Thursday, April 7, 2016

Heroin addict stabs friend 20 times in dispute over drugs

The Vancouver Province is reporting that "A Maple Ridge woman who fatally stabbed a close friend in a dispute over drugs has been sentenced to life in prison with no parole eligibility for 11 years." Here we have a heroin addict who stabs her "friend" 20 times and kills her in a dispute over drugs. Maybe heroin is bad for you and we should stop promoting addiction and start helping people get off it? Wouldn't that be a novel idea?


  1. Hmmm, let's see..."life in prison".....parole eligibility in 11 years.....WTF... :headshake:

  2. 11 years in prison is more than enough. Life in prison doesn't help society. It is expensive and we gain nothing.

    It is doubtful this woman will kill again. of course it will be important she receives counselling and that is what is lacking in the prison system.

    There is a terrible lack of treatment centres for addicts. Unless you have person wealth, you are in a 28 day program which doesn't do much for an addict. Then the addict is returned to the same environment they were in previously.

    In my opinion, the government doesn't care about addicts. if they did, we'd have decent long term treatment centres. I don't expect them in my life time.

    It an interesting article you write given the one on CBC news regarding the role of human sacrifice played in ancient civilization. Not much has changed. the elites sacrifice the poor and sick to maintain their positions.

    1. The government cares about drug addicts. They profit from their exploitation.

  3. Actually life in prison is a double edged blade. It DOES protect society from a person who has proven they will kill another, the recidivism rate is zero. The problem is the expense of that protection, it basically costs an average yearly income to keep the person there. Corrections Depts are typically the second largest agency expenditure in a province or state, the largest being the Dept. of Highways. Quite frankly I'm not in favor of honest folks who work for a living bearing the tax burden to avoid the "inhumanity" of the death penalty. I care about the victim, their family and the taxpayer more than I do a murderer. In situations where there is undeniable evidence I am absolutely in favor of execution. It works for everyone but the guest of honour. Why should they ever walk free again and enjoy life when they took from another everything they had, or would ever have? JUSTICE.

    The worms have to eat too.

  4. Don't agree with capital punishment. It has never solved anything. (I know the response, they won't kill again)

    The 10 commandments state, "thou shalt not kill". it doesn't say except for the following reasons. Therefore no capital punishment, in my opinion.

    In my opinion it diminishes us all when we allow capital punishment. Just because the state is doing the killing, doesn't make it right.

    I'm also of the school, "better a 100 guilty men go free than one innocent one be convicted".

    There are no do overs with capital punishment and we have had enough cases in Canada where verdicts were over turned. had the convicted person been executed, it would not have been a good thing.

    Capital punishment is just one of those things some people are never going to agree on.

  5. lol OK guys play nice. Although I do steer away from conversations that are HA ass kissing BS, everyone does have a right to their opinion. Just as no two people agree on every issue, no two people disagree on every issue either. There is always common ground.

    Having a healthy debate about capital punishment is fine. Sadly although the old Testament said thou shalt not kill, there was massive capital punishment for stupid things back then. Amnesty International is a wonderful organization. They are also against capital punishment at all costs. I personally am not quite so passionate about it's opposition. I believe everything has it's time and place.

    Wrongful convictions like in the case of Hurricane Carter is always a concern yet for repeated murder, it may indeed save future lives. EAF leans a little to the left. There's nothing wrong with that. It just means we're not going to agree on every issue. Just like I don't agree with everyone on the right either. I take each issue on a case by case scenario.

  6. It is my understanding that the correct translation from the Hebrew is "Thou shalt not do murder". Thou shalt not kill would mean that if you killed someone in defense of your own life or another, this would also be a violation and that is obviously not correct. There is a difference between killing and murder. To put it another way, the judicial system classifies any killing of one by another as homicide, but then we have justifiable homicide where no legal penalty is attached. Same concept.

    1. Now we're having a healthy discussion. I did not know that. It appears that you are right. The Greek word means kill but the original Hebrew word means murder which kinda makes sense. Unless you're a vegan, you have to kill something if you want to have something to eat.

      Back when they had animal sacrifice they had to kill the animal. I was always a bit creeped out with the idea of Moses wiping the animal's blood on the altar in the temple (Exodus 24:6). That was a bit too Helter Skelter for me. Glad that it was all symbolic of the atoning blood of Jesus Christ and that Christ's sacrifice did away with all that.

      Reminds me of something Alan Watts once said. He said the literal translation of the Greek word sin was to miss the mark. Meaning if our object in life is to find lasting peace and happiness then to sin would be to miss that mark like an archer misses his target with an arrow, or a 9m for that matter.

    2. This is a much more correct understanding.

      If one is using the Holy Bible, one must read the New Testament in light of the Old and the Old in light of the New.

      You cannot divide them.

      The examples given (and one must be fully cognizant there are examples of both what to do and what not to do and each will demonstrate the outcomes and repercussions of each to show the "why") cannot be taken out of context (i.e. the "eye for an eye" example for personal, private revenge as opposed to the obligations and rights of lawful authority).

  7. "thou shalt not do murder", well I'm still with killing is murder, if it isn't in self defence. Now some may argue executing murderers is a form of self defence, but its a stretch. We just aren't going to agree, but its fun discussing.

    1. I don't think the definition changes anything. We all agree self defense is different. I think you would interpret capital punishment as murder.


Sorry. Comments have been closed. In the words of Martin Luther King, "I've seen too much hate to want to hate myself and every time I see it I say to myself that hate is too great a burden to bear. "

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.