Jump to content

Tories to end conditional sentences for some crimes


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 104
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You're right...but the differences are the problems that must be addressed. I haven't seen any evidence that longer jail terms will make the crime situation in high crime areas better.

You might want to look into something called "broken windows", as applied to New York.

Many years ago (with crime being quite prevailent), politicians decided to get a little tougher on crime. Thus, if the police caught someone vandalizing property, or turnstile-jumping on the subway, instead of simply letting them off with a warning they decided to actually prosecute such cases. Now, many of the arguments we here today are the same as critics were using all those years ago... it won't work, it will fill up jails, etc.

However, in the decades after NY started its "broken windows" policy, crime started to go down, and rather than having the prisons 'filled', there were fewer inmates, not more. (Part of the reason is that people were getting arrested and punished for minor crimes, so they'd be a bit more hesitant over engaging in more serious crimes in the future.

Now, I don't think the broken windows policy was the only reason for the drop in the crime rate (after all, there are so many factors that help dictate the crime rate in various societies), but many believe it was a significant contributer.

http://www.pbs.org/fmc/segments/progseg13.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You want to ensure that no one else has a say in sentencing except what it is in the PM's legislation.

I've seen you make the same claim before (that somehow only the PM will decide sentences). I've let it slide before, but I think I'll address it here...

- Believe it or not, the legislation is not removing all discrection that judges had in deciding sentences. There were always limits on what judges could and could not do... (they could not, for example, sentence an individual to 25 years for a first-shoplifting offence on a $2 item.) Yes, Judges now have a different 'minimum' allowed punishment, but some sentences can and will receive more than the minimum. By ending conditional sentences, the givernment is eliminating the possibility of no punishment. Judges still have a range of penalties they can administer. (And if the person really deserves no punishment, wouldn't it make more sense to have the persion found innocent? That's something else that a judge can do...)

- Legislation can be changed. Think the suggested minimums are too harsh? Form a political party, and lobby for reduced sentences for murders. Its your political right to do so. The government is passing legislation because enough voters in the country decided to elect representativies who support this type of legislation. If the people really thought this was to harsh (and it was a significant campaign issue), enough people would vote against the conservatives and bring in a kinder, gentler government. So its not the "PM" who's the final arbiter, but the people of Canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Judges now have a different 'minimum' allowed punishment, but some sentences can and will receive more than the minimum. By ending conditional sentences, the givernment is eliminating the possibility of no punishment. Judges still have a range of penalties they can administer. (And if the person really deserves no punishment, wouldn't it make more sense to have the persion found innocent? That's something else that a judge can do...)

Some will recieve more than the minimum as they do now, but none will recieve less, even if less is more appropriate. Juries will not be informed that a mandatory minimum exists, and so will be put in the position of delivering verdicts that are miscarriages of justice.

And asking judges to find someone innocent when it has clearly been proven that they have committed a crime.. is asking that judges over-rule legislators in order to correct the opportunism and short-sighted hubris that those legislators should be responsible enough to control in themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some will recieve more than the minimum as they do now, but none will recieve less, even if less is more appropriate. Juries will not be informed that a mandatory minimum exists, and so will be put in the position of delivering verdicts that are miscarriages of justice.

Ummm... first of all, Juries should not be the ones deciding sentences... it is their job to decide if the person is guilty or innocent. That's it, that's all.

And just how is actually, you know, punishing people for wrongs they have done "miscarriages of justice"?

And asking judges to find someone innocent when it has clearly been proven that they have committed a crime.. is asking that judges over-rule legislators in order to correct the opportunism and short-sighted hubris that those legislators should be responsible enough to control in themselves.

Ummm... the legislation says "if a person does something wrong, they should be punished". That's not a hard concept to understand. The only reason a person should not be punished, is if they actually didn't commit a crime.

What exactly is the point of a criminal justice system that says "we know you committed a crime, you were legally sane at the time, you recognized that this would harm others, you're guilty... but we're not going to punish you."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some will recieve more than the minimum as they do now, but none will recieve less, even if less is more appropriate. Juries will not be informed that a mandatory minimum exists, and so will be put in the position of delivering verdicts that are miscarriages of justice.

The legal system is filled with miscarriages of justice. Get over it.

And asking judges to find someone innocent when it has clearly been proven that they have committed a crime.. is asking that judges over-rule legislators in order to correct the opportunism and short-sighted hubris that those legislators should be responsible enough to control in themselves.

