Tories move to eliminate faint-hope clause

[Jerry J. Fortin]

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.

The Charter, yeah you have to love that one! Some discrimination is okay, but some isn't. Another bogus document created by foolish politicians. You understand that if you are a white english speaking male that you cannot use the charter? It is very specific, it literally denies rights and freedoms to a vast numbers of citizens, it is a document designed to protect minority rights, not majority rights. A white male cannot claim discrimination, that word is only valid for women and minorities. Protection under the charter is limited to minorities.

[Smallc]

That's one opinion that I've never heard...the Charter is for all of us...and to think otherwise is foolish. I thought that you said there was no racism where you lived?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

That's one opinion that I've never heard...the Charter is for all of us...and to think otherwise is foolish. I thought that you said there was no racism where you lived?

There is not, but that does not matter. The Charter was designed for the protection of minorities, I don't have a problem with that at all. What I do have a problem with is being denied the rights that are given to others.

[Argus]

And so my statement is proven.

No, you simply don't require much in the way of proof so long as something seems to support your beliefs.

We're not talking about an enormous number of people here. We're talking about people serving time for first degree murder who would have gotten out at 15 years under this clause. That's a small percentage at best, and there just aren't that many people serving first degree murder anyway.

My statement is simply that, regardless of whether it costs more to keep killers in jail longer or not, I support it.

[Argus]

But not deficit builders. That is your party.

Your party created the debt. It was that debt, during the stagflation of the Mulroney years, which ballooned upwards. Without your party creating it stagflation and double digit interest rates would not have saddled us with the huge debt load we currently labour under. And Chretien added almost 200 billion to the debt load during his first four years in office, as well. Don't play the virgin with us, Jdobbin, for it won't work.

[Argus]

Please tell how it will be paid for and what you would cut to do it. We have seen jurisdictions where they have had to make a choice between prisons or education.

Given how much crap is loaded into the incentive budget, it would take very little to divert the money to prison construction from road building or airport construction or whatever. The money is intended to get people working by, among other things, funding various infrastructure and public works projects. There's no reason another prison can't be among them.

But then I'm talking to a representative of the party which suggested, last election, that they would cut back on funding the military while increasing funding for arts programs.

[Argus]

There are lots of us true fiscal conservatives left, but we don't belong to the Tory party.

They are faux fiscal conservatives who see only to the end of their nose ... or careers

That describes ALL politicians from all parties.

Faux fiscal conservatives, for example, choose to pay over $40,000/yr to incarcerate people and keep increasing the number of incarcerations, instead of looking long term and investing the money in children's well-being to prevent future crime.

You say that like we don't currently invest in children's well-being and education. You also say it as though if children are simply raised properly they won't commit crimes. Neither of those assertions is true. You suggest we spent more on children? In what way? More money to parents like the tories have done? Should we increase the baby bonus? Should we create more playgrounds? What will the cost be and what will be the benefit of those costs?

It's easy to make sweeping statements without any coherent vision or idea to back it up.

"Spend more on children! There, no more crime. How smart I am!"

[Argus]

Thanks for the information.

Do you happen to know how many re-offended?

That would be the only reason for removing the faint hope clause - if it was resulting in danger to the public.

The only reason? So if we could be assured that Paul Bernardo and Clifford Olsen would not re-offend then we should let them out immediately?

[jdobbin]

Your party created the debt. It was that debt, during the stagflation of the Mulroney years, which ballooned upwards.

Stagflation years? I think you mean the 1970s. The economy was not stagnant through a lot of the Mulroney years. It was growing in one of the longest post-war spurts.

Mulroney didn't make any substantial cuts and his constitutional battles kept interest rates higher which meant the debt cost more to pay. Mulroney wasn't interested in reducing spending or stopping from meddling no once but twice in the Constitution.

Without your party creating it stagflation and double digit interest rates would not have saddled us with the huge debt load we currently labour under. And Chretien added almost 200 billion to the debt load during his first four years in office, as well.

Try to get your eras right. Stagflation was the 1970s.

Your party is the one that has sent Canada back into deficit with no indication when that is going to end. All you guys can do is blame the Liberals. Is it any wonder why more polls this week show your party in the toilet?

Don't play the virgin with us, Jdobbin, for it won't work.

And don't play the confused poster with us.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w1185

[jdobbin]

Given how much crap is loaded into the incentive budget, it would take very little to divert the money to prison construction from road building or airport construction or whatever. The money is intended to get people working by, among other things, funding various infrastructure and public works projects. There's no reason another prison can't be among them.

Infrastructure is but once cost of prisons. It is the ongoing payments each year to house inmates and to staff the facilities that starts to become an ever greater line item in the budget.

But then I'm talking to a representative of the party which suggested, last election, that they would cut back on funding the military while increasing funding for arts programs.

Think I'd have no problems cutting off money for our useless sub program.

[Argus]

I didn't write that correctly. I had meant to say that parole allows for monitoring at a fraction of the cost of prison time. I changed the original post to reflect that.

Anyone serving a life sentence cannot violate any terms of their parole or they end up back in prison/

Assuming, of course, that they are caught, which in most cases they are not. Most crimes, after all, are not solved.

And it's little comfort to the survivors of someone murdered by someone who was supposed to be safely locked away that he'll have his parole revoked.

The prisons are now filled to the rafters. Any Corrections official will say it is dangerous to them and a danger to all other prisoners.

We haven't built a new prison in decades, so far as I know. Given the growth in the population of Canada don't you think that might be a good idea?

Only a frothy, right wing extremist would jump on the get tough on crime issue without thinking about whether it would affect government budgets elsewhere

,

Are you seriously trying to make the case that putting the safety of the public before costs is a "frothy right wing" belief?

What kind of a liberal are you anyway?

The faint hope clause means just that. It is faint hope.

It was a sly little insertion by Liberals, like a greasy lawyer putting in an out clause in fine print so that the people signing didn't know about it. This is the thing about Liberals. Honesty is absolutely beyond them. They don't even understand it as a concept. The whole idea of honesty bewilders them because their minds aren't set up for it.

Liberals hate the idea of punishing people, no matter what those people do - rape, murder, whatever, unless those people are racists, of course. So the Liberals campaigned to end the death penalty by replacing it with a mandatory life sentence. Problem was, they knew that too many of the population thought a life sentence, given our extremely lax parole laws (which the Liberals had no intention of changing), was a joke. So they proposed the minimum 25/10 years to parole in order to convince the public to support them. But of course, the idea of forcing poor rapist/murderers to stay in jail that long horrified a lot of Liberals, who always sympathize with murderers more than the victims, so they slyly put this little clause in at the bottom of the page and didn't tell the public about it.

The clause gives a clever, persuasive lawyer the opportunity to pull the wool over an ignorant jury's eyes again, and it has been successful in too many cases. If the Liberals had their way, of course, it would be successful in all cases, and probably applied after 5 years not 15.

[Argus]

If it's so wonderful, why don't you just sign yourself in.

The largest deterrent in prisons is not the prisons itself, but the people you have to live with. The prisons themselves offer up nothing much in the way of punishment - other than living in a violent environment with other prisoners. You get all your needs seen to, can get an education, can work, learn a skill, get conjugal visits, watch movies and television, play on your computer. It really isn't that bad a place - aside from, of course, the company.

But what if you're the bad dude? Then it ain't so bad at all. Life for gang-bangers isn't so very different in prison from at home. They hang around with their gang, rob, beat, rape and intimidate others, get in fights, kill people. What's so very different? Their HOs come up regularly to have sex with them and bring them drugs. And they know they'll get early parole anyway, so in some respects it is like a vacation to them.

[Argus]

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.

Absolutely. Parole was conceived of as a way of encouraging prisoners to behave and to cooperate in their own rehabilitation. It has shifted over time from being something you have to work very hard at keeping your nose clean in order to obtain - to an entitlement given out automatically. And then the Liberals realized that as easy as it was to get parole, some people still were behaving so badly, so continuously, that they didn't qualify. The mandatory release was designed to help those people, whose constant violence and misbehaviour in prison prevented them from being released, to get out early.

It should be abolished, and parole should be returned to its original concept - something you can get, if you work hard, if you earn it.

[Argus]

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%.

That does not, of course, include those who commit crimes but aren't caught. So you can probably easily double that figure.

[Smallc]

Yes, in the Argus world, we can not only hold slaves, but we can also ignore statistical realities. It must be a great place .

Edited June 6, 2009 by Smallc

[waldo]

No, you simply don't require much in the way of proof so long as something seems to support your beliefs.

We're not talking about an enormous number of people here. We're talking about people serving time for first degree murder who would have gotten out at 15 years under this clause. That's a small percentage at best, and there just aren't that many people serving first degree murder anyway.

