Three strikes

myata · October 13, 2006

The link to CBC story. The government proposes a bill that will put an onus on the offender to prove that they should not be designated "dangerous" with all the goodies coming with the brand (indefine jail, limitation of parole, etc). For once, I think I'd be OK with that but in an interview with criminal lawyers they expressed concerns about constitutionality of such act. Any comments?

M.Dancer · October 13, 2006

As long as no non violent criminals get caught up in the frenzy.....

threnody · October 13, 2006

As long as no non violent criminals get caught up in the frenzy.....

Indeed.

Perhaps this suggestion should be limited to physical offences?

Hicksey · October 13, 2006

As long as no non violent criminals get caught up in the frenzy.....

Indeed.

Perhaps this suggestion should be limited to physical offences?

Hell no!

If you have committed 3 indictable offenses, is that not proof positive that you are pathlogical and likely to keep it up? If anything these are the poster children for people that we need to send a more severe message to.

The only exception I would make is to allow the lawyers of non-violent criminals to have the designation removed after 15 years if they display a real effort to rehabilitate, have been model prisoners, have taken advantage of a program to get a skill they can use to get gainful employment once they exit the penal system, and agree to lifetime long parole.

threnody · October 13, 2006

Hell no!
If you have committed 3 indictable offenses, is that not proof positive that you are pathlogical and likely to keep it up?

Um, not at all, actually.

A previous course of action does not thus guarantee a repeat of said action.

FTA Lawyer · October 13, 2006

As long as no non violent criminals get caught up in the frenzy.....

Indeed.

Perhaps this suggestion should be limited to physical offences?

As I read the article, this new three-strikes law would apply only to persons convicted of three sexual or violent crimes, so the worry about property offenders getting caught up in this should be non-existent.

I'll have to wait to see the bill before I'll weigh in on whether or not I think it's Charter-compliant. However, I will say that if the article is accurate that a person will "automatically" be a D.O. and then they have to argue their way out of it, this may be problematic.

While it seems like a subtle distinction, in my view, the legislation would have to stop at a presumption in favour of the designation. The Crown would still carry the overall burden of establishing the person to be a D.O., but they would get a head start so to speak with the presumption based on the third conviction.

This would mean there would still need to be a full hearing and the Crown would have to win it...not just sit back and watch the offender flail at trying to displace the automatic designation.

Overall, if done right and with sufficient procedural fairness, I can't see why such a law couldn't pass Charter scrutiny. We do have reverse onus in particular situations for bail applications (including where an offender allegedly commits a crime while already on bail)

We'll wait and see what the proposed law looks like I guess...

FTA

M.Dancer · October 13, 2006

As long as no non violent criminals get caught up in the frenzy.....

Indeed.

Perhaps this suggestion should be limited to physical offences?

Hell no!

If you have committed 3 indictable offenses, is that not proof positive that you are pathlogical and likely to keep it up? If anything these are the poster children for people that we need to send a more severe message to.

The only exception I would make is to allow the lawyers of non-violent criminals to have the designation removed after 15 years if they display a real effort to rehabilitate, have been model prisoners, have taken advantage of a program to get a skill they can use to get gainful employment once they exit the penal system, and agree to lifetime long parole.

In the US the 3 strike rule is abused in so many ways...say for instance a fellow gets arrested at 18 for a B&E, gets arrested at 20 for fighting and then gets his life turned around the best he can, and then gets dung at 26 for smoking a joint.....life in prison for a joint.

The Globe and Mail
The government will introduce a bill in Parliament next week to change the onus on people convicted of a third violent or sexual offence to prove why they should not be locked away indefinitely with no chance of parole for seven years. Currently, it is up to the Crown to demonstrate why a serious repeat offender should be declared a danger to society.

This though seems quite different from the ill advised US system

Under the three-strikes law envisioned by Ottawa, the offender would have to be convicted twice of a violent or sexual crime included in a list of 11 specified offences and then sentenced to a term in prison for more than two years, an official in the Justice Department said. Then, on the third offence, the offender would have to be convicted of a similar crime for which the judge would reasonably expect that another term of two years or more in prison is warranted.

In the US......

Three-strikes laws in effect in a number of U.S. states require lengthy and mandatory sentences for someone who is convicted for what is deemed to be a third serious criminal offence. In California, for instance, the law demands mandatory life imprisonment.
The California law caused an increase in the state prison population of 17.7 per cent between 1993 and 2002 while the crime rate dropped more slowly than that of other states, such as New York, where there was no three-strikes law.

threnody · October 13, 2006

As long as no non violent criminals get caught up in the frenzy.....

Indeed.

Perhaps this suggestion should be limited to physical offences?

As I read the article, this new three-strikes law would apply only to persons convicted of three sexual or violent crimes, so the worry about property offenders getting caught up in this should be non-existent.

FTA

Ahh, good.

Hicksey · October 13, 2006

Hell no!

If you have committed 3 indictable offenses, is that not proof positive that you are pathlogical and likely to keep it up?

Um, not at all, actually.

A previous course of action does not thus guarantee a repeat of said action.

You are right!

That's why we give them two chances to change their ways before this takes effect. We don't assume a repeat of said action, we let the criminal determine whether there will be a pattern.

Why is it so hard for people get through a day and not commit a crime? How is it that criminals are regarded as more of a victim than their real victims and as a result deserve more protection?

threnody · October 13, 2006

You are right!
That's why we give them two chances to change their ways before this takes effect. We don't assume a repeat of said action, we let the criminal determine whether there will be a pattern.

Why is it so hard for people get through a day and not commit a crime? How is it that criminals are regarded as more of a victim than their real victims and as a result deserve more protection?

Because some mental conditions make it very hard for some people.

Passing a law like this completely ignores hardcore OCD cases, some schizophrenia cases, and many other conditions affecting one's judgement of certain situations.

Jerry J. Fortin · October 13, 2006

The justice system ought not to be equated with sport. Life isn't a ballgame folks. Each case should be considered seperately and judged accordingly. The presumption of innocence is lost with this kind of legislation. In essense an individual can be found guilty of being guilty, which is a tadd redundant in nature in my opinion.

This kind of crap legislation does not seek to resolve the issues in question and does not even address the cause of the problem in the first place.

The problem is caused because we let criminals go free in the first place. Violent offenders should receive a duration of natural life sentence, unless we intend to allow them the option of reoffending. Society is responsible when a felon is released to cause harm to an individual within that society. In other words we have created the problem in the first place and the solution proposed is designed to allow a continuation of the problem. Hardly a viable solution if you are the intended or innocent victim of the offending individual.

Society needs to get a grip. Death sentences are a cruel punishment by definition so that is not an option. Incarceration is the agreed and accepted punishment for criminal offences by society, and society is being denied justice through the parole system. Non violent offences are another matter, as are victimless crimes.

Hicksey · October 13, 2006

You are right!

That's why we give them two chances to change their ways before this takes effect. We don't assume a repeat of said action, we let the criminal determine whether there will be a pattern.

Why is it so hard for people get through a day and not commit a crime? How is it that criminals are regarded as more of a victim than their real victims and as a result deserve more protection?

Because some mental conditions make it very hard for some people.

Passing a law like this completely ignores hardcore OCD cases, some schizophrenia cases, and many other conditions affecting one's judgement of certain situations.

It doesn't make them any less responsible for their actions. It does require that the system get better at diagnosing the proper punishment the first two times and recognize when punishment alone is not enough and a combination of punitive/treatment is the best course of action.

geoffrey · October 13, 2006

Why shouldn't property offenders be included? You don't think 3 seniors life savings stolen by a con artist (and so they live the rest of their lives of CPP or something meagre like that) isn't worth a dangerous offender designation?

The way I see it, if you don't get the message from your first two prision sentences, your not going to get it on the third. Three strikes applying to all indicitable offenses would be a big step towards a safer society.

threnody · October 13, 2006

It doesn't make them any less responsible for their actions. It does require that the system get better at diagnosing the proper punishment the first two times and recognize when punishment alone is not enough and a combination of punitive/treatment is the best course of action.

Of course it makes them less responsible for their actions.

When a society ignores or neglects to provide sufficient institutional care, certain mental conditions that lead one to commit otherwise "unacceptable" acts become society's responsibility.

threnody · October 13, 2006

Three strikes applying to all indicitable offenses would be a big step towards a safer society.

If by "safer" you mean "Orwellian", then yes, you'd be correct.

M.Dancer · October 13, 2006

Why shouldn't property offenders be included? You don't think 3 seniors life savings stolen by a con artist (and so they live the rest of their lives of CPP or something meagre like that) isn't worth a dangerous offender designation?
The way I see it, if you don't get the message from your first two prision sentences, your not going to get it on the third. Three strikes applying to all indicitable offenses would be a big step towards a safer society.

How that working in California again?

Right, it ain't....

FTA Lawyer · October 13, 2006

The justice system ought not to be equated with sport. Life isn't a ballgame folks. Each case should be considered seperately and judged accordingly. The presumption of innocence is lost with this kind of legislation. In essense an individual can be found guilty of being guilty, which is a tadd redundant in nature in my opinion.
This kind of crap legislation does not seek to resolve the issues in question and does not even address the cause of the problem in the first place.

The problem is caused because we let criminals go free in the first place. Violent offenders should receive a duration of natural life sentence, unless we intend to allow them the option of reoffending. Society is responsible when a felon is released to cause harm to an individual within that society. In other words we have created the problem in the first place and the solution proposed is designed to allow a continuation of the problem. Hardly a viable solution if you are the intended or innocent victim of the offending individual.

Society needs to get a grip. Death sentences are a cruel punishment by definition so that is not an option. Incarceration is the agreed and accepted punishment for criminal offences by society, and society is being denied justice through the parole system. Non violent offences are another matter, as are victimless crimes.

Tell someone who has had their identity stolen and used repeatedly for fraudulent purposes that non-violent offences are "victimless crimes". Or how about a single mom barely getting by who gets her car stolen and can't drive to work and loses her job. Or maybe the family who has thier son or daughter killed in a car accident where the other driver was criminally negligent and fell asleep because he'd been driving for 36 hours with no rest.

Seriously, you made a big blunder with that comment...if I were you I'd actually post a retraction.

As for the rest of your post it makes equally little sense. You complain about the notion of being found guilty of being guilty where a 3rd-time violent or sexual offender gets slapped with an onerous special punishment...but then you turn around and basically say that every offender should get the onerous and special punishment from the outset.

If "each case should be considered seperately and judged accordingly" as you say, then how does that reconcile with the opinion that [all] "violent offenders should receive a duration of natural life sentence..."?!?

Either sentences should be individualized to deal with the particular circumstances of the offence and the offender...including early parole for those who demonstrate they deserve it (as is currently our practice) or everyone who commits an offence gets thrown in jail for the rest of their life...with no parole regardless of how much they rehabilitate in jail.

You can't have it both ways.

FTA

Jerry J. Fortin · October 13, 2006

Safe is a relative condition. Making society safe could mean an environmental approach to some people. Consider the relative safety of living next to a chemical plant, or a weapons test range. To what extent is society responsible for safety and in what manner?

geoffrey · October 13, 2006

I really have little patience with criminals that continually repeat. Seriously, why do we continue to expect for them to get better each time they go to jail. Three chances is enough, after that, there is no reason to allow them into our society.

Property, non-violent "victimless crimes" like some have called them (complete BS) and most importantly violent crimes. All of them, 3 chances, after that, you don't see the light of day again.

M.Dancer · October 13, 2006

I really have little patience with criminals that continually repeat. Seriously, why do we continue to expect for them to get better each time they go to jail. Three chances is enough, after that, there is no reason to allow them into our society.
Property, non-violent "victimless crimes" like some have called them (complete BS) and most importantly violent crimes. All of them, 3 chances, after that, you don't see the light of day again.

Who has called it victimless crime?

Shoplifting is non violent crime. Embezzlement is non violent crime. Defrauding insurance companies is non violent crime......

myata · October 13, 2006

Well, yeah, each case must be judged on its own merits. One of them being, if someone's was convicted of a violent crime three times, the likelihood of them doing it again could not and should not be ignored (it's called a trend or a pattern). Which isn't the case the first time, when it could have been a one time fluke or aberration of behaviour. Giving a perfectly "correct" sentence first time around would require no less than Godly knowledge of the person's mind and the future. Giving the prosection right tools to put dangerous criminals away from the streets for as long as it's necessary, seems like a reasonable idea.

I agree with FTA lawyer though that it shouldn't be automatic. At the very least, the crown should make a submission to make this designation following the third conviction. Then, the criminal (with their lawyer) should have to prove before the court that it should not be imposed. That would include proving that there's no identifiable public risk. I'd find this reasonable and fair.

Higgly · October 13, 2006

I am not a lawyer, but my undertsanding is that you cannot prove a negative. In other words, putting the onus on the offender to prove they are not dangerous is a contradiction in law.

Am I wrong?

Argus · October 13, 2006

As long as no non violent criminals get caught up in the frenzy.....

I dunno about that. Every time they catch some B&E artist the police solve about twenty break-ins. And many of these guys are arrested over, and over, and over again. At what cost to our society in terms of fear, in terms of security devices, alarms, in terms of damage caused, higher insurance premiums, extra policing costs....

If someone has made it patently obvious that they are nothing but a career criminal, I don't see anything wrong with putting them away forever, whether they are burglars, car thieves, or fraud artists. Now clearly some petty crimes can be exempted from such punishments, and I'm not talking about just "three strikes, you're out" for every offense. I'm talking about a strong history as a career criminal.