Laws, wars, protests and ANGRY OLD UNCLES

[WWWTT]

Judges do have a say. As I've stated, they haven't been sending dope growers to jail, even those with hundreds of plants. The government clearly is aiming this at them.

What?

The laws already call for jail terms and judges are refusing to apply stiff sentences.

What makes you think making the sentences more harsh will convince judges to apply them?

All the conservatives are doing is ignoring the recomendations the judges are asking parliament to make.

The conservatives are knowingly wasting tax payer dollars!

Which is typical for politicians who don't care how they spend tax payer dollars!

WWWTT

[cybercoma]

Mandatory minimums make it a requirement for the judges to apply stiffer sentences. They cannot make up random sentences that go against the criminal code.

[WWWTT]

Not a bad suggestion but we'd lose a lot more from reduced trade with the US.

I guess Canada is doomed to kiss Americas ass till the end of time,

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Mandatory minimums make it a requirement for the judges to apply stiffer sentences. They cannot make up random sentences that go against the criminal code.

I believe a judge can apply a lesser sentence or the maximum sentence.

However if I am wrong and a judge must apply the mandatory sentence then people charged with various possesion/cultivation/traffiking offences will plead not guilty(this is already the case and judges have asked parliament to change/eliminate/amend marihuana laws).

In other words there are many example cases that can be reffered to where the current criminal law has been deemed to be unconstitutional.

If you think the conservatives can reverse/erase Canadian judges recomendations and previous court rullings,then I believe you do not fully understand how our justice system works.

WWWTT

[cybercoma]

It's a mandatory minimum sentence. If someone is convicted of that crime, the judge must give them at least the mandatory minimum. They cannot give them a lesser sentence. They can give them whatever harsher sentence they want, given that it follows precedent. So, when the bill passes, the judges will not be able to give lesser sentences in protest. They will be required to give at least the minimum sentence.

[WWWTT]

OK then but what about the rest of my statement?

WWWTT

[cybercoma]

OK then but what about the rest of my statement?

WWWTT

I'm not sure what it has to do with what I said about minimum sentences.

[WWWTT]

I'm not sure what it has to do with what I said about minimum sentences.

Really???

Thats odd?

Actually I should clarify that I am talking specifically about marihuana laws.And judges have already ruled that the current laws do not reflect reality.

The conservatives as far as I am aware are ignoring them(judges) and are making the sentences(marihuana related laws) more harsh.

I guess this is something you do not have an opinion about or do not want to weigh in on.

WWWTT

[cybercoma]

I disagree with the Conservatives making the sentences harsher. What I'm saying is that judges, following C-10 coming into force, will not be able to pass lighter sentence than what is legislated. It seems to me that's what you're suggesting judges are doing now and will continue to do. Maybe I'm reading your posts wrong. I'm not sure. All I'm saying is that one of the major problems with C-10 is the mandatory minimum rules, which eliminate a judge's ability to look at the facts of a case and determine a sentence that is appropriate (ideally taking into consideration the written law, legal precedent, and the values of society). What am I missing here?

[WWWTT]

Actually from what I hear,judges are dismissing cases.

When a judge throws out a case there is no sentence.

Aswell I believe judges are dismissing cases(in part) because the minimum sentence does not reflect reality.

Every time a judge dismisses a case(or any other ruling) this case can be used in future rulings.

In other words C-10 is pandoras box waiting to be opened.

WWWTT

[cybercoma]

Ok, I see what you're saying now. They can do that too, if the accused makes it past the prosecution. Mandatory minimums gives prosecutors the pressure to force people into making guilty pleas that they wouldn't otherwise make, in order to avoid the possibility of facing a harsher sentence where there is a mandatory minimum. This takes judicial discretion away from judges at trials and gives it to the prosecutors behind closed doors. The problem with these minimums goes way beyond sentencing at trial.

[WWWTT]

Ok, I see what you're saying now. They can do that too, if the accused makes it past the prosecution. Mandatory minimums gives prosecutors the pressure to force people into making guilty pleas that they wouldn't otherwise make, in order to avoid the possibility of facing a harsher sentence where there is a mandatory minimum. This takes judicial discretion away from judges at trials and gives it to the prosecutors behind closed doors. The problem with these minimums goes way beyond sentencing at trial.

