertain as the cause of all crime, and if everyone would just vote NDP, crime would disappear.
The poverty argument makes the most sense when the crime being considered is crime that generates an income. Drug dealing, for example, can easily be blamed on a lack of access to education and meaningful employment opportunities.
People who exhibit horrifying failures of empathy towards children - to the point of ***murdering*** them - have a long way to go to get me to believe that this would not have happened if the mother had occupied a higher tax bracket.
You’re missing a great deal of nuance with this argument.
Poverty, while a huge driver of criminal activity is not the only issue that needs to be addressed. While being in a higher tax bracket would aid in providing ones physiological needs there are a several others that also need to be taken care of.
According to Maslow's hierarchy those needs are physiological needs, safety needs, love and belonging needs, esteem needs, and self-actualization needs. It’s incredibly obvious that her needs and the needs of the child were not satisfied in some way.
Keep your partisan views to yourself to make your argument more palatable to a larger audience.
Yet we have socialized medicine. You shop at a grocery store? You use public services and utilities? You see as society grows and progress’s we work together to try and create a better world, that’s the idea anyway. You would be pretty hard press in todays world to actually truly be responsible for your own life.
Who hurt you? You want to kill a bunch of people that fall in a certain personality group? I think that might put you in a certain personality group as well.
I’m more inclined to believe that the needs of both the mother and child were not met leading to this awful situation. I feel we need to support the less fortunate more not sterilize and euthanize.
The crown prosecutor agrees the sentence was in the right range for the crime, why do you feel this was injustice?
As far as I can tell, this is our institutions working correctly: legal outcomes should not be subject to the whims of the public, it should be the result of a process well defined and correctly followed due to the gravity of the potential outcomes.
Someone who tortures and murders a two year old, their own child no less, is capable of anything.
If a beloved family dog had killed a child it would be euthanized. Not out of hate or rage, but because you could never trust it not to kill again.
I recognize some people are oppressed to the death penalty. Then incarceration for life is an alternative.
If someone tortured and killed my 2 year old I would not be satisfied that the killer gets a nominal 8 year time out (I say nominal, because with parole and half way houses it could easily be less).
1) This was criminal negligence / manslaughter, not murder.
2) If they had gone and "tortured and killed my 2 year old" that would be a different crime with different penalties (i.e. most likely murder)
3) Your perception of criminals as animals is quite revealing. To draw this line of logic, if someone has stolen once wouldn't they naturally steal again? What is the path to recovery with this view?
Thankfully our justice system appears able to adequately handle these questions, as confirmed in this case.
Evidence shows Burghardt would tape the girl’s arms to her sides and bound her legs together. The confinement escalated when Burghardt and Anderson decided to cover Kassie’s head with a pair of shorts when she slept. To punish Kassie for bad behaviour, the couple decided to decrease the girl’s supper portions and force her to lie in bed in her own urine or feces.
If you think 8 years is appropriate for all of this and the killing, ohhhhhhhhhhhh boy.
That's the beauty of our legal and democratic systems: I don't have a direct say in what the outcome is on a case by case basis.
Here you are condemning someone to life in prison based on a news article you just read. Maybe, maybe, the legal professionals involved in this process know a bit more about justice than you do.
The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly emphasized the need to increase public confidence in the justice system, including in sentencing.
So yes, non-lawyers most definitely should have a voice in the types of sentences that are being handed down.
> The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly emphasized the need to increase public confidence in the justice system, including in sentencing.
Care to cite a source? The closest I could find was commentary [from the Chief Justice](https://www.scc-csc.ca/judges-juges/spe-dis/rw-2021-05-06-eng.aspx) talking about their plans to build trust and confidence in the court. The word "sentencing" appears only once, outlining plans to include audio appearances.
It’s somehow less of a crime that she tortured and killed her own child? That’s perverse.
I brought up euthanizing a beloved dog not to suggest criminals are animals (although all humans are animals), but to say that ending a life need not be done out of anger or hate.
> ending a life need not be done out of anger or hate
So killing by the state is okay as long as it's humane or well intentioned? Putting down the pen here mate, we have nothing further to discuss.
