Canadian Government Introduces New Gang-Related Legislation

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by 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.

Punishments need to be in line with the severity of the crime. If you had a situation where a gang member faces a life sentence for committing *any* crime, what is to stop him from going over the top with violence to help ensure he doesn't get caught?

Robbing a liquor store and 2 customers are in the store. No incentive at all to let them live if you think they could identify you to police. You are already going to be in jail for the rest of your life if they can pick you out of a lineup, might as well eliminate them from the equation.

Stiffer sentences do have a place, but making them so punitive that there isn't really any more punishment they can receive has some serious possible side affects.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by vanisleflamesfan

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.

Ah, you are wrong here my friend. Yes there is an air of fear when gang members are involved but more often than not, the general public are threatened not to testify when they do cooperate with the police. And how do you think that this air of fear was formed? By threatening these witness previously and finding out what happens when they provide evidence against them.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by vanisleflamesfan

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.

What offence? Uttering threats? It has a maximum punishment of 5 years and no minimum.

[vanisleflamesfan]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

What offence? Uttering threats? It has a maximum punishment of 5 years and no minimum.

Obstruction of Justice... not just for jaywalkers anymore:

Criminal Code
Part IV: Offences agains the administration of law and justice

Obstructing justice

139. (2) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner other than a manner described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

139. (3) Without restricting the generality of subsection (2), every one shall be deemed wilfully to attempt to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice who in a judicial proceeding, existing or proposed,(a) dissuades or attempts to dissuade a person by threats, bribes or other corrupt means from giving evidence;

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by vanisleflamesfan

Obstruction of Justice... not just for jaywalkers anymore:

Criminal Code
Part IV: Offences agains the administration of law and justice

Obstructing justice

139. 3) Without restricting the generality of subsection (2), every one shall be deemed wilfully to attempt to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice who in a judicial proceeding, existing or proposed,(a) dissuades or attempts to dissuade a person by threats, bribes or other corrupt means from giving evidence;

Thnks for the post. Couple of comments. 1, no minimum sentence and 2, it is probably harder to convict on this than utter threats because you have to prove it was an attempt to obstuct. Maybe, maybe not but the punishment is not enough and the charge is not broad enough in my opinion.

[vanisleflamesfan]

I agree entirely, that is just what my original point was; it is virtually impossible to convict on this in a case like what we are discussing.

However, because obstruction can be used in so many strange ways (again... the jaywalking thread...) it is unlikely that they would ever want to tack a minimum onto this. Building something else into uttering threats seems to be the way to go.