Marko Muzzo

[praktik]

Well it cultivates a feeling of injustice, is what I'm getting at.

Like you can be outraged and still feel that justice is being served right?

The tenor and tone of "outrage" in crime stories I think pours accelerant on the "outrage fire" and helps breed distrust in our justice system (and enable shitty, Tough on Crime policies as a knee-jerk reaction)

 

[janiecakes]

I suppose I was reacting to the idea that the victims of this crime would be less upset were it not for this kind of coverage.

I don't feel that justice is being served because I think that it's impossible for that to happen for this family. I just don't think that a harsher sentence would help them or anyone else.

 

[praktik]

Ya i guess I'm thinking of things like, you know when parents of autistic kids go down the rabbit hole, read misinformation on vaccines or the fact they fed their kid dairy products, now on top of managing an autistic child they feel extra guilt and blame themselves for their kids illness.

So ya its a bit different, but I just hate it when people in shitty situations are made to feel shittier about it - for no good reason

Like instead of being victims of the defendant, they are now also victims of the justice system, and that bothers me when the judicial outcome is reasonable.

 

[kyfe]

People should certainly be upset/outraged but if you're going to take the extra step to say the sentencing was unjust you should take the time to understand why that decision was made. Maui, is just telling us what he think's without fully considering all aspects to derive at the decision, there's no logic there.

If you think it should have been a life sentence what is that based on other than feeling? Be outraged but don't blame the justice system as their decision is pretty reasonable when considering all the information. That outrage rests with Muzzo.

this guy could have likely secured an acquittal if they really wanted to, instead he's paying the price, although some think he should pay more without any logical reason.

 

[praktik]

And you know, sometimes people are victimized by the justice system, so I'm not saying it's always an outrage that people are made to feel extra outrage.

Think of the Goldmans...

 

[Bass-Invader]

Here is the transcript: R v Muzzo Decision

The crown asked for an eight - 12 year driving ban, defence asked that it not exceed eight years. The judge used three recent sentencing decisions in Ontario from cases where impaired driving caused death to help determine the length of the driving ban and the jail time. The sentences in those three decisions included four years in prison + five year driving prohibition, five years in prison + a 10 year driving prohibition, and eight years in prison + 12 year driving prohibition.

Thanks, it's so much clearer from the source isn't it?

I recommend that anyone in this thread should take a look (starting at page 6, ending at 13 (although you could probably read until 9 and get the gist)) at the judge's sentencing decision, and the evidence he relied on. It is quite short, the section relating to the sentence in detail is only 6 pages long.

Interestingly is that the judge appears to have actually been quite harsh, and seems to have given the prosecution just about everything they asked for.

This case is without precedent. A sentence exceeding the eight years upheld by the Court of Appeal for Ontario in R. v. Kummer is justified.

Also, re the driving ban. I think this is pretty important:

The driving prohibition ... will not commence until Mr. Muzzo is released from custody

 

[Bass-Invader]

So you think that sentences handed down are valid just because that's what has been given prior?
Do you agree with the punishments that are being given out here in Canada for pedophiles too?

Treating like cases likewise is a fundamental principle of justice. Similar situations should receive similar sentences. How would you feel if you were done for committing the exact same crime as another, and you received twice the sentence with no basis other than 'the other fellow was more likable'? If the state is going to be in the business of systematically inflicting violence on its citizens, it should not be able to exercise that power capriciously.

Otherwise what measure would *you* use to fairly decide sentences?

 

[praktik]

^^ dissimilar sentencing is actually an *injustice* - note the people still in jail for selling an ounce of weed in the 70s - or the disparity in crack vs powder cocaine sentencing...

 

[praktik]

This is what boggles my mind. "Conservative" does not equal "Fiscal Conservative". Not to me anyway. I think drug legalization and shorter criminal sentences + increased mental health support structures would reduce costs AND crime.

Thats it - I think there's totally a place of overlap here from both sides of the spectrum, and if you look for them- plenty of conservatives support smart policy like drug legalization and a justice model that just makes economic sense. Cause like, thats what happens when you actually rehabilitate people.

You exchange a cost for income taxes and spending of income that person would do working and integrated in society.