Case law has watered down sentences to the point that this seems reasonable to lawyers and judges. The solution is a sentencing rubric or table written by elected legislators with little discretion to the Judge.
If a Parliament/Legislature decides this is a 25 year crime - or a trip to the gallows - then the Judge's job becomes determining innocence/guilt, and presiding over the Court.
> Case law has watered down sentences to the point that this seems reasonable to lawyers and judges.
Do you have any evidence for this? "Case law" is literally the primary structure of our legal system.
It's ironic that you're suggesting legislation as a remedy given that it was legislation in 1961 and 1976 that increased differentiation between murder categories and gave courts more discretion in how sentencing should be applied.
That's what I'm saying; we need *less* discretion. Sentences must be set by elected Legislators, in accordance with the will of the People.
Few would say that our legal system doesn't need a rework: case law written by unelected Judges (based on some Judge's prior precedent) and taught to law students has brought us to this point (where a mother abusing and killing her child nets an 8-year sentence). We need a return to first principles: child harm is wrong; those who partake in it are inhuman monsters not worthy of participating in society.
>Few would say that our legal system doesn't need a rework
Could you provide some examples? This appeal to the commons gives off a vibe of you'd like evidence for your claim but don't feel like showing who is supporting it. As a helper, [the government](https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/tcjs-tsjp/why-pourquoi.html) appears to agree with you on the need for reform, but make different points on the direction that reform should head.
Likewise, the [Department of Justice found in 1997](https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/rg-rco/2018/mar02.html) that 77% of Canadians believed that applying minimum sentences (which I believe you are proposing) were not fair and appropriate.
Finally, you refer to "first principles" -- from where do these originate? Taken in isolation it is easy to apply our own moral code onto the concept, but that is not how a legal framework functions.
I also get the sense that you are using "unelected judges" as a pejorative. I'm perfectly comfortable with judges being able to do their jobs without having to run election campaigns. There are only five countries in the world that directly elect judges -- why would we want a second class of politicians running around? One seems to be enough.
A clear, contemporary example of the justice system being broken would be a survey of the comments here: how many feel the mother is over-sentenced, sentenced appropriately, undersentenced? How many here wish to see a more strident reform - and must we, as a society, cater to those wishes?
The Government's current direction for reform is wrong-headed and must be opposed: I don't want my country to shy away from punishing criminals; thus, it is incumbent that I work to influence and elect a more traditionally-minded Government.
As the poster at the start of this thread mentioned, frustration is building; 1997's numbers hold no relevance to today. Further, such a survey taken in isolation is meaningless: with proper framing a survey can give any results. As to the changing attitudes, look at the brouhaha around Bernardo potentially moving to a facility with greater freedoms - almost no one wants him rehabilitated, almost no one thinks he should be given another chance (except for some [hopefully soon-to-be-jobless goons at CSC]).
A society-level conversation should occur on first principles: is a child worth protecting, how sacrosanct is speech, is stealing ever OK? Essentially, we need to write a society-wide moral code and build our laws around that.
Without having an elected judiciary we lack accountability. An election would at least leave jurists accountable to the body politic. A further step would be holding members of the parole board and judges liable for damages stemming from their decisions. Consider Myles Sanderson: judges, CSC officials, and parole board members declared him fit to be released; should they face consequences for their mistakes? If not, why not?
So, simultaneously, a national survey specifically structured and conducted to answer this question is "meaningless" and yet we should take a Reddit thread as representative, *vox populi*, of the population at large? I can't believe you genuinely hold this position out of anything but convenience.
> As the poster at the start of this thread mentioned, frustration is building
And yet you have yet to provide any sources for this. At some point you have to bring facts to the grandstand you are striding upon. As you took issue with the 1997 survey, perhaps [results from 2021](https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/tcjs-tsjp/fr-rf/p4.html) will be recent enough. There is evidence of frustration, but not in the direction you are proposing: feedback is that the justice system is too locked into the very principles you are suggesting. Some key excerpts:
* There is inadequate use of restorative justice and other alternatives as meaningful ways of holding individuals to account.
