Question about Canadian Jails.

Caper · 15th May 2012, 02:53 PM

I was read a story about the Michael Rafferty case in Canada.

He was sentenced today to 25 to life. He is a child kidnapper and rapist, though it seems he got his young girlfriend to actually kill her. My question is. What will happen to him in jail? I hear child rapists aren't well liked in prison... and this case is huge in Canada. Will they try him out in the general population where he WILL be attacked? Or he be in protected custody.

Border Reiver · 15th May 2012, 04:34 PM

First, the sentence is Life - with no possiblity of parole until he has served 25 years (and if he gets parole, then he has at least weekly checkins with the parole board until he's pushing up daisies) - in the GWN, life is life.

Second, he'll be placed in a max security prison - with more guards and less access to things like the yard for a while, and will be placed in a wing with the lifers. The lifers wing tends to be less rambunctious than the rest of GP as these are the guys that need to keep their nose clean to maintain their privileges and they know that they are under the direct control of the facility for a very long time, and it can take a long time to earn back something that is lost;

Third, he will not likely end up in GP where he'll be at risk - because letting him get shanked is likely to cause the guards who let it happen to be disciplined and if it could be shown they were part of it, they can get charged and they'd then have an even lower life expectancy than Mr. Rafferty.

He ain't gonna have a fun time, but he won't be killed there - too much paperwork.

My source, a brother who is a long term guest of Her Majesty.

Wolfman · 17th May 2012, 12:38 AM

Originally Posted by Border Reiver

First, the sentence is Life - with no possiblity of parole until he has served 25 years (and if he gets parole, then he has at least weekly checkins with the parole board until he's pushing up daisies) - in the GWN, life is life.

Not quite true...technically, he can apply for parole after 15 years under the "faint hope clause". This loophole has been removed from the books, but only for those charged after Dec. 2, 2011; anyone charged before that date (including Rafferty) can still apply for it.

However...there's no way that such an application will be approved, so it is more of a legal trivia question than an issue to actually be concerned about.

Border Reiver · 17th May 2012, 04:49 AM

The number of folks who have been allowed parole on the faint hope is minisicule as to be statistically insignificant.

Wolfman · 17th May 2012, 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by Border Reiver

The number of folks who have been allowed parole on the faint hope is minisicule as to be statistically insignificant.

Completely agree...which is pretty much what I said above. Just pointing out that the "no possibility of parole for 25 years" thing wasn't technically accurate

Molinaro · 18th May 2012, 10:23 PM

This story that I read in the paper a few days ago talks about the specific jail cell in which he will begin serving his time.

Foolmewunz · 18th May 2012, 11:15 PM

Originally Posted by Molinaro

This story that I read in the paper a few days ago talks about the specific jail cell in which he will begin serving his time.

Jeez - in that facility if you're determined to shank one of life's really bad 'uns... who the hell would you choose? (see the article)

Beerina · 19th May 2012, 07:42 AM

Originally Posted by Molinaro

This story that I read in the paper a few days ago talks about the specific jail cell in which he will begin serving his time.

That's...lovely. Bernardo is his neighbor.

Border Reiver · 19th May 2012, 07:05 PM

Originally Posted by Beerina

That's...lovely. Bernardo is his neighbor.

And so is Russell Williams

Foolmewunz · 19th May 2012, 08:40 PM

Originally Posted by Beerina

That's...lovely. Bernardo is his neighbor.

Originally Posted by Border Reiver

And so is Russell Williams

Like I said, "Where would you start?"

Gord_in_Toronto · 19th May 2012, 08:44 PM

Because of this thread, I wondered where Clifford Olson was now. Turns out he's roasting in Hell.

Beerina · 5th June 2012, 06:20 AM

Originally Posted by Border Reiver

First, the sentence is Life - with no possiblity of parole until he has served 25 years (and if he gets parole, then he has at least weekly checkins with the parole board until he's pushing up daisies) - in the GWN, life is life.

Government should be forbidden from using the term "no possibility of parole" except when it actually applies -- on a life sentence.

"...for x years" is just standard parole.

Bandersnatch · 7th June 2012, 03:17 PM

As a side note, that prison is probably closing.

Kingston Pen to Close

KevinCanada · 14th June 2012, 07:37 PM

Originally Posted by Beerina

Government should be forbidden from using the term "no possibility of parole" except when it actually applies -- on a life sentence.

"...for x years" is just standard parole.

It's 25 years to life with no chance of parole for any reason for the first 25 years of the sentence.

"dangerous offender status" is a life a real life sentence, meaning you are never getting out for any reason. No parole hearings.

Stanley Tippett received this last year.

