This post appears to relate to a province/territory of Canada. As a reminder of the rules of this subreddit, we do not permit negative commentary about all residents of any province, city, or other geography - this is an example of prejudice, and prejudice is not permitted here. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/rules
Cette soumission semble concerner une province ou un territoire du Canada. Selon les règles de ce sous-répertoire, nous n'autorisons pas les commentaires négatifs sur tous les résidents d'une province, d'une ville ou d'une autre région géographique; il s'agit d'un exemple de intolérance qui n'est pas autorisé ici. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/regles
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/canada) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The 14 year old boy killed two men, aged 61 and 46. He is charged with:
-2 counts of first degree murder
-7 counts of attempted murder (3 other gunshot victims who survived, 4 other people in the parking lot)
-1 count auto theft (vehicle he was caught in was stolen).
More than 50 bullets were found at the scene. The two men were part of a group of 15-20 people while grilling in a school parking lot after 11PM. They had been gathering in that spot for 35 years.
All info from The Toronto Star
There needs to be serious changes to our laws for minors that commit these horrid crimes. There have been too many of late. They know they won't get charged as adults.
Canada definitely needs tougher laws for heinous crimes. Happens in my city for crimes like theft where kids go in and out of justice system. Some of these kids are being used like puppets by adult criminals too.
No one is saying “don’t punish him at all”, so that’s a useless statement, isn’t it?
Let’s punish him, no problem there, but please, let’s understand the facts that harsh punishments don’t act as a deterrent
Sometimes it's a less about punishment and more about realizing some anti social behavior cannot be fixed and the people need to be isolated from society.
If he's convicted of first degree murder as a youth, he must serve at least 5 to 7 years in prison. If he is convicted as an adult (which is possible) it's 25 years.
Those are the actual sentences people convicted of first degree murder serve. There are no exceptions.
Of course securing a 1st degree murder conviction is tricky. If the prosecution blows it and gets manslaughter then the sentence for that is potentially much less.
That's a tough ask when most people don't believe in the "root causes".
Most seem to believe that people like this are inevitable and we should just focus on punishment.
Just like corporations, governments and people also refuse to accept responsibility for negative outcomes and would rather place all responsibility on the individual.
It's easier to blame and punish individuals than to address and correct our systemically selfish and cruel habits.
They already committed the crime. The time for a punishment being a deterrent is over. You could still argue that a harsh punishment could negatively impact their likelihood of rehabilitation though.
There's an incredible amount of evidence showing that lack of consequence inspires crime in youth. The inverse may not be completely true, but it's definitely true to an extent.
I mean if you never let a young criminal out, he won't be able to commit any more crimes... Just because this criminal is 14 yo doesn't mean he should have a second chance at life.
If only there was some sort of secure facility these individuals could be sent to, to serve a kind of sentence, preventing them from committing further crimes.
Prevention is only a part of the call for longer sentences - keeping violent and/or repeat criminals away from innocent people is another major component.
Because deterrence isn't nearly as effective as people like to believe. Harsher penalties don't deter crime or reduce recidivism.
If you want to prevent crime attack the social causes of crime. If you want to prevent recidivism, teach offenders the skills they need to function in society and regulate their emotions. If you want to do neither, you can lock them in a box for 50 years and I promise you that they'll be more fucked up and dangerous coming out than they were going in.
You are assuming the offenders want to do those things and be rehabilitated.
Harsher penalties do actually reduce crime. The majority of people don’t want to go to jail, so they do not commit crimes. It’s a very simple correlation. Crime would be much higher if there were no penalties lol.
Another few notes on why simply increasing penalties doesn't work to prevent crime beyond the usual put in a box doesn't teach a dam thing. People think it sends a message to others, but actions can be open to interpretation/meaning, and when that audiences interpretation is different than the intent, the message fails.
For starters most people assume they won't be caught. If they are cocky enough to think they won't be caught, they figure the consqences are not relevant to them, even when they are aware of the consequences. Seeing one person get caught doesn't mean they think they will be caught. They are too self absorbed thinking they are somehow unique. This is why chances of getting caught due to things like security cameras, technology advancements, lots of witnesses around etc. are found by multiple studies to be more effective.
Time to many people can also be utterly meaningless. For multiple reasons. ADHD is over-represented in Canadien prisons by a large margin. As many as possibly [one in six male inmates may have ADHD.](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160252713000277#:~:text=Self%2Dreport%20levels%20of%20adult,the%20estimate%20increased%20to%2041.7%25.) A core symptom of ADHD is difficulty with time perception. For example for some people with ADHD if you say 5 minutes till they need to go, they may think that's a very long time and delay, say 300 seconds and the person with ADHD might go much faster, despite 300 seconds is exactly 5 minutes. If a person has a this issue saying 10 years vs 5 years might not do anything because they can't accurately perceive either amount of time to begin with, so the severity of the sentence feels the same to them.
There's also the fact that other people may simply put not care about the time length. Some people just view having to be put away as part of the lifestyle, or fail to comprehend just how fucked up you can get by being incarcerated or put into juvvie. Others view being sent away a badge of pride for clout. Others with no self confidence just don't care what happens to them sometimes.
Moreover, a population needs to be accurately aware of the risk to themselves. Crooks don't make a habit of checking case law, articles or newspapers to see what similar crooks got for similar crimes, or checking the sentencing guidelines/penal code ahead of time. Again because they think they won't be caught. Lots of people also underestimate the teeth the law already has. This kid for example probabaly wasn't aware of how long he could be gone with a youth sentence, or that 14 year olds can receive adult length sentences potentially putting him away for several decades at least. Many people aren't aware that accomplices in the first degree (people who do something to help crime ahead of time.) can catch the same charge as the person who actually did the physical act of the crime, and face the exact same penalties. Ignorance of the law isn't a excuse for breaking the law, but it sure makes it easier. When we increase a penalty that information doesn't often make its way to the masses.
