Jump to content

Liberals demonstrate their love of criminals


Recommended Posts

The Liberals voted down bill S-217 which was passed overwhelmingly by the senate and which would have required that judges be given the criminal history, if any, of the person who is undergoing a bail hearing.

Pardon me for being startled that this isn't already done. I would think that a person's criminal history would be extremely relevant in determining whether an individual should get bail, and how high it should be, and what conditions it would be given. Apparently not. This bill would have remedied it bu the Liberals voted it down, apparently because they feel that it's not fair for criminals to be judged by a judge based on their past criminal history. Not even in a bail hearing.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2017/05/12/widow-speaks-out-after-wynns-law-effectively-defeated

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Argus said:

The Liberals voted down bill S-217 which was passed overwhelmingly by the senate and which would have required that judges be given the criminal history, if any, of the person who is undergoing a bail hearing.

Pardon me for being startled that this isn't already done. I would think that a person's criminal history would be extremely relevant in determining whether an individual should get bail, and how high it should be, and what conditions it would be given. Apparently not. This bill would have remedied it bu the Liberals voted it down, apparently because they feel that it's not fair for criminals to be judged by a judge based on their past criminal history. Not even in a bail hearing.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2017/05/12/widow-speaks-out-after-wynns-law-effectively-defeated

 
 

Here's the argument against the bill.

Here are a couple of pertinent excerpts:

Quote

The accused's record is already considered under each ground for detention and at multiple junctures in the bail process, both under the primary and secondary grounds. This amendment would therefore cause duplication and unnecessary confusion in the already established bail provisions, and it would benefit no one.

 
 
 
Quote

 

proposes an amendment that would mandate prosecutors to lead specific evidence, evidence of the accused's personal record, outstanding charges and breaches. Prosecutors would be required to lead evidence to “prove the fact” of a prior record, prior offences against the administration of justice, or outstanding charges.

This a higher evidentiary burden than is currently required. In other words, the bill could make it more difficult to detain an accused person in custody rather than under the existing provisions of the Criminal Code.

 

 
 

I haven't read the entire debate (didn't even know you could access them online!  That's cool!) so I don't actually have an opinion about whether it should have passed or not, but may as well have both sides of the argument if you want to talk about it.   It seems to me that a newspaper article reflecting the concerns of the widow is designed more to garner knee-jerk emotional reaction and to slag the Liberals, than to actually consider the merits of the legislation itself.

 

Edited by dialamah
Forgot the link
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, dialamah said:

It seems to me that a newspaper article reflecting the concerns of the widow is designed more to garner knee-jerk emotional reaction and to slag the Liberals, than to actually consider the merits of the legislation itself.

Actually the Edmonton Sun article does (briefly) mention these arguments, although Argus' post does not. Good on you to point these out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Actually the Edmonton Sun article does (briefly) mention these arguments, although Argus' post does not. Good on you to point these out.

I posted the cite. If people are too lazy to read it that's their problem. I'm not required to make their arguments for them.

The counter arguments are nonsense. First, while the accused's record is usually presented, it isn't always. Clearly. Else this would not have arisen. Second, the idea that this will somehow slow the system down is preposterous. We're talking about handing a file to the presiding judge so he or she could skim through it and see what kind of person he/she is dealing with. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, dialamah said:

Here's the argument against the bill.

Here are a couple of pertinent excerpts:

I haven't read the entire debate (didn't even know you could access them online!  That's cool!) so I don't actually have an opinion about whether it should have passed or not, but may as well have both sides of the argument if you want to talk about it.   It seems to me that a newspaper article reflecting the concerns of the widow is designed more to garner knee-jerk emotional reaction and to slag the Liberals, than to actually consider the merits of the legislation itself.

 

I read a news article in connection with this that said in one case a judge had released a criminal with a serious record and the criminal had gone out and killed a police officer while out on bail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a no-brainer to use an old hackneyed expression.  But like every issue. there are liberals who will find a way to rationalize not requiring a judge to know a criminal's record before deciding on bail.  This is because of liberal's deep sympathy for the so-called "rights" of criminals opposed to protecting the victims of crime.  If you doubt this is true, just look at the voting record of liberals and NDP on criminal justice issues. 

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

This is a no-brainer to use an old hackneyed expression.  But like every issue. there are liberals who will find a way to rationalize not requiring a judge to know a criminal's record before deciding on bail.  This is because of liberal's deep sympathy for the so-called "rights" of criminals opposed to protecting the victims of crime.  If you doubt this is true, just look at the voting record of liberals and NDP on criminal justice issues. 