LashL · 15th June 2012, 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by KevinCanada

"dangerous offender status" is a life a real life sentence, meaning you are never getting out for any reason. No parole hearings.

That's not accurate, actually. If one is designated a dangerous offender and given an indeterminate sentence, the offender is first eligible for day parole after 4 years, and first eligible for full parole after 7 years. Parole hearings must be held in accordance with the legislation, which provides for such hearings every two years once the first eligibility date is reached.

In practice, however, very few dangerous offenders get released until many years of incarceration have passed, but they are entitled to and do receive regular parole hearings along the way. And if released eventually, a dangerous offender is still subject to conditions of release which, if breached, can result in re-incarceration as their conditional release can be cancelled/revoked. In addition, even after conditional release, they can be brought back into custody for re-assessment if there is reason to believe that the offender presents a greater risk of re-offending.

There is a primer about it here.

KevinCanada · 15th June 2012, 01:48 PM

From your primer link. Once you have your hearing and it done, you are done forever you will rot in jail. The hearing is to see if you there is a chance you can "recover" from your illness that you enable you to commit said crimes. If the result of the hearing is no chance of rehabilitation then forever you are locked up. If there is a chance of rehab then you can be dropped into the medical system with a chance of getting out.

In the Stanley Tippett case he lost at his hearing. So he is forever screwed, Like Paul Bernardo.

2.1.1 What is a dangerous offender designation?

Part XXIV of the Criminal Code allows the Crown prosecutor to present evidence arguing that a person who has just been convicted of sexual assault or another "serious personal injury offense" is a dangerous offender. If the individual is designated a dangerous offender, the court is required to sentence them to indeterminate detention in a penitentiary, unless it is satisfied that the evidence introduced during the dangerous offender hearing shows that a sentence of two years or more plus long-term supervision or a regular sentence would adequately protect the public: S.753(4.1).

LashL · 15th June 2012, 07:09 PM

Originally Posted by KevinCanada

From your primer link. Once you have your hearing and it done, you are done forever you will rot in jail. The hearing is to see if you there is a chance you can "recover" from your illness that you enable you to commit said crimes. If the result of the hearing is no chance of rehabilitation then forever you are locked up. If there is a chance of rehab then you can be dropped into the medical system with a chance of getting out.

No, what you are saying is not accurate at all. Someone who has been designated a dangerous offender and been given an indeterminate sentence is entitled to parole hearings starting from the four year mark for 'day parole', the seven year mark for 'full parole' and every two years thereafter. These hearings do, in fact, take place.

Originally Posted by KevinCanada

In the Stanley Tippett case he lost at his hearing. So he is forever screwed, Like Paul Bernardo.

No, that is not accurate either. Mr. Tippett was designated a dangerous offender 8 months ago although he was convicted initially in August 2008 so he is not even entitled to his first parole hearing yet, but he will be entitled to many over the coming years. It is not at all accurate to say that he has had a parole hearing and "lost" or that he is "forever screwed".

I do not know where you are getting your information from, but it is quite wrong.

Corsair 115 · 15th June 2012, 10:47 PM

Can't those designated a 'dangerous offender' apply for what's known as the 'faint hope clause' to get paroled as well?

LashL · 16th June 2012, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

Can't those designated a 'dangerous offender' apply for what's known as the 'faint hope clause' to get paroled as well?

I don't think so, but I am not entirely sure so I will have to look into it further. What I believe, though, is that those who are designated dangerous offenders go on a different pathway to parole, much like those who are designated NCR, and I do not believe that those in either group are able to make use of the 'faint hope clause' (which, incidentally, has been completely repealed so it is only available now to those whose crimes were committed before the repeal took effect in 2011).

As an aside, there was also a previous amendment to the Criminal Code (in early 1997, I believe) that provided that application for parole under the 'faint hope clause' is not available to those who were convicted of more than one murder, so its application had been restricted in some ways for quite some time before being completely repealed last year.

15th May 2012, 02:53 PM	#1
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,950	Question about Canadian Jails. I was read a story about the Michael Rafferty case in Canada. He was sentenced today to 25 to life. He is a child kidnapper and rapist, though it seems he got his young girlfriend to actually kill her. My question is. What will happen to him in jail? I hear child rapists aren't well liked in prison... and this case is huge in Canada. Will they try him out in the general population where he WILL be attacked? Or he be in protected custody.
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,950

15th May 2012, 04:34 PM	#2
Border Reiver Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Ottawa, ON Posts: 2,187	First, the sentence is Life - with no possiblity of parole until he has served 25 years (and if he gets parole, then he has at least weekly checkins with the parole board until he's pushing up daisies) - in the GWN, life is life. Second, he'll be placed in a max security prison - with more guards and less access to things like the yard for a while, and will be placed in a wing with the lifers. The lifers wing tends to be less rambunctious than the rest of GP as these are the guys that need to keep their nose clean to maintain their privileges and they know that they are under the direct control of the facility for a very long time, and it can take a long time to earn back something that is lost; Third, he will not likely end up in GP where he'll be at risk - because letting him get shanked is likely to cause the guards who let it happen to be disciplined and if it could be shown they were part of it, they can get charged and they'd then have an even lower life expectancy than Mr. Rafferty. He ain't gonna have a fun time, but he won't be killed there - too much paperwork. My source, a brother who is a long term guest of Her Majesty.
	__________________ Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?

