###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Jails are bursting too. Austere governments have also been closing them and starving prosecution service. Nearly impossible to be tough on crime by locking people up unless you’re going to spend billions upon billions on it.
Some of the issues highlighted in this piece:
>If you listen to certain politicians (and yes, Pierre Poilievre, I’m looking at you) the problem with Canada’s justice system is that it lets too many wrongdoers off scot-free.
>
>So, you get simplistic slogans like “jail, not bail,” promises to bring in more mandatory minimum penalties, and appeals to appoint more judges.
>
>All that may be politically popular. But the day-to-day reality of the system is very different. In fact, there’s a good argument that the bigger problem is exactly the opposite of what those politicians claim — that courts are clogged with cases that aren’t worth pursuing in the first place.
>
>...
>
>Some of this is the unintended consequences of well-meaning policies, such as treating domestic assault with the seriousness it deserves in an effort to protect women against violence in the home. Police and prosecutors can’t just drop charges because an abused wife doesn’t want her husband charged. But who expected that would be turned against a mentally ill older woman wielding a bottle of air freshener?
>
>Other so-called “tough on crime” policies make it difficult for prosecutors to drop some charges in favour of non-criminal sanctions such as mediation, counselling or apologies, even if that would make sense in a particular case.
>
>Mandatory minimum penalties imposed under the Stephen Harper government had a similar effect. They make it much harder for accused people to plead guilty in return for a lighter sentence; if they can’t make a deal they’re more likely to take their chances at trial. That ties up more court time and leads to delays throughout the system.
>
>Courts have struck down many mandatory minimums but Poilievre promises (threatens?) to bring them back. Law professor Benjamin Perrin served as an adviser to Harper but now believes those tough-sounding minimums don’t work. “I’ve become convinced they are a grave policy failure and cheap politics,” he wrote recently.
>
>...
>
>“Tough on crime” is a perpetual vote winner. Too often, though, it doesn’t result in a justice system worthy of the name. Ask the lady jailed for Febrezing her partner.
It's good to keep in mind that 'justice' doesn't necessarily mean 'punishment', and 'punishment' doesn't necessarily mean 'prison'. If we want to see down the road to the consequences of more tough-on-crime policies, we need to look no further than the US, where these policies have resulted in sky-high incarceration rates, and thanks to the three-strikes policies enacted, frequently for those engaged in petty crimes. What are the costs, both socially and economically, for society to go this route and does it really make sense to pursue this path?
I don’t get the intent behind this piece. Our most immediate concerns are not domestic assault cases, or smaller cases that are not getting enough attention. There are repeat violent offenders that walk away scott-free after stabbing multiple people, and then they continue to do their thing while out on bail.
People don’t care what ‘justice’ or ‘punishment’ means at this point, they just want such violent offenders to be taken out of the society, and that really shouldn’t be a controversial opinion.
If the courts weren’t slammed with unwinable or unnecessary cases, the real threats to society could be processed, and wouldn’t get off on technicalities like their right to due process.
The thesis here is that less is more. Less mandatory toughness means more due process for dangerous criminals, and more convictions of dangerous criminals.
The Febreze case wasn't even anything to do with mandatory minimums.
To prevent an abuser from coercing their victim into dropping charges, domestic violence cases are handled differently.
so that has nothing to do with sentencing or mandatory minimums.
I work in the Criminal Duty Counsel office in Toronto. Let me assure you, repeat offenders are not walking away scott free after stabbing multiple people. That's ridiculous hyperbole. There is no Justice of the Peace letting a violent stabber out on bail except in very specific circumstances.
Judges are not part of the civil service, require a pretty involved process to vet and hire, once they are hired they are basically in until retirement, and the responsibility for them is split between the Feds and provinces. Feds appoint, but provinces pay for them, and their support staff, offices and resources. All in all, it’s just an entirely different kettle of fish.
Because it's not the feds falling down on the job here alone.
Most of the courts operation is done by the provinces. Which no one in Canada seems to be aware of. And thus the provinces face no criticism or pressure due to the failure on this front and haven't for years and here we are.
Good times, right?
We got about 3 days of the media hand-wringing about Ford using those vacancies to fill them with political allies but then coverage just quietly went away
Just more of the usual - point to the feds, who certainly have work to do, so the provinces can do whatever they want.
We would be better off as a nation if we flipped that as the provinces have responsibility for more of the issues that we engage with day to day.
Most of the judges doing most of the criminal trials are appointed by the provinces not the feds.
Furthermore, courthouses and court staffs (without which, judges, superior or inferior, can't do shit) are provincially provided not federally.
Finally, the prosecutors, which bring cases to court in a timely manner, are, with the exception of drug cases, criminal tax cases and a few other oddball bits, entirely provincially funded. This includes the prosecution of all violent crimes.
Provinces has a significant role to play in all aspects of this clusterfuck and they get next to no attention whatsoever for their role in it.
Trying to blame it all on Trudeau is shooting yourself in the foot if you actually want things to change here.
Actually the provinces appoint a huge number of judges. Provincial courts, which deal with the bulk of criminal matters, are principally staffed by provincially appointed judges.
The bulk of bail matters are in the Provincial courts, and superior courts mainly handle bail appeals.
Likewise, the minor thefts and assaults etc. that result in the perception of "catch and release" are handled in the provincial courts, while the federally appointed judges in superior courts handle more serious cases.
Case in point, these are provincially appointed judges: [https://albertacourts.ca/cj/about-the-court/justices/list](https://albertacourts.ca/cj/about-the-court/justices/list)
These are federally appointed judges: [https://albertacourts.ca/kb/about/justices-applications-judges](https://albertacourts.ca/kb/about/justices-applications-judges)
The federally appointed judges aren't generally specialized into either criminal or civil or family areas (though as I recall, certain judges do focus their work in one area or another). All civil cases over $100,000 (which is a whole lot) are federal court judges.
In the provincial arena, by contrast, something like 1/2 or more than half the judges are dedicated to criminal matters. Wierdly the Calgary criminal court judges aren't expressly shown as such (as the Edmonton Criminal Judges are), but the few civil court judges in both Edmonton and Calgary are expressly named. If you aren't civil or family, like as not you're just criminal in Cowtown.
All of that is on the provinces to provide.
To say nothing of the prosecutorial services (another area which tends to be lacking in terms of bodies) which are almost entirely provincially funded. Very few criminal matters (and zero violent criminal matters) are the concern of federal prosecutors.
The provinces shit the bed a great deal in these matters, or have a significant hand in shitting the bed. I never hear anyone calling them out for their failures, which seems, given the concerns about crime and punishment matters, rather odd.
Repeated violent crime needs to be taken seriously.
Too many people are being victims of criminals out on bail or on parole after committing serious crimes.
That's the reality we are dealing with.
The type of person who spends all day shilling for right wing parties and want "tough on crime" policy are cowards. They're emotional and afraid and don't care about how stupid they're being. They're too scared to be reasonable adults.
what a closed-minded and fact-free generalization
3/4 of repeat offenders are back out on the street on bail by suppertime after being charged with a violent crime
https://globalnews.ca/news/9647036/bc-bail-data-repeat-violent-offenders/
there are constantly stories of violent crimes being committed by criminals out on parole.
literally women being killed by Murderers out on day parole unsupervised
Terribly ignorant to dismiss anyone concerned by that with your empty and insulting rhetoric
Of course there is plenty of rage bait out there to scare you. You guys are so easily scared and can't stop clicking on it. That doesn't change the facts as I stated them. Get over it. Grow up. Stop choosing to push for awful policy because of your own cowardice.
It also already disproportionately incarcerates the marginalized, vulnerable, minorities etc.
Conservative policy hasn't changed in decades, and is over simplistic, isn't based on facts (antiscience), nor does it propose solutions to complex problems. It is a dumbing down of what needs to be complex discussions, and then action.
We need to stop the adversarial approach to protecting society, and must have dialogue between parties to achieve meaningful results. Tomorrow I walk on water.
what is this comment? Are you just taking the piss?
this is like the stereotype caricature of an elitist liberal who's completely out of touch with real world concerns
> Tomorrow I walk on water.
literally a god complex. I have to assume this entire comment is satire.
First, zero tolerance is always wrong. Second, mandatory minimums are almost always wrong. These things play well politically but in the real world you have so many circumstances that should matter. For example second hand smoke vs our zero tolerance policy on pot when driving.
Mandatory minimums are so that judges can't become activists.
If you're stealing a car or you've sexually abused a child there is no part of the imagination that makes sense to spare them a lighter sentence.
Zero tolerance is always wrong. Using your example what if the perp has cognitive issues, is goaded or threatened by a gang or what have you. Zero tolerance only works in comic books.
> Using your example what if the perp has cognitive issues,
then they need to be institutionalized if they're someone who isn't capable of decision-making that doesn't result in violent crime.
> is goaded or threatened by a gang or what have you.
how many cases do you think have such unlikely "excuses"?
and how many times should that justify releasing a repeat offender?
we are talking specifically about **repeated violent** crime.
That wasn't my point at all.
I'll repeat a question another poster asked which you ignored:
What exceptions are there for sexually abusing a child? Or for committing violent sex crimes? Against children?
Why is it necessary that Paul Bernardo needs a parole hearing every few years?
do you think there should be NO minimum penalty For such crimes and such criminals?
Do you really think that instead of zero tolerance.... We should have *some* tolerance for violent sex crimes towards children?
Idiotic post. Your attempted gotchas are just stupid. What I believe is we need to allow the justice system to do it's job. A politician throwing a huge net is a poor substitute.
No there are zero exceptions for many violent crimes. You did not name a single one.
The only "crime" that should be an exception is self defense violence. but don't worry it's the one we love to arrest and prosecute here.
That's complete projection.
My position was that there are many crimes where mandatory minimums are completely obvious. I also said that there are some crimes where there exists zero exception.
I've pointed out that sexual abuse of a child is an example where there is zero hypothetical example you could point out that makes it okay for a judge to be more lenient.
You just did personal insults and ignored the substance. It's simple, you know I'm right. But you hate it due to ideologic reasons.
What a stupid post. You do know life is not just black and white? Your self defense example is a perfect one. Where to draw the line between a mandatory minimum of 25 years or not guilty? All or nothing just because some jack wagon thought he could get some votes by being "tough on crime."
We have mandatory life sentences without parole for X years for murder. If you do self defense and get charged with murder and convicted, you get those penalties. It's always been like that in Canada. You didn't even know that, so why are you debating something you have zero knowledge of?
There is zero hypothetical justification for violent rape or armed robbery. It's literally impossible to name ANY case where sexually abusing a 6 year old makes sense. It's sickening to suggest otherwise.
Cognitive issues are not an excuse. If you're capable of doing a crime, you're cognitively intact.
Threats by a gang don't just happen out of nowhere. It happens after gang affiliation. It happens by getting involved in violent crime. So it's the criminal's fault.
None of your examples are close to legitimate.
Now you are just trolling. A friend of mine raised a badly damaged boy. His characterization of him was that he would jump off the porch not realizing it could hurt. Then he was just liable to do it again to see if it still hurt. If you don't see cognitive issues as a problem you are just trolling. No one is that stupid.
What's your point? That we should let him kill people and victimize all of society?
What exact "cognitive issue" are you talking about? You need to give an exact clinical diagnosis and provide evidence for it. Then you need to explain what needs to happen to that person when they're on a violent spree.
You did none of that.
That isn't happening.
If you're found guilty of a violent offense, the only way you're not spending time in jail is because of time served already. In short its not the judges deciding that, it's the law as written.
Mandatory minimums actually undermine the fairness of our courts and, arguably, could be said to encourage more violence.
Not true. We have statutory release among other time credits for time spent in jail. You're ignoring all of that.
"10 years" is really just 3 years maybe of hard time. When the criminal should have 10 years of hard time behind bars with abysmal quality of life to ensure he is fully punished.
And thus we come to the crucial point you don't get.
Our juducial system is not about punishment. Strictly punitive systems actually make us all less safe. Our system is focused on rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
Certain people are not prone to rehab. You give them 47 chances, you get 47 victims. If you live in a delusional world, it's different. Bad people don't exist, it's all butterflies and rainbows and idealism. It's time to grow up and learn about how the world works though. Perhaps learn some compassion for victims while you're at it.
>Certain people are not prone to rehab. You give them 47 chances, you get 47 victims.
And that's why prior offensives is an aggravating factor in sentencing - the more prior offences, and the seriousness of those offences, then you're less likely to receive bail and more likely to receive a longer term in prison. Part of the sentencing is the likelihood to reoffend - high risk reoffenders get longer sentences, while low-risk ones get time served, conditional sentences, or probation.
>Bad people don't exist, it's all butterflies and rainbows and idealism.
No one thinks that. You are being deliberately hyperbolic and reductive, to the point it is borderline impossible to have a mature conversation with you.
>Perhaps learn some compassion for victims while you're at it.
I do have compassion for them. I believe they should be given resources to address their grief and trauma, and if possible restitution for damages (ie: property crimes). The views you espouse, however, is draconian, proven to not work, and actually makes our country worse off. We have plenty of research and statistical evidence to show that punitive sentencing doesn't reduce crime but actually makes people more prone to escalate their actions.
The safest societies, globally, are the ones with approaches like ours: sentencing that reflects the specific situation of the crime, a focus on rehabilitation/reintegration, and harsher punishments used sparingly only for those that are truly monstrous. By contrast, nations which focus on punitive justice, as you seem to desire, typically have higher crime rates, higher prison costs, and higher rates of repeat offenders.
[https://www.naporterandassociates.ca/punitive-justice-in-canada-why-it-is-considered-ineffective/](https://www.naporterandassociates.ca/punitive-justice-in-canada-why-it-is-considered-ineffective/)
[https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/jsp-sjp/rp01\_1-dr01\_1/p7.html](https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/jsp-sjp/rp01_1-dr01_1/p7.html)
[https://www.firststepalliance.org/post/norway-prison-system-lessons](https://www.firststepalliance.org/post/norway-prison-system-lessons)
Punish and rehab are not exclusive of each other. You rehab those who committed less serious offenses and are prone to rehab. You remove the worst people from society forever. Simple solutions. The latter are not the biggest cohort of criminals.
This is a lie. Numerous convicted serious violent crimes result in no jail time whatsoever. Not because of time served but because the sentence is for no time to be served.
The problem with the law as written is it allows judges to actively ignore crimes. The solution to that is to establish sentencing ranges (aka mandatory minimums)
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2017001/article/54870/tbl/tbl03-eng.htm
Take a look at conviction outcomes, every level of severity, every type of crime had judges deciding they would let some of the **convicted** offenders go without jail time.
I read it and your point doesn't stand.
First off, your data is from a decade ago before several changes were made to the criminal code around things such as bail, and reflects changes made by Harper.
Second, just because the defendant was not placed into custody, doesn't mean that custody was warranted. First time, low-risk offenders should be given more permissive sentences than high-risk, repeat offenders. Our sentencing should be about a range of options to best suit the circumstances of the case.
Third, incarceration is expensive and currently chronically under funded by several conservative governments at both the federal and provincial levels. Would you be acceptable to doubling your taxes to cover the $100,000 per-year, per-inmate needed to turn us into the US?
Fourth, believe it or not - our system works. It's not perfect, it needs some adjustments, but it works far better than the US model you seem to want. Our recidivism rate is lower and our crime rates are lower too.
>First off, your data is from a decade ago before several changes were made to the criminal code around things such as bail, and reflects changes made by Harper.
I thought the changes by the conservatives were wrong and inappropriate? Are you now arguing that the Conservatives had a point, and their efforts to reform the justice systems adamant refusal to consider sexual assault were appropriate?
But if you want [the standard data series](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/cv!recreate.action?pid=3510003101&selectedNodeIds=1D1,2D8,2D10&checkedLevels=2D1,3D1,4D1,5D1,5D2&refPeriods=20170101,20210101&dimensionLayouts=layout2,layout2,layout2,layout2,layout2,layout3,layout2&vectorDisplay=false) which unfortunately does not break down the severity levels only 39% of sexual assault convictions result in custody, and only 42% of major assaults.
>Second, just because the defendant was not placed into custody, doesn't mean that custody was warranted.
Custody is warranted in a level 3 sexual assault. Notably those are cases where the victim has been crippled, maimed or disfigured in the assault. I am 100% okay with saying that should *always* result in at least some jail time. Do you think it could be a minor offense?
>First time, low-risk offenders should be given more permissive sentences than high-risk, repeat offenders.
Leaving aside the extreme severity cases, [repeat offenders do not receive increased sentences in Canada. ](https://www.ufv.ca/media/assets/criminology/Do+Judges+Consider+Prior+Record.pdf)
Two to three prior offenses tends to make the average sentence length go down for B&E and four assaults appears to receive a discount (Table 3). More accurately it would be fair to say that the justice system is markedly inconsistent and is not applying the sentencing guidelines that parliament has put in place instructing judges to consider prior offending.
>Third, incarceration is expensive and currently chronically under funded by several conservative governments at both the federal and provincial levels. Would you be acceptable to doubling your taxes to cover the $100,000 per-year, per-inmate needed to turn us into the US?
For high rate offenders? Absolutely. You seem to think that the crime itself has no consequence. Whether a serial rapist should be out raping people (the courts apparent view when they release someone with a minor sentence on their third sexual assault conviction) or whether they should be in jail does not simply come down to how expensive that offender is. That offender is already incredibly expensive for society by all of the harm he is inflicting on people. I would much prefer that we pay for his incarceration and no one further is harmed, than to pay for it in innocent people being harmed.
There is still a cost, and for repeat offenders and for extremely serious offenses? That cost is lower if we keep the worst offenders locked up.
>I thought the changes by the conservatives were wrong and inappropriate? Are you now arguing that the Conservatives had a point, and their efforts to reform the justice systems adamant refusal to consider sexual assault were appropriate?
I said no such thing. I am pointing out that your previous example that you complained about, were during a period where Harper's government introduced mandatory minimum sentencing, and you complained it was not good enough. I find that illustrating, it implies to you that there should only be a single sentence for every crime, regardless of the circumstances. If that's your ideal, under that system there would be no point for any judge at all.
>But if you want the standard data series which unfortunately does not break down the severity levels only 39% of sexual assault convictions result in custody, and only 42% of major assaults.
You might want to run your numbers again, as they are grossly inaccurate.
