CBC coverage

Toronto — A 17-year-old Toronto girl is dead and two teenaged boys are in custody after a savage attack with a baseball bat in Scarborough Thursday.

I'm certainly not denying that killing one's spouse is more of a male behaviour than a female one, but I wonder if the numbers would support the idea that women are catching up?

Other than that, you're exactly right to say that this is a classic power issue: he didn't want her to leave and was willing to use power to... well, I was going to say 'prevent it', but he didn't really, did he?

If they started to treat them as adults I believe you would see a very rapid decline in the crime levels.

They know they are generally "safe" to do whatever they want to until they are over the age of 17. As far as many of them are concerned, they believe the law has given them carte blanche to do what they want to do - one of them even said to me "if they thought it was so bad they would put us in jail, they dont care what we do. its ok when you are a kid -" (to steal cars, kill people, wreck property, mug old ladies, travel in gangs, sell drugs, rape, whatever - )

quote:

---

When will the law makers decided that if you do adult crime you do adult time? This theory that 16 or 17 year olds dont know what they are doing when they kill someone is total bullshit

---

quote:

---

He may be 17, but the prosecutor could apply for them to be tried as adults (IIRC).

---

Under the Young Offenders' Act, it is now presumed that young people are to be tried as adults for the most serious offences. The Act was changed about five years ago to require this.

On April First, 2003 a new Youth Criminal Justice Act comes into effect, expanding the offences which are tried in adult court.

[ 21 February 2003: Message edited by: jeff house ]

quote:

---

Price's assailant used a baseball bat, knocking her unconscious with a single blow to the head.

---

I believe Baha'u'lla has it right when he said, "Regard man as a mine rich in gems of inestimable value. Education can, alone, cause it to reveal its treasures, and enable mankind to benefit therefrom".

Those gems he's referring to are virtues (kindness, justice, cleanliness) that we need to cultivate in our children and this can only be done by education on proper parenting.

As long as we treat violence against women as a problem faced only by women, we'll never see any improvement in the situation, and stuff like this will continue to happen.

quote:

---

Hrm. Well, I'm not actually sure of the numbers. This is, after all, the same week in which a woman was convicted of running over her husband several times with her vehicle while his daughter watched

---

Mr. Magoo, could you please post a link to this story? I'm interested to see if they mention what her motive was.

quote:

---

One weapon. One single blow. Two people arrested. Before convicting the 14-year old (and the boyfriend for that matter), shouldn't there be a trial? Aren't they innocent until proven guilty?

---

He turned himself into the police. He's guilty. And if the 14 year old was present at the time and place of the attack, then he's guilty too.

quote:

---

Children are a product of their environment. They do what has been allowed to happen by the parents or the community (as we saw with the Inuit thread). With each experience, they learn what they can get away with.

---

Of course.
But try using the m-word, and watch people get angry.
We're not going to raise good citizens, or have a decent society, until we agree on some basic concepts of right and wrong and enforce those rules consistently, on everyone, from age 0, through life.

We're not going to raise sane people, unless we stop making children crazy with contradictory messages. Like: we don't approve of violence, and yet exreme, sadistic violence if fine in games, songs and movies. Like: a boy of 17.9 years doesn't know what he's doing, but a man of 18.1 is fully accountable for his actions.

But killing, or forever imprisoning those who did this to her will not bring her back.

It's terrible to imagine being the family of one of the young men who did this too. They cannot simply be written off as creatures of pure evil, however.

It's realistic to consider them as individuals who tragically miscalculated what they were doing. It would be dangerous to ignore what they did.But frankly, I think after years and years in jail, they will be unlikely to ever do such a thing again.

And as soon as these people are not dangerous to society anymore, I cannot see a reason to keep them locked up continuously. Why not demand more productive punishments - community service work?

quote:

---

He turned himself into the police. He's guilty. And if the 14 year old was present at the time and place of the attack, then he's guilty too.
But don't worry, NPP, they''ll get their trial.

---

Like they used to say in the "Wild West", you'll get your trial right after the hanging.

quote:

---

My beef with this being posted in the feminist forum is that it somehow implies that this is a problem that women--or feminists--should deal with, that it's not a big enough or serious enough event to go in the news forum where everyone--men and women--discuss it and think about it.

