Not putting away psychotic loose cannons like this is what have given the governments powers to take the rest of us law abiding citizens rights. By not taking people like this man off the streets and letting him continue to prey on others is the impetus for more and more restrictions on the rest of us with no recourse. His victims seem to be many and his punishment looks to be nil. Does he have to kill someone or maim another before they realize that he's a dangerous felon that should never see the light of day? I don't understand why you are shocked. Maybe you should rent him some space in your home so you could 'Fix' his problem?

Zindo

This is indeed shocking.
Not that this guy doesn't have issues, but that they would choose a indefinite sentence over perhaps a psychological interment. It would be unlikely that he would receive any kind of rehab in the prison system.

I am not surprised that this would be coming out of Ontario, they have some very odd methods there. I believe the dangerous offender law was intended to keep society safe from those that would serial kill, rape, chop people up or any of those kinds of offenses.

For the Americans, this is Canada's version of the 3 strike rule in some states. Habitual Criminal status where you can be imprisoned with no release date.

..Ex

As an added note to Zindo, when we allow society to imprison anyone without just cause, we risk the very freedoms your post refers to. They aren't taking away our rights to protect guys like these, they are taking away our rights so that they can continue to reap the rewards of our daily lives.

By the logic in your post, if I were to be a chronic speeder, or drive without insurance repeatedly, should they not remove me from society to protect your right to drive? We have no real information except what they are claiming he did. No real data at all. He should be in an institution, agreed. But the prison sentence they are referring to will only ensure that he becomes a wasted life.

..ex

[edit on 11/21/2009 by v3_exceed]

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
Not putting away psychotic loose cannons like this is what have given the governments powers to take the rest of us law abiding citizens rights. By not taking people like this man off the streets and letting him continue to prey on others is the impetus for more and more restrictions on the rest of us with no recourse. His victims seem to be many and his punishment looks to be nil. Does he have to kill someone or maim another before they realize that he's a dangerous felon that should never see the light of day? I don't understand why you are shocked. Maybe you should rent him some space in your home so you could 'Fix' his problem?

Zindo

I'm with you, Zindo.
This man's not insane, he just likes to get his own way with women and will harass/hurt/injure them if he can't. Some people just choose to act like that and then make it a habit because they enjoy it.

He's a murder waiting to happen if he's set free.

They're not talking about what he *might* do; they're talking about what he's already done. He has already harassed several women, including causing them physical harm. Pushing someone down stairs could kill them. Moreover, he violated the terms of his supervision. What more do you want?

True, he doesn't have a smoking gun in his hands and a dead woman he just murdered. Are we supposed to wait until that happens, before locking him up? He's already demonstrated violence against women. He has continued to harass them. What more do you need to believe he's a dangerous criminal?

I don't much care for locking a person up for life, but this guy needs to be kept off the streets. Maybe he could be treated, but it's really hard to tell if someone is rehabilitated until they go back to their crimes. However it's done, this guy is dangerous, and needs to be kept away from society.

This is the crux of the article:

"His record is replete with acts of violence and threats against women. At the same time, he has never been accused of a sexual offence and there are no convictions for crimes that normally lead to a dangerous offender label."

So while he has not yet committed a crime that would make him eligible for Dangerous Offender Status, he might so lets apply that now - is that what you are saying?

[edit on 21-11-2009 by leo123]

Originally posted by Kailassa
I'm with you, Zindo.
This man's not insane, he just likes to get his own way with women and will harass/hurt/injure them if he can't. Some people just choose to act like that and then make it a habit because they enjoy it.

He's a murder waiting to happen if he's set free.

Well, this guy sounds like any number of people at your local night club. Yes, he's a turd, yes he needs to have these issues addressed. But to claim he's a murderer waiting to happen is a long stretch at the least. He had not been convicted of any crime that would warrant a dangerous offender conviction. He hasn't killed or raped anyone, but on the premise that he "Might" our tax dollars should house and feed him for the rest of his life?

I can think of hundreds of other people in society, beating their kids, beating their wives, who have also not been convicted that should also be considered as such if that is the case. How many alcoholics can any one of us think back on, with a wife or kids that mysteriously end up with bruises or such?

I'm not in any way defending this guys attitude, or his actions. What I'm defending is the inane notion that anyone who "might" commit a grievous offense should be tagged as a dangerous offender and given a lifetime of free food and living conditions. By this notion, any person over 18 with a string of bad relationships could be considered thus and put away for life.

I just can't believe the dangerous offender designation was intended to rid society of people who had not been convicted of dangerous crimes, but lived their lives as jerks. I can' think of a few bankers that would fit the bill if that is the case.

..Ex

The guy shows a consistent propensity towards aggression, violence, and escalation of violence and terror tactics.

But he does it only to women.

So it doesn't count.

Not because it isn't a problem.

But because if you lock this guy up, there are enough other guys who are almost exactly like him around. And they all think that it isn't "that bad."

What is it exactly that one thinks a guy who is stalking a woman is intending? Roll that one around in your head for a while. Because the guy stalking a woman, he isn't planning anything vaguely good. Even his BEST possible reason is still terrifying.

[edit on 2009/11/22 by Aeons]

Originally posted by Aeons
The guy shows a consistent propensity towards aggression, violence, and escalation of violence and terror tactics.

But he does it only to women.

So it doesn't count.

Not because it isn't a problem.

But because if you lock this guy up, there are enough other guys who are almost exactly like him around. And they all think that it isn't "that bad."

What is it exactly that one thinks a guy who is stalking a woman is intending? Roll that one around in your head for a while. Because the guy stalking a woman, he isn't planning anything vaguely good. Even his BEST possible reason is still terrifying.

[edit on 2009/11/22 by Aeons]

Aeons:

You certainly have a point, but it the topic you raise is certainly gender neutral.

It may not be gender neutral.

There are women who are problematic. But one should not ignore the differences that are defining to the point that one loses sight of immediate issues.

Men are more likely to be the stalker, and more likely to be a violent criminal. Women CAN do those things. Women have done those things. Men are still the more likely candidate, and that is important information.

Women and children - particularly girl children - are told this little truth-that-isn't all the time. Don't just judge the guys. And because of it, they be nice and end up in danger. Because they don't want to be unfair.

It may be a gender neutral set of crimes. But the perpetrators are far more likely to be male. Males are by overwhelmingly heterosexual. Therefore the targets of these bad men are women.

That is just a fact. It doesn't negate that women may be the perp. It is however, way less likely.

Originally posted by leo123
This is the crux of the article:

"His record is replete with acts of violence and threats against women. At the same time, he has never been accused of a sexual offence and there are no convictions for crimes that normally lead to a dangerous offender label."

So while he has not yet committed a crime that would make him eligible for Dangerous Offender Status, he might so lets apply that now - is that what you are saying?

[edit on 21-11-2009 by leo123]

He did pick up a few of these women in night clubs and prays on the insecure. So I am sure there are lots of "turds" that one meets int he night club but saying that JGT is a turd? TORTURING women and children is much more than that.

Originally posted by v3_exceed

Originally posted by Kailassa
I'm with you, Zindo.
This man's not insane, he just likes to get his own way with women and will harass/hurt/injure them if he can't. Some people just choose to act like that and then make it a habit because they enjoy it.

He's a murder waiting to happen if he's set free.

Well, this guy sounds like any number of people at your local night club. Yes, he's a turd, yes he needs to have these issues addressed. But to claim he's a murderer waiting to happen is a long stretch at the least. He had not been convicted of any crime that would warrant a dangerous offender conviction. He hasn't killed or raped anyone, but on the premise that he "Might" our tax dollars should house and feed him for the rest of his life?

I can think of hundreds of other people in society, beating their kids, beating their wives, who have also not been convicted that should also be considered as such if that is the case. How many alcoholics can any one of us think back on, with a wife or kids that mysteriously end up with bruises or such?

I'm not in any way defending this guys attitude, or his actions. What I'm defending is the inane notion that anyone who "might" commit a grievous offense should be tagged as a dangerous offender and given a lifetime of free food and living conditions. By this notion, any person over 18 with a string of bad relationships could be considered thus and put away for life.

I just can't believe the dangerous offender designation was intended to rid society of people who had not been convicted of dangerous crimes, but lived their lives as jerks. I can' think of a few bankers that would fit the bill if that is the case.

..Ex

They are looking at the pattern of his behaviour bringing it up to recent events in Ontario. Crowns were unsuccessful declaring him a DO in Alberta. The sooner he is locked up for good the better for every woman and child in CANADA. he has worked his way into how many provinces??? Not many left for him to try. How many lawyers does this guy have to hire and fire out of our tax payer money before a decision is made?????

He can always come to America and get a new identity.
We are letting in all criminal illegal immigrants and going to make them legitimate citizens,why wouldn't he just do that?