# Here is a guy you would love to throttle



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

I would like to wipe that smug look off his face as well.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2009/03/06/8654436-cp.html


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Smug? I doubt it, but it just goes to show you can be clueless AND a parent. The two are, unfortunately, not mutually exclusive.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

Big Bubba may not take nicely to him while he's in prison. Now THAT would be punishment.


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

There's something really, really wrong with 3 years for this crime. And it is a *CRIME!!* I suspect some degree of political sensitivity regarding that sentence. I love this country, but we are so soft on serious crimes. One could expect a stiffer sentence for drug related charges. 

Shawn.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

mhammer said:


> Smug? I doubt it, but it just goes to show you can be clueless AND a parent. The two are, unfortunately, not mutually exclusive.


You said it, brutha.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

The elders thought it best that he be allowed to "heal" in the community.............I'm at a loss for words.


----------



## nitehawk55 (Sep 19, 2007)

Friggin loser....I'd like to bitch slap that smoke out of his mouth and then some .:sport-smiley-002:

Yeah...heal in the community with some more booze


----------



## hoser (Feb 2, 2006)

The guy is a total scumbag. The sentence wasn't nearly harsh enough.


----------



## Andy (Sep 23, 2007)

This just reeks of politics. Three years? I was thinking along the lines of fifteen.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Andy said:


> This just reeks of politics. Three years? I was thinking along the lines of fifteen.


I am thinking along the lines of..... forever


----------



## mrmatt1972 (Apr 3, 2008)

Does anyone know the criminal code well enough to tell us the available sentence for criminal negligence causing death? Is his sentence 3 years plus time served, or was this guy out the whole time?

Don't forget, the guy's kids are dead. He has suffered as a result of his actions. 

And it's a crappy photo designed to make you hate him.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/story/2008/02/01/sister-freezing-children.html


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

mrmatt1972 said:


> Does anyone know the criminal code well enough to tell us the available sentence for criminal negligence causing death? Is his sentence 3 years plus time served, or was this guy out the whole time?
> 
> Don't forget, the guy's kids are dead. He has suffered as a result of his actions.
> 
> ...


Yes, he has suffered greatly. To the point he gave up booze after the deaths. For a few weeks anyway.



> What's prison going to do for me? It keeps me away from my family," Christopher Pauchay said Wednesday, awkwardly wiping tears from his face with his shirt sleeve, his wrists stuck in handcuffs.





> "There's a lot of people that think wrongly about me," he said. "Those were my girls, and I loved them."


Taking them out in a t shirt and diapers during a snow storm SOBER would constitute severe neglect.



> Pauchay, 25, pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing death. He was released on bail but arrested for allegedly breaching a condition not to consume alcohol.





> He told the judge Wednesday that he tried to stay sober after his daughters died, and that things were going well because of the birth of a new daughter. The baby took away his cravings for alcohol and gave him a new perspective on life, he said.
> 
> But that changed when social services apprehended the child.
> 
> "I started drinking that night," Pauchay said. "I just couldn't face that I'd go home to nobody."


No Sir, I don't buy it. This is not a person that deserves an ounce of sympathy. 



> He still faces an outstanding charge for allegedly assaulting his common-law wife, who is struggling with her own alcohol addiction. Beaton said there are also allegations Pauchay was drinking at a bar with his mother.
> 
> Pauchay already has 52 convictions on his criminal record, most of them for property offences and failing to show up for court or comply with court orders. Beaton said experts have pegged him a high risk to for criminal activity in the next three years.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

nitehawk55 said:


> Yeah...heal in the community with some more booze


There may be some basis in fact for this, but it is still a stereotype, never the less. And this is wrong. Most aboriginal communities exist as a result of broken treaties and forced attempts at assimilation. And this has nothing to do with the crime this nimno did.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Paul said:


> There is no stereotype here. The guys children died as a result of his drinking and negligence, and thus far he's been unable to stay sober, according to currently availble news reports.


