Hijacker's life changed

Nic Name · 06-04-2002, 09:52 PM

We've all heard the stories ... a violent youth, years on the lamb, a new life as a model citizen ... knock, knock, knock ... you're under arrest.

Recently, in the United States, there was the case of Kathleen Soliah now calling herself Sara Jane Olson, a one-time SLA revolutionary turned minivan-driving soccer mom.

Now, in Canada, we have the trial of hijacker, Patrick Dolan Critton, who was convicted in the 1971 hijacking of an Air Canada jet, and turned his life around in the more than 30 years since the incident, becoming a model parent, a respected social worker, teacher and community activist.

He's now facing a sentencing hearing. What do you think his sentence should be, based upon this incredible story?

elSicomoro · 06-04-2002, 10:37 PM

Kudos to him for turning his life around...and he should get credit for that.

But he committed a very serious crime, and for that, he should be punished. I say make it small though: less than 5 years.

Although, it looks like he could possibly face charges in the States on the robberies...if he has not been tried on those yet.

Nic Name · 06-04-2002, 10:43 PM

I think that he is clear of the robbery charges under statutes of limitations. That's probably why he felt safe to return to the USA under his own name, never thinking that he'd be extradited to Canada for kidnapping the pilots of the Air Canada jet.

Syc, I think you are understating it when you say he committed a very serious crime ... "armed with a handgun and a grenade, Critton, then 24, carried out the first successful hijacking of an Air Canada jet to Cuba."

This is a post 9/11 sentencing, too.

Nic Name · 06-04-2002, 11:02 PM

I'm a strong believer in sentencing for punishment and deterence.

I don't believe in capital punishment. I think that every offender should have the opportunity to reform, and that in most cases, reformed criminals should be able to earn release after serving an appropriate term of imprisonment as punishment.

But it doesn't seem just to me that criminals should be able to argue that they reformed themselves while on the lamb ... and not be liable to the full sentence appropriate for punishment.

Syc, in this case, let's say he had been arrested soon after the crime. Whatever the sentence, do you think he should be entitled to parole from prison within 5 years on the basis of rehabilitation and being a model prisoner?

If not, are you not supporting a notion of arguing that a subsequent life as a model citizen mitigates the crime? And, if so, should it mitigate any more that a model life prior to a criminal act?

elSicomoro · 06-04-2002, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nic Name
I think that he is clear of the robbery charges under statutes of limitations. That's probably why he felt safe to return to the USA under his own name, never thinking that he'd be extradited to Canada for kidnapping the pilots of the Air Canada jet.

Ah...good point.

He didn't escape Canada's statute? I would have thought so given that there was no murder involved. Unfortunately, I am not clear on just how the statute of limitations works.

Nic Name · 06-04-2002, 11:08 PM

As in the USA, kidnapping is a capital crime, like murder, for which a statute of limitation typically doesn't apply.

Under current criminal legislation he'd face the new book of specific terrorist criminal charges like Richard Reid, the shoe bomber.

elSicomoro · 06-04-2002, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nic Name
Under current criminal legislation he'd face the new book of specific terrorist criminal charges like Richard Reid, the shoe bomber.

Now that I would not agree with. He should be tried under 1971 law.

Nic Name · 06-04-2002, 11:21 PM

He was. That's why the charge was kidnapping. Because there wasn't even an offence of hijacking in Canada in 1971.

The human interest story that many young people, like this man's 17 year old son, find so disturbing is that it's possible that anyone's father might have an unknown criminal past that precedes the birth of the child. Like any of us, he'd have said, "not my dad, it's not possible." He must be in a state of shock beyond comprehension.

The father was arrested on September 8, 2001 and the son has had to live through the same terrorist threats as all of us, while facing the fact that his father was a hijacker in 1971.

juju · 06-04-2002, 11:50 PM

The most significant part, i think, is this:
<i><blockquote>
Despite having weapons, Critton never threatened anybody on board the plane and allowed all 83 passengers to disembark in Toronto without knowing the aircraft had been hijacked, his lawyer said, citing the agreed statement of facts read into court at his client's guilty plea.</i></blockquote>

He never hurt anyone (except the bankers wallets, and hey -- screw them). He did the robbery to fund the civil rights group he was a part of. So, the fact that he stole a plane shouldn't automatically net him life in prison. It's like stealing an 18-wheeler.

I say less than 5 years.

elSicomoro · 06-05-2002, 12:38 AM

Damnit Nic...quit editing so much.

Quote:

Originally posted by Nic Name
Syc, in this case, let's say he had been arrested soon after the crime. Whatever the sentence, do you think he should be entitled to parole from prison within 5 years on the basis of rehabilitation and being a model prisoner?

Certainly, if he has been a model prisoner, admits guilt, and is deemed to be rehabilitated.

Parole is like a crap shoot. The recidivism rate in the US is incredibly high. But if a sentence includes parole, and the prisoner has changed his life from the time of incarceration to parole, then they deserve a second chance on the outside.

Quote:

If not, are you not supporting a notion of arguing that a subsequent life as a model citizen mitigates the crime?

To a degree, yes. Again, he committed a serious crime...he SHOULD be punished for it, as Sara Jane Olson was for hers. But he's lived a good life since then, committing no crimes and presenting no danger to society. The rehabilitation factor, to me, is clearly shown.

Quote:

And, if so, should it mitigate any more that a model life prior to a criminal act?

Again, I would say to a degree. This guy was apparently bad news up to the hijacking. Now, he's done a 180. I don't know about his guilt or remorse, but I would be willing to wager that there is some present. He's lived with this for 30 years, possibly with an incredible amount of torment and anguish. He'll have to live with that for the rest of his life. To me, that is part of the punishment in itself. And it seems that he has done more with his life in the past 30 years than he would have done in prison (depending on how long he might have served then).

Nic Name · 06-05-2002, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by juju2112

So, the fact that he stole a plane shouldn't automatically net him life in prison. It's like stealing an 18-wheeler.

It's like kidnapping a truck driver. He didn't fly the plane to Cuba.

Nic Name · 06-05-2002, 01:56 AM

American law doesn't treat auto theft and air piracy in the same category, the latter offence requiring a mandatory miniumum sentence of 20 years.

Now the tricky bit with the Canadian case is that the charges of which he was convicted are kidnapping and extortion, not air piracy, although the context was a hijacking using a firearm and a grenade.

But it's not like stealing an 18-wheeler.

tw · 06-05-2002, 03:10 PM

Before one can even begin to answer this question, one must first decide what is the objective of jail time? Is it to punish the offender? Is it to make others realize that crime has consequences? Is it to satisfy the victim - to bring closure? Is it to rehabilitate? Is it a principal from which we must not deviate (the right wing extremist viewpoint)? Is it something we should decide from a pragmatic viewpoint based only upon current feelings by today's standards (the left wing extremist liberal viewpoint)?

Without first determining this fundamental objective, then your opinion is simply based upon emotion - making your conclusion from the worst of perspectives. First make a decision only based upon facts such as what the objectives of prision time is for. Only after you have made all those hard and brutally logical decisions - only then do you ask if this is emotinally viable. If not viable, then go back and restart all the brutally logical thinking process all over again.

Five years for highjacking 20 years ago? That is the sentence for possessing mariguana with possession to distribute - or for 2nd degree murder. Again - perspective. Which is it? The rediculous crime equivalent to selling mariguana or the so destructive and never forgotten crime of murder?

One should first define reasons for jail before even asking what the man's sentence should be - in order to make those decisions logically. Why should this man go to jail? To satisfy vengance? To compensate the agony of the victims - agony as experienced then, or from today's perspective?

Many find the decision process too difficult and instead resort to an emotional conclusion.

Nic Name · 06-05-2002, 03:50 PM

I'm having difficulty gleaning from your reasoned unemotional approach, exactly what your position is on the sentencing in these circumstances?

elSicomoro · 06-05-2002, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tw
Before one can even begin to answer this question, one must first decide what is the objective of jail time? Is it to punish the offender? Is it to make others realize that crime has consequences? Is it to satisfy the victim - to bring closure? Is it to rehabilitate?

Good point, tw.

Too often, it seems like the US correctional system is only about punishment. Then, we wonder why recidivism is so high with convicted criminals.

Certainly, there has to be some sort of committment from the offender. But if we throw people in jail without trying to help them see the "right" path, what good is punishment then?

The correctional systems in most states seem ill-equipped to handle their prison populations, which only makes things worse.

View Poll Results: What should the sentence be for Patrick Dolan Critton?
1-5 years	6	66.67%
6-10 years	0	0%
11-15 years	0	0%
16-25 years	2	22.22%
life without parole	1	11.11%
Voters: 9. You may not vote on this poll

06-04-2002, 09:52 PM	#1
Nic Name retired Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,930	Hijacker's life changed We've all heard the stories ... a violent youth, years on the lamb, a new life as a model citizen ... knock, knock, knock ... you're under arrest. Recently, in the United States, there was the case of Kathleen Soliah now calling herself Sara Jane Olson, a one-time SLA revolutionary turned minivan-driving soccer mom. Now, in Canada, we have the trial of hijacker, Patrick Dolan Critton, who was convicted in the 1971 hijacking of an Air Canada jet, and turned his life around in the more than 30 years since the incident, becoming a model parent, a respected social worker, teacher and community activist. He's now facing a sentencing hearing. What do you think his sentence should be, based upon this incredible story? Last edited by Nic Name; 06-04-2002 at 10:19 PM.

06-04-2002, 10:43 PM	#3
Nic Name retired Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,930	I think that he is clear of the robbery charges under statutes of limitations. That's probably why he felt safe to return to the USA under his own name, never thinking that he'd be extradited to Canada for kidnapping the pilots of the Air Canada jet. Syc, I think you are understating it when you say he committed a very serious crime ... "armed with a handgun and a grenade, Critton, then 24, carried out the first successful hijacking of an Air Canada jet to Cuba." This is a post 9/11 sentencing, too. Last edited by Nic Name; 06-04-2002 at 10:47 PM.

06-04-2002, 11:02 PM	#4
Nic Name retired Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,930	I'm a strong believer in sentencing for punishment and deterence. I don't believe in capital punishment. I think that every offender should have the opportunity to reform, and that in most cases, reformed criminals should be able to earn release after serving an appropriate term of imprisonment as punishment. But it doesn't seem just to me that criminals should be able to argue that they reformed themselves while on the lamb ... and not be liable to the full sentence appropriate for punishment. Syc, in this case, let's say he had been arrested soon after the crime. Whatever the sentence, do you think he should be entitled to parole from prison within 5 years on the basis of rehabilitation and being a model prisoner? If not, are you not supporting a notion of arguing that a subsequent life as a model citizen mitigates the crime? And, if so, should it mitigate any more that a model life prior to a criminal act? Last edited by Nic Name; 06-04-2002 at 11:04 PM.

06-04-2002, 11:08 PM	#6
Nic Name retired Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,930	As in the USA, kidnapping is a capital crime, like murder, for which a statute of limitation typically doesn't apply. Under current criminal legislation he'd face the new book of specific terrorist criminal charges like Richard Reid, the shoe bomber. Last edited by Nic Name; 06-04-2002 at 11:10 PM.

06-04-2002, 10:37 PM	#2
elSicomoro Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 12,486	Kudos to him for turning his life around...and he should get credit for that. But he committed a very serious crime, and for that, he should be punished. I say make it small though: less than 5 years. Although, it looks like he could possibly face charges in the States on the robberies...if he has not been tried on those yet.

06-04-2002, 11:21 PM	#8
Nic Name retired Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,930	He was. That's why the charge was kidnapping. Because there wasn't even an offence of hijacking in Canada in 1971. The human interest story that many young people, like this man's 17 year old son, find so disturbing is that it's possible that anyone's father might have an unknown criminal past that precedes the birth of the child. Like any of us, he'd have said, "not my dad, it's not possible." He must be in a state of shock beyond comprehension. The father was arrested on September 8, 2001 and the son has had to live through the same terrorist threats as all of us, while facing the fact that his father was a hijacker in 1971. Last edited by Nic Name; 06-04-2002 at 11:25 PM.

06-04-2002, 11:50 PM	#9
juju no one of consequence Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Arkansas Posts: 2,839	The most significant part, i think, is this: <i><blockquote> Despite having weapons, Critton never threatened anybody on board the plane and allowed all 83 passengers to disembark in Toronto without knowing the aircraft had been hijacked, his lawyer said, citing the agreed statement of facts read into court at his client's guilty plea.</i></blockquote> He never hurt anyone (except the bankers wallets, and hey -- screw them). He did the robbery to fund the civil rights group he was a part of. So, the fact that he stole a plane shouldn't automatically net him life in prison. It's like stealing an 18-wheeler. I say less than 5 years. Last edited by juju; 06-04-2002 at 11:53 PM.

06-05-2002, 01:56 AM	#12
Nic Name retired Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,930	American law doesn't treat auto theft and air piracy in the same category, the latter offence requiring a mandatory miniumum sentence of 20 years. Now the tricky bit with the Canadian case is that the charges of which he was convicted are kidnapping and extortion, not air piracy, although the context was a hijacking using a firearm and a grenade. But it's not like stealing an 18-wheeler.

06-05-2002, 03:10 PM	#13
tw Read? I only know how to write. Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 11,933	Before one can even begin to answer this question, one must first decide what is the objective of jail time? Is it to punish the offender? Is it to make others realize that crime has consequences? Is it to satisfy the victim - to bring closure? Is it to rehabilitate? Is it a principal from which we must not deviate (the right wing extremist viewpoint)? Is it something we should decide from a pragmatic viewpoint based only upon current feelings by today's standards (the left wing extremist liberal viewpoint)? Without first determining this fundamental objective, then your opinion is simply based upon emotion - making your conclusion from the worst of perspectives. First make a decision only based upon facts such as what the objectives of prision time is for. Only after you have made all those hard and brutally logical decisions - only then do you ask if this is emotinally viable. If not viable, then go back and restart all the brutally logical thinking process all over again. Five years for highjacking 20 years ago? That is the sentence for possessing mariguana with possession to distribute - or for 2nd degree murder. Again - perspective. Which is it? The rediculous crime equivalent to selling mariguana or the so destructive and never forgotten crime of murder? One should first define reasons for jail before even asking what the man's sentence should be - in order to make those decisions logically. Why should this man go to jail? To satisfy vengance? To compensate the agony of the victims - agony as experienced then, or from today's perspective? Many find the decision process too difficult and instead resort to an emotional conclusion.

06-05-2002, 03:50 PM	#14
Nic Name retired Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,930	I'm having difficulty gleaning from your reasoned unemotional approach, exactly what your position is on the sentencing in these circumstances?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)