Lax sentencing for criminals

[WWWTT]

I'll admit I have not heard about this case through the media and only in this thread.

I have read several comments here and the opening title so for now this will be enough for me.

There seems to be two basic views of how our justice system should operate or what the ultimate purpose that is mandated to the justice system should be.

The conservative view seems to drift towards a deterent "tough on crime" approach.And dictate to the courts what there mandate should be.

The left wing sees the court in a slightly different light giving more merit to judges,crown and defence attorney.But in my opinion there is still too much conservative thinking(towards the justice system) in the left to make that much of a distinction that clearly seperates the two.

The conservatives want to create a clearer polarization to make this an election issue.

In my opinion this is a huge waste in tax payers dollars because anyone that is criminally charged has the right to challenge the law that they were charged with.If a judge rules in favour of the defendant then the law goes back to the lower house for amendments.And all the parties involved don't get paid minimum wages!And this process doesn't have a quik drive through service!

This is an involved topic and there is more I need to add.I will do so at a later date,time permiting.

WWWTT

[eyeball]

Take that one up with the Tories. If they weren't engaging in such flagrant, vivid stupidity, no one would have it to obsess over.

I'd rather take it up with the conservatives who keep voting for these sphincters. I mean, what part of get the state off the people's backs doesn't the goddamn right wing get yet? Didn't they invent that notion?

I blame our stupid FPTP electoral process as much as anything. The 50% of conservatives that are perfectly happy to see the state tossing perfectly ordinary Canadians into jail for pot actually only represent some 20% of Canadians who voted in the last election.

Who are these low-life's and why would any self-respecting conservative who can't stand social engineering want to have anything to do promoting moral engineering instead?

WTF is the matter with these people?

Edited July 3, 2011 by eyeball

[WWWTT]

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.

Agree and disagree

A judge cannot be removed.Only the judge can deside when he/she would like to retire.

The inexperienced and illinformed public in my opinion have absolutely no business dictating who should have such great powers such as judges have(and salaries).

I agree with the rest of your comments here.If you don't feel you have done something terribly wrong after spending a couple years in the hole then you never will!

WWWTT

[Oleg Bach]

One man, one opinion. Lets hope (if true) the others arent idiots

Don't know about that. Logic would dictate that if I were in the position in part to appoint a judge I would surely expect that judge to share my values or I would not appoint them. That would just be human nature, would it not? The Advocacy Society from what I understand has some force in the appointment of judges - It is made up of a group of powerful well connected senior lawyers. This man I mention from what I understand is one of the founders of this club. I do not want to assume to much but if he does not like blacks in general...it would make sense.... BUT in the cautious alternative _ I don't like most blacks either _ I fear and loath the vicious - violent - hateful and ignorant blacks that carry a pistol....but these are not ALL blacks _ I guess that this mentioned man was probably talking in a statistical manner -that most gun crime and stabbings in the GTA are committed by blacks who lack sophistication and intelligence.

[Scotty]

I agree, Dre! and 'abject retards' sadly is a perfect description!

I mean, I agree with almost everything else the Tories are doing to address the problems in the criminal system. I just can't understand why they're taking the cheap shot of making a few marijuana plants such a big target. Sure, they'll get a lot more arrests and longer convictions but what will they REALLY achieve?

How about this? The people who are so ungodly stupid and weak, who don't care if the punishment for growing some pot is years in jail because they're so bloody desperate to put some burning weed in their mouths and suck down the smoke, will be removed from the streets, hopefully before they can breed more of their misbegotten ilk.

[Scotty]

I'd rather take it up with the conservatives who keep voting for these sphincters. I mean, what part of get the state off the people's backs doesn't the goddamn right wing get yet? Didn't they invent that notion?

Some of us regard it as more important for the state to crack down on vicious, brutal murderers, rapists, and street criminals than to safeguard the rights of the sniveling wretches so desperately addicted to puffing at their weeds they're willing to risk their lives and families to get some more smoke into their lungs.

[Saipan]

Sure, they'll get a lot more arrests and longer convictions but what will they REALLY achieve?

Fewer dopes on the roads and workplaces.

(unlike liberal long gun registration)

[WWWTT]

Fewer dopes on the roads and workplaces.

(unlike liberal long gun registration)

Than explain why the Netherlands has a lower per capita usage of cannibis?

There are too many health related issues(mental and physical)immproperly addressed in the justice system.

In my opinion Wild Bill is right on this one but should make it an election issue.

WWWTT

[Saipan]

Than explain why the Netherlands has a lower per capita usage of cannibis?

They use different drugs?

There are too many health related issues(mental and physical)immproperly addressed in the justice system.

How many are too many?

Can you address them?

And if justice system should deal with health issues then health system should deal with criminal issues?

[Molly]

And if justice system should deal with health issues then health system should deal with criminal issues?

If the two systems don't acknowledge, support, and sometimes defer to one another, they are both erring.

