Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page 1, 2  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Stephen





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 645
Reputation: 72.9
votes: 5
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:10 pm    Post subject: Three strikes bill Reply with quote

What do you think about the Tories plan to get tough on repeat offenders?

This seems to follow along their plan to be the law and order party and crack down on violent offenders.

Does the reverse onus aspect of the legislation violate the Charter?

Does it give the state too much power?

Even NDP Toronto mayor David Miller wants to use reverse onus on gun crime offenders.

What do you think about the legislation and its implications?
serah





Joined: 25 Sep 2006
Posts: 13
Reputation: 12.4
Location: Vancouver

PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 8:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I support it. I believe that there are enough safeguards incorporated into the text to prevent blatant abuse. (accused's right to challenged "dangerous offender" title, the use of the word "violent" not "serious" etc.) I think this will avoid some of the problems California had with convicting people on 3rd offences, even if the 3rd offence was not violent.

If it helps keep people like Peter Whitmore away from children, fine with me. Though I don't have the details of that case in front of me, I was appalled at how much he had gotten away with previously without being locked away for longer, even after being deemed "a large risk to the public" in 2001. [my apologies - being an armchair jurist here. Innocent until proven guilty, right?]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but part of the controversy is whether this contravenes innocent until proven guilty?(at least this is the way I interpreted from an MSM article I read) Well, in my mind the accused has already been proven guilty for 3 violent offences. Good enough for me.

I doubt this legislation would be a deterrent (I'm pretty sure that it's been proven that risk of incarceration is not a significant deterrent for those committing more violent crimes) but it will make our country safer by keeping some of the real nutters (see above) locked away.

However, other places that have passed this into law have had surges the number of people requiring incarceration. Has Harper made any steps towards being able to accommodate a potential increase in inmates at our already crowded prisons?
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 9:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm mostly agreed with the above. This legislation, and the strengthening of selective incapacitation as a concept in our correctional system, is well overdue.

The constitutional argument is a red herring - posturing for members of the public and the lib-left base who don't know much about criminal law. As has been noted, the proposed reverse onus applies only to determination of dangerous offender status, which occurs post-trial and post-conviction. The principal of 'innocent until proven guilty' remains unaffected by the proposed legislation.

I also share concerns that we don't currently have the prison capacity to handle to influx of new prisoners, but this is something that can be corrected later.
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I support it fully..


I'm not worried about any influx of people in prisons - most of those people would be in and out of prison anyhow, their presence there more permanently won't cause any major problems. We might need to beef up the prison system a bit more in the coming years, but that's something that's already on the horizon anyhow..

I don't think there's too many three time losers that don't go for a fourth/fifth/sixth etc..

Deterent is not the purpose of this law - protecting the innocent from people who can't be detered is.. ;) I find the argument that it won't deter crime to be a bit of a smoke-screen.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 12:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Charter arguments against reverse onus has been used successfully but we're not talking about a criminal accusation here. We're talking about a part of the sentencing process. The onus to prove criminality has already been discharged... three times!!

The number of people who have convictions for three serious violent offences or three sexual offences are statistically insignificant. Keeping them in jail is an excellent idea since they're likely career criminals who contribute nothing to society except grief and loss.

I'm actually kind of surprised to hear criminal defence lawyers complaining about this. The process to fight against a Dangerous Offender designation would be a nice, expensive one for them to bill out.