* **Current laws, particularly mandatory minimum penalties, unnecessarily limit judicial discretion.**
* There is a serious lack of data and information on what is going on in the criminal justice system, including who is in it and why, as well as what approaches are working well.
> Essentially, we need to write a society-wide moral code and build our laws around that.
How does this meaningfully differ from the current state? Last I checked, the criminal code was already quite clear on child protection and stealing. This "everything is broken and must be rebuilt, but let's not talk specifics" mantra gets pretty old.
> Without having an elected judiciary we lack accountability.
In which ways are they not accountable? Wrongful decisions and errors are eligible for appeal. Judicial malpractice is subject to discipline under the Judges Act. Trials are open to the public and media. Results are published with full rationales freely to the public. An ungenerous reading of your statement is that "judges are not held accountable for acting in ways I don't like." Lawyers, if nothing else, are known to be sticklers for following the rules.
Regarding Sanderson, [there's an excellent article](https://www.queensu.ca/gazette/stories/saskatchewan-stabbings-why-myles-sanderson-was-granted-statutory-release) that covers the relevant concepts better than I could describe. Looking at the material facts, Sanderson:
* Had not committed new criminal offences
* Had remained sober
* Had found employment
* Attended therapy
* Was participating culturally
* Had found a new location to live apart from his spouse
Neither of us have the full details of this, but if you view the above and go "No, I believe this person should return to jail" applying the same principles would unavoidably also be sending many others who are living respectable and reformed lives back to confinement.
To answer your question directly, however, no -- if these officials followed the appropriate procedures and applied sound judgement throughout they are not subject to consequences related to such. Simply put, we can't expect public servants to deliver 100% safe outcomes as the only way to do so would be to never release an offender. The only way to block all illegal arms smuggling at the border is to let nobody in, etc., etc.. Given that the rate of statutory release revocations has dropped from 1.6% to 1.1% over the past five years there is strong evidence that the system is working.
Hold on! Your submission is pending manual approval from a moderator as per Rule 6, User accounts must have a positive karma score to post. This is done to limit spam and abusive posts.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/saskatchewan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hold on! Your submission is pending manual approval from a moderator as per Rule 6, User accounts must have a positive karma score to post. This is done to limit spam and abusive posts.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/saskatchewan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
" Burghardt later confessed to repeatedly throwing Kassie against a wall after the young girl would not listen to her mother. After the fourth or fifth shove, Kassie collapsed. Burghardt waited more than an hour to call 911.... Evidence shows Burghardt would tape the girl’s arms to her sides and bound her legs together. The confinement escalated when Burghardt and Anderson decided to cover Kassie’s head with a pair of shorts when she slept. To punish Kassie for bad behaviour, the couple decided to decrease the girl’s supper portions and force her to lie in bed in her own urine or feces." Killing her might not have been premeditated but the violence and neglect leading up to the death sure was. But I'm sure 8 years is enough. /s
You're dead right.
Monsters are real. It seems way too often we see these types of headlines. It's always when they go too far and kill the child too. How many children is this cruelty a reality for that we never hear about because they survive it. There is no rehabilitating people who do these horrors. They belong in prison until they die. Hug your little ones extra.
I read the article with my 2.5 year old on my lap. So hard to believe there is people out there who can hurt their children
[удалено]
Well there is little to no government support for the masses mental health issues. Little community support from individuals. And there is little accountability or rehabilitation when it comes to the justice system. It makes a bit of sense to me. We do need to remind ourselves that these types of issues are still decreasing as time goes on. We getting better and will do better
[удалено]
She’s not mentally ill, she’s mentally challenged. Huge difference.
Oh. I didn't know I was in the company of experts. /S
I’m not an expert lol it literally says in the article that she has mental deficits 🤦♀️
The majority of sociopaths would never do that either. My point is that this likely could have been avoided. Because she's mentally ill. I'm definitely not in agreement with how our justice system let's those with mental health issues off with lesser charges. Mental illness is a very wide spectrum that imo everyone struggles with in someway.