[eyeball]

Some of us regard it as more important for the state to crack down on vicious, brutal murderers, rapists, and street criminals than to safeguard the rights of the sniveling wretches so desperately addicted to puffing at their weeds they're willing to risk their lives and families to get some more smoke into their lungs.

You think lumping millions of ordinary Canadians in with vicious, brutal, murderers, rapists and street criminals is a particularly intelligent use of the state's resources?

I'm assuming while this is going on you have no problem with the state also selling booze to millions of vicious, brutal drinkers.

[Molly]

You think lumping millions of ordinary Canadians in with vicious, brutal, murderers, rapists and street criminals is a particularly intelligent use of the state's resources?

I'm assuming while this is going on you have no problem with the state also selling booze to millions of vicious, brutal drinkers.

Impaired Driving is the most prosecuted criminal charge, accounting for 12% of all criminal prosecutions... 53000 of them per year, of which 14% result in jail time, averaging 73 days per jail sentence....

... which is over half a million days of incarceration, close to 1500 person-years of jail time per year, at about $52,000/year... about $80,000,000/ year housing drunk drivers.

10 days difference to that average sentence is about $11 million.... so you have to wonder how much more likely someone is to reoffend if they are sentenced to 63 days instead of 73, or if they will be even less likely to reoffend if it's extended to 83 days.

Anecdote suggests that the law of diminishing returns sets in fast, and that the recidivism rate difference between 63 days, 73 days, 83 days... 103 days, 153 days... is almost non-existent.

[bloodyminded]

You're making it sound as if people's thoughts are and perhaps even should be completely dominated by their fear - it's irrational. Most parents don't dwell on the fear of child abduction - I certainly can't recall worrying about it not even a little.

It is in fact an irrational fear, in terms of liklihood (and all fears are based, to a degree, on real or perceived odds).

[Wild Bill]

Some of us regard it as more important for the state to crack down on vicious, brutal murderers, rapists, and street criminals than to safeguard the rights of the sniveling wretches so desperately addicted to puffing at their weeds they're willing to risk their lives and families to get some more smoke into their lungs.

Exactly, Scotty! Murderers, rapists and other criminals are obviously far more important that marijuana smokers, who for the most part are just ordinary working joes! There are hundreds of thousands of Canadians who grow maybe a half dozen plants for their personal consumption. What's more, that is virtually the ONLY crime they ever commit!

As I said, a cheap target. No argument that I have ever heard about marijuana laws has ever made sense to me, since it is a victimless crime and a matter of personal choice. Virtually all of the negative consequences to marijuana are a direct result of the Prohibition Laws and nothing to do with the drug itself.

Still, it doesn't matter how you feel about it. The fact is that MILLIONS of Canadians don't feel that marijuana is that big a deal and if the punishments look excessive it will reflect back on the governing party responsible. The opposition parties would likely jump for joy if Harper gets tagged as a temperance-style Carrie Nation trying to use the Law as a way of forcing other folks to live by her values. It will inflame the accusations of social engineering and the perennial suspicions of a bible-belt secret agenda.

Politically, it is a VERY dumb thing to do! Little upside and an enormous downside. Few citizens are afraid of someone in their town sparking a "doobie". They want the child molesters moved away from their childrens' schools. You lose support from ALL marijuana smokers and a good percentage of non-marijuana smokers! What do you gain? 1423 fanatical evangelical Christians, which is ALL of them? Their voting support is useless! They don't even all live in the same riding!

When people are afraid of rabid lions you don't win brownie points for sending the police out to shoot field mice.

Edited July 3, 2011 by Wild Bill

[eyeball]

The odd unintended consequences of some social engineer's ideas are one thing but moral engineers are in a completely different class. They seem to go out of their way to craft policies that are as deliberately stupid and mean-spirited as possible. As far as I'm concerned social conservatives are the biggest social vandals on the face of the planet.

It figures the same self-righteous law and order mob that also prides itself on being the moral defenders of the unborn think nothing twice about the fact their beloved state sells a recreational drug that causes so many unborn babies to develop into, wait for it...

...vicious, brutal murderers, rapists and common street criminals. If it wasn't so maddening or if the unintended consequences so horrific it would be hilarious.

Whoever else's values it is that today's generation of Canadian right-wingers think it is they represent, they include the lowest of the low-life's our sad little society has to offer.

In the meantime marijuana is prescribed for morning sickness in California and international Olympic anti-doping committees are worried that it enhances a person's performance. Hey, go figure, it is freakin' hilarious after all.

[eyeball]

Right-wingers have no business whatsoever discussing never mind introducing new legislation for arresting and punishing Canadians when they can't even seemingly discuss or agree amongst themselves what it is that should constitute a crime.

Again I'm struck by how such a small number of Canadians have come to wield so much influence within and through our electoral system...talk about unintended consequences.

[Molly]

Virtually all of the negative consequences to marijuana are a direct result of the Prohibition Laws and nothing to do with the drug itself....