Agreed

I submit to you that if I was a raving drunk and killed my two kids becuase of it I would probably jump off the nearest building once I sobered up. But at the very least, that would be the end of the booze once and for all. Aboriginal, Black, Mexican, Italian, Irish, Green, Blue, Martian, Hindu, Russian or whatever the hell you want to put in there. Race or religion has nothing to do with it at all.


----------



## bagpipe (Sep 19, 2006)

nitehawk55 said:


> Yeah...heal in the community with some more booze





Robert1950 said:


> There may be some basis in fact for this, but it is still a stereotype, never the less. And this is wrong. Most aboriginal communities exist as a result of broken treaties and forced attempts at assimilation. And this has nothing to do with the crime this nimno did.





Paul said:


> There is no stereotype here. The guys children died as a result of his drinking and negligence, and thus far he's been unable to stay sober, according to currently availble news reports.


Robert1950 is commenting that the "heal in the community with more booze" comment is a stereotype of aboriginal people, and I agree with him (about that being a stereotype). I'd like to say more about this but its impossible with the new rules we have on the forum. I guess I'll leave it at that.


----------



## mrmatt1972 (Apr 3, 2008)

GuitarsCanada said:


> I submit to you that if I was a raving drunk and killed my two kids becuase of it I would probably jump off the nearest building once I sobered up.


I was thinking along the same lines myself. If I was responsible for the death of my children I don't think I could live with myself.



GuitarsCanada said:


> Aboriginal, Black, Mexican, Italian, Irish, Green, Blue, Martian, Hindu, Russian or whatever the hell you want to put in there. Race or religion has nothing to do with it at all.


On this I disagree.

Race enters into the equation here for a number of reasons. Giving context the the man's life is one. Accepting and respecting his Nation's ideals of justice is another. Our (Canadian) justice is typically punitive, 1st Nations justice is typically more restorative. Each style of justice stems from very different cultural and spiritual practices. It is understandably difficult for each to accept the other's way.

My hope is that he ends up in a prison that has aboriginal healing facilities (e.g., alcohol treatment, sweat lodges, talking/healing circles, spiritual practices, counseling from elders) so that he can heal and come out a decent person.


----------



## nitehawk55 (Sep 19, 2007)

I made that comment about the "booze" because that's the state he was in ( drunk ) when these kids were left to freeze to death , it was not directed at him for the fact that he is native....I did not intend it that way . Sorry if that was misunderstood .

I do doubt however that he would get proper help in his community .


----------



## mrmatt1972 (Apr 3, 2008)

bagpipe said:


> I'd like to say more about this but its impossible with the new rules we have on the forum. I guess I'll leave it at that.


I figure since the guy who owns the forum started the thread, we can talk about it... :smile:


----------



## nitehawk55 (Sep 19, 2007)

bagpipe said:


> Robert1950 is commenting that the "heal in the community with more booze" comment is a stereotype of aboriginal people, and I agree with him (about that being a stereotype). I'd like to say more about this but its impossible with the new rules we have on the forum. I guess I'll leave it at that.


Let er fly BP....say your say..........


----------



## Luke98 (Mar 4, 2007)

I don't believe this man sought a sentencing circle because of his cultural beliefs. Aboriginal elder's have their beliefs, and are entitled to them. But this man, who I hesitate to call a man, should have faced the supreme court. Save the sentencing circle for people who respect their culture, don't let people like him abuse it so, seeking a 'keep me out of jail please, I do feel bad about neglecting my children in the absolute worst way' card. Now if he is true & respectful to his culture, correct me please.


----------



## Geek (Jun 5, 2007)

Andy said:


> Three years? I was thinking along the lines of fifteen.


At least he got something. That Li guy got a retreat at the koo-koo spa on our tab!


----------



## Luke98 (Mar 4, 2007)

Geek said:


> At least he got something. That Li guy got a retreat at the koo-koo spa on our tab!