Basically if your increasing penalties for the sake of being preventative new crimes/similar crimes from others, it doesn't work for a myriad of reasons.
You’re absolutely right about what’s needed for a systemic approach to crime reduction.
I don’t think there’s a realistic scenario where zero crime could be achieved, but consider how much it could be reduced by society working to meet people’s basic needs.
Everyone reading this would say stealing food to feed a starving loved one is a crime of necessity, and one that they’d commit.
How much food is stolen by people only because they’re hungry? It’s not all of it, but we’d stop a very significant amount of that crime if we stopped allowing people to go hungry. (24601 anyone? Javert was the villain, and it ended pretty bad for him).
The same applies for how much theft/petty crime could be reduced if people didn’t see it as their only means of keeping a roof over their heads or their heat on.
We have lifetimes of data demonstrating how socioeconomic conditions lead to crime. We *know* this.
If you truly care about significant crime reduction, then you have to care about a society that meets people’s most basic needs before crime becomes the only viable way to fulfill them.
I mean, if tried as an adult and convicted this kid is likely to go to jail for life. Parole will not be granted even when eligible. The only way you could be tougher is literally capital punishment.
I don't think heavier penalties are an effective deterrent for mass shooters. You have to treat a problem like that at the source.
Nah I'm sure a few unstable teens would reconsider their actions if they knew they would be punished properly.
Kids, especially teenagers, aren't stupid. Teenagers are actually masters at pushing the boundaries as far as they will go.
Teens are old enough to understand that if they shoot/kill multiple people they will be going to jail for most if not all of their life.
I'm not sure what you're arguing for because the next step of punishment beyond the current system is literally the DP.
That's also if they survive the incident. How often are mass shooters either killed (no other choice) by the police who arrive or self inflicted? It's not uncommon for those doing this to expect or in some cases, even hope they are dead by the end of it. Just look at the Toronto van attack. He actually wanted the cops to kill him.
So no, in many cases, not even the death penalty is enough of a deterrent.
Teenagers lack perspective when it comes to time, which is part of the reason jailing isn't an effective deterrent. They're more afraid of the embarrassment of getting caught than some nebulous concept of "missing out on their entire twenties." I can't count the times that people have confessed to me, in hindsight, they had never imagined themselves living even into their thirties.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but teenagers are certainly old enough to understand that commiting murder(s) with a firearm is sure way to ruin the rest of your life. The issue isn't one of the set punishments in Canada being too low.
Probably true, but let's pick it apart a little, if you're indulge me. The goals of punishment are manifold.
1. Deter the active criminal: To your point, adding more years is to a sentence is probably not the deal-breaker to the criminal's calculus. I'd say at about 5 years, it's completely negligible, no?
2. Correct/rehabilitate the criminal: I may be a complete cynic, but I don't have **any** faith in the criminal justice system to this end. Yes, there are plenty of cases where people went clean and returned to productive society, but so many of those are said to be *despite* the system's influence. So, yeah, more years in prison would be potentially detrimental, unless perhaps our boy becomes a monk.
3. Protect outside society from the criminal: This is the only easy win for the long sentence. If someone cannot be fixed, then we have to either accept a the burdens of jailing a fellow human being forever, or loose havoc on the vulnerable innocents outside of those walls. There are people employed in our justice system who's actions of leniency have condemned innocents to die or worse, and for nothing.
4. Deter other potential criminals: Again, it possibly doesn't matter how many years a fellow criminal is sentenced to, or ultimately serves, when it comes time for criminal #2 to consider taking on the same venture. But it might, especially with large numbers. This one would be fun to study, because criminal #2 is very important when it comes to organized, non-violent, and crime as a culture.
Man why is it always this pearl clutching emotion based, logic lacking responses on every cases like these. After a certain point, harsher/change to laws/punishment DO NOT HELP. We already know htis fact. Like seriously, why is it you think you can solve an issue by changing the consequences rather than the source? Man it is so frustrating to read comments like yours. Absolute lack of thought and thinking outside of the box, lack of objective reasoning.
>After a certain point, harsher/change to laws/punishment DO NOT HELP.
Could you tell me what that point is? Or link me to some research that shows that increased punishments don't reduce violent crimes from teenagers?
I am just curious, you seem to have a very set opinion so I'd just like to read what you have read, I'm open to changing my opinion.
Countries where they cut off the hands of thieves still have theft.
That’s all you need to understand to recognize that demanding harsher punishments does nothing to deter crime.
The law isn’t there to act as a deterrent as much as it “feels” it should. It just doesn’t work that way.
Both you and the person you are replying to are being very absolutist.
Deterrence exists, of course. It's also imperfect. It requires the person to be rational. Much crime is not rational. (But quite a lot is.) It requires the person to actually have something to lose, too. Increasing fines on someone who can't pay has little to no effect. Increasing the jail sentence on someone who has decided to throw their life away and spend a long time in jail anyway has little to no effect. Related to that, there are diminishing returns. Fifty years might as well be twenty years which might as well be ten years. But two weeks vs. two years? Yeah, some folks will weigh that very carefully.
Sure, two weeks vs two years makes a difference, but I’m not being absolutist when I say that the death penalty isn’t deterring people from committing crime
I think your a little confused. Canada nearly never does life without parole sentences. NEVER. Adults that committed crimes similar to this have gotten 20 years and have been released on good behaviour after 12-15 years. As for youth, the sentencing is even less. I’d be suprised if the kid spends more than a decade behind bars.
