Ex-Tory MP Jaffer charged with cocaine possession

[dpwozney]

There are other parts of the Constitution that have updated usages (such as the number of MPs) but still have the same Constitutional writing.

Have you checked the footnotes available here?

Edited March 15, 2010 by dpwozney

[dpwozney]

The Oath is still taken to the same person.

Elizabeth the Second is not Queen of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland”. Elizabeth the Second claims to be Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

[kimmy]

Rahim Jaffer was "given a break" by the judge (judge's own words), but this must raise the question, how would this have been possible under the new mandatory minimum drug laws being proposed by the Conservative government? I assume ther could be no judges discretion as there was in this case.

"I'm sure you can recognize a break when you see one," Justice Doug Maund told Jaffer.

As has been explained to you a number of times, the "break" Jaffer received was provided by the prosecutor who plea-bargained the case, not by the judge.

As well, it appears that the "break" Jaffer received is no different from the sort of "break" received by the overwhelming majority of people prosecuted for the same offense.

Finally, considering how overwhelmingly negative public reaction to this sentence has been, I'm baffled that people are now citing this case as an argument against mandatory minimums. Like how does that make any sense??

-k

[kimmy]

Elizabeth the Second is not Queen of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland”. Elizabeth the Second claims to be Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Does your dog speak to you? Tell you to do things, for example?

-k

[Sir Bandelot]

As has been explained to you a number of times, the "break" Jaffer received was provided by the prosecutor who plea-bargained the case, not by the judge.

What do you mean , explained to me a number of times. It's the first time I'm commenting on this point, questioning whether the break given him would not be allowed if there were mandatory minimums.

This case is an example where reasonable discretion was used, that's why it's a perfect example. Ironically it seems that Jaffer was staunchly pro-mandatory minimums and against drug use, all the while doing illegal drugs himself and then given a break himself.

I would not be surprised if he still votes for it if given another opportunity to do so.

[DrGreenthumb]

end the war on drugs.

Why do people care if he does cocaine, let him live his life.

Quite honestly I DON"T care if he does cocaine. It's the fact that he advocated for mandaTORY minimum sentences for other people while he was an MP, voted for c-15, and even ran attack ads against Jack Layton for suggesting cannabis be decriminalized. If that prick thinks mandatory jail is appropriate for other people then he should damn well serve the full sentence himself. It's the hypocricy that really annoys me.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Quite honestly I DON"T care if he does cocaine. It's the fact that he advocated for mandaTORY minimum sentences for other people while he was an MP, voted for c-15, and even ran attack ads against Jack Layton for suggesting cannabis be decriminalized. If that prick thinks mandatory jail is appropriate for other people then he should damn well serve the full sentence himself. It's the hypocricy that really annoys me.

Well said. He will not be returning to politics.

[kimmy]

What do you mean , explained to me a number of times.

Fine, it may not have been explained specifically to you. It's certainly been explained a number of times to other people claiming Judge Maund gave Jaffer preferential treatment because of ties to the party.

It's the first time I'm commenting on this point, questioning whether the break given him would not be allowed if there were mandatory minimums.

While I'm no legal expert, I'd have to expect that a sentence agreed to in a plea bargain would have to meet minimum requirements for the offense plead guilty to.

This case is an example where reasonable discretion was used, that's why it's a perfect example.

Judging from the howls of outrage over the treatment Jaffer has received, I think it's fair to say that a large number of people don't feel that the discretion was "reasonable" at all. It actually looks like an example of how mandatory minimums would result in sentencing that John Q Public thinks is more appropriate to the severity of the crime.

Now, whether John Q Public has reasonable expectations for sentencing is another issue entirely, and a fair question.

Ironically it seems that Jaffer was staunchly pro-mandatory minimums and against drug use, all the while doing illegal drugs himself and then given a break himself.

Indeed.

-k

[Sir Bandelot]

Judging from the howls of outrage over the treatment Jaffer has received, I think it's fair to say that a large number of people don't feel that the discretion was "reasonable" at all.

I don't know about a "large" number of people since I have no statistics to back up any assertions like that. But some don't want him or anyone to get mandatory minimum sentencing without specific consideration of the particulars of each case. Rather they want to use this to show how mandatory minimums would have criminalized a person who otherwise contributes in a positive way to society. (Although, one can argue the point in this case since he's a CPC'er...). Lets put partisanship aside for a moment, if we can, and look at this. Here is an esteemed member of parliament. He has a drug problem. I'm guessing his political career is over because of this but had he not been caught, how would he have done in his job, would he have been able to continue as a functioning member of society? Should his career be over, or should he enter rehab, and carry on.