But look at what he did to get there. No sane person could do that...


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Geek said:


> At least he got something. That Li guy got a retreat at the koo-koo spa on our tab!



Yes, darn shame. Most LGW's (though I think the designation has changed recently) spend many decades longer incarcerated in a secured hospital than they would had they been sent to a prison. They are also stripped of their right to refuse treatment, many of them are electro shocked a lot, (a friend of mine had over 240 ECT's in Nova Scotia and he he has trouble not just talking but standing and walking now, cannot remember any years prior to the last current few etc what a mess he is) or injected with any number of "new trial drugs" etc (I have friends that have spent significant time at penetanguishen and ... I'd prefer to pick the soap up in the prison shower than go through what they did.)

Being sent to a hospital is far worse a punishment than being sent to a prison. You do not get a gym (I would not call at least what is at Lakehead a gym, more like a bunch of semi-rusty smelly things), a spa (it became illegal to submerse people in hot tubs so the hospitals got rid of them), an education (St Charles if you are lucky), regular outside time in the sun (that you need to apply for, and can be denied), traveling musitians visiting to give concerts (you need more ID to enter a secured hospital than you do a prison), or get to put on plays dressed up in dresses (Im not even going to go there). You get a steel tube framed bed, leather straps and shots in the ass of whatever the psychiatrist wants to shoot in your ass for as many years as that psychiatrist thinks he wants to keep you there with little oversight and little judicial review and no parole board and no examination by your jailors pears (yea the advocacy office is supposed to help you do all that, hard to talk when you are so full of haldol or cpz or stella [thats the legal ones, I have friends that suffered this choice of history http://www.1888pressrelease.com/use...d-experimental-and-inhumane-pr-60p5w8g6o.html ] you can only shake and mumble, some do manage to get an appeal herd but it is really really really tough and rare).

The usual outcome. You are incarcerated in a room for the remainder of your life without hospital privledges or outside privledges. Outside privledges... well, for example my late friend Tom. I had to 1) sign for him. 2) sign a declaration of responcibility for him. 3) sign a statment that any conversations I had with him were not privledged and must be reported on when asked on return. 4) sign the time in and out in advance. 5) sign a legal responcibilty for failure to return at the stated return time subjecting myself to possible legal action... we were allowed to walk to the duck pond, sit on a bench, feed the ducks, and walk back to the hospita. Total distance walked 100 yards, total time 1 hour. That was all he was allowed for that month while the experience was reviewed. A few months later, Tom succeeded in commiting suicide. 

Nope, prison for 10 or 15 or 25 years, good gym, sports teams, education, conjugal visits, that is the better option.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Geek said:


> At least he got something. That Li guy got a retreat at the koo-koo spa on our tab!


He would have been on our tab whether he went to jail or to a psychiatric ward.

It's tough to deny that Li was insane. I think the concern is that in five or ten years, some softhearted administrator could turn him loose or at least decrease his supervision.

On the other hand, a jail term would put him out among us as soon as he was eligible for parole.


Personally I think he should be kept locked up in an institution until he expires, but that's just my opinion.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

mrmatt1972 said:


> I figure since the guy who owns the forum started the thread, we can talk about it... :smile:


Don't grasp at the native thing. There are alcoholics in all walks of life. Poor, affluent. All cultures, all races. it does not even enter into my mind that this guy is a native. Makes absolutely no difference to me at all. I don't give a flying f&*^ what the elders think. It is a simple case of neglect, raw stupidity and selfishness. Leave the native thing out of it. if you want to talk about the problems with the native community then take that one somewhere else.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Public approaches to incarceration, and sentences in particular, are weird sometimes, largely because they reflect an assortment of motivations. So lets disassemble what it is we want from a sentence in order to make better sense of this case.

