Is Crime Really Down?

[Smallc]

The system works, just ask the guy who got out after a sexual offense. Or a murderer walking free to be seen by the victims family. Everything is fine here in the Land of the Just Canuck.

What about the guy spending life behind bars? Or the guy who has been designated a dangerous offender?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

What about the guy spending life behind bars? Or the guy who has been designated a dangerous offender?

What about them? They have afforded themselves of due process under the law and are now paying their debt to society. Letting these folks out is the fly in the ointment.

[Wilber]

As I said though, it has been ruled (either by the Federal Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court) that even mandatory minimums cannot stand in the way of precedence at times. This is the system used in countries like the US, the UK, and Australia. There's nothing really wrong with the system....and we're not really supposed to have direct control over it.

There is a lot wrong with a system that is not accountable to the people it is supposed to serve, particularly if it has lost touch with those people and is proceeding on a course of its own making. It wasn't always this way. The system has interpreted and manipulated the law over the years in a manner that has made in an unassailable empire which is accountable to no one but itself. Whether this was intentional is not relevant, it is the reality of the judicial system we now live under. If courts can ignore the laws made by our democratically elected representative for no other reason than they go against their own precedents, that is a huge problem for any country that would claim to be a democracy.

Your don't worry be happy it's always been this way attitude disturbs me at times. It hasn't always been this way. The legal system is like any other, continually changing and sometimes systems grow into monsters that are out of your or anyone else's control.

[Bonam]

Day says crime statistics not accurate:

During a news conference on Tuesday in Ottawa, Day said the government has received indications that more and more people are not reporting crimes committed against them.

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/08/03/canada-economy-stockwell-day.html?ref=rss

[bloodyminded]

There is a lot wrong with a system that is not accountable to the people it is supposed to serve, particularly if it has lost touch with those people and is proceeding on a course of its own making. It wasn't always this way. The system has interpreted and manipulated the law over the years in a manner that has made in an unassailable empire which is accountable to no one but itself. Whether this was intentional is not relevant, it is the reality of the judicial system we now live under. If courts can ignore the laws made by our democratically elected representative for no other reason than they go against their own precedents, that is a huge problem for any country that would claim to be a democracy.

Your don't worry be happy it's always been this way attitude disturbs me at times. It hasn't always been this way. The legal system is like any other, continually changing and sometimes systems grow into monsters that are out of your or anyone else's control.

I understand the frustration. But to be fair, making the system harsher and more punitive is certainly one possible way to make it "grow into monsters that are out of your or anyone else's control."

[dre]

The system works, just ask the guy who got out after a sexual offense. Or a murderer walking free to be seen by the victims family. Everything is fine here in the Land of the Just Canuck.

Thats red herring. You can produce horror stories like that about ANY criminal justice system. The goal of the justice system isnt perfection, its to keep crime rates relatively low.

Our real problem is OVERCRIMINALIZATION. Instead of focusing on serious crime we try to enforce a whole host of personal behaviors. I cant legally play texas holdem at my own house on a friday night. I cant grow or smoke marijuana, or have a small still in my basement to make whiskey. They dont send police to my house if I report a B&E yet theres six cops parked by the lake making sure I have my personal watercraft operators ticket LOL, and another 6 to make sure I didnt drink 2 beers before I drove.

Most of the resources we put into the system are routed back out of it by municipalities who use police as tax collectors.

Its hard to fix STUPID but hopefully not impossible.

[Smallc]

There is a lot wrong with a system that is not accountable to the people it is supposed to serve, particularly if it has lost touch with those people and is proceeding on a course of its own making. It wasn't always this way.

Actually yes, it was always this way. Judicial independence and precedence have been at the foundation of the system since the beginning. It has never been any different. Judges have always been able to interpret the law and the higher level courts have always been able to change it. Now, that doesn't mean that we can't make small changes to the system, but without tearing the system apart, we can't do what you propose.

Quite frankly, the Canadian justice system doesn't worry me. It works, despite what some may thing. Even if Stockwell Day thinks that crime really isn't decreasing based on unreliable surveys, the statistics say that it is. Of course laws always need tweaking, but I'm not ready to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

[Wilber]

I understand the frustration. But to be fair, making the system harsher and more punitive is certainly one possible way to make it "grow into monsters that are out of your or anyone else's control."

My frustration is with people who make their own rules when it comes to doing their job and then tell the people they are supposed to serve that they owe them no justification for doing so. That would get most folks fired.

[Smallc]

My frustration is with people who make their own rules when it comes to doing their job and then tell the people they are supposed to serve

The job of the judge isn't to serve the public, it's to serve justice. That's why they're independent.

[Remiel]

Although frankly, I'm not in favour of warehousing people. I'd make prisons large, productive centres where people work at low skill jobs in return for minimal wages and benefits. I'd have enclosed prison towns, if you will, including little areas where men and women (excluding sex offenders, obviously) could interact, shop, and go to clubs.

I think that is an interesting idea. I take it then you were not in favour of the decision to close down prison farms?

Day says crime statistics not accurate:

Day also says the Niagara River runs North to South.

