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

[icarus]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Why defend this? This is legislation that would keep bad..bad..people out of society, it has been passed by the House of Commons, the supreme governing body of this country.

Why defend what? Civil liberties? Why oppose them?

You said:

Bill C-35 which would put the reverse onus on criminals that use guns to obtain bail.

Thankfully you are not a decision-maker in the justice system, because your prejudice shows. They are not criminals until they have been convicted of a crime (or do you not believe in the presumption of innocence? If not, I am sure you would prefer to live in Syria). They therefore have a right to be free unless the judge determines that they are dangerous, a flight risk, or their release would undermine public confidence in the justice system. Judges already weigh the evidence and make decisions accordingly. By reversing the onus you essentially ensure that anyone who can't afford to pay their own lawyer will be denied bail. Of course this is okay by you because you assume that anyone charged must therefore be the perpetrator.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

and what happened to murder rates after they did that?
how many high profile wrongful convictions can you think of since then that likely would have been wrongful death penalties?

geez, what a black day in Canada's history when the Libs did that

I agree that it was a good day when they abolished the death penalty.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by icarus

Why defend what? Civil liberties? Why oppose them?

You said: Thankfully you are not a decision-maker in the justice system, because your prejudice shows. They are not criminals until they have been convicted of a crime (or do you not believe in the presumption of innocence? If not, I am sure you would prefer to live in Syria). They therefore have a right to be free unless the judge determines that they are dangerous, a flight risk, or their release would undermine public confidence in the justice system. Judges already weigh the evidence and make decisions accordingly. By reversing the onus you essentially ensure that anyone who can't afford to pay their own lawyer will be denied bail. Of course this is okay by you because you assume that anyone charged must therefore be the perpetrator.

Actually most are criminals by this point... Have you ever had violent crime happen to you or a member of your family??? I would suspect not. We aren't taking about petty theft and smoking weed....we are talking about someone who has no regard for other people, their life or their property...someone who would shove a gun in your face and tell you that you will die if you do not comply....someone who shoots randomly into a crowd of people.

The law won't make it impossible to receive bail...it simple puts the onus on the offender to show the court that they will comply with any conditions put on them if they are granted release. As for your lawyer arguement...well it doesn't fly. There are very, very good defence lawyers that work for legal aid or take on legal aid cases.

As for this statement: Of course this is okay by you because you assume that anyone charged must therefore be the perpetrator.

Why is it that people have to make things up to try and discredit me??? This is about the third or fourth time now that someone has said I said something when I haven't. Please find somewhere...anywhere that I led someone to believe that I think people should be considered guilty until inoccent?

[icarus]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Actually most are criminals by this point...

I am not as omniscient as you, but I just hope the judges of this country aren't so quick to make the same assumption as you make.

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Have you ever had violent crime happen to you or a member of your family??? I would suspect not. We aren't taking about petty theft and smoking weed....we are talking about someone who has no regard for other people, their life or their property...someone who would shove a gun in your face and tell you that you will die if you do not comply....someone who shoots randomly into a crowd of people.

Actually my cousin was killed in an act of violent crime, but thank you for being so presumptuous. If your point is that such an act would make me insensitive to Canadian values, our rights and freedoms, no sorry it did not have that effect on me. Is this what happened to you?

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

The law won't make it impossible to receive bail...it simple puts the onus on the offender to show the court that they will comply with any conditions put on them if they are granted release.

And why should the onus be shifted to the accused ('offender' or 'criminal', in your terminology)? Unless of course you don't value the presumption of innocence....

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

As for your lawyer arguement...well it doesn't fly. There are very, very good defence lawyers that work for legal aid or take on legal aid cases.

Well this is true, there are some. Unfortunately they are few and far between, and whether they are very good or very bad, chances are they are heavily overworked (not to mention underpaid) and probably had little time to review the case against their client, let alone time to prepare adequately for it.

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

As for this statement: Of course this is okay by you because you assume that anyone charged must therefore be the perpetrator.

Why is it that people have to make things up to try and discredit me??? This is about the third or fourth time now that someone has said I said something when I haven't. Please find somewhere...anywhere that I led someone to believe that I think people should be considered guilty until inoccent?

See below.

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Actually most are criminals by this point...

[Rockin' Flames]

Originally Posted by evman150

They are still human beings. This is not a fascist country where we lock people up and throw away the key, which seems to be what you want, to some extent (or at least you would like to slide onto the slippery slope of which that consequence resides at the bottom of).

And what rights to the people who have been murdered have left? What about the rights of children who have fallen victim to a pedofile? In either case the rights of the victims would not have been respected.

[Burninator]

Prisoners still have the right to have humans rights. We don't live the in dark ages anymore.

[CaptainCrunch]

This is always a searing and tough debate, because you have to balance the key concepts of justice and rehabilitation with closure for the victims.

I have no problem with looking at the whole rehab issue on non violent crimes, I have no problem with looking at the compassionate side of a crime of passion where its unlikely that the person who committed the crime is ever going to do anything like that again.

Where it breaks down for me is when people do intentionally violent crimes. I have a lot of trouble with thinking that pedophiles are deserving of our sympathy. Or the guy that shoots up a crowd during a drive by, or the person that breaks into someones house and smashes up the place terrifies its owners and maybe kills one so that he can secure money to by crack or cystal meth, or heroin. Because we are suppossed to be rational beings who have the higher brain functions to make choices and go against instinct. But if thats not the case, and that person cannot make that choice between right and wrong, then to me its unlikely that the person is not going to re-offend again.

Let me put this as plainly as I can. I think there has to be a differentiation between intentionally violent crimes, and non violent crimes.

I see no problems in the case of violent crimes that the accussed should have to prove that they're not a flight risk and that they're not going to re-offend while out on bail. The bottom line is that some point that descretion is the better part of valor in these cases.

I also have no problems with longer sentences for people that are willing to pick up a gun or a knife and to use those weapons which have no other use but killing. Make them earn thier parole, and lets make sure that they're not going out on the streets again unless we're sure that they're not going to re-offend. While we talk about freedom in our society as a right, we have to enforce that to some extent in the case of crime its not an absolute right, and your going to lose something precious if your going to kill, or harm a innocent.

I also think that parole has to be more stringent, both in the granting of and retaining of, parole shouldn't be a given, you should have to admit to the crime, you have to show remorse, and you have to have done some activity that proves that your not going to re-offend. I have no problems with locking up a person for 25 years or longer if I'm not totally and completely sure that they're not cured of that compulsion to commit a violent criminal act.

You also have to look at the victims whether they're living or dead. How many times have we seen victims that live in fear of the criminal getting out, how many times have we seen a criminal that gets out and re-offends. Where's the closure of the victims, what about the right to see the criminal getting punished?

Offer education in prison, and theorapy and rehab. Teach them a skill, but don't slap them on the wrist in some display of supporting thier rights, especially when they didn't care about the rights of thier victims.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by icarus

See below.

Yes, that doesn't show that I said or think that people who are charged with an offence are automatically guilty. I said that most people who commit violent crimes, have already been found guilty of a different offence....hence....they are convicted criminals.

[troutman]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...Story/National

Canada's crime rate fell to its lowest level in 25 years in 2006 as the steady decline in property offences such as break-ins drove crime dramatically below the peaks of the early 1990s.

There were fewer slayings and the homicide rate dipped 10 per cent after two years of increases.

But the broader rate of violent crime, which has fallen far more slowly in recent years, remained unchanged from 2005 to 2006 because of more incidents of some serious violent crimes such as attempted murder, assault with a weapon and robbery.

"Since 1991, the crime rate is down by 30 per cent. That's just astonishing. But that's not what most people, I think, believe," said University of Toronto criminologist Rosemary Gartner.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by icarus

Actually my cousin was killed in an act of violent crime, but thank you for being so presumptuous. If your point is that such an act would make me insensitive to Canadian values, our rights and freedoms, no sorry it did not have that effect on me.

See below.

Sorry to here about your cousin, that is a terrible thing. My point is not to make you insensitive to Canadian values. Canadian values are not about letting criminals off easy and letting them out to commit other crimes. It is about the fact that people have certain rights until they violate the rights of other humans, the worst is taking somene elses life. Once that happens, they are NOT entitled to the same rights as law abiding citizens. That doesn't mean they should be treated cruel and unusual....it means that their rights are suspended or reduced to protect the public....to prevent other lives being destroyed.

[Slava]

^ I like to think that this is based on the improving economy since the early 90's, and generally improving conditions for the people worst off in our society as a result.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

It is about the fact that people have certain rights until they violate the rights of other humans, the worst is taking somene elses life. Once that happens, they are NOT entitled to the same rights as law abiding citizens.

Ah, the is/ought gap. In your vision of Canada, as soon as someone is accused of committing a crime their rights go out the window or are at least subjugated to those of the rest of the population. In reality, however, it takes a little more to limit someone's rights even in the face of criminal accusations and especially when we're talking about liberty rights.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by troutman

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...Story/National

Canada's crime rate fell to its lowest level in 25 years in 2006 as the steady decline in property offences such as break-ins drove crime dramatically below the peaks of the early 1990s.

There were fewer slayings and the homicide rate dipped 10 per cent after two years of increases.

But the broader rate of violent crime, which has fallen far more slowly in recent years, remained unchanged from 2005 to 2006 because of more incidents of some serious violent crimes such as attempted murder, assault with a weapon and robbery.

"Since 1991, the crime rate is down by 30 per cent. That's just astonishing. But that's not what most people, I think, believe," said University of Toronto criminologist Rosemary Gartner.

http://www.winnipegsun.com/News/Colu...5/4366392.html

Statistics Canada just released its annual crime report with a generally good news spin. But don't break out the champagne yet.

(snip)

The language of the number crunchers hinted at concern with the increase in attempted murders -- up 30 from 822 cases in 2005 -- but it was tempered with seemingly good news that there had been decreases in that crime since 1996.

But that's not the whole story. It just means less reliance on that charge. Precedents, rulings and policies have elevated the threshold for that offence, making it very difficult to prove in a courtroom setting.

Consequently when most people are thinking "attempted murder," other charges are preferred and laid. Aggravated assault and assault with a weapon are routinely used in cases where people have been wounded, stabbed or beaten into comas and life is in actual jeopardy. Given that -- and flying in the face of the touted drop in overall crime -- it's no surprise to read that the rates of aggravated assault along with assault with a weapon and other level 2 offences have risen dramatically -- 9% and 35% respectively -- in the last decade.

In fact assaults with weapons are up for the seventh straight year and currently sits at the highest rate since being introduced in the Criminal code in 1983.

Strangely the 4,449 reported kidnappings and forcible confinements -- a rate increase of 108% since 1996 -- are not classified as violent crime. They are "other" along with graffiti and disturbing the peace.

etc.. etc... etc..

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by fredr123

Ah, the is/ought gap. In your vision of Canada, as soon as someone is accused of committing a crime their rights go out the window or are at least subjugated to those of the rest of the population. In reality, however, it takes a little more to limit someone's rights even in the face of criminal accusations and especially when we're talking about liberty rights.

Who's rights should take precedence? Victims rights or the rights of those guilty of a crime?

While I agree that there needs to be more than just a simple accusation, I find that the rights of victims are rarely ever taken into consideration.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Who's rights should take precedence? Victims rights or the rights of those guilty of a crime?

While I agree that there needs to be more than just a simple accusation, I find that the rights of victims are rarely ever taken into consideration.

I don't get this argument. What rights are the victims missing out on that the accused is enjoying?

[icarus]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Sorry to here about your cousin, that is a terrible thing. My point is not to make you insensitive to Canadian values. Canadian values are not about letting criminals off easy and letting them out to commit other crimes. It is about the fact that people have certain rights until they violate the rights of other humans, the worst is taking somene elses life. Once that happens, they are NOT entitled to the same rights as law abiding citizens. That doesn't mean they should be treated cruel and unusual....it means that their rights are suspended or reduced to protect the public....to prevent other lives being destroyed.

Core Canadian values include the presumption of innocence, which means you are innocent until proven guilty. The reverse onus is contradictory to the presumption of innocence. The Charter also protects rights of liberty and mobility, until convicted of a crime and sentenced to incarceration. Currently judges consider the evidence before them to determine whether there is any valid reason to detain an accused before his or her trial, and they do a good job at it. To change the question before a judge from 'is there any reason to detain this person until trial?' to 'why should I let you go?' signals an erosion of key Charter values and a shift in the direction of witchhunting.

As for longer prison sentences for convicted criminals, I am not automatically opposed, although there are a lot of factors to consider such as the rehabilitative value of prison, strain on prison resources, and the potential of recidivism. No bills should ever be open and shut, and anything passed on a whim means that a lot of people aren't doing their job.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't get this argument. What rights are the victims missing out on that the accused is enjoying?

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".

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Who's rights should take precedence? Victims rights or the rights of those guilty of a crime?

While I agree that there needs to be more than just a simple accusation, I find that the rights of victims are rarely ever taken into consideration.

Being guilty of a crime is different than being convicted of a crime. At least in the case of the reverse onus provisions for bail, we're talking about someone who is only charged with an offence. With respect to the minimum sentence provisions... well, that part of me that takes pleasure in reading esoteric case law recalls what happens when minimum sentences have been imposed in other areas of the law.

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?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by fredr123

Being guilty of a crime is different than being convicted of a crime. At least in the case of the reverse onus provisions for bail, we're talking about someone who is only charged with an offence. With respect to the minimum sentence provisions... well, that part of me that takes pleasure in reading esoteric case law recalls what happens when minimum sentences have been imposed in other areas of the law.

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?

That is the whole crux of their argument. JofM wants to see these people punished, and the fact that this doesn't reduce crime in the first place is of no consequence.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Slava

That is the whole crux of their argument. JofM wants to see these people punished, and the fact that this doesn't reduce crime in the first place is of no consequence.

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.