1) We believe that punishment is or ought to be a *reflection of moral outrage* at what an offender/perpetrator has done. So, if something morally offends us more, we expect the resulting sentence to be longer, "stiffer", more severe in some way. That is sometimes reflected in the anger or frustration some express over *where* a person serves their sentence. In keeping with this, we might see less public sympathy for someone wrongly convicted for something who spends 4 years in a Canadian federal jail than for someone wrongly convicted of the same thing who spends 2 years in an Algerian or Iraqi or Chinese jail. All cultural biases aside, we think that not only are there longer and shorter sentences, but that some sentences of equivalent length can be harsher because of where they are served and the conditions there.

2) We believe that sentences should serve to protect the public by *removing a potentially harmful person* from circulation. So, if they did something that was awful, we should be protected from them longer. Since the need for protecting the public varies as a function of the original offense, and the circumstances, we'll see many sentences be surprisingly short (in contrast to what point #1 might predict), or see long sentences reduced by early parole. If some physical or psychological change in the offender (say I beat a guy to death, but now after 3 years I'm wheelchair bound and have difficulty staying alert because of respiratory problems) makes it highly unlikely that they would re-offend in the same or similar manner, then the need for public protection is reduced. Alternatively, if the circumstances are extremely rare and unlikely to repeat (and Robert Latimer is the poster child for this), then sentence would be truncated in some manner from what it was originally, either in terms of length or severity.

3) We believe that sentences and incarceration provide an *opportunity for the offender to reflect and reform*, emerging a different person (hence the term "penitentiary" - where one engages in penitence). Offenses that we think deserve VERY serious reflection, and involve battleship, as opposed to motorboat, turnarounds will get longer sentences. I might think a guy who was arrested for his 6th DUI (but without actually harming anyone at any point) would require less time to reflect and reform than a guy who held up a bank (for the 3rd time) and deliberately killed a security guard. In the one case, the person should have stopped to think, and in the other, no matter how much thought was put in, the thinking was dead wrong, so we figure the one case will need more time than the other for the turnaround. I hasten to add here that sitting on your own, or schmoozing with other offenders, is not necessarily a pathway to insight and personal reformation. The working assumption is that longer sentence provides an opportunity for more psychological intervention and reshaping. Sadly, that does not tend to happen as much as it needs to. A buddy who worked with violent sexual offenders in the federal system for darn near 20 years told me on one of his more cynical days that the typical pattern is a sentence of 7 years, the first 6 of which are spent in a masturbatory fantasy world, before any real treatment begins. At which point, the opportunity for reform is often lost; not that a year of intensive therapy is nothing, but if neglected for 6 years, a year is unlikely to be enough and certainly not soon enough.

I hasten to add that this is entirely separate from opportunity for treatment in the case of those whose offense was committed as a result of a transitory or permanent physical condition. Vince Li is going away for a long time, simply because, even though there are bouts of near normalcy (thank goodness for the families' sake) there is currently no "cure" for schizophrenia. In other instances, it may well be possible for effective treatment. In other cases, even though there is ostensibly no "mental illness" (the Paul Bernardos of the world), the personality qualities of the offender may render them unfit for public circulation ever again.