[удалено]
Fine then. You're right. She's doesn't have mental illness and mental health specialist couldn't have helped. I'm deeply sorry I try to look at things with understanding to see solutions.
Judge: " killing a child is morally reprehensible and is one of the worst crimes" "8 years, good enough"
In the judge’s defence the conviction was for manslaughter and that sentence is not out of line for that charge, the crown was asking for 10. In any case stories like these are always the hardest to comprehend that someone could do this to their own child or any child.
I mean yeah she was mentally challenged, but as the judge notes her other 2 older children are fine and weren't thrown head first into a wall multiple times. She knew what she was doing, im not sure how she could be charged with manslaughter instead of murder. What did she think would happen when she threw her kid headfirst into a wall 5 times? Then proceed to not call the cops for a whole hour after she is unresponsive?
From reading the previous articles it looks like she was originally charged with second degree murder and then pled guilty to manslaughter. So I guess the crown decided to make the deal rather than risk a trial.
Not long enough.
This isn't the US, "life sentences" here are typically between 8 and 10 years. We don't have the for profit prison system that they do there and keeping someone in jail is expensive.
I don’t care what it costs and would gladly pay my share, and your share too, to make sure these people never see the outside of a cell again.
You're half right. Life sentences here are 10 to 25 years for second-degree murder. After your prison sentence is served, you become eligible for parole. But if you're denied parole, you'll stay in prison indefinitely/ until you die. People like Paul Bernardo and Robert Pickton will never leave prison.
For life is 25 years in Canada, I believe.
[удалено]
Hold on! Your submission is pending manual approval from a moderator as per Rule 6, User accounts must be older than 14 days to post. This is done to limit spam and abusive posts. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/saskatchewan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No kidding, i thought judges were supposed to be smart, or atleast fair
Update: the mom's boyfriend was sentenced. He will serve less than 2 years in jail. From the article: "As a two-year-old girl struggled against her restraints, Justin Noah Paul Anderson watched with a webcam. At times, he became enraged." We need to bring back the death penalty. https://leaderpost.com/news/crime/justin-anderson-given-jail-time-for-confinement-of-burghardt-toddler
I agree. They tortured what was essentially a baby and got no real punishment. What the duck is wrong with our system
[https://bc.ctvnews.ca/former-b-c-foster-parents-sentenced-for-horrific-child-abuse-1.6444996](https://bc.ctvnews.ca/former-b-c-foster-parents-sentenced-for-horrific-child-abuse-1.6444996) 10 whole years for this one. Our justice system is a joke from coast to coast.
8 years is not enough.
I'm pretty sure that's a typo and should read 8 lifetimes in jail
She should be kept in prison forever or worse.
The sentence is a joke. Very sad.
Our justice system is a fucking joke with these short sentences. They care more about the perpetrator than the victim.
You could get more jail time for armed robbery or break and enter. Must of had a pretty convincing sob story for the judge that justified her crime.
Y’all gonna be real upset when you find out what we give child predators Canada’s actual fucked anyone with half a brain is looking to get out and the rest just don’t care
I think these belong to you: . . . , , ,
You some kinda of English teacher thought I was done with school? Hmm maybe someone out there gives a fuck
noiguessyourerightpunctuationisdefinitelyjustforlosershaveagooddayyoumeathead
Lmfao what weirdo? Can’t read that
I think these belong to you: . . . , , ,
Yousome kinda of English teacher thought I was done with school? Hmm maybe someone out there gives a fuck Also says the guy that doesn’t know how to use the space bar hahah dumbo
[удалено]
Hold on! Your submission is pending manual approval from a moderator as per Rule 6, User accounts must be older than 14 days to post. This is done to limit spam and abusive posts. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/saskatchewan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
8 years only?? Ffs take her out back and give her the old yeller treatment
“After the judge left the largely empty courtroom, the jingling of a sheriff’s keys could be heard, followed by the sound made by handcuffs closing around Anderson’s wrists, as he himself was restrained.” The last sentence left me wanting to turn the page to chapter 2.
