President Obama Tries To Restore Common Sense

[Big Guy]

President Obama of the USA has just commuted the sentences of 46 Americans in jail.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/13/politics/obama-commutes-sentences-drug-offenders/

His rationale is the these people convicted of a non-violent crime were incarcerated by minimal sentencing guidelines which have proven to be a mistake. A life sentence for a non-violent crime seems to be considered excessive.

Meanwhile, our current government is supporting the idea of bringing in minimal sentencing in Canada

Who is on the right track: Obama or Harper?

[Freddy]

President Obama of the USA has just commuted the sentences of 46 Americans in jail.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/13/politics/obama-commutes-sentences-drug-offenders/

His rationale is the these people convicted of a non-violent crime were incarcerated by minimal sentencing guidelines which have proven to be a mistake. A life sentence for a non-violent crime seems to be considered excessive.

Meanwhile, our current government is supporting the idea of bringing in minimal sentencing in Canada

Who is on the right track: Obama or Harper?

Both are.

The States policy is too excessive.

The Canadian policy is to soft.

A middle ground is ideal.

firm but fare.

[On Guard for Thee]

President Obama of the USA has just commuted the sentences of 46 Americans in jail.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/13/politics/obama-commutes-sentences-drug-offenders/

His rationale is the these people convicted of a non-violent crime were incarcerated by minimal sentencing guidelines which have proven to be a mistake. A life sentence for a non-violent crime seems to be considered excessive.

Meanwhile, our current government is supporting the idea of bringing in minimal sentencing in Canada

Who is on the right track: Obama or Harper?

Luckily our SC has been quashing at least parts of this bill because it is unconstitutional. But we have been through this a number of times already.

[PrimeNumber]

Both are.

The States policy is too excessive.

The Canadian policy is to soft.

A middle ground is ideal.

firm but fare.

I agree with Freddy.

Some things we are far to soft on, other the States far to hard.

A middle ground needs to be reached.

[sharkman]

President Obama of the USA has just commuted the sentences of 46 Americans in jail.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/13/politics/obama-commutes-sentences-drug-offenders/

His rationale is the these people convicted of a non-violent crime were incarcerated by minimal sentencing guidelines which have proven to be a mistake. A life sentence for a non-violent crime seems to be considered excessive.

Meanwhile, our current government is supporting the idea of bringing in minimal sentencing in Canada

Who is on the right track: Obama or Harper?

There is something profoundly different between the two approaches. Can you see what it is?

Answer: Harper is doing whatever he's doing through parliament. Obama is doing it outside of any other body of government.

Edited July 14, 2015 by sharkman

[TimG]

Meanwhile, our current government is supporting the idea of bringing in minimal sentencing in Canada

Please be specific: what non-violent crime comes with a life sentence under the conservative reforms?

BTW: almost everyone agrees with minimum mandatory sentences when it comes to murder, repeat drunk driving or any number of other socially unacceptable crimes. So it is rank hypocrisy to claim that there is a problem with the concept of minimum mandatory sentences. The only debate is about which crimes should carry these minimums. Unfortunately, a rational discussion of this topic is impossible because of the anti-conservative yahoos who think that adding a few minimums for gun crimes will turn Canada into the US system.

Edited July 14, 2015 by TimG

[Shady]

President Obama of the USA has just commuted the sentences of 46 Americans in jail.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/13/politics/obama-commutes-sentences-drug-offenders/

His rationale is the these people convicted of a non-violent crime were incarcerated by minimal sentencing guidelines which have proven to be a mistake. A life sentence for a non-violent crime seems to be considered excessive.

Meanwhile, our current government is supporting the idea of bringing in minimal sentencing in Canada

Who is on the right track: Obama or Harper?

I have never heard Harper suggest life sentences for non violent crimes.

[Shady]

Please be specific: what non-violent crime comes with a life sentence under the conservative reforms?BTW: almost everyone agrees with minimum mandatory sentences when it comes to murder, repeat drunk driving or any number of other socially unacceptable crimes. So it is rank hypocrisy to claim that there is a problem with the concept of minimum mandatory sentences. The only debate is about which crimes should carry these minimums. Unfortunately, a rational discussion of this topic is impossible because of the anti-conservative yahoos who think that adding a few minimums for gun crimes will turn Canada into the US system.

There is no life sentence for non violent crimes. For somebody that wants a rational discussion big guy certainly gets off to a very irrational start.

[Big Guy]

To Shady - Perhaps we disagree what constitutes a "life sentence". I suggest you refer to:

https://www.aclu.org/report/living-death-life-without-parole-nonviolent-offenses

I watched over the years as the USA struggled with its "tough on crime" agendas filling their jails and spending $billions on these places which serve only to promote more crime. Their initiatives did not work - from the three strikes rule to mandatory minimums and maximums.

What do you consider to be "irrational" about the start of this topic?