...The opposition parties would likely jump for joy if Harper gets tagged as a temperance-style Carrie Nation trying to use the Law as a way of forcing other folks to live by her values.

This is temperance-style prohibition law:

http://www.canada.com/health/Days+homegrown+medicinal+could+numbered/4960241/story.html#ixzz1PUSeNOyA

"OTTAWA — The federal government is expected to announce new rules for growing medical marijuana which would make it so only licensed growers would be permitted to cultivate and distribute it.

"The move would eliminate individual and private growers from the current system, whereby eligible people apply to Health Canada which then issues the licence.

"People in the dispensing community who have been hearing about the impending change say it's unwelcome, and will do more harm than good.

"By privatizing the industry, they'll effectively be removing the rights of medical cannabis patients to produce their own cannabis," said Adam Greenblatt, a spokesman for the Canadian Association of Medical Cannabis Dispensaries. "That's problematic because you have patients who spend many years trying to find the variety that works for them, and also because some patients have invested a lot of money in growing supplies."

My good neighbour, who now has a life because he now uses marijuana instead of that unlimited supply of free narcotics offered by taxpayers and the medical community, might be seriously negatively effected by these restrictions.

Edited July 3, 2011 by Molly

[eyeball]

"By privatizing the industry, they'll effectively be removing the rights of medical cannabis patients to produce their own cannabis," said Adam Greenblatt, a spokesman for the Canadian Association of Medical Cannabis Dispensaries. "That's problematic because you have patients who spend many years trying to find the variety that works for them, and also because some patients have invested a lot of money in growing supplies."

What about the right's of recreational cannabis growers? Giving them the same right's and responsibilities that people who grow grapes and make wine have should suffice I'd think.

Can you imagine the howls of apoplectic outrage from social conservatives if the state ever tried to privatize the growing of grapes?

What's really funny is listening to right-wingers wax philosophically about more small Mom and Pop beer and wine stores and longer hours for bars and taverns...something about more choices for consumers or something...

We have a new beer and wine store that opened recently in town and get this, it's within two blocks of a public school...oh the humanity.

Edited July 3, 2011 by eyeball

[bush_cheney2004]

.... The opposition parties would likely jump for joy if Harper gets tagged as a temperance-style Carrie Nation trying to use the Law as a way of forcing other folks to live by her values. It will inflame the accusations of social engineering and the perennial suspicions of a bible-belt secret agenda.

It wasn't her 'secret agenda' that banned cannabis for Canucks....but rather Canadian federal law under the 1923 Opium and Drug Act (Liberals in power), years before the United States.

[cybercoma]

Canadians are much more likely to be murdered by their employers or doctors than some raving mad killer.

[Scotty]

You think lumping millions of ordinary Canadians in with vicious, brutal, murderers, rapists and street criminals is a particularly intelligent use of the state's resources?

No, I don't. I don't really care much about whether someone smokes pot or not. However, you asked why people would vote Conservative. I answered it. I like the idea of cracking down on violent offenders. I don't really support cracking down on potheads, but it doesn't really bother me, either. You know the law. If you're willing to risk years in jail because you're so desperate for your weed then don't whine to me afterwards.

[Scotty]

Exactly, Scotty! Murderers, rapists and other criminals are obviously far more important that marijuana smokers, who for the most part are just ordinary working joes! There are hundreds of thousands of Canadians who grow maybe a half dozen plants for their personal consumption. What's more, that is virtually the ONLY crime they ever commit!

As I said, I don't support laws against pot -- except against smuggling and big time dealers. I wouldn't even mind experimenting with legalizing it and taxing it.

That being said, the fact is there are laws against it, and if people are so frantic to get some burning weeds into their mouths they're willing to risk prison time don't expect me to feel sorry for them. Whether you 'support' the law or not it exists. So either amuse yourself some other way or take the risks.

[Saipan]

Impaired Driving is the most prosecuted criminal charge, accounting for 12% of all criminal prosecutions... 53000 of them per year, of which 14% result in jail time, averaging 73 days per jail sentence....

... which is over half a million days of incarceration, close to 1500 person-years of jail time per year, at about $52,000/year... about $80,000,000/ year housing drunk drivers.

10 days difference to that average sentence is about $11 million.... so you have to wonder how much more likely someone is to reoffend if they are sentenced to 63 days instead of 73, or if they will be even less likely to reoffend if it's extended to 83 days.

Anecdote suggests that the law of diminishing returns sets in fast, and that the recidivism rate difference between 63 days, 73 days, 83 days... 103 days, 153 days... is almost non-existent.

Yet Liberals believe duck hunters are the problem.

[Saipan]

No, I don't. I don't really care much about whether someone smokes pot or not.

Neither do I provided he has no driver's licence.

Same goes for drunk drivers.

[Wild Bill]

It wasn't her 'secret agenda' that banned cannabis for Canucks....but rather Canadian federal law under the 1923 Opium and Drug Act (Liberals in power), years before the United States.

Hey BC, I used her as an example, a metaphor rather than a blueprint!