You say you understand what I am getting at but you have me lost now.

Judges in Canada have already told parliament to change the marihuana laws because they are unconstitutional.

Does C-10 somehow change the constitution or adress marihuana laws?

I thought it only has to do with sentencing "after" there is a guilty plea/verdict.

I could be jumping around aswell a bit on this topic which is making it more confusing,sorry about that.

I still believe C-10 will push Canadian judges to continue dismissing marihuana related cases and Harper will have to eventually admit defeat and backtrack.

Now as far as plea bargaining goes it could become a thing of the past after C-10 and every accused may start their trial with a plea of not guilty.This will definetley fill up the court scedule and further leed to more dismissals

WWWTT

[dre]

It's a mandatory minimum sentence. If someone is convicted of that crime, the judge must give them at least the mandatory minimum. They cannot give them a lesser sentence. They can give them whatever harsher sentence they want, given that it follows precedent. So, when the bill passes, the judges will not be able to give lesser sentences in protest. They will be required to give at least the minimum sentence.

The problem is when you write blatantly retarded legislation like this, you are counting on the legal system to execute, and its full of mostly normal reasonable people. If those people (police, lawyers and judges) dont want to hand out these ridiculous sentences they have a whole pile of chances to do so.

They can....

Not arrest you in the first place.

Not press charges.

Reduce the charges.

Plead the case out.

Throw the case out.

Declare a mistrail.

And this is exactly what the system does.

The system wont even enforce the lax sentences they have NOW... Why would they enforce tougher ones? If the cases dont even make it to trail what the hell are manditory sentences going to do?

Long before a trial ever happens the crown council and defense council sit down and talk about the case. Unlike in court room dramas these people are not bitter adversaries. They are more like co-workers that work together to move cases through the system. They will sit down and look at the case and the person involved and if theres a minimum jail sentence and they dont think the guy deserves jail time they will plead the case out to some nothing-assed charge, and the perp will clean toilets at the rec center for 20 hours or even nothing at all. This happens every day.

Not to mention the first time they try to throw some small-time personal gardener (that has zero criminal record, a job, and a family of four) in jail its going to become a charter case and go right to the supreme court.

And when that happens... Whos going to decide which parts of the law go bye bye? Judges! And what do judges hate the most? Politicians that challenge their sovereignty and try to decide the outcome of trials while having zero knowledge of the facts of the case and the parties involved.

Edited November 20, 2011 by dre

[Argus]

They don't grow it because the charges are much higher. So, why would you have good people, you're family even, resort to finding weed in a criminal black market than just grow their own plants?

Let me ask you, in turn, should alcohol be sold in corner stores -- without any age restrictions?

[Argus]

The conservatives as far as I am aware are ignoring them(judges) and are making the sentences(marihuana related laws) more harsh.

Indeed. Tell me, do you work for a living? Does your boss ever make decisions which go against your desires?

[Argus]

Actually from what I hear,judges are dismissing cases.

When a judge throws out a case there is no sentence.

If a judge throws out cases where there is admissible evidence of criminal behavior the prosecution will complain to the judicial council and the judge will find him or herself out on the street.

[Tilter]

Ok, I see what you're saying now. They can do that too, if the accused makes it past the prosecution. Mandatory minimums gives prosecutors the pressure to force people into making guilty pleas that they wouldn't otherwise make, in order to avoid the possibility of facing a harsher sentence where there is a mandatory minimum. This takes judicial discretion away from judges at trials and gives it to the prosecutors behind closed doors. The problem with these minimums goes way beyond sentencing at trial.

This takes judicial discretion away from judges at trials and gives it to the prosecutors behind closed doors

And, given the stupidity displayed by the judges in the courts of Canada it's something long overdue.

A man in BC rapes & kills a youing girl in BC---- judge ruled that he was too high on Coke to make a viable decision--- not guilty.

Same judge--- ruled about the same way in about 4 cases in the next year.

My question is this--- if a .24 over driver killed this judge's kid while DUI would he render a decision that the guy was too drunk to make a rational decision about driving? If so every DUI case in Canada EVER would have to be retried.

[cybercoma]

Let me ask you, in turn, should alcohol be sold in corner stores -- without any age restrictions?

Yes.

[cybercoma]

And, given the stupidity displayed by the judges in the courts of Canada it's something long overdue.

A man in BC rapes & kills a youing girl in BC---- judge ruled that he was too high on Coke to make a viable decision--- not guilty.

Same judge--- ruled about the same way in about 4 cases in the next year.

My question is this--- if a .24 over driver killed this judge's kid while DUI would he render a decision that the guy was too drunk to make a rational decision about driving? If so every DUI case in Canada EVER would have to be retried.

That's all very nice, but these mandatory minimums aren't for sexual assault, hence the complaint that the baby diddler will get less time than someone growing a few pot plants.

In any case, your argument that it's endemic that judges hand out lenient sentences is unfounded. You care to back it up with some sort of study or sentencing data? Pointing to even a handful of stories out of the newspaper is not sufficient for that claim.

[Bonam]

In any case, your argument that it's endemic that judges hand out lenient sentences is unfounded. You care to back it up with some sort of study or sentencing data? Pointing to even a handful of stories out of the newspaper is not sufficient for that claim.

It doesn't have to be "endemic" to be worth fixing. If there even are a handful of judges that hand out lenient (or non-existent) sentences for the horrific crimes mentioned above, then something should be done. Personally, I think such judges should just be thrown out of the system. Or, even better, thrown in jail themselves on some appropriate charge. But, if that isn't possible, mandatory minimums are at least an attempt to address such cases.

Edited November 20, 2011 by Bonam

[cybercoma]

If there even are a handful of judges that hand out lenient (or non-existent) sentences for the horrific crimes mentioned above, then something should be done.

It's called the appeal process.

[WWWTT]

Indeed. Tell me, do you work for a living? Does your boss ever make decisions which go against your desires?

Yes I work for a living buddy!I am the freekin boss!I make decesions all the freekin time!What does your comment add?What are you saying?Are you saying that there is always someone above me and I have to listen to that person regardless of what they are saying?Right or wrong?And now somehow I can completely dismiss my knowledge and entire life experience and throw it out the freekin window like as if it never meant anything?!?!

Man how am I going to debate anything with someone that comes up with such a week and feeble argument?

I give up

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

If a judge throws out cases where there is admissible evidence of criminal behavior the prosecution will complain to the judicial council and the judge will find him or herself out on the street.

Holy freeeeeeekin holy man I never heard anyhting so completely made up and freekin spun on this site!?!?!?!

Man thats freekin hallarious.

If a judge throws out a case where there is evidence that "may" prove guilt,the crown can essentially complain and the judge will find themeself out on the freeekin street?

Man thats freekin funny!

Do you sincerely believe this?

Where did you here this from?

How old are you buddy?

WWWTT

[Argus]

Yes.

So you don't mind twelve year olds buying a bottle of rye? Most Canadians would disagree. That's why the distribution of alcohol is restricted. Bars can lose their licences for serving minors. Stores can lose their right to sell and be fined.

Clearly the government, responding to the expressed wishes of the people, believes mind altering substances ought to be kept out of the hands (as much as possible) of minors.

[Argus]

Yes I work for a living buddy!I am the freekin boss!I make decesions all the freekin time!What does your comment add?What are you saying?Are you saying that there is always someone above me and I have to listen to that person regardless of what they are saying?Right or wrong?And now somehow I can completely dismiss my knowledge and entire life experience and throw it out the freekin window like as if it never meant anything?!?!

Man how am I going to debate anything with someone that comes up with such a week and feeble argument?

I give up

WWWTT

Do your eyes bulge when you type like that? Are you sputtering and growling and snarling and bashing away at the keys?

I would have thought my point was patently obvious. I bet everyone else got it clear enough.