Tories move to eliminate faint-hope clause

[waldo]

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??!

that..... was the NFB challenging your patronage assertion. Feel free to name those you suggest were patronage appointments.

[Argus]

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?

They are not public servants. They are not hired through the public service commission or any other public service or even PUBLIC competition, and are not unionized. You are not going to see these positions advertised on jobs.gc.ca or anywhere else people are likely to look. The government covers itself by posting a notice in the Canada Gazette, which I bet no one here has ever read or would ever read. But that's a pro forma sort of thing that's not designed to actually get applicants. The people it wants in these jobs have already been provided with the proper forms to fill out and guided in what to say.

Edited June 6, 2009 by Argus

[Smallc]

The truth according to Argus. Of course the facts go against your assertion that they are political appointments, but feel free to continue.

[noahbody]

If violent offenders are getting out early, we could use a few more prisons. Not surprisingly, some who support wasting money on the gun registry, think we can't budget for a few new prisons.

[Argus]

that..... was the NFB challenging your patronage assertion. Feel free to name those you suggest were patronage appointments.

How much time do you think I want to devote to the obvious?

Okay, the first name I checked was Jean-Pierre Beauchesne. He's the first name on the list of full time members. A Jean-Pierre Beauchesne ran for the Liberals in Verchès some years back. The second name is Mario Dion, the Chairman. He apparently was head of the Indian Residential Schools Commimsion before. Not sure of his political leanings, but definitely another insider. Third and fourth on the list are quite common so difficult to easily scan, though a Catherine Kenned of Ottawa donated money to a conservative candidate. The last name is Denis Jolette. There was a Denis Jolette who was chief of staff to Josee Verner at Heritage. Likely the same guy. Louis-Philippe McGraw - chosen strictly because of the name was uncommon, was a member of the New Brunswick legislature.

I'm not saying all these people are incompetent. For all I know some of them are quite good. What I'm saying is that the government selects people for this board depending on their assessment of whether these people's ideological bent is similar to that of the government. When the Liberals were in power, that meant, of course, bleeding heart liberals. Now it likely means people with a harder line.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Violent offenders getting out at all is the issue at hand. In my view they should not get out at all, ever. We should build new prisons in the north, as many as we need. Violent offenders can be kept in solitary confinement for the simple reason that they are dangerous to other citizens. Non-violent offenders can grow the foods, cook the food, do all of the work necessary to maintain the prison infrastructure. If you have enough leftover prison population of non-violent offenders, they can fight forest fires, pick up garbage and all sorts of work that society needs to be done for the duration of their sentence.

The point is that criminals need to be punished, returning them to society should be carefully considered.

[Argus]

The truth according to Argus. Of course the facts go against your assertion that they are political appointments, but feel free to continue.

Your problem is your inability to understand what constitutes a fact. It is why all your arguments tend to be based on emotions.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Your problem is your inability to understand what constitutes a fact. It is why all your arguments tend to be based on emotions.

Argus how in the hell did I end up on the same side of this argument as you????

[Smallc]

Your problem is your inability to understand what constitutes a fact. It is why all your arguments tend to be based on emotions.

Actually, because evidence that was just posted that agrees with the position that isn't yours, it is you that seems to operate on emotion. You always operate on emotion, and the fact that you don't recognize it is almost amusing....almost.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Actually, because evidence that was just posted that agrees with the position that isn't yours, it is you that seems to operate on emotion. You always operate on emotion, and the fact that you don't recognize it is almost amusing....almost.

Actually I think Argus is an old fart like me, we don't have the best education in schools but the University of Hard Knocks has taught us much. What you perceive as emotion is really an expression of frustration with the system of things. The older you get the more you end up coming nose to nose with it and the people working it. You begin to realize that there are a lot of people working the system from the inside as well as the outside and the tax payer has to cover the tab.

[canfan]

All your comment is worth

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

Borg

Rights are lost. But thanks for continuing to add nothing to the discussion.

[canfan]

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'.

I asked why we're getting rid of discretion and you responded with "because of a concept known as justice." That's why it sounded like you want to get rid of discretion. The faint hope clause isn't even remotely a catch and release system. It affects 6 to 8 people a year. That's hardly a revolving door.

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.

That's just wrong. The Charter doesn't deny rights to anyone. A white man who is actually discriminated against has the same rights under the Charter as anyone else.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I asked why we're getting rid of discretion and you responded with "because of a concept known as justice." That's why it sounded like you want to get rid of discretion. The faint hope clause isn't even remotely a catch and release system. It affects 6 to 8 people a year. That's hardly a revolving door.

That's just wrong. The Charter doesn't deny rights to anyone. A white man who is actually discriminated against has the same rights under the Charter as anyone else.

Bullshit, read the Charter before you make any comment like that. The rights expressed under the Charter apply to minorities, period. The rest of the citizens get diddly squat out of it.

[canfan]

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?

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.

Your posts would carry more weight if they didn't devolve into anti-Liberal rants. It's hard to say you're not a "frothy right winger" when your next paragraphs rant about how Liberals are all dishonest criminal lovers.

[Smallc]

Jerry, I think you need to read the Charter. All but a small part of it really does apply to all of us.

[canfan]

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.

We don't trust the people who make these decisions? Really? The people who make the final decision on faint hope applications are people who make up a jury. Not judges or parole officers. Regular people. Why is it that you think a jury can't be trusted in a faint hope application when it's a jury who convicted the person in the first place?

[canfan]

Bullshit, read the Charter before you make any comment like that. The rights expressed under the Charter apply to minorities, period. The rest of the citizens get diddly squat out of it.

I have. Have you? You claim the Charter denies rights to people so point out where in the Charter it says that.

Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Seems like that means everyone has the right to not be discriminated against. Lots of nonminorities have had their rights protected by the Charter. To say otherwise is to ignore over 20 years of history.

[myata]

much ado about..... it really is such a minimum number of persons under consideration: between 1987 and 2006, 145 offenders applied under the so-called "faint hope clause", section 745.6 of the Criminal Code. Of those 145 offenders, 118 were granted permission to apply to the National Parole Board for early release. Of these 118, 97 were granted parole.

Ok, here we go. Five parolees per annum. However there's still one piece missing, the incidence of reoffence fom under "faint hope" law. Would anybody happen to have that data.

Anyways, the numbers speak for themselves. Certainly walks, talks and quacks like another piece of loud and stinky b.s. from this hapless bunch, the only skill (i.e. producing it in large volumes) they really excel in.

[Argus]

Argus how in the hell did I end up on the same side of this argument as you????

I imagine you have to be right SOMETIME.

[Argus]

Actually, because evidence that was just posted that agrees with the position that isn't yours, it is you that seems to operate on emotion. You always operate on emotion, and the fact that you don't recognize it is almost amusing....almost.

Evidence? You mean a government web spiel about how professional they are? Please. What kind of evidence is that?

[Argus]

We don't trust the people who make these decisions? Really? The people who make the final decision on faint hope applications are people who make up a jury. Not judges or parole officers. Regular people. Why is it that you think a jury can't be trusted in a faint hope application when it's a jury who convicted the person in the first place?

Why is you don't trust the will of the original jury which got to examine all the evidence?

Faint hope? Of the 143 killers who have applied for it, 97 were granted early parole. That strikes me as curious as most Canadians aren't terribly sympathetic with killers. But I have not been able to find out much about the process beyond generalities. Ie, what evidence is considered? How is the jury selected? What is it allowed to hear? Who speaks to the jury? Is the original Crown prosecutor there to oppose the application? Or is anyone there to oppose the application? I know the jury must agree unanimously, but I don't know what they are allowed to hear and who delivers that information.

Juries often deliver really dumb verdicts because greasy lawyers have managed to exclude all manner of relevant information which might be "prejudicial". Ie, we can't tell a jury considering whether a man might be a rapist that he has a hundred and forty seven previous sexual assault convictions. Nor can we tell them that they found the victim's underwear in his house because there wasn't a proper search warrant obtained first.

[Smallc]

Ie, we can't tell a jury considering whether a man might be a rapist that he has a hundred and forty seven previous sexual assault convictions. Nor can we tell them that they found the victim's underwear in his house because there wasn't a proper search warrant obtained first.

Yes, so to fix this, we should eliminate innocence until proof of guilt and ignore all of our civil liberties.

[Argus]

Yes, so to fix this, we should eliminate innocence until proof of guilt and ignore all of our civil liberties.

I don't know whether you realize it or not, but the way you continuously try to use the most extreme and ridiculous suggestions only serves to highlight the fact that you can't make you case using the real ones.

[Smallc]

Here's the thing. Until people are found guilty, they're innocent. Any talk of previous crimes would cause bias by either a jury or a judge.

Here's the other thing. Authorities have to follow the rules when conducting searches. If they don't, then why should anyway?

I know that these things stand in the way of your ideology, but they're important to every single one of us.

[canfan]

Why is you don't trust the will of the original jury which got to examine all the evidence?

Faint hope? Of the 143 killers who have applied for it, 97 were granted early parole. That strikes me as curious as most Canadians aren't terribly sympathetic with killers. But I have not been able to find out much about the process beyond generalities. Ie, what evidence is considered? How is the jury selected? What is it allowed to hear? Who speaks to the jury? Is the original Crown prosecutor there to oppose the application? Or is anyone there to oppose the application? I know the jury must agree unanimously, but I don't know what they are allowed to hear and who delivers that information.

I do trust juries to do both jobs. I'm not the person saying that they're somehow super smart to convict but easily duped when it comes time to consider early parole. Why is it you only trust them to convict and not to consider early parole? The numbers may be curious to you but obviously these juries don't agree with your viewpoint. Maybe you need to reevaluate your opinion of Canadians. What I do find curious is all the people who talk about how horrible something is and how the system is so broken but they don't know how it works. How can you be so against the faint hope clause and claim the system doesn't work when by your own admission you don't know how it works? It's not even that hard to find the criminal code online and get some basic information on this.

Juries often deliver really dumb verdicts because greasy lawyers have managed to exclude all manner of relevant information which might be "prejudicial". Ie, we can't tell a jury considering whether a man might be a rapist that he has a hundred and forty seven previous sexual assault convictions. Nor can we tell them that they found the victim's underwear in his house because there wasn't a proper search warrant obtained first.

All this says is you don't like lawyers or the fact that the police have to follow rules. Personally I'm glad we live in a society where lawyers are required to do the best they can within the bounds of the law to serve their clients. And I'm glad the police have to follow rules. None of this has anything to do with the faint hope clause though.