-Mac
don muntean





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 2262
Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9
votes: 8
Location: Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 12:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Three strikes - that's too lenient - otherwise - it's good sense - it should have been this way all along.
CC Scott





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 151
Reputation: 15.9Reputation: 15.9
Location: Edmonton

PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 1:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I love the fact that the Left is trying to depict the legislation in the same light as three strikes laws in the States. Because it's not. The legislation is simply a reform to the Dangerous Offenders status proceedings in which those proceedings can be brought forward after three convictions of violent or sexual offences. In the States, three strikes is brought in for three felonies of any type. And as it's already been brought up, it comes up after the criminal is convicted, not before.
TealTories





Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 473
Reputation: 34.7Reputation: 34.7Reputation: 34.7
votes: 1
Location: Calgary

PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 8:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am for it although....
It is a sad commentary on the Canadian justice system that this is an improvement. On certain crimes, especially on sex crimes and murders, this is still to light. If you molest a child this should be life imprisonment.And by life I do not mean 12 yrs with parole, I mean life.
Then when all the bleeding hearts can prove to all Canadians that these psycho's can be rehabilitated then we will look at revamping the laws.
The fact that the opposition is playing politics with such a common sense policy is disgusting.[/youtube]
jw





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 90
Reputation: 14.5

PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 3:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

As long as there's a proviso to stop California's "pizza theft" problem, I support the bill. We do not want to face California's problem of having thousands of people in prison for life with, for those thousands, the majority having minor crimes as the reason they're in prison. That is too costly and protects no one.

Also, we MUST be aware that the bill will not catch some of our most violent criminals. The well know female mass murderer type "the black widow" is usually investigated for the first time on the death of her fourth husband. This bill will not catch her. It will catch the more common violent criminal types.
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 8:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jw wrote:

Also, we MUST be aware that the bill will not catch some of our most violent criminals. The well know female mass murderer type "the black widow" is usually investigated for the first time on the death of her fourth husband. This bill will not catch her. It will catch the more common violent criminal types.


Luckilly I don't think there are too many of those women ;)
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jw wrote:
As long as there's a proviso to stop California's "pizza theft" problem, I support the bill.

The proposed legislation is completely dissimilar from California's "three strikes" rule. "Three Strikes" deals with mandatory sentencing after three criminal convictions. The Conservative plan targets specific violent and/or sexual offences and doesn't deal with mandatory sentencing whatsoever.

My only reservation about the Conservative plan is that Crown lawyers are already noted for their "Let's Make A Deal" method of plea bargaining. It's faster and easier for them plus they get a conviction. They will often accept a guilt plea for a lesser offence and stay more substantial charges. If an offender has "two strikes" to borrow the vernacular, his defence lawyer is going to do everything in his power to avoid facing a third substantial charge. I can foresee Crown lawyers cooperating to avoid an inevitable appeal of the dangerous offender designation.

-Mac
Buddy Kat





Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Posts: 94
Reputation: 24.6Reputation: 24.6
votes: 1
Location: Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The three strikes bill addresses the problem real good. How many times should a habitual criminal keep doing the crime before someone says enough already. The way the system is setup it almost looks like a legal ploy for lawyers to continue to financially benifit from repeat offenders which (statistically) they know full well will reoffend when let out.

Almost like a gauranteed cash cow for the legal community. Watch they will do the number crunching and chuck the bill.Just like family law..and drug laws .the winners are always the lawyers. Which in turn become politicans that make laws to feed themselves and fellow lawyers. Maybe the debate will bring that into question also.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Buddy Kat wrote:
the winners are always the lawyers. Which in turn become politicans that make laws to feed themselves and fellow lawyers.

Here's a nice non-partisan thought.... Canada's Prime Minister has been a millionaire lawyer from Quebec for 36 years & 10 months of the past 40 years. Campbell & Turner were also lawyers. Clark was a journalist.

Now we have an accountant in charge. Draw your own conclusions. :lol:

-Mac
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 2:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac,

That's funny. I was just thinking the other day that relatively speaking, Stephen Harper might be one of the least-wealthiest PMs in our history. I imagine somewhere, somebody's got statistics on that.
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 4:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Buddy Kat wrote:
The three strikes bill addresses the problem real good. How many times should a habitual criminal keep doing the crime before someone says enough already.


You know its a strong law when someone like Buddy Kat throws his support behind a conservative initiative.. good call. :wink:
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2

Goto page 1, 2  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Three strikes bill

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB