Big Guy Posted April 12, 2014 Report Posted April 12, 2014 The Supreme Court has already struck down a retroactive component of parole restrictions; rejected Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s nominee for the Supreme Court of Canada; tossed out the three main prostitution laws, and ordered a constitutional exemption for Vancouver’s safe needle injection clinic Now, the Truth in Sentencing Act, one of the government’s early “tough-on-crime” laws passed in 2009, which curbs judges’ ability to give a break on sentencing when a convicted offender has spent lengthy time in pre-trial jail custody has been changed on a 7 to 0 decision. Rather than trying to argue the validity or not of each of these laws that have been overturned, I wonder how this government is creating legislation. I thought that any proposed legislation is first evaluated to see if it is constitutional and only then goes to the floor. Looks to me like a lot of people are spending a lot of time creating potential laws that are then dismissed as unconstitutional. Are these guys just out to lunch or is there a hidden agenda? Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
TimG Posted April 12, 2014 Report Posted April 12, 2014 (edited) Looks to me like a lot of people are spending a lot of time creating potential laws that are then dismissed as unconstitutional.The problem is the SCC who has decided that the duly elected government should not be able to pass laws. It used to be the court would err on the side of legislative primacy if there was any doubt. Now they routinely grasp on any excuse to overturn laws that offend them. IOW - it is not the governments fault that it has to deal with such activists judges (the fact that Harper has appointed most of them does not seem to make much of a difference given the pool of judges that the government must draw from). That said, this decision seems to be more rational that the Nadon one which clearly ignored any fair reading of the intent of the constitution. SCC should not be so quick to pass these kinds of judgement because as soon as it passes a judgement it permanently takes power away from the voter to decide what they think is right. It undermines democracy and turns the country into a dictatorship ruled by the SCC and the lawyers that exploit these rulings. Edited April 12, 2014 by TimG Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted April 12, 2014 Report Posted April 12, 2014 The duly elected government can pass laws, within the guidelines of the constitution. Apparently Harper's bunch forgot about that.The so called "tough on crime" bill was a waste at the outset. Maybe the government should have checked the crime rate numbers over the last 40 years or so and they would have found it wasn't needed. Putting people in jaile for 6 months for possessing 6 mj plants? Are you kidding? A YVR lawyer did a study of the docket's and found that stupid little retrograde concept would incarecerate an additional 4000 people approx. and if you do the math on what it costs to house these heinous criminals you're over the 4 million/year mark pretty quick. It's all about sucking up a few more votes from under some nasty old rug. We can just be happy that Harper didn't get his boys bum on that bench. Quote
Bob Macadoo Posted April 12, 2014 Report Posted April 12, 2014 (edited) SCC should not be so quick to pass these kinds of judgement because as soon as it passes a judgement it permanently takes power away from the voter to decide what they think is right. It undermines democracy and turns the country into a dictatorship ruled by the SCC and the lawyers that exploit these rulings. It takes no such thing away from voters. In fact the SCC should be quicker to give the gov't more time to redraft the legislation paying attention to what the critical aspects of the decision were. In this case the court simply said you madecthe legislation vague and then claimed a specific meaning after the fact. If you didn't want "exceptions" to be determined by someone else be clear in your legislation next time. Not rocket science or habeas corpus....whichever analogy you want. Edited April 12, 2014 by Bob Macadoo Quote
TimG Posted April 12, 2014 Report Posted April 12, 2014 In this case the court simply said you made the legislation vague and then claimed a specific meaning after the fact.I have not dug into the details of this decision yet. The media reports make it sound like any law that attempt to restrict what judges are allowed to do when it comes to credit for pre-trial time served is unconstitutional. If it is just a demand for more clarity then maybe it is not so bad. Quote
eyeball Posted April 12, 2014 Report Posted April 12, 2014 (edited) Are these guys just out to lunch or is there a hidden agenda? Both, but the agenda is standing there stark naked in plain sight. If you hate the fill-blank-here (in this case the SC) you get people to imagine it's a threat to their right to freedom and democracy and declare you're the only thing standing between that and dictatorship. Actually it's the people who keep scarfing back this old shtick that are really out to lunch. Edited April 12, 2014 by eyeball Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Bob Macadoo Posted April 12, 2014 Report Posted April 12, 2014 If it is just a demand for more clarity then maybe it is not so bad. It is so bad b/c as along with other bills these simple things are making the legal community a mint. Quote
WWWTT Posted April 12, 2014 Report Posted April 12, 2014 The problem is the SCC who has decided that the duly elected government should not be able to pass laws. It used to be the court would err on the side of legislative primacy if there was any doubt. Now they routinely grasp on any excuse to overturn laws that offend them. IOW - it is not the governments fault that it has to deal with such activists judges (the fact that Harper has appointed most of them does not seem to make much of a difference given the pool of judges that the government must draw from). That said, this decision seems to be more rational that the Nadon one which clearly ignored any fair reading of the intent of the constitution. SCC should not be so quick to pass these kinds of judgement because as soon as it passes a judgement it permanently takes power away from the voter to decide what they think is right. It undermines democracy and turns the country into a dictatorship ruled by the SCC and the lawyers that exploit these rulings. Because a few laws are NOT CONSTITUTIONAL does not mean that we now live in a dictatorship! That's the part that you want to omit here, the constitution. Another big job of the senate to has fallen to partisan politics that has led to this. WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
WWWTT Posted April 12, 2014 Report Posted April 12, 2014 The duly elected government can pass laws, within the guidelines of the constitution. False! Nothing in the constitution says so. WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
Keepitsimple Posted April 12, 2014 Report Posted April 12, 2014 I have not dug into the details of this decision yet. The media reports make it sound like any law that attempt to restrict what judges are allowed to do when it comes to credit for pre-trial time served is unconstitutional. If it is just a demand for more clarity then maybe it is not so bad. A very disappointing, if not troubling decision on the surface but I agree. I'm hoping the details show some agreement with the intent of the law - and some suggestions for how to implement it. If not, I'd be very upset with the SCC - because clearly, the public is onside. Credits for time served has been like a runaway train in the courts to the extent that guilty parties and their lawyers drag out pre-trial motions to maximize the credit. Disgusting - these are violent and repeat offenders. Quote Back to Basics
WWWTT Posted April 12, 2014 Report Posted April 12, 2014 I'd be very upset with the SCC - because clearly, the public is onside. Can you prove that? You have a recent link that backs this up? A poll perhaps? Regardless, constitution can not just be voted away because you are implying the public is all for it! WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
eyeball Posted April 12, 2014 Report Posted April 12, 2014 ...clearly, the public is onside. Oh well, you know that old saw about how stupid the public usually is when it comes to how we're governed. I guess this is one of those times. Credits for time served has been like a runaway train in the courts to the extent that guilty parties and their lawyers drag out pre-trial motions to maximize the credit. Disgusting - these are violent and repeat offenders. Who's fault is it that lawyers are allowed to drag out pre-trial motions in the first place? I'm betting there is a shortage of funding and staff for pre-trial proceedings and that the courts are bogged down dealing with things like pot and prostitution. It seems to me the government is attacking this problem backwards from the wrong end. If it can't afford to deal with all the laws it has it should either ramp up it's spending or start scrapping laws. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
cybercoma Posted April 12, 2014 Report Posted April 12, 2014 The problem is the SCC who has decided that the duly elected government should not be able to pass laws. Do you understand how the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms works? Serious question because if you do, I have no idea why you would say this. Quote
cybercoma Posted April 12, 2014 Report Posted April 12, 2014 Because a few laws are NOT CONSTITUTIONAL does not mean that we now live in a dictatorship! That's the part that you want to omit here, the constitution. Another big job of the senate to has fallen to partisan politics that has led to this. WWWTT The irony being that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is designed to protect us against dictatorships that would violate our rights. Quote
Wilber Posted April 12, 2014 Report Posted April 12, 2014 The charter has made the legal system much more complicated and case law resulting from the charter continues to complicate it further. We will never catch up. The problem with our system is that a bad law passed by Parliament can be changed by Parliament. Once it survives appeal, bad case law is cast in stone and will haunt us forever Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
cybercoma Posted April 12, 2014 Report Posted April 12, 2014 If the government wants to reduce how much time off a sentence people get, perhaps they should put forward some more funding to address the backlog problems. Then they wouldn't be sitting in pre-trial custody for as long. Seriously, you would think the defenders of freedom and liberty (read: Conservatives) would loathe a government that holds people without a trial for too long. Instead, their supporters are whining about the Supreme Court upholding the Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Quote
Keepitsimple Posted April 12, 2014 Report Posted April 12, 2014 (edited) Oh well, you know that old saw about how stupid the public usually is when it comes to how we're governed. I guess this is one of those times. It seems to me the government is attacking this problem backwards from the wrong end. If it can't afford to deal with all the laws it has it should either ramp up it's spending or start scrapping laws. And how far do you think a Conservative Party would get with that? The elephant in the room is lawyers - who are disproportionately represented in Parliament, who sit as judges, who sit on Provincial and Federal supreme courts. Survey after survey show that the public puts lawyers near the bottom of the "trusted professions", yet no one hollers "Conflict of Interest". It is in lawyers' interest to keep the revolving door moving. Common sense dictates that parole itself, should only be granted after it's been earned - showing remorse, keeping your nose clean, and staying out of trouble. Why should someone who's violently offended several times be granted any parole at all? It's ludicrous.. And then there is Statutory Release. Give us a break. There's a big, huge Conflict of Interest that has become a sinkhole for lawyers fees. What the Tories are trying to do are BABY STEPS towards making the Justice System more representative of the public will......and until there is some serious movement to Truth in Sentencing, they'll keep getting lots of votes that might be inclined to go elsewhere. Edited April 12, 2014 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
Argus Posted April 12, 2014 Report Posted April 12, 2014 The duly elected government can pass laws, within the guidelines of the constitution. Apparently Harper's bunch forgot about that. I'm curious. Could you please show me where in the constitution it says "criminals who spend time in custody will be granted 2 or 3 days off their sentence for every day spent in custody? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Smallc Posted April 12, 2014 Report Posted April 12, 2014 The problem is in the law. They left leeway for 1.5 times credit, but didn't really explain it at all. The law needs to be revised. Quote
