Lax sentencing for criminals

[cybercoma]

Yeah that's what I'm talking about.

But in regards to the OP, I'm not sure if this offence comes under the federal or provincial jurisdiction.

All crimes are federal jurisdiction. There are no provincial criminal codes.

[Sir Bandelot]

All crimes are federal jurisdiction. There are no provincial criminal codes.

And yet, laws can sometimes be struck down that apply only to the province of Ontario?

[RNG]

All crimes are federal jurisdiction. There are no provincial criminal codes.

Serious question. Then why is there a provincial court system and a separate federal court system in Alberta. And there are provincial laws in Alberta? One easy example is laws related to driving, which include felony grade offenses.

Edited June 15, 2011 by RNG

[cybercoma]

And yet, laws can sometimes be struck down that apply only to the province of Ontario?

The laws themselves are federal jurisdiction. I think I understand what you mean now though. There's a path of precedence within each individual province.

[guyser]

Then why is there a provincial court system and a separate federal court system in Alberta. And there are provincial laws in Alberta? One easy example is laws related to driving, which include felony grade offenses.

HTA = Highway Traffic Act

Felony (which dont exist here) ...are Criminal Code Violations, (CCC) and are federal.ie drunk driving, impaired driving...no0ne of them under the HTA

[Smallc]

Serious question. Then why is there a provincial court system and a separate federal court system in Alberta. And there are provincial laws in Alberta? One easy example is laws related to driving, which include felony grade offenses.

The criminal law of Canada is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government. The power to enact criminal law is derived from section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867. Most criminal laws have been codified in the Criminal Code of Canada, as well as the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, Youth Criminal Justice Act, and several other peripheral Acts.

There remains, however, a parallel power of the provincial government to “administer” the justice system, which gives the provinces power to enforce and prosecute laws. In addition, this gives the provinces the power to enact quasi-criminal offences. The administration of justice and penal matters are under the jurisdiction of the provinces, so each province administers most of the criminal and penal law through provincial and municipal police forces

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_law_of_Canada

Edited June 16, 2011 by Smallc

[yarg]

So what i have learned from this thread is that a lot of you don't think we should punish people who break the law. OK, but when someone assaults another person to the point of brain damage under circumstances that suggest the person might do it again it isn't about punishment, it is about protecting the rest of us.

Guarantee me that with treatment a murderer won't murder again. It is a fact that a violent offender is more likely to continue to be violent than another random individual. Why do the rest of us owe that person another chance that may end in taking the life of another. Explain that. Why do we owe some person another opportunity like that. Or, don't bother, because you simply can't explain that, no rational person could.

[Bonam]

Protecting the innocent is more important than giving a second chance to the guilty, simple as that in my book. Violent/dangerous criminals need to be locked up for long time periods. For those making the financial argument, it's worth every penny of however much it costs.

[Sir Bandelot]

So what i have learned from this thread is that a lot of you don't think we should punish people who break the law.

You must be reading a different thread.

[Keepitsimple]

There absolutely is a doubt. The criminal justice system works in such a way that sentences are as fair and consistent as possible, while judges have just enough discretion to make decisions as they pertain to particulars of any given case. It's not broken.

If you think that sentences for violent and repeat offenders are as "fair and reasonable as possible", then you are right.....there's no sense making any changes. I don't happen to believe that - nor do a lot of other Canadians.

Edited June 16, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[Scotty]

Yeah but you shouldnt use one anecdote to support the claim that we need to increase prison sentences.

I can when it's fairly representative. Hell, the reporter even called it "lengthy" as if he was impressed by the unusual severity.

You need to look at what our violent crime rates are, which way they are trending, and how they compare to other similar nations.

No. I don't need to do any such thing. If I shoot you in the face, and a judge gives me one day in jail, are the statistics about how often people get shot in the face really relevant? The act stands on its own and injustice is not related to statistics.

My feeling is that while theres going to be horror stories in any system, Canada is a pretty safe place to live, and the level of crime is acceptable. I dont want to pay any more money.

That's because you're ignorant.

You're paying money because of the high level of crime. Canada pays tens of billions of dollars every year because of the high rate of crime. And I'm not talking about the costs of cops and courts and prisons. I'm talking about the cost of insurance, of locks, and steel bars, and alarm systems, the cost added to your bill when you buy groceries because of shoplifters, the cost added to your car repairs by crooked garages, the cost to, if not you, then your neighbor, when his house is burglarized or his car is stolen.

Lets say that the average person pays 15k per year in taxes... For every single person you put behind bars, 8 people have to work and pay taxes

.

That's because we're stupid. We've got thousands of people sitting in boxes when we should have them working on assembly lines. Prisons should be profitable, given they don't have to pay any wages, not money sinkholes.

[Scotty]

It is an appropriate sentence....according to the court.

