Canada Supreme Court Rules Against Harper Again

[Keepitsimple]

And that doesn't have potential civil rights ramifications? Did you read the part of the ruling that suggests that the Crown could use the threat of the harsher sentence in a plea agreement?

Hasn't that always been the case - with any crime? Isn't that what plea agreements are all about?

[Argus]

People who attack the Supreme Court (both in Canada and the US) tend to assume that theories of jurisprudence are simply

judicialized variants of political ideology. But I think that's very wrong headed, and misreads how the courts view

themselves, and how ideology informs their decisions.

What you say about how judges view themselves is likely true, but we all have ideologial and social views (and sometimes religious views) which inform and influence our reactions and responses to political and social events. That includes lawyers and judges. I doubt anyone could challenge that he previous Republican governments appointed very conservative judges to the SC, and that, despite some examples of independence, this has resulted in a very conservative court, one which remains conservative even after eight years of Obama's rule. In the same way, years of Liberal appointments to the bench at all levels have created a largely liberal cadre of judges in Canada. And as I said in the post to which you responded, that is not something which can be pushed back either quickly or easily. This is particularly so given that such people not only wrote the decisions which became precedents and thus law, but had a great degree of influence over law societies and the teaching of law.

I don't believe the courts are biased in terms of Liberal or Conservative. I don't think SC judges see themselves as political in that manner. I do think, however, that liberal vs conservative is an ongoing social contest and that judges are not immune to deceiving themselves that a given decision is the 'right' one, and then reading or interpreting the law in such a way as to render that decision.

[On Guard for Thee]

What you say about how judges view themselves is likely true, but we all have ideologial and social views (and sometimes religious views) which inform and influence our reactions and responses to political and social events. That includes lawyers and judges. I doubt anyone could challenge that he previous Republican governments appointed very conservative judges to the SC, and that, despite some examples of independence, this has resulted in a very conservative court, one which remains conservative even after eight years of Obama's rule. In the same way, years of Liberal appointments to the bench at all levels have created a largely liberal cadre of judges in Canada. And as I said in the post to which you responded, that is not something which can be pushed back either quickly or easily. This is particularly so given that such people not only wrote the decisions which became precedents and thus law, but had a great degree of influence over law societies and the teaching of law.

I don't believe the courts are biased in terms of Liberal or Conservative. I don't think SC judges see themselves as political in that manner. I do think, however, that liberal vs conservative is an ongoing social contest and that judges are not immune to deceiving themselves that a given decision is the 'right' one, and then reading or interpreting the law in such a way as to render that decision.

I would suggest they work in exactly the reverse order. They interpret the law i order to be guided to the right decision.And while we are at it, you do know who appointed the bulk of the current judges on the SCC...

[Keepitsimple]

Here's a hornet's nest post - but it's always in the back of my mind. Lawyers become judges and judges get promoted to appeal courts and some - to the SCC. They all however, also represent their profession - the legal profession - and they have been steeped in that ideology. Like a Union mentality, they intentionally or not, look after their own. It's often been said that we have a revolving door when it comes to crime and punishment. Lesser sentences, plea bargains, appeals all keep the lawyers busy - and the cash flowing. Lawyers have a personal stake in keeping sentences shorter - in creating opportunities for appeal. I can't help but think that judges - perhaps only to a small degree - are influenced by that "professional" ideology.

And lets not forget - Lawyers are one of the least trusted professions.

[Argus]

The public thinks they know what went on in a trial, thinsk they know the facts, but when questioned they either stray

from an answer or offer bugger all else in the way of facts.

I'm sure you're correct on a number of cases. I have no doubt that happens, that people make offhand decisions as to what should have happened based on what they read in the paper. On the other hand they usually don't much question a finding of guilt or innocence in criminal trials, knowing they didn't hear or see the case. The majority of the public's anger rests upon sentencing. This is a much more clear-cut decision insofar as what knowledge they require to judge the judges.

What was the crime? Okay, we know, and we know the person was guilty. Fine. What extenuating circumstances were there which should make us go lightly on the person convicted, or what criminal history should make us go heavier? These are rarely numerous or complicated, and so are generally reported by media. The judiciary has created a body of sentencing guidelines and precedents over the years which guide the judge. The people are generally not aware of that, but here's the thing, they don't need to be.

When people judge a sentence inadequate they're doing so out of their own innate sentence of what is just. When that sense of justice is frustrated they get angry at judges for not doing their job, which to the people, is to hand out justice. And often enough, when a judge hands out a soft sentence, their reasons for it are not unknown to the public, but dismissed in comparison to the severity of the crime.

When you get right down to it, the public wants justice and the protection of society from lawbreakers. Judges, on the other hand, are bound to an ever more complex and intricate series of laws, interpretations, guidelines and precedents, most of which has absolutely nothing to do with, nor interest in, the protection and justice the public seeks.

We ALL know about Karla and her nasty deeds. Plenty of people are confident she got off because we are too lenient in this country. But if the facts get laid out, they are wisened to what actually went on.