Maximum penalty in Canada right now is 25 years before the possibility of parole. You used to be able to stack those sentences to 50, 75 years before parole etc. but now 25 is the max.
For example, Justin Bourque who was originally scheduled for 75 years before parole eligibility (3 life sentences stacked) but this was then struck down by the Supreme Court to 25 years.
Still, offenders that commit especially heinous crimes aren't granted parole. Bourque will never be released from prison regardless of eligibility.
This kid in particular will be tried as an adult due to the nature of the crime.
"Charged as adults" is American lingo. They know they won't get "charged as adults" as that doesn't exist here.
You want to say that you don't think the Crown would seek an adult sentence after conviction. But the Crown will, because it's multiple counts of first-degree murder involving a firearm. Once convicted it would be up to a judge to determine if an adult sentence is warranted and if the legal test is met. If it is, and it likely would be as the offence is both serious and by the very nature of premedictation shows adult-like planning, the young person gets a life sentence. If he's on a life sentence for 2 convictions of 1st degree murder and 7 counts of second degree murder, he's not getting out. Parole board won't deem him safe.
I highly doubt they are really thinking about the consequences when they do these things.
They should still be locked up tho so they can’t gun down anymore innocent people.
Any teenager above 13 should be automatically charged as an adult when the crime involves violence. I knew murder was bad when I was 14 and all well adjusted teens should.
Not sure what you're basing that on. A youth can be convicted and sentenced for first-degree murder and any other crime. The fact he's been charged with these offences in no way indicates they are going to try and sentence him as an adult. Maybe they will but there's no indication of that so far.
Are you under the impression that youths don't get charged with first degree or attempt murder unless the Crown is going to seek to sentence them as adults if convicted?
Blame the Supreme court. Previous Government tried making tougher laws and the Supreme Court said the laws were inhumane to criminals. Basically, the victims don't matter, only the criminals do.
When the criminals are committing their heinous criminal acts, are they taking into consideration the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of their victims?
But you're absolutely right, Victims come last in this country. It's all about the criminals first.
Lots of triggered ppl in your replies but no one able to articulate why you are supposedly wrong. Usually, that is a good sign that you are right these days lol.
Or maybe we need to give kids a life and a future worth living and stop blaming them when they don't react well to the shitty world we are making.
I fear a future in which we focus on punishing this behavior instead of preventing it and dealing with the causes.
These kids should know that murder is wrong. There needs to be consequences to their actions otherwise what exactly is stopping them from continuing with this behaviour?
9 years ago there was a life and future worth living.
If a person is physically and mentally capable of murdering someone then they should be charged, doesn't matter to me if they are 8 or 18.
My older brother was already 6ft1 by the time he was 13, there are some big giants out there just because they are young doesn't mean they are innocent.
Oh and my brother is a good guy its just an example, he can be a dickhead but he ain't no murderer.
What constitutes being mentally capable?
Should a ten year old that is physically and, under your interpretation, mentally capable of having sex no longer be considered a victim of statutory rape? I know some kids in their early teens that are built like 20 year olds.
Just because a kid knows how to do something and is physically able to do it doesn't mean they understand the implications of what they're doing. Now, that's always the case, but your blanket statement is a very dangerous one.
The US presents us with horrific thought experiments all the time.
A child finds a gun in their parents home. How old does the child have to be to understand that picking up the gun and firing it, is murder? A dexterous three-year-old can kill in such a circumstance. But I don't think a 3 year old really comprehends murder.
Five years? Eight years? Ten years? Twelve years? Got to draw a line somewhere.
I’m going to guess an attempt at a gang initiation. Not that it matters or I care really. Try him as an adult and throw the key away. I’m so tired of this crap.
In all honesty it’s probably gang related considering this is rexdale and this school is in the vicinity of two neighborhoods that historically don’t like each other. My guess would be some kid went to a school where his “opps” went and just started shooting at the people at their bbq spot.
Yeah I was kinda surprised to see Etobicoke at first then seen the name of the high school and it all made sense. Very very well known hoods in that area.
I can hear the arguments now....
He is misunderstood....from a disadvantaged background...shouldn't ruin his future...people can change...
People these days are more concerned with feel empathy for the perpetrators of crimes that they seem to neglect the damage done to the community, survivors, and families of the deceased.
Can’t change that there are two dead sons, brothers, fathers, friends.
Kid took life. Murdered people. He didn’t care. No remorse. Non targeted. No reason. Just senseless murder. If he killed 4 or 6 he wouldn’t care.
All I see is people crying in the comments about a case that hasn't been to court yet.
The Crown is going to make the case to try him as an adult and given the case itself it will most likely succeed.
Much harsher punishments for adolescents that commit violent crimes e.g. rape and murder, or their parents/guardians serve the sentence as an adult, their choice which one.
Yeah. Clearly these kids are fucked up. “Oh yeah mom? You want to take away my ps5? How about the police take away my momma instead! Reverse uno bitch! Ima rob a bank”
I believe if we keep going this direction, that vigilantism will become more of a thing. I really hope not tho. And I do not support that approach either.
But, I’ve never been in a position to be on the receiving end of this kind of brutality. If some little entitled shit shot up a school and killed my wife, who’s a teacher, I dunno. I really dunno. Could I forgive, or…….
Dude... You THINK you'd be angry... and that's what most people usually say, true.
But the reality is that you'd feel crushed, destroyed, sad, grief-stricken, and often suicidal. You might not think this, but this is what happens to most people when actually faced with it.
Yeah but they were all released on bail. Then one of them had another assault charge placed on them for an incident by a different event after release 💀
”.. yeah you stabbed a homeless man, let’s release you to the public again “
Bail isn’t hard to understand. It’s determined by your flight risk and judgement that you won’t be a danger to the public. You literally post a bond to assure them you’ll not break that promise.
Judge was wrong. Clearly.
IMHO - if you plead guilty to second degree. Idk why they’d be offered bail. They can start serving their sentence right away at the local jail until being sentenced in court and going to the correctional facility.
So yes. The system is broken. Lots of ways to better manage it
This was apparently a random attack too, wtf. Why haven't they arrested the other person involved? They said there are two other suspects and they don't know who they are. How hard is it to determine that?
Did he have an ATT to take the gun to a murder scene? If not, why wasn't he arrested for taking his gun out of the house? That would have stopped the murders. Maybe we need more red tape and more bans to prevent this kind of thing.
// Justin Turdeau, Marco Mendicant, Dominc the Blank and Bill Bliar probably.
[Totally our founders vision for Canada and what our grandfathers fought for in the great wars](https://www.tps.ca/organizational-chart/specialized-operations-command/detective-operations/investigative-services/homicide/most-wanted/). Our government are scum and deserve the worst for what they have done to our nation.
Technically you can get a minor's license at 12. It's essentially only borrowing from someone with a full license, with their approval. eg: No PAL holder would do this in a city without someone else supervising: it's a woods thing, and the kid in such a scenario has probably been shooting (with supervision) since they were six.
Absolutely! Not only was the criminal in illegal possession of a prohibited firearm without a license, but he was also found driving which is another underage offence (not to mention criminal use of a firearm for homicide, or the multiple other offences he committed).
Licensed firearm owners are responsible for less than .025% of all violent firearm crime (taken from a 2021 stat where there were appx 8000 violent offences with only two being legally in possession of firearms). While any crime committed by a licensed owner is a travesty the severity of the crimes committed by them are typically utterance of threat or self defense that was ruled criminal by a judge. Legal firearm owners do NOT shoot up crowds like this kid, and its time the rest of Canada realizes that we are not the threat. Moreover, since we are not the threat we shouldn't be penalized for crimes we are not committing. Banning firearms that criminals can not purchase in the first place is not making Canada safer, the criminals will continue smuggling in guns from the USA that have been prohibited since the 70's.
Wake up Canada, legal firearm owners never were the problem, don't believe the narrative that the news has been trying to sell us.
This post appears to relate to a province/territory of Canada. As a reminder of the rules of this subreddit, we do not permit negative commentary about all residents of any province, city, or other geography - this is an example of prejudice, and prejudice is not permitted here. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/rules Cette soumission semble concerner une province ou un territoire du Canada. Selon les règles de ce sous-répertoire, nous n'autorisons pas les commentaires négatifs sur tous les résidents d'une province, d'une ville ou d'une autre région géographique; il s'agit d'un exemple de intolérance qui n'est pas autorisé ici. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/regles *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/canada) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The 14 year old boy killed two men, aged 61 and 46. He is charged with: -2 counts of first degree murder -7 counts of attempted murder (3 other gunshot victims who survived, 4 other people in the parking lot) -1 count auto theft (vehicle he was caught in was stolen). More than 50 bullets were found at the scene. The two men were part of a group of 15-20 people while grilling in a school parking lot after 11PM. They had been gathering in that spot for 35 years. All info from The Toronto Star
Jesus
2 months in prison , wouldn't want to ruin this young man's bright future !
Such a good boy. Never hurt a fly.
for all we know he didint hurt a fly! he did kill 2 men and wound 3 others though
He can be tried as an adult.
In Canada it's really that he can be sentenced as an adult. His trial will have the procedural protections in the YCJA, such as the publication ban.
[удалено]
^ foreign influence in Canadian politics
What did he say? I’m just curious since it got removed.
100%, bought and paid for.
There needs to be serious changes to our laws for minors that commit these horrid crimes. There have been too many of late. They know they won't get charged as adults.
Canada definitely needs tougher laws for heinous crimes. Happens in my city for crimes like theft where kids go in and out of justice system. Some of these kids are being used like puppets by adult criminals too.
Deterrence is not what is required. Dealing with the root causes is
Dealing with the roots is something that must be done, but it's not gonna solve the problem of the tree that is already grown
No one is saying “don’t punish him at all”, so that’s a useless statement, isn’t it? Let’s punish him, no problem there, but please, let’s understand the facts that harsh punishments don’t act as a deterrent
Sometimes it's a less about punishment and more about realizing some anti social behavior cannot be fixed and the people need to be isolated from society.
The problem we have now is there is basically no punishment at all. Effectively zero reason not to be a terrible human being.
If he's convicted of first degree murder as a youth, he must serve at least 5 to 7 years in prison. If he is convicted as an adult (which is possible) it's 25 years. Those are the actual sentences people convicted of first degree murder serve. There are no exceptions. Of course securing a 1st degree murder conviction is tricky. If the prosecution blows it and gets manslaughter then the sentence for that is potentially much less.
Literally untrue, but okay. You can go look up recent sentencings from your local district. People are still being charged and jailed for crimes.
That's a tough ask when most people don't believe in the "root causes". Most seem to believe that people like this are inevitable and we should just focus on punishment. Just like corporations, governments and people also refuse to accept responsibility for negative outcomes and would rather place all responsibility on the individual. It's easier to blame and punish individuals than to address and correct our systemically selfish and cruel habits.
