Why conservatives are angry at the criminal justice system

[Argus]

Came across these two articles today and yesterday. Both are prime examples of what conservatives hate about the current criminal law in Canada. Both are examples of murderers not being treated as murderers, but being given slaps on the wrists, and then being allowed out again quickly.

As I have said before, it is ludicrously easy in this country, to get away with murder by inventing some excuse which drops the sentence to manslaughter. In the US, manslaughter will get you serious time, as well, but in Canada, manslaughter routinely brings about less time in prison than knocking over a convenience store.

The problem is that Canadian law sets an extraordinarily high standard for proving "intent" when someone kills another person. It's the product of a bleeding heart liberal mentality which always desperately seeks to think the best of people, and gives them every possible opportunity to shrug off their guilt by saying, in effect "Not my fault!" or "I didn't mean it!"

Chased a person around for ten minutes, putting fourteen bullets into their body? Oh well, that doesn't prove (it really doesn't) by Canadian law, that you actually really intended to kill them. Put your hands around their throat and choke them to death for something like two full minutes? Oh well, you were just kidding! You had no idea that would actually kill anyone! Stick a knife in someone's chest? Hey, you were upset at some bad crack you'd been given, and can hardly be considered responsible for your actions!

We definitely need to reform our laws on homicide so that people who commit murder go away forever, not for a couple of months or years.

Convicted Killer gets indeterminate sentence

Convicted killer on trial for rape

[Smallc]

So what about all of the recent cases of people getting life? What do Conservatives say about that. The fact that we have varying sentences for varying situations shows that things are working. One size doesn't fit all.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... In the US, manslaughter will get you serious time, as well, but in Canada, manslaughter routinely brings about less time in prison than knocking over a convenience store.

Canada is not the US....nor should it be. I plan to commit all my felonies in Canada!

[Smallc]

I actually agree. I don't much care what US sentences are. This isn't America.

[DogOnPorch]

Two cases where you're wondering why the heck they were out of jail in the first place. I like how the one said his greatest mistake was 'running' rather than 'killing'.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

With all due respect folks in terms of justice one size does fit all.

[DogOnPorch]

Canada is not the US....nor should it be. I plan to commit all my felonies in Canada!

Oooo...oooo...can I help? (waves hand frantically) I'll just say you forced me to join you in your crime spree and claim mental anguish. I'll use the Mini-14.

[Smallc]

Justice should, by definition, involve reason. Reason does not allow for one size fits all. Yes, there are cases where people do not get the time that they maybe should have and there are cases where they re offend sooner than they would have. Those cases though are in the minority. Canada is a less dangerous place than it used to be, and there's no evidence that increased jail terms will do anything to make it safer still.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Justice should, by definition, involve reason. Reason does not allow for one size fits all. Yes, there are cases where people do not get the time that they maybe should have and there are cases where they re offend sooner than they would have. Those cases though are in the minority. Canada is a less dangerous place than it used to be, and there's no evidence that increased jail terms will do anything to make it safer still.

Violent offenders are a danger to society. They need to be removed from society.

[Smallc]

Violent offenders are dangerous, I agree, and I think that some people probably should go away forever...but it's hard to know who will offend again...it's hard to know if we're doing the right thing in such a case.

Murder (and manslaughter) are unacceptable things, and they should be punished appropriately. Sometimes, it's difficult to determine what is appropriate.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Murder (and manslaughter) are unacceptable things, and they should be punished appropriately. Sometimes, it's difficult to determine what is appropriate.

What's so difficult in such cases ? .....lock 'em up! Public safety trumps brownie points for rehabilitation or money saved.

[DogOnPorch]

What's so difficult in such cases ? .....lock 'em up! Public safety trumps brownie points for rehabilitation or money saved.

Canada is a bit lacking in the Sing Sing, Corcoran department.

[Remiel]

Perhaps, for crimes committed during the commission of another crime, there should be an added stipulation for "intent" that you took measures to prevent the extra crime from occurring. "Did not intend" is subtly different from "intended not to" in this regard. For instance, in the case of someone being beaten to death, it makes a relevant difference in intent if you punched and kicked someone repeatedly in the head and the died without you "intending" and if you avoided inflicting head trauma because you meant to leave them alive and some other unforseen trauma did them in. That would probably eliminate a lot of people who use the mens rea defense.

