Jump to content

Is our justice system becoming to soft.


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Canadian law is soft, and so are the people who interpret it.

Yeah, ever wonder how better society might be if our kindergartens were more like Klingon military prep schools?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, eyeball said:

How many people have that exactly?  I'm willing to bet the few there are will be 1st Nation's.  Easy prediction given how disproportionately 1st Nations are already represented in our prisons.

I don't know if that has something to do with the relationship between progressives and conservatives but I do think progress on the sort of underlying economic and other social factors associated with criminal behaviour has been conservatively slow.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-trudeau-promises-to-address-high-rates-of-indigenous-incarceration/

We have a PM who wants to reduce the "over-representation" of indigenous people in our prisons and has automatically assumed, without providing any evidence whatsoever, that indigenous peoples in Canada are overrepresented because our justice system is racist.  Maybe it is.  Can we get some evidence on the scope of the problem before we start drawing conclusions so our PM can signal his virtue?

If he wants to really fix the problem he should spend lots of money to educate them so they can get good jobs and not be stuck in generational poverty.  The link between poverty and crime is clear.  The last time the gov did this they sent them to residential schools, so they can't even do that right.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Of course they do. As Khadr proved the only way to take away a Canadian victim's rights is to leave them to rot on their own in an extra-judicial system that's outside of our's.

No they don't. There is nothing in our criminal justice system that accords rights to victims. 

Khadr sued the government in a civil case. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

You are presenting a false dichotomy.  There's a happy middle between letting him rot in Gitmo and allowing him to fly around on Air Canada flights.

Aristides is presenting a clear falsehood when stating victims have no rights, victims have all the same rights any of us do.  Our rights are certainly not conditional to our being victims.

In any case what he seems to be saying is that victims should get more rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Aristides said:

No they don't. There is nothing in our criminal justice system that accords rights to victims.

As I understand it our Charter is what accords all of us our rights unconditionally.

Quote

Khadr sued the government in a civil case.

 The SCC ruling that Canada violated his Charter rights sure helped his case too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, eyeball said:

As I understand it our Charter is what accords all of us our rights unconditionally.

 The SCC ruling that Canada violated his Charter rights sure helped his case too.

Yes, the SCC ruled the government violated his rights, that has nothing to do with our criminal justice system. If you are a victim of a crime, you cannot sue Crown because they didn't lay charges or you didn't agree with the charges they did lay, nor can you sue a court because of a judges decision, you can only sue the person who hurt you..

Edited by Aristides
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, eyeball said:

What? Of course I 'seem to understand' there's a fricken difference, did you miss or ignore where I clearly said I think the primary difference is hatred?  

This is why I say conservatives and progressives don't even share the same language anymore.

At least the people of Babel wanted to cooperate when talking to one another. 

Your thinking that justice means hatred shows your complete lack of understanding of what justice means.  Punishing a child for bad behavior is similar to the justice system punishing a criminal for his crime.  It is not done because of hatred.  That is a bizarre way of looking at justice.  What do you do with a criminal who murdered someone for example?  Do you reward him with a comfortable number of years in rehabilitation as if he needs health care for sickness?  No, that is not what justice means.  The purpose of punishment has nothing to do with hate or hatred.  It's purpose is simply to provide justice for the victims, for society, and for the accused who rightfully must pay for his crimes somehow.  It is exactly the same reason you must pay a fine when you get a speeding ticket or break the traffic laws in some way.  It has absolutely nothing to do with hatred.  Of course if a criminal can be rehabilitated at the same time he is paying for his crimes, that would be a good thing and would help protect society from having another repeat offender.  But the main purpose of sentences are punishment, protection of society, and rehabilitation if that is possible at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Why?

You keep asserting that the only other option besides softness is cruelty, aka the only other choice to deal with problems besides a progressive approach is a conservative approach.

False dichotomy.  We keep thinking like this and society will crumble.

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Aristides said:

Yes, the SCC ruled the government violated his rights, that has nothing to do with our criminal justice system. If you are a victim of a crime, you cannot sue Crown because they didn't lay charges or you didn't agree with the charges they did lay, nor can you sue a court because of a judges decision,

I don't see why you couldn't sue the crown and a judge if you could prove they acted illegally, why would they be free from the consequences of obstructing justice?

Quote

you can only sue the person who hurt you..

You could also sue them - it's a victim's right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

You keep asserting that the only other option besides softness is cruelty, aka the only other choice to deal with problems besides a progressive approach is a conservative approach.

I'm definitely saying the differences between conservative and progressive approaches are irreconcilable but as was pointed out the effect of this ruling will force new legislation.

