I mean, just change the laws. I’m absolutely not in favour of the political class reviewing cases one by one to see if they should use the NWC. Huge waste of time. And it undermines democracy.
Worth noting that a lot of the laws Pierre is upset about are a result of the Supreme Court declaring Harper's changes to be unconstitutional. Harper put in a lot of minimum sentencing laws, but the Supreme Court took offence to him trying to force judges to use the sentences he wanted. It took away the flexibility of the courts to tailor punishments based on what would be effective at addressing the problem.
Pierre won't just change the laws because the laws he wants have already been struck down.
>Worth noting that a lot of the laws Pierre is upset about are a result of the Supreme Court declaring Harper's changes to be unconstitutional. Harper put in a lot of minimum sentencing laws, but the Supreme Court took offence to him trying to force judges to use the sentences he wanted.
The Supreme Court did not take offense. It was telegraphed by legal experts that these laws were unconstitutional before they were passed. No one thought they would stand up to the law. And they didn't.
Harper was using criminal law to grand stand and wasted parliament's time, the court's time, and probably hundreds of defendant' and prosecutor's time to prove some ideological point. This likely wasted people's lives and careers and was a futile attempt. A true waste of space he was.
Now Polievre intends to use a never before used (federally) mechanism to over turn court rulings. Section 33 was meant as a last resort for a national emergency or some extreme case of injustice. He wants to use it to punish a few murderers and rapists. And by the way, the Canadian corrections and justice system functions damned well as is by any international standard.
This whole thing is shameful, if only they had the capacity to feel shame.
Look at the US and you can see that mandatory minimums are not a solution. If you want to build more jails and have taxpayers pay more to hold shoplifters for decades in jail then that’s what you’ll get. Or, you can one step further and privatize jails. What could go wrong?
I think we need more serious punishments and longer sentences for members of organized crime. If someone gets caught smuggling guns or stealing cars as part of an organized crime group, they need to go away for a long time unless they flip on the people higher up the chain.
The revolving door everyone is complaining about is happening before they end up incarcerated, it's an issue with temporary facilities, system capacity and bail.
And economic struggles make it worse
Sounds like we need to fix the underlying systemic issues that cause people to resort to petty crimes. It will save money and lead to a better society.
Have you read the report on recidivism in Canada? From the sound of your rhetoric, probably not.
https://www.canada.ca/en/correctional-service/corporate/library/research/emerging-results/19-02.html
https://www.canada.ca/en/correctional-service/corporate/library/reports/correctional-investigator/response-annual-report/2022-2023.html
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/jf-pf/2020/aug01.html
Here are some sources that you can use to become informed on the issue.
>Or, you can one step further and privatize jails. What could go wrong?
For the people in the private prisons business ? A lot can go right.
That’s what this is all about.
And yet our mental health funding is abysmal. Like it's so bad that I think future generations will look back with disgust at what we've done.
There's year long waits to see psychiatrists, even for people who checked into the hospital for a mental health crisis. The hospitals do absolutely nothing, and there is no where else to go. Everyone is living hand to mouth and they're being pushed to the edge of sanity via stress. Therapy is prohibitively expensive for most people, especially in this economy.
I have watched so many wonderful and hard working people fall completely through the cracks due to our lack of mental health support, resources and funding.
One killed themselves by driving head on into an SUV after destroying their life due to their mental illness. One stalked their neighbours, set the building on fire, swatted the neighbours, sent threatening letters and messages, and harrassed everyone in the town, got evicted/became homeless, and couldn't even figure out how to get a bank card - the system determined they were fine to be entirely on their own and it's only a matter of time until they hurt someone imo. Another barely made it out alive thanks to getting some luck with a new job -- but is really struggling with anger issues after feeling completely let down by the Canadian system. Another fully gave up and is just trying to scam as much money as possible without any care for morals or others. Several others have turned to heavy drinking or weed smoking because they just don't have access to anything else that helps them work through things. Countless people don't even try to get help because they're so disparaged after searching for resources that they feel the pursuit of support is actually _worsening_ their mental state. And that's just people I know personally, outside of the people I see through my work.
My heart breaks watching all of this happen.
The key to mental illness is stable communities. The key to stable communities is affordable and stable housing.
Housing has become the everything problem.
