Tories move to eliminate faint-hope clause

[noahbody]

Next step is to get rid of Statutory Release where prisoners for just about anything other than murder, automatically (with only a few exceptions) get released after serving 2/3 of their sentence. It's almost impossible to keep someone in jail for their full sentence.

Unless you're Chuck Guite. Then you get 1/6 of your sentence.

[jdobbin]

Yet it is relevant to this discussion isn't it?

For First Degree Offenders? I don't think so. If they get parole, any crime they commit or any parole violation has them end up in prison again. The rate of re-offending or violating parole is about 15%. I can't recall any of the offenders in the last years committing murder again.

The numbers of convicts in the system surely must speak of something don't you think? I mean if crime is going down but the prison population is getting higher then does that not account for at least some of the re-offenders? Another thing to consider is the nature of crimes committed, how many criminals are violent offenders? I think if you look into it a little deeper you will find that the vast majority of prisoners are drug offenders and other petty crimes offenders. These people need to be taught a lesson, but the punishment does not fit the crime. In addition the cost associated with putting hookers and pot smokers in jails is to say the least awfully damned expensive.

You could make an argument that abortion causes crime to go down as well.

Our prisons are bursting at the seams. The faint hope clause was just that. A faint hope to those who might be better off on parole.

Please keep in mind I was speaking about VIOLENT offenders, those that cause harm to citizens. This is a class of crime unto its own and deserves very careful attention.

Perhaps the Tories will put up the statistics to back up their stance on things. Until then, this is just political posturing with no focus on cost or whether it is needed.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I find the twists and turns of this discussion to be amazing!

Prove that this is and prove that this is not, but the entire concept of justice is ignored! The law determines right and wrong, these things must be proven in courts of law. Upon conviction, criminals face incarceration within the penal system. The true question is whether or not justice is being served? That justice is the expressed will of the people in the form of government, applying punishment determined to be appropriate to the crime.

It is my view that violent offenders represent a clear and present danger to society in the form of an unacceptable risk to the citizens. Now, after having said that, I will pose this question to all;

Is the government of the people responsible to protect its citizens from known and unacceptable risks to their persons?

[Smallc]

That justice is the expressed will of the people in the form of government, applying punishment determined to be appropriate to the crime.

Umm no, the will of the people has no place in justice. They can make the laws, but if we're after justice, they have no business in the administration of them.

Edited June 6, 2009 by Smallc

[Borg]

Is there evidence that serving a full sentence results in fewer reoffences than the current system?

Possibly not.

However - I do not have to have to worry about the scum getting out early.

Capital punishment may not deter either - but the scum is gone forever.

In the end it is like this - put them away or put them down

Keep them there

I give a shit about the conditions - the criminal needs more than a sweet life - and I for one want them punished - harder the better - damn the cost - find a way to make them pay - slave labour works for me

Borg

[tango]

Possibly not.

However - I do not have to have to worry about the scum getting out early.

Capital punishment may not deter either - but the scum is gone forever.

In the end it is like this - put them away or put them down

Keep them there

I give a shit about the conditions - the criminal needs more than a sweet life - and I for one want them punished - harder the better - damn the cost - find a way to make them pay - slave labour works for me

Borg

You are well outside the realm of reality, and the present discussion.

[canfan]

For a little concept known as justice. Violent offenders should be locked up in solitary confinement until the natural death they will experience occurs. No life extending assistance on the public dime, no forgiveness, not a damn thing is deserved by those who would perpetrate a violent crime against a fellow citizen.

You're saying that justice requires we get rid of discretion in the justice system? It's actually the opposite. Any decent justice system needs to look at the unique facts surrounding each person and crime. Otherwise justice will never be done. That little concept known as justice requires discretion in the system not rigid and inflexible rules that can't take into account reality.

[canfan]

Is the government of the people responsible to protect its citizens from known and unacceptable risks to their persons?

Yes. The government is also responsible for finding out when those risks are no longer there. The government is also responsible for protecting its citizens from being unnecessarily confined.

[Borg]

You are well outside the realm of reality, and the present discussion.

Faint hope?

Remove it - all entering should have no hope until sentence is served - no matter the cost

Your response shows you are soft - perhaps we need to let them succeed and move into your house or become your neighbour.

Justice must always be seen to be done - today it is not

You cannot create the boundary of discussion - once started it will go the way it goes

Borg

[Borg]

Yes. The government is also responsible for finding out when those risks are no longer there. The government is also responsible for protecting its citizens from being unnecessarily confined.

So far the governments - all of them - have shown to not give a damn about the public and provide far more concern for the criminal.

Time to reverse this.

Borg

[canfan]

So far the governments - all of them - have shown to not give a damn about the public and provide far more concern for the criminal.

In your opinion maybe but your opinion doesn't seem to be based in reality. Although since you support slave labour it looks like reality isn't really your concern.

[Borg]

In your opinion maybe but your opinion doesn't seem to be based in reality. Although since you support slave labour it looks like reality isn't really your concern.

Initial part of answer almost accurate - libe are and have always been soft on crime and criminal activity.

The remainder:

Out of context - typical canadian with no real answer

Borg

Edited June 6, 2009 by Borg

[tango]

I fully expect that if I ever break the law my invitation would be forthcoming. My intent is to stay on the correct side of the law and not break the social covenant that as a citizen I am responsible to keep.

You miss my point.

If jail is as wonderful as you paint it, why would you not want to be there?

My point is ... in case you still miss it ... it isn't as wonderful as you pretend.

[canfan]

Initial part of answer almost accurate - libe are and have always been soft on crime and criminal activity.

The remainder:

Out of context - typical canadian with no real answer

Borg

Typical attempt at deflection by someone without anything to say. If you don't want people saying you support slave labour then stop saying "slave labour works for me". Repeating your opinions without anything to back them up only shows the irrelevancy of your posts.

[Borg]

Typical attempt at deflection by someone without anything to say. If you don't want people saying you support slave labour then stop saying "slave labour works for me". Repeating your opinions without anything to back them up only shows the irrelevancy of your posts.

All your comment is worth

Work that criminal for all you can - rights should be lost when you destroy others

Borg

Edited June 6, 2009 by Borg

[myata]

This is simply another populist crime hysteria whipping move by a government that has nothing, absolute zero (or big bad negative, like on the environment; or "transparency"; or debt, etc) to show for any single file or agenda they touch. I mean what is the real issue here? The stats? How many "murderers" are released on early parole, and how many of those released reoffend?

I mean, what is the real issue here? How serious is it? Do we have any more important matters to attend to?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Umm no, the will of the people has no place in justice. They can make the laws, but if we're after justice, they have no business in the administration of them.

You did not understand the statement made. I said the will of the people expressed in the form of government, not merely the will of the people as in having a little meeting and deciding to string somebody up. The KKK might act like that but a nation cannot. The will of the people chooses a government that has the ability to create or modify legislation that serves the judiciary. That service provided, namely formulating laws, is then applied in the dispensation of justice. The Courts pass judgments based upon the laws of the land. In this nation the courts cannot "legislate from the bench" and write their own laws or interpret them in such a manner as to alter the the meaning and intent of the law, unless they find the law to conflict with any other law as outlined in the constitution.

I do not suggest that the will of the people administer the laws, I do suggest that the law is an expression of the will of the people. There is a difference there.

My point being that justice is determined by law, period.

[Smallc]

In this nation the courts cannot "legislate from the bench"

They can and they do. The Constitution as written is not it. If there is something wrong with the law, then the courts can fix it or ask Parliament to fix it. If the Constitution needs interpreting (written or unwritten), then there is no better body to do so.

Edited June 6, 2009 by Smallc

[Jerry J. Fortin]

You're saying that justice requires we get rid of discretion in the justice system? It's actually the opposite. Any decent justice system needs to look at the unique facts surrounding each person and crime. Otherwise justice will never be done. That little concept known as justice requires discretion in the system not rigid and inflexible rules that can't take into account reality.

No I do not say that at all. Discretion is very relevant, and we need to keep it. However I am saying that the process of "catch and release" for violent criminals is flawed and fundamentally responsible for the victimization of citizens due to the incompetence of the system in the case of convicted felons who are repeat offenders. I am not suggesting that we change the entire system, I am saying that we MUST change the rules for "VIOLENT OFFENDERS'.

[Smallc]

I am saying that we MUST change the rules for "VIOLENT OFFENDERS'.

We change the rules all of the time. Changing to the way you like or I like may not make it more safe though.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

They can and they do. The Constitution as written is not it. If there is something wrong with the law, then the courts can fix it or ask Parliament to fix it. If the Constitution needs interpreting (written or unwritten), then there is no better body to do so.

In Canada the courts do not make laws, they are unable to do so by the constitution. As a point of fact all legislation is vetted before the system prior to being enabled to avoid conflict.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

We change the rules all of the time. Changing to the way you like or I like may not make it more safe though.

Safe? Well let me say this. Removal of a risk to the people is the best available option. Knowing there is a risk to public safety the government is responsible to take corrective actions. The risk of harm to citizens by wards of the state warrants attention in my view.

[Smallc]

In Canada the courts do not make laws, they are unable to do so by the constitution. As a point of fact all legislation is vetted before the system prior to being enabled to avoid conflict.

Legislation is vetted, but mistakes are still made. The courts are charged with upholding the law. Canadian law involves a great deal of interpretation. When one law is seen to contradict another or the Constitution (because the Constitution is very difficult to interpret at times) then the situation has to be rectified and that is part of the job of the courts.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Legislation is vetted, but mistakes are still made. The courts are charged with upholding the law. Canadian law involves a great deal of interpretation. When one law is seen to contradict another or the Constitution (because the Constitution is very difficult to interpret at times) then the situation has to be rectified and that is part of the job of the courts.

In theory we can challenge the law based on conflict, but that can only happen in The Supreme Court of Canada. If you know anything at all about the law of this land you will know how difficult and rare it is to have a case heard before this court.

To return to the point, legislation can be formulated that targets violent offenders in a manner that will serve as a means to prevent crimes. Such legislative effort is unlike to see very much in the way of opposition from any partisan group. Who in their right mind would oppose eliminating a risk to the public?

[Smallc]

In theory we can challenge the law based on conflict, but that can only happen in The Supreme Court of Canada. If you know anything at all about the law of this land you will know how difficult and rare it is to have a case heard before this court.

I know a great deal about the law of this land. The Supreme court can interpret laws with more freedom then other courts, however it is and should be done in the courts. It is part of our common law system to allow judicial freedom. Often, these cases make it all the way to the supreme court, but there are many cases of lower courts talking about contradictory legislation and coming to a conclusion that may be in contravention of the legislation....based often on the Charter and the Constitution.

If there was no ability of the courts to examine the validity of laws, the Charter would have much less of a purpose. The Charter matters more than legislation in the eyes of the court and the Crown, and so that is the document that will nearly always win out in any disagreement.