To TimG - I believe that when our Supreme Court has to repeatedly declare this Conservative governments legislation as unconstitutional then there is something faulty with the way the Conservative politicians are reading our constitution. I disagree that "almost everybody agrees with minimum mandatory sentencing for ...." I would appreciate data to reflect that statement. There are many problems with the concept of minimum or maximum sentencing.

http://ethics-euthanasia.ca/mandatory-minimum-sentences/

Perhaps my understanding of what "hypocrisy" means is faulty since I do not see why you consider my opinion to be deceitful or dishonest. Please explain or expand.

As to the OP, unfortunately, as usual, on this board, a simple question gives antagonists another opportunity to bash what they perceive to be the "other" side.

Don't you folks get tired of this "lefty, righty, my guy good, your guy bad, my party correct, your party wrong, you a yahoo, no you a yahoo" waste of time?

Why does every thread have to deteriorate to this kind of adolescent bickering? Why not state opinions based on research, respecting opposing views and arguing the issue?

[sharkman]

Oh, and the thread title is at the least quite wrong. Obama isn't doing this as a champion of common sense. He has an agenda just as you do with the title choice.

[TimG]

To TimG - I believe that when our Supreme Court has to repeatedly declare this Conservative governments legislation as unconstitutional then there is something faulty with the way the Conservative politicians are reading our constitution.

Based on ridiculous hypotheticals that assumes prosecutors are idiots. I am sorry but this SCC ruling something unconstitutional does not make it an absolute truth. It just means that this batch of politically active justices have deemed it to be so.

I disagree that "almost everybody agrees with minimum mandatory sentencing for ...." I would appreciate data to reflect that statement. There are many problems with the concept of minimum or maximum sentencing.

1st degree murder has a mandatory minimum of life in prison with no parole for 25 years. I can't think of anyone who has a problem with this. Mandatory minimums for drunk driving are also widely supported. Edited July 14, 2015 by TimG

[Big Guy]

Sorry TimG - As a Canadian you have an obligation to consider decisions of our Supreme Court as "the truth". There are no appeals - it is the last place to go - what the Supreme Court says is what the reality is - if you are a true Canadian. If you feel they do not share your views then that is your problem. You may disagree with the call by an umpire but what he/says is the final decision - IS the final decision.

Of course one can question the structure of our government and feel that there is a better format. You might prefer a dictatorship, or a republic or a monarchy or whatever - but I believe that if you want to be considered a real Canadian then the acceptance of our government structure is one of the major criteria for assigning that label to yourself.

I do not believe cherry picking different parts of our structure and evaluating it depending on decisions with which you agree or disagree is a valid evaluation of the system.

[dre]

Both are.

The States policy is too excessive.

The Canadian policy is to soft.

A middle ground is ideal.

firm but fare.

Canadas policies are effective and our criminal justice system is one of the best on the planet. Crime in almost every category is in decline. All this crap about mandatory minimums etc, is just red meat for an ideological conservative base... Pandering to peoples emotions. Even if the system was virtually perfect you would still have the odd horror story of an inmate getting a percieved light sentence or a parolee re-offending in a grotesque way. People who think rationally will realize these events are outliers and that the system itself overall is effective. But emotional faith-based thinkers will jerk at the knees and feel a sense of outrage. These are the people that mandatory minimums are designed to appeal to.

[TimG]

You may disagree with the call by an umpire but what he/says is the final decision - IS the final decision.

Actually no. In this case there is the notwithstanding clause.

Of course one can question the structure of our government and feel that there is a better format.

All I said is the SCC saying something is unconstitutional does not mean that is the absolute truth that must not be questioned. You also can't criticize a government for "not reading the constitution" just because the current crop of justices happen to have a different ideological bias than the government. In the US, they don't try to pretend that justices are neutral and free of bias and openly discuss how a judge's biases will factor into rulings. Canadians should wake up and recognize that the same bias exists here. Edited July 14, 2015 by TimG

[TimG]

All this crap about mandatory minimums etc, is just red meat for an ideological conservative base... Pandering to peoples emotions.

Actually, it is addressing the need for people to feel that the system provides sufficient retribution for a crime. It is also because people don't trust the judges to properly take the need for the public feel that justice is done when handing out sentences. The SCC over turning reasonable laws simply re-enforces the belief that judges are not to be trusted with protecting the public interest.

Lastly, complaining about the modest measures that the conservatives brought in is red meat for liberal/ndp supporters. In many cases, the critics simply make crap up that has no connection to the law in question. You simply show your own ideological blinders by trying to frame the issue the way you do.

Edited July 15, 2015 by TimG

[Freddy]

Canadas policies are effective and our criminal justice system is one of the best on the planet. Crime in almost every category is in decline. All this crap about mandatory minimums etc, is just red meat for an ideological conservative base... Pandering to peoples emotions. Even if the system was virtually perfect you would still have the odd horror story of an inmate getting a percieved light sentence or a parolee re-offending in a grotesque way. People who think rationally will realize these events are outliers and that the system itself overall is effective. But emotional faith-based thinkers will jerk at the knees and feel a sense of outrage. These are the people that mandatory minimums are designed to appeal to.