But 3 1/2 years for killing someone was too generous by far for that one guy. That is more like the drunken barfight sentence then the rape gone wrong sentence. I despise mandatory minimums, but there does need to be an adjustment of judges expectations if this sort of sentence is really that common.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Citizens that commit violent acts need to be removed from society, permanently. Granted there will always be circumstances that require discernment by the courts. In those cases, rare as they may be, a jury is able to represent the public and apply reason to the results of the trial. Justice can be dispensed and the public can be defended.

[Smallc]

Even though the vast majority of people never commit another crime let alone another violent crime?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Even though the vast majority of people never commit another crime let alone another violent crime?

Justice is about retribution for crimes committed, not about the potential of crimes to be committed. Aside from that I would dispute your premise that criminals do not in majority reoffend.

[Smallc]

According to correctional services Canada, very few require people require their bail to be revoked for criminal acts:

http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/forum/...e053h-eng.shtml

Pie charts on the bottom of the page.

Edited August 29, 2009 by Smallc

[madmax]

Canada is not the US....nor should it be. I plan to commit all my felonies in Canada!

Good choice. I see you as one on the side of corporate crime, and they do punish corporate criminals in the US.

[eyeball]

Came across these two articles today and yesterday. Both are prime examples of what conservatives hate about the current criminal law in Canada. Both are examples of murderers not being treated as murderers, but being given slaps on the wrists, and then being allowed out again quickly.

As I have said before, it is ludicrously easy in this country, to get away with murder by inventing some excuse which drops the sentence to manslaughter. In the US, manslaughter will get you serious time, as well, but in Canada, manslaughter routinely brings about less time in prison than knocking over a convenience store.

The problem is that Canadian law sets an extraordinarily high standard for proving "intent" when someone kills another person. It's the product of a bleeding heart liberal mentality which always desperately seeks to think the best of people, and gives them every possible opportunity to shrug off their guilt by saying, in effect "Not my fault!" or "I didn't mean it!"

Chased a person around for ten minutes, putting fourteen bullets into their body? Oh well, that doesn't prove (it really doesn't) by Canadian law, that you actually really intended to kill them. Put your hands around their throat and choke them to death for something like two full minutes? Oh well, you were just kidding! You had no idea that would actually kill anyone! Stick a knife in someone's chest? Hey, you were upset at some bad crack you'd been given, and can hardly be considered responsible for your actions!

We definitely need to reform our laws on homicide so that people who commit murder go away forever, not for a couple of months or years.

Convicted Killer gets indeterminate sentence

Convicted killer on trial for rape

I guess the main thing that stands out in this is the disdain for bleeding hearts. My heart bleeds from time to time and I don't see anything wrong with that. I think there's something wrong with people if their's doesn't weep at least a little bit now and then. I suspect most of your need to reform our justice system stems from your outrage and hate. I'm not willing to subscribe to the vengence system you obviously crave because I don't think this has anything to do with justice. Our system should continue to work towards rehabilitating people and releasing them if warranted. Our society is becoming safer and less prone to crime probably because our policies have largely succeded in enculturating a gentler more compassionate society, a society in which its okay to have a bleeding heart for example. Your prescription will only make us harder and meaner and because of this I predict an increase in crime if it ever see's the light of day.

I would prefer that our justice system be left in the hands of professionals, not a hateful angry mob. I would however like to see one change that allow victims more say in the process. Some sentencing in certain cases can be weighted with a victim's impact statement. How about we give similar consideration when people choose to document their wishes in their wills and testaments in the event they are killed during a crime? I happen to think the best of people and believe that if most contemplate the unthinkable for awhile that they'll probably settle on a more forgiving position than you're willing to.

Edited August 30, 2009 by eyeball

[bush_cheney2004]

Good choice. I see you as one on the side of corporate crime, and they do punish corporate criminals in the US.

You are so right....no need to save for retirement. I will just go on a crime spree in Canada, plead guilty to anything and everything, and retire in one of your fine "rehabilititation" hotels with cable TV. Will be out in no time....to do it all over again.

[tango]

Came across these two articles today and yesterday. Both are prime examples of what conservatives hate about the current criminal law in Canada. Both are examples of murderers not being treated as murderers, but being given slaps on the wrists, and then being allowed out again quickly.

...

We definitely need to reform our laws on homicide so that people who commit murder go away forever, not for a couple of months or years.

Convicted Killer gets indeterminate sentence

Convicted killer on trial for rape

I'm not sure I think everyone should do life for killing someone. I don't know what I think of this one ... don't know what the sentence was, except he's out now.