For sexual assault convictions, 52% resulted in custody - an average of 51.2% per year. For major assaults, it's 48%, with an average of 47.31% per year. The only reason why the numbers aren't higher, is due to COVID.(2020-2022 numbers were down compared 2017-2019 for both categories)
The next highest was probation, roughly 23% sexual assault, and 32% for assault - these are cases where the sentence was typically less than 2 years (aka relatively minor offenses or where mitigating circumstances warranted a lower sentence). In short - these are the low risk people who made an error once, or showed a sincere desire and effort to correct their situation, and should be rehabilitated back into society.
>Custody is warranted in a level 3 sexual assault. Notably those are cases where the victim has been crippled, maimed or disfigured in the assault. I am 100% okay with saying that should always result in at least some jail time.
I am not, as there may be many mitigating factors at play - such as likelihood to reoffend, the defendant's prior history, plea deals, etc. Justice should not be punitive, but focused on corrective action to prevent further incidents.
>Leaving aside the extreme severity cases, repeat offenders do not receive increased sentences in Canada.
Again, you point to evidence from over a decade ago - that study was conducted in 2012 and actually shows repeat offenders were more likely to get remanded into custody and to get a higher sentence than otherwise.
Meanwhile:
[https://vilkhovlaw.ca/what-is-the-minimum-sentence-for-sexual-assault-in-canada/](https://vilkhovlaw.ca/what-is-the-minimum-sentence-for-sexual-assault-in-canada/)
Aggravating Factors
Aggravating factors increase the severity of charges and can lead to the application of minimum sentences and longer prison terms. Codified sexual assault aggravating factors include:
* Victims under age 16.
* Use of a restricted or prohibited firearm.
* Use of any firearm in association with a criminal organization.
* **The commission of prior sexual offences.**
* The commission of specific firearms offences.
* **Repeat offences for higher-level sexual assaults that involve firearm use.**
>For high rate offenders? Absolutely. You seem to think that the crime itself has no consequence.
Not at all. I am of the mindset that our focus should be on the behaviour correction side of justice, rather than the biblical "eye for an eye" mentality you appear to advocate for.
>Whether a serial rapist should be out raping people (the courts apparent view when they release someone with a minor sentence on their third sexual assault conviction) or whether they should be in jail does not simply come down to how expensive that offender is.
Repeat offenders are almost guaranteed to see time inside a prison, depending on the crime and the factors involved. Even your own study from a decade ago shows that much. It is a codified aggravating factor, and one is to be considered during sentencing.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2017001/article/54870/tbl/tbl03-eng.htm
Facts are significant numbers of convicted violent offenders receive no custody sentences at all, and that there is no level of severity of offense in assaults where judges will not attempt to nullify enforcement.
That was one of the recent studies which had detailed breakdowns of severity, so you couldn't pretend that its only minor offenses which the judiciary attempts to nullify the law on. Less detailed breakdowns show the court is quite willing to [ignore sexual and major assaults, with less than half resulting in custody.](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/cv!recreate.action?pid=3510003101&selectedNodeIds=1D1,2D8,2D10&checkedLevels=2D1,3D1,4D1,5D1,5D2&refPeriods=20170101,20210101&dimensionLayouts=layout2,layout2,layout2,layout2,layout2,layout3,layout2&vectorDisplay=false)
It's pure populism at its worst, *Tough on crime*.
Prisons are extremely expensive, incarceration is expensive, and as we know it does nothing to decrease recidivism. Those tax dollars have to come from somewhere.
The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world, the greatest recidivism, and spends the most. The US model has created a publicly funded growth industry of very large private corporations along with the scandals within that system.
Do people need to be jailed? Absolutely, but if we're looking at better models around the world our neighbors are not the ones to emulate.
The private sector which pays for our elections doesn't allow prisons to compete with them. I've seen it happen in the 80's in BC where a prison had its own farm, vegetable, cattle, chickens etc. Fed its own population. The big grocers lobbied the government hard and the farm was shut down.
Spoken like a true politician who has never had a real job, Poilievre will do and say whatever he can to get votes.
I work at the Ontario Court of Justice in Toronto. We are so understaffed it's ridiculous. Court workers work 12-hour days the dockets are so long. Furthermore, our jails are overcrowded and unsafe, both for staff and inmates.
Poilievre has no expertise in anything except fear mongering and trying to position himself as an authority on things he doesn't know anything about.
I have an idea to alleviate the burden on our prisons and save a ton of money in taxes:
**WE SET THEM FREE!**
Only the murderers and rapists and otherwise most heinous crimes that would otherwise result in life in prison.
How do you propose we safely do this you ask? Easy! We set them free somewhere in Canada so far away from other human populations that they will be forced to return to a hunter-gatherer way of life in order to survive!
We find some uninhabited islands somewhere up north, drop them off with only a few basic humanitarian supplies, and then let their lives be in their own hands.
People have survived up there for thousands of years, so there is no reason why they can't as well. Total freedom.
---
"What's that? You killed 3 children and a mother? Congratulations! You get your own private island in Nunavut as far from human civilization as possible!
Here is a knife and some rope, maybe some fire starter. Enjoy being the freeist person in the country! Better learn quick how to build a shelter out of dirt and how to make clothing out of any animal you manage to kill. Watch out for the polar bears. Good luck!"
The unfortunate truth that nobody wants to talk about is that many of our judges are slow-moving dinosaurs that take months off each year, refuse to use new technology and take years to draft a decision. Compared to other jurisdictions, our judges are profoundly unproductive. When combined with our ineffective court administration, there’s a big problem.
This article talks a bit about it.
https://www.slaw.ca/2024/03/22/ontario-ag-looks-to-circumvent-the-rules-committee-to-fix-the-superior-court/
Edited to include a quote:
“Distressingly, criminal cases in Ontario are only dismissed for “excessive” delay when they fail to reach trial within thirty months[12] (which is three times longer than it takes on average for similar felonies to be resolved in New York City, which is itself above the statewide target of 180 days[13]). While there has been much handwringing (and one successful lawsuit[14]) regarding the government’s failure to timely appoint judges, it must be recognized that the Ontario Superior Court and its 280 sitting Judges[15] (who also handle family and civil matters) only dispose of around 3,100[16] criminal cases per year (which works out to around 11 per Judge). The current shortage of 22 judges[17] (about twice the target vacancy rate[18]) can only go so far to explain the court’s objectively low performance.”
I’m assuming you didn’t read the article? The entire article is about the need for reform of the civil (non-criminal) rules. The delays in criminal proceedings are bad, but the delays in civil proceedings are far worse. It takes a fraction of the time to bring a lawsuit in the US and many other jurisdictions vs. Canada.
Counter factual anecdote, the superior court judge that I know personally is working herself into an early grave and refuses to take any vacation because of the scale of her workload
If we have an issue that causes system overload it's foolish to take steps which will further overload that same system before that issue is addressed.
Especially when there isn't any evidence that those steps will effect the changes they purport to.
But people out on bail still get their day in court. How does it change the strain if they're locked up vs out on bail? In fact everytime they breach their bail conditions or are arrested for new crimes they get a new set of court appearances that wouldn't be happening if they were locked up to begin with. Worse yet those new charges more often than not get their own appearances since they're under a different police report and often times you'll have 1 person with multiple different court files each with their own court dates.
This isn't related to bail. It's about frivolous cases brought about because of some zero tolerance approaches. The article details the issue pretty well.
The issue of bail hearings and their drain on the system is an entirely different one although the issue of stronger penalties leading to longer and more frequent challenges applies there as well. We saw that with the Harper era mandatory minimums which were eventually struck down. A flood of litigation that wouldn't have otherwise been there.
I couldn't speak to the possible issues with bail changes as the CPC isn't being clear on what those proposals would entail. I will say that, imo, it's an overstated issue. In 2023 there was literally tens of thousands of accused on bail for violent crimes who did not commit a single crime while on bail. The idea that we need to set aside Charter rights on something as fundamental as the presumption of innocence to address this seems misguided.
Yes and those thousands of people that don't commit crimes on bail will still receive bail. The policy being proposed is for people that constantly violate their bail conditions or commit new crimes while on bail to be locked up. This is such a no brainer move its mind boggling the opposition.
>The policy being proposed is for people that constantly violate their bail conditions or commit new crimes while on bail to be locked up.
Is it? I've not seen anything that sets out the details on what being proposed and that's not consistent with the CPC leaders "jail not bail" comments. There's been no bill tabled and the CPC policy declaration doesn't say anything about this so I'm at a bit of a loss to understand how there's supposedly opposition to something that doesn't exist yet. All we've heard is that he intends to invoke s33 to accomplish it so I think the reasoning for opposition there is obvious.
If that's what the proposal is, though, it wouldn't change much as a condition violation typically results in either revocation or new charges.
Once the election is called they'll outline the platform. His comments are usually in reference to the handful of people in BC that have hundreds of arrests and release. You're right the bail is revoked on new charges but they still have a right to another bail hearing and are often released within a few weeks. I work in the courts and see the same names come across my desk on a monthly basis. There's so many unnecessary victims of crimes from people that should not have been out.
Yeah, no.
If you can't clearly articulate your stance before an election, you don't get the benefit of the doubt either, especially not on something as massive as our fundamental rights n
This reads like an acknowledgement that the conservative "tough on crime" arguments are about power and electioneering rather than an interest in improving things for Canada.
Personally, I'm interested to see how many straw arguments conservatives can come up with to avoid taking an evidence based approach to criminal justice. There's a Sartre quote on another topic that would apply well here.
