On Guard for Thee Posted July 15, 2015 Report Posted July 15, 2015 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. Most Canadians don't think such laws as C 51 are anywhere near modest. Unless you fit into the crowd who Harper has convinced there is a terrorist in every tree. Those judges you seem not to trust I would remind you were mostly appointed by Harper himself. Luckily we don't have nearly the bias problems that the US does with their elected judges. Ours act independently based on what is in the Constitution and Charter. Quote
eyeball Posted July 15, 2015 Report Posted July 15, 2015 The constitution can be amended. The people wrote it, the people can change it. No we didn't the British Parliament wrote it - and only our Parliament, the Senate and the provincial legislatures can change it. The 'people'... Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Freddy Posted July 16, 2015 Report Posted July 16, 2015 No we didn't the British Parliament wrote it - and only our Parliament, the Senate and the provincial legislatures can change it. The 'people'... Elected by the people. You guys really do need to stop smoking pot. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 16, 2015 Report Posted July 16, 2015 Elected by the people. You guys really do need to stop smoking pot. Yeah we have elections here. Quote
kimmy Posted July 18, 2015 Report Posted July 18, 2015 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? Conversely suppose that you get into a minor altercation on the way home from work, and later find yourself charged with some crime for which there's a mandatory minimum sentence of multiple years. You ask how it's possible that an incident that involved some minor pushing and shoving can result in a 5 year minimum sentence, and your lawyer explains that after a particularly violent fight a few years ago, there was a public outcry against the light sentence the aggressor received, and all fights are now punished with a minimum of 5 years. That's the kind of idiocy people are angry about. In the context of drug sentences, people are angry about minimum sentences that require that somebody caught with one joint receive a minimum sentence that was designed for somebody caught with a whole van full of pot, or that somebody growing a single marijuana plant receive a minimum sentence intended for somebody with a whole barn full of hydroponic growing equipment. Once in a while a dumb-ass judge gives a ridiculously light sentence for a crime, and public outrage ensues. I agree that this is a real problem. But the answer is not to force judges to sentence all crimes, regardless how shocking or mundane, with sentences that were designed to prevent the most serious crimes from getting light sentences. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
Argus Posted July 19, 2015 Report Posted July 19, 2015 (edited) Conversely suppose that you get into a minor altercation on the way home from work, and later find yourself charged with some crime for which there's a mandatory minimum sentence of multiple years. You ask how it's possible that an incident that involved some minor pushing and shoving can result in a 5 year minimum sentence, and your lawyer explains that after a particularly violent fight a few years ago, there was a public outcry against the light sentence the aggressor received, and all fights are now punished with a minimum of 5 years. That's the kind of idiocy people are angry about. If that happened. I haven't seen any evidence it has happened. Minor pushing and shoving altercations don't result in jail time at all, much less five year minimums. Suggesting this 'could' happen if we don't watch what we're doing is reasonable, but I don't see that it's gone anywhere near there yet. Plus society has an interest in dissuading violence, so that even if there are rare cases where such a minimum might be unfair it might well be in society's better interest to live with that. I support, for example, the mandatory minimums the SC threw out on people being illegally in possession of firearms. That law was tossed out on spurious grounds that it might, under certain circumstances, result in an unfair sentence, but I regard that as patently unreasonable. The good the law would do would vastly outweigh the potential bad. In the context of drug sentences, people are angry about minimum sentences that require that somebody caught with one joint receive a minimum sentence that was designed for somebody caught with a whole van full of pot, or that somebody growing a single marijuana plant receive a minimum sentence intended for somebody with a whole barn full of hydroponic growing equipment. I'm not in favour of most minimum sentences for drugs, particularly 'soft drugs' so I'm not going to get into defending that Once in a while a dumb-ass judge gives a ridiculously light sentence for a crime, and public outrage ensues. I agree that this is a real problem. If it was only once in a while I would disagree. Unfortunately, I've seen it as more a pattern over the years, particularly with regard to violence, and I don't mean pushing and shoving. I find most sentences for manslaughter to be ridiculously light, as are the sentences for using a firearm in an offense. As far as I'm concerned if you shoot at someone or stab them you're trying to kill them, period. And you should be punished accordingly. I think we take violence far too casually in this country, even violence which leaves people dead or injured for life. The laws are there, but judges often just don't seem to have the balls to issue harsh sentences. Edited July 19, 2015 by Argus 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
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.