CANADA’S NEW GOVERNMENT TACKLES GUN CRIME BY INTRODUCING BAIL REFORM A

[scribblet]

From the CPC.

It was heartening to see both the Ontario Liberals and Mayor David Miller (NDP) supporting these amendments. Considering the problem of flying bullets in Toronto, something has to be done - and quickly.

CANADA’S NEW GOVERNMENT TACKLES GUN CRIME BY INTRODUCING BAIL REFORM AMENDMENTS

November 23, 2006

Toronto, Ontario

Prime Minister Stephen Harper today announced that Canada’s New Government is delivering on another of its campaign commitments by introducing amendments to the Criminal Code to provide a “reverse onus” in bail hearings for offenses involving firearms.

“As you know, cracking down on gang, gun and drug crime has been one of the top priorities of Canada’s New Government since we took office nearly ten months ago,” the Prime Minister told his audience at the Sheraton Centre Toronto Hotel. “We made it a priority because Canadians had made it very clear to us that they wanted the scales of justice rebalanced.”

The reforms, to be introduced today in the House of Commons by the Honourable Vic Toews, Q.C., the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, will require those accused of serious crimes involving firearms to provide sufficient justification to be granted bail while awaiting trial. Currently, it is up to Crown prosecutors to prove that the accused should not be granted bail, either because they represent a threat to society, they may flee to avoid prosecution or to maintain the public’s confidence in the administration of justice.

“In this city, police report that almost 1,000 crimes involving firearms or restricted weapons have been committed so far this year,” Prime Minister Harper said. “Nearly 40 per cent of them were committed by someone who was on bail, parole, temporary absence or probation. Gun crime is a menace to public safety, and protecting Canadians must be the first priority of our bail system.”

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and Toronto Mayor David Miller both attended the announcement. The Prime Minister acknowledged the support he has received from them and many other municipal and provincial politicians from across the country for bail reform and other anti-crime bills introduced by his government since it assumed office.......

http://tinyurl.com/ydt3dd (why are the Star's urls so long)

Leaders unite against gun crime Harper, McGuinty, Miller to unveil tough new measures today

Nov. 23, 2006. 06:13 AM

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Premier Dalton McGuinty and Mayor David Miller will today unveil plans to make it harder for those accused of gun crimes to get back on the street, the Toronto Star has learned.

The three men, who have never shared a stage together, will meet at Toronto's Sheraton Centre Hotel to announce ambitious measures targeting gun criminals not far from where teenager Jane Creba was shot to death on Yonge St. last Boxing Day.

[gerryhatrick]

Is it necessary to yell it?

[Higgly]

This one is going to have an interesting trip through the Supreme Court. It flies in the face of one of the fundamental principles of our legal system: innocent until proven guilty.

[sharkman]

I hope this is just the beginning in a strategy to toughen up our crime laws. It'll be intersting to hear from some of those who wanted to keep the gun registry on how they feel about being tougher on gun crimes.

I don't see this as being an attack on innocent until proven guilty, our system already has provisions for no bail given on certain cases. It doesn't mean a presumption of guilt.

[hiti]

Prevention is always better than the cure. So where is the CPC money to prevent gangs and gun toting criminals? Oh right.............. CPC don't believe in giving the poor a hand up.

[Wilber]

This one is going to have an interesting trip through the Supreme Court. It flies in the face of one of the fundamental principles of our legal system: innocent until proven guilty.

As opposed to trying to ban the ownership of guns by law abiding people. Guilty until proven innocent. Wait a minute, who cares if the're innocent, ban them anyway.

[Who's Doing What?]

So a neighbourhood crackhead shoots someone, ditches the gun in my back yard, I get arrested and have to prove why I should be allowed out?

I hope not.

I hope there are some minimum guidelines that have to be met by the crown before the reverse onus kicks in.

Multiple eye witnesses, video, forensics etc.

If this even gets through into law, the crown is still going to have to prove it was the person in custody that actually committed the gun crime. Funny. I thought we already had something like that. You know, what's it called....oh ya, a trial.

Before you freak and say I'm a softie or liberal treehugger, I want to say I am all for getting these gangbangers off the streets. Personally, I feel that if it can be proven through UNREFUTABLE means that someone is a murder, rapist, child molester etc. I don't want my taxes going to support their lives in jail. Bulllets are cheap. So is Rope. I would like to see both put to good use.

[sharkman]

So a neighbourhood crackhead shoots someone, ditches the gun in my back yard, I get arrested and have to prove why I should be allowed out?

I hope not.

I hope there are some minimum guidelines that have to be met by the crown before the reverse onus kicks in.

Multiple eye witnesses, video, forensics etc.

If this even gets through into law, the crown is still going to have to prove it was the person in custody that actually committed the gun crime. Funny. I thought we already had something like that. You know, what's it called....oh ya, a trial.

