Canada Supreme Court Rules Against Harper Again

[dre]

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.

It also has not been demonstrated that these new sentencing laws are necessary or that the benefits of them will justify the costs. In the case of convictions for posessing things (drugs, guns, etc) these are non violent crimes. The idea that its worth it to Canadians to spend 120 thousand per year to lock all these people up is highly dubious.

The "problem" is under control already and its shrinking.

What has been "demonstrated" is that our system has it is, has been extremely successful in reducing gun crimes.

Look... we have REAL problems in this country that we could be spending this money on. Theres no reason to waste money for nothing.

[Bryan]

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

The Supreme Court only changes when there are vacancies. Unless the PM has and uses the power to override an SCC decision, a change of PM won't fix it.

[ToadBrother]

The Supreme Court only changes when there are vacancies. Unless the PM has and uses the power to override an SCC decision, a change of PM won't fix it.

Are you referring to the Notwithstanding Clause? That could be invoked in this case, but not on the entire Charter, and much of the rest of the Constitution is off limits to unilateral action.

[On Guard for Thee]

The Supreme Court only changes when there are vacancies. Unless the PM has and uses the power to override an SCC decision, a change of PM won't fix it.

Whats to fix. The majority of the current SC was appointed by Harper and they dont agree with him most of the time. So actually, maybe a change of PM would fix it.

[Argus]

It also has not been demonstrated that these new sentencing laws are necessary

You know, most of the people I know are not much in love with Stephan Harper and his government, quite likely because most of the people I know are public servants. But I can tell you that I haven't met anyone yet who isn't in favour of severe sentences for people who have and use illegal firearms. So I would put it to you that the amount of violent crime you consider acceptable might not be acceptable to the majority of the electorate, and that the amount you find tolerable they find intolerable.

or that the benefits of them will justify the costs.

I would say to that, as someone who pays a lot of taxes, that this is something I don't mind paying taxes for.

If the police catch you walking around with a gun in your belt or an Uzi under your bed, I'm happy with locking you up indefinitely.

In the case of convictions for posessing things (drugs, guns, etc) these are non violent crimes.

There is no logical reason to be carrying a gun around other than to commit an act of violence.

[WWWTT]

The Supreme Court only changes when there are vacancies.

Ya just as I thought, you haven't done much research on the SCC.

7 of the nine were appointed by Harper. Beverly McLachlin was first appointed by Mulroney, and was appointed as the chief by Cretien.

The final one was appointed by Martin.

Not just that, Democracy=opportunity to rig the outcome!

WWWTT

[jacee]

The Supreme Court only changes when there are vacancies. Unless the PM has and uses the power to override an SCC decision, a change of PM won't fix it.

You do grasp that it's not a good idea for a pm to be able to override the court don't you?

You do grasp that we have checks and balances built in to prevent a pm from having absolute power?

The Harper appointees in the SCC know that.

.

[jacee]

You know, most of the people I know are not much in love with Stephan Harper and his government, quite likely because most of the people I know are public servants. But I can tell you that I haven't met anyone yet who isn't in favour of severe sentences for people who have and use illegal firearms. So I would put it to you that the amount of violent crime you consider acceptable might not be acceptable to the majority of the electorate, and that the amount you find tolerable they find intolerable.

I would say to that, as someone who pays a lot of taxes, that this is something I don't mind paying taxes for.

If the police catch you walking around with a gun in your belt or an Uzi under your bed, I'm happy with locking you up indefinitely.

There is no logical reason to be carrying a gun around other than to commit an act of violence.

In the city perhaps. In the country however ... ?

.

[dre]

You know, most of the people I know are not much in love with Stephan Harper and his government, quite likely because most of the people I know are public servants. But I can tell you that I haven't met anyone yet who isn't in favour of severe sentences for people who have and use illegal firearms. So I would put it to you that the amount of violent crime you consider acceptable might not be acceptable to the majority of the electorate, and that the amount you find tolerable they find intolerable.

The electorate doesnt even know what our crime rates are or how they compare to those of our peer nations. The people you speak of are just knee-jerk reactionaries like you that base their opinions on emotions instead of evidence.

I would say to that, as someone who pays a lot of taxes, that this is something I don't mind paying taxes for.

If the police catch you walking around with a gun in your belt or an Uzi under your bed, I'm happy with locking you up indefinitely.

Good. YOU pay for it, and deal with the consequences of your bad ideas (likely an increase in crime). You might be taking someone who has never commited a crime against anyone, and throwing him into prison for merely posessing something. Like I said... prisons are "schools of crime". This might just be a guy who bought an illegal gun because he thought it would be fun to shoot beer cans back in the bush at some gravel pit, and now you are going to immerse him in real criminal culture. Chances are he will be a lot more dangerous after he gets out.

