Bill c75- will Pierre change it?

[PiotrFromTimmins]

It seems that the catch and release bail program that is responsible for so many deaths and crime can be linked to bill c 75.

 

Will anyone move to change it?

[PiotrFromTimmins]

https://youtu.be/J-QZ4kqJNNQ

[ExFlyer]

So, what is it about the amendment Bill C75 you don't like??  And why?

[PiotrFromTimmins]

Accused who would typically be in jail while awaiting trial for serious charges are released, based on bill c 75. Upon being released,as opposed to being held in custody, they are able to commit more serious offences that otherwise would have been prevented. The Brazilian youth killed at the ttc station last month is one example of many . this bill is similar to bill c 5 that will eliminate many mandatory minimum sentences. That bill will also be directly linked to more preventable crime. Public safety is jeopardized by these bills and this philosophy.

[ExFlyer]

21 minutes ago, PiotrFromTimmins said:

Accused who would typically be in jail while awaiting trial for serious charges are released, based on bill c 75. Upon being released,as opposed to being held in custody, they are able to commit more serious offences that otherwise would have been prevented. The Brazilian youth killed at the ttc station last month is one example of many . this bill is similar to bill c 5 that will eliminate many mandatory minimum sentences. That bill will also be directly linked to more preventable crime. Public safety is jeopardized by these bills and this philosophy.

So, innocent until proven guilty is an unheard of concept for you?

Preventable crime??? Like putting up speed cameras to prevent speeding?

[CdnFox]

25 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

So, innocent until proven guilty is an unheard of concept for you?

LOL c'mon - holding someone when there's reasonable grouds to believe a crime has been committed until they can be tried is certainly not the same as doing away with jurisprudence.

If we're going to take that attitude - nobody should ever be arrested. How dare you detain someone without them having been proven guilty.

I have no problem with it being a 'reverse onus' on the prosecution - in other words they have to PROVE that the charges and the situation warrant no bail. That would involve things like the seriousness of the crime, the weight of the evidence showing it's likely he did it, the past violent record etc.  Basically convince a judge there's a strong likelyhood he did it and that he's likely to do more violence if released.  Rather than it just being 'automatic'.   And of course the cases should be tried in a timely manner - no waiting 5 years to go to court.

But there's no offense to jurisprudence to hold someone until they can be tried in and of itself.

25 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Preventable crime??? Like putting up speed cameras to prevent speeding?

Well i suspect he's talking about things like the cop who just died at the hands of that first nations guy out on bail who has a massive violent criminal record.

That was preventable. NOT releasing homicidal nutbars into the public prevents that.  A finger in jail can't pull a trigger.

the rights of the accused are very important. But the rights of the members of the public are important too. And right now it seems like the majority of violent crime is being committed by those who are out on bail or some other species of release for another violent crime.

And the crime rates are shooting up.

So - there does need to be a balancing. I'm pretty sure PP will be planning on addressing that.

[ExFlyer]

21 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

LOL c'mon - holding someone when there's reasonable grouds to believe a crime has been committed until they can be tried is certainly not the same as doing away with jurisprudence.

If we're going to take that attitude - nobody should ever be arrested. How dare you detain someone without them having been proven guilty.

I have no problem with it being a 'reverse onus' on the prosecution - in other words they have to PROVE that the charges and the situation warrant no bail. That would involve things like the seriousness of the crime, the weight of the evidence showing it's likely he did it, the past violent record etc.  Basically convince a judge there's a strong likelyhood he did it and that he's likely to do more violence if released.  Rather than it just being 'automatic'.   And of course the cases should be tried in a timely manner - no waiting 5 years to go to court.

But there's no offense to jurisprudence to hold someone until they can be tried in and of itself.

Well i suspect he's talking about things like the cop who just died at the hands of that first nations guy out on bail who has a massive violent criminal record.

That was preventable. NOT releasing homicidal nutbars into the public prevents that.  A finger in jail can't pull a trigger.

the rights of the accused are very important. But the rights of the members of the public are important too. And right now it seems like the majority of violent crime is being committed by those who are out on bail or some other species of release for another violent crime.

And the crime rates are shooting up.

So - there does need to be a balancing. I'm pretty sure PP will be planning on addressing that.

I get it. I am playing devils advocate.

For sure, if there is enough evidence, a person should be held or bail should be high enough to be restrictive but,  the general statements by the OP is as mundane as mine.

My speed camera analogy was meant to be simple,  to respond to the OP.

Bill C 75 is a large bill and the OP is only looking (if he actually did read his link) at an amazement to it.

[CdnFox]

12 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

I get it. I am playing devils advocate.

Well fair enough.

12 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

For sure, if there is enough evidence, a person should be held or bail should be high enough to be restrictive but,  the general statements by the OP is as mundane as mine.

Also fair enough.

12 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

My speed camera analogy was meant to be simple,  to respond to the OP.

Sufficiently equitable.

12 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Bill C 75 is a large bill and the OP is only looking (if he actually did read his link) at an amazement to it.

Ignoring the autocorrect error there sure. the situation is complex enough that we're likely beyond simple amendments.  I would guess that there's a lot of moving parts that a solution would need to align across a number of acts.

[PiotrFromTimmins]

On 4/4/2023 at 12:09 PM, ExFlyer said:

 

Bill C 75 is a large bill and the OP is only looking (if he actually did read his link) at an amazement to it.

So ...you're a troll? Good contribution to an important discussion on public safety.

[ExFlyer]

On 4/9/2023 at 2:28 PM, PiotrFromTimmins said:

So ...you're a troll? Good contribution to an important discussion on public safety.

Why? Because of the typo? 

"Bill C 75 is a large bill and the OP is only looking (if he actually did read his link) at an amendment to it.?

Yes, it is a discussion but, you started this thread and have not provided any insight and acknowledgement that this is an amendment to a very large piece of legislation.

Exactly what part of the amendment turns you into an advocate. An advocate for who, by the way. What triggered your interest?

[PiotrFromTimmins]

6 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Why? Because of the typo

No not because of the typo but because you later admitted you agree with the post and the concerns. 

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, PiotrFromTimmins said:

No not because of the typo but because you later admitted you agree with the post and the concerns. 

Unequivocally wrong.

I disagree with your post because as I said, it is an amendment to an act, not a new act.

I do not think you know what is in the act, let alone the actual effect of the amendment let alone what part of the amendment you seem to dislike. You were asked but only came back accusing trolling. If you are going to advocate, be certain of what you are advocating and precisely what you don't like about the amendment.

Don't deflect, tell us why.

 

Edited April 11, 2023 by ExFlyer

[PiotrFromTimmins]

In your own words, you wrote that you are " playing devil's advocate" which is trolling. Here are the amendments. The spirit of the bill is to release people accused to reduce the number of black and indigenous people in jail. It is a catch and release program. It is obvious.

 

Specifically, the amendments:

1. streamline the process by increasing the types of conditions police can impose on accused, so as to divert unnecessary matters from the courts and reduce the need for a bail hearing when one is not warranted;
2. provide guidance to police on imposing reasonable, relevant and necessary conditions that are related to the offence and consistent with the principles of bail;^Footnote44
3. legislate a “principle of restraint” for police and courts to ensure that release at the earliest opportunity is favoured over detention, that bail conditions are reasonable, relevant to the offence and necessary to ensure public safety, and that sureties are imposed only when less onerous forms of release are inadequate (codifying Antic^Footnote45);
4. require that circumstances of Indigenous accused and of accused from vulnerable populations are considered at bail, in order to address the disproportionate impacts that the bail system has on these populations;
5. create a new process, the “judicial referral hearing”, to streamline certain administration of justice offences out of the traditional court system where no harm has been caused to victims; and,
6. consolidate various forms of police and judicial pre-trial release to modernize and simplify the release process

I will not respond to further trolls by you.

[ExFlyer]

3 hours ago, PiotrFromTimmins said:

In your own words, you wrote that you are " playing devil's advocate" which is trolling. Here are the amendments. The spirit of the bill is to release people accused to reduce the number of black and indigenous people in jail. It is a catch and release program. It is obvious.

 

Specifically, the amendments:

1. streamline the process by increasing the types of conditions police can impose on accused, so as to divert unnecessary matters from the courts and reduce the need for a bail hearing when one is not warranted;
2. provide guidance to police on imposing reasonable, relevant and necessary conditions that are related to the offence and consistent with the principles of bail;^Footnote44
3. legislate a “principle of restraint” for police and courts to ensure that release at the earliest opportunity is favoured over detention, that bail conditions are reasonable, relevant to the offence and necessary to ensure public safety, and that sureties are imposed only when less onerous forms of release are inadequate (codifying Antic^Footnote45);
4. require that circumstances of Indigenous accused and of accused from vulnerable populations are considered at bail, in order to address the disproportionate impacts that the bail system has on these populations;
5. create a new process, the “judicial referral hearing”, to streamline certain administration of justice offences out of the traditional court system where no harm has been caused to victims; and,
6. consolidate various forms of police and judicial pre-trial release to modernize and simplify the release process

I will not respond to further trolls by you.

Not trolling, just calling you out.

And....what is wrong with any of those amendments?

And where is it that you gleen "The spirit of the bill is to release people accused to reduce the number of black and indigenous people in jail." from??

Edited April 11, 2023 by ExFlyer