HOWEVER, I must say that compounding his problem of drug possession is the fact that he was intoxicated and possibly high while operating a motor vehicle, which means that his substance abuse problem goes beyond the damage it might do to himself. He poses a threat to others, and for that alone he should have received a more serious penalty, in my opinion.

Edited March 15, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[eyeball]

Indeed, and here is another respected Criminal Lawyer's opinion - but - did you ever stop to consider that it's really a Liberal conspiracy to discredit the CPC and gain some political brownie points. Heck, I bet the prosecutor and defence lawyers are big Liberal supporters so did this just to set up the CPC.

I hear you, I've often wondered how many of the early parole releases and lax sentences that outrage people and prompt calls for mandatory sentencing and swifter justice are engineered galvanizing events staged by right-wing conservative supporters who also happen to be government employees.

Argus certainly comes across as someone who might fit this bill.

Edited March 15, 2010 by eyeball

[Argus]

Argus certainly comes across as someone who might fit this bill.

First, I'm neither that dishonest nor that machievelian. Second, it really isn't neccessary. The legal system provides ample cases for outrage all on its own.

[Muddy]

To say I am not disappointed in the behaviour of Jaffer would be an under statement. But! Plenty of people get off with plea bargaining charges down very much like Jaffer has done. Do I think political interference by the Harper government. No! I do think that those outraged by the sentence being plea bargained down should take their anger out on the provincial LIBERAL government in power in Ontario who allowed Jaffer to plea bargain these charges down.

Put the blame where it belongs! It was an Ontario court and it was the OPP and an Ontarion Crown attorney responsible.

I don`t think Jaffer was treated any different than anyone else who has the money to hire the right people to bargain for them.It goes on all the time. There is lots of things the Harper can be called to account for ,but this is not one of them.

[Topaz]

To say I am not disappointed in the behaviour of Jaffer would be an under statement. But! Plenty of people get off with plea bargaining charges down very much like Jaffer has done. Do I think political interference by the Harper government. No! I do think that those outraged by the sentence being plea bargained down should take their anger out on the provincial LIBERAL government in power in Ontario who allowed Jaffer to plea bargain these charges down.

Put the blame where it belongs! It was an Ontario court and it was the OPP and an Ontarion Crown attorney responsible.

I don`t think Jaffer was treated any different than anyone else who has the money to hire the right people to bargain for them.It goes on all the time. There is lots of things the Harper can be called to account for ,but this is not one of them.

Lets say he did bargain. I still think he give up his supplier of the cocaine but no one will come out and say that for good reasons. I do know that with the last 2 weeks the OPP had a raid from Windsor to Toronto On on the mafia, which included drugs.

[madmax]

The SILENCE from the Conservatives is Deafening.

No sooner then Jaffer gets off with a kiss and a handshake, the Conservatives return to their hypocritical tough on crime lies to the public.

They went silent for a bit, then to counter the spin of how Jaffer got off so lightly they went on the attack, just like the political cowards they are.

No doubt there is two tier justice and the Conservatives want to keep it that way.

Hard Core penalties for the poor and a nod and a wink to their pals and people of higher stature.

No person gets off like Jaffer. And in lessor cases, the Conservatives would bust a vocal chord in order to make their point.

I have to wonder why they don't use their boy as the poster child for tough on crime.

We all saw this coming. No one ever believed he would be treated equal.

Just disgusting.

Anyone willing to be his Wife, that other Conservative Tough on Crime MP hasn't had a little dusting too?

NO way she didn't know.

Edited March 17, 2010 by madmax

[M.Dancer]

The SILENCE from the Conservatives is Deafening.

I just farted. Happier?

What silence? I think many of the conservatives have weighed in. I believe everyone wnats to know what the reasons were for the crown to drop charges....

....unless of course you are refering to the lack of response to Topaz'z conspiracy theories...in which case, I feel some more gas building.

Meanwhile, I am happy to weigh in on the changes to the YOA. Go far it. Did you know in the UK ytou can try a little shit as an adult as young as 12?