No it's asking legislators to craft new laws to make it much easier to fire judges who ignore the law in favour of their own personal bias.

I don't know where you get the idea judges know better than legislators. Most judges are simply failed lawyers who begged and whored themselves to the legislators in order to get the robe. It's not like someone goes over lists of the wisest lawyers with the greatest knowledge and appoints the top ones as judges. Judges are mostly the guys who DON'T succeed as lawyers.

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The legal system is filled with miscarriages of justice. Get over it.

No it's asking legislators to craft new laws to make it much easier to fire judges who ignore the law in favour of their own personal bias.

I don't know where you get the idea judgesk now better than legislators. Most judges are simply failed lawyers who begged and whored themselves to the legislators in order to get the robe. It's not like someone goes over lists of the wisest lawyers with the greatest knowledge and appoints the top ones as judges. Judges are mostly the guys who DON'T succeed as lawyers.

If you want to make the system work, you need elected judges, and recallable representatives. You need a system where the jury makes the call of guilt or innocence and the judge must follow minimum guidelines for sentencing. You need a penal system that doesn't turn criminals loose on society prior to the completion of their sentences. You need a system where funding police departments is never a question. You need a way to make the criminals pay for their incarceration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to make the system work, you need elected judges, and recallable representatives. You need a system where the jury makes the call of guilt or innocence and the judge must follow minimum guidelines for sentencing.

Then why would you need elected judges? These are two contradictory statements. Elected judges are a bad idea. When judges are worried about what the people think, they quit dealing withe situation and the evidence and discretion and they start worrying about their job, that's not the way a judicial system should work. Judges should be accountable to the bar and the law, we should have input on the law.

If we want to make changes, we should be doing it at the lawmaking end, and that' what we're doing. Judges shouldn't come up for review simply because we didn't like their decisions whether or not they followed the law as written (something that we for the most part have no idea about).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why would you need elected judges? These are two contradictory statements. Elected judges are a bad idea. When judges are worried about what the people think, they quit dealing withe situation and the evidence and discretion and they start worrying about their job, that's not the way a judicial system should work. Judges should be accountable to the bar and the law, we should have input on the law.

If we want to make changes, we should be doing it at the lawmaking end, and that' what we're doing. Judges shouldn't come up for review simply because we didn't like their decisions whether or not they followed the law as written (something that we for the most part have no idea about).

What?

We need elected judges so we can turf them if they screwup! Of course the judges should worry what the people think! The damned bar does nothing about their own! Its like the police investigating the police for God's sake! Not the kind of system that deals with problems at all. This system buries them. Your comment "we should have input on the law" sort of blows me away too. You don't want citizens to have a say in legislation so how in the hell do we get a say on the laws?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What?

We need elected judges so we can turf them if they screwup!

How much legal training do you have? Are you really the person to judge whether or not they have?

You don't want citizens to have a say in legislation so how in the hell do we get a say on the laws?

We live in a representative democracy, remember? Do you write to your MP/Senator(s)? Do you vote? If you do, you're getting your say.

Edited by Smallc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much legal training do you have? Are you really the person to judge whether or not they have?

We live in a representative democracy, remember? Do you write to your MP/Senator(s)? Do you vote? If you do, you're getting your say.

Look, they are only human and make mistakes just like everyone else. The problem is that we have no way to deal with their mistakes! Dumping judges is very rare in Canada. Does that mean that our judges don't make mistakes, or does it mean they are not held accountable for their mistakes?

So in your view the system that has nothing wrong with it provides for a means of having input ion the law. Lets think about that for a minute. There is no way to enforce an election promise on a government. There is no way to make a government do what citizens want. There is no way to remove a representative for going against the will of the people who elected them. So how is it that we have a say in anything at all?

Only a fool would believe they have a say, when their opinion is neither valued nor respected. A say that is not heard is no say at all. There is just no way to make the words be heard, no mechanism to achieve it.

Public servants should be accountable to the public. The public should have the means to remove a bad servant of the people. Its just that simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why would you need elected judges? These are two contradictory statements. Elected judges are a bad idea. When judges are worried about what the people think, they quit dealing withe situation and the evidence and discretion and they start worrying about their job, that's not the way a judicial system should work.