---

quote:

---

I'm also pretty sad to see the knee-jerk young offenders act bashing - I get that from my Alliance voting step-father, and I always hope for more informed and moderate analysis from the lefties.

---

http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/872128.asp?cp1=1

I have worked with families who had three, four other lovely children, all honour roll students, all well adjusted and good citizens then along comes the "bad apple". Parents who are in tears asking "what can we do? we have done everything" and they have, doctors, counseling, programs, they have set excellent examples, been good parents, they havent been over bearing or harsh, or unloving, they havent set unattainable standards - and one kid just goes off the rails.

One kid runs away, hits the streets, gets into drugs, hooking, B&E's and worse --

Its not as easy as "blame the parents". I have worked with kids where just asking them to do the dishes or go to school can set them off on a homicidal rampage -

And having worked with these kids, all I can say is I would strongly suggest changing the Young Offenders Act to make them responsible, because the way it is now, the parents are helpless, the cops are helpless, the schools are helpless, the courts are helpless, the whole system is helpless to do anything to enforce a normal standard of behavior expected from children.

quote:

---

He turned himself into the police. He's guilty

---

I suppose that means if you are on the run from the cops you must be innocent.
--
I don't usually follow crime stories but this one grabbed my attention as especially horrific - perhaps because of its graphic nature - and my heart goes out to the victim and her family.

I'm not sure what the 14 year old's exact role in this was but I think this may be a case where treating youths differently than adults makes sense. A 14 year old is still very young and easily impressed by a 17 year old. Given the nature of the attack it's not clear the 14 year old would have known exactly what the 17 year old had in mind or what his role was since he doesn't seem to have actually taken part in the attack but acted, as I understand, as some sort of lure (not that "teaching her a lesson" would have been any less retrograde) and I believe it is the 14 year old who turned himself in first after talking to his parents. Obviously, these aren't all of the facts but I can imagine a number of scenarios that would justify leniancy for the 14 year old in this case.

Depending on the details of the case I agree it would likely be justifiable to treat the 17 year old as an adult.

quote:

---

Deterrence is a powerfull tool as far as crime prevention and if it is removed, or seriously watered down, it will be a contributing factor to someones decision to commit a violent crime.

---

quote:

---

I have worked with families who had three, four other lovely children, all honour roll students, all well adjusted and good citizens then along comes the "bad apple".

---

I can't find my reference at the moment but the study(s) showed that each child experiences family life differently. This is because they are in different age groups and they view the world, parents, and siblings in different levels relative to their age and what their peer group is engaging in socially.

We tend to concentrate in repremanding difficult behaviour without considering how we are reacting to it and how we may be re-inforcing the behaviour. Thus we get little Johnny who may just be genitically pre-disposed to be hyperactive gets into trouble- sent to the principles office regularly telling the child that he is in general, 'bad'. And the parent say, "I don't know what else to do?!"

I also have observed parents that have tried putting their children in activities, tried counselling, and so-on but don't change their habits at home. They provide the child with food, clothing, a roof, toys, etc. Yet they don't take the time to 'hear' the child or help with homework. They don't don't spend time with the kids reading, or doing the sport with them outside of watching them from the bleachers. This tells the kid that the program she/he is in, is not that important to the parent (of course you can go overboard the other way). These parents I find are also the types of parents that have trouble considering that it might be something they are doing wrong.

I've seen the difference in attitudes of parents with Attention Deficit Disorder children. The parents that take time to spend time with their children have an easier life than the ones that just medicate them.

[ 23 February 2003: Message edited by: Anuri ]

quote:

---

My beef with this being posted in the feminist forum is that it somehow implies that this is a problem that women--or feminists--should deal with, that it's not a big enough or serious enough event to go in the news forum where everyone--men and women--discuss it and think about it.

---

quote:

---

When will the law makers decided that if you do adult crime you do adult time? This theory that 16 or 17 year olds dont know what they are doing when they kill someone is total bullshit - a 6 year old knows it wrong to kill someone or to attack someone physically.

---

Kindred, I think you misunderstand the overall reasoning behind the YOA, and and even the reasoning behind why, in Canada, we have had a seperate body of legislation to deal with youth brought before the justice system since, I believe 1895.

