The sad state of our judicial/penal system

[Hicksey]

It is made readily apparent in THIS article, for those that wish to see it. The Liberals and NDP will likely to continue to play ostrich.

While the GTA police forces and courts continue to ignore and play down the gun crime problem, and apparently sex crimes as well, they are getting tough on dog owners of all people. That story can be found HERE.

Is it just me or are the priorities of our police, the judicial and penal systems way out of whack?

We practically ignore murders by the dozen for two years now, we refuse to punish a man for sexually assaulting a woman and almost raping her, but we can ban a breed of dog seemingly overnight? Its gone further in Pickering, ON where they have imposed fines up to $5000 for dog incidents and mandatory training for dogs and owners of dogs known rough breeds.

All this for unruly dog owners, but we (as a society) cannot punish the murderers roaming the streets in Toronto or even acknowledge the problem, we refuse to jail a violent sex offender instead giving him house arrest for a year and a further six months probation.

Where did we go wrong? Why is it that we can slam down the gauntlet on the en-vogue crime of the day, but it is politically incorrect to do the same for murderers and sex offenders. What's with this nonsensical idea that these people are victims to society the same as their victims were to them? That fixing some social wrong will solve all? We've been enacting social programs by the dozen in this country and still we have not solved the crime problem.

Where do we go from here?

[Charles Anthony]

Is it just me or are the priorities of our police, the judicial and penal systems way out of whack?

I agree but it is our fault.

Where did we go wrong?

Big government. We created big government and gave people with power who are distanced from the electorate. Thus, they are able to escape accountability to the electorate much better than could officials of small government.

We've been enacting social programs by the dozen in this country and still we have not solved the crime problem.

The inefficiency of the "steal-from-Peter-to-pay-for-Paul" game is coming out and biting us.

Where do we go from here?

Until people stop using this "what can I do for my country?" ideology to justify nickel-and-diming their neighbor, it will only get worse.

[watching&waiting]

It is just the kind of thing that makes people go HMMM

[Shakeyhands]

The Liberals and NDP will likely to continue to play ostrich.

WTF?

[jdobbin]

It is made readily apparent in THIS article, for those that wish to see it. The Liberals and NDP will likely to continue to play ostrich.

While the GTA police forces and courts continue to ignore and play down the gun crime problem, and apparently sex crimes as well.

The Conservatives are the law when it comes to gun crimes. What are they doing about it?

[Leafless]

Big government. We created big government and gave people with power who are distanced from the electorate. Thus, they are able to escape accountability to the electorate much better than could officials of small government.

We didn't create anything. We are controlled under a parliamentary democracy.

We have no choice but to change the system.

Corrupt government at all levels and big business are allowing Canada to deteriorate to unacceptable levels.

Their interest is making money with little concern for social conditions.

[FTA Lawyer]

The "Justice System" includes appeal courts all the way up to the SCC. It is not fair to call the justice system broken every time there is an error made.

The sentence seems light to me...but not necessarily because it is a Conditional Sentence Order (CSO). I could accept a CSO is appropriate, but there certainly ought to have been alcohol and anger management counselling along with community service hours etc.

That being said, for every case that seems to be an affront to justice (which are the only ones we hear about) I can show you 100 where the right outcome occurs.

Don't go shouting the sky is falling because some reporter trying to sell papers has told you that it is.

FTA

[Hicksey]

The "Justice System" includes appeal courts all the way up to the SCC. It is not fair to call the justice system broken every time there is an error made.

The sentence seems light to me...but not necessarily because it is a Conditional Sentence Order (CSO). I could accept a CSO is appropriate, but there certainly ought to have been alcohol and anger management counselling along with community service hours etc.

That being said, for every case that seems to be an affront to justice (which are the only ones we hear about) I can show you 100 where the right outcome occurs.

Don't go shouting the sky is falling because some reporter trying to sell papers has told you that it is.

FTA

That sentence is wrong--even with the additions you noted. That man should be jailed--period. Sentences such as these are the result of the system itself whether it was a CA who suggested it, a judge that sentenced as such, a defense attourney who requested it, the court that upheld it, etc ... Considering the penchant for appeals all of the above have likely happened. And that's not to mention political intervention which is likely also a factor.

I've called the system broken because its priorities are backward. I've called the system broken because it fails to keep the public safe from its most dangerous elements. How many times must a crminal reoffend while out on bail only to be allowed bail on the subsequent crime for lawmakers to realize that bail should be denied at that point? Instead the courts decide against such a measure and then pat themselves on the back for it. I'm sure the family of Jane Creba feels much comfort in their self-assumed righteousness. She was killed by a man out on bail for another crime. Another violent crime.

These things don't happen this often in the midst of a system that works.

I'm not pretending to have the answer to all the system's ills. But to try to tell me that a system that puts a criminal's freedom ahead of public safety isn't broken -- I don't buy it.

Its time a crime meant time. A violent sexual offender should never get house arrest. Jail time is in order.

[FTA Lawyer]

I've called the system broken because its priorities are backward. I've called the system broken because it fails to keep the public safe from its most dangerous elements. How many times must a crminal reoffend while out on bail only to be allowed bail on the subsequent crime for lawmakers to realize that bail should be denied at that point? Instead the courts decide against such a measure and then pat themselves on the back for it.

...

Its time a crime meant time. A violent sexual offender should never get house arrest. Jail time is in order.

One of the biggest problems with what you suggest is that there continues to be a inexplicable lack of evidence that jail time actually works as a deterrent...in first instance or to prevent recidivisim.

In a situation where this guy is an otherwise law-abiding first offender it is difficult to support the argument that jailing him is going to lead to a better outcome in the end.

You need to be mindful that on a 12-15 month jail sentence as the Crown was seeking, this guy would have access to little or no counselling / treatment, AND, he would be kept on a unit with all of the other sex offenders left to discuss amongst themselves how to behave in society once they get out.

Jail for criminals often makes the public at large feel better, but it is only because in their minds the sentence is the conclusion of the matter. For the virtually all first offenders, their sentence is just the beginning of who and what they will become to society once they get out.

If this guy shows promise to put his abhorrent actions behind him (that is, to rehabilitate and never commit another crime) then making him live with pedophiles and rapists for a year is hardly better for society than putting him on a CSO (but don't forget, I still think the CSO he was put on was too light on conditions).

FTA

[Hicksey]

I've called the system broken because its priorities are backward. I've called the system broken because it fails to keep the public safe from its most dangerous elements. How many times must a crminal reoffend while out on bail only to be allowed bail on the subsequent crime for lawmakers to realize that bail should be denied at that point? Instead the courts decide against such a measure and then pat themselves on the back for it.

...

Its time a crime meant time. A violent sexual offender should never get house arrest. Jail time is in order.

One of the biggest problems with what you suggest is that there continues to be a inexplicable lack of evidence that jail time actually works as a deterrent...in first instance or to prevent recidivisim.

In a situation where this guy is an otherwise law-abiding first offender it is difficult to support the argument that jailing him is going to lead to a better outcome in the end.

You need to be mindful that on a 12-15 month jail sentence as the Crown was seeking, this guy would have access to little or no counselling / treatment, AND, he would be kept on a unit with all of the other sex offenders left to discuss amongst themselves how to behave in society once they get out.

Jail for criminals often makes the public at large feel better, but it is only because in their minds the sentence is the conclusion of the matter. For the virtually all first offenders, their sentence is just the beginning of who and what they will become to society once they get out.

If this guy shows promise to put his abhorrent actions behind him (that is, to rehabilitate and never commit another crime) then making him live with pedophiles and rapists for a year is hardly better for society than putting him on a CSO (but don't forget, I still think the CSO he was put on was too light on conditions).

FTA

That sounds quite lofty. However, I would doubt the family of his next victim, likely raped during his court alotted time for the "necessities of life" each weekend, would find that too comforting. There are some crimes where (IMO) the rights of the victim should be regarded with higher priority than those of the criminal. If that means a lengthy jail sentence then so be it.

We counsel all these people now and there's still a 50% reoffend rate over the 25 year period following each release. If we can't change them, we should keep them isolated from potential victims as long as necessary.

[Argus]

The Liberals and NDP will likely to continue to play ostrich.

WTF?

The Liberals, NDP, and the BQ are stridently opposed to stronger sentencing for criminals, be they murderers, rapists, or child molesters, and the Liberals have, over the years, done their best to stack the benches from top to bottom with bleeding heart idiots who care more for the rights of rapists than citizens.

[Argus]

It is made readily apparent in THIS article, for those that wish to see it. The Liberals and NDP will likely to continue to play ostrich.

While the GTA police forces and courts continue to ignore and play down the gun crime problem, and apparently sex crimes as well.

The Conservatives are the law when it comes to gun crimes. What are they doing about it?

They have a minority, and the other parties appear to take the attitude that wanting strong sentences for rapists and murderers is a sign of barbarism and "neo-con" intolerence.

[Argus]

Its time a crime meant time. A violent sexual offender should never get house arrest. Jail time is in order.

One of the biggest problems with what you suggest is that there continues to be a inexplicable lack of evidence that jail time actually works as a deterrent...in first instance or to prevent recidivisim.

And you honestly think having him spend his evenings at home will do better?

You've also left out an important element, unsurprising in a defence lawyer - punishment.

People need to be punished for misbehaviour, especially violent misbehaviour. Once upon a time the punishment would have come from the woman's family, who would have castrated him. But we gave up the right to individual self-protection to the state, which the state has been abrogating, of late. This woman would have done better sueing him. At least then he would have likely been penalized in a way which would have hurt him.

Jail for criminals often makes the public at large feel better, but it is only because in their minds the sentence is the conclusion of the matter.

I think this woman would feel better if the man who tried to rape her was no longer living around the corner. I also think that a strong setnece is a societal pronouncement that he did wrong by her, that his behaviour was intollerable. What society is saying by this "stay at home" sentence is, basically like a finger-wagging and a "hey, come on, stop that, please". In other words, according to society, what he did was no big deal. Obviously this is another blow to the victim who was terrorized.

[cybercoma]

Its time a crime meant time. A violent sexual offender should never get house arrest. Jail time is in order.

One of the biggest problems with what you suggest is that there continues to be a inexplicable lack of evidence that jail time actually works as a deterrent...in first instance or to prevent recidivisim.

And you honestly think having him spend his evenings at home will do better?

You've also left out an important element, unsurprising in a defence lawyer - punishment.

People need to be punished for misbehaviour, especially violent misbehaviour. Once upon a time the punishment would have come from the woman's family, who would have castrated him. But we gave up the right to individual self-protection to the state, which the state has been abrogating, of late. This woman would have done better sueing him. At least then he would have likely been penalized in a way which would have hurt him.

Jail for criminals often makes the public at large feel better, but it is only because in their minds the sentence is the conclusion of the matter.

I think this woman would feel better if the man who tried to rape her was no longer living around the corner. I also think that a strong setnece is a societal pronouncement that he did wrong by her, that his behaviour was intollerable. What society is saying by this "stay at home" sentence is, basically like a finger-wagging and a "hey, come on, stop that, please". In other words, according to society, what he did was no big deal. Obviously this is another blow to the victim who was terrorized.

Just to add a tidbit....what about protecting the public by locking these animals up? Forget punishment and deterrant, society needs to be protected from those who wish not to live by its rules.

[jdobbin]

They have a minority, and the other parties appear to take the attitude that wanting strong sentences for rapists and murderers is a sign of barbarism and "neo-con" intolerence.

Where has that been written?

[jdobbin]

The Liberals, NDP, and the BQ are stridently opposed to stronger sentencing for criminals, be they murderers, rapists, or child molesters, and the Liberals have, over the years, done their best to stack the benches from top to bottom with bleeding heart idiots who care more for the rights of rapists than citizens.

What did the Conservatives do differently in the Mulroney era?

How did Vic Toews do in his job in Manitoba? Is crime way down?

[Argus]

The Liberals, NDP, and the BQ are stridently opposed to stronger sentencing for criminals, be they murderers, rapists, or child molesters, and the Liberals have, over the years, done their best to stack the benches from top to bottom with bleeding heart idiots who care more for the rights of rapists than citizens.

What did the Conservatives do differently in the Mulroney era?

How did Vic Toews do in his job in Manitoba? Is crime way down?

There were no conservatives in power in that era. You're speaking about the Progressive Conservatives who were run by Quebecers. As for Vic Toews, there is a limit as to what provincial ministers can do about anything given the laws are made in Ottawa.

[Argus]

They have a minority, and the other parties appear to take the attitude that wanting strong sentences for rapists and murderers is a sign of barbarism and "neo-con" intolerence.

Where has that been written?

Right above there, you know, where I put it.

[jdobbin]

There were no conservatives in power in that era. You're speaking about the Progressive Conservatives who were run by Quebecers. As for Vic Toews, there is a limit as to what provincial ministers can do about anything given the laws are made in Ottawa.

Some of those same Progressive Conservatives are working for the Conservatives now. When will the rest of the PCs be removed from the party?

And Vic Toews had lots of power as Attorney-General. Just look it up. Find out what he did.

"Toews often criticized the federal Liberal government's record on crime issues, but also gave support to a number of federal proposals. In March 1997, he endorsed a plan by federal Justice Minister Allan Rock to give the police greater powers to target outlaw biker gangs.[21] The following year, he stood with federal minister Lloyd Axworthy to announce a plan to discourage court sentences for non-violent aboriginal offenders. Toews argued that the proposal would reduce the number of repeat offenders, and said that it was "sensitive to the needs of the aboriginal community".[22] He later supported a proposal for the integration of an aboriginal healing lodge into the provincial prison system.[23]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vic_Toews

[jdobbin]

Right above there, you know, where I put it.

Some place besides your personal opinion.

[daddyhominum]

It is made readily apparent in THIS article, for those that wish to see it. The Liberals and NDP will likely to continue to play ostrich.

While the GTA police forces and courts continue to ignore and play down the gun crime problem, and apparently sex crimes as well, they are getting tough on dog owners of all people. That story can be found HERE.

Is it just me or are the priorities of our police, the judicial and penal systems way out of whack?

We practically ignore murders by the dozen for two years now, we refuse to punish a man for sexually assaulting a woman and almost raping her, but we can ban a breed of dog seemingly overnight? Its gone further in Pickering, ON where they have imposed fines up to $5000 for dog incidents and mandatory training for dogs and owners of dogs known rough breeds.

All this for unruly dog owners, but we (as a society) cannot punish the murderers roaming the streets in Toronto or even acknowledge the problem, we refuse to jail a violent sex offender instead giving him house arrest for a year and a further six months probation.

Where did we go wrong? Why is it that we can slam down the gauntlet on the en-vogue crime of the day, but it is politically incorrect to do the same for murderers and sex offenders. What's with this nonsensical idea that these people are victims to society the same as their victims were to them? That fixing some social wrong will solve all? We've been enacting social programs by the dozen in this country and still we have not solved the crime problem.

Where do we go from here?

If we look at rape in the studies of sexuality , and depend on the scientific approach rather then the political approach to decision making, it seems we need to improve the social programs, especially the education of males in dealing with sexuality.

Science suggests that the conservative, dominant-male, hard-line attitude in a society that has cultural and religious values encouraging male-dominance, that is directed overwhelmingly by male politicians , is more likely to have higher rates of rape.

It seems unlikely to me that incarceration in a facility dominated by males, removed from normal sexual contact, and an atmosphere totally drenched with unrequited sexual urges would do much to turn a man from a rapist to a respectful person with regard to sex.

The crime of rape will not disappear because of education, social programs, legislation or incarceration no matter what political ideology drives it. But it is pretty obvious from the scientific literature what is the most likely way to reduce it: thorough sex education programs in schools from the earliest age.

If only the Conservatives could use science instead of religious bias to form policy !

[geoffrey]

Pedophiles can't be healed, this is backed scientifically in many studies. Why let them out?

I'd rather see the kids safe then the pedophiles having more 'rights'. Not worth the chance with the amazingly high rate of re-offense for pedophiles.

There needs to be wiggle room for courts, to deal with situations like the 14 year old girl that goes for the older guys (relatively older, say 20's) and lies about age and stuff like that. Of course, it's the older person's responsiblity, but that's not a life sentance as the person isn't a pedophile, he's not a predator.

So that's where we have 3 strikes, 3 violent/sex crimes and jail forever, no chance of release even if pigs fly. If it's a sex crime involving someone under 14, or a violent sex crime, then it's life no chance of release immediately.

Seems reasonable, how could anyone oppose such a proposal?

[Charles Anthony]

Pedophiles can't be healed, this is backed scientifically in many studies. Why let them out?

I understand and tend to agree with that view.

Seems reasonable, how could anyone oppose such a proposal?

I will be the devil's advocate in two ways.

First, cost may be prohbitive.

What would you do if one day we had a ballooning penal system that cost more than we could afford?

What if we built and staffed more jails but still had more new criminals?

What other social services would you cut to pay for more incarceration?

Secondly, why not tag and label criminals.

The ancient Romans would occasionally brand criminals on the forehead if the circumstances of the crime was severe. The letters MUR (for murderer) or FUR (for thief) or FUG (for military fugitive) would be forever burned on their forehead.

Alternatively, we could do something a little more humane by following their whereabouts. We could make a concerted effort to inform everybody that a criminal is living in their neighborhood. I realize this would lead to vigilantism. The criminal would self-ostracize to the extreme.

[Argus]

There were no conservatives in power in that era. You're speaking about the Progressive Conservatives who were run by Quebecers. As for Vic Toews, there is a limit as to what provincial ministers can do about anything given the laws are made in Ottawa.

Some of those same Progressive Conservatives are working for the Conservatives now. When will the rest of the PCs be removed from the party?

Presumably, they are older now, and thus wiser.

And Vic Toews had lots of power as Attorney-General. Just look it up. Find out what he did.

What he did was not particularly important. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. That he didn't demand every offender by thrown in prison and the key tossed away? That he didn'e eschew all contact and cooperation with the federal government? These are simply straw men and this discussion has no point to it that I can see.

[Argus]

Right above there, you know, where I put it.

Some place besides your personal opinion.

I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but the purpose of this site is for people to post their opinion.