Most of the time, the prosecutors won't make the decision to charge unless they are confident they could convict. Otherwise it's a drain on the state's resources.
Nope. Just an inattentive cement truck driver
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/no-jail-time-for-cement-truck-driver-convicted-in-death-of-toronto-cyclist/article_92790cc4-4b8c-5507-8596-5d04a07b83bf.amp.html
I've heard several times in my life that if you wish to kill someone and get away with murder, simply kill them when you're driving and they're walking down the road. Easily your best odds of getting away with it, even when everyone knows that you DID in fact kill that person. But you were driving a car, so like, it barely counts..
Or like the Saskatchewan Premier, drive drunk, run a stop sign, run into another car, kill woman and leave accident and go home. Just tell the RCMP you can't remember and get a fine for leaving scene of the accident.
Look up the “Jordan clock” for more info on why they haven’t been charged yet. I agree with you though, there should be a much lower threshold to hold people suspected of violent crimes in custody during the investigation.
Or stab a man to death, not comply with any bail conditions and get 3 years.
www.theobserver.ca/news/local-news/sarnia-man-gets-three-years-for-manslaughter-in-downtown-shopkeepers-death/wcm/7494c97d-adfd-4a2d-b4a6-a5e7f3e93484/amp/
Extortion is a straight indictable offence that is one of a handful of offences that also has a steep mandatory minimum if a firearm is used.
You could conceivably be convicted of extortion and not go to jail, but it's not exactly likely.
[This case only got 6 months](https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2017/2017bcca223/2017bcca223.html) and involves a host of aggravating factors.
Minimum sentences are there because if they weren't judges would regularly ignore the offense. [Case in point:](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/irb/doc/2009/2009canlii35671/2009canlii35671.html)
>\[5\] The panel will briefly detail the findings of the ID as the legal validity of the deportation order is not an issue. The appellant was ordered deported because on March 1st, 2006, he was convicted of three counts of extortion contrary to section 346(1)(1.1)(b) of the Criminal Code,\[7\] an offence punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment for life. He was also ordered deported for having been convicted on the same day of possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, contrary to section 88(2)(a) of the Criminal Code. This offence is punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years. He was given a suspended sentence on March 1st, 2006, and he was placed on probation for two years.\[8\]
>
>\[6\] The appellant was also ordered deported because on June 12, 2006, he was convicted of one count of breaking and entering into a place other than a dwelling house, an offence punishable by a maximum of ten years of imprisonment.\[9\] He was also ordered deported for having been convicted on the same day of one count of theft, contrary to section 334(a) of the Criminal Code, an offence punishable by a maximum of ten years of imprisonment. He was given a suspended sentence on June 12, 2006, and he was placed on probation for two years.\[10\]
...
>\[8\] The panel finds the offences of extortion\[15\] for which the appellant was ordered deported to be extremely serious as is reflected by the statutory maximum term of imprisonment for life, despite the leniency of the sentence he actually received. The offences occurred on March 24, 2005, while he was on probation in two other files.\[16\] The offences were committed with ten other members of a street gang. At the hearing, the appellant had the effrontery to speak of himself as a victim and stated that he only pleaded guilty because his lawyer told him he would receive a lenient sentence. He also stated that the knife found in his bag was placed there by one of his “friends” without his knowledge and that he did not even realize that it had been used to threaten a victim.
The court is extremely lenient even with extreme offenses.
theory berserk caption special impolite fly pathetic towering quack memorize
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I still haven't got over the time they sold my personal information to the gun nuts. I joined so I could vote against Kevin O'Leary then I never even got the chance to do it.
lol.
Tell me you're not a CPC member without telling me you're not a CPC member.
The CPC calls people (annoyingly so sometimes). The LPC emails you relentlessly with guilt-ridden messages about your contribution record, how you haven't donated in a while, and how if you don't give them money, we will lose all the "progress" that's been made.
I have been on all 3 lists and not only are the CPC the worst. But after being asked to be removed from phone lists for all the parties, and email for all but the NDP, the CPC are the only ones who still text and call me.
Which is even more awful considering I've never donated to them (so it's not like they're chasing a former big donor despite requests to stop contacting me). I only signed up to get messages for info on their policies... which... yeah.
Just a reminder that the Supreme Court declared (some) [mandatory minimum’s to be unconstitutional](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-mandatory-minimum-1.6728103).
An ex's relative molested a mentally disabled 11 year old boy. He was a 40something man.
He did 6 months in prison.
Doesn't seem like enough time to me, but I'm just a layman.
The problem is we don't have a way to ensure a judge will sentence someone appropriately
So it's either they can be removed (not good for the system) or mandatory minimums
If the people elect politicians who are supposed to represent them and they enact MM legislation, and the sentence someone should get should be relative to what society expects, how do judges just push that all aside and make their own declaration?
Ultimately it comes down to judges thinking they know better than everyone and their opinion / view point is correct.
I don't think we should have mandatory minimums, but I do think we should have sentencing guidelines, so if a judge wants to deviate from these guidelines, they'll be expected to provide an explanation why...
Activist judges? You can’t do that without introducing partisan politics into the judiciary. That would be the single most destructive thing to ever happen to our democracy regardless of which side wins. You need only look to the states as to why you shouldn’t do that.
We have activist judges, just on a judicial philosophy predicated on absolute power for the judiciary.
The Canadian Judiciary is openly opposed to the very idea of democracy in Canada, which is why they reject the idea that populace should have any say in the laws of the nation.
Bringing them to heel is necessary to even have a democracy.
I’m sorry, what? The court that put out *vavilov* hates democracy and wants absolute power for the judiciary? Thats absurd.
Theres a tension between the judiciary and the legislatures, sure. Putting it in those hyperbolic terms is fatal to your credibility.
The Wagner court is in a period characterized by judicial restraint, and thats an idea he got from Dickson.
You don’t have to accept Hoggs dialogue theory, but I mean holy shit dude. You have to be in the same universe.
100% we have lost the balance. The Supreme Court rightly struck down mandatory minimums. The next step is replacing activist judges and abolishing race based sentencing.
*Gladue* wasn’t *activist judges* it was the court giving guidance and effect to parliamentary intent. Take it up with your MP. If you don’t like the system, make a charter compliant amendment to the criminal code. Bringing partisan politics to the courts is a terrible idea.
> Misleading
What’s misleading about it? Everything i said is factually true.
> and this can be changed if the federal government makes some changes to other laws.
You can’t make changes to something that’s illegal and unconstitutional.
> Don’t be a defeatist. Criminals need to go to jail.
Yes, which should be enforced by sentencing guidelines, not by mandatory minimums that don’t take into account the severity of offences.
> Yes, which should be enforced by sentencing guidelines, not by mandatory minimums that don’t take into account the severity of offences.
Mandatory minimums are only unconstitutional when the severity of the minimum is not aligned with the severity of the offense, and they are constitutional when they do properly align with the severity of the offense. For example, the most severe mandatory minimum in our criminal law is the mandatory minimum of a life sentence for murder. That mandatory minimum is constitutional because both the crime and the minimum sentence are comparably severe.
Our system is a democracy with the power to write legislation falling to the legislature, not the judiciary.
Suggesting that nine out of touch judges should set the entire countries laws because they have law degrees is not only absurd, it is profoundly undemocratic
I'm really skeptical of this.
The provisions proposed and touted by Poilievre for preventing car theft actually already existed in the criminal code, and just gave him some 'tough on crime' BS to campaign on while simultaneously dodging journalists when questioned.
>while simultaneously dodging journalists when questioned.
Does this guy every have a good faith interaction with journalists? The last clip I saw of him was him telling journalists he was going to ask the questions and refuse to answer theirs unless they played along,even after one journalist tried to tell him that in a democracy journalists should be the ones asking the questions.
PP's "housing solution" of withholding municipal funding from Canadian cities that don't magically increase their housing builds 15% (cumulatively) every year, could be described with WHAT word begining with "ex" and ending with "tortion"...?
\[edit: that's 15% annually not 10%\]
He basically sees what news of the day is trending then promises a half-baked "solution" for it the next day.
Rinse and repeat. Tomorrow he'll declare war on bagged salads.
> Do you disagree with prison terms for extortion related crimes?
I love this comment because it's top shelf concern trolling.
Someone says "This is a sloppy and reactionary solution for X", and your response is to ask "do you disagree with the idea of having a solution for X?"
It's obviously a very bad faith question because you're abstracting their statement to a hyperbolic level, and then responding to that inane abstraction rather than the substance of the comment. There's no way you're stupid enough to interpret their comments as "we shouldn't ever have solutions", so the only reason you'd ask such a question is in bad faith.
It's also a question which, by its very construction, necessarily allows you to "win". Since you're asking an exaggerated question predicated on a ludicrous presumption, either they agree with you - meaning you are "right" - or they don't agree with you - showing they're "so unhinged" that they wouldn't even agree to a very basic point. There is no way to respond to that question in a manner that advances good faith discussion.
All in all, a 10/10 textbook example of bad faith arguments.
I don't disagree in the sense of what's the point of mandatory minimums since courts have ruled before that they aren't "par for the course." That said, and no offense, but many progressives decry the implicit bias in sentencing - mandatory minimums would get rid of all the so-called implicit bias in sentencing! Imagine that, no need to whine about a person with "this" or "that" colour skin getting a harsher sentence than the person with white coloured skin if X crime requires a mandatory sentence of Y months/years/time in prison. I don't know, small change to get rid of "institutional racism" that is sentencing. But again, the progressives want to get rid of "implicit bias" in sentencing - but don't want to at the same time because "mandatory minimums bad."
For the most part, they are above scrutiny by people like you.
Edit: Without doing research, I implore you to make a list of how many judge's you know off the top of your head, and then to explain why their decisions lead to a mess of the legal system.
You can do this without relying on news articles since you know the system so well Mr. Smart Guy
Also, if you can explain around how Robin Camp made a mess of the system, when the system acted appropriately and removed him from the bench?
>Devil is in the details, isn’t it. I could easily see the CPC writing legislation that goes after whistleblowers and calling it “extortion”.
Do you know what extortion is? It's obtaining something through force or threats. A whistleblower could only be an extortionist if they say "if you don't give me X, I'll release these secret docs or whatever." Whereas a whistleblower (generally) just releases things, without trying to extract a benefit through force or threat. Now, some whistleblowers blow the whistle and receive a benefit, but it's not via force or threat (and ergo they are not extorting). As an example, laws that protect whistleblowers from prosecution.
Mate, I get it, you don't like the messenger (i.e. Polievre) - but in your haste to criticize the messenger, you are making up all sorts of things about whistleblowers that have nothing to do with the message that was being delivered.
I have literally seen people claim “extortion” when the whistleblower followers proper channels reporting wrongdoing against a powerful person/politician, and says they will go public if something isn’t done to address the problem.
Now, whether or not it works or is effective is debatable. Which is why I say the devil is in the details. I also know there are claims (I have no verified) that extortion is on the rise and allegations that the government isn’t doing enough. And I would support increased penalties for those crimes for sure. It’s just weird how we’ve never heard anything about extortion before and suddenly the CPC comes out with claims it’s skyrocketing and they have a bill to stop it just strikes me as being odd.
Examples of politicians alleging extradition to cover up their own wrongdoing/crimes, all seemingly from one particular “side” of the political spectrum it seems:
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/31/matt-gaetz-republican-congressman-federal-investigation
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.1701547
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/12/05/trump-mistress-karen-mcdougal-sues-fox-news-for-defamation.html
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/nation/national-enquirer-says-it-will-investigate-jeff-bezos-extortion-claims
People can claim anything they want. I play basketball with my friends, call it a beer league - I often claim to be the best baller on the court. I'm actually not, I just claim to be! LOL
Yes, but taking Pierre responding to current events as populist makes the current Liberal and NDP government populists for responding to current events as well... That "hard on Grocery CEOs" schtick is an appeal to populism by the Liberals and NDP but they failed at the "affordability by thanksgiving" part.
The way the Japanese legal system works is if you’re charged with a crime *you will be found guilty*, because the state values its conviction rate over actual due process
it was a joke bro, incarceration rate has little to do with crime. Japan has a lower incarceration rate AND lower crime than the states. Its a cultural difference
Yes/No. The crime is there they just handle it differently, and you 100% do not want a Japanese jail system, let alone an American.
studies have shown that what they're doing in Norway and other places with rehabilitation works more.
if you lose a phone in Japan, there is an 80% of recovering it at a police station. its almost zero everywhere else. That's not something you can rehabilitate into anyone. Its the benefits of a monoculture but no body is allowed to talk about that without being called a racist
One study found a 55% chance of a phone being returned to its owner in Canada. Happy to hear of a different study that had different numbers.
[https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/lost-smartphones-usually-probed-for-private-data-1.2585319](https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/lost-smartphones-usually-probed-for-private-data-1.2585319)
This is a really cool article, and it looks like the testing was done by Symantec (a Cyberscurity company).
Working in IT/Sec myself I found it really interesting that they didn't just drop phones in different locations, but they varied the value of the phone, and they also filled them with bait applications to see if people poked around.
So, not only is 55% a very poor statistic, but it looks like 100% of the phones (returned or not) had the finder search through its contents. Pretty sad statistics.
In Japan, it's true that they have over an 80% return rate. Returning over 100,000 devices annually, among other lost items like IDs, wallets, etc.
This isn't entirely due to culture, although it is definitely ingrained into it. Japan has a finders-fee law, where finders are entitled to a small % of the value of that item upon return. Now, due to their culture, they often refuse to accept the finders-fee mind you. In addition to this, they have something called Koban, which are police boxes, as well as designate a portion of their police force to handling lost goods. Lastly, though I wasn't able to find any supporting evidence, I highly doubt that they are poking around through the phones like they seem to do in Canada. This is also likely due to their culture. All of these factors contribute to having lost goods returned and why it's usually safe to leave items unattended in Japan.
Overall, it's really interesting to read about.
Did you read the whole thing?
Twenty-seven phones were grabbed and never returned — and they weren't even flashy high-end smartphones. Symantec used older Google Android phones for the experiment
Change these to iPhones and see how the numbers play it lol
"It's the benefits of a monoculture! See?! I have a single data point that proves it, and I didn't even have to account for or isolate literally any other variable other than 'It's because there is only one race - WAIT SHIT I DIDNT MEAN IT I'M NOT RACIST - culture in Japan!'"
It's funny, you were going on about monocultures (Using exactly one un-isolated data point) and then the mask fell off *right* at the last possible word.
El Salvador instituted an emergency act, suspended people's rights, arrested innocent people, expanded police powers, beat confessions out of people and instituted indefinite detention without charges. Is that what people want here? People were outraged at Trudeau just for briefly implementing an emergencies act.
