Why won't the Libs help make our streets safer?

[icarus]

Originally Posted by calculoso

With any incident, the victims have had their rights trampled on - this is what the incident did to start with. Typically (in any incident that I've known about) there is no compensation to make up for this - if their stuff is stolen it's rarely returned, if their doors are broken then it's possibly insurance or out of their pocket to repair them, etc.

The only kind of compensation that they can ever hope to get is to have the person(s) who committed the crime to pay for their acts and/or prevented from doing it again... and then they see this person being coddled and protected and given a slap on the wrist, hoping that they'll have seen the error of their ways to never return.

There just seems to be an overwhelming "so what if you've had your rights trampled on... we can't do anything about that... we just have to make sure that we don't do the same to the one that disrespected your rights".

Most victims of crime can sue for civil damages, although often the perpetrators have little or no means of paying up and most of the time victims are satisfied just to see the perpetrator get convicted and sentenced. But they do have the opportunity to receive compensation through civil suits.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

It does reduce crime.....like I have said many times, most of these violent offenders have previously committed other criminal acts. If they are in jail....they CANNOT commit a crime. It is not about revenge or a personal vendetta....it is about keeping dangerous people off of our streets.

Yes they have rights and we have the charter, but the charter also allows us to limit rights to protect our society, that is how it was designed.

Some laws look great on the books until they are put into practice. Look at the 3 strikes law in California that has turned out disastoriously.

I just don't want us to end up like the USA with sooo many people in jail for what we in Canada would call minor crimes like possession of drugs.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by icarus

Most victims of crime can sue for civil damages, although often the perpetrators have little or no means of paying up and most of the time victims are satisfied just to see the perpetrator get convicted and sentenced. But they do have the opportunity to receive compensation through civil suits.

So, just because they have the opportunity to go after civil damages and they see the perpetrator get a less-than-acceptable sentence, then they should be satisfied?

As you said, the civil damages route means nothing and could end up costing them much more (in legal fees) to go after this nothing. Most times, this option may as well not even be there.

Lately, more and more people have been upset with the light sentences that criminals have been getting from the courts. There has been no satisfaction here either.

I just see too much of the "let's watch where we step, in case something we do might just look like it touches Johnny's rights" and "let's not punish Johnny too hard here" favoritism that criminals get. It frustrates me. The focus seems to be "what can WE do for the criminal" instead of "what the criminal did"... very backwards IMO. There needs to be more of a deterrent.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by fredr123

But at the same time, your statement (and the ramblings of JofS ) beg the question: what are victims rights? I would hazard a guess that you are at a minimum talking about the right to feel safe and secure. Not sure that would ever be possible and I'm not sure Joe Blow on the street feels entirely safe and secure anyway. But what else? The right to extract vengance upon the convicted perpetrator?

Victims rights is not something that I can define very well... but here are a couple of links which list some of it:

http://www.trynova.org/about/victimrights.html
http://www.letswrap.com/legal/victrts.htm
http://www.klaaskids.org/stvr-cal.htm

Unfortunately, these all seem to not go far enough. There needs to be more consideration for a tougher sentence, especially when this is the only kind of 'reparations' that are available. If nothing else, if there is nothing that the victim can get, there should be an assertion that the person who harmed them cannot harm anyone else. This is the part that most often gets forgotten.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Victims rights is not something that I can define very well... but here are a couple of links which list some of it:

http://www.trynova.org/about/victimrights.html
http://www.letswrap.com/legal/victrts.htm
http://www.klaaskids.org/stvr-cal.htm

Unfortunately, these all seem to not go far enough. There needs to be more consideration for a tougher sentence, especially when this is the only kind of 'reparations' that are available. If nothing else, if there is nothing that the victim can get, there should be an assertion that the person who harmed them cannot harm anyone else. This is the part that most often gets forgotten.

Great links. Thanks for posting those. I can't say I really disagree with any of the proposals contained therein except to a certain extent a few in the letswrap.com site. Specifically, those that provide the victim with some say in how the case is prosecuted. Mind you, the proposal only says that the victim is to be notified of decisions not to prosecute, plea arrangements and the like but I would be concerned if those provisions in any way tied the Crown's hands and dictated how a case was to be tried.

Those links all talk about reparations. For property-related offences, that kind of a right seems absolutely necessary. I'm not sure how one could ever provide sufficient compensation or reparations to rape victims or those that have suffered horribly violent (and maybe deadly) assaults. In that case, reparations might come dangerously close to vengance.

[icarus]

Originally Posted by calculoso

So, just because they have the opportunity to go after civil damages and they see the perpetrator get a less-than-acceptable sentence, then they should be satisfied?

No I am just pointing out that victims have a right to sue in civil law, since you wrote:

The only kind of compensation that they can ever hope to get is to have the person(s) who committed the crime to pay for their acts and/or prevented from doing it again