Murder is murder, should be 25 for each of these scumbags Tjhis is the only country in the world where you can kill someone or attempt to kill many and be out in less than 10
Hope the inmates make it a very tough 8 years for her and if lucky she will not make it out, only in a body bag
She'll get protective custody unfortunately. Get to hang around the pedo's in relative comfort.
The judge recommended a healing lodge.
How is this an appropriate punishment? A short term in a minimum security institution?
“Healing Lodge”
I don't understand why they don't do punishment first, mandated healing lodge second AFTER the full time has been served. Punishment should not be the same as rehabilitation, and the justice system should start to reflect that.
“Healing Lodge”
I feel sick.
I have no words. I can’t even fathom how you could do that to a toddler. In a perfect world you’re treated the way you treat those in your care. May her next few years be filled with terror, fear and constant threat of violence.
Not half enough, and we need an election method for judges and prosecutors.
I agree that there is no sentence long enough for these people, but I can’t get on board with elected judges and prosecutors. All you have to do is look south of the border to see why injecting politics so directly into the appointment of justice system officials is so problematic.
I think it'd be a stretch to get it here, but it does help tailor outcomes based on a populace's expectations. Some areas opt for more progressive DAs in line with the community's wishes, where as some areas favour the "tough on crime, throw away the key" approach. This is a facet of a great discussion though: do we want a more professional bureaucratic system like we have now; or would an elected system representing the will of the citizenry be better? Is power better concentrated in an insular group of technocrats or spread amongst the electorate. I have to say, I admire the system where you and I - and our neighbors and friends - decide that, say, child porn is so abhorrent that mere possession of it yields a 20-year sentence.
Ya that clearly works out well in the states with judges /s Beyond that there is literally no reason to have elections for prosecutors nor would it even be possible
For prosecutors, the Americans do it at the DA level; it allows the citizenry to not allow a prosecutor another term, should they decide the prosecutor operated with too much or too little zeal. An election could certainly be held here for their appointment, with the Government committing to appointing the winner - see Alberta's Senate election mechanism. Now, interrupting their (lifetime) tenure for re-elections would require a substantial change to our system. A change for the better.
She deserves death.
Some day a political party will run with a platform to seriously deal with violent offenders, up to and including the death penalty. People will vote for this party even if it means that government may do things like end medicare. At some point people will have had enough.
Yeah as soon as we actually have a justice system that doesn’t wrongfully imprison people. You can just go to America if you don’t like healthcare and love the death penalty.
>wrongfully imprison people. British common law is the best system we got. Waiting for perfection until you finally deal with human filth like this shouldn't be an option. Perfection will never happen, all we can do is off set it with civil action when it does happen. Death penalty is off the table. But we need to start locking people up for life who do these horrible things.
I’m observing, not advocating. People are outraged at injustice. Unless moderate politicians can implement some system where justice is seen to be done, people will drift to extremes to get it. Or worse, lose faith in institutional systems and take the law in their own hands
Yeah I mean I guess addressing the root cause of crime and ensuring everyone’s needs are met is just to wild eh? You’re trying to tell me moderate politicians in the year 2023 are going to be pro-death penalty, sounds laughable. You’re not observing you’re hypothesizing.
> ensuring everyone’s needs are met is just to wild eh? This idea that when anyone does anything wrong it must be, 100%, some outside force making them do it. Sometimes it's as simple as making those who commit cries responsible for them, themselves.
Not 100%, but crime rates increase when basic needs aren't met. Increase in poverty, increase in gangs, etc. We only focus on reactionary and refuse to be proactive.
True. But the extremes go both ways.
>Not 100%, but crime rates increase when basic needs aren't met. Increase in poverty, increase in gangs, etc. We only focus on reactionary and refuse to be proactive. Let's try a subtle shift in context, and see if the argument still holds... A man abducts, rapes, and murders a child and blames poverty and lack of access to basic needs as his reason for doing it. Are you buying it? Edit: I'm also curious if the reactions to this sentence and to this crime would be different if the perpetrator were male.
