Boy do I love our judges.

[jolinar of malkshor]

FEDERALIMMIGRATION BOARD PAVES WAY FOR RELEASE ACCUSED MAN, CONVICTEDMAN
Rulingsby the federal Immigration and Refugee Board have paved the way for the releaseof two men in Edmonton _ one accused on child sex charges, the other a convictedrapist. Earlier this week, a board adjudicator ruled that Samuel Martin Luin,23, can get out of jail while federal authorities attempt to deport him to hisnative Sudan. Luin recently finished a two-year sentence for raping a19-year-old Edmonton woman on her way home from work. His release conditions doinclude a stipulation that he report toCanadian Border Service Agencyofficialstwice a month. The next step in the process is to get what's called a dangeropinion fromPublic Safety Minister StockwellDay, something that's required in order to deport refugees. In theother case, the board made eligible for release Matthew Clinton Bynum, 23, whois wanted in Colorado on five charges of sexual assault on children and onecount of luring a child. The immigration board ordered Bynum to put up $7,500 inorder to get out of jail, but so far he hasn't been able to come up with themoney. The lead investigator on Bynum's case in Colorado was dismayed by thedevelopment. ''That's not good for me,'' said Bob Heffernan of the LarimerCounty sheriff's office. ''He is basically being charged as a sex predator onnumerous counts for assaults on young girls.'' In both cases, theCanada Border Services Agency, whichhandles deportations for the federal government, argued to have the two menremain in custody.''We want to remove him assoon as we can,'' border agency spokeswoman Lisa White said of Bynum. ''Wewanted to keep him detained because we feel he is a danger and wouldn't appearfor removal.''

http://www.infomedia.gc.ca/cbsa-asfc...3735704_61.htm








Yup, lets let these people run free in Canada while we try and get them out of the country.

[Sparks]

The link doesn't work for me, and your summary is very hard to read.

[Mike F]

First, you should realize that IRB board members aren't judges.

Second, if I'm reading that right, the first man had finished his sentence so why shouldn't he be released pending the outcome of the danger opinion?

For the last guy, he's charged in Colorado but has yet to be convicted of anything. Are you advocating that we adopt a policy of innocent until proven guilty. . . . unless you're a foreigner? Again, if upon a hearing he's found to be a danger than by all means put him in custody, but not before.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Mike F

First, you should realize that IRB board members aren't judges.

Second, if I'm reading that right, the first man had finished his sentence so why shouldn't he be released pending the outcome of the danger opinion?

For the last guy, he's charged in Colorado but has yet to be convicted of anything. Are you advocating that we adopt a policy of innocent until proven guilty. . . . unless you're a foreigner? Again, if upon a hearing he's found to be a danger than by all means put him in custody, but not before.

First, you should realize that IRB is a quasi-judicial system with Adjudicators acting as judges. They are not labelled "judges" as in a criminal court but act the same within the IRB process. So they are essentially judges.

Yes the guy completed his criminal sentence, yes. I would suspect that since he raped someone he is a danger to the public not to mention he has nothing to lose by going into hiding as he is going to be deported. The immigration act allows for the detention of people for removal. I think this would be a good case to hold someone in detention until they have been deported.

The second guy is wanted on 5 counts of sexual assualt on children. Has he been convicted? No, that doesn't mean he has a right to walk around our country willy nilly. I suspect the reason he came to Canada was to evade those charges. WHy should he be allowed to walk our streets?

Really unbelievable.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Sparks

The link doesn't work for me, and your summary is very hard to read.

It was not my summary, it was one from a news paper. I will try and find a different link.

[CaptainCrunch]

I honestly think that if your a immigrant in Canada and you commit a crime, there's no jail sentence, if your found guilty, your on a plane back to your former country the same day that the justice system decides your case.

If your country won't take you back, we'll provide you with a parachute and drop you over the nearest jungle full of hungry predators.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I honestly think that if your a immigrant in Canada and you commit a crime, there's no jail sentence, if your found guilty, your on a plane back to your former country the same day that the justice system decides your case.

If your country won't take you back, we'll provide you with a parachute and drop you over the nearest jungle full of hungry predators.

Yeah, but don't we owe it to the victims to ensure that criminals are given an adequate punishment? How would, say, the family of a murder or rape victim feel if someone is found guilty, shipped back to their home country, where on some technicality the local authorities decide that they aren't going to punish the individual?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Yeah, but don't we owe it to the victims to ensure that criminals are given an adequate punishment? How would, say, the family of a murder or rape victim feel if someone is found guilty, shipped back to their home country, where on some technicality the local authorities decide that they aren't going to punish the individual?

Understandable point. However in this case, they've come to Canada because their conditions at home aren't good, or they were criminals in their homeland, or they wanted the opportunities that present themselves in Canada. So we send them home to hopefully a terrible situation, or if they were fleeing prosecution, the jail cell or bullet that they so richly deserve.

All I'm saying is that I have no patience for people that come to Canada to commit crime.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I honestly think that if your a immigrant in Canada and you commit a crime, there's no jail sentence, if your found guilty, your on a plane back to your former country the same day that the justice system decides your case.

If your country won't take you back, we'll provide you with a parachute and drop you over the nearest jungle full of hungry predators.

I don't disagree with the sentiment. I just worry that if we did that, then they would start sending us back our criminals. There are many Canadians sitting in foreign prisons and I don't want them back.

Serious question... if we traded criminal for criminal with countries that have Canadians in their prisons (including the U.S.), would we end up with net gain in criminals back? I think we might...

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I don't disagree with the sentiment. I just worry that if we did that, then they would start sending us back our criminals. There are many Canadians sitting in foreign prisons and I don't want them back.

Serious question... if we traded criminal for criminal with countries that have Canadians in their prisons (including the U.S.), would we end up with net gain in criminals back? I think we might...

I would have to disagree. Although I do not have the stats to back it up. Canada has many mutual prisoner transfer agreements with many countries and I am sure if a Canadian can get DFAIT to lobby that government to transfer them to Canada, they would do it.

It would be interesting to see the actual numbers though.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I would have to disagree. Although I do not have the stats to back it up. Canada has many mutual prisoner transfer agreements with many countries and I am sure if a Canadian can get DFAIT to lobby that government to transfer them to Canada, they would do it.

It would be interesting to see the actual numbers though.

You could be right... I don't know. It would be interesting to see the numbers like you said.

In a Vancouver Province article last year, there was an interesting story about a Canadian who was imprisoned in Viet Nam for drug trafficing. I can't remember the exact numbers, but I just remember being astonished at the number of Canadians in jail in SE Asia for sex and drug crimes. I sure wouldn't want them parachuted over Canada to freedom.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

First, you should realize that IRB is a quasi-judicial system with Adjudicators acting as judges. They are not labelled "judges" as in a criminal court but act the same within the IRB process. So they are essentially judges.

Yes, they judge people/cases, but they aren't in any way related to the judges in the provincial and federal courts, which is what the term judges is going to be taken as referencing unless you qualify it. They don't require the same professional qualifications, they don't go through the same vetting process, and they don't have nearly the same powers. They're much closer to those who act as decision makers is various administrative tribunals, which is apples and oranges to judges, which, given your history, you're almost certainly trying to lump them in with in a negative way.

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Yes the guy completed his criminal sentence, yes. I would suspect that since he raped someone he is a danger to the public not to mention he has nothing to lose by going into hiding as he is going to be deported. The immigration act allows for the detention of people for removal. I think this would be a good case to hold someone in detention until they have been deported.

The second guy is wanted on 5 counts of sexual assualt on children. Has he been convicted? No, that doesn't mean he has a right to walk around our country willy nilly. I suspect the reason he came to Canada was to evade those charges. WHy should he be allowed to walk our streets?

Really unbelievable.

So basically you're saying: yes, foreign visitors to the country shouldn't get the benefit of our laws as citizens. Guilty until proven innocent, and regardless of how long your actual sentence was we'll hold you in jail until we feel like letting you out.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Mike F

Yes, they judge people/cases, but they aren't in any way related to the judges in the provincial and federal courts, which is what the term judges is going to be taken as referencing unless you qualify it.

You aren't seriously arguing with me over the definition of a judge, especially in this case.......are you? This is why I stayed away from Cp for the last few weeks.

Definition of judge: a public officer authorized to hear and decide cases in a court of law; a magistrate charged with the administration of justice.

Are they called judges? No....they are called board members or adjudicators. Did I say they were the same as criminal court judges anywhere in my previous post? I don't remember doing such. But in laymens terms they can be described as a judge. Seriously though.....why are you arguing semantics? Regardless of what they are called it is all relevant to my post and previous posts that I have created regarding the ridiculaceness of court decisions.

I am lumping them in with provincial court judges, superior court judges and even supreme court judges.

They don't require the same professional qualifications, they don't go through the same vetting process, and they don't have nearly the same powers.

I agree that some don't have the same professional qualifications as criminal court judges but many are lawyers. As for the vetting process, are you serious? Many judicial positions are given out to reward years of political support. One can argue that the vetting process is more stringent for board members than for judges. Really though, that is not relevant to this post.

