I was unable to find anything about any of the three individuals' previous records, not that I was going to spend all night trying.
I found that Darwin award-worthy moment. I gave it an intro. You huffed and puffed. Well done.
What I did read, and what you have produced confirms, is that Howard Cain (killed by police shortly after the murder of the cop) was the mastermind and instigator of the robbery that led to the murder, and the one who did the shooting.
I couldn't theorize about any equivalent situation in Canada, because the situation is rarer. For starters, liquor stores in most provinces are operated by the provincial government, and are lovely bright trendy big places where there are always half a dozen unionized employees and loads of customers around, and I've never in my life heard of one getting robbed. And then, of course, firearm robbery is just such a rarity anyway. Once in a while, a bank gets held up. The bank where my then-beau was the accountant who had been left in charge while the manager was on vacation got held up quite some years ago. Bizarrely, the same guys held up a bank in my home town hundreds of miles away not long after. I guess they were heading for the border. They were US citizens. (My home town is the whitest bread town in Canada, although it hasn't approached, say, Portland, Maine, for absolute whiteness for some years now. The bank robbers were very tall African-American men. Apparently they attempted to mingle with the crowd in the mall outside the bank after holding it up ...)
Sentences for just about anything in Canada (or the rest of the civilized world) come nowhere near the sentences handed out in the US, some of which are just plain stupid. How many centuries can a mortal actually serve behind bars, anyhow? We have virtually no minimum sentences (murder and repeat drunk driving are among the few exceptions). We impose finite, determined sentences, not this 3-to-52 years stuff. We have rules about parole eligibility times and mandatory remission times, with exceptions in which mandatory remission could be withheld, e.g. People aren't released early because there's no room in the inn.
So I'm afraid I just have no context with which to assess what was done in these cases. The number of people who would be equivalent to these individuals -- a history of multiple robberies using firearms -- would be too small for me to have noticed any of them likely. One thing I do know is that a robbery conviction is a good indication of recidivism risk; forget when and where I read that, but it sounds reasonable, and there were reasons to explain it, having to do with the structured nature of the crime for one thing, I believe.
Bankers talk about bank robbery in Vancouver:
http://www.cba.ca/en/content/press/Robbery_in_Vancouver.pdfSubstance abuse is a contributing factor. In Vancouver, the problem is significant, with 84 per cent of F.I. (financial institution) robberies motivated by substance abuse, compared to 49 per cent in Toronto, 52 per cent in Edmonton, and 57 per cent in Calgary.
Close to three-quarters of F.I. robbers are caught, but in Vancouver, they are not deterred by current sentencing expectations. One-third of offences are committed by offenders who are on parole, probation, unlawfully at large, or out on bail. In Vancouver, 65 per cent of offenders have prior robbery convictions, compared to 56 per cent in Edmonton, and 52 per cent in Toronto and Calgary.
While in all jurisdictions, custody is the most common sanction for F.I. robbery offenders, Vancouver’s incarceration rate is consistently lower than other jurisdictions. Vancouver offenders’ sentences are also shorter, and offenders are more often offered alternatives to jail time.
... Other provinces’ sentencing approaches appear to be contributing to better outcomes: lower robbery rates and lower recidivism rates. These sentencing approaches are characterized by increased use of custodial sentences and longer sentences, particularly for repeat offenders. Rehabilitation may be a potential alternative, however, the current approach is not working, as non-custodial orders are most common in Vancouver, and yet recidivism is highest here.
Just for the curious, and not because I adopt anything said there. Montreal was long the robbery capital of Canada -- in fact, it was the bank robbery capital of North America. But that was a function of biker gangs / organized crime. Quebec dealt with the gangs, and thus the robbery problem.
Hey, you might enjoy this -- it's the kind of thing I spend my days reading ...
http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/bills_ls.asp?lang=E&ls=c10&source=library_prb&Parl=39&Ses=1
Bill C-10: An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum penalties for offences involving firearms) and to make consequential amendment to another Act
<Legislative Summary>
Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum penalties for offences involving firearms) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, was introduced and received first reading in the House of Commons on 4 May 2006, followed by second reading and referral to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on 13 June 2006. Its primary objectives are to increase mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment for individuals who commit serious or repeat firearm offences, and to create the new offences of breaking and entering to steal a firearm and robbery to steal a firearm.
... 1. Canada
A study published in 2002 concluded that existing research generally does not support the use of mandatory minimum sentences for the purpose of deterrence, or for the purpose of reducing sentencing disparities. That said, the evidence was somewhat inconsistent and unclear in the specific context of firearm offences. In contrast to mandatory minimum sentences for drug offences or impaired driving, for instance, the use of such punishment appears to have some impact in reducing gun crime.
A study in 1983 found that robberies and homicides with firearms decreased after minimum sentences came into force in 1977, but there may have been a compensating increase in offences not involving firearms, and minimum sentences were only one aspect of the legislation. The study concluded that a direct cause-and-effect relationship between the minimum penalties and declines in crime rates could not be drawn, as screening provisions to determine who may possess or acquire a firearm may have contributed.
In 1995, further amendments to the Criminal Code attached four-year mandatory minimum sentences to certain offences committed with a firearm. However, the number of cases was found by Statistics Canada in 1999 and 2000 to be too low to have a noticeable impact on overall sentencing patterns. There does not yet appear to have been a comprehensive study of the effects of the 1995 amendments.
2. United States
There has been some evidence that mandatory minimum sentences have been effective in the context of gun-related crime in the United States, although again, the results are mixed overall. An evaluation, published in 1992, of mandatory gun-use sentencing enhancements (mandatory additional imprisonment) in six large American cities (Detroit, Jacksonville, Tampa, Miami, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh) found that the laws deterred homicide, although not other violent crimes. However, studies of similar laws in Michigan in 1983 and Florida in 1984 found no evidence that crimes committed with firearms had been prevented.
A 1981 evaluation of a 1975 Massachusetts law that imposed mandatory jail terms for possession of an unlicensed handgun concluded that the law was an effective deterrent to gun crime in Boston, at least in the short term. A 1984 study of a 1974 Arizona law, imposing additional minimum prison time where a firearm is used in the commission of an offence, found that offenders committed fewer robberies with a firearm as penalties for firearm use became more severe. The law was followed by “highly significant reductions in gun robberies in two large counties, with no evidence of displacement to other robberies or property crimes.”
More recently, in Richmond, Virginia, a 1997 initiative called “Project Exile” established, among other things, a five-year mandatory minimum sentence for certain gun crimes. During the first 10 months of 1998, compared with the same period of the previous year, the total number of homicides committed in the city was down 36% and the number of firearm homicides was down 41%.
The whole thing is interesting. Well, I find it interesting, anyhow. Just lucky I get to read that kind of thing for work. (I'd read that one before.)
I still don't know why the individuals in the Philadelphia case were released, or what supervision arrangements there were (one was living at, and "escaped from", a halfway house).
And I don't have any magic solutions for preventing recidivism by robbers, short of life-time lock-up on first offence, which would shock the conscience of the civilized.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
