Liberals demonstrate their love of criminals

[Omni]

11 minutes ago, PIK said:

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.

That's because they had more time to study the politics.  

[blackbird]

15 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.

 

The fundamental problem with the liberal position is they view an accused person as an underdog or coming from a disadvantaged group of society and therefore needs special protection of the Charter of Rights.  Many judges are guided by this philosophy as are of course many liberal and left politicians.  That is why it is so hard to get any law changed or created which might somehow reduce the underdog rights and give more protection to socieity.  To these people it is a contest between individual rights and state's rights (or society's rights).  The problem is often the safety of the public is not given the consideration it requires.  The classic liberal view would be that if a prosecutor is going to bring in a criminal's record, then anything that is said is open to be challenged by the defense.  This of course carries the bail process to the scenario where, if the system permits, there must be a trial just to determine whether bail should be given or not.  At some point society (or the state if you prefer) has to say enough is enough and it cannot be dragged on endlessly.  If requiring an accused person's criminal record will make it possible for a judge to make the right decision, that should be required.  The defense could be given several minutes to make any counter-argument, but the law should require it ends there and the judge must make a decision based on the information put before him with the safety of the public being paramount, not the individual's rights. 

Updating the bail system to protect society may end up requiring a change to the Constitution which is a very difficult if not impossible process.  Of course anything that might be seen as reducing individual's rights in favour of state's rights (even to protect society) would be vigorously opposed by liberal and left politicians.

Edited May 15, 2017 by blackbird

[Omni]

On 5/14/2017 at 8:57 AM, Argus said:

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. 

Ah nope, that's not what we're talking about, and that's the problem with the bill. It's not just faxing a file to a courtroom, it requires evidence to verify the contents of the file and that is where the major slow down would occur, and that's how more bail seekers would end up on the street, rather than less.

[PIK]

2 hours ago, Omni said:

That's because they had more time to study the politics.  

No it is because liberals are soft on criminals and hard on victims. Now that is why convicts vote liberal.

[Argus]

34 minutes ago, Omni said:

Ah nope, that's not what we're talking about, and that's the problem with the bill. It's not just faxing a file to a courtroom, it requires evidence to verify the contents of the file and that is where the major slow down would occur, and that's how more bail seekers would end up on the street, rather than less.

It would not require evidence. A person's criminal record is all the evidence you need. You don't need to provide evidence to support the convictions.

[Omni]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

It would not require evidence. A person's criminal record is all the evidence you need. You don't need to provide evidence to support the convictions.

The way S-217 is written, evidence of prior arrests and convictions IS required. The time that would take may well amount to denial of a speedy trial and defendant is back on the street. 

[Argus]

8 minutes ago, Omni said:

The way S-217 is written, evidence of prior arrests and convictions IS required. The time that would take may well amount to denial of a speedy trial and defendant is back on the street. 

All the evidence of a prior arrest and conviction you need is the printout. Any judge who thinks that's insufficient should be fired.

Edited May 15, 2017 by Argus

[Omni]

4 minutes ago, Argus said:

All the evidence of a prior arrest and conviction you need is the printout. Any judge who thinks that's insufficient should be fired.

It's not the judge who is saying it, it's the bill.

[Argus]

Just now, Omni said:

It's not the judge who is saying it, it's the bill.

Only by a very, very twisted interpretation.

[Omni]

6 minutes ago, Argus said:

Only by a very, very twisted interpretation.

Well that interpretation caused it to fail. Back to the drawing board I guess.

[dre]

The title of this thread underscores the dysfunctional nature of the debate around here. Its like something somebody in grade 3 would write. Without even really reading the article we start off with the bold proclamation that liberals MUST love criminals. To stupid to even bother with.

 

[blackbird]

13 minutes ago, dre said:

The title of this thread underscores the dysfunctional nature of the debate around here. Its like something somebody in grade 3 would write. Without even really reading the article we start off with the bold proclamation that liberals MUST love criminals. To stupid to even bother with.

 

It's up to you.  It is simply a title to start discussion.  Nobody else created the topic so we should give him/her credit for starting the subject.

Edited May 15, 2017 by blackbird

[Omni]

4 minutes ago, blackbird said:

It's up to you.  It is simply a title to start discussion.  Nobody else created the topic so we should give him/her credit for starting the subject.