17th May 2012, 12:38 AM	#3
Wolfman Chief Solipsistic Autosycophant Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Dongguan, China Posts: 11,809	Originally Posted by Border Reiver First, the sentence is Life - with no possiblity of parole until he has served 25 years (and if he gets parole, then he has at least weekly checkins with the parole board until he's pushing up daisies) - in the GWN, life is life. Not quite true...technically, he can apply for parole after 15 years under the "faint hope clause". This loophole has been removed from the books, but only for those charged after Dec. 2, 2011; anyone charged before that date (including Rafferty) can still apply for it. However...there's no way that such an application will be approved, so it is more of a legal trivia question than an issue to actually be concerned about.
	__________________ The Meta-Solipsistic Autosycophant mantra: "I post, therefore I am nominated"

17th May 2012, 04:49 AM	#4
Border Reiver Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Ottawa, ON Posts: 2,187	The number of folks who have been allowed parole on the faint hope is minisicule as to be statistically insignificant.
	__________________ Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?

17th May 2012, 04:32 PM	#5
Wolfman Chief Solipsistic Autosycophant Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Dongguan, China Posts: 11,809	Originally Posted by Border Reiver The number of folks who have been allowed parole on the faint hope is minisicule as to be statistically insignificant. Completely agree...which is pretty much what I said above. Just pointing out that the "no possibility of parole for 25 years" thing wasn't technically accurate
	__________________ The Meta-Solipsistic Autosycophant mantra: "I post, therefore I am nominated"

18th May 2012, 10:23 PM	#6
Molinaro Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,031	This story that I read in the paper a few days ago talks about the specific jail cell in which he will begin serving his time.
	__________________ 100% Cannuck!

18th May 2012, 11:15 PM	#7
Foolmewunz Grammar Resistance Leader Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Pattaya, Thailand Posts: 20,520	Originally Posted by Molinaro This story that I read in the paper a few days ago talks about the specific jail cell in which he will begin serving his time. Jeez - in that facility if you're determined to shank one of life's really bad 'uns... who the hell would you choose? (see the article)
	__________________ Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele Don't you wish someone had slapped baby Hitler really really hard? [i] Dr. Buzzo 02/13 [i]

19th May 2012, 07:42 AM	#8
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Originally Posted by Molinaro This story that I read in the paper a few days ago talks about the specific jail cell in which he will begin serving his time. That's...lovely. Bernardo is his neighbor.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

19th May 2012, 07:05 PM	#9
Border Reiver Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Ottawa, ON Posts: 2,187	Originally Posted by Beerina That's...lovely. Bernardo is his neighbor. And so is Russell Williams
	__________________ Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?

19th May 2012, 08:40 PM	#10
Foolmewunz Grammar Resistance Leader Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Pattaya, Thailand Posts: 20,520	Originally Posted by Beerina That's...lovely. Bernardo is his neighbor. Originally Posted by Border Reiver And so is Russell Williams Like I said, "Where would you start?"
	__________________ Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele Don't you wish someone had slapped baby Hitler really really hard? [i] Dr. Buzzo 02/13 [i]

19th May 2012, 08:44 PM	#11
Gord_in_Toronto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 13,417	Because of this thread, I wondered where Clifford Olson was now. Turns out he's roasting in Hell.
	__________________ "Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick

5th June 2012, 06:20 AM	#12
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Originally Posted by Border Reiver First, the sentence is Life - with no possiblity of parole until he has served 25 years (and if he gets parole, then he has at least weekly checkins with the parole board until he's pushing up daisies) - in the GWN, life is life. Government should be forbidden from using the term "no possibility of parole" except when it actually applies -- on a life sentence. "...for x years" is just standard parole.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

7th June 2012, 03:17 PM	#13
Bandersnatch Critical Thinker Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 411	As a side note, that prison is probably closing. Kingston Pen to Close