As for powers....do you even realize the powers that the Immigration Division has? It appears not. The system is set up just as a criminal court is set up. The hearing is adversarial. The two parties may adduce evidence, cross-examine witnesses and make submissions. The person may be represented by a lawyer or other counsel of the person's choice. The Minister is represented at a hearing by an employee of CIC called a hearing officer.

The members of the Immigration Division have the power to summon witnesses and require them to give evidence, orally or in writing, and on oath, and produce such documents and things as the commissioners deem required. They can enforce the attendance of witnesses. A member can issue summons and warrant of arrests.

They have the authority to do anything they consider necessary to provide a full and proper hearing. They can determine whether the hearing will be held in private or in public and make findings of abuse of process. They are bound by the principles of natural justice. They have the authority to answer constitutional questions with regards to their enabling statutes. They determine admissibilities and detention reviews. They can hold individuals in detention for 30 days at a time before another review is required. They can order the detention of individuals if a criminal court judge releases that person. (basically over riding the judges detention decision). They can issue any release condition the member feels in required. They can issue removal orders.

Shall I go on?

They're much closer to those who act as decision makers is various administrative tribunals

Infact it is an administrative tribunal, no where did I suggest otherwise. But again, irrelevent.

So basically you're saying: yes, foreign visitors to the country shouldn't get the benefit of our laws as citizens.

Yup, the two people mentioned in these cases are visitors, here only to see the rocky mountains and the stampeed. Come on. Not to mention, foreign nationals do not have the same rights as citizens, so not sure where you think they do have the same rights.

Guilty until proven innocent, and regardless of how long your actual sentence was we'll hold you in jail until we feel like letting you out.

No one is saying he is guilty, but if you have committed a crime in another country and flee that country to avoid prosecution then you should be removed from Canada and held until your departure can be completed. And yes, it all depends on the offence that the the person was accused of committing. This isn't some guy who was charged with jay walking, he is wanted for serious sexual charges....can you not understand that?

[icarus]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Not to mention, foreign nationals do not have the same rights as citizens, so not sure where you think they do have the same rights.

True, foreign nationals do not have all the same rights as citizens (voting, working, etc), but it seems Mike F seems to be talking about the right to liberty as under s. 7 of the Charter:

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

In this regard, the term "everyone" includes every human being who is physically present in Canada and by virtue of such presence amenable to Canadian law: Singh et al. v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, 1985 CanLII 65 (S.C.C.), [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177.

He served his sentence, so he must be released unless he is deemed to be dangerous. That is the issue, whether he is dangerous. It seems they found that he isn't, but many times sex offenders have been deemed to not be dangerous and have reverted back to their old ways. I don't know what evidence was provided to the tribunal about this guy, but I sure hope they are right in determining he is not a threat.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Suprises suprise.

A warrant was issued Wednesday for the arrest of Samuel Martin Luin, 23, who failed to report to the Edmonton Probation Office on Monday, as ordered earlier this month by an Immigration and Refugee Board adjudicator.

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjourna...b-70f1a2e9c774

At least they caught him.


A convicted rapist is back in jail after tips from the public helped police track him down at a southside industrial site yesterday. "We're happy that the exposure that it got led to some tips today," city police staff Sgt. Dale Fenrich said yesterday of media coverage of Samuel Martin Luin's disappearance earlier this week.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Edmo...24135-sun.html

[fredr123]

How about this, jolinar:

Originally Posted by Calgary Sun

Courts are not immune to frustration over "turnstile" justice afforded to criminals, a judge said yesterday in jailing a man who shot his ex-girlfriend.


Justice Peter Clark sentenced Kevin Patrick Laing to 11 years in prison and ordered him to serve at least half before he can be paroled.


"I'm ... not immune to the hue and cry of the public and the press to what's become known as the turnstile, or the revolving door," Clark said.


"Judges are forever dismayed by the fact that we are sentencing and they get out very early," he said, in granting a Crown bid for increased parole ineligibility.

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Alberta/...24312-sun.html

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I honestly think that if your a immigrant in Canada and you commit a crime, there's no jail sentence, if your found guilty, your on a plane back to your former country the same day that the justice system decides your case.

If your country won't take you back, we'll provide you with a parachute and drop you over the nearest jungle full of hungry predators.

Why waste a good parachute? But lets make sure it is a heinous crime!

[IntenseFan]

Further to the foregoing, Justice Peter Clark is Joe Clark's brother, for anyone who is interested.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Hopefully the government implements these recommendations.

The government should build new regional super-jails and scrap statutory release of federal inmates in favour of earned parole, a prison review panel says.
The panel headed by a former cabinet minister in Ontario's Mike Harris government urges Ottawa to bring aging, scattered prisons into the 21st century. It also says rehabilitation must be more of a shared duty borne by inmates and corrections.

http://www.canadaeast.com/news/article/156299