You don't see the blatant bias in the title?

[blackbird]

1 minute ago, Omni said:

You don't see the blatant bias in the title?

He's obviously doesn't agree with the assertion, but he's free to give his reasons why.  My view is it has more to do with the liberal ideology and belief in an accused's rights.  Everyone believes in rights but how far do you go with rights when it comes to putting society in danger?

[Omni]

2 minutes ago, blackbird said:

He's obviously doesn't agree with the assertion, but he's free to give his reasons why.  My view is it has more to do with the liberal ideology and belief in an accused's rights.  Everyone believes in rights but how far do you go with rights when it comes to putting society in danger?

Ok so if you want to play the politics game, I can assume then that conservatives would simply do away with the rights of the accused. The fact is, once you study it a bit, the bill could actually cause more of the danger you speak of, but the bias from the outset would prefer to ignore that, since it doesn't fit the bias.

[dre]

 

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

The fundamental problem with the liberal position is they view an accused person as an underdog or coming from a disadvantaged group of society and therefore needs special protection of the Charter of Rights. 

This is just a mindless strawman and mis-characterization of someone elses position. I think EVERYONE needs protection from some form of constitution and that governments needs to be LIMITED in what they are allowed to do to any of their citizens, and governments that are not constrained by rules have a history of doing terrible things to people. 

I think the judge in criminal case needs to have a list of convictions when considering bail, but nothing else, and definitely not arrests or cases where the accused was found not guilty. The presumption of innocence is one of the more important pillars of our legal system, so the courts should only consider pre-existing convictions where that presumption of innocence has been credibly overcome by the prosecutor in a court room.

Also I believe bail should almost always be granted unless a person poses an immediate danger to others, or there is good reason to believe there is a risk of flight. Remember... a guy in a bail hearing hasn't been found guilty of a god damn thing. 

As for complaining about the constitution... Move to a country without one, and see how that works out for you.

I HATE criminals BTW, especially violent criminals, and financial criminals. But that doesnt mean people should be stripped of their rights just because they are accused of something. And the reality is, we have struck a pretty good balance between maintaining constitutional rights and keeping the public safe from criminals.

Our system appears to be working pretty well...

 

Of course Argus will just tell you that people don't report murders anymore LOL.

 

[blackbird]

17 minutes ago, Omni said:

Ok so if you want to play the politics game, I can assume then that conservatives would simply do away with the rights of the accused. The fact is, once you study it a bit, the bill could actually cause more of the danger you speak of, but the bias from the outset would prefer to ignore that, since it doesn't fit the bias.

You make a false assumption.  No, conservatives don't wish to do away with rights of the accused.  Conservatives can be accused of crimes as well and want to have fair treatment by the justice system.  You have a bias yourself in that you are willing to only accept one side of the argument and make no good defense.  Rights are not an absolute thing where you have them or you don't.  In legal matters they are a difficult balancing act where the rights of the accused must be weighed against the rights of the general public to be protected from a perceived danger.  This is the conundrum.

 

11 minutes ago, dre said:

 

This is just a mindless strawman and mis-characterization of someone elses position. I think EVERYONE needs protection from some form of constitution and that governments needs to be LIMITED in what they are allowed to do to any of their citizens, and governments that are not constrained by rules have a history of doing terrible things to people. 

I think the judge in criminal case needs to have a list of convictions when considering bail, but nothing else, and definitely not arrests or cases where the accused was found not guilty. The presumption of innocence is one of the more important pillars of our legal system, so the courts should only consider pre-existing convictions where that presumption of innocence has been credibly overcome by the prosecutor in a court room.

Also I believe bail should almost always be granted unless a person poses an immediate danger to others, or there is good reason to believe there is a risk of flight. Remember... a guy in a bail hearing hasn't been found guilty of a god damn thing. 

As for complaining about the constitution... Move to a country without one, and see how that works out for you.

I HATE criminals BTW, especially violent criminals, and financial criminals. But that doesnt mean people should be stripped of their rights just because they are accused of something. And the reality is, we have struck a pretty good balance between maintaining constitutional rights and keeping the public safe from criminals.