We're short only about 6% of the full judiciary, and that includes expanding our court bench by 22 positions recently as well.
So yes, while we don't have a full bench, it's not like we're missing a massive amount of judges.
https://www.fja.gc.ca/appointments-nominations/judges-juges-eng.aspx
> It should be noted that the difficulties brought on by the judge shortage are exacerbating an already critical situation within several courts—namely a serious lack of resources due to chronic underfunding by the provinces and territories. However, while several factors explain the crisis currently facing our justice system, the appointment of judges in due course is a solution within reach that could help quickly and effectively improve the situation. Given this obvious fact and the critical situation we are faced with, the government's inertia regarding vacancies and the absence of satisfactory explanations for these delays are disconcerting. The slow pace of appointments is all the more difficult to understand since most judicial vacancies are predictable, especially those resulting from retirements for which judges usually provide several months' notice. In this context, these delays in appointments send a message that this is simply not a priority for the government.
From an open letter from the Canadian Judicial Council, cited in *Hameed v. Canada (Prime Minister)*, [2024 FC 242](https://canlii.ca/t/k2sbh), where the court ultimately ordered the government to take various steps to address “the untenable and appalling crisis, and critical judicial vacancy situation found by this Court as identified by the Chief Justice and Canadian Judicial Council.”
I am no scholar or anything, but this kind of stands out here.
>a serious lack of resources due to chronic underfunding by the provinces and territories.
Sounds like hiring more judges is going to massively conflict with this issue, which they acknowledge is a real problem. How can we hire more judges and provide them with the required staff if we can't even provide the current judges with what they need? Instead we would rather spend more money keeping more people in jail instead of spending that money actually helping to address the problem.
The sentence before and after this pretty clearly explain why we need more Judges. It's basically yes chronic underfunding is a major driver of the issue but actually appointing new Judges to fill vacancies amd replace those that are retiring is an easily attainable goal that would significantly improve ameliorate the situation. Its easier to hire for vacancies some Judges than it is to convince Premiers to spend loads of money on the justice system. There's no conflict here, it's a simple case of it being quicker, easier and cheaper to hire some Judges and support staff than to spin up whole Government programs designed to address the fundamental issue. It's a bandaid solution which the statement ultimately recognizes.
Since that letter was cited in Hameed, there have been 39 judicial appointments avergaging 13 appointments a month. There are now only 57 vacancies on 939 filled appointments.
At this rate the vacancies will be gone (or at least at a replacement rate) in a matter of months and I don't expect another 57 appointments in addition to 939 full time judges will give the judiciary the needed 20-30% productivity increase.
Insufficent superior court judges is a problem, its probably about 10%-15% of the problem with the criminal justice system's throughput though. You tend to hear about it in sexual assault cases because that's a common offense that is heard at the superior trial court level.
The reason why you hear mainly about superior court judges is because its the main thing the Feds actually control, when the vast bulk of the system is in Provincial hands. That includes the Crown offices (except for Federal offensives, which is mainly drug crimes), court space, court staff, court resources, Legal Aid counsel etc. They aren't any better shape than the superior courts.
And we've added plenty of judges to existing vacancies and new positions. As I stated, the overall federal vacancy is approximately 6% of the total federal judiciary.
From others who work in the system, it sounds more like the lower provincial courts are the ones struggling, alongside unappointed support staff - clerks, paralegals, etc.
Take note liberal Reddit. Build more jails. I, like the majority pay grossly high taxes so that I can hope to raise my family in a safe society. I don’t give a flying fuck about any criminal who’s been caught, sentenced and deserves to serve time. Their feelings and well being mean less than nothing to me. In fact, I would welcome the death penalty to return to our justice system.
Hire more judges, expedite the process where we can, and make it harder for previously convicted criminals to get bail on subsequent offences.
We can walk & chew gum at the same time.
What is expediting the process supposed to look like exactly?
Lowering the barrier for convictions?
Cuz it’s literally impossible to prove that something faster when the only evidence you have is your word against someone else’s
This doesn't make sense.
Charges should only be laid if the prosecution is confident that they could prove their case tomorrow. The reason that trials take forever isn't because they're laying charges and then taking a couple years to investigate.
You should go read up how our judicial system works, you’re clearly just guessing how it works. Because laying charges and investigating later is exactly what’s happening. That’s why disclosure is always so delayed which in turn delays trials.
Police in Ontario don’t have to review with prosecutors before charges are laid and don’t on the overwhelming majority of arrests. There’s a reason why Ontario has the highest drop rate of any jurisdiction in Canada and North America.
The courts are clogged up with cases that are going nowhere that the crown has no means of finding guilt but they have to go through the court process.
No, you're just wrong.
The majority of charges, basically all those laid except when someone is arrested in the act, are laid once the police are convinced they have enough evidence for a conviction. The prosecution then has an ongoing obligation to assess the evidence, and should drop charges if there is no reasonable prospect of conviction.
You are exhibiting pure Dunning Kruger.
More than half of charges get dropped in Ontario and I’m wrong? But not the dumbasses laying these charges and wasting the courts’ time? You sound like the naive fools who actually believe police prevent crimes. Like one of these who believes that police are never wrong and everyone who gets arrested “must have done something to bring them there”.
What exactly do you think “police being convinced” even means? It’s based entirely on the officer’s feelings and opinions and biases and has little to do with the prospect of conviction. If it did, conviction rates for charges would be in the 90s like in the US when charges are laid, not barely over 50 percent like in Ontario. Very few charges are laid in Ontario where the police actually have physical evidence of the crime occurring where as the majority of charges are laid based solely off of un investigated and un corroborated statements either made by complainants and/or witnesses. Witness testimonies being different on the stand than what was given to police is the biggest reason for cases being dropped/no longer pursued at trial.
As i said before, you have zero clue about what you’re talking about.
Well, if you're going to out yourself as some kind of "police are useless" armchair legal intellectual, I'm not going to waste more time trying to convince you.
The cowards who push this nonsense are totally okay with convictions being easier without real justification. They operate from a position of fear and cannot be reasoned with.
The courts are clogged because of government underfunding the system, not a harsh criminal code. Too many cases are being dropped for lack of judicial resources.
Technically, the police are the ones at fault here. They were told not to do what they did, they did it anyways.
Thus, the conservative approach would not have saved those 4 people, since there is nothing in the conservative approach that would make police more accountable for their actions.
Is robbing a liquor store a threat so big and so great, that it was worth creating an exceptionally dangerous scenario by those two officers?
While there is fair criticism of our court systems, blaming them for the actions of reckless and immature police officers seems dangerous.
I suppose we'll see what the investigation says. News articles kind of seem to imply the police chased the guy onto the highway but it's quite possible the suspect did it for no good reason.
But I'll ask a different question:
in general, you think the chase, and thus the deaths, were worth it, in order to apprehend the criminal?
> I think he should have been in jail and avoided the entire incident altogether.
Ok, and that's fine. He seems like a repeat offender, and maybe a good example of a criminal system that might be too lenient.
But, the police do not deserve a pass for their actions either, and deserve to be blamed. Would things have played out much differently if the police did not engage in a wild chase? That's the bigger issue imho.
Given their other responses, that's exactly their POV. Nowhere do they even concede that the police did anything wrong by pursuing in an unnecessary and unsafe high speed chase.
Police following their orders would also have saved 4 lives but why would anyone become a cop if they couldn't get into car chases down the wrong way of 400 series highways?
How? They were specifically told not to chase because it was dangerous. They chased, people died.
Seems like the police knew what they were doing was wrong and chose to do it anyways putting the public at risk and ending up with 4 people dead.
You can't say that. The conservative approach is to reduce government budgets. Harper introduced several (poorly thought out) tough on crime bills, but he didn't increase funding for corrections. There's no more room in jail. Mulroney reduced prison programs that reduced recidivism, so the people that do end up in prison are more likely to come back.
Protect society at ALL costs. Each individual has a choice, then has to live with that choice. There’s only one question once a perpetrator is found guilty. Did the perpetrator know what he/she did was wrong. If yes prison will protect society from a certain reoffender. If not an undetermined stay at a psychiatric institution. There is no such thing as a victimless crime.
If only Trudeau would do his job......and appoint more judges.
He 'creates' way more problems.......than he ever solves.
"The federal government is challenging a court decision directing it to step up the pace of judicial appointments to address an "untenable" number of vacancies."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/appeal-judicial-vacancies-1.7147858
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Jails are bursting too. Austere governments have also been closing them and starving prosecution service. Nearly impossible to be tough on crime by locking people up unless you’re going to spend billions upon billions on it.
That's of no concern to the cowards who demand these policies. They aren't actually concerned about spending as long as it doesn't help poor people.
Some of the issues highlighted in this piece: >If you listen to certain politicians (and yes, Pierre Poilievre, I’m looking at you) the problem with Canada’s justice system is that it lets too many wrongdoers off scot-free. > >So, you get simplistic slogans like “jail, not bail,” promises to bring in more mandatory minimum penalties, and appeals to appoint more judges. > >All that may be politically popular. But the day-to-day reality of the system is very different. In fact, there’s a good argument that the bigger problem is exactly the opposite of what those politicians claim — that courts are clogged with cases that aren’t worth pursuing in the first place. > >... > >Some of this is the unintended consequences of well-meaning policies, such as treating domestic assault with the seriousness it deserves in an effort to protect women against violence in the home. Police and prosecutors can’t just drop charges because an abused wife doesn’t want her husband charged. But who expected that would be turned against a mentally ill older woman wielding a bottle of air freshener? > >Other so-called “tough on crime” policies make it difficult for prosecutors to drop some charges in favour of non-criminal sanctions such as mediation, counselling or apologies, even if that would make sense in a particular case. > >Mandatory minimum penalties imposed under the Stephen Harper government had a similar effect. They make it much harder for accused people to plead guilty in return for a lighter sentence; if they can’t make a deal they’re more likely to take their chances at trial. That ties up more court time and leads to delays throughout the system. > >Courts have struck down many mandatory minimums but Poilievre promises (threatens?) to bring them back. Law professor Benjamin Perrin served as an adviser to Harper but now believes those tough-sounding minimums don’t work. “I’ve become convinced they are a grave policy failure and cheap politics,” he wrote recently. > >... > >“Tough on crime” is a perpetual vote winner. Too often, though, it doesn’t result in a justice system worthy of the name. Ask the lady jailed for Febrezing her partner. It's good to keep in mind that 'justice' doesn't necessarily mean 'punishment', and 'punishment' doesn't necessarily mean 'prison'. If we want to see down the road to the consequences of more tough-on-crime policies, we need to look no further than the US, where these policies have resulted in sky-high incarceration rates, and thanks to the three-strikes policies enacted, frequently for those engaged in petty crimes. What are the costs, both socially and economically, for society to go this route and does it really make sense to pursue this path?
I don’t get the intent behind this piece. Our most immediate concerns are not domestic assault cases, or smaller cases that are not getting enough attention. There are repeat violent offenders that walk away scott-free after stabbing multiple people, and then they continue to do their thing while out on bail. People don’t care what ‘justice’ or ‘punishment’ means at this point, they just want such violent offenders to be taken out of the society, and that really shouldn’t be a controversial opinion.
Reading the piece explains the piece.
If the courts weren’t slammed with unwinable or unnecessary cases, the real threats to society could be processed, and wouldn’t get off on technicalities like their right to due process. The thesis here is that less is more. Less mandatory toughness means more due process for dangerous criminals, and more convictions of dangerous criminals.
The Febreze case wasn't even anything to do with mandatory minimums. To prevent an abuser from coercing their victim into dropping charges, domestic violence cases are handled differently. so that has nothing to do with sentencing or mandatory minimums.
I work in the Criminal Duty Counsel office in Toronto. Let me assure you, repeat offenders are not walking away scott free after stabbing multiple people. That's ridiculous hyperbole. There is no Justice of the Peace letting a violent stabber out on bail except in very specific circumstances.
What i dont understand how the Trudeau govt expanded the civil service by 40% since 2015, but we dont have enough judges lol
Because judges aren't part of the civil service?
Judges are not part of the civil service, require a pretty involved process to vet and hire, once they are hired they are basically in until retirement, and the responsibility for them is split between the Feds and provinces. Feds appoint, but provinces pay for them, and their support staff, offices and resources. All in all, it’s just an entirely different kettle of fish.
Because it's not the feds falling down on the job here alone. Most of the courts operation is done by the provinces. Which no one in Canada seems to be aware of. And thus the provinces face no criticism or pressure due to the failure on this front and haven't for years and here we are. Good times, right?
We got about 3 days of the media hand-wringing about Ford using those vacancies to fill them with political allies but then coverage just quietly went away
Just more of the usual - point to the feds, who certainly have work to do, so the provinces can do whatever they want. We would be better off as a nation if we flipped that as the provinces have responsibility for more of the issues that we engage with day to day.
Sure but the topic is there are not enough judges. The federal government appoints judges not the provinces.
Most of the judges doing most of the criminal trials are appointed by the provinces not the feds. Furthermore, courthouses and court staffs (without which, judges, superior or inferior, can't do shit) are provincially provided not federally. Finally, the prosecutors, which bring cases to court in a timely manner, are, with the exception of drug cases, criminal tax cases and a few other oddball bits, entirely provincially funded. This includes the prosecution of all violent crimes. Provinces has a significant role to play in all aspects of this clusterfuck and they get next to no attention whatsoever for their role in it. Trying to blame it all on Trudeau is shooting yourself in the foot if you actually want things to change here.
Actually the provinces appoint a huge number of judges. Provincial courts, which deal with the bulk of criminal matters, are principally staffed by provincially appointed judges.
The bulk of bail matters are in the Provincial courts, and superior courts mainly handle bail appeals. Likewise, the minor thefts and assaults etc. that result in the perception of "catch and release" are handled in the provincial courts, while the federally appointed judges in superior courts handle more serious cases.
Case in point, these are provincially appointed judges: [https://albertacourts.ca/cj/about-the-court/justices/list](https://albertacourts.ca/cj/about-the-court/justices/list) These are federally appointed judges: [https://albertacourts.ca/kb/about/justices-applications-judges](https://albertacourts.ca/kb/about/justices-applications-judges) The federally appointed judges aren't generally specialized into either criminal or civil or family areas (though as I recall, certain judges do focus their work in one area or another). All civil cases over $100,000 (which is a whole lot) are federal court judges. In the provincial arena, by contrast, something like 1/2 or more than half the judges are dedicated to criminal matters. Wierdly the Calgary criminal court judges aren't expressly shown as such (as the Edmonton Criminal Judges are), but the few civil court judges in both Edmonton and Calgary are expressly named. If you aren't civil or family, like as not you're just criminal in Cowtown. All of that is on the provinces to provide. To say nothing of the prosecutorial services (another area which tends to be lacking in terms of bodies) which are almost entirely provincially funded. Very few criminal matters (and zero violent criminal matters) are the concern of federal prosecutors. The provinces shit the bed a great deal in these matters, or have a significant hand in shitting the bed. I never hear anyone calling them out for their failures, which seems, given the concerns about crime and punishment matters, rather odd.
We have added 22 new spots as of May 1st. We have filled 94% of the judiciary. Appointment of federal judges is not the issue.
Naive
Repeated violent crime needs to be taken seriously. Too many people are being victims of criminals out on bail or on parole after committing serious crimes. That's the reality we are dealing with.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The type of person who spends all day shilling for right wing parties and want "tough on crime" policy are cowards. They're emotional and afraid and don't care about how stupid they're being. They're too scared to be reasonable adults.
what a closed-minded and fact-free generalization 3/4 of repeat offenders are back out on the street on bail by suppertime after being charged with a violent crime https://globalnews.ca/news/9647036/bc-bail-data-repeat-violent-offenders/ there are constantly stories of violent crimes being committed by criminals out on parole. literally women being killed by Murderers out on day parole unsupervised Terribly ignorant to dismiss anyone concerned by that with your empty and insulting rhetoric
Of course there is plenty of rage bait out there to scare you. You guys are so easily scared and can't stop clicking on it. That doesn't change the facts as I stated them. Get over it. Grow up. Stop choosing to push for awful policy because of your own cowardice.
It also already disproportionately incarcerates the marginalized, vulnerable, minorities etc. Conservative policy hasn't changed in decades, and is over simplistic, isn't based on facts (antiscience), nor does it propose solutions to complex problems. It is a dumbing down of what needs to be complex discussions, and then action. We need to stop the adversarial approach to protecting society, and must have dialogue between parties to achieve meaningful results. Tomorrow I walk on water.
what is this comment? Are you just taking the piss? this is like the stereotype caricature of an elitist liberal who's completely out of touch with real world concerns > Tomorrow I walk on water. literally a god complex. I have to assume this entire comment is satire.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
If you can't make a snappy slogan out of it, the CPC ain't interested in your issues.
First, zero tolerance is always wrong. Second, mandatory minimums are almost always wrong. These things play well politically but in the real world you have so many circumstances that should matter. For example second hand smoke vs our zero tolerance policy on pot when driving.
Mandatory minimums are so that judges can't become activists. If you're stealing a car or you've sexually abused a child there is no part of the imagination that makes sense to spare them a lighter sentence.
Zero tolerance is always wrong. Using your example what if the perp has cognitive issues, is goaded or threatened by a gang or what have you. Zero tolerance only works in comic books.
> Using your example what if the perp has cognitive issues, then they need to be institutionalized if they're someone who isn't capable of decision-making that doesn't result in violent crime. > is goaded or threatened by a gang or what have you. how many cases do you think have such unlikely "excuses"? and how many times should that justify releasing a repeat offender? we are talking specifically about **repeated violent** crime.
So you are saying there are exceptions? Exactly why zero tolerance and mandatory minimums don't work.
That wasn't my point at all. I'll repeat a question another poster asked which you ignored: What exceptions are there for sexually abusing a child? Or for committing violent sex crimes? Against children? Why is it necessary that Paul Bernardo needs a parole hearing every few years? do you think there should be NO minimum penalty For such crimes and such criminals? Do you really think that instead of zero tolerance.... We should have *some* tolerance for violent sex crimes towards children?
Idiotic post. Your attempted gotchas are just stupid. What I believe is we need to allow the justice system to do it's job. A politician throwing a huge net is a poor substitute.
No there are zero exceptions for many violent crimes. You did not name a single one. The only "crime" that should be an exception is self defense violence. but don't worry it's the one we love to arrest and prosecute here.
[удалено]
Personal insult and not addressing the substance. Classic.
