Breaking news: Child-killer gets 15 years
Min Chen, the 21-year-old man who has plead guilty in the kidnapping and murder of Cecilia Zhang, has been handed down a sentence of 15 years without parole.
Fifteen years for a foreign national who murdered a 9 year old girl. According to his confession, Chen kidnapped Cecilia in a bizarre plot to extort $25,000 from Cecilia's parents in order to pay for a fake marriage in order to cheat the system and avoid deportation in Canada. He was in Canada on a student visa, and was failing academically. Cecilia was smothered to death moments after she was taken when Chen tried to silence her. He dumped her body in a ravine, where the skeletal remains were found 6 months later.
So the questions to you are these:
- Was the sentence fair?
- Is there a fair sentence possible in Canada for his crime?
- Is this an isolated incident, or an extreme example of the social disorder that comes from our immigration policies as implemented?
- What would you do to change things?
Here's something to get you started. Police lifted prints at the scene. Chen did no wear gloves and left clear prints on a window. Unfortunately, since people in this country on visas are not routinely fingerprinted, there was no way to match the prints to Chen until much laterin the investigation when he became a person of interest. So should we fingerprint all people entering this country on work or student visas?
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
Should we fingerprint people coming in on work or student visa's?
Definately. Picture and Finger Prints.
Next we'll put RFID's on them, think what a great idea that was, and put them on the rest of Canada.
Then the Liberals will take control, grab the database of who's who and where they are and hunt down all the Conservative voters by their travel patterns on a Sunday...
Posted by: tomax7 at May 12, 2006 11:28 AM
I don't agree with not deporting murderers to countries that have death penalties, when if they had done the crime in their own country they would be executed. Deport this monster back to where he came from. Either now, or after he has served his 15 years, but deport him none the less while we have him in custody, otherwise he may disappear in Canada and we might never find him.
Posted by: morison at May 12, 2006 11:46 AM
As someone who is currently LEGALLY importing her husband from the United States, I full support fingerprinting everyone who enters and leaves Canada.
My husband did not have to be fingerprinted to enter on a visitor's visa, but we did have to get send to every state and country he lived in since he was 18 to check for a criminal record when we applied for his Permanent Residency card... and he was in the army for 12 years... lol... I think we had six states and three countries that we needed to contact.
Posted by: Heather Cook at May 12, 2006 11:48 AM
Well as Cosh notes, this smells like something much darker than an ordinary kidnapping attempt gone wrong.
Sentence fair? He got life with no parole for 15 years, which is pretty stiff for 2nd degree. Should have been 1st degree, since death in the progress of another violent crime (i.e. kidnapping) qualifies as 1st in the Criminal Code.
I would not pin this on a failure of immigration policies so much as intense pressure from home to do well, put on a kid that was not that academically gifted (nor gifted with particularly strong moral fibre).
No opinion on fingerprinting although I am temperamentally inclined to see it as unwarranted.
Posted by: Chris Taylor at May 12, 2006 11:52 AM
Well, he did achieve his objective of staying in Canada
Posted by: Wimpy Canadian at May 12, 2006 12:03 PM
Finger printing for visas, immigrants, refugees, etc--YES!!! Would this not be considered a security issue? After all--we have cameras everywhere we go, we have no say in that! We fingerprint or footprint our children when they are born(still not mandatory, but recommended) and this is for Canadian citizens. Non-citizens are here at the goodwill of the country--and we must be assured that they reciprocate that good will. But then, we do not even do health checks for refugees etc. and that is why there is such a rise in the numbers of TB being reported.
As for this murderer--he should never get parole, he should serve his full sentence here and then be deported to China--do not pass go, do not collect $200. Me must be assured that he will never again be free in Canada.
I too do not believe we have the whole story on this--just what is politically correct to maintain 'good relations' with China.
This murderer is a good reason to bring back the death penalty. Honest citizens are the only ones in Canada living behind bars in fear.
Posted by: George at May 12, 2006 12:05 PM
There really is no such thing as fair and just punishment for murder,especially one so young. Fifteen years and then ship him back to China with no possibility of re-entry into Canada is minimally adequate.
I don't think fingerprinting everyone is going to make much difference. If the police have everyones fingerprints then all the criminals will routinely wear gloves when committing crime. These guys generally get caught without having their fingerprints beforehand anyway.
These kidnappings and murders are relatively rare. I don't think they can be predicted or prevented.
Posted by: steve d. at May 12, 2006 01:08 PM
Just a technical issue:
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he actually got sentenced to LIFE, with no possibility of parole for 15 years. He doesn't get paroled in 15 years, he becomes ELIGIBLE for parole in 15 years (as a matter of fact, the National Post refers to it as an "AUTOMATIC" life sentence). Parole could always be denied. Even Charles Manson comes up for parole ever few years now, but it doesn't necessarily mean he'll ever get out (I'm pretty confident he won't).
Anyway, just thought I'd point that out. Sometimes people make Canadian sentences seem more lenient than they are by focusing on the number of years before someone becomes eligible for parole, rather than the sentence itself, and it makes it sound like the person is actually PAROLED after that number of years, which is not necessarily the case. The SCOC has ruled, I believe, that you can't lock someone up forever without even the remotest possibility that they could ever be freed (faint hope) so you need to tell them at SOME POINT they'll be eligible to be CONSIDERED for parole. Maybe what we need more than stiffer sentences, is more stringent parole boards.
Anyway, I just wanted to point out that he won't be released in 15years, he will become eligible to be considered for parole in 15 years. Now, if the board hearing his case decides to let him out 15 years from now, one could certainly argue that that is a mistake, and we need to tighten up the parole process. But that is separate from sentencing. His sentence is LIFE, and only a parole hearing (no sooner than 2021) can ever let him out earlier than his death.
Posted by: Lord Kitchener's Own at May 12, 2006 01:30 PM
The very notion that a conviction for a crime such as this carries any chance of freedom is a crime in and of itself.
So yes Lord Kitchener's Own, you make an excellent point. Unfortunately it does not mitigate the arguement.
Posted by: Dr. Strangelove at May 12, 2006 01:57 PM
I don't entirely disagree Dr. Strangelove, and I'm no legal scholar, but my understanding is that there must always be the "possibility" of parole, I believe because it was considered inappropriate to actually lock someone up for life without even the possibility that they would ever get out. I don't necessarily agree with that assessment, but I do see the logic behind it, and besides, I believe it's pretty much settled law now, which is why I mentioned that perhaps we should be more concerned about how parole functions than how sentences are handed down.
Again, for a lot of the most serious crimes, it seems a life sentence is often "automatic" (that's how the NP described this sentence), and if parole eligibility is strict enough, I'd rather have someone sentenced to life, and have the opportunity to go before a parole board after 15 years, than have someone sentenced to 25 years. I don't mind those sentenced to life being able to apply for parole... as long as it's INCREDIBLY difficult to actually get parole. I do think a life sentence should mean a LIFE sentence, but nothing in life is absolute, so I can see a justification for convicts becoming eligible to be CONSIDERED for parole at various intervals depending upon the severity and mitigating and aggrivating circumstances of their crime. As long as parole is only granted in exceptional circumstances, making people eligible for it doesn't bother me too much.
Posted by: Lord Kitchener's Own at May 12, 2006 02:33 PM
Just to add a little more context, here's an explanation I found for how parole works (http://www.npb-cnlc.gc.ca/reports/pdf/pls_2002/03_e.htm):
"In cases involving first-degree murder, the convicted offender is not eligible to apply for full parole for 25 years. For second-degree murder, the convicted offender is not eligible to apply for parole for 10 years; however, the sentencing judge, after considering any recommendation from the jury, may set a time from 10 to 25 years when the offender will become eligible to apply for parole. For offenders convicted of murder, day parole eligibility is set, by law, three years before full parole eligibility."
Statistics seem pretty meaningless, because there are so few murders in Canada, but this page, http://www.npb-cnlc.gc.ca/reports/pdf/pls_2002/05_e.htm does have some stats.
Seems like from 1996-2002 roughly 36% of convicts received parole on their first shot, while 64% did not. But the fluctuations are large (again, we're not talking about a lot of convicts here). So in 97/98 81% of those convicted of Murder 1 were denied parole the first time they were eligible, whereas the next year only 40% were denied. However, this doesn't tell us much, as there may have been drastically different numbers of eligible offenders between these two years, as well as highly different circumstances surrounding the crimes involved.
The stats at the bottom of this page (http://www.npb-cnlc.gc.ca/reports/pdf/pls_2002/02_e.htm) are interesting too.
Of the 823 people serving life sentences for first degree murder in Canada (March 31, 2002):
14.5% were on "full parole"
3.8% were on "day parole", and
over 82% were behind bars.
Of the 2898 serving life sentences for second degree murder:
36.6% were on "full parole"
5.4% wer on "day parole", and
58% were behind bars.
Just for everyone's information!
Posted by: Lord Kitchener's Own at May 12, 2006 03:28 PM
First degree murder in my book.
He deserves the noose.