4) We believe that severity of sentencing should *reflect community values*, or in the words of some politicians "send a message". So, if I get 3 months for murdering my daughter because she was marrying someone of the other religious sect, but I get 9 years for blasphemy, then clearly the priorities of the community are conveyed to me that when the rights of the religion and the rights of women are stacked up against each other, religion holds all trump cards. This is part of point #1 concerning moral outrage, but I list it separately because #1 is often not just what a person did but how they did it. So, the fact that Vincent Li killed Timothy McLean is obviously reprehensible and we expect a substantive sentence for that, but the fact that McLean was killed in the way he was is the sort of thing that evokes outrage and cries for a "tougher" sentence, than if Li had simply kicked him out the door (because he was "the devil") while the bus was moving and McLean died as a result of injuries. Conversely, when we read about the two Canadian kids in Saudi Arabia who face beheading for what is basically a schoolyard fight that went wrong and ended in a death, we're a little shaken up because that death did not disgust us quite as much. In Ottawa, a kid was stabbed to death on a city bus during a tussle over his Ipod. Seems the perpetrator saw the device, covetted it, and when the kid he didn't know wouldn't turn it over, things got ugly and a knife was drawn. Its some 2 years later and I still drive by the bus stop where the flowers are regularly renewed. In this case, the idea that one would kill someone (or at least not step away from the possibility that someone might get killed or even hurt real bad, by accident) over such a trivial device in such a public place evoked outrage but also elicited a sentence intended to convey that "We just don't do that sort of thing". Personally, I'd be interested to see a study of attitudes conducted of inmates, and get them to rank how bad different actions are. That is, give them a list of crimes/offenses, complete with circumstances and consequences (e.g., victim was permanently blinded and unable to work any more), and get them to rate each offense on a scale of 1 to 100. Now compare their average ratings against the average sentence given out in Canada for those same offenses. My guess is that the one would not track the other. I'd guess that their offense ratings would be similar to ours in many ways, but the sentences would not correspond. So, although we want the severity of sentence to convey a message, the lack of co-ordination across cases (often because of the strength of the prosecution's case and the role "efficiency" and public interest plays) often undermines the ability of sentences to convey that message clearly.


I know there are several other dimensions that I'm forgetting, but this provides a quick summary, and initiates an approach to thinking about the matter.

So, in the case of Christopher Pauchay, what is it we expect/need/want the sentence to do? Does it need to send a message? Nothing more than it currently sends. The guy, and everyone in the community knows that what happened was awful. Does the public need to be protected from him? Well, I wouldn't want him running a daycare, but generally speaking, he's harmless; negligent, but harmless. The likelihood of re-offending in the same way is low. Note that if the mother of the children wasn't such a shaky case herself, Pauchay wouldn't be such of an issue in terms of child safety. Does the offense disgust us or evoke outrage? Yes, but it is the fatal consequences, not his intent. He obviously wasn't trying to hurt the kids. Does the sentence reflect community values? Yes. It is not trivial. Does the sentence provide an opportunity to reform? That would depend. Three years is more than enough to do the job, but it won't happen spontaneously. Efforts have to be made.

As for sentencing circles, understand that these presume the offender will be known to the community. It becomes a bit like walking around with a T-shirt that says "I killed my kids through stupidity". The perpetual public scorn IS part of the sentence.


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

My thanks button seems to be missing again today, or I'd thank GuitarsCanada. I don't care what danger this man presents to the public today. I don't care what his intentions, hopes or dreams were for his children. His selfish and irresponsible conduct cost him his children's life, and all he'd hoped and wanted for them with it. Three lousy years won't do a damn thing for them, his community or himself. Paul brings up an excellent point in regards to the Latimer case. How was he more deserving than this man of eight years in jail? 

Shawn


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Paul said:


> 2) I brought up a lousy point with Latimer. I cannot justify logically what I feel emotionally.....Latimer really challenges our ideas of justice and mercy. I haven't resolved my ideas yet.


That's a really tough case to figure. Clearly the guy is insane. There was no motive, no provocation, nothing. So for that one I have to lean towards the decision that they made. He needs big time help and observation. Also, unlike the OP case I think this guy needs to be kept away from the public for a very long time if not forever. I did post earlier that Pauchay should be put away forever as well, but that is just feelings VS justice. I think the 3 years is appropriate in terms of the law. He could pose a danger to others but if anything I think it would be a repeat of what he did. I think any other time he is going to be so drunk that he is not going to pose a danger to anyone but himself, as long as he never gets behind the wheel of a car or has access to some kind of gun. 

I know the victims family in the Li case is outraged right now. They say they will try to change laws etc. But this one reminds me of that freak that went wild at that University in the states a few years back. This was brewing for a long time. There were many signs that this person was ready to pop. So those two cases we have to go back and say "what could have been done to prevent it?"

