Quote:
Originally Posted by flylock shox
The problem with anti-gang legislation is that there's very little you can add to the Criminal Code that isn't already in there, or isn't very difficult to prove. Proving gang membership is very difficult in most cases, absent a confession from an accused. And even with a confession that a person is a member of a "gang", what does the word "gang" mean, and how do you prove that the "gang" in question is a "gang" under the law?
Legal vagaries just add confusion to what are already difficult cases to prosecute. I don't mind the effort to up the ante for gang-related offences, but a lot of people seem to fail to appreciate the standard of proof the prosecution faces. Just because the news reports that something is "gang-related" doesn't make it so, especially beyond a reasonable doubt.
|
I agree, the standard of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt should not be used in my opinion. The government could introduce legislation that would reduce the standard of proof down to a balance of probabilities for gang membership and if determined to be a violation of the charter they coud use the not with standing clause.