Canadian Government Introduces New Gang-Related Legislation

[HelloHockeyFans]

Aimed at fighting violence linked to gangs/organized crime.

OTTAWA (Reuters) - The Canadian government, responding to a surge in gang violence, introduced draft legislation on Thursday to crack down harder on organized crime.

Any gang-related homicide would be subject to a first-degree murder charge, a crime that carries a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for 25 years.

The bill would create a new offense to address drive-by shootings. Anyone found guilty would be given a mandatory minimum sentence of four years, with a maximum of 14 years.

It would also create two new offenses of aggravated assault against a police officer and assault with a weapon on a police officer, which would be punishable by maximum penalties of 14 and 10 years respectively.

http://ca.reuters.com/article/domest...BrandChannel=0


Thoughts?

[Dion]

Glad to see the govt taking some steps to tackle the ever growing gang problem.

I also think the new penalties being introduced would be a step in the right direction.

[Cowboy89]

I would like to wait and see how this would be applied. My bet is that judges make it harder to prove in court that someone was in fact a 'gang member' or that the crime was in fact 'gang-related' as I would imagine there would be similar burden of proof required as determining the culprit of the actual crime.

[ShaolinFlame]

Your thread title had me thinking something completely different.

I am pro tougher sentencing. I do not want to witness crime scenes at my local IGA.

Although the assault on an officer with a weapon could result in a few bad convictions.

Mandatory 1st degree for gang related shootings is pretty solid, but I would rather just see 2nd degree gang related beefed up. I mean, what if two gang members get into an arguement at a club and one dies in a fight? Is that first degree murder? I think it could establish some weird legal precedents having some 2nd degrees classified as 1st but not others. I guess it comes down to a judges' interpretation of 'gang-related' homicide...

[SteveToms]

You had me thinking of a Draft to go to war with, not this.

[Hack&Lube]

Drive by shooting should be life imprisonment because of all the stray bullets coming from a moving vehicle is obviously disregard for anybody else in the way.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Drive by shooting should be life imprisonment because of all the stray bullets coming from a moving vehicle is obviously disregard for anybody else in the way.

Yup. Like that teenage girl that got killed on boxing day in toronto a couple years back. Throw the f'n book at guy like that. Same with the (now blind) brazilian exchange student that got hit by stray bullets in DT calgary last fall.

It seriously blows my mind that all the parties can't work together to get some of this kind of legislation passed.

[Caged Great]

Seriously, they should charge anyone in a gang whether or not they are involved with a shooting with domestic terrorism and give them all a life sentence.

[CaptainCrunch]

Not stiff enough. These are killings for profit nothing more, they're fighting for territory and for underground business. These are rational kids making a decision to take out their competitors or threats to their profit. Any and I mean any gang related crimes that involve a weapon should be a minimum 20 years without possibility of parole. Right now with these gangs, going to jail is almost a badge of honor it gives them automatic credibility.

Gang violence in this country are getting out of control, we have to focus on deterrence and community safety first.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Right now with these gangs, going to jail is almost a badge of honor it gives them automatic credibility.

Which is pretty ass-backwards if you think about it... I mean, doesn't getting caught denote FAIL!? Why are you a cooler gangster if you've gone to jail? The cool gangsters should be the ones that get away with their crimes... Just sayin.

[HOZ]

Time to be a stick in the mud.

Whippety-do Ding Dong! The government implementing another piece of paper with no true law enforcement measures to truly combat crime. Now of course, I definitely would like to see the perpetrators of a murder caught and jailed and the key tossed away. But I would rather have the police there BEFORE the bullets fly, and that is what the government is not doing. One idea is they could scrap the useless gun registry and funnel all that cash into putting boots on the streets.

[HelloHockeyFans]

Yeah, good points. Proving that some one is part of a gang will be tough.

[jolinar of malkshor]

They should introduce legislation making it an offence to intimidate a witness of a crime with a maximum punishment of life in prison. One of the big reasons why charges don't stick to these gang members is because the victim and the community are to scared to testify. Being able to testify in court is key to our democratic process and once that has been taken away by fear we lose a lot.

It is not just the judges that are a probem. The prosecutors are at fault as well. Right now we have minimum sentences for gun crimes. Many of these gang members are originally charged with gun crimes but they get pleaded down by the prosecutors inorder for the gang members to plead to lesser charges.

[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.

[flylock shox]

I should maybe add to my last post (which was critical but maybe not very helpful) that the best way to go after gang members isn't through criminal processes alone, but rather through income tax investigations. There are no shortage of gangsters cruising around in expensive cars, with lots of money in the bank, and no way to prove it's legitimate. Empowering tax investigations is likely to prove to be a more effective way to go after many gang members.

[Vulcan]

I'd like to see them give 5 or 10 years or so for an illegal hand gun or any automatic weapon and double the sentence for using a gun in any crime. Get these illegal guns off the street.

This gang legislation just sounds like a con game, so the electorate will think it means something.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Not stiff enough. These are killings for profit nothing more, they're fighting for territory and for underground business. These are rational kids making a decision to take out their competitors or threats to their profit. Any and I mean any gang related crimes that involve a weapon should be a minimum 20 years without possibility of parole. Right now with these gangs, going to jail is almost a badge of honor it gives them automatic credibility.

Gang violence in this country are getting out of control, we have to focus on deterrence and community safety first.

I 100% agree with you.

But if you make sentences too stiff, it makes it easier for lawyers to get them off, IMO.

[jolinar of malkshor]

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.

[vanisleflamesfan]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

They should itroduce legislation making it an offence to intimidate a witness of a crime with a maximum punishment of life in prison. One of the big reasons why charges don't stick to these gang members is because the victim and the community are to scared to testify. Being able to testify in court is key to our democratic process and once that has been taken away by fear we lose a lot.

This is an offence, and I think that the maximum is 10 years. However, this is very, very difficult to prove. I think that the justice system realizes that people don't testify against known gang members because they are afraid to. However, it isn't the case where gang members are coming to a witness' house and saying "you didn't see nothin'" while giving them the throat-slash gesture. The threat is there, but it is unspoken, it is just known and therefore, nearly impossible to charge, prove or convict.

[Super-Rye]

It's a good legislation but in the long run it's just a band-aid that will waste tax dollars.

It's about time the government found real solutions to gang problems. :/