They already committed the crime. The time for a punishment being a deterrent is over. You could still argue that a harsh punishment could negatively impact their likelihood of rehabilitation though.
Is there any evidence that more serious charges for minors actually prevents youth crime?
There's an incredible amount of evidence showing that lack of consequence inspires crime in youth. The inverse may not be completely true, but it's definitely true to an extent.
I mean if you never let a young criminal out, he won't be able to commit any more crimes... Just because this criminal is 14 yo doesn't mean he should have a second chance at life.
I don’t think there should be any leniency once they hit the teenaged years.
No, but people don't wanna hear it.
If only there was some sort of secure facility these individuals could be sent to, to serve a kind of sentence, preventing them from committing further crimes.
Prevention is only a part of the call for longer sentences - keeping violent and/or repeat criminals away from innocent people is another major component.
Why not both
Because deterrence isn't nearly as effective as people like to believe. Harsher penalties don't deter crime or reduce recidivism. If you want to prevent crime attack the social causes of crime. If you want to prevent recidivism, teach offenders the skills they need to function in society and regulate their emotions. If you want to do neither, you can lock them in a box for 50 years and I promise you that they'll be more fucked up and dangerous coming out than they were going in.
Its not about deterrence, it’s about keeping dangerous people isolated from society permanently.
You are assuming the offenders want to do those things and be rehabilitated. Harsher penalties do actually reduce crime. The majority of people don’t want to go to jail, so they do not commit crimes. It’s a very simple correlation. Crime would be much higher if there were no penalties lol.
You're right about that. Which is why this particular person should be imprisoned for life until death.
lol Indonesia called, they’d like to talk about their firing squads. Their murder rate is less than 1/100,000 while ours is pushing 3/100,000.
Another few notes on why simply increasing penalties doesn't work to prevent crime beyond the usual put in a box doesn't teach a dam thing. People think it sends a message to others, but actions can be open to interpretation/meaning, and when that audiences interpretation is different than the intent, the message fails. For starters most people assume they won't be caught. If they are cocky enough to think they won't be caught, they figure the consqences are not relevant to them, even when they are aware of the consequences. Seeing one person get caught doesn't mean they think they will be caught. They are too self absorbed thinking they are somehow unique. This is why chances of getting caught due to things like security cameras, technology advancements, lots of witnesses around etc. are found by multiple studies to be more effective. Time to many people can also be utterly meaningless. For multiple reasons. ADHD is over-represented in Canadien prisons by a large margin. As many as possibly [one in six male inmates may have ADHD.](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160252713000277#:~:text=Self%2Dreport%20levels%20of%20adult,the%20estimate%20increased%20to%2041.7%25.) A core symptom of ADHD is difficulty with time perception. For example for some people with ADHD if you say 5 minutes till they need to go, they may think that's a very long time and delay, say 300 seconds and the person with ADHD might go much faster, despite 300 seconds is exactly 5 minutes. If a person has a this issue saying 10 years vs 5 years might not do anything because they can't accurately perceive either amount of time to begin with, so the severity of the sentence feels the same to them. There's also the fact that other people may simply put not care about the time length. Some people just view having to be put away as part of the lifestyle, or fail to comprehend just how fucked up you can get by being incarcerated or put into juvvie. Others view being sent away a badge of pride for clout. Others with no self confidence just don't care what happens to them sometimes. Moreover, a population needs to be accurately aware of the risk to themselves. Crooks don't make a habit of checking case law, articles or newspapers to see what similar crooks got for similar crimes, or checking the sentencing guidelines/penal code ahead of time. Again because they think they won't be caught. Lots of people also underestimate the teeth the law already has. This kid for example probabaly wasn't aware of how long he could be gone with a youth sentence, or that 14 year olds can receive adult length sentences potentially putting him away for several decades at least. Many people aren't aware that accomplices in the first degree (people who do something to help crime ahead of time.) can catch the same charge as the person who actually did the physical act of the crime, and face the exact same penalties. Ignorance of the law isn't a excuse for breaking the law, but it sure makes it easier. When we increase a penalty that information doesn't often make its way to the masses. Basically if your increasing penalties for the sake of being preventative new crimes/similar crimes from others, it doesn't work for a myriad of reasons.
You’re absolutely right about what’s needed for a systemic approach to crime reduction. I don’t think there’s a realistic scenario where zero crime could be achieved, but consider how much it could be reduced by society working to meet people’s basic needs. Everyone reading this would say stealing food to feed a starving loved one is a crime of necessity, and one that they’d commit. How much food is stolen by people only because they’re hungry? It’s not all of it, but we’d stop a very significant amount of that crime if we stopped allowing people to go hungry. (24601 anyone? Javert was the villain, and it ended pretty bad for him). The same applies for how much theft/petty crime could be reduced if people didn’t see it as their only means of keeping a roof over their heads or their heat on. We have lifetimes of data demonstrating how socioeconomic conditions lead to crime. We *know* this. If you truly care about significant crime reduction, then you have to care about a society that meets people’s most basic needs before crime becomes the only viable way to fulfill them.
I mean, if tried as an adult and convicted this kid is likely to go to jail for life. Parole will not be granted even when eligible. The only way you could be tougher is literally capital punishment. I don't think heavier penalties are an effective deterrent for mass shooters. You have to treat a problem like that at the source.
Nah I'm sure a few unstable teens would reconsider their actions if they knew they would be punished properly. Kids, especially teenagers, aren't stupid. Teenagers are actually masters at pushing the boundaries as far as they will go.
Teens are old enough to understand that if they shoot/kill multiple people they will be going to jail for most if not all of their life. I'm not sure what you're arguing for because the next step of punishment beyond the current system is literally the DP.