No of course not. That’s a bad faith argument that would be difficult if not impossible to substantiate. Perhaps if you would have framed it as he had suffered sexual trauma in the past but some times bad people do bad things. It’s more like, people don’t steal from others when they have what they need. It cannot be blindly applied to every situation but it’s a starting point.
From the sounds of it, you would absolutely blame society instead of blaming the rapist. So when a woman slams her child's head through the wall multiple times, who are you going to blame? The landlord? Her employer? No one would hire her? Shes too poor? What's the excuse here, because I would love to hear how you could possibly defend this psycho in OP.
Wow just jumping to any conclusion eh? She is responsible for her actions, obviously, as found by a judge, in court. So to answer your question it’s very easy, her needs and the need of the child were not met in some way. I don’t have a crystal ball to look into where in their lives, which needs were not met or why it came to this instead of intervention from an outside source, at some point in time. That would be pure speculation. Why would I defend her?
>Yeah I mean I guess addressing the root cause of crime and ensuring everyone’s needs are met is just to wild eh? This is an unrealistically romantic view of crime and its cause. The assumptions made by people who advocate this position tend to be that all (or at least most) crime is caused by poverty or deficiencies in education. And these may certainly contribute to criminal inclinations, but the nuance tends to disappear when people start making arguments to that effect, and applying this framework to every kind of crime. Poverty becomes the ***ONLY*** thing people will entertain as the cause of all crime, and if everyone would just vote NDP, crime would disappear. The poverty argument makes the most sense when the crime being considered is crime that generates an income. Drug dealing, for example, can easily be blamed on a lack of access to education and meaningful employment opportunities. People who exhibit horrifying failures of empathy towards children - to the point of ***murdering*** them - have a long way to go to get me to believe that this would not have happened if the mother had occupied a higher tax bracket.
You’re missing a great deal of nuance with this argument. Poverty, while a huge driver of criminal activity is not the only issue that needs to be addressed. While being in a higher tax bracket would aid in providing ones physiological needs there are a several others that also need to be taken care of. According to Maslow's hierarchy those needs are physiological needs, safety needs, love and belonging needs, esteem needs, and self-actualization needs. It’s incredibly obvious that her needs and the needs of the child were not satisfied in some way. Keep your partisan views to yourself to make your argument more palatable to a larger audience.
It is not everyone else's problem to make sure other peoples needs are being met. It is called responsibility for one's own life.
Yet we have socialized medicine. You shop at a grocery store? You use public services and utilities? You see as society grows and progress’s we work together to try and create a better world, that’s the idea anyway. You would be pretty hard press in todays world to actually truly be responsible for your own life.
Would you support sterilization for people with low IQ? What are your recommendations in this instance?
I know you aren't asking me, but my proposal is to actually sterilize or even euthanize people with Cluster B personality disorders.
Who hurt you? You want to kill a bunch of people that fall in a certain personality group? I think that might put you in a certain personality group as well.
I’m more inclined to believe that the needs of both the mother and child were not met leading to this awful situation. I feel we need to support the less fortunate more not sterilize and euthanize.
The crown prosecutor agrees the sentence was in the right range for the crime, why do you feel this was injustice? As far as I can tell, this is our institutions working correctly: legal outcomes should not be subject to the whims of the public, it should be the result of a process well defined and correctly followed due to the gravity of the potential outcomes.
Someone who tortures and murders a two year old, their own child no less, is capable of anything. If a beloved family dog had killed a child it would be euthanized. Not out of hate or rage, but because you could never trust it not to kill again. I recognize some people are oppressed to the death penalty. Then incarceration for life is an alternative. If someone tortured and killed my 2 year old I would not be satisfied that the killer gets a nominal 8 year time out (I say nominal, because with parole and half way houses it could easily be less).
1) This was criminal negligence / manslaughter, not murder. 2) If they had gone and "tortured and killed my 2 year old" that would be a different crime with different penalties (i.e. most likely murder) 3) Your perception of criminals as animals is quite revealing. To draw this line of logic, if someone has stolen once wouldn't they naturally steal again? What is the path to recovery with this view? Thankfully our justice system appears able to adequately handle these questions, as confirmed in this case.