Our system appears to be working pretty well...

 

Of course Argus will just tell you that people don't report murders anymore LOL.

 

No, it's not a mindless argument.  If you have done any reading about this, you will find that it is a difficult balancing act between the rights of an individual, the accused, and the rights of society to be protected.  Liberal judges and politicians lean one way and conservative politicians generally lean the other way.  Depends how one views it.  There have been cases of judges letting people out on bail and these accused went on to murder people.  This can't be right. 

Edited May 15, 2017 by blackbird

[dre]

14 minutes ago, Omni said:

You don't see the blatant bias in the title?

Bias is fine, but that kind of thing is just silly and childish. You should at least start out thinking that a person with an opposing position has some reason to feel they do. Hard core ideologues cant do that though. They start with the proposition that their philosophical opponents are evil or stupid and then just ignore what they have to say. Its a way of putting up a mental firewall to protect their beliefs.

This reminds me of that moron Vic Teows calling Canadians pedophile supports when they told the conservatives to shove the Internet Surveillance Bill up their ass.

Support any sort of government intrusion into our privacy? You love pedophiles!

Support any kind of limits on law enforcement? You love criminals!

Oppose ill concieved national security projects? You love terrorists!

Oppose anything at all that cowardly little authoritarian sycophants want to do? YOU HATE CANADA. 

[Omni]

6 minutes ago, dre said:

This reminds me of that moron Vic Teows calling Canadians pedophile supports when they told the conservatives to shove the Internet Surveillance Bill up their ass.

Yes we all recall that, and then he gets appointed to the bench. It somehow doesn't surprise me he has been investigated twice for conflict of interest charges.

[dre]

Quote

No, it's not a mindless argument.  If you have done any reading about this, you will find that it is a difficult balancing act between the rights of an individual, the accused, and the rights of society to be protected.  Liberal judges and politicians lean one way and conservative politicians generally lean the other way.  Depends how one views it.  There have been cases of judges letting people out on bail and these accused went on to murder people.  This can't be right. 

There is absolutely no such thing as a system where there wont be outrageously bad anomalous outcomes. The question is, how does the efficacy of our bail process compare to that of our peers. And the reality is that way to many people are being remanded to custody, and the bail process takes way to long. About 30 thousand people were remanded to custody in Ontario simply because they were not counciled to seek pre-trial release, and because the bail process is plagued by adjournments.

Bail should only not be granted in extreme and rare circumstances when the prosecutor can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there's either a risk to the public or a risk of flight. 

Edited May 15, 2017 by dre

[Argus]

22 hours ago, Omni said:

Ok so if you want to play the politics game,

You get that we're in can.politics, right?

22 hours ago, Omni said:

I can assume then that conservatives would simply do away with the rights of the accused.

Have they proposed that? Have they suggested that? All they've said is that the judge must know about any criminal record.

22 hours ago, Omni said:

The fact is, once you study it a bit, the bill could actually cause more of the danger you speak of, but the bias from the outset would prefer to ignore that, since it doesn't fit the bias.

Can you tell me what law school you graduated from?

[Argus]

22 hours ago, dre said:

Bias is fine, but that kind of thing is just silly and childish. You should at least start out thinking that a person with an opposing position has some reason to feel they do. Hard core ideologues cant do that though. They start with the proposition that their philosophical opponents are evil or stupid and then just ignore what they have to say

The irony of you posting this right after baldly saying you couldn't be bothered reading or responding to something!

The anger in all your posts has always pointed to your extremism out on the far fringes of the far left, so you really shouldn't be trying to suggest someone else is an ideologue.

[Argus]

22 hours ago, Omni said:

Yes we all recall that, and then he gets appointed to the bench.

Don't worry. All Mr Feminist appoints to the bench now are women. If you've got a law degree, line up and show your breasts! No other qualifications required!

 

[Omni]

It's a poorly written bill is the problem. It may have some merit, but it currently may actually accomplish the exact opposite of what was hoped for. 

[Omni]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

Don't worry. All Mr Feminist appoints to the bench now are women. If you've got a law degree, line up and show your breasts! No other qualifications required!

 

Wow, more bias statements. You know what they say about when you find yourself in a hole.....