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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Damnit Nic...quit editing so much. :)

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.

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.

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).

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

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.

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.

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

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.

I'm just saying, he only stole a damned plane. Who cares? It's not like he hurt anyone. He let all the passengers leave the plane. They never even knew he was hijacking the plane.

And, the article doesn't say who he robbed. He could have just knocked over a couple liquor stores.

Because of these things, I submit to you that he is nothing like the al-qaeida hijackers.

To me, it boils down to -- 'how valuable is a plane'. I don't think stealing a plane is worth 20 years. I think people who think that are just mystified by the glamor of the mysterious airplane. "Oohhh.. he pulled a gun at 35.000 feet! Lock him up!". I mean, someone pulls a gun on the ground, he doesn't get 20 years. Why should it be any different if he's way up high?

There is the kidnapping part, though. I guess it would be fair to give him whatever the penalty is for kidnapping.

To clarify the facts for the "no harm, no foul" philosophers, here's an excerpt from The Washington Post:

I think the deterence factor will weigh heavily in this case. American felons on the lamb just can't be hijacking airliners to escape to Cuba, and return years later as model citizens and be treated leniently when convicted. I just don't think the legal system has any appetite for this criminal behavior.

I'll keep y'all posted.

In July 1971 Critton was involved in a bank robbery in New York City in which he served as the lookout and during which $11,000 was stolen. One of his four accomplices was killed, a second was wounded and two other suspects surrendered.

When Critton was 24 he made pipe bombs with other members of black liberation group the Republic of New Africa, according to police reports.

Write your congressman. In the USA it's a mandatory minimum sentence for air piracy. Long before 9/11.

Yeah.. I kind of figured it was the law. I'm just saying I don't agree with it.

You do make good points, though. We can't have people stealing planes all the time.

Then you failed to appreciate the wider aspect of that point. First, I am not jumping to conclusions on such trivial information. I am still asking what facts apply to what reasons for jail terms. I am far from reaching conclusions. To conclude now would only be a knee-jerk, emotional response.

Take this example from juju2112:
IOW jail time must be applied as a deterent for others. That is but one reason. Another is that maybe 100 people were kidnapped (maybe even worse by using a violent weapon to threaten life). That is also unacceptable behavior (although facts are not fully available), so unexceptable that forgiveness alone is not reasonable.

How's this for another reason. The only reason he led a responsible, reformed life was threat of being caught and serving jail. If jail did not remain as a deterent for some many years, then would he have modified his life? Therefore threat of jail must have always been an option for him and for others.

Then there is the problem with consistency. Five years is too short since marijuana dealers do that kind of time. However Five years is too long since that is the term for murder. I don't see many here addressing that issue meaning that very little information exists (plus we apparently don't know all details such as new information about bank robberies) to yet even consider an opinion.

Any decision at this point would only be emotional. That position should be obvious.

I'm not one to rush to judgment and I abhor trial in the media, which has become a national pastime.

But, in the Critton case under discussion we are dealing with a post conviction situation. The crime is known and guilt has been established and is not in dispute.

The issue that I wanted to get some discussion going about, is the extent to which a subsequent apparent "model citizenship" should impact sentencing.

There are many examples such as Sara Jane Olson, who pleaded guilty to the charges against her, and argued for leniency in sentencing based on her "soccer mom" lifestyle since the crime.

In the current Skakel trial, guilt has not been established as the case is still before the jury. Hypothetically though, IF he is found guilty, what impact on sentencing should be his otherwise model citizenship?

If model citizenship is exculpatory, why bring charges against upstanding citizens for alleged crimes of the distant past?

For many crimes there are applicable statutes of limitation, for public policy reasons. For crimes serious enough that there is no limitation period for bringing charges, there will often be an issue whether an upstanding life after crime confers some immunity from either prosecution or punishment, or ameliorates the sentence, and to what extent.

These are public policy issues that people should form some opinion on, whether intellectual or emotional. Emotional opinions are worth considering to form public policy. It is interesting to measure the emotional impact of these issues as well as the intellectual analysis. Hopefully, this discussion might let us know how people feel about these issues, not just what they think about the issues.

The poll is an unscientific way of weighing the thoughts and sentiments expressed in the words of the posts. It's a bit unfortunate that these polls don't allow folks to reigister a change of opinion as the discussion influences their thoughts and feelings on the topic.

Some might say that they haven't given the concept enough thought to form an opinion on the issue. That's fine. Perhaps, discussions such as this might start such a thought process. Perhaps not - and that's OK, too.

What you mention here is something I feel strongly about. I try very hard not to say that I know something when I know that I don't. So, I hesitate to form an opinion just for the sake forming an opinion.

It is an important issue, though. I'm the same way on the death pentalty, though. There are so many factors involved that I just don't know how I stand.

But like I said, I lean towards 5 years. I can't <i>believe</i> someone voted life without parole!

Critton sentencing
 

The sentencing hearing was yesterday.

Defence lawyer Irving Andre asked for a sentence of three to six years; crown counsel Mark Saltmarsh said Critton should serve 10 to 12.

The judge will pass sentence next Wednesday.

As pointed out by tw, there are many factors that will be taken into account by the judge passing sentence.

Remorse is typically one of those factors.

How does a reformed and rehabilitated person get before a judge in a sentencing hearing and not have "apologize" on his To Do List?

That not said, he just might get tenure in that new teaching position.

I don't agree with you on that. I didn't come to my decision saying, "Awww! He's become such a good person! Let's be light on him!"

I read the story and took various factors into perspective, did a little websurfing, and came to my decision. Logically, rationally. If YOU don't think you can do that at this point, then that's you.

At the same time, if more info were to come to light, I reserve the right to change my mind. The only thing we don't really know, IMO, is what is actually going through Critton's mind.

I'm curious as to exactly what he said. Maybe at this point, he didn't feel it appropriate to apologize.

It's not easy to get a transcript of Critton's exact words at his sentencing hearing, but here are the observations of one reporter who was present. And another.

Only because "lethal injection" wasn't on the list.

On the HB Sliding Scale of Justice, kidnappers fall into the same category as child molesters, rapists, and telemarketers.

Fer crissake, the man hijacked an airliner with a pistol and a hand grenade, and then kidnapped the flight crew and forced them to fly to Cuba against their will. Hello?

The fact that he managed to keep his nose clean for 30 years while he was a fugitive from justice doesn't, in any sense, mitigate the seriousness of the original offense. If anything, it calls into question any of those claims he's making about "remorse" and "accountability". If he were truly remorseful, why didn't he step forward long ago and face up to what he had done?

In an unrelated case, Canadian businessman will be sentenced in Philadelphia on June 28 for "trading with the enemy" and faces a possible sentence of life in prison.

The company's salesman, Gauthier, a Canadian who never set foot in the USA, was originally indicted, but the US withdrew charges against him following protests from Canadian diplomatic authorities. So, DoJ went after another Canadian employee of the American company, Sabzali, who lives outside Philly, and tied him to the "activities" of the Canadian they couldn't prosecute -- linking Sabzali to the "crime" by his approval of expense accounts of Gauthier, the Canadian employee who had never even visited the USA.

In Sabzali's case, both sides agreed that $2 million dollars worth of chemicals used to purify and soften water made their way to Cuba from plants owned, directly or indirectly, by BroTech, an American company.

[edit more info on sentencing ... Mr Sabzali faces a maximum sentence of more than 200 years in jail although prosecutors have recommended less than five. He is to be sentenced on 28 June.]

So, if it's so terrible, what is the lasting damage that resulted from his actions?

Juju, are you Richard Reid's attorney?

In Sara Jane Olson's attempted bombing of the police cars, the bomb failed to detonate. Nobody hurt. She got two consecutive 10 years sentences.

No, I just like difficult battles. :)


That's different. It was her intention to cause someone harm. Reid never intended to hurt anyone.

Yeah. He just had gangrene in his foot and wanted to operate. With explosives. On a plane. :)

I know, I know. You meant the other guy. I thought I'd poke fun at you anyway.

Whoops. :] Oh well, i've never been good with names.

I just think there's a difference between someone who tries to hurt someone, and someone who doesn't.

But it's all a matter of opinion, of course.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course. But please don't act according to it, because "not intending to hurt anybody" won't be any defense to using a gun and grenade to hijack a plane or rob a bank. That's just my advice, though, and you don't hafta follow it. ;)

This ain't Texas!
 

American sentenced to three years for hijacking Air Canada plane in 1971

Wednesday, June 12, 2002

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(06-12) 11:23 PDT TORONTO (AP) --

An American who hijacked an Air Canada flight in 1971 was sentenced Wednesday to three years in jail, 30 years after the only successful hijacking in Canadian history.

Patrick Critton, 54, pleaded guilty to kidnapping and extortion.

U.S. police had been after Critton for an armed robbery that led to a shootout in 1971. On Dec. 26 of that year, he hijacked an Air Canada flight from Thunder Bay, Ontario, to Toronto, where he allowed the passengers off the plane. He then forced the crew to fly him to Cuba.

He was jailed in Cuba, then disappeared after his release.

A Canadian police investigator entered his name in an Internet search engine last year and came up with one reference to a Patrick Critton in Westchester County, New York. Fingerprints from that Critton matched those of the hijacker.

With no pending U.S. charges from the armed robbery in 1971, Critton was extradited to Canada to stand trial in the hijacking case.

Prosecutor Mark Saltmarsh sought a sentence of 10 to 12 years, while Critton's lawyer, Irving Andre, asked for a three-to-six year sentence, noting the passengers of the hijacked plane were released and no one was hurt.