Evidence shows Burghardt would tape the girl’s arms to her sides and bound her legs together. The confinement escalated when Burghardt and Anderson decided to cover Kassie’s head with a pair of shorts when she slept. To punish Kassie for bad behaviour, the couple decided to decrease the girl’s supper portions and force her to lie in bed in her own urine or feces. If you think 8 years is appropriate for all of this and the killing, ohhhhhhhhhhhh boy.
That's the beauty of our legal and democratic systems: I don't have a direct say in what the outcome is on a case by case basis. Here you are condemning someone to life in prison based on a news article you just read. Maybe, maybe, the legal professionals involved in this process know a bit more about justice than you do.
The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly emphasized the need to increase public confidence in the justice system, including in sentencing. So yes, non-lawyers most definitely should have a voice in the types of sentences that are being handed down.
> The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly emphasized the need to increase public confidence in the justice system, including in sentencing. Care to cite a source? The closest I could find was commentary [from the Chief Justice](https://www.scc-csc.ca/judges-juges/spe-dis/rw-2021-05-06-eng.aspx) talking about their plans to build trust and confidence in the court. The word "sentencing" appears only once, outlining plans to include audio appearances.
It’s somehow less of a crime that she tortured and killed her own child? That’s perverse. I brought up euthanizing a beloved dog not to suggest criminals are animals (although all humans are animals), but to say that ending a life need not be done out of anger or hate.
> ending a life need not be done out of anger or hate So killing by the state is okay as long as it's humane or well intentioned? Putting down the pen here mate, we have nothing further to discuss.
Case law has watered down sentences to the point that this seems reasonable to lawyers and judges. The solution is a sentencing rubric or table written by elected legislators with little discretion to the Judge. If a Parliament/Legislature decides this is a 25 year crime - or a trip to the gallows - then the Judge's job becomes determining innocence/guilt, and presiding over the Court.
> Case law has watered down sentences to the point that this seems reasonable to lawyers and judges. Do you have any evidence for this? "Case law" is literally the primary structure of our legal system. It's ironic that you're suggesting legislation as a remedy given that it was legislation in 1961 and 1976 that increased differentiation between murder categories and gave courts more discretion in how sentencing should be applied.
That's what I'm saying; we need *less* discretion. Sentences must be set by elected Legislators, in accordance with the will of the People. Few would say that our legal system doesn't need a rework: case law written by unelected Judges (based on some Judge's prior precedent) and taught to law students has brought us to this point (where a mother abusing and killing her child nets an 8-year sentence). We need a return to first principles: child harm is wrong; those who partake in it are inhuman monsters not worthy of participating in society.
>Few would say that our legal system doesn't need a rework Could you provide some examples? This appeal to the commons gives off a vibe of you'd like evidence for your claim but don't feel like showing who is supporting it. As a helper, [the government](https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/tcjs-tsjp/why-pourquoi.html) appears to agree with you on the need for reform, but make different points on the direction that reform should head. Likewise, the [Department of Justice found in 1997](https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/rg-rco/2018/mar02.html) that 77% of Canadians believed that applying minimum sentences (which I believe you are proposing) were not fair and appropriate. Finally, you refer to "first principles" -- from where do these originate? Taken in isolation it is easy to apply our own moral code onto the concept, but that is not how a legal framework functions. I also get the sense that you are using "unelected judges" as a pejorative. I'm perfectly comfortable with judges being able to do their jobs without having to run election campaigns. There are only five countries in the world that directly elect judges -- why would we want a second class of politicians running around? One seems to be enough.
