By Arthur Weinreb
Monday, August 6, 2007
In the 1968 movie The Boston Strangler, police and investigators had arrested a suspect who for all intents and purposes looked like, acted and spoke as if he was the person who had been terrorizing the streets of Boston. But as the interrogation continued it became apparent that he was not the guy they were looking for. The lead investigator, Massachusetts assistant Attorney General John S. Bottomly who was played by Henry Fonda, described the arrest as making a beautiful landing in the wrong airport.
Last week Ontario PC party critic Bob Runciman issued a press release with proposals to combat crime. One of these proposals was that the offence of second degree murder should become first degree murder if the murderer was a member of a gang at the time of the killing.
The difference between first and second degree murder is that while both offences are the intentional killing of a human being, first degree murder must also be both planned and deliberate. Since these offences became part of Canadian law in the late 1970s at the time the death penalty was abolished there have always been two exceptions to the necessity of proving planning and deliberation as an essential ingredient to get a conviction for first degree murder. What would be second degree murder becomes the more serious offence when the victim is a prison guard or a police officer acting in the execution of his or her duty.
Both of these offences carry a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment; the only difference being the parole eligibility period. A person who is convicted of first degree murder cannot apply for parole before 25 years while someone who is convicted of second degree murder must wait between 10 and 25 years; the exact time to be determined by the sentencing judge.
Upping a charge of second degree murder to first degree will do nothing to deter offenders from killing other people or from running around the streets as they now do, fully armed. But the proposal to turn second degree murder into the more serious offence will at least insure that the scum will be locked up for longer periods of time. And by making additional offences subject to no parole for 25 years will take the sentencing discretion away from the liberal judges and liberal parole boards who too eagerly agree to put dangerous offenders back on the street earlier rather than later.
But increasing penalties for killers because they are members of a street gang is not the way to go. Although police and everyone else in the killer's neighbourhood will know that he is a member of a certain gang, it is not the easiest thing to prove in court. Expert evidence will have to be called to prove not only that the gang exists and the accused was a member of that particular gang but was a member at the time the murder was committed. And there is a further reason why this particular proposal should not be enacted. By framing it as he did, Runciman makes the same mistake that Attorney General Michael Bryant, Toronto mayor David Miller and all the other hug-a-thug proponents on the left make.
Gangs don't kill people – people kill people.
Street gangs are not like organized crime where orders to kill always emanate from on high. A gang member is just as likely to blow away someone else because they were "dissed" than for a "business" reason such as encroachment on the shooter's turf. Gang members are just as likely to start shooting and take down innocent people including babies and children as happens all too often than they are to shoot at the intended target. Take away the organized structure of the gang and these lowlifes will still go on killing.
The general idea is still good but second degree murder automatically becoming first degree murder should be triggered (pardon the pun) by individual circumstances. It should be made applicable when a shooter commits his crime while under an order not to be in possession of firearms. Or the change could be further broadened to include murders that take place while the murderer is on bail, probation or parole for gun related crimes or other serious offences. This would at least have the effect of keeping these killers off the streets for longer periods of time.
Bob Runciman's proposal could fly; but it has to land in the right airport.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement