Quote:
Originally Posted by stampsx2
I hate our justice system. Anybody who supports or is in our justice system should be held equally liable for what happened.
The judge who didn't do their job should be held accountable and testify in front of the victims family.
|
I can understand visceral irrational responses to emotional cases, but it is important to call them out as being visceral and irrational.
There is much room for criticism and many valid arguments can be made for harsher sentencing or reduced use of plea bargaining etc.
Saying that any person who works in our justice system is equally responsible for the crimes committed by criminals is so ridiculous it is hard to comprehend how one would ever type such nonsense.
Shall I go turn myself in to start serving MY 4 1/2 years in jail today? But wait, I guess it’s starting my life sentence because if I am ‘equally liable’ for this criminal conduct I must also be responsible for everyone else’s offences as well.
As for your less ridiculous suggestion to hold the judge accountable by ‘testifying’ in front of the victim’s family...I mean functionally that is exactly what happened.
The judge sits in a public courtroom, open to the media to have everything he says and does reported to the world, and in front of the family and often the actual victim, dictates his reasons for why he has decided the sentence he is ordering is the proper one according to law.
The fact that we are discussing some of what he said demonstrates one of the best parts of our justice system. It is nearly 100% open and able to be fully scrutinized.
As for the sentence itself, it is difficult to comment on much given I don’t really know the details of what was considered. What I will point out are a few things:
1. Our system gives credit for guilty pleas - and that would have been a factor here.
2. The Crown only asked for 5 years and the judge gave 4 1/2. For all intents and purposes the government got what it argued was the appropriate sentence.
3. The Crown agreed to a lesser offence of aggravated assault. The punishment was not for attempted murder. This is a major difference because a judge cannot sentence someone for having intent to kill when they are being sentenced for a crime that does not include that level of intent.
With the drugs and mental health issues maybe the Crown genuinely assessed he could not prove that intent beyond a reasonable doubt. I don’t know and nothing in the media coverage tells us.
4. There is a comment about the offender being a classic victim of trans generational trauma which is the language of reference to Gladue sentencing considerations. Our Criminal Code mandates a judge to take judicial notice of this historical systemic inequity and consider whether it reduces the offender’s culpability and if it does to account for that in reduced severity of sentencing.
Put another way, it would have been illegal for the judge not to consider those factors. If you have a problem with that aspect you need to take that up with your federal MP. Your suggestion the judge failed to do his job (which is to apply the laws we have not invent what he thinks they should be) is not based in fact.
For what it is worth, how to properly characterize and apply Gladue sentencing factors has plagued the courts for years. There has been extensive back and forth decisions from the Alberta Court of Appeal in particular. It could fill an entire law school course never mind entirely derail this thread.
The bottom line is the criminal sentencing process cannot undue tragedy. We have to stop expecting it to be able to and we can then have less profound disappointment.
If you watch the video in this case you will see for certain that the offender was not contemplating relative potential sentencing harshness before pushing the victim. Longer sentences will not make these crimes stop happening. That doesn’t mean it is invalid to advocate for longer sentences just be aware it will not stop these tragedies.
As someone who has been in the criminal justice system for getting close to 20 years, who pays plenty in taxes, who has received a late night call to go to my family after they were in a serious highway head on collision caused by a young aboriginal woman driving drunk, I can say that in my opinion the thought of blowing astronomical amounts of money to incarcerate more people for longer is possibly the least effective thing we can do.
Money and effort should be focussed on preventing offences not trying to send a message after its too late.
Few ever ask how much taxpayer money will we spend incarcerating this offender? 4 years of keeping a female inmate costs over $330,000.
http://publications.gc.ca/collection...2-2018-eng.pdf
We will spend that without thought and be outraged we are not spending more (to keep her in longer).
But if a year prior to the offence I came to you and said, please allow me to spend $250,000 (considerably less than the incarceration bill) on one aboriginal person to give her individualized wraparound counselling and services to get her the help she needs to avoid a cycle of addiction and crime, would you authorize the cheque? Be honest.
I’m not saying every person can be saved by such public spending on treatment instead of punishment. But many can. It is much easier though to just demand harsher sentences and allow us to trick ourselves into thinking we are solving problems when really we are just hiding them in penitentiaries.
As a society that continues to fail to properly address mental health and addictions issues particularly in indigenous communities perhaps we all should take our share of responsibility for this offence rather than single out and declare how much we hate the justice system that is only called upon to clean up after the potentially preventable disaster has already happened?
Seems like it might be a more productive thing to discuss rather than jailing every single person working in the system.
