square Posted January 21, 2016 Report Posted January 21, 2016 I'm just wondering what you guys think about mandatory minimums? Do you think they are good public policy? I'm sure some of them are valid and can be justified, while others can be cruel. For example the SCoC struck down a 3 year mandatory minimum for possession of prohibited and restricted in a case called R v Nur last year. This year in a case called R v Llody NGO's have challenged the possession for the purposes of trafficking; the convicted was a low-low addicted drug dealer. Case point do you think mandatory minimums are good public policy or should we allow judges to come up with a meaningful sentence? Do we need reform in our criminal justice system or not? Quote
Moonlight Graham Posted January 22, 2016 Report Posted January 22, 2016 Lawyers I know say they're stupid, they don't take into account the context of the case and the person who did the crime. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
PIK Posted January 22, 2016 Report Posted January 22, 2016 We would not need laws like this is judges did their job properly. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
segnosaur Posted January 22, 2016 Report Posted January 22, 2016 Lawyers I know say they're stupid, they don't take into account the context of the case and the person who did the crime. Just out of curiosity, are those defense lawyers or prosecuting lawyers? Because if you are referring to defense lawyers, they may have a conflict of interest there. And keep in mind that they already have a way to take into account the context of the case and the person who did the crime... We're talking about minimum sentences here. If the context justifies it (person is genuinely contrite, or the crime was at least partly justified they would get the minimum (or, in some cases, the charges dropped or plea bargained down to a lesser charge). Otherwise, the convicted person would get closer to the maximum sentence. I am in favor of minimum sentences. Judges are not perfect (and neither is our jury system). Setting a minimum will provide at least a little consistency in our legal system. i.e. a convicted person getting significant jail time from Hanging Judge John, vs. a criminal getting nothing but probation from Liberal Judge Lloyd, under near identical circumstances. With a specified minimum, at least those crimes will have similar punishments regardless of the judge. Quote
Argus Posted January 22, 2016 Report Posted January 22, 2016 We would not need laws like this is judges did their job properly. Bingo. Mandatory minimums are a response to judges not doing their jobs, and caring more about the welfare of the criminal than society. 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
Big Guy Posted January 22, 2016 Report Posted January 22, 2016 Every criminal act is different as each criminal is different. The conditions of each crime are different. Deciding on appropriate punishment and/or rehabilitation for each incident is very difficult and impossible to standardize - if you want the punishment to fit the crime. There might be consistency in sentencing if there was consistency in criminal acts - there is not. We choose intelligent and well educated individuals to stand in judgement of our peers. We guarantee impartiality and professional assistance for the defendant. We allow fellow citizens to assist in that judgement and punishment. Mandatory minimal sentencing has been tried and rejected as unworkable and unfair. Leave it there. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Argus Posted January 22, 2016 Report Posted January 22, 2016 (edited) Every criminal act is different as each criminal is different. The conditions of each crime are different. Deciding on appropriate punishment and/or rehabilitation for each incident is very difficult and impossible to standardize - if you want the punishment to fit the crime. There might be consistency in sentencing if there was consistency in criminal acts - there is not. You have a profound lack of understanding of the purpose of criminal law. Its primary purpose is the protection of society. If society is best protected by imposing harsh punishments on those who illegally posses handguns the 'fairness' of that law as imposed on individual criminals is irrelevant. Anyone caught in possession of an illegal handgun should be made an example of so as to discourage others of a like mind. We choose intelligent and well educated individuals to stand in judgement of our peers. Utter drivel. The judicial appointment process is mostly political, driven by the desire of mostly second and third rate lawyers for a guaranteed job with tidy hours. They apply for the job, and then lobby for it by schmoozing with the appropriate political party, making promises and donations, and assuring them he/she is 'one of them'. If the would-be judge is a member of some ethnic minority all the better, for appearance and bragging sakes by the politicians. Edited January 22, 2016 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
Big Guy Posted January 22, 2016 Report Posted January 22, 2016 I usually do not respond to parsed comments but it appears that you are seeking guidance so I will respond: Fortunately, reality is quite different from your angry and tainted view of our society. You are not alone and that is why we have to appoint impartial people educated in the history of law into positions of making judgments. But your distrust of our judicial system does parallel your distrust of our immigration system, educational system, political system, welfare system, gender equality programs, electoral system and ... Congratulations on your consistency. As to the purpose of criminal law I suggest that you read: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Sentencing/Purpose_and_Principles_of_Sentencing You have obviously not read my previous research suggestions on other issues so I am not confident that you will do this assignment either. If you do read the assignment and still have questions then I will reply. Until then ... Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Argus Posted January 22, 2016 Report Posted January 22, 2016 (edited) I usually do not respond to parsed comments I tried to keep them as simple as possible, just two. Did that strain your mental faculties? but it appears that you are seeking guidance No, merely pointing out how incorrect you were. Fortunately, reality is quite different from your angry and tainted view of our society. I didn't give any view of our society. I simply pointed out to you what the law was intended for. You have obviously not read my previous research suggestions on other issues so I am not confident that you will do this assignment either. If you do read the assignment and still have questions then I will reply. Until then ... I had a teacher once in Economics who made it impossible to understand anything. He was vastly incompetent, a poor communicator, and cordially loathed by the class. Fortunately, after I dropped his class I retook it with a proper teacher and flew through with straight As. Since then I've been quite careful about not taking direction only from those who display a particular aptitude for the subject at hand. Edited January 22, 2016 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
PIK Posted January 22, 2016 Report Posted January 22, 2016 Judges in this country have been very soft on perverts and mothers who kill their children. Have a beer and drive your car is worse to some people then child rape. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Big Guy Posted January 22, 2016 Report Posted January 22, 2016 I tried to keep them as simple ... aptitude for the subject at hand. I do not reply to parsed comments. You know that I do not reply to parsed comments so I suspect you made your comments expecting no reply. I shall satisfy that expectation. But - remember to do your homework. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
segnosaur Posted January 22, 2016 Report Posted January 22, 2016 Every criminal act is different as each criminal is different. The conditions of each crime are different.And that's why we are talking about sentencing minimums, not a fixed sentence for every crime. If a judge decides that a defendant is contrite, they can assign the minimum; if not, they get the maximum. We choose intelligent and well educated individuals to stand in judgement of our peers.The fact that a judge is educated does not necessarily mean that they are infallible. They may be having an off day. They may be influenced by past events in their own lives. They may even be totally nuts. See: David William Ramsay as an example. In a democracy, we all have a say in saying how the country is run, through our elected representatives, and that includes what we deem as expected punishment for various crimes. By allowing judges to circumvent that (by in theory giving no jail time because the judge said so) you are substituting the aspect of representative democracy with oligarchy. I do not reply to parsed comments.Then why are you here? This is an on-line forum. People debate issues. Are you honestly so arrogant as to assume your postings are so significant that you can state something as if its the word of god, ignoring any challenges to it? That's sad. And pathetic. Is pathetisad a word? Quote
Big Guy Posted January 22, 2016 Report Posted January 22, 2016 (edited) And that's why we are talking about sentencing minimums, not a fixed sentence for every crime. .. That's sad. And pathetic. Is pathetisad a word? Sorry, I do not respond to parsed comments because it leads to parsed comments on parsed comments on ... Responding to a comment or question is not mandatory - it is a courtesy. Courtesy is returned with courtesy. I accept and respond to all non-parsed, reasonable and civil challenges. Edited January 22, 2016 by Big Guy Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Argus Posted January 22, 2016 Report Posted January 22, 2016 I do not reply to parsed comments. And yet, here you are doing so. You know that I do not reply to parsed comments so I suspect you made your comments expecting no reply. I shall satisfy that expectation Actually not. 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
H10 Posted January 22, 2016 Report Posted January 22, 2016 We would not need laws like this is judges did their job properly. the problem is the prosecutors are bad, the cops are bad, the whole system is bad. So what ends up happening, is selective prosecution. Mandatory minimums don't even ensure fairness. For instance, mandatory minimums might seem like a good idea for shooting someone in the back. But what if one guy shoots someone in the back for no reason or is just evil. Versus, I guy being robbed in his house and shooting the criminal to stop him from raping his wife or running away? See mandatory minimums say that shooting in the backs must all be treated equally. So either the cold blood shooter gets off with a 5 year minimum, or the rapist shooter gets a 20 year minimum. Add on to the selective prosecution, selective pressing of charges, and then you get back to square zero. For instance, there was a case in Toronto, where a man disarmed a kid, who was in his house, took his gun and shot him dead, and the friend ran away. No one was charged. This was a police call. They felt the kid broke into his house or shouldn't have been there and got what he deserved. The shooter was a black belt, didn't have to shoot him and kill him. I actually knew the guy. I don't think he deserved to die, but then again he shouldn't have been where he was. Mandatory mins won't fix the problem. Had this been a different jurisdicition in a different part of the country, or even a different part of the city, the guy would have a good chance of being charged and convicted. Quote
H10 Posted January 22, 2016 Report Posted January 22, 2016 Judges in this country have been very soft on perverts and mothers who kill their children. Have a beer and drive your car is worse to some people then child rape. But the judges are perverts too, and they are the baby rapers,so odds are they will just find another way to get them off, how is it bill cosby gets charged but all them baby raping priest get off scott free, this is the problem with mandatory minimums, it is just too grossly unjust, one guy has sex with women who voluntarily come to his hotel room, get drunk and voluntarily take pills, and return mutliple times for more and he gets charged, another guy has sex with 10 year old boys and is let off free to repeat it. And don't think mndatory mins will come from Trudeau, especially against any crime women do. Quote
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.