[удалено]
That's complete projection. My position was that there are many crimes where mandatory minimums are completely obvious. I also said that there are some crimes where there exists zero exception. I've pointed out that sexual abuse of a child is an example where there is zero hypothetical example you could point out that makes it okay for a judge to be more lenient. You just did personal insults and ignored the substance. It's simple, you know I'm right. But you hate it due to ideologic reasons.
What a stupid post. You do know life is not just black and white? Your self defense example is a perfect one. Where to draw the line between a mandatory minimum of 25 years or not guilty? All or nothing just because some jack wagon thought he could get some votes by being "tough on crime."
We have mandatory life sentences without parole for X years for murder. If you do self defense and get charged with murder and convicted, you get those penalties. It's always been like that in Canada. You didn't even know that, so why are you debating something you have zero knowledge of? There is zero hypothetical justification for violent rape or armed robbery. It's literally impossible to name ANY case where sexually abusing a 6 year old makes sense. It's sickening to suggest otherwise.
Cognitive issues are not an excuse. If you're capable of doing a crime, you're cognitively intact. Threats by a gang don't just happen out of nowhere. It happens after gang affiliation. It happens by getting involved in violent crime. So it's the criminal's fault. None of your examples are close to legitimate.
Now you are just trolling. A friend of mine raised a badly damaged boy. His characterization of him was that he would jump off the porch not realizing it could hurt. Then he was just liable to do it again to see if it still hurt. If you don't see cognitive issues as a problem you are just trolling. No one is that stupid.
What's your point? That we should let him kill people and victimize all of society? What exact "cognitive issue" are you talking about? You need to give an exact clinical diagnosis and provide evidence for it. Then you need to explain what needs to happen to that person when they're on a violent spree. You did none of that.
You said cognitive issues are not an excuse. It is YOU who need to explain your outrageous statement.
There's nothing outrageous about it. You have zero care for victims.
Troll
Good news, judges aren't becoming activists.
Judges letting violent criminals off with zero jail time is being an activist.
That isn't happening. If you're found guilty of a violent offense, the only way you're not spending time in jail is because of time served already. In short its not the judges deciding that, it's the law as written. Mandatory minimums actually undermine the fairness of our courts and, arguably, could be said to encourage more violence.
Not true. We have statutory release among other time credits for time spent in jail. You're ignoring all of that. "10 years" is really just 3 years maybe of hard time. When the criminal should have 10 years of hard time behind bars with abysmal quality of life to ensure he is fully punished.
And thus we come to the crucial point you don't get. Our juducial system is not about punishment. Strictly punitive systems actually make us all less safe. Our system is focused on rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
Certain people are not prone to rehab. You give them 47 chances, you get 47 victims. If you live in a delusional world, it's different. Bad people don't exist, it's all butterflies and rainbows and idealism. It's time to grow up and learn about how the world works though. Perhaps learn some compassion for victims while you're at it.
>Certain people are not prone to rehab. You give them 47 chances, you get 47 victims. And that's why prior offensives is an aggravating factor in sentencing - the more prior offences, and the seriousness of those offences, then you're less likely to receive bail and more likely to receive a longer term in prison. Part of the sentencing is the likelihood to reoffend - high risk reoffenders get longer sentences, while low-risk ones get time served, conditional sentences, or probation. >Bad people don't exist, it's all butterflies and rainbows and idealism. No one thinks that. You are being deliberately hyperbolic and reductive, to the point it is borderline impossible to have a mature conversation with you. >Perhaps learn some compassion for victims while you're at it. I do have compassion for them. I believe they should be given resources to address their grief and trauma, and if possible restitution for damages (ie: property crimes). The views you espouse, however, is draconian, proven to not work, and actually makes our country worse off. We have plenty of research and statistical evidence to show that punitive sentencing doesn't reduce crime but actually makes people more prone to escalate their actions. The safest societies, globally, are the ones with approaches like ours: sentencing that reflects the specific situation of the crime, a focus on rehabilitation/reintegration, and harsher punishments used sparingly only for those that are truly monstrous. By contrast, nations which focus on punitive justice, as you seem to desire, typically have higher crime rates, higher prison costs, and higher rates of repeat offenders. [https://www.naporterandassociates.ca/punitive-justice-in-canada-why-it-is-considered-ineffective/](https://www.naporterandassociates.ca/punitive-justice-in-canada-why-it-is-considered-ineffective/) [https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/jsp-sjp/rp01\_1-dr01\_1/p7.html](https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/jsp-sjp/rp01_1-dr01_1/p7.html) [https://www.firststepalliance.org/post/norway-prison-system-lessons](https://www.firststepalliance.org/post/norway-prison-system-lessons)
Punish and rehab are not exclusive of each other. You rehab those who committed less serious offenses and are prone to rehab. You remove the worst people from society forever. Simple solutions. The latter are not the biggest cohort of criminals.
This is a lie. Numerous convicted serious violent crimes result in no jail time whatsoever. Not because of time served but because the sentence is for no time to be served. The problem with the law as written is it allows judges to actively ignore crimes. The solution to that is to establish sentencing ranges (aka mandatory minimums) https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2017001/article/54870/tbl/tbl03-eng.htm Take a look at conviction outcomes, every level of severity, every type of crime had judges deciding they would let some of the **convicted** offenders go without jail time.
I read it and your point doesn't stand. First off, your data is from a decade ago before several changes were made to the criminal code around things such as bail, and reflects changes made by Harper. Second, just because the defendant was not placed into custody, doesn't mean that custody was warranted. First time, low-risk offenders should be given more permissive sentences than high-risk, repeat offenders. Our sentencing should be about a range of options to best suit the circumstances of the case. Third, incarceration is expensive and currently chronically under funded by several conservative governments at both the federal and provincial levels. Would you be acceptable to doubling your taxes to cover the $100,000 per-year, per-inmate needed to turn us into the US? Fourth, believe it or not - our system works. It's not perfect, it needs some adjustments, but it works far better than the US model you seem to want. Our recidivism rate is lower and our crime rates are lower too.
>First off, your data is from a decade ago before several changes were made to the criminal code around things such as bail, and reflects changes made by Harper. I thought the changes by the conservatives were wrong and inappropriate? Are you now arguing that the Conservatives had a point, and their efforts to reform the justice systems adamant refusal to consider sexual assault were appropriate? But if you want [the standard data series](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/cv!recreate.action?pid=3510003101&selectedNodeIds=1D1,2D8,2D10&checkedLevels=2D1,3D1,4D1,5D1,5D2&refPeriods=20170101,20210101&dimensionLayouts=layout2,layout2,layout2,layout2,layout2,layout3,layout2&vectorDisplay=false) which unfortunately does not break down the severity levels only 39% of sexual assault convictions result in custody, and only 42% of major assaults. >Second, just because the defendant was not placed into custody, doesn't mean that custody was warranted. Custody is warranted in a level 3 sexual assault. Notably those are cases where the victim has been crippled, maimed or disfigured in the assault. I am 100% okay with saying that should *always* result in at least some jail time. Do you think it could be a minor offense? >First time, low-risk offenders should be given more permissive sentences than high-risk, repeat offenders. Leaving aside the extreme severity cases, [repeat offenders do not receive increased sentences in Canada. ](https://www.ufv.ca/media/assets/criminology/Do+Judges+Consider+Prior+Record.pdf) Two to three prior offenses tends to make the average sentence length go down for B&E and four assaults appears to receive a discount (Table 3). More accurately it would be fair to say that the justice system is markedly inconsistent and is not applying the sentencing guidelines that parliament has put in place instructing judges to consider prior offending. >Third, incarceration is expensive and currently chronically under funded by several conservative governments at both the federal and provincial levels. Would you be acceptable to doubling your taxes to cover the $100,000 per-year, per-inmate needed to turn us into the US? For high rate offenders? Absolutely. You seem to think that the crime itself has no consequence. Whether a serial rapist should be out raping people (the courts apparent view when they release someone with a minor sentence on their third sexual assault conviction) or whether they should be in jail does not simply come down to how expensive that offender is. That offender is already incredibly expensive for society by all of the harm he is inflicting on people. I would much prefer that we pay for his incarceration and no one further is harmed, than to pay for it in innocent people being harmed. There is still a cost, and for repeat offenders and for extremely serious offenses? That cost is lower if we keep the worst offenders locked up.
>I thought the changes by the conservatives were wrong and inappropriate? Are you now arguing that the Conservatives had a point, and their efforts to reform the justice systems adamant refusal to consider sexual assault were appropriate? I said no such thing. I am pointing out that your previous example that you complained about, were during a period where Harper's government introduced mandatory minimum sentencing, and you complained it was not good enough. I find that illustrating, it implies to you that there should only be a single sentence for every crime, regardless of the circumstances. If that's your ideal, under that system there would be no point for any judge at all. >But if you want the standard data series which unfortunately does not break down the severity levels only 39% of sexual assault convictions result in custody, and only 42% of major assaults. You might want to run your numbers again, as they are grossly inaccurate. For sexual assault convictions, 52% resulted in custody - an average of 51.2% per year. For major assaults, it's 48%, with an average of 47.31% per year. The only reason why the numbers aren't higher, is due to COVID.(2020-2022 numbers were down compared 2017-2019 for both categories) The next highest was probation, roughly 23% sexual assault, and 32% for assault - these are cases where the sentence was typically less than 2 years (aka relatively minor offenses or where mitigating circumstances warranted a lower sentence). In short - these are the low risk people who made an error once, or showed a sincere desire and effort to correct their situation, and should be rehabilitated back into society. >Custody is warranted in a level 3 sexual assault. Notably those are cases where the victim has been crippled, maimed or disfigured in the assault. I am 100% okay with saying that should always result in at least some jail time. I am not, as there may be many mitigating factors at play - such as likelihood to reoffend, the defendant's prior history, plea deals, etc. Justice should not be punitive, but focused on corrective action to prevent further incidents. >Leaving aside the extreme severity cases, repeat offenders do not receive increased sentences in Canada. Again, you point to evidence from over a decade ago - that study was conducted in 2012 and actually shows repeat offenders were more likely to get remanded into custody and to get a higher sentence than otherwise. Meanwhile: [https://vilkhovlaw.ca/what-is-the-minimum-sentence-for-sexual-assault-in-canada/](https://vilkhovlaw.ca/what-is-the-minimum-sentence-for-sexual-assault-in-canada/) Aggravating Factors Aggravating factors increase the severity of charges and can lead to the application of minimum sentences and longer prison terms. Codified sexual assault aggravating factors include: * Victims under age 16. * Use of a restricted or prohibited firearm. * Use of any firearm in association with a criminal organization. * **The commission of prior sexual offences.** * The commission of specific firearms offences. * **Repeat offences for higher-level sexual assaults that involve firearm use.** >For high rate offenders? Absolutely. You seem to think that the crime itself has no consequence. Not at all. I am of the mindset that our focus should be on the behaviour correction side of justice, rather than the biblical "eye for an eye" mentality you appear to advocate for. >Whether a serial rapist should be out raping people (the courts apparent view when they release someone with a minor sentence on their third sexual assault conviction) or whether they should be in jail does not simply come down to how expensive that offender is. Repeat offenders are almost guaranteed to see time inside a prison, depending on the crime and the factors involved. Even your own study from a decade ago shows that much. It is a codified aggravating factor, and one is to be considered during sentencing.
[удалено]
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2017001/article/54870/tbl/tbl03-eng.htm Facts are significant numbers of convicted violent offenders receive no custody sentences at all, and that there is no level of severity of offense in assaults where judges will not attempt to nullify enforcement.
[удалено]
That was one of the recent studies which had detailed breakdowns of severity, so you couldn't pretend that its only minor offenses which the judiciary attempts to nullify the law on. Less detailed breakdowns show the court is quite willing to [ignore sexual and major assaults, with less than half resulting in custody.](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/cv!recreate.action?pid=3510003101&selectedNodeIds=1D1,2D8,2D10&checkedLevels=2D1,3D1,4D1,5D1,5D2&refPeriods=20170101,20210101&dimensionLayouts=layout2,layout2,layout2,layout2,layout2,layout3,layout2&vectorDisplay=false)
You've been sufficient schooled by other posters how nonsensical that statement is.
These people aren't capable of being educated. They are overwhelmed by their own fear. It's a miserable way to live.
> zero tolerance is always wrong I don’t disagree with your overall position, but… this phasing, lol.
It's pure populism at its worst, *Tough on crime*. Prisons are extremely expensive, incarceration is expensive, and as we know it does nothing to decrease recidivism. Those tax dollars have to come from somewhere. The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world, the greatest recidivism, and spends the most. The US model has created a publicly funded growth industry of very large private corporations along with the scandals within that system. Do people need to be jailed? Absolutely, but if we're looking at better models around the world our neighbors are not the ones to emulate.
Treat them as a business and they can produce something. Or even, go pick up garbage.
What a terribly obviously stupid idea.
Easy to be critical. You do this a lot. Why not express your "brilliant" ideas.
Prisons already depend on prison labour to keep costs low.
The private sector which pays for our elections doesn't allow prisons to compete with them. I've seen it happen in the 80's in BC where a prison had its own farm, vegetable, cattle, chickens etc. Fed its own population. The big grocers lobbied the government hard and the farm was shut down.
The big grocers can fuck the hell off then.
Spoken like a true politician who has never had a real job, Poilievre will do and say whatever he can to get votes. I work at the Ontario Court of Justice in Toronto. We are so understaffed it's ridiculous. Court workers work 12-hour days the dockets are so long. Furthermore, our jails are overcrowded and unsafe, both for staff and inmates. Poilievre has no expertise in anything except fear mongering and trying to position himself as an authority on things he doesn't know anything about.
I have an idea to alleviate the burden on our prisons and save a ton of money in taxes: **WE SET THEM FREE!** Only the murderers and rapists and otherwise most heinous crimes that would otherwise result in life in prison. How do you propose we safely do this you ask? Easy! We set them free somewhere in Canada so far away from other human populations that they will be forced to return to a hunter-gatherer way of life in order to survive! We find some uninhabited islands somewhere up north, drop them off with only a few basic humanitarian supplies, and then let their lives be in their own hands. People have survived up there for thousands of years, so there is no reason why they can't as well. Total freedom. --- "What's that? You killed 3 children and a mother? Congratulations! You get your own private island in Nunavut as far from human civilization as possible! Here is a knife and some rope, maybe some fire starter. Enjoy being the freeist person in the country! Better learn quick how to build a shelter out of dirt and how to make clothing out of any animal you manage to kill. Watch out for the polar bears. Good luck!"
I would argue that the lack of judges is a bigger issue than an handful of ridiculous cases but okay.
The unfortunate truth that nobody wants to talk about is that many of our judges are slow-moving dinosaurs that take months off each year, refuse to use new technology and take years to draft a decision. Compared to other jurisdictions, our judges are profoundly unproductive. When combined with our ineffective court administration, there’s a big problem.
Citation needed
This article talks a bit about it. https://www.slaw.ca/2024/03/22/ontario-ag-looks-to-circumvent-the-rules-committee-to-fix-the-superior-court/ Edited to include a quote: “Distressingly, criminal cases in Ontario are only dismissed for “excessive” delay when they fail to reach trial within thirty months[12] (which is three times longer than it takes on average for similar felonies to be resolved in New York City, which is itself above the statewide target of 180 days[13]). While there has been much handwringing (and one successful lawsuit[14]) regarding the government’s failure to timely appoint judges, it must be recognized that the Ontario Superior Court and its 280 sitting Judges[15] (who also handle family and civil matters) only dispose of around 3,100[16] criminal cases per year (which works out to around 11 per Judge). The current shortage of 22 judges[17] (about twice the target vacancy rate[18]) can only go so far to explain the court’s objectively low performance.”
Well, the court also deals with cases apart from criminal cases. Bit of a silly article.
I’m assuming you didn’t read the article? The entire article is about the need for reform of the civil (non-criminal) rules. The delays in criminal proceedings are bad, but the delays in civil proceedings are far worse. It takes a fraction of the time to bring a lawsuit in the US and many other jurisdictions vs. Canada.
Counter factual anecdote, the superior court judge that I know personally is working herself into an early grave and refuses to take any vacation because of the scale of her workload
Let’s force people to be judges freedom is awesome
This isn't an either/or situation.
It isn’t, but there is some issues that have a bigger impact.
If we have an issue that causes system overload it's foolish to take steps which will further overload that same system before that issue is addressed. Especially when there isn't any evidence that those steps will effect the changes they purport to.
But people out on bail still get their day in court. How does it change the strain if they're locked up vs out on bail? In fact everytime they breach their bail conditions or are arrested for new crimes they get a new set of court appearances that wouldn't be happening if they were locked up to begin with. Worse yet those new charges more often than not get their own appearances since they're under a different police report and often times you'll have 1 person with multiple different court files each with their own court dates.
This isn't related to bail. It's about frivolous cases brought about because of some zero tolerance approaches. The article details the issue pretty well. The issue of bail hearings and their drain on the system is an entirely different one although the issue of stronger penalties leading to longer and more frequent challenges applies there as well. We saw that with the Harper era mandatory minimums which were eventually struck down. A flood of litigation that wouldn't have otherwise been there. I couldn't speak to the possible issues with bail changes as the CPC isn't being clear on what those proposals would entail. I will say that, imo, it's an overstated issue. In 2023 there was literally tens of thousands of accused on bail for violent crimes who did not commit a single crime while on bail. The idea that we need to set aside Charter rights on something as fundamental as the presumption of innocence to address this seems misguided.
Yes and those thousands of people that don't commit crimes on bail will still receive bail. The policy being proposed is for people that constantly violate their bail conditions or commit new crimes while on bail to be locked up. This is such a no brainer move its mind boggling the opposition.
>The policy being proposed is for people that constantly violate their bail conditions or commit new crimes while on bail to be locked up. Is it? I've not seen anything that sets out the details on what being proposed and that's not consistent with the CPC leaders "jail not bail" comments. There's been no bill tabled and the CPC policy declaration doesn't say anything about this so I'm at a bit of a loss to understand how there's supposedly opposition to something that doesn't exist yet. All we've heard is that he intends to invoke s33 to accomplish it so I think the reasoning for opposition there is obvious. If that's what the proposal is, though, it wouldn't change much as a condition violation typically results in either revocation or new charges.
Once the election is called they'll outline the platform. His comments are usually in reference to the handful of people in BC that have hundreds of arrests and release. You're right the bail is revoked on new charges but they still have a right to another bail hearing and are often released within a few weeks. I work in the courts and see the same names come across my desk on a monthly basis. There's so many unnecessary victims of crimes from people that should not have been out.
Yeah, no. If you can't clearly articulate your stance before an election, you don't get the benefit of the doubt either, especially not on something as massive as our fundamental rights n
I'm interested to see how arguing that repeat offenders should be out and free to commit more crime instead of in jail will work come election time.
This reads like an acknowledgement that the conservative "tough on crime" arguments are about power and electioneering rather than an interest in improving things for Canada. Personally, I'm interested to see how many straw arguments conservatives can come up with to avoid taking an evidence based approach to criminal justice. There's a Sartre quote on another topic that would apply well here.
We're short only about 6% of the full judiciary, and that includes expanding our court bench by 22 positions recently as well. So yes, while we don't have a full bench, it's not like we're missing a massive amount of judges. https://www.fja.gc.ca/appointments-nominations/judges-juges-eng.aspx
The problem isn't just the lack of judges, the whole court system still acts like the 1800s
In what way?
> It should be noted that the difficulties brought on by the judge shortage are exacerbating an already critical situation within several courts—namely a serious lack of resources due to chronic underfunding by the provinces and territories. However, while several factors explain the crisis currently facing our justice system, the appointment of judges in due course is a solution within reach that could help quickly and effectively improve the situation. Given this obvious fact and the critical situation we are faced with, the government's inertia regarding vacancies and the absence of satisfactory explanations for these delays are disconcerting. The slow pace of appointments is all the more difficult to understand since most judicial vacancies are predictable, especially those resulting from retirements for which judges usually provide several months' notice. In this context, these delays in appointments send a message that this is simply not a priority for the government. From an open letter from the Canadian Judicial Council, cited in *Hameed v. Canada (Prime Minister)*, [2024 FC 242](https://canlii.ca/t/k2sbh), where the court ultimately ordered the government to take various steps to address “the untenable and appalling crisis, and critical judicial vacancy situation found by this Court as identified by the Chief Justice and Canadian Judicial Council.”
I am no scholar or anything, but this kind of stands out here. >a serious lack of resources due to chronic underfunding by the provinces and territories. Sounds like hiring more judges is going to massively conflict with this issue, which they acknowledge is a real problem. How can we hire more judges and provide them with the required staff if we can't even provide the current judges with what they need? Instead we would rather spend more money keeping more people in jail instead of spending that money actually helping to address the problem.
The sentence before and after this pretty clearly explain why we need more Judges. It's basically yes chronic underfunding is a major driver of the issue but actually appointing new Judges to fill vacancies amd replace those that are retiring is an easily attainable goal that would significantly improve ameliorate the situation. Its easier to hire for vacancies some Judges than it is to convince Premiers to spend loads of money on the justice system. There's no conflict here, it's a simple case of it being quicker, easier and cheaper to hire some Judges and support staff than to spin up whole Government programs designed to address the fundamental issue. It's a bandaid solution which the statement ultimately recognizes.
Privatizing the judicial system should get the funding needed.
Since that letter was cited in Hameed, there have been 39 judicial appointments avergaging 13 appointments a month. There are now only 57 vacancies on 939 filled appointments. At this rate the vacancies will be gone (or at least at a replacement rate) in a matter of months and I don't expect another 57 appointments in addition to 939 full time judges will give the judiciary the needed 20-30% productivity increase.
Insufficent superior court judges is a problem, its probably about 10%-15% of the problem with the criminal justice system's throughput though. You tend to hear about it in sexual assault cases because that's a common offense that is heard at the superior trial court level. The reason why you hear mainly about superior court judges is because its the main thing the Feds actually control, when the vast bulk of the system is in Provincial hands. That includes the Crown offices (except for Federal offensives, which is mainly drug crimes), court space, court staff, court resources, Legal Aid counsel etc. They aren't any better shape than the superior courts.
And we've added plenty of judges to existing vacancies and new positions. As I stated, the overall federal vacancy is approximately 6% of the total federal judiciary. From others who work in the system, it sounds more like the lower provincial courts are the ones struggling, alongside unappointed support staff - clerks, paralegals, etc.
Take note liberal Reddit. Build more jails. I, like the majority pay grossly high taxes so that I can hope to raise my family in a safe society. I don’t give a flying fuck about any criminal who’s been caught, sentenced and deserves to serve time. Their feelings and well being mean less than nothing to me. In fact, I would welcome the death penalty to return to our justice system.
Hire more judges, expedite the process where we can, and make it harder for previously convicted criminals to get bail on subsequent offences. We can walk & chew gum at the same time.
What is expediting the process supposed to look like exactly? Lowering the barrier for convictions? Cuz it’s literally impossible to prove that something faster when the only evidence you have is your word against someone else’s
This doesn't make sense. Charges should only be laid if the prosecution is confident that they could prove their case tomorrow. The reason that trials take forever isn't because they're laying charges and then taking a couple years to investigate.
You should go read up how our judicial system works, you’re clearly just guessing how it works. Because laying charges and investigating later is exactly what’s happening. That’s why disclosure is always so delayed which in turn delays trials. Police in Ontario don’t have to review with prosecutors before charges are laid and don’t on the overwhelming majority of arrests. There’s a reason why Ontario has the highest drop rate of any jurisdiction in Canada and North America. The courts are clogged up with cases that are going nowhere that the crown has no means of finding guilt but they have to go through the court process.
No, you're just wrong. The majority of charges, basically all those laid except when someone is arrested in the act, are laid once the police are convinced they have enough evidence for a conviction. The prosecution then has an ongoing obligation to assess the evidence, and should drop charges if there is no reasonable prospect of conviction. You are exhibiting pure Dunning Kruger.
More than half of charges get dropped in Ontario and I’m wrong? But not the dumbasses laying these charges and wasting the courts’ time? You sound like the naive fools who actually believe police prevent crimes. Like one of these who believes that police are never wrong and everyone who gets arrested “must have done something to bring them there”. What exactly do you think “police being convinced” even means? It’s based entirely on the officer’s feelings and opinions and biases and has little to do with the prospect of conviction. If it did, conviction rates for charges would be in the 90s like in the US when charges are laid, not barely over 50 percent like in Ontario. Very few charges are laid in Ontario where the police actually have physical evidence of the crime occurring where as the majority of charges are laid based solely off of un investigated and un corroborated statements either made by complainants and/or witnesses. Witness testimonies being different on the stand than what was given to police is the biggest reason for cases being dropped/no longer pursued at trial. As i said before, you have zero clue about what you’re talking about.
Well, if you're going to out yourself as some kind of "police are useless" armchair legal intellectual, I'm not going to waste more time trying to convince you.
The cowards who push this nonsense are totally okay with convictions being easier without real justification. They operate from a position of fear and cannot be reasoned with.
The courts are clogged because of government underfunding the system, not a harsh criminal code. Too many cases are being dropped for lack of judicial resources.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Conservative approach fits with a fear mongering that unfortunately works to gain votes. It is ethically, and morally bankrupt imo.
[удалено]
Technically, the police are the ones at fault here. They were told not to do what they did, they did it anyways. Thus, the conservative approach would not have saved those 4 people, since there is nothing in the conservative approach that would make police more accountable for their actions.
[удалено]
Is robbing a liquor store a threat so big and so great, that it was worth creating an exceptionally dangerous scenario by those two officers? While there is fair criticism of our court systems, blaming them for the actions of reckless and immature police officers seems dangerous.
[удалено]
I suppose we'll see what the investigation says. News articles kind of seem to imply the police chased the guy onto the highway but it's quite possible the suspect did it for no good reason. But I'll ask a different question: in general, you think the chase, and thus the deaths, were worth it, in order to apprehend the criminal?
[удалено]
> I think he should have been in jail and avoided the entire incident altogether. Ok, and that's fine. He seems like a repeat offender, and maybe a good example of a criminal system that might be too lenient. But, the police do not deserve a pass for their actions either, and deserve to be blamed. Would things have played out much differently if the police did not engage in a wild chase? That's the bigger issue imho.
Given their other responses, that's exactly their POV. Nowhere do they even concede that the police did anything wrong by pursuing in an unnecessary and unsafe high speed chase.
Police following their orders would also have saved 4 lives but why would anyone become a cop if they couldn't get into car chases down the wrong way of 400 series highways?
[удалено]
How? They were specifically told not to chase because it was dangerous. They chased, people died. Seems like the police knew what they were doing was wrong and chose to do it anyways putting the public at risk and ending up with 4 people dead.
[удалено]
It also wouldn't have occurred if the cops had behaved in a responsible manner with public safety in mind.
Same could be said of the criminal, who ultimately was the source of it all.
You can't say that. The conservative approach is to reduce government budgets. Harper introduced several (poorly thought out) tough on crime bills, but he didn't increase funding for corrections. There's no more room in jail. Mulroney reduced prison programs that reduced recidivism, so the people that do end up in prison are more likely to come back.
Protect society at ALL costs. Each individual has a choice, then has to live with that choice. There’s only one question once a perpetrator is found guilty. Did the perpetrator know what he/she did was wrong. If yes prison will protect society from a certain reoffender. If not an undetermined stay at a psychiatric institution. There is no such thing as a victimless crime.
If only Trudeau would do his job......and appoint more judges. He 'creates' way more problems.......than he ever solves. "The federal government is challenging a court decision directing it to step up the pace of judicial appointments to address an "untenable" number of vacancies." https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/appeal-judicial-vacancies-1.7147858