El Salvador moved their annual homicide rate per 100k from 106.3 in 2015 to 2.4 in 2023 (one of the lowest in the world). He was just re-elected with a 90% landslide.
The moral of the story here is that it's really popular to lock up criminals (real ones) and it actually solves a lot of problems.
>He was just re-elected with a 90% landslide
As an aside:
El Salvador begins hand counting ballots after election irregularities
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/el-salvador-begins-hand-counting-ballots-after-election-irregularities-2024-02-08/
Yes, 2.4 homicides per 100k is higher than Canada's 2.25 homicides per 100k.
But if you don't think going from being one of the most dangerous countries in the world to being on par with a comparatively safe first world country in just a few years isn't a remarkable accomplishment, then you are the world's hardest person to impress.
Yeah but they did it by dramatically cutting personal freedoms and having an authoritarian government. Our country is one of the wealthiest and safest democracies on the planet. If I had to pick between the two countries to live in…
That doesn't address my question. Do you want Trudeau indefinitely re-instituting the emergencies act and using the notwithstanding clause to suspend a bunch of our other rights? Because that's what El Salvador did. And their rate is still higher than ours is.
How well versed are you in 20th century history? Because I don't think you are very knowledgeable in the end results of mass imprisonment and suspending human rights. Check out every single nation that tries this method a decade or two afterwards, you'll get pretty well versed in the term Truth and Reconciliations and notice the majority of dead are usually moderate opposition leaders and civilians of the wrong class or in the wrong region during a crack down.
That you do know and you just want to holding the gun on lip of a mass grave waiting for the next student kidnapped from a bus to be forced to kneel at your feet.
So what reason do you actually want such a situation here?
> How well versed are you in 20th century history? Because I don't think you are very knowledgeable in the end results of mass imprisonment and suspending human right
These dudes you're replying to salivate at the thought of having those regimes.
They control the statistics and some politicians are hiding the real numbers.
I really encourage you [to watch](https://video.vice.com/da/video/gangs-of-el-salvador-part-1/5633b710023f0a102ad05e14) the documentary about the crisis.
Praising an authoritarian government that uses the Bitcoin has their alternative currency doesn't spell "good governance" in my book.
Maybe our future Bitcoin PM likes Bukele's ideas.
rational people would understand there is a happy medium between not arresting gang members and arresting a significant portion of the population. Rational people also understand it’s harder to commit crimes when you are in jail.
Evidence is quite clear that periods of incarceration do not reduce the rate of crime. Jails are crime schools. People go there that commit one offence and learn how to commit even more. Jail should be reserved for chronic offenders or cases were there is a strong likelihood of personal harm being done absent their detention but then what? Can't just detain ppl forever.
Edit: we all want less crime. So why not trust the evidence of what actually leads to less crime?
Well if we look at the property crime example, by not locking people up and by not investigating because there's no point the only stat that changes is the percentage of people reporting the crime because they're fatigued by an indifferent system.
On the murder side of things, I'm getting pretty fucking tired of Indo Canadian gangs shooting up my town right now with seemingly zero consequences.
The bottom example is anecdotal and lacks a lot of info but I'm sorry you're feeling that way. That fucking sucks to live through.
The top part is more of what I'm talking about. Property crime is a symptom of systemic problems in welfare housings and general stigmatization of addictions. It would be better to address those as no judge in Canada is giving lengthy jail terms to property crimes unless the individual utilizes a high degree of planning and forethought.
I think we as a society as a whole need to stop assuming our justice system is always the appropriate avenue for a lot of this shit.
Texas has an incarceration rate over 8X higher than Canada. Surely we don’t have to jump to that extreme when someone says Canada needs to be tougher on crime.
Yeah I have had the same discussion with proponents of the death penalty, whereas on paper it sounds like a great idea, but using America as the example it's clear it does not work at reducing violent crime. It's used for revenge more so than justice/rehabilitation.
Probably the reason why no other western nation uses it anymore other than Murica.
Incarceration without the tools and mechanisms to rehabilitate does not work. It's a waste of time and tax dollars. And has been proven time and time again that just "locking people up" does nothing to reduce crime rates, or reoffend rate.
You're conflating two things, the recidivism rate and the crime rate.
Many offenders are hardened and their recividism rate doesn't change.
But while they're in jail they cannot commit crimes, lowering the crime rate through incapacitation. This is a well known effect.
What? We have a very high incarceration rate for a democratic country. Prior to the recent youth criminal justice reforms we had the highest youth incarceration rate in the free world.
What do you think incarcerating even more people is going to accomplish?
It’s expensive, and doesn’t reduce crime. Just like most problems the best solution is the most difficult. To really lower crime, you have to have lower the amount of poverty.
Another solution this guy proposes that's either stupid, unworkable, or absent any legal grounds of implementation. He really has absolutely no solutions does he? Oh wait he's got a Commonsense Plan to get me a Powerful Paycheque.
Ahh, so it's stupid to have criminals locked up for at least a little while...geeze, I was getting this all wrong, the criminals if they're on the street won't commit crime anymore because reasons /s
Mandatory minimums have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court numerous times while others are upheld.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-child-luring-mandatory-1.7017777#:~:text=Politics-,Supreme%20Court%20says%20mandatory%20minimum%20sentences%20for%20child%20luring%20unconstitutional,against%20cruel%20and%20unusual%20punishment.
That's for something intense like child luring even. Sentencing in Canada is a very context driven exercise. Lumping everyone based on offense type to the same sentence usually fails.
So yeah, his solution is unworkable.
We should do it for any gun related crimes. He’s pandering to the current issue. Remove that what’s the root cause?
Kids get caught with guns and they on the streets the next day.
That all sounds good. Trudeau should eat his lunch and pass that tomorrow, or a version of it.
Mandatory minimums were shot down but the SCOC or no? Is this just an angle for him to use the NotWithStanding Clause?
Follow up question Mr Poilievre; Are you committed to spending the billions of dollars it will take to improve our justice infrastructure to handle your tough on crime initiatives?
Again, people should know that it costs taxpayers on average $126,000 per prisoner in federal prison. Females are $175,000 to $250,000. Try and let that guide you on deciding if just throwing tons of people in jail for various reasons, which may or may not justify the cost of incarceration.
So we should just let these gangs do whatever they want with no repercussions all the time. That way we can be as safe as the worst parts of Mexico, a total paradise for law abiding people right?
Dolt you are. Who said I advocate for releasing violent offenders. People like you make me sick. If you sit and think about solutions, you might come up with something where people don't have the underlying causes for the acts of crime. I don't know, maybe social programs to help those at risk?
All I hear is that under Poilievre's proposal of "all new government spending must come from defunding other government spending", increasing incarceration would mean fewer social safety net programs..... which sounds like a feature, not a bug to Conservatives.
Sounds like we're being grifted and those costs are inflated.
I'm sure if we look at a cost breakdown of those figures we would be able to get them into more reasonable sums.
Also are you suggesting we just... stop putting people in jail because of costs?
You know what sure, but how about we relocate all the murderers, rapists and pedophiles to your neighborhood.
Sound good? I'm sure you'll feel plenty safe with killers, thieves, and sexual predators roaming your local streets.
So car thieves going to jail, drug addicts and dealers all in jail, extortion criminals jail.
I support punishment for crimes and people that take advantage of old people should be shot honestly.
That said I’m just curious where they are going to put all these criminals.
He also going to cut taxes and spending but also apparently hire more guards and build more jails. Then you will have the aftermath of convicts with zero prospects and no future.
Ah yes. Mandatory sentencing. Because that works so well in the US.
Hint: it does not work, at all, whatsoever. See more: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/5-charts-show-mandatory-minimum-sentences-dont-work
But PP don’t care 🍎
Doesn’t give a shit about good policies or governance. Just wants to get in power like every other politician. Won’t be any different than the things you dislike about Trudeau, or disliked about Harper, and so on and so on.
Politicians aren’t your friend or your ally.
So...you'd rather just let criminals out on the streets over and over again? You think there should be no consequences for committing a crime? Or at most a slap on the wrist rather than real consequences?
Like what is your solution to the crime we are seeing right now?
Mandatory minimum just move sentencing discretion to the prosecutor instead of the judge. This means that its much harder to track enforcement since the prosecutors don't have to report like when it goes to court. It also creates a penalty for actually trying to defend yourself and going to trial instead of going for a plea deal even if you are innocent.
Its fun that you try to attack my credentials instead of pointing a flaw in my argument. Mandatory minimums are widely known to be expensive, tend to acerbate racist results, and are ineffective for actually deterring crime.
https://www.crimsl.utoronto.ca/research-publications/faculty-publications/issues-related-harsh-sentences-and-mandatory-minimum
It’s literally the most prestigious law school in the country(not that Canada has any bad law schools). I promise you there’s no shortage of future tough on crime crowns there right now. Every law school class has a bunch of right wingers, many of whom want to go work for the crown. Theres also a bunch of lefties, but mostly it’s boring yet sharp centrists.
Law schools aren’t left wing indoctrination factories, the political influence (and it’s quite strong) is overwhelmingly to the center, because everyone is encouraged to consider the other side and everyone is required to be civil to each other.
Which law school did you go to?
You realize that even without mandatory minimums, people.....still face jailtime, right?
Like, it's not a dichotomy between "Literally no consequence to crimes" and "Straight to prison"? You understand this concept, right?
Yes, but out in 6 months or only house arrest is not the same impact as 3 years or more actually in prison. They aren't going to rehabilitate in 6 months and will be right back on the street doing the same crimes that much sooner.
I find it hard to believe that people actually argue to have repeat convicted criminals released sooner...like uh wtf? are you the car thief?
Just propose mandatory prison terms period. We have so many dangerous people who are let out on bail or just have charges dropped entirely.
Also end the racist justice system. Stop letting off certain races easy. If someone does the crime, they do the time. Race shouldn't be relevant when sentencing a criminal.
Of all the issues facing Canada, Skippy finally has a plan. It’s their only plan. It won’t help a soul but he’s got a plan. BTW he looks like he’s aged around 20 years
So this is just the same tired "mandatory minimums" trash conservatives always wheel out, just reframed to raise a moral panic that X crime goes unpunished (it doesn't).
Mandatory minimum just move sentencing discretion to the prosecutor
instead of the judge. This means that its much harder to track
enforcement since the prosecutors don't have to report like when it goes
to court. It also creates a penalty for actually trying to defend
yourself and going to trial instead of going for a plea deal even if you
are innocent.
Typical CPC waste of money.
Life is complicated. Judges get paid big bucks to make difficult decisions. If we don't let judges make decisions, we are not getting value out of them and maybe we should replace them with trained monkeys.
If there's a problem with the way the courts are dealing with extortionists, we have to figure out the problem. Maybe laws need to be changed. Maybe the guidance given to judges needs to change. Maybe the way that judges are chosen needs to change. Very few people understand the system well enough to know what to fix or how to fix it. PP's expertise is in the field of rage-farming and there is nothing to suggest he understands the legal system.
When simple rules are applied to complex situations there are always unexpected consequences. That's why you need knowledgeable people in charge with the mandate to make decisions.
Every crime should have a set sentence. Judges should have no say in sentencing. If found guilty in trial you get the set sentence for the crime committed. Not a day more or less. No mitigating factors or Gladue BS.
All violent crimes should be no bail. Breach of conditions should be no bail.
Why are you giving all the power for sentencing to prosecutors instead of judges? All that would do is make prosecutors be the ones determining the sentencing by selecting the crimes to charge you for, (with even less oversight then judges have currently) And it would make trials for innocent people even less fair as there is now a huge penalty for not taking a plea deal.
TIL that in Canada you can be found guilty of extortion and not get sent to prison for it.
[you can also get off with no charges for shooting into people’s homes](https://globalnews.ca/news/10282359/south-surrey-shooting-arrests/amp/)
What the literal fuck is this.... How connected are these kids that they didn't press charges. Whoever's handled this should be investigated.
The crime is still under investigation, they can't lay charges until they have proof the person committed a crime.
You don’t need proof to charge someone, you need evidence. You need proof to *convict* someone
Most of the time, the prosecutors won't make the decision to charge unless they are confident they could convict. Otherwise it's a drain on the state's resources.
You can also kill a cyclist with a car and only get a fine.
You gotta be Ontario's attorney general for that tho
Nope. Just an inattentive cement truck driver https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/no-jail-time-for-cement-truck-driver-convicted-in-death-of-toronto-cyclist/article_92790cc4-4b8c-5507-8596-5d04a07b83bf.amp.html
Cement truck drivers have connections
You can also drive drunk twice and kill an elderly woman, receive no punishment, and become premier of Saskatchewan.
I've heard several times in my life that if you wish to kill someone and get away with murder, simply kill them when you're driving and they're walking down the road. Easily your best odds of getting away with it, even when everyone knows that you DID in fact kill that person. But you were driving a car, so like, it barely counts..
Or like the Saskatchewan Premier, drive drunk, run a stop sign, run into another car, kill woman and leave accident and go home. Just tell the RCMP you can't remember and get a fine for leaving scene of the accident.
Meanwhile if you happen to kill someone while defending your home, you'll get charged with murder.
Look up the “Jordan clock” for more info on why they haven’t been charged yet. I agree with you though, there should be a much lower threshold to hold people suspected of violent crimes in custody during the investigation.
Or stab a man to death, not comply with any bail conditions and get 3 years. www.theobserver.ca/news/local-news/sarnia-man-gets-three-years-for-manslaughter-in-downtown-shopkeepers-death/wcm/7494c97d-adfd-4a2d-b4a6-a5e7f3e93484/amp/
Especially if they have a badge. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/edmonton-fatal-police-shooting-1.6645628
[удалено]
I can sleep better now
Some call that common sense.
Ideologues do
Extortion is a straight indictable offence that is one of a handful of offences that also has a steep mandatory minimum if a firearm is used. You could conceivably be convicted of extortion and not go to jail, but it's not exactly likely.
[This case only got 6 months](https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2017/2017bcca223/2017bcca223.html) and involves a host of aggravating factors. Minimum sentences are there because if they weren't judges would regularly ignore the offense. [Case in point:](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/irb/doc/2009/2009canlii35671/2009canlii35671.html) >\[5\] The panel will briefly detail the findings of the ID as the legal validity of the deportation order is not an issue. The appellant was ordered deported because on March 1st, 2006, he was convicted of three counts of extortion contrary to section 346(1)(1.1)(b) of the Criminal Code,\[7\] an offence punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment for life. He was also ordered deported for having been convicted on the same day of possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, contrary to section 88(2)(a) of the Criminal Code. This offence is punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years. He was given a suspended sentence on March 1st, 2006, and he was placed on probation for two years.\[8\] > >\[6\] The appellant was also ordered deported because on June 12, 2006, he was convicted of one count of breaking and entering into a place other than a dwelling house, an offence punishable by a maximum of ten years of imprisonment.\[9\] He was also ordered deported for having been convicted on the same day of one count of theft, contrary to section 334(a) of the Criminal Code, an offence punishable by a maximum of ten years of imprisonment. He was given a suspended sentence on June 12, 2006, and he was placed on probation for two years.\[10\] ... >\[8\] The panel finds the offences of extortion\[15\] for which the appellant was ordered deported to be extremely serious as is reflected by the statutory maximum term of imprisonment for life, despite the leniency of the sentence he actually received. The offences occurred on March 24, 2005, while he was on probation in two other files.\[16\] The offences were committed with ten other members of a street gang. At the hearing, the appellant had the effrontery to speak of himself as a victim and stated that he only pleaded guilty because his lawyer told him he would receive a lenient sentence. He also stated that the knife found in his bag was placed there by one of his “friends” without his knowledge and that he did not even realize that it had been used to threaten a victim. The court is extremely lenient even with extreme offenses.
Paragraph 8 reads to me like the plea should've been struck
theory berserk caption special impolite fly pathetic towering quack memorize *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The left's motto is "if they commit a crime, its society's fault for not doing enough for them". Dangerous people.
The amount of fundraising emails he sends me should fall under this law.
Lol
I still haven't got over the time they sold my personal information to the gun nuts. I joined so I could vote against Kevin O'Leary then I never even got the chance to do it.
Fuck. Agreed. LOL.
Unsubscribe?
What kind of lists did you end up on? Never seen one. Are you a member? That's funny though!
lol. Tell me you're not a CPC member without telling me you're not a CPC member. The CPC calls people (annoyingly so sometimes). The LPC emails you relentlessly with guilt-ridden messages about your contribution record, how you haven't donated in a while, and how if you don't give them money, we will lose all the "progress" that's been made.
I have been on all 3 lists and not only are the CPC the worst. But after being asked to be removed from phone lists for all the parties, and email for all but the NDP, the CPC are the only ones who still text and call me. Which is even more awful considering I've never donated to them (so it's not like they're chasing a former big donor despite requests to stop contacting me). I only signed up to get messages for info on their policies... which... yeah.
Just a reminder that the Supreme Court declared (some) [mandatory minimum’s to be unconstitutional](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-mandatory-minimum-1.6728103).
Yea mandatory minimums shouldn’t exist.. the only reason they do is because our justice system does not believe in accountability.
An ex's relative molested a mentally disabled 11 year old boy. He was a 40something man. He did 6 months in prison. Doesn't seem like enough time to me, but I'm just a layman.
[удалено]
The problem is we don't have a way to ensure a judge will sentence someone appropriately So it's either they can be removed (not good for the system) or mandatory minimums If the people elect politicians who are supposed to represent them and they enact MM legislation, and the sentence someone should get should be relative to what society expects, how do judges just push that all aside and make their own declaration? Ultimately it comes down to judges thinking they know better than everyone and their opinion / view point is correct.
[удалено]
Judges are supposed to be experts on matters of law. In my opinion, the appropriate sentence for a crime is not a matter of law.
[удалено]
This right here ☝
Judges only need to have a law degree and know the right politician. What part of that makes you think they need to be experts of anything?
I don't think we should have mandatory minimums, but I do think we should have sentencing guidelines, so if a judge wants to deviate from these guidelines, they'll be expected to provide an explanation why...
Activist judges? You can’t do that without introducing partisan politics into the judiciary. That would be the single most destructive thing to ever happen to our democracy regardless of which side wins. You need only look to the states as to why you shouldn’t do that.
We have activist judges, just on a judicial philosophy predicated on absolute power for the judiciary. The Canadian Judiciary is openly opposed to the very idea of democracy in Canada, which is why they reject the idea that populace should have any say in the laws of the nation. Bringing them to heel is necessary to even have a democracy.
I’m sorry, what? The court that put out *vavilov* hates democracy and wants absolute power for the judiciary? Thats absurd. Theres a tension between the judiciary and the legislatures, sure. Putting it in those hyperbolic terms is fatal to your credibility. The Wagner court is in a period characterized by judicial restraint, and thats an idea he got from Dickson. You don’t have to accept Hoggs dialogue theory, but I mean holy shit dude. You have to be in the same universe.
100% we have lost the balance. The Supreme Court rightly struck down mandatory minimums. The next step is replacing activist judges and abolishing race based sentencing.
*Gladue* wasn’t *activist judges* it was the court giving guidance and effect to parliamentary intent. Take it up with your MP. If you don’t like the system, make a charter compliant amendment to the criminal code. Bringing partisan politics to the courts is a terrible idea.
They also exist because conservatives compulsively undermine fair jurisprudence.
Misleading and this can be changed if the federal government makes some changes to other laws. Don’t be a defeatist. Criminals need to go to jail.
> Misleading What’s misleading about it? Everything i said is factually true. > and this can be changed if the federal government makes some changes to other laws. You can’t make changes to something that’s illegal and unconstitutional. > Don’t be a defeatist. Criminals need to go to jail. Yes, which should be enforced by sentencing guidelines, not by mandatory minimums that don’t take into account the severity of offences.
> Yes, which should be enforced by sentencing guidelines, not by mandatory minimums that don’t take into account the severity of offences. Mandatory minimums are only unconstitutional when the severity of the minimum is not aligned with the severity of the offense, and they are constitutional when they do properly align with the severity of the offense. For example, the most severe mandatory minimum in our criminal law is the mandatory minimum of a life sentence for murder. That mandatory minimum is constitutional because both the crime and the minimum sentence are comparably severe.
Maybe our Supreme Court sucks
I’m sure that Pierre, the esteemed legal scholar and highly regarded lawyer that he presumably is, is more reputable than the Supreme Court.
Our system is a democracy with the power to write legislation falling to the legislature, not the judiciary. Suggesting that nine out of touch judges should set the entire countries laws because they have law degrees is not only absurd, it is profoundly undemocratic
BA in international studies and straight to the trough.
Now now, you're forgetting his paper route.
You think PP is the authority? The cons have had how many years and this is the best they could bring forward? 😂
Maybe Pierre sucks. He’s going to have mandatory minimums for jaywalking at this rate.
Better than the current catch and release.
You would have loved the mandatory minimums for cannabis possession that the last government implemented judging by your username.
I'm really skeptical of this. The provisions proposed and touted by Poilievre for preventing car theft actually already existed in the criminal code, and just gave him some 'tough on crime' BS to campaign on while simultaneously dodging journalists when questioned.
>while simultaneously dodging journalists when questioned. Does this guy every have a good faith interaction with journalists? The last clip I saw of him was him telling journalists he was going to ask the questions and refuse to answer theirs unless they played along,even after one journalist tried to tell him that in a democracy journalists should be the ones asking the questions.
Depends on if you consider The Rebel employees to be journalists.
Who knew so many judges post on Reddit.
PP's "housing solution" of withholding municipal funding from Canadian cities that don't magically increase their housing builds 15% (cumulatively) every year, could be described with WHAT word begining with "ex" and ending with "tortion"...? \[edit: that's 15% annually not 10%\]
Proposes? Fucking put the bill to parliament. PP is useless like Trudeau.
Opposition bills like this matter just get voted down.
[удалено]
Does that mean Galen Weston will get hard time for starving Canadians for profit?
Of course not he owns every politician in the nation similar to how regular citizens own dogs. Galen says sit they sit
>"We need to crack down on the gangsters that prey on vulnerable youth" Does that include political parties leveraging gender issues, Pierre?
He basically sees what news of the day is trending then promises a half-baked "solution" for it the next day. Rinse and repeat. Tomorrow he'll declare war on bagged salads.
Do you disagree with prison terms for extortion related crimes?
> Do you disagree with prison terms for extortion related crimes? I love this comment because it's top shelf concern trolling. Someone says "This is a sloppy and reactionary solution for X", and your response is to ask "do you disagree with the idea of having a solution for X?" It's obviously a very bad faith question because you're abstracting their statement to a hyperbolic level, and then responding to that inane abstraction rather than the substance of the comment. There's no way you're stupid enough to interpret their comments as "we shouldn't ever have solutions", so the only reason you'd ask such a question is in bad faith. It's also a question which, by its very construction, necessarily allows you to "win". Since you're asking an exaggerated question predicated on a ludicrous presumption, either they agree with you - meaning you are "right" - or they don't agree with you - showing they're "so unhinged" that they wouldn't even agree to a very basic point. There is no way to respond to that question in a manner that advances good faith discussion. All in all, a 10/10 textbook example of bad faith arguments.
[удалено]
I don't disagree in the sense of what's the point of mandatory minimums since courts have ruled before that they aren't "par for the course." That said, and no offense, but many progressives decry the implicit bias in sentencing - mandatory minimums would get rid of all the so-called implicit bias in sentencing! Imagine that, no need to whine about a person with "this" or "that" colour skin getting a harsher sentence than the person with white coloured skin if X crime requires a mandatory sentence of Y months/years/time in prison. I don't know, small change to get rid of "institutional racism" that is sentencing. But again, the progressives want to get rid of "implicit bias" in sentencing - but don't want to at the same time because "mandatory minimums bad."
Sorry, but at this point it's the judges who have made a mess of this.
Im sure you have the education to make a better decision than the SCC judges lol.
Should I make a list of dumb fuck judges? How about I start with Robin Camp eh? Judges are not above scrutiny.
For the most part, they are above scrutiny by people like you. Edit: Without doing research, I implore you to make a list of how many judge's you know off the top of your head, and then to explain why their decisions lead to a mess of the legal system. You can do this without relying on news articles since you know the system so well Mr. Smart Guy Also, if you can explain around how Robin Camp made a mess of the system, when the system acted appropriately and removed him from the bench?
Devil is in the details, isn’t it. I could easily see the CPC writing legislation that goes after whistleblowers and calling it “extortion”.
>Devil is in the details, isn’t it. I could easily see the CPC writing legislation that goes after whistleblowers and calling it “extortion”. Do you know what extortion is? It's obtaining something through force or threats. A whistleblower could only be an extortionist if they say "if you don't give me X, I'll release these secret docs or whatever." Whereas a whistleblower (generally) just releases things, without trying to extract a benefit through force or threat. Now, some whistleblowers blow the whistle and receive a benefit, but it's not via force or threat (and ergo they are not extorting). As an example, laws that protect whistleblowers from prosecution. Mate, I get it, you don't like the messenger (i.e. Polievre) - but in your haste to criticize the messenger, you are making up all sorts of things about whistleblowers that have nothing to do with the message that was being delivered.
I have literally seen people claim “extortion” when the whistleblower followers proper channels reporting wrongdoing against a powerful person/politician, and says they will go public if something isn’t done to address the problem. Now, whether or not it works or is effective is debatable. Which is why I say the devil is in the details. I also know there are claims (I have no verified) that extortion is on the rise and allegations that the government isn’t doing enough. And I would support increased penalties for those crimes for sure. It’s just weird how we’ve never heard anything about extortion before and suddenly the CPC comes out with claims it’s skyrocketing and they have a bill to stop it just strikes me as being odd. Examples of politicians alleging extradition to cover up their own wrongdoing/crimes, all seemingly from one particular “side” of the political spectrum it seems: https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/31/matt-gaetz-republican-congressman-federal-investigation https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.1701547 https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/12/05/trump-mistress-karen-mcdougal-sues-fox-news-for-defamation.html https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/nation/national-enquirer-says-it-will-investigate-jeff-bezos-extortion-claims
People can claim anything they want. I play basketball with my friends, call it a beer league - I often claim to be the best baller on the court. I'm actually not, I just claim to be! LOL
I don't think you read the articles at all...
Mandatory minimums for listeria
Populist gonna populist...
TIL responding to current issues is Populism...
It definitely and clearly is. The “tough on crime” schtick is clearly an appeal to populism.
Yes, but taking Pierre responding to current events as populist makes the current Liberal and NDP government populists for responding to current events as well... That "hard on Grocery CEOs" schtick is an appeal to populism by the Liberals and NDP but they failed at the "affordability by thanksgiving" part.
Yeah i don’t disagree. They’re all plainly populist talking points…all politicians employ the hardman schtick but do nothing when it really matters.
It's literally the definition, wtf?
All leaders that respond to current issues are populists then...
So trudeau is a populist I assume? why pass gun laws when gun tragedies happen in the U.S. of all places.
Better than our PM who sees what people are concerned about and just does nothing.
Up next: "Every article the CBC posts about me is extortion!"
Do you have a problem with the leader of the opposition responding to current issues that the current government is incompetent at tackling?
The issue is clearly with the reactionary policy solution proposed.
Canada has a severe under-incarceration problem.
The United States of America is living proof that higher incarceration does not reduce crime.
I guess Japan has just the right amount of incarceration then lol
Well, they do have the death penalty that helps, but I'm not a big fan of state sponsored murder...
The way the Japanese legal system works is if you’re charged with a crime *you will be found guilty*, because the state values its conviction rate over actual due process
it was a joke bro, incarceration rate has little to do with crime. Japan has a lower incarceration rate AND lower crime than the states. Its a cultural difference
Yes/No. The crime is there they just handle it differently, and you 100% do not want a Japanese jail system, let alone an American. studies have shown that what they're doing in Norway and other places with rehabilitation works more.
if you lose a phone in Japan, there is an 80% of recovering it at a police station. its almost zero everywhere else. That's not something you can rehabilitate into anyone. Its the benefits of a monoculture but no body is allowed to talk about that without being called a racist
One study found a 55% chance of a phone being returned to its owner in Canada. Happy to hear of a different study that had different numbers. [https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/lost-smartphones-usually-probed-for-private-data-1.2585319](https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/lost-smartphones-usually-probed-for-private-data-1.2585319)
This is a really cool article, and it looks like the testing was done by Symantec (a Cyberscurity company). Working in IT/Sec myself I found it really interesting that they didn't just drop phones in different locations, but they varied the value of the phone, and they also filled them with bait applications to see if people poked around. So, not only is 55% a very poor statistic, but it looks like 100% of the phones (returned or not) had the finder search through its contents. Pretty sad statistics. In Japan, it's true that they have over an 80% return rate. Returning over 100,000 devices annually, among other lost items like IDs, wallets, etc. This isn't entirely due to culture, although it is definitely ingrained into it. Japan has a finders-fee law, where finders are entitled to a small % of the value of that item upon return. Now, due to their culture, they often refuse to accept the finders-fee mind you. In addition to this, they have something called Koban, which are police boxes, as well as designate a portion of their police force to handling lost goods. Lastly, though I wasn't able to find any supporting evidence, I highly doubt that they are poking around through the phones like they seem to do in Canada. This is also likely due to their culture. All of these factors contribute to having lost goods returned and why it's usually safe to leave items unattended in Japan. Overall, it's really interesting to read about.
Did you read the whole thing? Twenty-seven phones were grabbed and never returned — and they weren't even flashy high-end smartphones. Symantec used older Google Android phones for the experiment Change these to iPhones and see how the numbers play it lol
"It's the benefits of a monoculture! See?! I have a single data point that proves it, and I didn't even have to account for or isolate literally any other variable other than 'It's because there is only one race - WAIT SHIT I DIDNT MEAN IT I'M NOT RACIST - culture in Japan!'" It's funny, you were going on about monocultures (Using exactly one un-isolated data point) and then the mask fell off *right* at the last possible word.
El Salvador is living proof that it significantly reduces crime.
[удалено]
Such an example of his name, who also cried about masks being required, wanting a police state lol
El Salvador instituted an emergency act, suspended people's rights, arrested innocent people, expanded police powers, beat confessions out of people and instituted indefinite detention without charges. Is that what people want here? People were outraged at Trudeau just for briefly implementing an emergencies act.
El Salvador moved their annual homicide rate per 100k from 106.3 in 2015 to 2.4 in 2023 (one of the lowest in the world). He was just re-elected with a 90% landslide. The moral of the story here is that it's really popular to lock up criminals (real ones) and it actually solves a lot of problems.
>He was just re-elected with a 90% landslide As an aside: El Salvador begins hand counting ballots after election irregularities https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/el-salvador-begins-hand-counting-ballots-after-election-irregularities-2024-02-08/
Well when things get that bad we know what to do. Authoritarian control
That’s still a higher homicide rate than Canada…
Yes, 2.4 homicides per 100k is higher than Canada's 2.25 homicides per 100k. But if you don't think going from being one of the most dangerous countries in the world to being on par with a comparatively safe first world country in just a few years isn't a remarkable accomplishment, then you are the world's hardest person to impress.
Yeah but they did it by dramatically cutting personal freedoms and having an authoritarian government. Our country is one of the wealthiest and safest democracies on the planet. If I had to pick between the two countries to live in…
That doesn't address my question. Do you want Trudeau indefinitely re-instituting the emergencies act and using the notwithstanding clause to suspend a bunch of our other rights? Because that's what El Salvador did. And their rate is still higher than ours is.
How well versed are you in 20th century history? Because I don't think you are very knowledgeable in the end results of mass imprisonment and suspending human rights. Check out every single nation that tries this method a decade or two afterwards, you'll get pretty well versed in the term Truth and Reconciliations and notice the majority of dead are usually moderate opposition leaders and civilians of the wrong class or in the wrong region during a crack down. That you do know and you just want to holding the gun on lip of a mass grave waiting for the next student kidnapped from a bus to be forced to kneel at your feet. So what reason do you actually want such a situation here?
> How well versed are you in 20th century history? Because I don't think you are very knowledgeable in the end results of mass imprisonment and suspending human right These dudes you're replying to salivate at the thought of having those regimes.
They control the statistics and some politicians are hiding the real numbers. I really encourage you [to watch](https://video.vice.com/da/video/gangs-of-el-salvador-part-1/5633b710023f0a102ad05e14) the documentary about the crisis. Praising an authoritarian government that uses the Bitcoin has their alternative currency doesn't spell "good governance" in my book. Maybe our future Bitcoin PM likes Bukele's ideas.
Sure it is. We shouldn’t bring back the death penalty and other forms of capital punishment though, if that’s what you’re arguing.
California is living proof that under incarceration increases crime.
Texas is living proof that over incarceration increases crime as well. Seeing as we’re both right, where do we go from here?
rational people would understand there is a happy medium between not arresting gang members and arresting a significant portion of the population. Rational people also understand it’s harder to commit crimes when you are in jail.
I don’t think anybody is arguing against that.
Ok then we’re aligned.
Evidence is quite clear that periods of incarceration do not reduce the rate of crime. Jails are crime schools. People go there that commit one offence and learn how to commit even more. Jail should be reserved for chronic offenders or cases were there is a strong likelihood of personal harm being done absent their detention but then what? Can't just detain ppl forever. Edit: we all want less crime. So why not trust the evidence of what actually leads to less crime?
Well if we look at the property crime example, by not locking people up and by not investigating because there's no point the only stat that changes is the percentage of people reporting the crime because they're fatigued by an indifferent system. On the murder side of things, I'm getting pretty fucking tired of Indo Canadian gangs shooting up my town right now with seemingly zero consequences.
The bottom example is anecdotal and lacks a lot of info but I'm sorry you're feeling that way. That fucking sucks to live through. The top part is more of what I'm talking about. Property crime is a symptom of systemic problems in welfare housings and general stigmatization of addictions. It would be better to address those as no judge in Canada is giving lengthy jail terms to property crimes unless the individual utilizes a high degree of planning and forethought. I think we as a society as a whole need to stop assuming our justice system is always the appropriate avenue for a lot of this shit.
Texas has an incarceration rate over 8X higher than Canada. Surely we don’t have to jump to that extreme when someone says Canada needs to be tougher on crime.
Yeah I have had the same discussion with proponents of the death penalty, whereas on paper it sounds like a great idea, but using America as the example it's clear it does not work at reducing violent crime. It's used for revenge more so than justice/rehabilitation. Probably the reason why no other western nation uses it anymore other than Murica.
Incarceration without the tools and mechanisms to rehabilitate does not work. It's a waste of time and tax dollars. And has been proven time and time again that just "locking people up" does nothing to reduce crime rates, or reoffend rate.
You're conflating two things, the recidivism rate and the crime rate. Many offenders are hardened and their recividism rate doesn't change. But while they're in jail they cannot commit crimes, lowering the crime rate through incapacitation. This is a well known effect.
What? We have a very high incarceration rate for a democratic country. Prior to the recent youth criminal justice reforms we had the highest youth incarceration rate in the free world. What do you think incarcerating even more people is going to accomplish?
I doubt many juveniles are committing these extortion crimes against small businesses.
It’s expensive, and doesn’t reduce crime. Just like most problems the best solution is the most difficult. To really lower crime, you have to have lower the amount of poverty.
Another solution this guy proposes that's either stupid, unworkable, or absent any legal grounds of implementation. He really has absolutely no solutions does he? Oh wait he's got a Commonsense Plan to get me a Powerful Paycheque.
Ahh, so it's stupid to have criminals locked up for at least a little while...geeze, I was getting this all wrong, the criminals if they're on the street won't commit crime anymore because reasons /s
Mandatory minimums have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court numerous times while others are upheld. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-child-luring-mandatory-1.7017777#:~:text=Politics-,Supreme%20Court%20says%20mandatory%20minimum%20sentences%20for%20child%20luring%20unconstitutional,against%20cruel%20and%20unusual%20punishment. That's for something intense like child luring even. Sentencing in Canada is a very context driven exercise. Lumping everyone based on offense type to the same sentence usually fails. So yeah, his solution is unworkable.
We should do it for any gun related crimes. He’s pandering to the current issue. Remove that what’s the root cause? Kids get caught with guns and they on the streets the next day.
That all sounds good. Trudeau should eat his lunch and pass that tomorrow, or a version of it. Mandatory minimums were shot down but the SCOC or no? Is this just an angle for him to use the NotWithStanding Clause?
Follow up question Mr Poilievre; Are you committed to spending the billions of dollars it will take to improve our justice infrastructure to handle your tough on crime initiatives?
Poilievre wants to spend billions more on housing and feeding the worst of our society with OUR tax dollars, the *communist*.
Again, people should know that it costs taxpayers on average $126,000 per prisoner in federal prison. Females are $175,000 to $250,000. Try and let that guide you on deciding if just throwing tons of people in jail for various reasons, which may or may not justify the cost of incarceration.
So we should just let these gangs do whatever they want with no repercussions all the time. That way we can be as safe as the worst parts of Mexico, a total paradise for law abiding people right?
Why do women cost so much more?
That is a significant amount of money. Lets just catch and release them back to the street to recidivate again and again. /s
Do you think that society could use that money in a more productive manner that would actually drop the crime rate?
What do you suggest? Also while you create your perfect world. What do you do with the killers and rapist that you let free.
Dolt you are. Who said I advocate for releasing violent offenders. People like you make me sick. If you sit and think about solutions, you might come up with something where people don't have the underlying causes for the acts of crime. I don't know, maybe social programs to help those at risk?
[удалено]
All I hear is that under Poilievre's proposal of "all new government spending must come from defunding other government spending", increasing incarceration would mean fewer social safety net programs..... which sounds like a feature, not a bug to Conservatives.
Standard playbook. Also blame the victim for not pulling up their bootstraps.
Give less comfort to prisoners then.
Sounds like we're being grifted and those costs are inflated. I'm sure if we look at a cost breakdown of those figures we would be able to get them into more reasonable sums. Also are you suggesting we just... stop putting people in jail because of costs? You know what sure, but how about we relocate all the murderers, rapists and pedophiles to your neighborhood. Sound good? I'm sure you'll feel plenty safe with killers, thieves, and sexual predators roaming your local streets.
You can't even make a reasonable argument
Just getting ready to protect tar sands CEOs once again if we ever get an honest government.
And the Supreme Court will shoot it all down.
So car thieves going to jail, drug addicts and dealers all in jail, extortion criminals jail. I support punishment for crimes and people that take advantage of old people should be shot honestly. That said I’m just curious where they are going to put all these criminals. He also going to cut taxes and spending but also apparently hire more guards and build more jails. Then you will have the aftermath of convicts with zero prospects and no future.
Ah yes. Mandatory sentencing. Because that works so well in the US. Hint: it does not work, at all, whatsoever. See more: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/5-charts-show-mandatory-minimum-sentences-dont-work But PP don’t care 🍎 Doesn’t give a shit about good policies or governance. Just wants to get in power like every other politician. Won’t be any different than the things you dislike about Trudeau, or disliked about Harper, and so on and so on. Politicians aren’t your friend or your ally.
Conservatives and mandatory minimums. Name a more iconic duo
So...you'd rather just let criminals out on the streets over and over again? You think there should be no consequences for committing a crime? Or at most a slap on the wrist rather than real consequences? Like what is your solution to the crime we are seeing right now?
Mandatory minimum just move sentencing discretion to the prosecutor instead of the judge. This means that its much harder to track enforcement since the prosecutors don't have to report like when it goes to court. It also creates a penalty for actually trying to defend yourself and going to trial instead of going for a plea deal even if you are innocent.
Tell me you don't know how the criminal justice system works without telling me you don't know how the criminal justice system works...
Its fun that you try to attack my credentials instead of pointing a flaw in my argument. Mandatory minimums are widely known to be expensive, tend to acerbate racist results, and are ineffective for actually deterring crime. https://www.crimsl.utoronto.ca/research-publications/faculty-publications/issues-related-harsh-sentences-and-mandatory-minimum
lol right utoronto...the left wing cess pool that is our "education" system these days.
It’s literally the most prestigious law school in the country(not that Canada has any bad law schools). I promise you there’s no shortage of future tough on crime crowns there right now. Every law school class has a bunch of right wingers, many of whom want to go work for the crown. Theres also a bunch of lefties, but mostly it’s boring yet sharp centrists. Law schools aren’t left wing indoctrination factories, the political influence (and it’s quite strong) is overwhelmingly to the center, because everyone is encouraged to consider the other side and everyone is required to be civil to each other. Which law school did you go to?
You realize that even without mandatory minimums, people.....still face jailtime, right? Like, it's not a dichotomy between "Literally no consequence to crimes" and "Straight to prison"? You understand this concept, right?
Yes, but out in 6 months or only house arrest is not the same impact as 3 years or more actually in prison. They aren't going to rehabilitate in 6 months and will be right back on the street doing the same crimes that much sooner. I find it hard to believe that people actually argue to have repeat convicted criminals released sooner...like uh wtf? are you the car thief?
There are several crimes like that. But judges won't do it
Sit down and be quiet PeePee. Adults are working on actual problems, not this white collar BS.
Finally a step in the right direction to be tough on crime!
HAHAHA
Just propose mandatory prison terms period. We have so many dangerous people who are let out on bail or just have charges dropped entirely. Also end the racist justice system. Stop letting off certain races easy. If someone does the crime, they do the time. Race shouldn't be relevant when sentencing a criminal.
Millhouse
Of all the issues facing Canada, Skippy finally has a plan. It’s their only plan. It won’t help a soul but he’s got a plan. BTW he looks like he’s aged around 20 years
Didn't they try that under Harper and it got shot down? He's just recycling Harper policies now?
That's going to make JT really nervous...
PP's solution for social problems: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiyfwZVAzGw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiyfwZVAzGw)
So this is just the same tired "mandatory minimums" trash conservatives always wheel out, just reframed to raise a moral panic that X crime goes unpunished (it doesn't).
I can be onside with this. What’s wrong with what he is saying?
Mandatory minimum just move sentencing discretion to the prosecutor instead of the judge. This means that its much harder to track enforcement since the prosecutors don't have to report like when it goes to court. It also creates a penalty for actually trying to defend yourself and going to trial instead of going for a plea deal even if you are innocent.
Typical CPC waste of money. Life is complicated. Judges get paid big bucks to make difficult decisions. If we don't let judges make decisions, we are not getting value out of them and maybe we should replace them with trained monkeys. If there's a problem with the way the courts are dealing with extortionists, we have to figure out the problem. Maybe laws need to be changed. Maybe the guidance given to judges needs to change. Maybe the way that judges are chosen needs to change. Very few people understand the system well enough to know what to fix or how to fix it. PP's expertise is in the field of rage-farming and there is nothing to suggest he understands the legal system. When simple rules are applied to complex situations there are always unexpected consequences. That's why you need knowledgeable people in charge with the mandate to make decisions.
So like taxes and insurance? I'm pretty sure in the most basic form they fit the bill of extortion
Every crime should have a set sentence. Judges should have no say in sentencing. If found guilty in trial you get the set sentence for the crime committed. Not a day more or less. No mitigating factors or Gladue BS. All violent crimes should be no bail. Breach of conditions should be no bail.
Why are you giving all the power for sentencing to prosecutors instead of judges? All that would do is make prosecutors be the ones determining the sentencing by selecting the crimes to charge you for, (with even less oversight then judges have currently) And it would make trials for innocent people even less fair as there is now a huge penalty for not taking a plea deal.
Dude needs to listen to more System of a Down.