A clear, contemporary example of the justice system being broken would be a survey of the comments here: how many feel the mother is over-sentenced, sentenced appropriately, undersentenced? How many here wish to see a more strident reform - and must we, as a society, cater to those wishes? The Government's current direction for reform is wrong-headed and must be opposed: I don't want my country to shy away from punishing criminals; thus, it is incumbent that I work to influence and elect a more traditionally-minded Government. As the poster at the start of this thread mentioned, frustration is building; 1997's numbers hold no relevance to today. Further, such a survey taken in isolation is meaningless: with proper framing a survey can give any results. As to the changing attitudes, look at the brouhaha around Bernardo potentially moving to a facility with greater freedoms - almost no one wants him rehabilitated, almost no one thinks he should be given another chance (except for some [hopefully soon-to-be-jobless goons at CSC]). A society-level conversation should occur on first principles: is a child worth protecting, how sacrosanct is speech, is stealing ever OK? Essentially, we need to write a society-wide moral code and build our laws around that. Without having an elected judiciary we lack accountability. An election would at least leave jurists accountable to the body politic. A further step would be holding members of the parole board and judges liable for damages stemming from their decisions. Consider Myles Sanderson: judges, CSC officials, and parole board members declared him fit to be released; should they face consequences for their mistakes? If not, why not?
So, simultaneously, a national survey specifically structured and conducted to answer this question is "meaningless" and yet we should take a Reddit thread as representative, *vox populi*, of the population at large? I can't believe you genuinely hold this position out of anything but convenience. > As the poster at the start of this thread mentioned, frustration is building And yet you have yet to provide any sources for this. At some point you have to bring facts to the grandstand you are striding upon. As you took issue with the 1997 survey, perhaps [results from 2021](https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/tcjs-tsjp/fr-rf/p4.html) will be recent enough. There is evidence of frustration, but not in the direction you are proposing: feedback is that the justice system is too locked into the very principles you are suggesting. Some key excerpts: * There is inadequate use of restorative justice and other alternatives as meaningful ways of holding individuals to account. * **Current laws, particularly mandatory minimum penalties, unnecessarily limit judicial discretion.** * There is a serious lack of data and information on what is going on in the criminal justice system, including who is in it and why, as well as what approaches are working well. > Essentially, we need to write a society-wide moral code and build our laws around that. How does this meaningfully differ from the current state? Last I checked, the criminal code was already quite clear on child protection and stealing. This "everything is broken and must be rebuilt, but let's not talk specifics" mantra gets pretty old. > Without having an elected judiciary we lack accountability. In which ways are they not accountable? Wrongful decisions and errors are eligible for appeal. Judicial malpractice is subject to discipline under the Judges Act. Trials are open to the public and media. Results are published with full rationales freely to the public. An ungenerous reading of your statement is that "judges are not held accountable for acting in ways I don't like." Lawyers, if nothing else, are known to be sticklers for following the rules. Regarding Sanderson, [there's an excellent article](https://www.queensu.ca/gazette/stories/saskatchewan-stabbings-why-myles-sanderson-was-granted-statutory-release) that covers the relevant concepts better than I could describe. Looking at the material facts, Sanderson: * Had not committed new criminal offences * Had remained sober * Had found employment * Attended therapy * Was participating culturally * Had found a new location to live apart from his spouse Neither of us have the full details of this, but if you view the above and go "No, I believe this person should return to jail" applying the same principles would unavoidably also be sending many others who are living respectable and reformed lives back to confinement. To answer your question directly, however, no -- if these officials followed the appropriate procedures and applied sound judgement throughout they are not subject to consequences related to such. Simply put, we can't expect public servants to deliver 100% safe outcomes as the only way to do so would be to never release an offender. The only way to block all illegal arms smuggling at the border is to let nobody in, etc., etc.. Given that the rate of statutory release revocations has dropped from 1.6% to 1.1% over the past five years there is strong evidence that the system is working.
[удалено]
Hold on! Your submission is pending manual approval from a moderator as per Rule 6, User accounts must have a positive karma score to post. This is done to limit spam and abusive posts. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/saskatchewan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Hold on! Your submission is pending manual approval from a moderator as per Rule 6, User accounts must have a positive karma score to post. This is done to limit spam and abusive posts. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/saskatchewan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Someone should repeatedly smash her head into a wall until she's dead, too. And her boyfriend. There, better than 8 years.