Khadr should make us ashamed to be Canadian

[M.Dancer]

If you think you're pissed now, you're probably going to blow an artery when he's finally compensated to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.

If it goes to that we will rely on Sharia.

10 goats and two female camels.

Final offer

[DogOnPorch]

If it goes to that we will rely on Sharia.

10 goats and two female camels.

Final offer

Toss in a free clitoridectomy and you have a deal, Haj.

Edited February 23, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[bloodyminded]

Toss in a free clitoridectomy and you have a deal, Haj.

A difficult operation on a male.

[DogOnPorch]

A difficult operation on a male.

Just figured that out, eh?

[Bonam]

Anything short of a life-without-parole sentence demands that he be given credit for time served. Unfortunately for people who dislike human rights and justice, that is justice.

Credit for time served is justice, double credit is not.

[Guest American Woman]

Credit for time served is justice, double credit is not.

I don't get the "double credit" thing at all. Makes no sense to me.

[bloodyminded]

Credit for time served is justice, double credit is not.

.....but why would he get "double credit"?

Edited February 23, 2010 by bloodyminded

[M.Dancer]

Yeah, where he can be given double credit for time served, allotted a few years sentence, and released immediately. No thanks.

Thankfully that nonsense has now ended.

As of Tuesday, receiving two-for-one time served while in custody awaiting trial is no longer in effect. Quietly, thanks to the federal government's Bill C-25, the very landscape of the justice system has changed.

http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/joe_warmington/2010/02/23/12992871-torsun.html

[Radsickle]

Thankfully that nonsense has now ended.

http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/joe_warmington/2010/02/23/12992871-torsun.html

Great, now we'll have more and more Omar Khadrs sitting in legal limbo for longer amounts of time in Canada's jails too, awaiting `trial'. This is already an epidemic in Canada's jails.

Harper's removed an incentive to speedy justice; the two-for-one credit inspired the prosecution to make as short as possible the accused's waiting time.

Way to speed up the process, Stevie! Or did you just want to be able to keep more accused people behind bars without access to justice for longer periods of time?

[bloodyminded]

Great, now we'll have more and more Omar Khadrs sitting in legal limbo for longer amounts of time in Canada's jails too, awaiting `trial'. This is already an epidemic in Canada's jails.

Harper's removed an incentive to speedy justice; the two-for-one credit inspired the prosecution to make as short as possible the accused's waiting time.

Way to speed up the process, Stevie! Or did you just want to be able to keep more accused people behind bars without access to justice for longer periods of time?

I hadn't thought of this, Radsickle, and was unaware of the purpose for it (though it's pretty obvious when you think about it.) Well said.

[Guest American Woman]

Great, now we'll have more and more Omar Khadrs sitting in legal limbo for longer amounts of time in Canada's jails too, awaiting `trial'. This is already an epidemic in Canada's jails.

Harper's removed an incentive to speedy justice; the two-for-one credit inspired the prosecution to make as short as possible the accused's waiting time.

Way to speed up the process, Stevie! Or did you just want to be able to keep more accused people behind bars without access to justice for longer periods of time?

There are two sides to that 'no access to justice for longer periods of time' since everyone isn't found innocent by any means.

In other words, if I were guilty, and I knew there was a good chance that I'd end up doing time, I'd want to prolong the process so I could get credit for 'two for one' since it would ultimately reduce the time I'd have to end up serving; so why not try to drag it out?

Also, seems to me that trying to rush a trial doesn't exactly promote having as accurate evidence as may otherwise be possible if more time were devoted to it. I'm not so sure "speedy" trials are always the best game plan.

[M.Dancer]

Harper's removed an incentive to speedy justice; the two-for-one credit inspired the prosecution to make as short as possible the accused's waiting time.

That may be true but it is not in the interest of public safety

[Radsickle]

Also, seems to me that trying to rush a trial doesn't exactly promote having as accurate evidence as may otherwise be possible if more time were devoted to it. I'm not so sure "speedy" trials are always the best game plan.

Nah, best to drag it out for eight years, eh?

Heck, while we're at it, let's drag the accused through hell too.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Radsickle

[Radsickle]

That may be true but it is not in the interest of public safety

Public safety does not mean keeping more untried people in jail longer.

[Guest American Woman]

Nah, best to drag it out for eight years, eh?

Yes, of course; by saying trying to rush a trial doesn't exactly promote having as accurate evidence as may otherwise be possible if more time were devoted to it. I'm not so sure "speedy" trials are always the best game plan, I'm saying let's keep someone locked up for eight years.

[Guest American Woman]

Public safety does not mean keeping more untried people in jail longer.

Public safety doesn't mean letting someone out before they've served all their time, either, and by cutting time off of their sentence based on nothing other than 'two for one,' that's exactly what you're doing. It also, as I've pointed out, could mean less evidence in a rush to go to trial, and could result in someone guilty being found not-guilty.

Could also work in reverse.

As I said, "speedy trial" isn't synonymous with "best possible" trial.

[Radsickle]

Public safety doesn't mean letting someone out before they've served all their time, either, and by cutting time off of their sentence based on nothing other than 'two for one,' that's exactly what you're doing. It also, as I've pointed out, could mean less evidence in a rush to go to trial, and could result in someone guilty being found not-guilty.

Could also work in reverse.

As I said, "speedy trial" isn't synonymous with "best possible" trial.

There has to be an incentive to move forward with prosecution, otherwise the prosecution can sit forever, building their case for years, objecting and deferring and re-scheduling; a sort of torture for the accused. The 2 for 1 meant that the longer they torture the accused in the legal limbo commonly known as `jail', the less punishment the prosecution could mete out upon conviction. It was a test of confidence meant to speed up cases that were certain and clear the backlog in the courts. Harper's just added to the congestion.

Wake up, this move has little to do with being `tough on crime'; It is to please the private corporations who are starting to run Canadian jail$.

Harper's a thug who doesn't mind torturing 15 year olds and needs the Supreme Court to tell him it's wrong.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Radsickle

[Guest American Woman]

There has to be an incentive to move forward with prosecution, otherwise the prosecution can sit forever, building their case for years, objecting and deferring and re-scheduling; a sort of torture for the accused.

Waiting time could count as served time, rather than double the time. It makes no sense to try to rush a trial just out of fear that someone who is guilty will have part of their sentence cut in half -- not because of remorse, or good behavior, or being ready to go back out in society -- but based on nothing other than a two-for-one law.

The 2 for 1 meant that the longer they torture the accused in the legal limbo commonly known as `jail', the less punishment the prosecution could mete out upon conviction.

And that's not a good thing for society, which is the issue that started this exchange in the first place. As I said above, shortening the sentence isn't based on anything that matters regarding rehabilitation, danger to society, etc.

It was a test of confidence meant to speed up cases that were certain and clear the backlog in the courts. Harper's just added to the congestion.

It affected all cases. Everyone charged with a crime could benefit by it, and everyone could be potentially hurt by it.

This move is to please the private corporations who are starting to run Canadian jail$. Harper's a thug who doesn't mind torturing 15 year olds and needs the Supreme Court to tell him it's wrong.

Or maybe it's a move to please those in society who aren't pleased with prisoners getting out of serving the time they should be serving and to please those who don't think a "speedy" trial is synonymous with "best trial," because it's not. As I said, it could backfire on an innocent person, too.

Edited February 23, 2010 by American Woman

[M.Dancer]

Public safety does not mean keeping more untried people in jail longer.

Correct. It means keeping convicted people in jail longer.

[M.Dancer]

There has to be an incentive to move forward with prosecution,

I guess performance bonuses would be too simple.

But lets face it and be honest, the defense has alos been guilty of foot dragging too when it serves their pupose....

[M.Dancer]

Wake up, this move has little to do with being `tough on crime'; It is to please the private corporations who are starting to run Canadian jail$.

Tinfoil rations to begin in 20 minutes

[Radsickle]

Waiting time could count as served time, rather than double the time. It makes no sense to try to rush a trial just out of fear that someone who is guilty will have part of their sentence cut in half -- not because of remorse, or good behavior, or being ready to go back out in society -- but based on nothing other than a two-for-one law.

The private interests who are discovering a new incarceration market in Canada agree; best to spend taxpayer money on new jail$.

[Radsickle]

Correct. It means keeping convicted people in jail longer.

you confuse `jail' with `prison'.

Jail: A place of detention; a place where a person convicted or suspected of a crime is detained.

Prison: A place of long-term confinement for those convicted of serious crimes.

"The most notable difference is that prison inmates have been tried and convicted of crimes, while those in jail may be awaiting trial."

Omar Khadr has been rotting in an uncertain `jail' for more than 8 years.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Radsickle

[Guest American Woman]

The private interests who are discovering a new incarceration market in Canada agree; best to spend taxpayer money on new jail$.

Odd that you would still be going on about that in response to my post when I pointed out that it's not all about them by any means, as you completely fail to address the points I raised.

[M.Dancer]

you confuse `jail' with `prison'.

Jail: A place of detention; a place where a person convicted or suspected of a crime is detained.

Prison: A place of long-term confinement for those convicted of serious crimes.

"The most notable difference is that prison inmates have been tried and convicted of crimes, while those in jail may be awaiting trial."

Nonsense, I'm not a pedant that cares much about the nomenclature of where they languish, so long as they do...the nick, gaol, the big house, the pen, the joint, the hole, prison, hell....

They all have their place...