Canada Supreme Court Rules Against Harper Again

[Big Guy]

Looks like Harper is not getting the message from the Supreme Court. The SC has just shot down mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/mandatory-minimums-for-gun-crimes-struck-down-1.2325934

Do you agree with this decision?

Edited April 14, 2015 by Big Guy

[On Guard for Thee]

MMS is just generally wrong. Sentencing is part of what judges are, and should be tasked with.

[Shady]

Looks like Harper is not getting the message from the Supreme Court. The SC has just shot down mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/mandatory-minimums-for-gun-crimes-struck-down-1.2325934

Do you agree with this decision?

I don't understand when you mean by not getting the message. Parliament does its job, and the SC does theirs.

[Shady]

Looks like Harper is not getting the message from the Supreme Court. The SC has just shot down mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/mandatory-minimums-for-gun-crimes-struck-down-1.2325934

Do you agree with this decision?

I generally agree with mandatory minimums, although there should be s little room for some discretion.

[LemonPureLeaf]

If the judges are too soft then something neecs to be changed. We cannot have people with gun charges getting probatioN with no jail time.

[On Guard for Thee]

I don't understand when you mean by not getting the message. Parliament does its job, and the SC does theirs.

And currently the SC is spending most of its time correcting this parliaments poor judgement.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/the-federal-government-s-court-case-losing-streak-1.2696593

Edited April 14, 2015 by On Guard for Thee

[Shady]

And currently the SC is spending most of its time correcting this parliaments poor judgement.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/the-federal-government-s-court-case-losing-streak-1.2696593

Their job is to evaluate legislation. I don't think it was a poor decision, most Canadians don't.

[On Guard for Thee]

Their job is to evaluate legislation. I don't think it was a poor decision, most Canadians don't.

And evaluate it they did. DRACONIAN was one of their descriptors. When will Harper stop trying to run roughshod over the constitution. Hopefully on or about October 19.

[Shady]

And evaluate it they did. DRACONIAN was one of their descriptors. When will Harper stop trying to run roughshod over the constitution. Hopefully on or about October 19.

Not at all. The issue was that the mandatory was too broad.

[Wilber]

I would support a mandatory minimum for repeat offenders, depending on the definition of repeat and the length of sentence. Certainly not a first offence for someone with no criminal record. I think maybe this is a case of government being over zealous with what is basically a good idea.

[PIK]

I hear people talking about how the SC seems to have it out for harper and this will only help him.

[guyser]

I hear people talking about how the SC seems to have it out for harper and this will only help him.

Stop listening to the voices in your head.

[On Guard for Thee]

Not at all. The issue was that the mandatory was too broad.

Maybe read what the court actually said before you start commenting.

[PIK]

Laugh guyser we will see has the last laugh. I like many don't like the SC making ALL the rules in this country, why even have a government.

[On Guard for Thee]

I hear people talking about how the SC seems to have it out for harper and this will only help him.

You couldnt have gotten an idea more backwards if you tried. Perhaps you didnt hear or dont recall how silly Harper looked when he tried to get personally in Judge Mclachlins face the last time he got shut down. Another of his snits and it certainly didnt help him then, and it wont now. I imagine he learned a lesson there, but who knows. We shall see how he reacts this time.

[PIK]

So what, SC judges are not god , even if they act like they are. To powerful for my liking.

[Keepitsimple]

How the heck is this "cruel and unusual punishment"? We've now moved far beyond what the original Bill of Rights and Charter intended.....and it seems that with each case that the SCC reviews, the term is watered down more and more:

R. v. Smith[1] was the first case in which section 12 was considered by the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court, however, could and did follow previous interpretations of cruel and unusual punishments in pre-Charter case law, namely Miller and Cockriell v. The Queen (1977). Cruel and unusual punishment was thus defined as punishment "so excessive as to outrage standards of decency" or "grossly disproportionate to what would have been appropriate." Justice Lamer, writing for the Court in R. v. Smith, went on to provide some guides as to how to measure proportionality, listing as special considerations the seriousness of the crime committed by the individual, the "personal characteristics" of the individual, and the various types of punishments available that could effectively "punish, rehabilitate or deter this particular offender or to protect the public from this particular offender."