You can't begin to re-try court cases either in the media or in some discussion forum and then expect to eke out your own punishment. You don't have the facts.

The facts seem self-evident. Without provocation, this repeat offender attacked a man and beat him nearly to death, resulting in brain damage and what will be a continuing cost to the country in keeping him in health care, if not institutionalized for the rest of his life. Three and a half years is what you should get for burglarizing a house, not for nearly killing someone.

[Scotty]

I think it sounds like there's a lot more wrong with this guy than can be cured with more punishment. Prison is an expensive and ineffective delivery system for psychiatric care.

So you'd prefer to have him living next door to you?

[Scotty]

OP is such hyperbole.

Congratulations, new member, for a demonstration as to how to make an absolute non-contribution to a topic.

[Scotty]

I'll tell you what I'm absolutely against: mandatory minimums. Taking judicial discretion away is probably the single most dangerous element of the omnibus crime bill.

If the public had more faith and confidence in our judges such mandatory minimums wouldn't be so popular.

That they are so popular is an indictment of how out of touch with society and with society's belief in justice judges are.

[Scotty]

This is great! I'm sorry I missed it the first time.

And what would you guys like us to do about such people? Group hug, perhaps?

[Tilter]

So what i have learned from this thread is that a lot of you don't think we should punish people who break the law. OK, but when someone assaults another person to the point of brain damage under circumstances that suggest the person might do it again it isn't about punishment, it is about protecting the rest of us.

Guarantee me that with treatment a murderer won't murder again. It is a fact that a violent offender is more likely to continue to be violent than another random individual. Why do the rest of us owe that person another chance that may end in taking the life of another. Explain that. Why do we owe some person another opportunity like that. Or, don't bother, because you simply can't explain that, no rational person could.

ZAPEM all

[William Ashley]

Judges should have sentencing determination - and people should insure reasonable judges serve the role.

The people could petition for removal of a judge they feel does not represent their views.

The people could also peition for the insertion of a judge they feel does represent their views.

Unfortunately there are a lot of wicked and basically callous people who are more concerned with reverenge and vendetta - hence adversarial justice rather than social healing, restitution and protection from truely dangerous indviduals.

I do think maiming is a serious occurence, and if intentional in heinous. It is right up there with murder, and the gravest personal offene of aggravated rape.

On a sad note the justice system in Canada has turned into a professional class and class politics rather than insuring social justice and protection of soceity.

I think anyone who wants tougher sentencing should live it for a few months and see if they have the same opinion. Jail sentencing makes more criminals not removes them. It gives a school of crime, and offers nothing to remove the circumstances that create crime (lack), instead it perpetuates and leads to recidivism and further class devision and deprivation of rights as to annul them on a social context for those subjected to them.

Edited June 18, 2011 by William Ashley

[CPCFTW]

And what would you guys like us to do about such people? Group hug, perhaps?

What you need to understand is that lefties think that everyone is a victim of the evil politicians, corporations, and CEOs. That man was simply provoked by the corporations not hiring him and not giving him a huge pension and a rich CEO sweeping his gf away in his Ferrari. We need to put our criminals into a prison of hugs and once they have hugged every Canadian, we have to force the corporations to give them a sweet job and pension. Then they will be rehabilitated and everyone will be happy except that brain damaged guy and his family and friends.

Edited June 18, 2011 by CPCFTW

[cybercoma]

The facts seem self-evident. Without provocation, this repeat offender attacked a man and beat him nearly to death, resulting in brain damage and what will be a continuing cost to the country in keeping him in health care, if not institutionalized for the rest of his life. Three and a half years is what you should get for burglarizing a house, not for nearly killing someone.

It must have been a really quick court case if all the facts can be stated in 10 seconds.

[guyser]

That's because you're ignorant.

Cough cough...

You're paying money because of the high level of crime.

Guess you never read those links huh?

[noahbody]

Judges should have sentencing determination

One of the problems is that judges' sentences aren't respected in the first place. No one serves the time the judge felt was justified/required. Let's start there. Build the infrastructure to ensure sentences can be respected.

[Scotty]

Cough cough...

Guess you never read those links huh?

What links? Links to the Stratford Strawberry Festival? Be a little more specific, please.

[guyser]

What links? Links to the Stratford Strawberry Festival? Be a little more specific, please.

The links were in the last 'crime is dropping' thread.

[gutb]

No, let's not get "tough" on crime, as our criminal system is stuffed with men who can't make absurd child support payments, those in violation of some sort of paper regulation, and so on -- not madmen bent on assaulting innocent people. The reason why the madmen don't get put away for longer is because our prisons have to make room for deadbeat dads, tax evaders and pot heads. The solution is to STOP MAKING GOOD PEOPLE INTO CRIMINALS. But we can't talk about that; let's just talk about being tough on crime.