14th June 2012, 07:37 PM	#14
KevinCanada Thinker Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 183	Originally Posted by Beerina Government should be forbidden from using the term "no possibility of parole" except when it actually applies -- on a life sentence. "...for x years" is just standard parole. It's 25 years to life with no chance of parole for any reason for the first 25 years of the sentence. "dangerous offender status" is a life a real life sentence, meaning you are never getting out for any reason. No parole hearings. Stanley Tippett received this last year.
KevinCanada Thinker Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 183

15th June 2012, 10:55 AM	#15
LashL Goddess of Legaltainment™ Administrator Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 26,225	Originally Posted by KevinCanada "dangerous offender status" is a life a real life sentence, meaning you are never getting out for any reason. No parole hearings. That's not accurate, actually. If one is designated a dangerous offender and given an indeterminate sentence, the offender is first eligible for day parole after 4 years, and first eligible for full parole after 7 years. Parole hearings must be held in accordance with the legislation, which provides for such hearings every two years once the first eligibility date is reached. In practice, however, very few dangerous offenders get released until many years of incarceration have passed, but they are entitled to and do receive regular parole hearings along the way. And if released eventually, a dangerous offender is still subject to conditions of release which, if breached, can result in re-incarceration as their conditional release can be cancelled/revoked. In addition, even after conditional release, they can be brought back into custody for re-assessment if there is reason to believe that the offender presents a greater risk of re-offending. There is a primer about it here.

15th June 2012, 01:48 PM	#16
KevinCanada Thinker Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 183	From your primer link. Once you have your hearing and it done, you are done forever you will rot in jail. The hearing is to see if you there is a chance you can "recover" from your illness that you enable you to commit said crimes. If the result of the hearing is no chance of rehabilitation then forever you are locked up. If there is a chance of rehab then you can be dropped into the medical system with a chance of getting out. In the Stanley Tippett case he lost at his hearing. So he is forever screwed, Like Paul Bernardo. 2.1.1 What is a dangerous offender designation? Part XXIV of the Criminal Code allows the Crown prosecutor to present evidence arguing that a person who has just been convicted of sexual assault or another "serious personal injury offense" is a dangerous offender. If the individual is designated a dangerous offender, the court is required to sentence them to indeterminate detention in a penitentiary, unless it is satisfied that the evidence introduced during the dangerous offender hearing shows that a sentence of two years or more plus long-term supervision or a regular sentence would adequately protect the public: S.753(4.1).
KevinCanada Thinker Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 183

15th June 2012, 07:09 PM	#17
LashL Goddess of Legaltainment™ Administrator Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 26,225	Originally Posted by KevinCanada From your primer link. Once you have your hearing and it done, you are done forever you will rot in jail. The hearing is to see if you there is a chance you can "recover" from your illness that you enable you to commit said crimes. If the result of the hearing is no chance of rehabilitation then forever you are locked up. If there is a chance of rehab then you can be dropped into the medical system with a chance of getting out. No, what you are saying is not accurate at all. Someone who has been designated a dangerous offender and been given an indeterminate sentence is entitled to parole hearings starting from the four year mark for 'day parole', the seven year mark for 'full parole' and every two years thereafter. These hearings do, in fact, take place. Originally Posted by KevinCanada In the Stanley Tippett case he lost at his hearing. So he is forever screwed, Like Paul Bernardo. No, that is not accurate either. Mr. Tippett was designated a dangerous offender 8 months ago although he was convicted initially in August 2008 so he is not even entitled to his first parole hearing yet, but he will be entitled to many over the coming years. It is not at all accurate to say that he has had a parole hearing and "lost" or that he is "forever screwed". I do not know where you are getting your information from, but it is quite wrong.
	Last edited by LashL; 15th June 2012 at 07:31 PM.

15th June 2012, 10:47 PM	#18
Corsair 115 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Tranquility Base Posts: 8,576	Can't those designated a 'dangerous offender' apply for what's known as the 'faint hope clause' to get paroled as well?
	__________________ "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win."

16th June 2012, 01:09 PM	#19
LashL Goddess of Legaltainment™ Administrator Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 26,225	Originally Posted by Corsair 115 Can't those designated a 'dangerous offender' apply for what's known as the 'faint hope clause' to get paroled as well? I don't think so, but I am not entirely sure so I will have to look into it further. What I believe, though, is that those who are designated dangerous offenders go on a different pathway to parole, much like those who are designated NCR, and I do not believe that those in either group are able to make use of the 'faint hope clause' (which, incidentally, has been completely repealed so it is only available now to those whose crimes were committed before the repeal took effect in 2011). As an aside, there was also a previous amendment to the Criminal Code (in early 1997, I believe) that provided that application for parole under the 'faint hope clause' is not available to those who were convicted of more than one murder, so its application had been restricted in some ways for quite some time before being completely repealed last year.