It was never suggested that a person covered under the YOA doesn't understand that their actions are wrong. In fact anyone charged who is incapable of understanding that their actions are wrong has a completely different defense. What is a fundamental principle of both the YOA, and the Juvinile Delinquents Act which it replaced, is that young persons are more amenable to rehabilitation than adults. It is generally held that the younger the person is, the more plastic, or malleable the personality. Key personality traits are more set in stone by late teens into the early 20's. That is not at all to say that adults can't change, but that the processes are different.

What is often forgotten is that the YOA focuses much more on the personal responsibility of the offender and the protection of society than it's predecessor. In the preamble of the old JDA, it is specified that the young person was to be regarded as "a misguided child', in need of ""aid, encouragement, help and assisstance". The YOA does not have this same focus as the primary reason for intervention.

NOTE:I have in front of me a copy of the annotated final draft of the YOA, presented to the Soliciter General in 1982, as authored by Nicholas Bala and Heino Lilles. I haven't been just pulling this out of my memory.

What remains consistent in the legislation is an attempt to recognise the unique needs of a young person arising out of their particular state of dependancy and level of development. Unlike adult offenders, young offenders may be incarcerated while they still have social and developmental needs which absolutely must be met. These needs are as vital as food and water, and cannot be simply deferred until the kid is sprung.

quote:

---

If you do adult crime, you do adult time

---

A variation I've heard is "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime'

Yes, lovely . It rhymes. When I was in early grade school, if a saying rhymed then hell, it must be a rule, if not an actual law of nature. As an adult I subject things to more sophisticated scrutiny.

[ 23 February 2003: Message edited by: wolfears ]

I don't think a few years of soap on a rope will help any of them even though I don't think it was right for them to do that maybe make them watch the autopsy of the girl would be effective so whenever they think about doing it to someone else they remember the autopsy they had to watch and how much they wanted to throw up.

It's a nasty tactic but it might make them understand what they did better than locking them up. Or make them a temporary assistant to the coroner for a few weeks so whenever anyone dies they have to watch and see ugly bluish bodies and the stuff that coroners have to see. That would be lesson enough.

I don't think prison helps adult offenders either the way it is. I think the ones who did whatever they did and planned out the gastly crimes should be separated from the ones who can be reclaimed because they didn't think or were too screwed up to stop themselves.

The ones who don't have a conscience are the dangerous ones. The ones who didn't think or couldn't control themselves can be reclaimed because they know what they did was wrong. They'll be less likely to do it again. The ones who don't have any conscience are too dangerous to ever be released back into society because they did what they did deliberately.

I do not think it will prevent them from doing something like that again to simply store them but I think a more creative punishment might be in order to get them to think before they crack someone in the head with a bat or any other dangerous item. It won't help the girl or the girl's family but nothing can help them actually the damage is already done. The most we can do is seeing to there isn't any more of it.

As for men being a bit more physical and usually having longer reaches there I'd agree with you. I used to be a martial artist and know that well. Until I ended up with a screwed up back I used to enjoy sparring males because they were a challenge. I'm a tomboy basically. I recognize that annoying tendency of some males to want to dominate but the male gender really isn't all psychopaths and murderers some of them are quite decent chaps like a few of my sword brothers. Sure they have to be pruned back a bit but that's
all like a bunch of guys besides I'm one of the fellows in a way.

Even though I'd take a pretty fair pounding in a fight since I'm only 5 feet 3 inches and I have to work harder than most of the guys that doesn't mean I go down easy. So this is one fem who loves to jam and can throw a kick with the best of them.

I hate bullies male or female and if I was a man I think I'd feel the same way. True warriors don't attack women with baseball bats cause they are angry. They might exchange bruises with their partner but not a nonparticipant someone who didn't want to fight who isn't in on the brother hood. Those are the actions of a thug. I'm just a punk and always have been.

I think women need to learn to defend themselves as a required course in school that should deter the thugs and the bullies as well as teach them how to stay out of situations which can turn deadly. People like me no matter how well trained they are aren't the problem even the male members usually aren't. The authorities cannot be everywhere so women need basic training in self defense the same training military personnel get.

If we did that then men would learn that you cannot get away with it not because society will lock you up if you do but that the woman will hurt you back badly enough to make you not want to do that again.

Sometimes you have to put it in the only language these scum understand bruises and humiliation of being knocked over and beaten up by a woman physically.

quote:

---

It's not right, but thugs only understand one thing sometimes and you have to put it into a language they do understand.So they get the point.