Later, the Court would add in R. v. Goltz (1991)[2] and R. v. Morrisey (2000)[3] that how the individual would be impacted by the punishment in practise, the objectives of the punishment, whether other kinds of punishments could be used instead, and how other types of criminals are punished could be relevant to a section 12 test. Still, the test is not strict but rather deferential to the government. In Steele v. Mountain Institution (1990),[4] Justice Cory wrote for the Court that a judicial discovery of a cruel and unusual punishment should be "rare and unique". The Parliament of Canada's ability to judge the appropriateness of various punishments is not absolute, but courts are generally encouraged to exercise restraint in correcting Parliament.

[On Guard for Thee]

So what, SC judges are not god , even if they act like they are. To powerful for my liking.

No not god, but they are judges at the highest court in the land. And guess who appointed the majority of the current ones. Maybe Harper expected he was going to get some favoritism from his appointments and he gets a bit POed when that isnt working.

[On Guard for Thee]

I would support a mandatory minimum for repeat offenders, depending on the definition of repeat and the length of sentence. Certainly not a first offence for someone with no criminal record. I think maybe this is a case of government being over zealous with what is basically a good idea.

I think over zealous is an apt description. One thing that was pointed out by the court was that under this bill a person who had a legal weapon, properly stowed say in their cottage, but had the ammunition in the next room could find themselves in the clink for 3 years.

[Wilber]

The SC has decided it's their ball to run with. Pariament is being made less relevant when it comes to law making.

[Argus]

Maybe read what the court actually said before you start commenting.

What the court said was that the mandatory minimums were fine for almost all cases, but they imagined a 'hypothetical situation' where it would be cruel and unusual - even though that hypothetical situation has never arisen in the entire history of Canada. They were clearly looking for an excuse. As ivory tower types living in upper class neighbourhoods, children going to private schools, violent crime is just an academic consideration to them, and they certainly don't worry about it.

[Argus]

I think over zealous is an apt description. One thing that was pointed out by the court was that under this bill a person who had a legal weapon, properly stowed say in their cottage, but had the ammunition in the next room could find themselves in the clink for 3 years.

This was the hypothetical situation they came up with, even though such a case has never arisen because such an individual would be most unlikely to be charged under these laws. They also used it to strike down the 5 year mandatory minimum for a repeat offender or someone who had been previously convicted of violent crimes involving a firearm. Huh?

Edited April 14, 2015 by Argus

[poochy]

I would rather have criminals spend more time in jail than say have a gun registry that targets the most law abiding people in the country while accomplishing nothing, then again im ok with judges using their discretion while also not having legislation that does nothing but make paper criminals out of legal gun owners. I find it difficult to understand why some are so happy about no minimum sentences for actual criminals, while being for legislation that accomplishes nothing while targeting the wrong people, it's a logical disconnect.

[Shady]

I think over zealous is an apt description. One thing that was pointed out by the court was that under this bill a person who had a legal weapon, properly stowed say in their cottage, but had the ammunition in the next room could find themselves in the clink for 3 years.

Yes the hypothetical situation that can easily be addressed and corrected within the current legislation. In other words, it was too broad. Thanks for making my point.

[On Guard for Thee]

What the court said was that the mandatory minimums were fine for almost all cases, but they imagined a 'hypothetical situation' where it would be cruel and unusual - even though that hypothetical situation has never arisen in the entire history of Canada. They were clearly looking for an excuse. As ivory tower types living in upper class neighbourhoods, children going to private schools, violent crime is just an academic consideration to them, and they certainly don't worry about it.

Ivory tower or not, its better to correct the law before it gets passed than to wait until one of those hypothetical problems becomes a real problem and more court time gets wasted, and the legal profession even more enrichened.