There is no logical reason to be carrying a gun around other than to commit an act of violence.

Sure there is... Guns are useful tools and fun toys.

[Derek 2.0]

In the city perhaps. In the country however ... ?

.

I think Argus's point was "no reason to be carrying a gun around illegally" anywhere in Canada, sans criminal intent.

[Argus]

I think Argus's point was "no reason to be carrying a gun around illegally" anywhere in Canada, sans criminal intent.

I personally think they ought to focus on the area which causes the most problems, which is restricted weapons, and integrate the law with the one on firearms licensing so someone who inadvertently runs afoul of licensing can't be prosecuted except under the provisions of the licensing law.

But if someone has a Glock he bought from someone at a Mohawk reserve, or drove back across the border from Michigan, throw the book at him.

[dre]

I think Argus's point was "no reason to be carrying a gun around illegally" anywhere in Canada, sans criminal intent.

Its still horse****. I didnt register my guns when the registry came out, so I was commiting all kinds of gun crimes. I still never had any intention besides using them to hunt, or shoot at targets.

And if I had a chance to buy a prohibited weapon, I might consider that just because I thought it was cool. It still in NO WAY means I intend to use it for a crime or hurt anyone with it.

I do understand the reason why we criminalize posession of some firearms and I agree we should. But at the end of the day its just posession. Giving someone 90 days in jail and a 10 thousand dollar fine would make a lot more sense and it would generate revenue for the public instead of them losing 360 thousand dollars by idiotically throwing the guy in jail for 3 years.

[Argus]

Its still horseshit. I didnt register my guns when the registry came out, so I was commiting all kinds of gun crimes. I still never had any intention besides using them to hunt, or shoot at targets.

And if I had a chance to buy a prohibited weapon, I might consider that just because I thought it was cool. It still in NO WAY means I intend to use it for a crime or hurt anyone with it.

I do understand the reason why we criminalize posession of some firearms and I agree we should. But at the end of the day its just posession. Giving someone 90 days in jail and a 10 thousand dollar fine would make a lot more sense and it would generate revenue for the public instead of them losing 360 thousand dollars by idiotically throwing the guy in jail for 3 years.

As I pointed out, the minimum in the UK is five years and you can get LIFE for selling or smuggling or building a firearm.

You don't stamp out a popular feature of criminal behaviour with slaps on the wrist.

[On Guard for Thee]

As I pointed out, the minimum in the UK is five years and you can get LIFE for selling or smuggling or building a firearm.

You don't stamp out a popular feature of criminal behaviour with slaps on the wrist.

And the point that has been made here is that you dont do it with MMS either.

[dre]

As I pointed out, the minimum in the UK is five years and you can get LIFE for selling or smuggling or building a firearm.

You don't stamp out a popular feature of criminal behaviour with slaps on the wrist.

A 10k fine and 3 months in jail isnt a slap on the wrist. And as I pointed out you are going to be jailing a lot of people have never commited any real crimes at all.

And gun crime rates are already receding without us wasting all this money. You also keep dodging the point that putting someone in prison and immersing them in criminal culture for a long time makes them more dangerous to society.

Studys have shown that longer prison terms have no measurable effect on deterrence, and actually INCREASE recidivism rates (schools of crime).

http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/ffct-prsn/index-eng.aspx

Research summary

Vol. 4 No. 6

November 1999

Question

Does increasing the length of time in prison reduce the criminal behaviour of offenders?

Background

Imprisoning individuals who break the law has many goals. Imprisonment shows society's abhorrence for certain antisocial behaviours and incarceration removes individuals from the community for a period of time. Most offenders however, are eventually released from prison. Thus, another goal of incarceration is that imprisonment will serve to deter offenders from engaging in further criminal behaviour.

Across North America, imprisonment has become a fairly common consequence for law violation. Canada's incarceration rate is high relative to other Western industrialised countries, although it trails the United States by a wide margin. Not only is imprisonment used more often, there is also a trend to confine individuals for longer periods of time in prison. It is commonly assumed that longer sentences are more punishing and more likely to deter individuals from further crime. The increased use of imprisonment and longer prison sentences come with significant financial and social costs. The present study examines whether longer sentences reduce recidivism and meet the goal of deterrence.

Method

A quantitative (meta-analytic) review of the research literature was conducted. Fifty studies that examined the effect of imprisonment and longer sentences on recidivism were analysed. The studies described variations in the use of imprisonment and recidivism. To be included in the review the study must report a minimum follow-up period of at least six months. For example, a study may report the recidivism rates for offenders serving short prison sentences compared to offenders serving long prison sentences. In addition, statistical procedures were employed to investigate whether prison had a deterrent effect for offenders who posed different levels of risk to re-offend. For example, is imprisonment and longer sentences more effective for higher risk offenders than for lower risk offenders?

Answer

The 50 studies involved over 300,000 offenders. None of the analyses found imprisonment to reduce recidivism. The recidivism rate for offenders who were imprisoned as opposed to given a community sanction were similar. In addition, longer prison sentences were not associated with reduced recidivism. In fact, the opposite was found. Longer sentences were associated with a 3% increase in recidivism.

An analysis of the studies according to the risk of the offender also did not show a deterrent effect. For both low risk and high risk offenders, increasing sentence length was associated with small increases in recidivism. Low risk offenders were slightly more likely to commit new offences than high risk offenders. This finding suggests some support to the theory that prison may serve as a "school for crime" for some offenders.

Regardless of the type of analysis employed, no evidence for a crime deterrent function was found.

Policy implications

1. For most offenders, prisons do not reduce recidivism. To argue for expanding the use of imprisonment in order to deter criminal behaviour is without empirical support. The use of imprisonment may be reserved for purposes of retribution and the selective incapacitation of society's highest risk offenders.
2. The cost implications of imprisonment need to be weighed against more cost efficient ways of decreasing offender recidivism and the responsible use of public funds. For example, even small increases in the use of incarceration can drain resources from other important public areas such as health and education.
3. Evidence from other sources suggests more effective alternatives to reducing recidivism than imprisonment. Offender treatment programs have been more effective in reducing criminal behaviour than increasing the punishment for criminal acts.

[Derek 2.0]

I personally think they ought to focus on the area which causes the most problems, which is restricted weapons, and integrate the law with the one on firearms licensing so someone who inadvertently runs afoul of licensing can't be prosecuted except under the provisions of the licensing law.

Right, and as mentioned, once it comes into effect, C-42 will address much of those issues surrounding "paper crimes"

But if someone has a Glock he bought from someone at a Mohawk reserve, or drove back across the border from Michigan, throw the book at him.

I agree, and to further that, go after hard the smugglers and dealers of illegal guns with even stiffer punishments.

[Derek 2.0]

Its still horse****. I didnt register my guns when the registry came out, so I was commiting all kinds of gun crimes. I still never had any intention besides using them to hunt, or shoot at targets.

Right, but you still willing committed numerous felonies.

And if I had a chance to buy a prohibited weapon, I might consider that just because I thought it was cool. It still in NO WAY means I intend to use it for a crime or hurt anyone with it.

I wonder how many street racers think drag racing on public roads is cool, and in turn, if law enforcement would let it slide.......

I do understand the reason why we criminalize posession of some firearms and I agree we should. But at the end of the day its just posession. Giving someone 90 days in jail and a 10 thousand dollar fine would make a lot more sense and it would generate revenue for the public instead of them losing 360 thousand dollars by idiotically throwing the guy in jail for 3 years.

I don't look at it as a public revenue tool, but public safety. If we as society determine that a reasonable accommodation for the legal ownership of firearms is licensing in addition to other related laws, those that choose to break those laws, endangering public safety, should be punished.

[dre]

Right, but you still willing committed numerous felonies.

I wonder how many street racers think drag racing on public roads is cool, and in turn, if law enforcement would let it slide.......

I don't look at it as a public revenue tool, but public safety. If we as society determine that a reasonable accommodation for the legal ownership of firearms is licensing in addition to other related laws, those that choose to break those laws, endangering public safety, should be punished.

Numerous victimless "failure to fill out government forms" felonies.

I wonder how many street racers think drag racing on public roads is cool, and in turn, if law enforcement would let it slide.......

Drag racing on public roads is a dangerous crime that kills people. A better comparison to the current topic would be "posessions of a car that COULD be used to drag race". And yes... Law enforcement lets that slide routinely.

I don't look at it as a public revenue tool, but public safety. If we as society determine that a reasonable accommodation for the legal ownership of firearms is licensing in addition to other related laws, those that choose to break those laws, endangering public safety, should be punished.

If you dont look at the economics behind a policy then you have no place being anywhere near policy decisions. And its fine to go on about public safety but your ideas will do NOTHING to make the public safer. They wont act as a deterrent and they will INCREASE recidivism rates. You will put the public in increased DANGER.

And yes... Failure to fill out the correct government forms required to own a gun, or car, or whatever is a problem. But if that is the ONLY thing a person is guilty of then its INCREDIBLY STUPID to throw that person in jail for 3 years. Not only does it cost 120k per year to keep him there (and the cost is rapidly increasing) but the person stops paying taxes and like loses his job permanently. Theres also a good chance that his family will now need public assistance to live. Combine that with the fact that prison time will make him more dangerous to the public than he was when he went in, and MORE likely to commit a real crime and you can see why whats being proposed here is expensive, ineffective, and all-round bad public policy.

