Prisons, Harper buried own findngs?

TimG · May 8, 2011

The point is that the judges hear the cases with all of their details and circumstances. You don't and more importantly Parliament doesn't.

So you think that a 25 year minimum for murder one is wrong and would like to see it left to 'judicial discretion'?

The reason many people want these mandatory minimums is they feel the judges are abusing their discretion and are not giving enough weight to the retribution when choosing their sentences.

Edited May 8, 2011 by TimG

cybercoma · May 9, 2011

That's exactly what I'm saying.

I would like to believe that judges understand justice a hell of a lot better than your average Joe on the street... you know, since that's what they're trained in and they're presumably the best of the best at what they do.

Also, they actually hear the particulars of each case. The average person doesn't. And on top of all that, there's an appeals process if the Crown doesn't feel the sentencing is fair. So mandatory minimums are completely unnecessary.

Say someone breaks into your house while you're away and proceeds to rape and murder your wife and daughter, leaving their mutilated bodies in their beds. You're the first to discover them and you know exactly who did it. You proceed to buy a weapon, hunt down the murderer and kill him.

You just committed first degree murder because it was premeditated and provable beyond a reasonable doubt by you purchasing a weapon and using it to kill. With a mandatory minimum, you're given 25 years without any consideration for the fact that you were seeking retribution for the horrific things done to your family and it is highly unlikely that you would ever kill anyone else.

A judge hears these particular circumstances and decides on the sentencing given that information.

I don't believe in political agendas should determine sentencing. I believe a judge after hearing the details of any particular case should decide. That's the only way justice can be served.

TimG · May 9, 2011

With a mandatory minimum, you're given 25 years without any consideration for the fact that you were seeking retribution for the horrific things done to your family and it is highly unlikely that you would ever kill anyone else.

I have never heard of anyone getting murder one with extenuating circumstances. Usually, juries will acquit or convict with murder two or manslaughter in those cases.

I don't believe in political agendas should determine sentencing. I believe a judge after hearing the details of any particular case should decide. That's the only way justice can be served.

It really depends on how you define justice. If you define justice as something where the welfare of the accused is the only concern then you may be right. If you define justice to include the greater public who wants to feel like criminals are getting punishments that fit the crime then you are wrong. Edited May 9, 2011 by TimG

cybercoma · May 9, 2011

Unless they're black, aboriginal, and/or poor without good legal representation. They tend to get longer and harsher sentences than white middle-class people for the same crimes. Funny how that works.

TimG · May 9, 2011

Unless they're black, aboriginal, and/or poor without good legal representation. They tend to get longer and harsher sentences than white middle-class people for the same crimes. Funny how that works.

Inconsistent sentencing is an argument for mandatory minimums.

cybercoma · May 9, 2011

Ok, Tim. We need mandatory minimums because the system tends to treat the poor more harshly than others. Why not treat the middle-class as terribly as we treat the poor? Since the criminal justice system is so good at reducing crime in the poorest communities and all. :rolleyes:

TimG · May 9, 2011

Ok, Tim. We need mandatory minimums because the system tends to treat the poor more harshly than others. Why not treat the middle-class as terribly as we treat the poor?

You are making a purely subjective judgement. Who says the middle class are getting what is 'fair' and the poor get treated harshly? Perhaps the poor are getting treated fairly and the middle class is getting special treatment. If you look at the number of people affected the poor outnumber the middle class so it is more likely that the middle class are getting special treatment.

cybercoma · May 9, 2011

Racism and poor counsel say otherwise. It seems to be that the poor have deficient representation, while the middle-class have adequate representation. It's the problems faced by the poor that makes their treatment different. It's not that the middle-class are getting better treatment somehow.

Sandy MacNab · May 9, 2011

Studies done by whom? If you don't know who had a stake in the outcome you can't know if the studies are worth the paper they are written on.

I tend to agree that aburd laws like the 3 strikes law in California are counter productive. But a system that lets rapists and murderers gets off with house arrest undermines public confidence in the system. There has to be a balance between the retribution and rehabilitation goals of the justice system. I think the Canadian system is current too concerned with the rehabilitation goal.

In most crimes against persons or their property retribution is the only justice victims will ever get. If I were a victim of a brutal assault that affected me for life, emphasis on rehabilitating the criminal would be an additional assault and an insult. Yeah, I'd want to see retribution - big time!

RNG · May 9, 2011

In most crimes against persons or their property retribution is the only justice victims will ever get. If I were a victim of a brutal assault that affected me for life, emphasis on rehabilitating the criminal would be an additional assault and an insult. Yeah, I'd want to see retribution - big time!

No problem there, and as I said before, violent crime is another subject, and one where capital punishment, if applied properly, would fit.

Scotty · May 9, 2011

The point is that the judges hear the cases with all of their details and circumstances. You don't and more importantly Parliament doesn't. Yet, parliament wants to pretend that it is some psychic ability to predict the future and write a law that encompasses all possible circumstances.

Parliament in this case is a reflection of the will of the people. We've all been reading the crime stories, following the court cases, observing the sentences given out most of our lives, and many of us have not approved of the overall level of severity, especially when you take lax parole laws into consideration. Lax laws lead to more crime. Fraud is commonplace now among several professions because the laws are so slack the police don't bother even trying to enforce them. It isn't just about violence, it's about fraudsters, it's about burglars and car thieves with dozens of convictions, it's about the $57 billion in crime costs every year, and a citizenry which is, more and more often, not even bothering to report crime because of the ineptitude of the system they see as fundamentally incapable of substantially punishing the person who victimized them.

Edited May 9, 2011 by Scotty

Scotty · May 9, 2011

Racism and poor counsel say otherwise. It seems to be that the poor have deficient representation, while the middle-class have adequate representation. It's the problems faced by the poor that makes their treatment different. It's not that the middle-class are getting better treatment somehow.

The poor get representation. The middle class have to bankrupt themselves paying for it, whether they're guilty or innocent.

Scotty · May 9, 2011

That's exactly what I'm saying.

I would like to believe that judges understand justice a hell of a lot better than your average Joe on the street... you know, since that's what they're trained in and they're presumably the best of the best at what they do.

That's an elitist belief. What is justice? In some societies and cultures, justice is cutting off the hand of the criminal, or caning them, or throwing them into a dark hellhole for twenty years. The definition of justice is a product of the society and culture in which it takes place. So no individual has a better idea of what constitutes justice than the society as a whole.

And judges, let's face facts, have no training in 'justice'. They're trained in legalistic argument, interpretations and statutes, and precedent. It's all rote. Nowhere does justice even come into consideration. The law says this, precedent says that. Use the slide-rule, come out with the punishment, and on to the next case.

Scotty · May 9, 2011

Unless they're black, aboriginal, and/or poor without good legal representation. They tend to get longer and harsher sentences than white middle-class people for the same crimes. Funny how that works.

Most of the times when I've seen this commented upon it turns out that it isn't true. There are a variety of factors in play, including previous history, academic and job record, and likelihood to re-offend. Skin colour has a tendency, statistically, to put one further away from the judicial ideal of a responsible, family oriented, stable working person who can be relied on to see the error of his or her ways.

Triple M · May 10, 2011

I agree with the poster speaking about the Judges discretion.

However, what if that argument was expanded to the death penalty????

Why should parliament take away the judges discretion in that sphere?????

guyser · May 10, 2011

The reason many people want these mandatory minimums is they feel the judges are abusing their discretion and are not giving enough weight to the retribution when choosing their sentences.

People are idiots.

The same ones who complain that ones rights are trmapled thus getting freed is not someone I give a shite about.

Far too many have no understanding of the courts but are quick with the "our system is lax" BS.

guyser · May 10, 2011

I have never heard of anyone getting murder one with extenuating circumstances. Usually, juries will acquit or convict with murder two or manslaughter in those cases.

Except that could not be true at all.A jury cannot change the charge.

guyser · May 10, 2011

And judges, let's face facts, have no training in 'justice'. They're trained in legalistic argument, interpretations and statutes, and precedent. It's all rote. Nowhere does justice even come into consideration. The law says this, precedent says that. Use the slide-rule, come out with the punishment, and on to the next case.

You have a severe fail on what a Judge has to know or does know.

10yrs minimum , must know most laws,severe screening process (one black mark and rejected).......and so on.

RNG · May 10, 2011

You have a severe fail on what a Judge has to know or does know.

10yrs minimum , must know most laws,severe screening process (one black mark and rejected).......and so on.

But that is knowledge of law. He is referring to "justice" in a moral rather than a legal sense. And I agree.

guyser · May 10, 2011

But that is knowledge of law. He is referring to "justice" in a moral rather than a legal sense. And I agree.

Nope , he is referring to mob rule and vengeance , justice does not have emotions.

So no individual has a better idea of what constitutes justice than the society as a whole.

And judges, let's face facts, have no training in 'justice'

Does a judge operate outside of society?

MiddleClassCentrist · May 10, 2011

We need more prisons and longer prison sentences ...

Canada needs to strengthen it's justice system....

I've only been here for a short while.

But, It is clear that you ignore scientific information to support bad policy that ignores the reality of the situation. How ideological of you.

eyeball · May 10, 2011

Longer sentences are not designed to 'reform' prisoners. They are designed to keep criminals off the street for longer periods of time, especially violent and repeat offenders.

No, they're designed to placate certain voters.

And yes, it will cost more, and I think everyone is aware of that. So?

Exactly.

As to the US. People need to stop using them as a comparison. The socioeconomic circumstances there which continue to push crime are not active here, or active to a far lesser extent.

I suspect a couple of terms of Conservative majority governments should bring our circumstances more in line with America's.

Edited May 10, 2011 by eyeball

Black Dog · May 10, 2011

And judges, let's face facts, have no training in 'justice'. They're trained in legalistic argument, interpretations and statutes, and precedent. It's all rote. Nowhere does justice even come into consideration. The law says this, precedent says that. Use the slide-rule, come out with the punishment, and on to the next case.

You say that like it's a bad thing and not, you know, the whole point of an impartial judiciary.

guyser · May 10, 2011

You say that like it's a bad thing and not, you know, the whole point of an impartial judiciary.

Spot on !

noahbody · May 10, 2011

Ok, Tim. We need mandatory minimums because the system tends to treat the poor more harshly than others. Why not treat the middle-class as terribly as we treat the poor? Since the criminal justice system is so good at reducing crime in the poorest communities and all.

Mandatory minimums can be used to get gang members off of the street and stop them from going though a revolving door so the police have to keep fighting the same battle over and over. I mentioned this on another thread, but a law, stating any serious crime that is committed while in possession of a gun, gets 5 years.

All Harper did here was disagree with the interpretation of the staffer's report. Just because mandatory minimums haven't been effective in lowering the crime rate doesn't mean that they can't play an important role like in the example above, as a form of punishment, and/or to correct problems that can occur due to the abuse of legal precedents.