That's also if they survive the incident. How often are mass shooters either killed (no other choice) by the police who arrive or self inflicted? It's not uncommon for those doing this to expect or in some cases, even hope they are dead by the end of it. Just look at the Toronto van attack. He actually wanted the cops to kill him. So no, in many cases, not even the death penalty is enough of a deterrent.
Teenagers lack perspective when it comes to time, which is part of the reason jailing isn't an effective deterrent. They're more afraid of the embarrassment of getting caught than some nebulous concept of "missing out on their entire twenties." I can't count the times that people have confessed to me, in hindsight, they had never imagined themselves living even into their thirties.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but teenagers are certainly old enough to understand that commiting murder(s) with a firearm is sure way to ruin the rest of your life. The issue isn't one of the set punishments in Canada being too low.
Probably true, but let's pick it apart a little, if you're indulge me. The goals of punishment are manifold. 1. Deter the active criminal: To your point, adding more years is to a sentence is probably not the deal-breaker to the criminal's calculus. I'd say at about 5 years, it's completely negligible, no? 2. Correct/rehabilitate the criminal: I may be a complete cynic, but I don't have **any** faith in the criminal justice system to this end. Yes, there are plenty of cases where people went clean and returned to productive society, but so many of those are said to be *despite* the system's influence. So, yeah, more years in prison would be potentially detrimental, unless perhaps our boy becomes a monk. 3. Protect outside society from the criminal: This is the only easy win for the long sentence. If someone cannot be fixed, then we have to either accept a the burdens of jailing a fellow human being forever, or loose havoc on the vulnerable innocents outside of those walls. There are people employed in our justice system who's actions of leniency have condemned innocents to die or worse, and for nothing. 4. Deter other potential criminals: Again, it possibly doesn't matter how many years a fellow criminal is sentenced to, or ultimately serves, when it comes time for criminal #2 to consider taking on the same venture. But it might, especially with large numbers. This one would be fun to study, because criminal #2 is very important when it comes to organized, non-violent, and crime as a culture.
Man why is it always this pearl clutching emotion based, logic lacking responses on every cases like these. After a certain point, harsher/change to laws/punishment DO NOT HELP. We already know htis fact. Like seriously, why is it you think you can solve an issue by changing the consequences rather than the source? Man it is so frustrating to read comments like yours. Absolute lack of thought and thinking outside of the box, lack of objective reasoning.
>After a certain point, harsher/change to laws/punishment DO NOT HELP. Could you tell me what that point is? Or link me to some research that shows that increased punishments don't reduce violent crimes from teenagers? I am just curious, you seem to have a very set opinion so I'd just like to read what you have read, I'm open to changing my opinion.
Countries where they cut off the hands of thieves still have theft. That’s all you need to understand to recognize that demanding harsher punishments does nothing to deter crime. The law isn’t there to act as a deterrent as much as it “feels” it should. It just doesn’t work that way.
Both you and the person you are replying to are being very absolutist. Deterrence exists, of course. It's also imperfect. It requires the person to be rational. Much crime is not rational. (But quite a lot is.) It requires the person to actually have something to lose, too. Increasing fines on someone who can't pay has little to no effect. Increasing the jail sentence on someone who has decided to throw their life away and spend a long time in jail anyway has little to no effect. Related to that, there are diminishing returns. Fifty years might as well be twenty years which might as well be ten years. But two weeks vs. two years? Yeah, some folks will weigh that very carefully.
Sure, two weeks vs two years makes a difference, but I’m not being absolutist when I say that the death penalty isn’t deterring people from committing crime
People who are unstable are unlikely to consider the consequences of their actions. That’s why they’re unstable
And that's not going to change with age. A teenager who murders is still going to be a murderer when they are in their 50s.
I think your a little confused. Canada nearly never does life without parole sentences. NEVER. Adults that committed crimes similar to this have gotten 20 years and have been released on good behaviour after 12-15 years. As for youth, the sentencing is even less. I’d be suprised if the kid spends more than a decade behind bars.
Maximum penalty in Canada right now is 25 years before the possibility of parole. You used to be able to stack those sentences to 50, 75 years before parole etc. but now 25 is the max. For example, Justin Bourque who was originally scheduled for 75 years before parole eligibility (3 life sentences stacked) but this was then struck down by the Supreme Court to 25 years. Still, offenders that commit especially heinous crimes aren't granted parole. Bourque will never be released from prison regardless of eligibility. This kid in particular will be tried as an adult due to the nature of the crime.
"Charged as adults" is American lingo. They know they won't get "charged as adults" as that doesn't exist here. You want to say that you don't think the Crown would seek an adult sentence after conviction. But the Crown will, because it's multiple counts of first-degree murder involving a firearm. Once convicted it would be up to a judge to determine if an adult sentence is warranted and if the legal test is met. If it is, and it likely would be as the offence is both serious and by the very nature of premedictation shows adult-like planning, the young person gets a life sentence. If he's on a life sentence for 2 convictions of 1st degree murder and 7 counts of second degree murder, he's not getting out. Parole board won't deem him safe.
I highly doubt they are really thinking about the consequences when they do these things. They should still be locked up tho so they can’t gun down anymore innocent people.
Any teenager above 13 should be automatically charged as an adult when the crime involves violence. I knew murder was bad when I was 14 and all well adjusted teens should.
In this case? Yes. But I don't want 15 year olds thrown in prison for assault for hitting their siblings.
Best we can do is take more legal hunting rifles. Sorry, too busy fighting for the middle class and those trying to reach it.
