Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
Mandatory minimums and harsher sentencing can work but also have pitfalls. Another aspect to them is to expedite the legal and sentencing process.
I've never been a huge fan because it does take discretion out of sentencing for considering circumstances, etc.
At some point sentencing and punishment have to operate in conjunction with control legislation.
Ie. If a person commits a crime using a firearm, knowing the difficulty involved in acquiring said firearm could indicate premeditation and then potentially determine the risk level of the individual in regards to sentencing.
Incarceration is expensive, and more people in jail isnt really an end we should be aspiring to, but at the same time when violent crimes are becoming more prevalent then the Judicial system has to adapt to that as well and their tools to do so are limited.
So harsher punishments might be warranted, they have shown to have limited effectiveness in deterring crime, but some might be better than none, we cant fall into the 'Perfectionist Fallacy' where if it doesnt solve the problem entirely its not worth doing at all.
Especially when it comes to guns. Someone has gone out and acquired a weapon for a purpose and executed that purpose. That should be dealt with harshly.
|
I agree with this part. So for in the instance of what's happening in Toronto, could we not determine that carrying illegal handguns, with no liscencing or ties to the system, indicate premeditation to commit a crime? The act of doing so is already a crime(s).
Hard problem to tackle. I'm not a fan of carding, but the Toronto police are adamant it's a tool that helps them intervene before larger crimes are committed.