Posted by: NorthBayTrapper at May 12, 2006 03:37 PM
I find it unbelievable that someone can get 15 years for kidnapping. It should be a mandatory 25 years regardless of whether the person pleads guilty. It's rather disturbing how justice critics are putting all of their faith into The Peoples Repuplic of China taking care of the problem after his 15 years here are done. Who can even say what the situation in China will be like in 15-20 years?
Posted by: downtownslater at May 12, 2006 05:43 PM
Kidnapping is still relatively unknown here in North America but it's much more common in other nations, particularly in Asia and Africa. As our immigrant population swells, chances are kidnapping and similar extortion will increase. Some crimes are too good not to share, I guess.
The sole exception to parole is those rare individuals who are designated as "dangerous offenders" (Section 753 of the Criminal Code) a designation added in 1947 during PM Mackenzie King's more lucid moments.
Posted by: Mac at May 12, 2006 06:28 PM
Killing a child!! Killing a senior!!!
Hang'em high.
For me, in those instances, there is no room for intellectual debate. Both ends of the spectrum of human existance are to a greater or lesser degree defenceless and those who prey on them deserve no mercy.
Pat
Posted by: Pat at May 12, 2006 11:39 PM
He got life, with no parole for minimum 15 years. Since he already served 2, this means he could be paroled in 13 years. But if and when he becomes eligible for parole, he will be deported back to China. As I understand China, they will likely jail him for his Canadian crimes. Sometimes we don't get the bad guys until after they have committed a crime, however, I believe in this case it is fair. The same as with the Calgary mother who let her two children die - she is coming up for release just now, and will be sent back to Japan.
We don't require Canadians to have fingerprints on record and we don't know if a Canadian will commit a crime, so to print and expect to know if an immigrant will is a little bit of overkill.
Posted by: Alberta Reader at May 13, 2006 07:57 AM
"Finger printing for visas, immigrants, refugees, etc--YES!!! Would this not be considered a security issue? After all--we have cameras everywhere we go, we have no say in that! We fingerprint or footprint our children when they are born(still not mandatory, but recommended) and this is for Canadian citizens."
I believe you're the modern equivalent of what they used to call a "house nigger." Stand up for your own rights, you fucking pussy.
Posted by: Greater Toronto Area Conservative at May 13, 2006 08:14 AM
Too bad the Judge didn't sentence this piece of crap to 2 years leass a day. Then we wouldn't be paying to house the scum for 15 years before we send him back to China!
WE have to be fingerprinted to get a passport, or am I mistaken? So if we require fingerprints to let others in on visas, refugee claims et al, so be it. Maybe we can weed out some of the murderers, rapists and career criminals that come into this country as "refugees".
And while we're at it, what does it matter if there is a death penalty for a crime in the country you have left(are fleeing), you should have been aware of that.
If we want to keep this country great and make it even greater, I see nothing wrong with actually screening immigrants to ensure that ALL refugee claims are legitimate. Fingerprints are simply one more tool to help with the process!
Posted by: voiceofreason at May 13, 2006 03:03 PM
Even if he's paroled in 15 years he faces two possibilities when deported to China. Either he ends up in a radioactive wasteland, or the government there harvests his organs.
Posted by: Jay at May 14, 2006 02:04 AM
"Even if he's paroled in 15 years he faces two possibilities when deported to China. Either he ends up in a radioactive wasteland, or the government there harvests his organs.
Posted by: Jay at May 14, 2006 02:04 AM "
FYI: He will never leave Canada. The day he steps out of jail he will make a refugee claim against China on the grounds you mention (they 'persecute' child killers)...he will then spend the rest of his days in Canada under an unenforceable removal order...he won't get permanent residence status but we'll be sure to give him full health and a living allowance (approximately twice what our veteran's get). Ain't that fucking special.
Posted by: LynchMob at May 14, 2006 02:59 PM
Sorry, he won't make a ref claim...he'll request PRRA (Pre-removal Risk Assessment)...China will clearly kill the SOB so :. he'll win it.
Posted by: LynchMob at May 14, 2006 03:01 PM
voiceofreason wrote:
WE have to be fingerprinted to get a passport, or am I mistaken?
I believe you're mistaken on that point. I last renewed my passport less than two years ago, & I'm fairly certain there wasn't any fingerprinting involved.
There was a pretty bad-looking photo, though.
Posted by: ian in cowtown at May 14, 2006 06:17 PM
Doesn't the 2 years already served count as 4 years because of the "twofer" rule that the judges made up?
Posted by: maggie at May 15, 2006 10:36 AM
 
|
|