Before you freak and say I'm a softie or liberal treehugger, I want to say I am all for getting these gangbangers off the streets. Personally, I feel that if it can be proven through UNREFUTABLE means that someone is a murder, rapist, child molester etc. I don't want my taxes going to support their lives in jail. Bulllets are cheap. So is Rope. I would like to see both put to good use.

Your scenario wouldn't get you in jail without bail. Your finger prints wouldn't even be on the frickin' gun.

[Who's Doing What?]

So a neighbourhood crackhead shoots someone, ditches the gun in my back yard, I get arrested and have to prove why I should be allowed out?

I hope not.

I hope there are some minimum guidelines that have to be met by the crown before the reverse onus kicks in.

Multiple eye witnesses, video, forensics etc.

If this even gets through into law, the crown is still going to have to prove it was the person in custody that actually committed the gun crime. Funny. I thought we already had something like that. You know, what's it called....oh ya, a trial.

Before you freak and say I'm a softie or liberal treehugger, I want to say I am all for getting these gangbangers off the streets. Personally, I feel that if it can be proven through UNREFUTABLE means that someone is a murder, rapist, child molester etc. I don't want my taxes going to support their lives in jail. Bulllets are cheap. So is Rope. I would like to see both put to good use.

Your scenario wouldn't get you in jail without bail. Your finger prints wouldn't even be on the frickin' gun.

Ever hear of a glove?????

[blueblood]

Prevention is always better than the cure. So where is the CPC money to prevent gangs and gun toting criminals? Oh right.............. CPC don't believe in giving the poor a hand up.

Hah!, you and I both know a rich person is just as capable of toting guns and joining gangs as a poor person. If your talking about prevention being better than the cure i'd say put a cap on immigration and deport the immigrant gang members, there would be a sharp drop in gang activity. Here's a better idea for prevention, instead of asking the government to solve everything, look how a small town operates, our worst crimes are drunk driving and bar fights, we have guns all over the place, poor people all over the place and no gun and violent crime taking place, no its not being poor or having guns, it's society and it's up to society to fix itself.

[geoffrey]

Prevention is always better than the cure. So where is the CPC money to prevent gangs and gun toting criminals? Oh right.............. CPC don't believe in giving the poor a hand up.

Gangs in Canada aren't a poverty issue. It's all an immigration, drug and multiculturalism issue.

[sharkman]

Ever hear of a glove?????

You figure if the cops found a gun without your prints on it in your back yard that was involved in a crime you automatically think they are going to charge you with the murder and throw you in jail?

They would ask you about it and when you came up with an alibi, they would move on. BTW, I don't think crackheads have enough brain cells left to think of wearing gloves, so the gun would have prints on it, just not yours.

[Who's Doing What?]

Ever hear of a glove?????

You figure if the cops found a gun without your prints on it in your back yard that was involved in a crime you automatically think they are going to charge you with the murder and throw you in jail?

They would ask you about it and when you came up with an alibi, they would move on. BTW, I don't think crackheads have enough brain cells left to think of wearing gloves, so the gun would have prints on it, just not yours.

Do you waste as much effort on nitpicking other things in life while completely ignoring the underlying point?

[scribblet]

Prevention is always better than the cure. So where is the CPC money to prevent gangs and gun toting criminals? Oh right.............. CPC don't believe in giving the poor a hand up.

Oh sure, build a few more hoop courts, community centres etc. and the gangs will dissolve just like that. There are many people who are poor who don't kill each other ir engage in criminal behaviour. How about we get rid of the idea of minimum responsibllity for an individual's actions, quit blaming society and conservatives and put the blame where it mainly belongs - at home.

[Figleaf]

Hah!, you and I both know a rich person is just as capable of toting guns and joining gangs as a poor person.

But less needful

[sharkman]

Needful? How about greedful.

[FTA Lawyer]

From the CPC.

It was heartening to see both the Ontario Liberals and Mayor David Miller (NDP) supporting these amendments. Considering the problem of flying bullets in Toronto, something has to be done - and quickly.

...

“In this city, police report that almost 1,000 crimes involving firearms or restricted weapons have been committed so far this year,” Prime Minister Harper said. “Nearly 40 per cent of them were committed by someone who was on bail, parole, temporary absence or probation. Gun crime is a menace to public safety, and protecting Canadians must be the first priority of our bail system.”

I hate to be a spoil-sport on this issue, but...

First of all, the constitutionality of these bail measures is not nearly as contestable as some might think. We already have reverse-onus on bail for a number of situations which have proven to withstand Charter scrutiny. The seriousness of gun crimes will likely mean that any Charter violations resulting from reverse-onus bail will be upheld under s.1 as being reasonable limits that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

That being said, the above quote proves that for "nearly 40 per cent" of the people these "reforms" are targeted towards, they were already covered by various harsh procedures / punishments under the existing Criminal Code provisions, including a reverse-onus bail proceeding for anyone charged while on bail for another offence (per s. 515(6)).

Anyone who is charged while on parole will be immediately put back in prison awaiting a parole revocation hearing (so even if they get a bail order on the new charges, they are still in jail).

Anyone who is charged while on tempoarary absence or probation is in a bit of a different situation in that they are not automatically cancelled and put back in jail (as with a parolee), but on the bail hearing, they will have a huge strike against them on the normal test because they are now demonstrating that they cannot be trusted to follow conditions of bail should they be released.

As I've argued a number of times on this board (as joined by a few others), the laws we have can be incredibly harsh as they exist on the books right now...simply using them they way they can be used is far preferable to passing amendments and reforms which have the potential of going too far due to the half-cooked knee-jerk manner in which they are put forward.

The problem is that under-funded Crown prosecutors rarely bring applications forward because they don't have time and many judges fail to consider the need to act harshly on old sentences in the face of new charges.

For example...if the going rate for an assault (given the circumstances of the offence and the offender) is a 12 month jail term, an offender who gets a Conditional Sentence Order (CSO) for this crime will often get a longer term, lets say 18 months (longer is justified as he is getting house arrest not actual jail).

If this guy commits another offence while on the CSO, he should be charged with a CSO breach in addition to any other charges he gets. He is then required to appear before the same judge that put him on the CSO...to be punished for the breach. At this point, the law allows the judge to "collapse" the CSO and make the guy go to jail for the remaining portion of his sentence...with no earned remission meaning he will do each and every day that is left on the CSO.

This is huge because normally a guy gets earned remission...so getting 12 months in actual jail will ususally mean serving 2/3 or 8 months. Whereas the guy who gets a break with an 18 month CSO...and then breaches after 6 months and gets thrown back in...he will serve the full 12 months of that remaining time.

So the guy who doesn't straighten up after being given the opportunity to do so with a CSO can end up with a far worse fate than the guy who just got thrown behind bars from day 1.

The problem, of course, is that guys rarely get their whole CSO collapsed for a breach. In fact, often times the judge will elect to simply return the guy to the CSO for an initial minor breach.

A similar situation exists for probation breaches. 99.9% of the time, if a guy breaches his probation order, the Crown will just lay a new charge of breach of probation and prosecute that...leading often to a fine or similar minor punishment (because many probation breaches are not objectively serious conduct...like failing to report or failing to complete counselling).

What everyone forgets is that a probation order is a form of rehabilitative sentence (a break) where it appears that a person can be brought back into line without more serious punishment. As such, if a person breaches their probation (and demonstrates that they maybe ought not to have been given the break) the Criminal Code allows for the Crown to not only lay a new charge of breach of probation, but after getting a conviction for the breach, the Crown can also bring the person back to the original judge so they can be re-sentenced on the original offence (because obviously probation was not harsh enough to send the message).

This re-sentencing on an original offence when a guy breaches probation is vritually NEVER done...but not because it can't...it's just too difficult for the Crown to do with their current workload and available resources.

FTA

[Wilber]

As I've argued a number of times on this board (as joined by a few others), the laws we have can be incredibly harsh as they exist on the books right now...simply using them they way they can be used is far preferable to passing amendments and reforms which have the potential of going too far due to the half-cooked knee-jerk manner in which they are put forward.

Good point. Perhaps if the judicial system shared that view and acted on it there would be no need for government to pass amendments and reforms that give them no choice.

[Hydraboss]

For the most part, people are like water: They will follow the path of least resistance...and what's easiest. It is a hell of a lot less work to sell drugs than to maintain a job, and as long as there are no real consequences for crimes people will continue to commit them. We don't need more feel-good warm-fuzzy programs for gangs, drug dealers and all other sorts of criminals. What we need is a tree and rope. Lots of it. What keeps gangs from moving into each others territories? Fear of reprisal. The problem is Canadian society does not operate like this. Stop or I'll be forced to yell stop again.

As for the reverse onus, what has this got to do with guilt? In order for someone to have to go through this, THEY WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN CHARGED ALREADY. Who the hell ever said that anyone has a RIGHT to bail? It is not mandatory, it is allowed when the courts feel it is warranted. The whole idea of bail could go away and it wouldn't affect how the Canadian injustice system works. The Remand Center might be even more full, but oh well.

Bail is not a right.

[White Doors]

This one is going to have an interesting trip through the Supreme Court. It flies in the face of one of the fundamental principles of our legal system: innocent until proven guilty.

Wrong. They already have reverse onus bail for many things, including drug trafficing, murder, etc.

read up and educate yourself.

[FTA Lawyer]

As for the reverse onus, what has this got to do with guilt? In order for someone to have to go through this, THEY WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN CHARGED ALREADY. Who the hell ever said that anyone has a RIGHT to bail? It is not mandatory, it is allowed when the courts feel it is warranted. The whole idea of bail could go away and it wouldn't affect how the Canadian injustice system works. The Remand Center might be even more full, but oh well.

Bail is not a right.

Actually, if we want to talk about reality for a moment...

Charter s. 11. Proceedings in criminal and penal matters - Any person charged with an offence has the

right

(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law...

(e)

not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause

When a guy is charged it is alleged that he has committed a crime. If the right to the presumption of innocence is to mean anything, then the default has to be pre-trial release...otherwise people get the punishment before it is ever proven that they are guilty.

So, except for the reverse onus situations that already exist, bail IS a right (and in fact "reasonable bail" is the right...so forget about a US-style $100,000 bond) unless the Crown can show cause why that right should be denied.

In many jurisdictions, it takes 8-12 months to get a trial in a provincial court. No bail for 12 months for a sentence carrying a 6 month jail term would be pretty outrageous.

Now, before you answer something like "well they can just plead guilty then...who ever said there was a right to a trial", please refer to the full text of s. 11(d) which I have partially reproduced above.

FTA

[White Doors]

As for the reverse onus, what has this got to do with guilt? In order for someone to have to go through this, THEY WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN CHARGED ALREADY. Who the hell ever said that anyone has a RIGHT to bail? It is not mandatory, it is allowed when the courts feel it is warranted. The whole idea of bail could go away and it wouldn't affect how the Canadian injustice system works. The Remand Center might be even more full, but oh well.

Bail is not a right.

Actually, if we want to talk about reality for a moment...

Charter s. 11. Proceedings in criminal and penal matters - Any person charged with an offence has the

right

(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law...

(e)

not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause

When a guy is charged it is alleged that he has committed a crime. If the right to the presumption of innocence is to mean anything, then the default has to be pre-trial release...otherwise people get the punishment before it is ever proven that they are guilty.

So, except for the reverse onus situations that already exist, bail IS a right (and in fact "reasonable bail" is the right...so forget about a US-style $100,000 bond) unless the Crown can show cause why that right should be denied.

In many jurisdictions, it takes 8-12 months to get a trial in a provincial court. No bail for 12 months for a sentence carrying a 6 month jail term would be pretty outrageous.

Now, before you answer something like "well they can just plead guilty then...who ever said there was a right to a trial", please refer to the full text of s. 11(d) which I have partially reproduced above.

FTA

But this type of reverse onus bail/parole conditions has already passed the legal litmus test in regards to murder and drug trafficing, to it's really a moot point. It has already been ruled that it is 'reasonable'.

And I know that we are getting pretty lapse for sentences here, but a 6 minth term for a 'serious gun offence'

Don't think we have gone that far off the deep-end.

[Hydraboss]

FTA, I appreciate the lesson in S.11. The fact remains that the "just cause" condition should automatically be met by the seriousness of the charge, ie. murder. Your example of a six month sentance requiring a 12 month pre-trial incarceration is a symptom of a failed injustice system. How many repeat offenders are clogging the system? A vast number I'd wager.

For someone that breaks a window and steals a tv, no, I don't think denying bail would be appropriate. However, this proposed legislation addresses serious crime and re-offenders (if I understand it). These people have already proven to the court that they are a danger by virtue of their crimes.

Again, this is where that useless piece of parchment called the Charter fails law-abiding citizens.

[gerryhatrick]

I must give Canada's NEW Government some credit here, it sounds like a good idea.

But with most Conservative ideas it should be looked at carefully because it might not be as great as it sounds.

For example, the proposed law is to make it harder for those accused of gun crime to get bail. Will this reduce gun crime? Harper says it will with this reasoning:

“In this city, police report that almost 1,000 crimes involving firearms or restricted weapons have been committed so far this year,” Prime Minister Harper said. “Nearly 40 per cent of them were committed by someone who was on bail, parole, temporary absence or probation. Gun crime is a menace to public safety, and protecting Canadians must be the first priority of our bail system.”

Of course that's poor reasoning because that 40 percent he refers to is not necessarily someone who was on bail for a gun crime, and likely most of them were not.

Another question of concern here is the impact this might have on trials. If you're asking a person pre-trial to offer proof as to why they should get bail then could the proceedings involved in that be used by defense lawyers?

Will this be similar to all those daycare spaces that Harper said he'd create which are not materializing (as they didn't in Ontario under a similar tax-break plan)? Will it also prove ineffectual after it's provided some short-term election benifit?

[Wilber]

In many jurisdictions, it takes 8-12 months to get a trial in a provincial court. No bail for 12 months for a sentence carrying a 6 month jail term would be pretty outrageous.

8 to 12 months to get a trial is too long but if we are only giving 6 month sentences for crimes involving firearms we have a bigger problem than reverse onus.