Tories move to eliminate faint-hope clause

[canfan]

For all those who think this is a problem that needs addressing why don't you look at some actual numbers. This attempt to repeal the faint hope clause is nothing more than an attempt to distract from the more pressing issues that Canada is facing and an attempt to remove discretion from the justice system. Discretion that lies in the hands of regular Canadian citizens.

From http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:itgU8I...=clnk&gl=ca

The report is dated December 2001.

The faint hope clause only means that a convict might be eligible for parole before 25 years. It doesn't mean that they get parole.

488 people could have used the faint hope clause. Only 103 applied.

84 of those 103 had their eligibility for parole moved up. The rest were unsuccessful.

Their eligibility for parole was moved up to anywhere between 15 and 24 years. Some only had their parole eligibility moved up to 24 years instead of 25 years.

Of the 84 successful applicants 14 were on day parole and 39 were on full parole. 6 hadn't served enough time to reach their new parole eligibility date, 17 were denied parole, 2 had their parole revoked and 2 had their parole revoked and are unlawfully at large. 3 were dead and 1 deported.

Of the 4 people who had parole revoked the infractions were 1 armed robbery, 1 serious drug offence and 2 less serious drug offences.

For all of you worried about violent offenders only 1 person under the faint hope clause recommitted a violent offence. That was 0.2% of the eligible people. Only 11% of the people who could use the faint hope clause were released on early parole. 93% of those did not reoffend at all and 98% of them did not commit any other violent crimes.

Obviously these numbers only go to the end of 2001. People here seem to be quoting the number 97. So in the last 8 years another 13 people have been successful under this clause. But remember this means that 97 people were given the eligibility to apply for parole early they were not granted early parole. There's a huge difference.

[noahbody]

Why is it you only trust them to convict and not to consider early parole?

I would assume the second jury would all have to be open to early release or they would be challenged and dismissed. As a result you'd end up with a liberal jury that favours early release. This is the will of some people, not the people.

Maybe instead, they should leave it up to the families of the victims, since they will be victimized by early release.

[canfan]

I would assume the second jury would all have to be open to early release or they would be challenged and dismissed. As a result you'd end up with a liberal jury that favours early release. This is the will of some people, not the people.

That's bad logic. If it was true then the first jury would all have to be open to a finding of not guilty or they would be challenged and dismissed. As a result you'd end up with a "liberal" jury that favours a finding of not guilty. Obviously not true since the person was convicted in the first place. Or you can turn your argument around and say that the second jury would all have to be open to not changing the prisoner's parole eligibility or they would be challenged and dismissed. As a result you'd end up with a "nonliberal" jury that favours the 25 year eligibility date. That's equally untrue. People with extreme views will probably be dismissed but most juries are made up of people who are capable of looking at the facts and deciding on those facts which way to decide. The fact is there's no real difference between the 2 juries that I've seen so how can you praise juries for 1 decision and not the other?

And remember we're talking about early eligibility for parole and not early release. Just because a prisoner is successful in their faint hope application that doesn't mean that they will get parole.

Maybe instead, they should leave it up to the families of the victims, since they will be victimized by early release.

Leaving justice only in the hands of the victims of crime is a bad idea. Instead of justice you just get revenge. A jury of regular Canadians who hear from all sides including the families of the victims has a greater chance of seeing justice done.

[jdobbin]

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

Because that was the policy of the government and the Bank of Canada to fight inflation.

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.

It was because Mulroney kept pushing interest rates higher to fight inflation instead of cutting spending.

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?

I am saying they were higher than other countries because of the Constitutional battles. It amounted to a 1 or 2% difference and it was fear of what the result would in Quebec. Chretien faced the same thing until there was some distance from the Quebec referendum.

This isn't new information. Canada paid a premium for constitutional instability.

As for the interest rates, that was the policy of the Tories to combat inflation. Worked so well that it often linked to the downturn in the early 1990s.

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.

The Tories created the problem in Ontario by letting the dollar rise as fast as it did.

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?!

The right wing are completely deluded that they had nothing to do with the downturn in manufacturing in Canada. As early as 2008 the fast rising dollar was something within their domain to deal with. The lies about about their overspending being prompted by the Opposition and the absolute dishonesty and contempt for acting in good faith is why the party is in the toilet now.

[noahbody]

That's bad logic. If it was true then the first jury would all have to be open to a finding of not guilty or they would be challenged and dismissed.

That's how it works. The difference is the first jury is selected to be unbiased; the second is selected to be biased.