Sure, wont happen all the time. But policy has a major effect on this outcome and can make it something that happens with more or less frequency.

The tough on crime shit is frankly, a bit old fashioned.

Harper was a total 80s throwback on that.

Also another conservative argument for rehabilitation is based on classical conservatism, which in the age of conservatives dreaming of revolution abroad (democracy "flowering" at the force of arms) and revolution at home (strangling government "in the bathtub", to quote Grover Norquist) is hard to remember.

But the French Revolution freaked everyone *right the fuck out*. Modern political conservatism has its roots in the reaction to the Revolution, with them arguing change should move slowly to "conserve" the best of society and not threaten it with too-fast change that could be corrosive and bring horrible things like guillotines and rollback any prospective gains completely and make things even worse than before your change started.

Tough on crime is demonstrably corrosive to society - it creates "Criminal Universities" and sky high recividism rates and revolving doors that perpetuate a consistent corrosion, especially in big cities.

From this perspective many conservatives would be supportive of rehabilitative justice, not just on economic terms, but on terms of conserving social stability instead of destabilizing it.

 

[Variant]

I suppose I was reacting to the idea that the victims of this crime would be less upset were it not for this kind of coverage.

I don't feel that justice is being served because I think that it's impossible for that to happen for this family. I just don't think that a harsher sentence would help them or anyone else.

I mostly agree with this. It's hard to say what effect this ruling had. It's easy enough to look at the most recent police crackdown on intoxicated driving and say nothing has changed but you can't quantify how many people decided not to drink and drive due to the publicity this story has had. Who knows if someone who might normally drive after drinking decided not to and potentially saved lives.

I also agree with many that lengthy (20+ year) sentences aren't beneficial for all involved however having someone walk after 3/4 years when they killed 4 and critically injured 2 others seems inconsistent with other laws (not other rulings). As mentioned if your attacked and your life is threatened and your attacker dies you'll get the same amount of time Muzzo did.

 

[Eclipze]

I don't care what any law says..
You kill someone while drinking and driving, it should be a lifetime ban

 

[ndrwrld]

Vaughan Drunk Driver Who Killed 4 Allowed Unescorted Absences Soon
makes me fucking sick.

 

[basketballjones]

Vaughan Drunk Driver Who Killed 4 Allowed Unescorted Absences Soon
makes me fucking sick.

he is filthy rich

 

[ndrwrld]

duh.

 

[basketballjones]

duh.

so then why the outrage at the outcome? you knew it was going to happen with the hug a criminal judiciary where you can buy "justice" that we have here in canada. trudeau said flat out his brother got off of convictions because of the friends of his father. that right there tells you how well the system works

 

[Mondieu]

so then why the outrage at the outcome? you knew it was going to happen with the hug a criminal judiciary where you can buy "justice" that we have here in canada. trudeau said flat out his brother got off of convictions because of the friends of his father. that right there tells you how well the system works

That’s precisely why there needs to be MORE outrage. This shit needs to be remedied through both legislative and judicial channels. It’s no easy task but it needs to be done. ...and the outrage of constituents is one catalyst to that becoming real. No hard fought battle has ever been won by an apathetic army.

One fucking set of rules for everyone, thanks.

That’s the polite version.

 

[ndrwrld]

Thank you, politely. I really didn't think i needed to spell out why i was livid !

 

[Bernnie Federko]

Wasn't Trudeau's bro, it was Trudeau himself.

Get the story straight, c'mon guys

 

[acheron]

Trudeau says his father used connections to help brother Michel avoid criminal record after pot charge | Toronto Star

 

[praktik]

Pierre also did more than any other PM to get close to legalizing or decriminalizing drugs, promised to follow through on the Ledain commission's eventual recommendation to decriminalize. Of course he didn't live up to this promise. Had he done so he would have "used his connections" to stop every Canadian from ever getting a pot charge.

Too bad that didn't happen.

So its a bit of a fitting thing that the son is finally delivering on the promise of his father, going further than decriminalization and into legalization. Too bad retroactive amnesty isn't part of it, plus releasing all current people in prison for simple possession and low-level trafficking.