tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149446.post4609708302174548052..comments2023-10-10T10:34:10.843-06:00Comments on The Nexus of Assholery: Don't Get Caught in The Last House on the LeftPatrick Rosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04592482865332628189noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149446.post-32373587560536690862010-08-13T12:31:46.632-06:002010-08-13T12:31:46.632-06:00If we're going to delve deeply into the detail...If we're going to delve deeply into the details, you're correct.<br /><br />However, if a prosecutor thinks they're dealing with a psychopath after a first violent offence, they've already been deprived of a key tool in making that case -- the PCL-R.<br /><br />That makes it difficult to make the case until a reverse onus is applied.<br /><br />In some cases this is actually rather fair. After all, someone who commits a violent act in a fit of passion should be considered redeemable the vast majority of the time.<br /><br />Psychopaths are rare, but extremely dangerous -- and the best case scenario should be to identify them the first time out.<br /><br />My opinion is that life in prison is <i>not</i> a humane or even safe way of dealing with incurable psychopaths.<br /><br />In order to minimize the threat such individuals would pose to the general popularion of any prison -- even a maximum-security prison -- they would essentially need to be kept in solitary confinement.<br /><br />I dnn't consider a lifetime in solitary confinement to be humane. I think capital punishment for individuals who can be confirmed as psychopaths, and who have offended appropriately (first degree murder) is the most humane method of handling them.Patrick Rosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04592482865332628189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149446.post-35393241574336496882010-08-13T09:01:55.487-06:002010-08-13T09:01:55.487-06:00You wrote "an individual must commit at least...You wrote "an individual must commit at least three violent offences in order to be declared a dangerous offender." That's not the case--if someone is convicted of three violent offenses then the onus is on them to prove that they're not a violent offender. But the crown can still try to have a convict declared a violent offended even if they haven't been convicted of three violent offenses, but in this case the onus is on the crown to prove that the convict is still a danger to society, not the other way around. Presumably showing that a convict meets the definition of a psychopath would be sufficient, but it's up to the judge to decide.<br /><br />Would you say that indefinite detention is also a humane way of dealing with incurable psychopaths?Testhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10834479737181511617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149446.post-20541936068654287672010-08-12T13:00:52.252-06:002010-08-12T13:00:52.252-06:00You're correct that Canadian law allows this.
...You're correct that Canadian law allows this.<br /><br /><i>However</i>, until very recently there was no objective criteria for declaring an individual to be a dangerous offender -- it was at the judge's discretion.<br /><br />As it stands right now, an individual must commit at least three violent offences in order to be declared a dangerous offender.<br /><br />However, because Corrections Canada doesn't use the PCL-R, it cannot detect a psychopath on a first violent offence. That is the problem I'm alluding to here.Patrick Rosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12268876306800933642noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9149446.post-50678649458030821882010-08-12T10:31:58.468-06:002010-08-12T10:31:58.468-06:00Actually, Canadian law allows for convicted crimin...Actually, Canadian law allows for convicted criminals to be declared "Dangerous Offenders" and incarcerated indefinitely, precisely because they are considered to be an ongoing danger to the public. It's interesting that you mention Hamolka, as Paul Bernardo was declared a Dangerous Offender.Testhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10834479737181511617noreply@blogger.com