Leaving justice only in the hands of the victims of crime is a bad idea. Instead of justice you just get revenge. A jury of regular Canadians who hear from all sides including the families of the victims has a greater chance of seeing justice done.

Getting out early has nothing to do with justice. It flies in the face of it.

[jdobbin]

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.

My reference was to people on parole for first degree murder not for other crimes.

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?

Thought there was a new facility built in Millhaven in 2006 as authorized in the Liberal budget in 2005.

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?

I am saying that Tories are likely to make this an OAS versus prisons issue.

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.

The absolute lies and gutless accusations from extremist right wingers astounds. The provision wasn't out in as an afterthought but for when such a time as it might make sense. Some people just want to fan the flames of a lynch mob, it seems. It is repugnant behaviour and it is no wonder that some people fear Conservatives.

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.

Tories hate judges, juries, parole boards and at times it seems they hate the police and corrections officers. Some appear to feel more comfort in hoisting a pitchfork and running around stringing people up and dispense with investigations, trials and prisons.

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.

Given how many people are released from First Degree murder, Conservatives seem to bloviating again with full steam. Tories always sympathize with the lynch mob because they hate due process, the courts and prisons.

Some on the right want to kill whoever they want, whenever they want. Strap on the six-gun, throw a rope over a tree limb and hang whoever they think has done them wrong.

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.

If some Tories had their way, the law would allow citizens blow each other away for not using turn signals. Instant justice.

[jdobbin]

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

For first degree murderers you are making a claim that when they re-offend, they are not caught? Where do you get those stats?

[Wild Bill]

Leaving justice only in the hands of the victims of crime is a bad idea. Instead of justice you just get revenge. A jury of regular Canadians who hear from all sides including the families of the victims has a greater chance of seeing justice done.

Revenge? Perhaps. As opposed to indifference and expediency? Part of justice is having a perpetrator pay for his crime. This is what helps bring closure to the victim or victim's family.

Every time I hear someone blow off the views of the victim's family and their feelings as simple revenge I get a bad feeling. When you can lose a loved one, sometimes due to a horrific murder and 15 years later you're forced to attend a faint hope clause meeting and have your feelings dismissed as being too "emotional"...there's a lack of compassion and perspective here.

[Smallc]

Every time I hear someone blow off the views of the victim's family and their feelings as simple revenge I get a bad feeling.

The feelings of the victim have a very small place in justice. Justice is about what's right under the law and circumstance, it's not about what people want...no matter how horribly it has affected them.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

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

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.

The Charter describes 11 prohibited grounds for discrimination. While it is true that the rights are in fact applicable to all citizens, just try and use them! You cannot claim discrimination unless it falls under one of the 11 very specific focused "minority" groups. Go ahead and try to claim discrimination if you do not fall into one of these categories, go ahead and retain a lawyer, spend your money. It will get you nowhere.

[Smallc]

That's only one section of the charter. There are many sections to protect us from other things, and the document is often interpreted very broadly. It protects us all very well.

Also, that section doesn't only protect those 11 things, but those 11 things in particular.

Edited June 7, 2009 by Smallc

[canfan]

That's how it works. The difference is the first jury is selected to be unbiased; the second is selected to be biased.

That's not even remotely true. Juries are selected the same way. There's not 1 type of jury for murder trials and another for faint hope clause hearings. If you've got proof of jury bias then show it otherwise please stop spreading misinformation. And just because a jury when looking at the real facts of a specific case reaches a conclusion you don't like despite not knowing the specific case that doesn't make the jury biased.

[canfan]

Revenge? Perhaps. As opposed to indifference and expediency? Part of justice is having a perpetrator pay for his crime. This is what helps bring closure to the victim or victim's family.

Every time I hear someone blow off the views of the victim's family and their feelings as simple revenge I get a bad feeling. When you can lose a loved one, sometimes due to a horrific murder and 15 years later you're forced to attend a faint hope clause meeting and have your feelings dismissed as being too "emotional"...there's a lack of compassion and perspective here.

I agree part of justice is having someone pay for their crime. I agree the families of victims deserve to have their views heard at faint hope hearings. And they do have their views heard. But justice is about more than just the victim and involves seeing if a criminal has rehabilitated. If you leave the criminal's fate only in the hands of the relatives of the victim as was suggested then that's where I see a problem.

[canfan]

The Charter describes 11 prohibited grounds for discrimination. While it is true that the rights are in fact applicable to all citizens, just try and use them! You cannot claim discrimination unless it falls under one of the 11 very specific focused "minority" groups. Go ahead and try to claim discrimination if you do not fall into one of these categories, go ahead and retain a lawyer, spend your money. It will get you nowhere.

You need to read that section again. Those categories aren't minorities for example race includes both majority racial groups and minority racial groups. Race is not focused on minority groups. It's harder for a white male to prove discrimination but that's because white males really aren't discriminated against. But white is still a race and male is still a sex. Noone has been denied a right despite your opinion. As for claiming discrimination outside of those categories you need to get better information. Lots of people have retained a lawyer and had their rights recognized and validated. 1 example is when the courts agreed that people couldn't be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation.

[Wild Bill]

I agree part of justice is having someone pay for their crime. I agree the families of victims deserve to have their views heard at faint hope hearings. And they do have their views heard. But justice is about more than just the victim and involves seeing if a criminal has rehabilitated. If you leave the criminal's fate only in the hands of the relatives of the victim as was suggested then that's where I see a problem.

Well, that's where many of us disagree, I guess. The state is supposed to administer justice in order to avoid the mistakes, feuds and inequities of force from the 'old days' of justice being an individual matter. Citizens give up the right to solve things on their own because they have faith in the State to do a better job at it then they could themselves.

This is all predicated on the people having faith in the State to administer proper justice. Today, we seem to have a growing disconnect between the State's vision of justice and that of many citizens.

This seems to be especially true among victims and their loved ones. One stat we never seem to see is one showing the percentage of victims that are happy with the sentences of those that have wronged them. Perhaps that's "the elephant in the room" that no one wants to admit is there.

Not everyone feels that a murderer has a right to a chance to rehabilitate. Many feel that after committing such a horrible deed as to take the life of a fellow human being in an unlawful manner a murder has forfeited such 'rights'. In effect he or she has placed themselves outside the law we all share, which is the traditional definition of an 'outlaw'.

There is also the factor of personal responsibility. Some believe that individuals are responsible for their own actions and their consequences. Others don't seem to share this belief.

However, those that don't share this belief seem to feel they have the right to determine how the justice system operates with respect to sentencing, particularly with violent crimes! Here in this very thread we have those, including yourself, who believe that the state is doing the right things and that the feelings of the victims and their families are of little or no import.

Not only do I believe that this is unhealthy for a society, I also believe that the disconnect and resentment can only grow in the face of such attitudes. Victims are being made victims twice, once by the perpetrator and once by the state in its sentencing.

As a culture we seem to have lost any sense of empathy with our fellow citizens. At one time we reacted with caring towards others who experienced loss or tragedy. Now we tell them that they are irrelevant.

This is socially divisive. It is very unlikely that the resentment will simply go away. It is far more likely that it will continue to grow! It breeds disrespect for authority. Once you begin to lose respect you're only other tool with which to govern becomes force! What's more, respect cannot be demanded. It always must be earned. Once lost, it is FAR more difficult to regain!

The very fact that this thread has a need to exist is a sign of a large and growing problem.

[Argus]

That's only one section of the charter. There are many sections to protect us from other things, and the document is often interpreted very broadly. It protects us all very well

You have a naive faith in a piece of paper. So far the only people the Charter has protected have been criminals.

If the government of the day wants to slap all Jews in ovens the charter will have nothing to say about it. The government will simply appoint its partisans to the bench, and they will "interpret" the Charter any way they desire.

Much as the existing occupants of the supreme court benches do.

[Argus]

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.

So what? A man's reputation has nothing to do with how you regard him? If you know a man, have known him for a long time, and know him to be a habitual liar and thief, would you not take anything he says with a grain of salt in your day to day encounters? A man builds his own reputation. I see no reason why that reputation should not follow him into the courtroom. God knows that if that man has a good reputation he will invoke it, bringing in all manner of witnesses to testify as to what a good and generous man he is. Why not the reverse?

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

I have no problem with basic, commonsense rules. I have no problem saying the police cannot beat a confession out of someone, for that would indeed violate a basic human right. I do have a problem when we say that the police must forego evidence of murder seized because of some trivial technicality of an arcane law which is now suggested is a "violation of his rights". His rights? What drivel. I honour the basic human rights. I think the new ones added are designed purely to make it easier for criminals to stay out of jail. Have they suggested yet that being rude to a murderer is a horrific violation of his human rights?

The police can't tape record drug buys because that would violate the drug dealers rights? Don't make me vomit.

[Argus]

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.

I think that when you deliberately set out to murder someone you should forfeit your own life as punishment. End of story.