[Wilber]

Actually yes, it was always this way. Judicial independence and precedence have been at the foundation of the system since the beginning. It has never been any different. Judges have always been able to interpret the law and the higher level courts have always been able to change it. Now, that doesn't mean that we can't make small changes to the system, but without tearing the system apart, we can't do what you propose.

Quite frankly, the Canadian justice system doesn't worry me. It works, despite what some may thing. Even if Stockwell Day thinks that crime really isn't decreasing based on unreliable surveys, the statistics say that it is. Of course laws always need tweaking, but I'm not ready to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

The system has always worked this way but the system is not the same as it was. The law now operates on a mountain of precedent to the point where the law itself has little relevance. It was not always this way, this is the monster it has grown into.

Judicial independence was intended to free the judiciary from political influence when interpreting the law, not make laws on their own and certainly not ignore laws made by elected law makers. Over the years this is a power they have managed to give themselves through their own rulings.

[Wilber]

The job of the judge isn't to serve the public, it's to serve justice. That's why they're independent.

It is to serve the law. The public decides what justice is through the laws their elected law makers make.

[dre]

It is to serve the law. The public decides what justice is through the laws their elected law makers make.

Right but its constrained by a framework... the publics ability to decide is constrained for very good reason... to stop the DUMB ASS MOB from turning on parts of itself, and making terrible decisions under durress.

[Wilber]

Right but its constrained by a framework... the publics ability to decide is constrained for very good reason... to stop the DUMB ASS MOB from turning on parts of itself, and making terrible decisions under durress.

The problem is the "framework" is a entity unnacountable to no one. You just assume that its motives and judgement are above reproach. A DUMB ASS assumption in its own right.

[Smallc]

The system has always worked this way but the system is not the same as it was. The law now operates on a mountain of precedent to the point where the law itself has little relevance. It was not always this way, this is the monster it has grown into.

That is exactly the way that Common Law is supposed to work.

Judicial independence was intended to free the judiciary from political influence when interpreting the law, not make laws on their own and certainly not ignore laws made by elected law makers. Over the years this is a power they have managed to give themselves through their own rulings.

I don't agree with this. The judiciary has always had the power to review and change laws.

Edited August 3, 2010 by Smallc

[Smallc]

The problem is the "framework" is a entity unnacountable to no one. You just assume that its motives and judgement are above reproach. A DUMB ASS assumption in its own right.

But judges are held accountable by legal bodies and higher courts. They aren't simply lone gunmen.

[dre]

The problem is the "framework" is a entity unnacountable to no one. You just assume that its motives and judgement are above reproach. A DUMB ASS assumption in its own right.

The framework isnt completely STATIC. We can change parts of it, but its intentionally set up so that it takes a lot of time and effort.

[Wilber]

But judges are held accountable by legal bodies and higher courts. They aren't simply lone gunmen.

Exactly, more judges. It intrigues me that people who would bridle at any other profession being accountable only to itself, accept it unquestionably when it comes to the judiciary.

[Wilber]

The framework isnt completely STATIC. We can change parts of it, but its intentionally set up so that it takes a lot of time and effort.

Yet some very important things we cannot change it seems. Why, because of the rulings of judges, not the law or the Constitution.

[Keepitsimple]

While we're on the subject of precedents......it strikes me that there is nothing wrong with precedents starting to gradually increase sentences. If a "precedent" can only go one way - a lesser sentence - then obviously the system will become/has become mutated. There's plenty of justification for it - especially if Statutory Release remains in place because the maximum time served is only 2/3 of the sentence.

[Smallc]

I don't think you understand what the word means. It doesn't involve sentences going in any direction.

[Wilber]

While we're on the subject of precedents......it strikes me that there is nothing wrong with precedents starting to gradually increase sentences. If a "precedent" can only go one way - a lesser sentence - then obviously the system will become/has become mutated. There's plenty of justification for it - especially if Statutory Release remains in place because the maximum time served is only 2/3 of the sentence.

If of course the higher courts don't reverse those rulings based on existing precedents. Hence the problem, you are expecting a system to voluntarily correct itself by saying they were getting it wrong. Good luck, I would be really impressed and very happy were that to happen.

[Wild Bill]

The framework isnt completely STATIC. We can change parts of it, but its intentionally set up so that it takes a lot of time and effort.

Well, if it wasn't completely static you'd think that after all the years since our country was founded we would have seen an example of a judge getting corrected once in a while!

Except for the rare sex scandal the idea seems unheard of! I can't imagine any other category of citizens being so perfect and ideal...

It really sounds like when you and smallc make the claim that judges are policed under a higher authority you're really talking about just a technicality and not an actual practice.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Wild Bill

[Smallc]

Well, if it wasn't completely static you'd think that after all the years since our country was founded we would have seen an example of a judge getting corrected once in a while!

What are you talking about? Decisions are overturned all of the time.

[Wild Bill]

What are you talking about? Decisions are overturned all of the time.

I'm not talking about an appeal. If citizens feel a judge consistently is too lenient in his sentencing what WORKABLE recourse do they have?