Argus Posted April 12, 2014 Report Posted April 12, 2014 Who's fault is it that lawyers are allowed to drag out pre-trial motions in the first place? I'm betting there is a shortage of funding and staff for pre-trial proceedings and that the courts are bogged down dealing with things like pot and prostitution. Uh, lawyers. After all ,they're the ones filing all those pre-trial motions, few of which have the slightest hope of success. It takes longer to deal with these than it does to hold the trial itself. But hey, that just earns the lawyers more money, so don't expect an improvement there. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted April 12, 2014 Report Posted April 12, 2014 And how far do you think a Conservative Party would get with that? The elephant in the room is lawyers - who are disproportionately represented in Parliament, who sit as judges, who sit on Provincial and Federal supreme courts. Survey after survey show that the public puts lawyers near the bottom of the "trusted professions", yet no one hollers "Conflict of Interest". It is in lawyers' interest to keep the revolving door moving. Some people get involved in law out of a genuine interest in justice and law. They seem to be the distinct minority, however. The great majority of people who go into law have only one interest: money. And yet even so people seem to find it incredible to think that lawyers, as a whole, would have an interest in making the law and every process which is a part of it more complex and time-consuming. Lawyers don't want a system which handles cases quickly and efficiently. Any system designed by them is doomed to be drowned in paperwork. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted April 12, 2014 Report Posted April 12, 2014 If the government wants to reduce how much time off a sentence people get, perhaps they should put forward some more funding to address the backlog problems. Then they wouldn't be sitting in pre-trial custody for as long. Seriously, you would think the defenders of freedom and liberty (read: Conservatives) would loathe a government that holds people without a trial for too long. Instead, their supporters are whining about the Supreme Court upholding the Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You forget this decision only affects criminals. It affects the guilty, not the innocent. So, no, conservatives, unlike liberals, don't have any particular sympathy for criminals. Personally, if I had a choice I'd tear up the entire criminal code and all the laws and processes around it, and design a system whereby most accused are tried and either convicted or released within a week of their arrest. That would involve removing all lawyers from the system, of course. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted April 12, 2014 Report Posted April 12, 2014 The irony being that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is designed to protect us against dictatorships that would violate our rights. I thought the irony was that the only people the Charter has protected since its inception are criminals. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Bob Macadoo Posted April 12, 2014 Report Posted April 12, 2014 You forget this decision only affects criminals. It affects the guilty, not the innocent. So, no, conservatives, unlike liberals, don't have any particular sympathy for criminals.Personally, if I had a choice I'd tear up the entire criminal code and all the laws and processes around it, and design a system whereby most accused are tried and either convicted or released within a week of their arrest. That would involve removing all lawyers from the system, of course. That was exaggeration correct? Its amazing armchair QBs always seem to know better than the people who trained in the profession. Do I believe the bureaucracy of the justice system has expanded? Certainly. Does that mean the procedures and structure on which the bureaucracy has been allowed to grow on are invalid? Certainly not. Its the system we've had for years, its become this way b/c of the same reason any human system grows........increase in # players, users, observers due to the increase in population. When you have disproportionate people serving an increasing public they institute bureaucracy to account for human error. Superiors often think you can institute more bureaucracy to substitute for more personal accountability (ie. More persons). Quote
Moonlight Graham Posted April 12, 2014 Report Posted April 12, 2014 The problem is the SCC who has decided that the duly elected government should not be able to pass laws. It used to be the court would err on the side of legislative primacy if there was any doubt. Now they routinely grasp on any excuse to overturn laws that offend them. IOW - it is not the governments fault that it has to deal with such activists judges (the fact that Harper has appointed most of them does not seem to make much of a difference given the pool of judges that the government must draw from). That said, this decision seems to be more rational that the Nadon one which clearly ignored any fair reading of the intent of the constitution. SCC should not be so quick to pass these kinds of judgement because as soon as it passes a judgement it permanently takes power away from the voter to decide what they think is right. It undermines democracy and turns the country into a dictatorship ruled by the SCC and the lawyers that exploit these rulings. The judges on the SCC know the law and the constitution far better than the government does. They've spent their adult lives studying and practicing the law at an expert level. The whole point of the Supreme Court is to be a check on Parliament's power when they pass laws that are unconstitutional. Also, voters aren't passing laws, we live in a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. Legally, a lot of the "tough" on crime" legislation is simply wannabe tough-guy BS and just isn't allowed in our constitution. The Harper gov has ideas in their heads about what they think is "fair" in crime and punishment, but they just don't understand our law enough to figure out that you can't do some things within the law. We should thank the SCC for stopping some of this stuff. Enacting legislation counter to our constitution is what isn't democratic. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.