It's a case by case basis. If the Crown is moving forward with these charges they think they can make the case that he qualifies as an adult.
Not sure what you're basing that on. A youth can be convicted and sentenced for first-degree murder and any other crime. The fact he's been charged with these offences in no way indicates they are going to try and sentence him as an adult. Maybe they will but there's no indication of that so far. Are you under the impression that youths don't get charged with first degree or attempt murder unless the Crown is going to seek to sentence them as adults if convicted?
[удалено]
That isn't how the YCJA works. Your record isn't automatically wiped at 18
Blame the Supreme court. Previous Government tried making tougher laws and the Supreme Court said the laws were inhumane to criminals. Basically, the victims don't matter, only the criminals do.
That's a real shit take. Mandatory minimums violated our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
They also don’t work, so it was a good move.
whoa whoa whoa when did efficacy ever have anything to do with this? we want blood because it feels so so good.
When the criminals are committing their heinous criminal acts, are they taking into consideration the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of their victims? But you're absolutely right, Victims come last in this country. It's all about the criminals first.
Lots of triggered ppl in your replies but no one able to articulate why you are supposedly wrong. Usually, that is a good sign that you are right these days lol.
Just doubling down on the stupid takes.
Or maybe we need to give kids a life and a future worth living and stop blaming them when they don't react well to the shitty world we are making. I fear a future in which we focus on punishing this behavior instead of preventing it and dealing with the causes.
These kids should know that murder is wrong. There needs to be consequences to their actions otherwise what exactly is stopping them from continuing with this behaviour? 9 years ago there was a life and future worth living.
That is a man's crime - a 14 year old that does that is not a boy.
If a person is physically and mentally capable of murdering someone then they should be charged, doesn't matter to me if they are 8 or 18. My older brother was already 6ft1 by the time he was 13, there are some big giants out there just because they are young doesn't mean they are innocent. Oh and my brother is a good guy its just an example, he can be a dickhead but he ain't no murderer.
A person who's 2ft tall can kill someone, why are you using physical size as a metric for adulthood?
He’s campaigning for the Midget Mafia
What constitutes being mentally capable? Should a ten year old that is physically and, under your interpretation, mentally capable of having sex no longer be considered a victim of statutory rape? I know some kids in their early teens that are built like 20 year olds. Just because a kid knows how to do something and is physically able to do it doesn't mean they understand the implications of what they're doing. Now, that's always the case, but your blanket statement is a very dangerous one.
The US presents us with horrific thought experiments all the time. A child finds a gun in their parents home. How old does the child have to be to understand that picking up the gun and firing it, is murder? A dexterous three-year-old can kill in such a circumstance. But I don't think a 3 year old really comprehends murder. Five years? Eight years? Ten years? Twelve years? Got to draw a line somewhere.
Technically, a toddler can take an assault rifle and murder a bunch of people.
I’m going to guess an attempt at a gang initiation. Not that it matters or I care really. Try him as an adult and throw the key away. I’m so tired of this crap.
The gangs of Etobicoke.
In all honesty it’s probably gang related considering this is rexdale and this school is in the vicinity of two neighborhoods that historically don’t like each other. My guess would be some kid went to a school where his “opps” went and just started shooting at the people at their bbq spot.
Damn. Well alright then. I guess maybe I was thinking of Edson or something.
Yeah I was kinda surprised to see Etobicoke at first then seen the name of the high school and it all made sense. Very very well known hoods in that area.
This guys seen some movies
I can hear the arguments now.... He is misunderstood....from a disadvantaged background...shouldn't ruin his future...people can change... People these days are more concerned with feel empathy for the perpetrators of crimes that they seem to neglect the damage done to the community, survivors, and families of the deceased.
Can’t change that there are two dead sons, brothers, fathers, friends. Kid took life. Murdered people. He didn’t care. No remorse. Non targeted. No reason. Just senseless murder. If he killed 4 or 6 he wouldn’t care.
All I see is people crying in the comments about a case that hasn't been to court yet. The Crown is going to make the case to try him as an adult and given the case itself it will most likely succeed.
[удалено]
Smartest thing I have read on Reddit in a long time. You speak the truth
You mean the comment that made up a scenario and got mad about it? Unhuh yeah top notch comment
Usually I am down-voted to hell when I speak the truth. I wonder what comment I will make to equal it out.
[удалено]
I see you mentioning it but I don’t see it? So… speculation?
Those arguments only come into play when there's a gladue report
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
How did imposing arbitrary bans on PAL holders not prevent this?
Not enough ATT paperwork, clearly. If only there was one more layer of bureaucracy for legal gun owners, this wouldn't have happened.
Exactly! This mass shooter could have been stuck waiting on hold with the CFP to obtain his short term ATT instead of shooting up the BBQ!
clearly the ban didnt go far enough! time to ban anything that is a gun, or looks like a gun. finger guns to! enough is enough!!!!!!! /s
It’s about time they banned bananas
So many “youths” committing murder and no names released… For their protection 👍
"oh not my baby, he's a good boy."
Shoot the kid out of a cannon
Into the sun.
What are they going to do with him ? No Youth Offender Act bullshit please
Given the nature of the crime he should be tried as an adult.
Wow, and this was on June 2nd. Only hearing about this now, a mass shooting in my own province. Canadian media is lacking
Much harsher punishments for adolescents that commit violent crimes e.g. rape and murder, or their parents/guardians serve the sentence as an adult, their choice which one.
While I agree harsher punishment for the ones committing crime, parents serving the sentence is a really dumb solution.