I'm thankful that conservatives will likely have little if any influence on whatever option is settled on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

Your thinking that justice means hatred shows your complete lack of understanding of what justice means. 

Your interpretation of what I said shows your complete unwillingness to understand what I said.

Quote

Punishing a child for bad behavior is similar to the justice system punishing a criminal for his crime.

 And I think conservative parents are more willing to reach for a strap than progressive parents. 

Quote

It is not done because of hatred.  That is a bizarre way of looking at justice.

No, I'm quite sure a strap conveys nothing but love.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, eyeball said:

I don't see why you couldn't sue the crown and a judge if you could prove they acted illegally, why would they be free from the consequences of obstructing justice?

You could also sue them - it's a victim's right.

If they acted illegally, it would be up to Crown to charge them and another judge to convict them. You would have no say in the matter. Victims have zero rights in the criminal justice system. The criminal justice system is about criminals, not victims.

Kadhr sued the government because of what it didn't do for him when he was in Guantanamo, he was never charged, tried or convicted in a Canadian court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, eyeball said:

I've told you already, it's not this case, or the last case or the one before that and it won't be the next one either. The tears are over the constant endless pressure to have a system of punishment, incarceration and corrections that is based on vengeance, revenge, pay-back...maybe vindictiveness is a more appropriate word.  I don't care if that's how you want to go through your life feeling - I just don't want your feelings being reflected in our justice system.

Again that's bullshit, a few post back when someone asked you, what you would do if this happened to your family, your response was to kill them. Which is exactly what you disagreed with right now. So how much time should a convicted killer of 6 receive and where should they serve that time, a cowboy ranch, sweat lodge, or maximum-security prison?

Our justice needs to reflect our entire current society, not one judge, or one group...The precedent had already been established for 25 years for each life you take... where does vengeance, pay-back, or vindictiveness play into that. and while your at it explain to me how it is against a person's rights.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay...so what exactly does a victim's right look like?  Should the victim be who gets to decide what the criminal's punishment should be?  Are victims constrained by what the Charter allows?  If so then what is the point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They have the right to continue living their lives as best they can after someone took that innocence away, without having to look behind their backs every day to see if this criminal got out and wants vengeance or retribution themselves.

They have the right to not have to relive the whole experience every time they go for parole.

No, the law should dictate what sentencing is, for these crimes there should be set amounts like there was, 25 years for each life you took...it should not be open for interpretation by each judge...

The criminal should lose his entire charter rights once convicted. you're a convict, a ward of the state nothing more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

They have the right to continue living their lives as best they can after someone took that innocence away, without having to look behind their backs every day to see if this criminal got out and wants vengeance or retribution themselves.

They have the right to not have to relive the whole experience every time they go for parole.

No, the law should dictate what sentencing is, for these crimes there should be set amounts like there was, 25 years for each life you took...it should not be open for interpretation by each judge...

Well, it seems there will be new legislation coming so good luck with it.   

Quote

The criminal should lose his entire charter rights once convicted. you're a convict, a ward of the state nothing more.

I'm betting this won't fly.

It seems to me the only way to get your way is to get rid of the Charter and for that I'm pretty sure you'll need a populist dictator and probably some sort of revanchist right-wing counter-revolution to install him/her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 6/1/2022 at 1:11 AM, eyeball said:

Well, it seems there will be new legislation coming so good luck with it.   

I'm betting this won't fly.

It seems to me the only way to get your way is to get rid of the Charter and for that I'm pretty sure you'll need a populist dictator and probably some sort of revanchist right-wing counter-revolution to install him/her.

The problem with any legislation is it can all be undone by anyone.

Well in the last couple of decades convicts have received back all of their rights, do so through the courts using the constitution, and could be overturned just as fast. 

The View From Canada on Felons' Rights - NYTimes.com

The charter can be changed, and there are policies that lay out the process, so it is possible 

Edited by Army Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

here is some more reading for those interested, in how sentences are handed out, and why, it is an interesting article. it also puts some percentages to who has confidence in our justice system, and who supports the death penalty, which was surprising. It also points out the huge differences in justice and sentencing in the different provinces...

Why Canada is unwilling to put even its most heinous murderers permanently behind bars | National Post

How do Canadians feel about the justice system? | Canada's National Observer: News & Analysis

The SCC has ruled that judges have been to soft on crime for the last 30 years...sorry the article is from the globe and mail and you need a subscription to read it all.

Supreme Court rules Canadian judges have been too soft on punishment for 30 years - The Globe and Mail

 

Edited by Army Guy
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.

×
×
  • Create New...