The argument is NOT to find a way to hide a criminals record from a judge. Why would anyone want to do something like that? We all have families and we want them protected, whether liberals or conservatives. What the article shows, and what Dialamah posted indicates the issue is far more complex than the simple-minded opinion of the OP. One should read carefully and decide based on what little we know. Use reason. But one good point that he raised is why there are not enough appointed judges. I find this inexcusable. Get to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

The argument is NOT to find a way to hide a criminals record from a judge. Why would anyone want to do something like that? We all have families and we want them protected, whether liberals or conservatives. What the article shows, and what Dialamah posted indicates the issue is far more complex than the simple-minded opinion of the OP. One should read carefully and decide based on what little we know. Use reason. But one good point that he raised is why there are not enough appointed judges. I find this inexcusable. Get to work.

I don't buy the argument you and Dialamah are making.  It's the liberal way of avoiding doing something to keep criminals behind bars.  The liberal minister says he can't support Wynn's law because it make the bail process too complicated and delays it.  I can't agree.  The judge in Edmonton let an accused person with a long criminal record out on bail because he did not have the long criminal record.  That doesn't sound complicated.  It should have been given to him.  It's simple.  Liberals are known to want to give more rights to criminals at the expense of victims.  This is the history of parliamentary votes on criminal justice laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

The argument is NOT to find a way to hide a criminals record from a judge. Why would anyone want to do something like that? We all have families and we want them protected, whether liberals or conservatives. What the article shows, and what Dialamah posted indicates the issue is far more complex than the simple-minded opinion of the OP. One should read carefully and decide based on what little we know. Use reason. But one good point that he raised is why there are not enough appointed judges. I find this inexcusable. Get to work.

It's the arguments against which are simple minded. They don't hold up to an instant's engagement of the forebrain and are simply excuses to do nothing.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Argus said:

It's the arguments against which are simple minded. They don't hold up to an instant's engagement of the forebrain and are simply excuses to do nothing.

 

If it is a must in court proceedings then it becomes a point of focus, attention and dispute....thereby lending evidence in its ability to delay bail decisions.  Both improving a guilty's 2-1 pretrial incaceration....and delaying justice for the innocent.  If its not a mandatory inclusion....although used by the judge anyway....win win.  I notice people only want things over regulated and prescribed when they think it won't affect them.......otherwise discretion and judgement should reign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Bob Macadoo said:

If it is a must in court proceedings then it becomes a point of focus, attention and dispute....thereby lending evidence in its ability to delay bail decisions.  Both improving a guilty's 2-1 pretrial incaceration....and delaying justice for the innocent.  If its not a mandatory inclusion....although used by the judge anyway....win win.  I notice people only want things over regulated and prescribed when they think it won't affect them.......otherwise discretion and judgement should reign.

If it is used, as it usually is now, then it would still be a point of contention and dispute. I don't understand the belief that if it is a mandatory use it would somehow make that disagreement much more time-consuming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Argus said:

If it is used, as it usually is now, then it would still be a point of contention and dispute. I don't understand the belief that if it is a mandatory use it would somehow make that disagreement much more time-consuming.

If there is a belief it may be ignored you bringing attention to it would be counterproductive.  Lawyering ain't rocket science.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bob Macadoo said:

If it is a must in court proceedings then it becomes a point of focus, attention and dispute....thereby lending evidence in its ability to delay bail decisions.  Both improving a guilty's 2-1 pretrial incaceration....and delaying justice for the innocent.  If its not a mandatory inclusion....although used by the judge anyway....win win.  I notice people only want things over regulated and prescribed when they think it won't affect them.......otherwise discretion and judgement should reign.

If a suspect has a criminal record, there may be good reason the judge should be told and the person not receive bail to avoid putting the public at risk.  There have been cases where the judge was not informed and it has had dire consequences.  It is better to keep someone incarcerated if there is any question about a suspects record until the matter is settled, rather than to put the public at risk.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, blackbird said:

If a suspect has a criminal record, there may be good reason the judge should be told and the person not receive bail to avoid putting the public at risk.  There have been cases where the judge was not informed and it has had dire consequences.  It is better to keep someone incarcerated if there is any question about a suspects record until the matter is settled, rather than to put the public at risk.

.....so a person with a record automatically puts the public at risk?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bob Macadoo said:

.....so a person with a record automatically puts the public at risk?