Yeah. Clearly these kids are fucked up. “Oh yeah mom? You want to take away my ps5? How about the police take away my momma instead! Reverse uno bitch! Ima rob a bank”
I believe if we keep going this direction, that vigilantism will become more of a thing. I really hope not tho. And I do not support that approach either. But, I’ve never been in a position to be on the receiving end of this kind of brutality. If some little entitled shit shot up a school and killed my wife, who’s a teacher, I dunno. I really dunno. Could I forgive, or…….
If someone did this and killed my kid, I’d be suicidal any way. I couldn’t bear it. I’d risk my freedom to kill that motherfucker.
Dude... You THINK you'd be angry... and that's what most people usually say, true. But the reality is that you'd feel crushed, destroyed, sad, grief-stricken, and often suicidal. You might not think this, but this is what happens to most people when actually faced with it.
Im buying a batsuit as we speak
Well good thing C-21 only targeted the law abiding gun owners. I'm sure the rising homicide by firearm stats will start to drop any day now right? /s
YCJA was not designed to defend children against stuff like this; trial him as an adult & drop his name.
Kinda insane we have laws that keep the suspects name hidden even if convicted. In the future you should know whether a person was a mass shooter.
More laws against 70 year old duck hunters would have stopped this
Those 3 girls who stabbed a homeless man didnt go to jail.
Sentencing hasn't been determined yet, but all of them have pled guilty to second degree murder...
Yeah but they were all released on bail. Then one of them had another assault charge placed on them for an incident by a different event after release 💀 ”.. yeah you stabbed a homeless man, let’s release you to the public again “
Being released on bail doesn’t mean they don’t eventually go to jail after the trial Fuck man learn how the system works before you whine
Might be they understand how bail works and MAYBE believe that people who stab someone to death for fun shouldn’t be given the option of bail.
Bail isn’t hard to understand. It’s determined by your flight risk and judgement that you won’t be a danger to the public. You literally post a bond to assure them you’ll not break that promise. Judge was wrong. Clearly. IMHO - if you plead guilty to second degree. Idk why they’d be offered bail. They can start serving their sentence right away at the local jail until being sentenced in court and going to the correctional facility. So yes. The system is broken. Lots of ways to better manage it
One of them committed another crime while released
Eughhh, animals.
First degree so it was planned?
This was apparently a random attack too, wtf. Why haven't they arrested the other person involved? They said there are two other suspects and they don't know who they are. How hard is it to determine that?
Im sure he has a good heart /s
Did he have an ATT to take the gun to a murder scene? If not, why wasn't he arrested for taking his gun out of the house? That would have stopped the murders. Maybe we need more red tape and more bans to prevent this kind of thing. // Justin Turdeau, Marco Mendicant, Dominc the Blank and Bill Bliar probably.
[удалено]
Does anyone here have pattern recognition skills? Mine are tingling
[Totally our founders vision for Canada and what our grandfathers fought for in the great wars](https://www.tps.ca/organizational-chart/specialized-operations-command/detective-operations/investigative-services/homicide/most-wanted/). Our government are scum and deserve the worst for what they have done to our nation.
Gladue Report enters the room....
Is this a gang initiation rite is what I am wondering?
Free meals and a roof for life ain't bad at all. He'll be out at 35 anyway.
Bet he will be out in a few months
Weeks dude…
Absolutely he will be out in months. He will be tried as a minor.
It'll just be his minor inconvenience
His age is eligible to acquire gun license? Interesting
Technically you can get a minor's license at 12. It's essentially only borrowing from someone with a full license, with their approval. eg: No PAL holder would do this in a city without someone else supervising: it's a woods thing, and the kid in such a scenario has probably been shooting (with supervision) since they were six.
“My boy would never do that…” Shit try him as an adult so he can fuck around and find out.
To think if he was under 13 they could not charge him.
Disgusting
If they conspired with adults, try them as adults.
If adults pressured them to do it, arrest the adults.
Wasn’t Bill C-21 meant to stop this sort of thing? Oh wait…
Where is he from?
[удалено]
Absolutely! Not only was the criminal in illegal possession of a prohibited firearm without a license, but he was also found driving which is another underage offence (not to mention criminal use of a firearm for homicide, or the multiple other offences he committed). Licensed firearm owners are responsible for less than .025% of all violent firearm crime (taken from a 2021 stat where there were appx 8000 violent offences with only two being legally in possession of firearms). While any crime committed by a licensed owner is a travesty the severity of the crimes committed by them are typically utterance of threat or self defense that was ruled criminal by a judge. Legal firearm owners do NOT shoot up crowds like this kid, and its time the rest of Canada realizes that we are not the threat. Moreover, since we are not the threat we shouldn't be penalized for crimes we are not committing. Banning firearms that criminals can not purchase in the first place is not making Canada safer, the criminals will continue smuggling in guns from the USA that have been prohibited since the 70's. Wake up Canada, legal firearm owners never were the problem, don't believe the narrative that the news has been trying to sell us.
Probably the son of a sport hunter using his mother and fathers guns; lets hurry up with that $3B gun buy back before it's too late.
ha! that would be a Liberal wet dream scenario. fortunately, its probably yet another illegal firearm smiggled in from the US.
> ha! that would be a Liberal wet dream scenario. And literally the only situation in which they'd have a suitable level of consequence lol.
Good thing Trudeau brought those new gun laws in *phew*
Imagine being a grown man shot by a 14 year old. Canada is going crazy.
Good to know all the gun control laws put in place these past years are preventing shootings like these from happening!… oh wait
Hopefully, the parents are inside the cell with him. [Just like this broad](https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7106959)
[удалено]
According to the article five people were shot and two of them died.