Omnibus Crime Bill to Cost the Provinces Billions

[cybercoma]

The study, by the Quebec Institute for Socio-economic Research and Information (IRIS), also notes the provinces are expected to shoulder the majority of the extra costs associated with the legislation, which it estimates at $14 billion

Read more: http://www.canada.com/Controversial+crime+bill+cost+Canadians+billion+study/5832700/story.html#ixzz1g0Njmgp2

Is it any wonder the provinces are coming out against this?

[dre]

Is it any wonder the provinces are coming out against this?

Dumbest piece of legislation in Canadian history.

Edited December 9, 2011 by dre

[cybercoma]

It's like you just want to staple this letter to the foreheads of all the fiscal conservatives and ask them to give their party leader a shake.

[na85]

They aren't fiscal conservatives. This is the Canadian Alliance party in most respects, under the guise of fiscal responsibility.

It's up to the Senate now, and something tells me we won't see a rejection by the upper house.

[olp1fan]

I have a feeling this leads to a constitutional crisis

[dre]

I have a feeling this leads to a constitutional crisis

Maybe. Theres actually a whole lot of potential charter cases in here.

But whats just as likely is that provinces, courts, and police will ignore it.

[Keepitsimple]

These "billions" have very little to do with the Crime Bill and almost everything to do with ending the 2 to 1 and 3 to 1 credit for time served in pre-trial custody - a practice that was maddening as lawyers would drag things out as long as possible to get as much "credit" as they could. This article - and the thread headline - is nothing but inaccurate, belated whining and alarmism.

The left-leaning public policy research group says that, using "the most conservative estimates," it pegs the costs of the plan to end the practice of judges handing offenders time credits — on a two-for-one basis, to compensate for time spent in pre-sentence custody — at $16.5 billion for the country as a whole, with the provinces footing $12.6 billion.

The costs associated with the omnibus Bill C-10 — providing for mandatory prison sentences for drug-related crimes and child sex offenders — are estimated by the researchers at $2.3 billion.

Edited December 9, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[Guest Manny]

These "billions" have very little to do with the Crime Bill and almost everything to do with ending the 2 to 1 and 3 to 1 credit for time served in pre-trial custody - a practice that was maddening as lawyers would drag things out as long as possible to get as much "credit" as they could. This article - and the thread headline - is nothing but inaccurate, belated whining and alarmism.

The real prolem with the bill is that while it has some very good ideas, things that almost anyone would agree need to be changed to make our justice system more fair, it includes other things that are unfair. There are too many different things in this bill. And that is done strategically, so that the senate must vote on the entirety of the bill, and get those ideological, partisan inclusions passed which would not otherwise be able to pass if they stood alone. That is the ugliest face of politics.

[Topaz]

Think about this. The conspiracy theory is that he US and Canada will have to join as one because of the amount of debt each country has. Well the US really has theirs but we in Canada don't ...as yet. Slowly the harmonizing of the US and Canada is coming together and Harper's spending hasn't really started..yet. Billions on jets, prisons, bridges, helping their own special groups, all going down the road to NAU. So just keep your eyes and ears open and lets see by the time the Tories are done , what exactly Canada looks like, especially the health care system.

[g_bambino]

I have a feeling this leads to a constitutional crisis

How? The law may be constitutionally problematic (the federal Crown can't force the provincial Crowns to spend their money unwillingly), but that's hardly a crisis wherein the continuance of government is in jeopardy.

[Moonbox]

The conspiracy theory is that he US and Canada will have to join as one because of the amount of debt each country has.

Wow Topaz. Wow. Not only is the theory of conspiracy to join Canada and the USA together flat out ridiculous, the reason you're giving for it (debt) is even more ridiculous. Do yourself a favour. Try and spend more than a week off the internet (particularly forums, news sites etc) and get some perspective on the world and what's out there.

So just keep your eyes and ears open and lets see by the time the Tories are done , what exactly Canada looks like, especially the health care system.

Excuse me while I sneer in contempt. This is getting pathetic.

[Wild Bill]

They aren't fiscal conservatives. This is the Canadian Alliance party in most respects, under the guise of fiscal responsibility.

It's up to the Senate now, and something tells me we won't see a rejection by the upper house.

Where were you when the Alliance was around? You obviously know nothing about the Alliance Party if you could make a statement like that! It is so obviously wrong it is like saying that the NDP is run by the rich!

It's a fact that there is nothing left of the old Reform/Alliance platform in the new CPC. If you had any experience at all you would recognize that the present CPC is no different than the old Mulroney/Campbell PC Party.

Fiscal responsibility was perhaps the strongest plank in the Alliance platform. It was never even an honourable mention in the PC party.

As I keep saying, I really wonder why Manning ever bothered. We all ended up right back where we started.

[Tilter]

Maybe we should look at the judicial system as a whole when judging the crime bill.

It took what??--- 12 years to bring the alleged airplane bombers to trial over the bombing of Air India planes----they had the bomb-builder & his testimony about who wanted, ordered & paid for the bombs but after 12 years his testimony was perjured (he was convicted for that later) and the alleged masterminds were found Not Guilty-- not Innocent but not guilty.

This crap is repeated daily, 5-6-7-8 years before the crown brings culprits to trial & the case is blown over--- lost witnesses, evidence, prisoners who skip the country or for whatever bullshit reason and the criminals walk. Imagine the hurt to the BC family whose daughter was tortured, burned & drowned--- and the trauma of seeing the confessed go thru 4 or 5 trials & appeals that were allowed (maybe because a rich defendant can get that kind of twisted Justice?

hang the judges & start over with someone who has a sense of justice for the victim rather than advocates of the prisoner's rights.

[Keepitsimple]

This thread is drifting back onto the crime bill - which has been covered ad nauseum and is irrelevant to the thread topic and the article itself. As I stated before, these "billions" have very little to do with the Crime Bill and almost everything to do with ending the 2 to 1 and 3 to 1 credit for time served in pre-trial custody - a practice that was maddening as lawyers would drag things out as long as possible to get as much "credit" as they could. This article - and the thread headline - is nothing but inaccurate, belated whining and alarmism.

[dre]

This thread is drifting back onto the crime bill - which has been covered ad nauseum and is irrelevant to the thread topic and the article itself. As I stated before, these "billions" have very little to do with the Crime Bill and almost everything to do with ending the 2 to 1 and 3 to 1 credit for time served in pre-trial custody - a practice that was maddening as lawyers would drag things out as long as possible to get as much "credit" as they could. This article - and the thread headline - is nothing but inaccurate, belated whining and alarmism.

Isnt ending that practice PART of the crime bill?

In any case... why would any province want to pay even $5 extra for a policy (mandatory minimums) that has been an abject failure everywhere its tried? The provinces should, and probably will, simply find away to tell the feds and their idiotic piece of legislation to go ____ themselves, and theres a bunch of different ways they can do it... the easiest of which is to just not bring these cases to trial in the first place, which they are already doing.

Edited December 10, 2011 by dre

[waldo]

Isnt ending that practice PART of the crime bill?

clearly! That's the second time in this thread Simple has tried to delineate costs associated with credit for pre-trial custody... like... somehow costs associated with ending reducing 2:1 aren't for provincial consideration. Say what?

of course, missing from the puffed-up Conservative 'tough on crime' stance is understanding some of the rationale behind 2:1 in the first place... rationale that, in itself, to some degree, associates to funding cost deficiencies in the current system as played out in the current sentencing... 2:1 simply acted to respond to and alleviate some of those funding cost deficiencies. Of course, true to form, Simple's earlier post cast aspersion towards defense lawyers, at large...

[MiddleClassCentrist]

I'm more interested in seeing whether people care in 3.5 years.

Harper has done nothing risky but, is still helping put us in the hole.

Spend provinces money on a low risk crusade of being "anti-criminal".

He'll try to blame this on the Provinces.

[dre]

clearly! That's the second time in this thread Simple has tried to delineate costs associated with credit for pre-trial custody... like... somehow costs associated with ending reducing 2:1 aren't for provincial consideration. Say what?

of course, missing from the puffed-up Conservative 'tough on crime' stance is understanding some of the rationale behind 2:1 in the first place... rationale that, in itself, to some degree, associates to funding cost deficiencies in the current system as played out in the current sentencing... 2:1 simply acted to respond to and alleviate some of those funding cost deficiencies. Of course, true to form, Simple's earlier post cast aspersion towards defense lawyers, at large...

Right so sounds like a little bit of Enron style creative accounting on his part? "If we dont count most of the cost then the price tag is lower!".

[dre]

Also... can someone tell me the sense in mandatory minimum sentences for cases that dont even make it to trial in the first place because the courts are already too clogged up?

Did they put a few dozen wheelchair bound retards in a room with a keg of whiskey and a few pounds of crack to write this bill? Im not a CPC fan but I normally wouldnt accuse them abject stupidity. But this bill is really focking stupid.

What kind of PIECE OF SHIT country fills its prisons with minor drug offenders in spite of the mountain of evidence that proves its expensive and counter productive?

Edited December 10, 2011 by dre

[g_bambino]

Harper has done nothing risky but, is still helping put us in the hole.

Spend provinces money on a low risk crusade of being "anti-criminal".

He can't spend provinces' money.

[cybercoma]

Since the fed can't spend provincial money and some of the provinces (New Brunswick) don't have the money to be dumping into these prisons, we're going to see dangerous criminals let out early. This law will have the opposite effect. Mandatory minimums will require judges to put petty pot plant producers (alliteration of the day) behind bars. Withno room in the prisons, they'll be forced to let others out to accomodate the newbs. So this law will put harmless potheads that would otherwise be eating cheetos and watching movies into prison, while more serious and dangerous offenders will go free.

[dre]

Since the fed can't spend provincial money and some of the provinces (New Brunswick) don't have the money to be dumping into these prisons, we're going to see dangerous criminals let out early. This law will have the opposite effect. Mandatory minimums will require judges to put petty pot plant producers (alliteration of the day) behind bars. Withno room in the prisons, they'll be forced to let others out to accomodate the newbs. So this law will put harmless potheads that would otherwise be eating cheetos and watching movies into prison, while more serious and dangerous offenders will go free.

Mandatory minimums will require judges to put petty pot plant producers (alliteration of the day) behind bars.

No they wont. None of these cases even make it to trial!!! What difference are minimum sentences going to make when theres no trial? And no verdict? And no sentence?

[cybercoma]

If the prosecutor takes it to trial, they'll go to trial.

[dre]

If the prosecutor takes it to trial, they'll go to trial.

Dude... prosecutors dont take these cases to trial. Where I live they are already letting real criminals go free because they could not get a court date in a reasonable ammount of time. And theres a whole bunch of really basic ways that the provinces can render this legislation moot. The police can not arrest (happens all the time), the presecutor can not charge or plead the case out, the judge can summarily dismiss the charges, or they can find the defendant guilty of a lesser crime.

Edited December 10, 2011 by dre

[CPCFTW]

What kind of PIECE OF SHIT country fills its prisons with minor drug offenders in spite of the mountain of evidence that proves its expensive and counter productive?

We the "1%" like to call that country "Canada" (without calling it a "piece of shit" of course).