Elected or not judges are still working within the framework of the law. All being elected does is make them keep an eye on what the public as a whole desires. And frankly, I don't see a lot wrong with the public having a say in such things. Isn't the purpose of the judicial system to serve the public interest according to the will of the public?

Judges should be accountable to the bar and the law, we should have input on the law.

For the most part, the bar doesn't care what judges and lawyers do. The bar is not a government run operation. It is run by and serves the interests of the legal profession. It is not there to protect the public from incompetent or criminal lawyers. It pretends to serve that interest solely to keep government from appointing some other body to do it. But it is extremely lax and forgiving in its oversight. And we should have input into law, but we rarely do, especially now that judges are making laws - oh excuse me, interpreting them.

If we want to make changes, we should be doing it at the lawmaking end, and that' what we're doing. Judges shouldn't come up for review simply because we didn't like their decisions whether or not they followed the law as written (something that we for the most part have no idea about).

Okay, let me suggest that there is a judge somewhere who always follows the law on sentencing. That is, he always gives the minimum sentence possible. In every possible case where the law allows, he hands out conditional sentencing or suspended sentences. Where he absolutely must sentence a criminal to jail because of the law, he always hands out the absolute minimum. Do you feel this judge should not be subject to review and recall?

Let me establish the opposite scenario. A judge always hands out the absolute maximum punishment allowed by law in every single case. Should that judge be reviewed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elected or not judges are still working within the framework of the law. All being elected does is make them keep an eye on what the public as a whole desires. And frankly, I don't see a lot wrong with the public having a say in such things. Isn't the purpose of the judicial system to serve the public interest according to the will of the public?

For the most part, the bar doesn't care what judges and lawyers do. The bar is not a government run operation. It is run by and serves the interests of the legal profession. It is not there to protect the public from incompetent or criminal lawyers. It pretends to serve that interest solely to keep government from appointing some other body to do it. But it is extremely lax and forgiving in its oversight. And we should have input into law, but we rarely do, especially now that judges are making laws - oh excuse me, interpreting them.

Okay, let me suggest that there is a judge somewhere who always follows the law on sentencing. That is, he always gives the minimum sentence possible. In every possible case where the law allows, he hands out conditional sentencing or suspended sentences. Where he absolutely must sentence a criminal to jail because of the law, he always hands out the absolute minimum. Do you feel this judge should not be subject to review and recall?

Let me establish the opposite scenario. A judge always hands out the absolute maximum punishment allowed by law in every single case. Should that judge be reviewed?

How much you want to bet that judge would be reviewed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That judge probably would be reviewed now. Until you provide evidence of judges that always give the minimum or the maximum, you're just blowing hot air. Neither of you would ever truly be happy with the decisions, the recall results, etc.

Edited by Smallc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Americaization of correctional institutions is on it's way - instead of finding out how to fix the twisted quirks in society they will build more prisons - bigger, better and slower...lucrative contracts will be doled out - then step number two will be privatization - and step three via human nature and greed will be judges as we saw in the states who sentenced youthful offenders to longer terms to generate more money for those connected and operating in the private sphere.. More jails are not the answer - 25 years ago I remembered doing a couple of weeks for unpaid fines ----there were 4 to a cell and sometimes five - that are designed for one...I slept with my head against the toilet on the floor.. You would think after all this time we would have reformed the correctional and judical systems - but no...all remains stagnant.

Step 4? A government that dreams up more things that are wrong or sinful so as to provide reasons for more laws and an endless stream of grist...soylent blue...for the enforcement/judicial/corrections industrial complex.

I think its fair to say that conservative moral engineering will be a lot more vindictive than liberal social engineering. I'm betting it will be even harder on human rights too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell that to the victims of repeat offenders.

A good part of the argument for harsher and largely automatic punishment via less discretion to judges is that we need to deter others from doing the same. Why, is the incidence of repeat offenders going up despite the fact that violent crime is going down? I suspect the fear of repeat offenders is the only thing that's actually going up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The legal system is filled with miscarriages of justice. Get over it.

Hardly a worthy goal of the JUSTICE system. <_<

I don't know where you get the idea judges know better than legislators. Most judges are simply failed lawyers who begged and whored themselves to the legislators in order to get the robe. It's not like someone goes over lists of the wisest lawyers with the greatest knowledge and appoints the top ones as judges. Judges are mostly the guys who DON'T succeed as lawyers.