Really? I doubt that. From all appearances she was an enthusiastic participant allowed to get off because she had breasts and made sad eyes at the NDP government and its appointed crown of the time - a government which was inherently unable to not blame the man and excuse the woman. She was repeatedly caught in lies, and allowed to amend her statements, even after the discovery of videotapes made her testimony largely unnecessary.

It is my estimation that the gen'l public doesnt know much about the justice system and all they seem to want is long long sentences for anything.

But only a third of the public are Conservatives. This is the same public which is generally socially liberal. I don't think they want long sentences all the time. I think they want sentences which, in their sense of justice, fits the crime.

[Argus]

Don't get sidetracked. The Court is not working outside its mandate to review hypothetical abuses of the law. This theory that the Supreme Court should only be reactive is a theory without merit.

And yet the court itself warned not very long ago against taking hyptheticals too far, and in keeping them reasonable.

[dre]

Ahhh, so yours is the mature view. Pat them on the back, and hey, they probably won't rape or beat or murder anyone else once you've wagged your finger sternly at them, but if they do, well, it probably won't be you anyway, right?

No I never said that. I would take an evidence based approach, and try policies that actually work to bring down crime rates and recidivism rates. And I wouldnt have politicians deciding sentences for cases they know not one single thing about, just because they are pandering to the publics emotions.

Right now, I would probably do nothing at all. Crime in almost all categories is DOWN. Our criminal justice system seems to perform well when compared to our piers. If anything I would put more money into treatment and rehabilitation, and stop criminalizing soft drugs... common sense stuff like that.

[Argus]

Sarcasm seems to be the basic level of your argument. I guess when all the links showing actual statistics

that show how MMS dont work,

What statistics? I've seen no such statistics. And even there were any whether they worked or not would depend on the individual laws and on your interpretation of 'working'.

Let me put it another way. Suppose long prison terms were shown to not reduce the number of murders. What then, we should just let people commit murder, or only lightly punish them? I think not.

Edited April 17, 2015 by Argus

[dre]

But only a third of the public are Conservatives. This is the same public which is generally socially liberal. I don't think they want long sentences all the time. I think they want sentences which, in their sense of justice, fits the crime.

Its really bad for that kind of emotionalism to drive a criminal justice system. I want the policies that are going to result in the safest streets, and the least ammount of crime. I dont give a rats ass how they make people feel, I just want results. And "crackin down and gettin tough" just doesnt work very well.

[guyser]

Really? I doubt that. From all appearances she was an enthusiastic participant allowed to get off because she had breasts and made sad eyes at the NDP government and its appointed crown of the time - a government which was inherently unable to not blame the man and excuse the woman. She was repeatedly caught in lies, and allowed to amend her statements, even after the discovery of videotapes made her testimony largely unnecessary.

See....some of this is exactly what I was talking about.

She was approached to make a deal in order to guarantee they get him for the rest of his life.

The Crown was hanpered severely by the idiots in both the Niagara and Toronto Police forces not getting along and sharing info. Had they done so they would have seen she was a participant.

Not to mention a fleet of police couldnt find a f'ing video in a ceiling in the bathroom after three days in a 1700 sf house. Gawd, a 6 yr old would have found it.

So the Crowns hands were tied, pressure was applied to make sure this thing doesnt screw up and he gets the worst sentence he can get.

So a deal was made with the devil. ....and they got him.

After the fact discovery made it look horrible, no question there, but a deal is a deal.

But only a third of the public are Conservatives. This is the same public which is generally socially liberal. I don't think they want long sentences all the time. I think they want sentences which, in their sense of justice, fits the crime.

Agreed, but I think where the difference comes in is to why did this sentence be such and such and that agains plays into the lack of knowledge with which the justice system has to work in.

[Argus]

Do you know anything about

"which policies are effective in reducing crime rates and recidivism rates." ?

.

How about British gun laws? Would you say that they've been effective in reducing gun crime over there?

Do you know their gun laws have harsher sentences than ours do, and also mandatory minimums which are longer than the ones

the Tories proposed? No, I expect you don't.

Do you know you can get life in prison for transfer, sale, or smuggling of a prohibited weapon in the UK?

No doubt our supreme court would consider all that 'cruel and inhumane' and strike such laws down...

Edited April 17, 2015 by Argus

[On Guard for Thee]

What statistics? I've seen no such statistics. And even there were any whether they worked or not would depend on the individual laws and on your interpretation of 'working'.

Let me put it another way. Suppose long prison terms were shown to not reduce the number of murders. What then, we should just let people commit murder, or only lightly punish them? I think not.

Murder already carries a mandatory minimum. But again, with regard to all crime just look at the US who have some of the toughest sentencing anywhere, and also have the fullest jails. As has been pointed out a number of times here, criminals dont dither over what sentence their intended crime may carry, only how not to get caught.

[Argus]

Murder already carries a mandatory minimum. But again, with regard to all crime just look at the US w

No, I won't look to the US, thank you. First because there is simply no comparison between our laws and the draconian levels of sentencing in the US, and second because the factors which drive much of the crime down south are mostly not present here.