It' sa democratic representative system. If most people want the death sentence, Then that's what we should have. I don't care for rainbow kittens that feel otherwise.

[Michael Hardner]

It' sa democratic representative system. If most people want the death sentence, Then that's what we should have. I don't care for rainbow kittens that feel otherwise.

Nothing to do with rainbows or kittens, certain laws can't be passed, or will be changed, because they're not constitutional. You need to learn more about the US and Canadian legal system to contribute to the discussion at this level.

[Moonlight Graham]

Minimum sentences are ridiculous because they do not allow judges to factor in context.

[Freddy]

Nothing to do with rainbows or kittens, certain laws can't be passed, or will be changed, because they're not constitutional. You need to learn more about the US and Canadian legal system to contribute to the discussion at this level.

The constitution can be amended. The people wrote it, the people can change it.

[Argus]

Canadas policies are effective and our criminal justice system is one of the best on the planet.

You've done a study, have you? You've compared to efficiency and effectiveness of ours vs that in the UK, Sweden, Germany, etc. etc.? I'd like to see the data, please.

Crime in almost every category is in decline.

Well, "police reported crime" in almost every area is in decline. However, the government's own statistics also show the percentage of crime which gets reported to police has been in steady decline for over fifteen years.

All this crap about mandatory minimums etc, is just red meat for an ideological conservative base...

So, suppose that on your way home you get attacked, beaten and stabbed, lose your eyesight, and are scarred for life. The police arrest the people responsible, and they're given a small fine. You protest that this is wildly inadequate, and they say, well, that's what the judge gave. You call your MP and demand stiffer laws, and he says "Why? Not many people are attacked and blinded, so why should we need stiff punishment for that?"

How content would you be with that?

People who are unhappy with current sentencing are in fact, not conseratives, though the more unhappy they are the more likely they are to vote Conservative. But I've never met anyone, however liberal, who didn't agree that violent people should get stiffer sentences. It's one of the few things virtually everyone seems to agree on. We all have a fundamental belief that justice should be done, most particularly with violent people, and we all want to be protected from those violent people. If that means people who like to play with illegal hand guns get hammered by the system, everyone I know is fine with that.

[Argus]

Minimum sentences are ridiculous because they do not allow judges to factor in context.

Judges have done a piss poor job of factoring in justice. That's why so many people support stronger sentencing.

[Bryan]

Well, "police reported crime" in almost every area is in decline. However, the government's own statistics also show the percentage of crime which gets reported to police has been in steady decline for over fifteen years.

People don't think it's any use to report anymore. A slap on the wrist, and a perp who is now freshly pissed off at you for tattling is just not worth it.

[dre]

it is addressing the need for people to feel

Yup that was my point.

[Argus]

People don't think it's any use to report anymore. A slap on the wrist, and a perp who is now freshly pissed off at you for tattling is just not worth it.

Plus it involves going to the police station, filling out forms, and if the person is caught you have to go and wait, sometimes for hours, sometimes days in a row, multiple times, in order to be available for testimony, all for very uncertain outcome.

[Rue]

Minimum sentences are ridiculous because they do not allow judges to factor in context.

Not necessarily. It depends on whether the crime or provincial offence is a mens rea crime, strict liability crime or absolute liability crime.

For example with an absolute criminal liability crime, such as failing to blow into a breathalyzer, when requested, there is no context to consider. You either blow or you refuse to blow in which case you are found guilty of driving drunk. Is that ridiculous we don't consider the excuses? No.

Not many people think this breathalyzer law needs a contextual defence as the need to protect the public is so high no one should be allowed to refuse to blow.

With homicide there are special rules to prove it. It is often bumped down to manslaughter because of defences only allowed for homicide, which take into consideration context but also require a minimum sentence.

So you can have a minimum sentence defined but also proving the crime still requires context so its possible to have both.

Our system like the American and British-Australian-New Zealand ones requires beyond reasonable doubt proof. That in itself considers the context of a crime. So do certain defences used.

Its actually a quite complicated issue.

Does it take away discretion from a Judge in considering sometimes it can yes, other times no. You would have to look actually at each criminal act and code section.

You have a point in some but not all offences is my point. Its actually a huge debate topic in law.

On another issue to consider-from a purely practical point of view, politicians like minimum sentences during election campaigns when they are for law and order. It shows them tough on crime and it gets votes. However from a practical perspective the ruling government is aware that if it increases prison sentences, it must increase the number of jail cells and salaries to pay for the guards and others who look after the inmates.

The amount of tax increase for sentences that are increased would be a lot. I don't think the same law and order politicians come clean on how expensive it would be and what taxes would be needed to increase prisons to accommodate extended sentences, which is another issue you did not raise but I think is something we have to look at whenever we talk about increasing sentencing.

Your concern may hold more strength with the more serious crimes and lengthier sentences but probably not the more minor ones.

I myself believe some of our sentences are too lenient, i.e., repeat sex offenders.

On the other hand I think there should be no minimum sentence on euthenasia crimes.

So I am on both sides of the fence on this depending on the particular type of crime.

Edited July 15, 2015 by Rue