My statement is simply that, regardless of whether it costs more to keep killers in jail longer or not, I support it.

since it's your stated emphasis on 1st degree... you would appear to not realize that the faint-hope clause is also applicable to 2nd degree offenders. More than likely that's a non-starter for you... anyway - yes?

irregardless of serving a complete 25 years or being released at 15 years, all offenders continue to see a parole officer for the rest of their lives... and are subject to being incarcerated once again should they break conditions of their parole.

and yes, it is a very small number of individuals being talked of here. Persons that must be eligible for release subject to the risk assessments undertaken by the National Parole Board and the professionals it relies upon.

in any case, continue to pound that Harper Conservative "get tough on crime' drum - it always plays well to the down-home base and is a tried-&-true deflection avenue from the real issues of the day... like Deficit Jim's misadventures, job losses, bankruptcies, etc.

[Argus]

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.

The problem is that Canadians don't trust the people who make such decisions. We don't trust the justice system or the judges or the parole laws or those who administer them.

That's why the Liberals promised us that if we went along with abolishing the death penalty, there would be a mandatory period before murderers could be paroled. Then they slyly stuck in this little clause in fine print, without telling us about it.

If the laws were more sensible with regard to parole, and all involved were wise and capable, we could trust them with discretion. But as long as most of those positions, from judges to parole board members, are appointed due to patronage, and as long as the only interest lawyers have is to win at all costs, regardless of justice, people want some certainty with regard to the punishment of murderers.

[Argus]

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.

It's too bad that body is made up of second and third rate lawyers who got their robes by sucking up to politicians, and donating money and services to political parties.

[waldo]

But as long as most of those positions, from judges to parole board members, are appointed due to patronage...

yes, please name examples of those NPB patronage appointments...

National Parole Board: Parole Decision-Making: Myths and Realities

15. Myth: Board Members are political patronage appointments.

Reality : Board Members are not political patronage appointments.

The Government appoints only candidates who have successfully met all the selection and screening requirements of the National Parole Board.

Vacancies are advertised in the Canada Gazette and any interested candidates may apply for the positions. Applicants are first screened against a set of criteria, which includes an assessment of their background and related experience. This may include criminology, law, journalism, law enforcement, education, business and community service. They must have a good understanding of the criminal justice system.

Candidates who meet these initial selection criteria must then undertake a written test and an in-depth interview. A list of qualified candidates is then submitted to the Minister of Public Safety Canada and appointments are made by the Government from this list of qualified individuals. The same selection process is used to select the Chairperson and Executive Vice-Chairperson of the Board.

[Smallc]

The problem is that Canadians don't trust the people who make such decisions.

I don't regularly hear people outside of a few circles screaming for justice reform. I think some proof of that might be in order.

[Argus]

Stagflation years? I think you mean the 1970s. The economy was not stagnant through a lot of the Mulroney years. It was growing in one of the longest post-war spurts.

Interest rates were deep into double digits through much of the 80s

Mulroney didn't make any substantial cuts

Mulroney cut to the point his government was living within its means, paying out what it took in. The difference, the reason for big deficits, was the need to pay up to $40 billion per year to service the Trudeau debt.

and his constitutional battles kept interest rates higher

Drivel. Interest rates were high because they were high everywhere else. Are you suggesting Mulroney's constitutional battles caused high interest rates in the US and Europe?

Your party is the one that has sent Canada back into deficit

Oh right, the Tories created the international recession. The Tories threatened to bring down their own government if there wasn't a massive incentive program.

As I said earlier, Liberals not only are dishonest, the entire concept of honesty simply bewilders them. They don't even understand it. Why would anyone ever want to tell the truth when it's easier to lie?!

[Argus]

Yes, in the Argus world, we can not only hold slaves, but we can also ignore statistical realities. It must be a great place .

What an idiotic post.

First of all, no one spoke of slaves. What the hell are you talking about? Second, no one, including you, has presented ANY statistics to support their position. So exactly who is ignoring statistical realities?

[Argus]

I don't regularly hear people outside of a few circles screaming for justice reform. I think some proof of that might be in order.

No, you seem to live in a small, smug, self-content world without crime or poverty or problems. How nice for you.

[Argus]

yes, please name examples of those NPB patronage appointments...

You believe anything you read, is that it? You can't even understand the weasel words in what you've quoted.

Let me clue you in to something. If they weren't political appointees, then they would simply be civil servants, hired and promoted from within as in any other government department. But just as with the members of the refugee board, they are political appointees with ties to the governing party.

Advertised in the Canada Gazette?!? How many job seekers do you think check the Canada Gazette? How many people do you think have ever even heard of the Canada Gazette? You think Joe Schmoe is perusing the Canada Gazette over coffee one morning, sees a job ad for "parole board member" and sends in his resume??!

[Smallc]

If they weren't political appointees, then they would simply be civil servants, hired and promoted from within as in any other government department.

So you mean that new civil servants are never hired? People never come into the civil service from outside? And you accuse others of living in a false sheltered world?