---

quote:

---

Next time a bunch of 15 year olds try to knock-off a 7-11 and stab the clerk in the chest, maybe they would think twice if it meant doing 20 years in the big house, having to shower with bunch of rather large and scary looking individuals with lots of tatoos.

---

Probably they wouldn't. Kids often have a rosy view of the world, and may well think that they will just enter, "scare him", and scamper off, laughing amongst themselves as to their cleverness.
----------------------------------------------

No way. It's an abhorrent idea that prison authorities, or society in general, should tolerate this kind of thing because, after all, the kids (or whoever) Did Bad Things, and Deserve Whatever They Get. They don't deserve whatever they get -- or if you believe they do, then you can have no objections to police beating and torturing them to obtain confessions, or prison guards being given free reign to abuse them as they like with rubber hoses, telephone books, or whatever.

quote:

---

Skadie, why do you think that deterrence isn't a powerfull tool to prevent crime?
Could you elaborate a little more?

---

Wolfears, if criminal punisment was a deterrent:

quote:

---

why then do we have so many repeat violent offenders(young and old) running around?

---

Why do we have so many offenders, repeat or not? Why does Texas have such a high murder rate when they offer the most powerful "deterrent?"

Oh yes, who wouldn't want to go to the country club we call prison?

In the violent crime arena most offenders are beyond thinking about the consequences when they act. And with crime in general, most people don't think they'll get caught.

quote:

---

Disturbed by a lack of alternatives to the throw-away-the-key approach to delinquency and the over-prescription of psychiatric drugs for children, they forged ahead with their maverick idea. The nutritional approach was based on a wealth of global research into the effects of vitamins, minerals and other compounds such as amino acids on brain chemistry.

Last year a study in the British Journal of Psychiatry suggested that reoffending by juvenile delinquents could be slashed by a quarter if they improved their diets. Some 230 inmates at the young offenders' institution in Aylesbury, Bucks, were assessed over 18 months by researchers from Oxford University. Half were given pills containing vitamins, minerals and essential fatty acids, and the other half placebo capsules in a double-blind, randomised trial.

The first group committed 25 per cent fewer offences than the second. The greatest reduction was for serious offences, including violence, where there was a fall of nearly 40 per cent. There was no decline in reoffending for those taking dummy compounds.

---

From this News thread.

I threw this in here to show that the YOA may compensate for a lack of opportunity that some kids may have had.

I think three square meals a day might be a simple solution to crime, but it's a really good start.

This book provides some very thoughtful criticism of the punishment of children for the sake of "justice." Sereny has made the study of evil her life's work.

[ 23 February 2003: Message edited by: writer ]

Scott:

quote:

---

It's a feminist issue, but posting it here doesn't mean that men aren't supposed to care about it. (Checks genitalia) Yup, I'm still a man, and I started the thread because I care about and want to do something about male violence against women.

---

quote:

---

Wolfears, if criminal punishment was a deterrent:

---

quote:

---

Why do we have so many repeat violent offenders(young and old) running around?

---

[ 24 February 2003: Message edited by: wolfears ]

quote:

---

I didn't say it was a woman's issue; I said it was a feminist issue. There's a difference.

---

I know you said it is a feminist issue, and that's exactly what I've got an issue with. Why is it that when a woman is killed it's a feminist issue? What if the victim in this crime had been male? Where would you have posted it then?

Why should there be a difference?

quote:

---

dead crook will find it hard to re-offend, which is a benefit to society

---

Does that include tax cheats and corporate embezzlers or is it just for welfare, EI fraud and B&E artists?

quote:

---

Especially since we're not even talking about the aspects of this story that might be relevant to feminism.

---

quote:

---

The initiator of a thread is not responsible for where people take it (in fact, I've already expressed my frustration with the direction in which this one has drifted).

---

If it were posted in the news forum, this wouldn't be considered a drift at all.

I'll drop it now.

quote:

---

Dead croock will find it hard to re-offend, which is a benefit to society.

---

quote:

---

Does that include tax cheats and corporate embezzelers or is it just for welfare, EI fraud and B&E artists? Why just crooks? Why not drunk drivers, polluters and lying polititians? That would also be a benefit to society.

---

quote:

---

I don't think it should be applied at the drop of a hat, but rather in very special circumstances, where the offender has commited a brutal murder(s) in cold blood and there is plenty of evidence supporting it.
Few high profile examples would be Paul Bernardo or Clifford Olsen.