Edited April 18, 2015 by dre

[Derek 2.0]

Numerous victimless "failure to fill out government forms" felonies.

Sure, the difference, in your cited example, you chose to commit felonies.

Drag racing on public roads is a dangerous crime that kills people. A better comparison to the current topic would be "posessions of a car that COULD be used to drag race". And yes... Law enforcement lets that slide routinely.

No, I can own a sports car legally, and choose to drive it safely and in a lawful manner........I can't own a Glock 18 legally, nor use it in a lawful manner.

If you dont look at the economics behind a policy then you have no place being anywhere near policy decisions. And its fine to go on about public safety but your ideas will do NOTHING to make the public safer. They wont act as a deterrent and they will INCREASE recidivism rates. You will put the public in increased DANGER.

How many gun crimes are committed in a Federal prison?

Edited April 18, 2015 by Derek 2.0

[dre]

Sure, the difference, in your cited example, you chose to commit felonies.

No, I can own a sports car legally, and choose to drive it safely and in a lawful manner........I can't own a Glock 18 legally, nor use it in a lawful manner.

How many gun crimes are committed in a Federal prison?

You keep ignoring the fact that prisons are schools of crime that make people more dangerous. A person that you throw in jail who has commited no other crime besides posession, will get out after three years... They will have lost their livelyhood, quite possibly lost their family, their home, their job... And they will have spent three years immersed in "crime school", with real criminals as their peers.

Talk about f*&^kin STUPID.

And not a peep about the analysis of 50 different studies on prison time and its effect on recidivism rates and its efficacy as a deterrent.

[Derek 2.0]

You keep ignoring the fact that prisons are schools of crime that make people more dangerous. A person that you throw in jail who has commited no other crime besides posession, will get out after three years... They will have lost their livelyhood, quite possibly lost their family, their home, their job... And they will have spent three years immersed in "crime school", with real criminals as their peers.

Talk about f*&^kin STUPID.

And not a peep about the analysis of 50 different studies on prison time and its effect on recidivism rates and its efficacy as a deterrent.

A simple solution.......don't buy illegal firearms, no mater how cool you think they to be.......

Another alternative for the guy that thought said gun was cool, but knowing said gun was illegal, is to join and donate to various interest groups that are trying to make the ownership and use of "cool guns" legal again within Canada and/or go to a gun range outside of Vegas or Scottsdale........no jail time needed.

I think risking ones family, job and home, to illegally play with something cool is f*&^kin STUPID......when there are perfectly legal alternatives.

[On Guard for Thee]

In any case I doubt very much Harper will dare to use notwithstanding on yet another issue that is just an attempt to secure a few votes, so its likely in the rear view mirror now.

[dre]

A simple solution.......don't buy illegal firearms, no mater how cool you think they to be.......

Another alternative for the guy that thought said gun was cool, but knowing said gun was illegal, is to join and donate to various interest groups that are trying to make the ownership and use of "cool guns" legal again within Canada and/or go to a gun range outside of Vegas or Scottsdale........no jail time needed.

I think risking ones family, job and home, to illegally play with something cool is f*&^kin STUPID......when there are perfectly legal alternatives.

We arent just talking about one guy that thinks some prohibited weapons are cool. You refused to defend the policies you support with anything but emotional platitudes. You refuse to answer empirical evidence showing those policies will not work, or may in fact make the problem worse and waste a whole lot of money. And you refuse to explain why we should be doing any of this NOW when our current policies have already been shown to be extremely effective in reducing gun crimes.

[Derek 2.0]

We arent just talking about one guy that thinks some prohibited weapons are cool. You refused to defend the policies you support with anything but emotional platitudes. You refuse to answer empirical evidence showing those policies will not work, or may in fact make the problem worse and waste a whole lot of money. And you refuse to explain why we should be doing any of this NOW when our current policies have already been shown to be extremely effective in reducing gun crimes.

And you're piggybacking on "empirical evidence" from a different country which doesn't apply to Canada, of which I don't necessarily disagree in some examples.........Three plus years for having a little bit of grass in a baggy....no, of course not........three plus years for having an illegal select-fire automatic, damn straight, furthermore, they then should go after the person that sold it to you.

[On Guard for Thee]

And you're piggybacking on "empirical evidence" from a different country which doesn't apply to Canada, of which I don't necessarily disagree in some examples.........Three plus years for having a little bit of grass in a baggy....no, of course not........three plus years for having an illegal select-fire automatic, damn straight, furthermore, they then should go after the person that sold it to you.

How about 3 years for having the ammo improperly stored. And would you hold the merchant who sold the ammo responsible as well.