Verdon, who was convicted in 1998 of manslaughter for beating 63-year-old Robert Savoie to death for $55 and a car battery,

But I think this sentence was far too short ... :angry:

In 1990, he was sentenced to three years and six months in prison for choking to death a teenaged girl, who he was angry at because she was in the midst of her menstrual cycle. The body of Crystal Hogg, 17, was found near the Terrace airport. Initially charged with second-degree murder, Bruneau claimed the choking was accidental.

And I think it's appropriate that he's now in jail indefinitely. That means lifelong monitoring, I think, and no chance of parole for at least 7 years, and not much then.

In imposing sentence on Daniel Joseph Bruneau, B.C. Supreme Court Madam Justice Janet Sinclair Prowse said she was satisfied there was evidence that the accused was a dangerous offender and that he had no reasonable prospect of being controlled in the community.

“Given these decisions, I impose upon you a jail sentence of an indefinite period.”

I'm trying to find data on crimes and length of sentences. This is all so far, nothing about length.

Offences for Which a Prison Sentence Was Imposed, 2000/011

Homicide 85

Robbery 77

Attempted Murder 66

Break and Enter 61

Kidnapping 59

Offences Against the Administration of Justice 56

Sexual Abuse 56

Sexual Assault 53

Arson 52

Trafficking / Importing Drugs 49

Major Assault 48

Criminal Code Traffic 47

Possesion of Stolen Property 46

Other Criminal Code Offences 39

Theft 38

Total Offences 35

Fraud and Related 35

Weapons and Explosives 34

These are the parameters:

The Sentences Resulting From First Degree Murder, Second Degree Murder And Manslaughter.

In cases of murder, the sentence is automatically a life sentence whether that’s first degree murder or second degree murder. In cases of second degree murder, the judge has the ability to fix the period of parole ineligibility anywhere between 10 and 25 years with recommendations from the jury, if they choose to make them. If you’re convicted of first degree murder, you automatically receive a life sentence with parole eligibility at 25 years.

Manslaughter, if it’s committed with the use of a firearm, carries a minimum sentence of 5 years. But that is the only condition for a minimum sentence for manslaughter. In other words, if you push somebody down the stairs, not meaning to cause death, but they die tragically, then you are not subject to any minimum sentence. You could receive any sentence at all, including, in theory, a suspended sentence and avoid jail altogether. There are a few examples of people charged with manslaughter who receive what’s called a conditional sentence. Technically, it’s a sentence of imprisonment but you’re permitted to serve it in the community, usually meaning a house arrest sentence. It’s rare, but there have been people who are found guilty of manslaughter and receive a house arrest sentence.

http://info.lawyershop.ca/criminal/index.p...d-manslaughter/

Sentences for manslaughter range from eighteen months to life depending on the perceived severity of the crime, the most common sentences being from three to five years with parole eligibility after one-sixth of the sentence has been served. Most prisoners serve one-third to half the sentence before release.

http://www.jpp.org/documents/forms/JPP1_2/Walford.pdf

All murder which are not first degree murder are considered second degree murder. An example of second degree murder is a wife and husband start arguing. This dispute turns physical and in the process of the fight, the husband gets his gun. He then shoots and kills her during their fight. This would be second degree murder because there was no preplanning of the husband's actions before the dispute started and it was not his intention, when they started to fight, to kill her.

http://www.victimsofviolence.on.ca/rev2/in...7&Itemid=37

I'm not sure I agree with this. You pick up a gun and shoot it at someone, you have intent to kill, I think.

"I didn't intend to kill her, just argue, but she argued back p'd me off ... so I shot her!"

???

Edited August 30, 2009 by tango

[Keepitsimple]

Even though the vast majority of people never commit another crime let alone another violent crime?

No, I don't have a cite - but neither do you.....so I'll say that violent criminals very often commit other violent acts.....they simply have a propensity to do so. Do you really think that most people who kill another person would never inflict violence again? The courts should err on the side of public safety and society's revulsion at severe violence.....not on the side that maybe, just maybe...the person might not kill again or maim someone again.

Edited August 30, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[Smallc]

The court makes considerations based on the circumstances. That's why we have sentences varying from life with no parole for 25 to only a few years in jail for a similar crime. Now, sometimes the judges are wrong, but our falling crime stats and flat to falling murder stats show that they aren't doing that bad at all.

And yes, I did have a cite, and I provided it. It's the best citation available given the difficulty in calculation.

[Topaz]

I waiting for Harper to bring back the death penalty to help bring down their budget. It cost roughly 83,000 yearly for each prisoner in the Fed prisons and I would think by putting more people in jail the cost will go up to and probably be as high as the military budget.

[Molly]

http://www.acsa-caah.ca/Portals/0/Member/P...ationcanada.pdf