The Pauchay case is just pure nasty. This is a person that does not have a mental problem "that we know of". he had and has every opportunity to change his life for the better but will not. So for him I have no sympathy. this Li guy is way, way out there based on some of the conversations I have read.


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

There seems to be a little confusion here so I'm posting thgis link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Latimer


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

GuitarsCanada said:


> That's a really tough case to figure. Clearly the guy is insane. There was no motive, no provocation, nothing. So for that one I have to lean towards the decision that they made. He needs big time help and observation. Also, unlike the OP case I think this guy needs to be kept away from the public for a very long time if not forever. I did post earlier that Pauchay should be put away forever as well, but that is just feelings VS justice. I think the 3 years is appropriate in terms of the law. He could pose a danger to others but if anything I think it would be a repeat of what he did. I think any other time he is going to be so drunk that he is not going to pose a danger to anyone but himself, as long as he never gets behind the wheel of a car or has access to some kind of gun.
> 
> I know the victims family in the Li case is outraged right now. They say they will try to change laws etc. But this one reminds me of that freak that went wild at that University in the states a few years back. This was brewing for a long time. There were many signs that this person was ready to pop. So those two cases we have to go back and say "what could have been done to prevent it?"
> 
> The Pauchay case is just pure nasty. This is a person that does not have a mental problem "that we know of". he had and has every opportunity to change his life for the better but will not. So for him I have no sympathy. this Li guy is way, way out there based on some of the conversations I have read.


Indeed. Whenever something like this happens there are always people that wish the law was different. Li will need to prove that if he ever does go psychotic again he wont be criminally insane during that psychosis. Essentially that will never ever happen because there is no way to prove that and so he is very likely to die of old age in a hospital room.

For me, being a dad of two young kids, being a bit of a rebel, being a bit of a civil libertarian, and just being a feeling person, the OP story I feel that man should be incarcerated much longer than 3 years. That is my feeling side, that he is not justly punished for his crime.

Robert Latimer though, I long ago decided to not in any way hate him or wish the retribution of justice on him. As a dad, in that position, there is no way I could say I would not make the same decision :/


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Rugburn said:


> There seems to be a little confusion here so I'm posting thgis link.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Latimer


Yes, indeed, I was speaking of the Li case. Latimer, no comment.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Rugburn said:


> Paul brings up an excellent point in regards to the Latimer case. How was he more deserving than this man of eight years in jail?


The Latimer case is an interesting one. Clearly, the risk of re-offending is nil; he did something with respect to one person, and he's no Jack Kevorkian who will keep showing up in conspicuous places. In part, though, his specific sentence was partly informed by the response of the disabled community, who wanted to send a message that they are perfectly capable of judging the quality and worth of their own lives, and when they can't express it, you err on the side of life. I won't pretend that is the only view but certainly advocacy groups expressed that. 

The second parameter is that the law distinguishes between a) intent to kill and no clear intent, and b) between planned intent and spontaneous intent. Premeditated murder gets you more time than nonpremeditated, spontaneous intent to kill gets you more time than mere intent to harm with death as an unintended incidental, and all of these will get you more time than no intent to harm whatsoever but death as an incidental. It was clear that, whatever you think of the motivation underlying his intent, Robert Latimer deliberately intended to end his daughter Tracy's life. It is also clear that, whatever you think of his level of conscientiousness or carelessness, or fitness to be a parent, Christopher Pauchay had absolutely NO intent to cause harm. So, in the grand scheme of things, the sentences are actually pretty much in line with each other, and with what the law says.

Addendum: Note that the parole mechanism allows the law to separate among the various motives for sentencing. So, Latimer received the sort of sentence that indicated what society's priorities and values are, but the manner in which he was granted release is in line with the other motives, such as what we feel is the need to be protected from him and likelihood of re-offending.


----------