Judges are the ones who actually get to hear the complicating and mitigating details of the events, unlike legislators who are apparently operating on stereotypes and assumptions, without benefit of the rest of the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hardly a worthy goal of the JUSTICE system. <_<

We don't HAVE a justice system. If we did, ever case would be settled according to the basic concept of justice.

What we have is a bureaucratic legal process, and the only thing the people who work in it care about is that the process is followed properly. The end result? Well, they don't really care. As long as the process is followed then the end result is, by their terms, the correct one.

Judges are the ones who actually get to hear the complicating and mitigating details of the events, unlike legislators who are apparently operating on stereotypes and assumptions, without benefit of the rest of the story.

The problem with that argument is that it ignores the totality of sentencing to focus on the individual. Let me posit this. I've said it before and no one, liberal lawyer or not, has ever contradicted it.

Every crime has a range of possible sentences. If you broke down that range according to quarters, you would find that 80% of sentences fall within the lowest quarter. Another 15% fall within the second quarter. Perhaps 4% fall in the third quarter, and maybe 1% - probably quite a bit less, fall into the top quarter. Therefore, you have to either believe that only 5% of all crimes across the country were actually severe enough to merit even halfway up the sentence ladder proposed by the legislators, or you have to accept that judges are largely ignoring the more severe sentences legislators wrote into the law because they are bleeding heart liberals who don't think crimes, even the most severe and brutal and violent, merit even half the sentence proposed by the legislators.

And yes, I know that's a long sentence but then I'm a fan of Dickens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why you would expect any other pattern. The more puny an act, the more common it is; the more egregious, the less common . A bell curve it ain't, but rather a steeply downsloping line.... as in lots and lots of petty thefts, but very few murders.

Within the scope of and description of any single crime, the graphic results should be the same: lots and lots of 'bad decisions', and far fewer deeply malicious, intentional criminal acts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why you would expect any other pattern. The more puny an act, the more common it is; the more egregious, the less common . A bell curve it ain't, but rather a steeply downsloping line.... as in lots and lots of petty thefts, but very few murders.

You are evidently not getting what I wrote.

Within each and every single crime there is a scale of sentencing which runs from X to Y.

For example; aggravated assault. The scale of this crime runs from a smile and a slap on the bottom, to ten years in prison. What I am suggesting is that virtually all cases of aggravated assault, regardless of the severity of the damage done to the victim or the history of the offender, will draw a term of well under 5 years. Manslaugter can draw up to life in prison, but in most cases the sentence is closer to 5 years, as well. Aggravated Sexual Assault can also draw up to life in prison. I have never seen a single case where this sentence was ever imposed, nor anything even remotely close to it. In fact, I have never seen a conviction for aggravated sexual assault draw even ten years, and in most cases the sentence is considerably lower - five or six years.

Within the scope of and description of any single crime, the graphic results should be the same: lots and lots of 'bad decisions', and far fewer deeply malicious, intentional criminal acts.

I fail to see how the results could possibly be as you describe. As someone who has been reading the newspapers, paying particular attention to crime news for some decades, I can honestly say I have never seen a conviction for manslaughter or aggravated sexual assault which could be described as a "bad decision". In fact, in most cases the perpetrators are quite willful and have a long record of violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You beat me to that, Smallc.

The very vast majority of what goes on in the courts doesn't get near the newspapers, because it's run-of-the mill, and stunningly uninteresting. Dumb people who did something dumb, pay an appropriate price for their foolishness-- and will never, ever do it again.

And I do fully understand what you are asserting, Argus... but the very vast majority of crimes

ARE on the paltry end of the scale, not just by actual occurrence rate, but by the very nature of the system. There is considerable overlap between crimes and grey area for judgement calls between them.... for instance it can be quite fuzzy as to when trespassing becomes break and enter; when assault becomes sexual assault, or whether it's aggravated or even 'with a weapon'; or when simple possession becomes 'for purposes of trafficking'. What might be an extraordinarily stiff sentence for one charge is low for another, but police and prosecutors tend to be ambitious in laying charges, seeking the maximum charge that can be shakily supported. When one might reach for a higher sentence, the need has been precluded by a more serious charge.

Again, I wonder why you would expect anything other than a very high concentration of sentences at the very lowest end, with only occassional incidents of much higher?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...