[ToadBrother]

What statistics? I've seen no such statistics. And even there were any whether they worked or not would depend on the individual laws and on your interpretation of 'working'.

Let me put it another way. Suppose long prison terms were shown to not reduce the number of murders. What then, we should just let people commit murder, or only lightly punish them? I think not.

You keep raising this false dichotomy. It strikes me that only way you think you can with this debate is with a variety of fallacious arguments.

[On Guard for Thee]

No, I won't look to the US, thank you. First because there is simply no comparison between our laws and the draconian levels of sentencing in the US, and second because the factors which drive much of the crime down south are mostly not present here.

So I think then I hear you agreeing that MMSs dont work. If they dont work in the US, why would they work any better here.

[eyeball]

Here's a hornet's nest post - but it's always in the back of my mind. Lawyers become judges and judges get promoted to appeal courts and some - to the SCC. They all however, also represent their profession - the legal profession - and they have been steeped in that ideology. Like a Union mentality, they intentionally or not, look after their own. It's often been said that we have a revolving door when it comes to crime and punishment. Lesser sentences, plea bargains, appeals all keep the lawyers busy - and the cash flowing. Lawyers have a personal stake in keeping sentences shorter - in creating opportunities for appeal. I can't help but think that judges - perhaps only to a small degree - are influenced by that "professional" ideology.

And lets not forget - Lawyers are one of the least trusted professions.

Yep, right down there with climate scientists and economists, for the same reasons. Edited April 17, 2015 by eyeball

[WWWTT]

The electorate is the remedy.

What a load of BS!

Judges sitting on the supreme court are appointed by the PM!

Don't like the appointees? Vote for another PM.

Stop using this "democracy" loophole to spin circles!

WWWTT

[dre]

No, I won't look to the US, thank you.

Look wherever you want, Canadas criminal justice system is on par or better than those of its peers. Its not broken, so spending a boatload of money to fix it is just flat out stupid. Especially since the things we are talking about spending it on might actually make the problem worse.

Prison is a necessary thing... the reality is that theres people that are just not safe to have on the streets and incarceration is necessary there. But prison time is an extremely inneficient way to reduce or prevent crime, and in many cases it does the opposite. Prisons are basically "Crime Schools". In many cases people are defined by the people around them, and when you put a non violent criminal in a prison you essentially immerse them in criminal mentality. Their friends there are criminals, their peers there are criminals, and they make connections with criminals.

And not only does the approach not work very well... the costs are staggering.

Each prisoner in Canada’s 54 federal penitentiaries costs taxpayers $117,788, up 46% from a decade ago, says a new report.

A federal public safety ministry document says federal corrections spending reached a peak of $2.7 billion in 2013, or $1.1 billion more than in 2002-2003.

There were 2,082 more inmates serving sentences longer than two years compared with a decade ago.

117 thousand dollars for each prisoner... That means that for each person we toss in jail to cater to your fear and emotions, about 7 people have to work full time and have their entire tax revenue devoted to it.

The idea that this is even being dicussed in an environment where the system is working well, and crime is in decline is so collosally stupid it makes me embarassed to be Canadian.

[Wilber]

Look wherever you want, Canadas criminal justice system is on par or better than those of its peers. Its not broken, so spending a boatload of money to fix it is just flat out stupid. Especially since the things we are talking about spending it on might actually make the problem worse.

The idea that this is even being dicussed in an environment where the system is working well, and crime is in decline is so collosally stupid it makes me embarassed to be Canadian.

The system is not working well or colossally stupid for people like this, http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2015/04/14/more-men-involved-in-shootings-in-surreydelta-identified-by-police/

This is the type of scumbag mandatory minimums should target and the SC should support.

Edited April 17, 2015 by Wilber

[eyeball]

Yes well, so long as the stupid state insists on waging a stupid war on drug suppliers instead of drug users....ah what's the use?

[PIK]

Bev just needs to step down. Her ruling is based on fantasy and emotion.

[On Guard for Thee]

Bev just needs to step down. Her ruling is based on fantasy and emotion.

You do understand there were 6 judges in total that voted to quash this bill. You hear from Bev because she is the chief. I dont think that means she takes the other judges and twists their arms into submission.

[Argus]

You keep raising this false dichotomy. It strikes me that only way you think you can with this debate is with a variety of fallacious arguments.

It's not a false dichotomy. I'm attempting to point out to you that there is too heavy a punishment, and there is too light a punishment. Somewhere in the middle we find both justice, and the proper range to influence crime as best we can. It has not been demonstrated that the sentencing for firearms offenses is not in that range.

[Argus]

So I think then I hear you agreeing that MMSs dont work. If they dont work in the US, why would they work any better here.

No, you hear nothing but what you want to hear.

[ToadBrother]

It's not a false dichotomy. I'm attempting to point out to you that there is too heavy a punishment, and there is too light a punishment. Somewhere in the middle we find both justice, and the proper range to influence crime as best we can. It has not been demonstrated that the sentencing for firearms offenses is not in that range.

This is why we employ judges, rather than having trials run by computers.