---

Umm... the problem with your logic is that the justice system is not infallible, even when there is "lots of evidence." Just ask David Milgaard or Guy Paul Morin. Sometimes the justice system ends up with innocent people going to jail. If you kill them (which quite frankly is an abhorrent and barbaric method of punishment) there is no opportunity to repair the mistake.

quote:

---

ironically, under the current system you are likely to get a longer jail sentence for tax fraud, than if you kill someone

---

[ 24 February 2003: Message edited by: wolfears ]

quote:

---

Let see....since 1976 there has been little over 500 people executed in the US(if you like the exact number i will find it for you).
Even if there are innocents executed within that nnumber, it will be very low, which is a acceptable risk we as a society can take for the greater good.

---

Well, there you have it folks. A rare death-penalty supporter who'll admit publicly that he's willing to see a few innocents executed pour encourager les autres.

Thank you for that, wolfears.

quote:

---

So if you're really worried about the lives of innocents, and not just out to make political hay, then preventing those 3000 recidivist murders will save more people than preventing the executions of the murderers possibly could.

---

I've seen no evidence, incidentally, that the claim is actually true. Still less have I seen any reason to believe that all those murders are cases of true recidivism -- that is, committed by people previously convicted of murder (wolfears spoke only of "released and paroled criminals").

But suppose that's right. Suppose, of the (say) 200,000 people released from prison each year in the US, 3,000 commit a murder -- a homicide, to be more general. Assume further that not all these individuals had previously committed a homicide. How are we to know who will kill in the future, and what should we do about it? Keep them all in for the rest of their natural lives -- even if they didn't previously take someone's life? Execute them? How many of that 200,000 would we have to warehouse or kill to be safe?

[ 24 February 2003: Message edited by: wolfears ]

It is possible to compensate an innocent who is mistakenly jailed. It is not possible to bring them back to life if you've killed them.

And if your concern is really recidivism and not just some insane blood lust, keep in mind there are many factors that can reduce the chances of any inmate reoffending when released other than killing him/her.

Incidents like this are nothing exceptional in our culture. Violence is our defining trait. Our whole foundation is predicated on the brutal subjegation and extermination of an entire continent of people, the destruction of our natural environment for the sake of our comfort and convenience, and the rapacious greed of capitalism for which we all bear responsibility for aiding and abetting every morning we commute to work.

quote:

---

---

[ 25 February 2003: Message edited by: Non-partisan partisan ]

Check out Michele Landsberg's column in the Toronto Star, currently posted on the Front Page of Rabble. Here's a sample...

Assaults on women continue while Tories do nothing

Blood, shock, terror and pity — that's what we need, it seems, to be able to keep a subject like "violence against women" in mind. If there are no headlines, no blow-by-blow accounts of the horrors, the issue keeps nose-diving into obscurity. Which suits the provincial government just fine.

This month marked the one-year anniversary of the Gillian Hadley inquest report. (Hadley was murdered by her husband Ralph after she dashed naked into the street, trying to save her infant son.)

By next month, the government is supposed to give an account of itself to the Ontario coroner, listing the actions it has allegedly taken in response to the 58 recommendations of the Hadley inquest jury.

Luckily for the do-nothing, don't-give-a-damn government, the public is somewhat distracted just now. Indeed, the whole subject of "violence against women" has been successfully blurred by government blarney and by determined backlash reporting in the conservative media....

[ 25 February 2003: Message edited by: Scott Piatkowski ]

quote:

---

Your analogy to mistakes in medicine is fallacious. Addressing it would only substantiate your erroneous "logic" that you've used to explain why you think it's okay for the government to kill innocent people.

---

quote:

---

It is possible to compensate an innocent who is mistakenly jailed. It is not possible to bring them back to life if you've killed them.

---

That said:

Is violence against women something that we can root out altogether? Is it something that will decline? How can we work to improve the situation?

Seems to me that men have been beating women since time began, and except for individual women escaping a bad scene and being supported and cared for, I don't--can't--imagine the violence actually going away. I'm afraid we'll always have to deal with this shit.

Anyone have a more positive outlook? Do you think we really can make it just stop happening?

[ 25 February 2003: Message edited by: Lima Bean ]