Now because I don't trust the competence of our courts and the often sleazy individuals who work in them, I support the concept of life in prison instead. And I mean life, not 15 years and not 25 years. Life. You get out when your victim gets out of his grave and has a cigar to celebrate.

There are undoubtedly exceptional circumstances which would allow for parole and I'm willing to accept that. But the general rule, so far as I'm concerned, is if you deliberately take someone's life you forfeit yours. So given I think 25 years is too early to be allowed back on the street, why would you think I'd want murderers to get out in 15?

[Argus]

For all of you worried about violent offenders only 1 person under the faint hope clause recommitted a violent offence. That was 0.2% of the eligible people. Only 11% of the people who could use the faint hope clause were released on early parole. 93% of those did not reoffend at all and 98% of them did not commit any other violent crimes.

Obviously these numbers only go to the end of 2001. People here seem to be quoting the number 97. So in the last 8 years another 13 people have been successful under this clause. But remember this means that 97 people were given the eligibility to apply for parole early they were not granted early parole. There's a huge difference.

Lots of numbers.

So if a man raped and murdered your fourteen year old daughter, would you be happy to see him released early because he claims to have "rehabilitated" himself?

Would you go to visit her grave and say "Don't worry, dear, he's rehabilitated himself"?

[Argus]

For first degree murderers you are making a claim that when they re-offend, they are not caught? Where do you get those stats?

Are you suggesting that any time a criminal on parole commits a crime he is always caught?

[jdobbin]

Would you go to visit her grave and say "Don't worry, dear, he's rehabilitated himself"?

Would you be happy that you didn't get a chance to torture and kill this person for hours and hours yourself? Of course not. This is why the government must allow citizens the rights to kill their tormentors. Only we can mete out punishment or assess what it should be. Damn the police, judges, juries, parole boards and governments. We need to do it old school.

Edited June 7, 2009 by jdobbin

[Argus]

The feelings of the victim have a very small place in justice. Justice is about what's right under the law and circumstance, it's not about what people want...no matter how horribly it has affected them.

That is why it's not justice. Legalism is not justice. The finding of a jury or a judge are not automatically just simply because the technicalities of law are fulfilled. Justice is a concept which rests on its own, which requires someone who hurts others be punished in a reciprocal manner.

Justice has nothing to with what the law says. Unfortunately, the law often has nothing to do with justice either.

[Oleg Bach]

Lots of numbers.

So if a man raped and murdered your fourteen year old daughter, would you be happy to see him released early because he claims to have "rehabilitated" himself?

Would you go to visit her grave and say "Don't worry, dear, he's rehabilitated himself"?

There should be no early release - give them hope - hope that they will be out on their birthday - their 60th birthday. Time and age will rehabilitate, what no correctional or re-hab facility can ever do. Our correctional facilties have stopped correcting - there is no political or moral will to repair people - no one cares - The judicary does not care when they release dangerous people. The mental health people cover their asses when they release a dangerours person - they simply do not care about the general civilian population - and the ones that lobby to eliminate the faint - hope clause do not care for the offender or the offended..no one cares anymore - that's the problem - not some chump sitting in Kingston pen...who really does not have a clue how he got there.

Liberal sensationalism such as "mudered your fourteen year old daughter" is a not starter and shows dishonesty - If they were honest ALL people would count - all victims would be avenged - They really don't give a damn about your daughter, mother - brother father or son - they only care about their own.

[jdobbin]

Are you suggesting that any time a criminal on parole commits a crime he is always caught?

I am saying that I have not seen evidence recently that those on parole after 15 or 25 years are committing murder again. 15% have re-offended or violated their paroles. You have suggested even greater numbers but I have not seen any numbers to back that up.

If you are going to question the statistics over and over, I guess you can make up any number you want.

For example, you can state that there are actually thousands of murders of women and children when they disappear. This may or may not be true but it certainly sounds dramatic.

[Argus]

That's not even remotely true. Juries are selected the same way. There's not 1 type of jury for murder trials and another for faint hope clause hearings.

The standards which are now imposed on juries can be probelmatic given the defence' opportunity to remove anyone they might think is "prejudicial" to their client. The jury is supposed to be a mimic of the defendant's peers, but instead, given the nature of things, there is a tendency for lawyers to try to manipulate the selection. Jury selection is now an actual industry, with high priced consultants using statistics and studies to decide what income bracket, what gender and what race and characteristics would be most favorably inclined towards their client.

I don't know enough about the way the faint hope clause "hearings" are conducted, but the fact they have something like a 90% success rate seems to me that "faint hope" is a pretty poor description, and that in all likelihood someone is messing with the juries or what they get to hear.