If in the opinion of a prosecutor and the judge the public would be at risk, yes.  It is the job of the judge to make the final decision on whether a person should be given bail or denied on the basis of what information he has in order to protect the public.  The justice system must protect the public foremost when there is reason to believe there is a risk of committing an offense.  This is a temporary incarceration until the actual trial can be held for the charges.  The best solution in such cases is to have the trial as soon as possible.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone is charged with a serious crime and they receive bail, there is nothing to stop him from going out and trying to shot or intimidate witnesses or police officers involved in the case or others. Obviously this is something which should not be allowed to happen.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, blackbird said:

If someone is charged with a serious crime and they receive bail, there is nothing to stop him from going out and trying to shot or intimidate witnesses or police officers involved in the case or others. Obviously this is something which should not be allowed to happen.

....except bail conditions.  This isn't "Law & Order" Canadian Victim's Unit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Defense wants justification for any decision where the accused person's rights are effected.  The judge could examine the criminal record and if he feels the accused does represent a risk to the public, he should be able to deny bail and give his reasons for doing so.  I understand an accused person has certain rights, but the public has a right to expect their safety will not be put at risk in the administration of justice.  But that's just my opinion;  I'm not a lawyer.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Argus said:

What the article shows, and what Dialamah posted indicates the issue is far more complex than the simple-minded opinion of the OP

The title will pretty "simply" tell what this thread is based on. But hey, anything to try and take a poke at Liberals.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes stuff that seems like a great idea actually has unintended consequences.  As Dialamah posted, there seems to be a possibility that these changes could actually create a higher evidenciary burden and make it harder for the prosecutor to have bail denied.

One might imagine that Liberals and defense attorneys are reprobates who love violent criminals and want them out on the street committing more mayhem.  But even if that were true, the crown prosecutors aren't. They should be free to do their job as best fits the goal of protecting the public.   I don't see anything prohibiting them from bringing up a criminal history if they feel it's important to do so. If the suspect has a history of violence, the prosecutor could certainly point that out as a means of explaining why the suspect shouldn't be back on the streets.

Suppose you're a crown prosecutor and you're convinced that the guy you're going to be prosecuting is an unstable menace and bail should be denied. The facts of the case are pretty damning. Your aide comes in and hands you the suspect's criminal history and ... it's blank.  Or it's non-violent. The suspect has no history of violence at all.  So you have to go before the judge and instead of focusing on the mayhem the suspect is accused of, you have to talk about how he's never been accused of anything violent before. Does that help your case?  

 -k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember when the liberals allowed convicts in jail to vote. A TV crew was there at a jail in kingston, and guess who the criminals were voting for? And it was not harper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Bob Macadoo said:

If there is a belief it may be ignored you bringing attention to it would be counterproductive.  Lawyering ain't rocket science.......

Still no logic to this. It should ALWAYS be used. No matter the consequences. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, kimmy said:

Sometimes stuff that seems like a great idea actually has unintended consequences.  As Dialamah posted, there seems to be a possibility that these changes could actually create a higher evidenciary burden and make it harder for the prosecutor to have bail denied.

One might imagine that Liberals and defense attorneys are reprobates who love violent criminals and want them out on the street committing more mayhem.  But even if that were true, the crown prosecutors aren't. They should be free to do their job as best fits the goal of protecting the public.   I don't see anything prohibiting them from bringing up a criminal history if they feel it's important to do so. If the suspect has a history of violence, the prosecutor could certainly point that out as a means of explaining why the suspect shouldn't be back on the streets.

Suppose you're a crown prosecutor and you're convinced that the guy you're going to be prosecuting is an unstable menace and bail should be denied. The facts of the case are pretty damning. Your aide comes in and hands you the suspect's criminal history and ... it's blank.  Or it's non-violent. The suspect has no history of violence at all.  So you have to go before the judge and instead of focusing on the mayhem the suspect is accused of, you have to talk about how he's never been accused of anything violent before. Does that help your case?  

 -k

You are approaching this from the standpoint of whether this might make life more difficult for the Crown. But most of us don't care if either the Crown or the Defense position is supported by the suspect's record or lack of record. All we care about is that the judge being asked to grant bail has as complete a picture of the individual as possible, most especially including whatever criminal record they have. Usually the Crown would present a criminal record, but let's face it, Crowns aren't appointed solely due to their ability, and often have a high work-load. They forget or overlook stuff. If the record is a mandatory part of the bail hearing then the judge would expect one or know there wasn't one. In either case the information would seem, to me, to be an important factor in determining bail and bail conditions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...