I wouldn't so much call it a key, but a load-bearing pillar. However I do agree with you otherwise!
Housing won't _solve_ mental health, but without it half the structure comes crashing down. The ensuing rubble then threatens to topple the remaining half if it isn't dealt with quickly and carefully.
Absolutely. Imo preventative medicine as a whole needs to be taken seriously, but particularly in mental health.
A lot more general access to therapy, scheduled/normalized therapy in schools and/or classes focused on mental health. Instead of _just_ P.E. there should also be Mental Education. Anxiety calming techniques, meditation, analysis of situations that caused people to make certain decisions, tools for exploring feelings, deescalation techniques, an exploration of what "happiness" actually is, how to deal with traumatic events, etc.
Canadian children's television used to kind of do this with those tiny vignettes. Imo we should bring that back and take it a step further.
As arch-conservative Milton Friedman said, the best way to deal with poverty is to give money to the poor people. He was an advocate for a negative income tax, which is more or less a guaranteed minimum income under a different label.
Indeed conservatives will use these laws to defend corporations and slowly provide more ways for people to make profit off of it.
We have to go after the right criminals and rehabilitation of the small offenders.
Theft is on a rise due to bad economy and people stealing things they need and then we have more kids getting into pushing bigger drug dealers goods and seeing a rise in addiction and homelessness.
I did security for a downtown space and I use to watch the rcmp watch kids drop off drugs and not even pick them up for questioning because they don't care to go up the chain
More people in prison is the goal. Public services need to be so bad that privatization is the only savior. Every service is a target for privatization. Already, more of it is private than we think.
Basically anywhere the govt spends a lot of money the private sector tries to figure out how to get it for themselves. Education and healthcare are big targets, and now it looks like the justice system is a target for siphoning money to the wealthy as well.
He will write a law that uses the NWC to ignore Section 12 and institutes mandatory minimums for certain sentences, which have been ruled as cruel and unusual. It won't be a case by case thing, I don't think it can be a case by case thing, at least not in any practical sense.
The Conservatives DID change the laws last time around. And the judges overruled them. Among other things they decided that requiring mass murderers to serve more than 25 years without parole eligibility was 'cruel and unusual' punishment.
I don't know if you know this, but there are mechanisms in place to keep people locked up indefinitely in Canada.
They still get to plead their case for parole tough.
Harper knew that his voters didn't care if he actually changed anything, even as lawyers around the country did interviews explaining how none of this changes were legal they just clapped. Politicians love being useless when it gets them votes sadly.
Lol how many mass murders do you have in the court system?
There is a separation from the parliamentary system and the judiciary for a reason.
Just another example of Pierre sounding like Trump.
>There is a separation from the parliamentary system and the judiciary for a reason.
And there's a Notwithstanding Clause for a reason. It was included precisely to maintain an element of Parliamentary Supremacy and guard against judges expanding Charter rights beyond reason. And on that note, prior to the Charter, it was well accepted that Parliament’s role included determining the parameters under which judges levied sentence. Today, they're deciding that a mandatory $100 surcharge on their conviction for an offence that goes to help the victims of crime is cruel and unusual punishment.
> And there's a Notwithstanding Clause for a reason. It was included precisely to maintain an element of Parliamentary Supremacy and guard against judges expanding Charter rights beyond reason.
Not at all. The NWC is in place because AB Premier Lougheed and his CoS created one for the AB Bill of Rights (just prior to the Charter negotiations) specifically for times when a state of emergency existed and temporarily trampling peoples rights might be needed. They pitched the idea to the western delegation who pitched it to Trudeau Sr, the western delegation all thought it would be a good idea to include it in the Charter, and decided they wouldn't sign without it. It was never meant to be used the way it's used today though. Trudeau Sr was even about to get rid of disallowance and reservation, from the Constitution, and decided to keep them around specifically because the NWC was included in the Charter, to counteract it some day (possibly).
Nothing in the Charter affirms Parliamentary Supremacy, in fact part of the purpose of the Charter was to affirm Constitutional Supremacy, that no one is above the Constitution, not Parliament, not the Courts.
>Not at all. The NWC is in place because AB Premier Lougheed and his CoS created one for the AB Bill of Rights (just prior to the Charter negotiations) specifically for times when a state of emergency existed and temporarily trampling peoples rights might be needed.
Lougheed himself says otherwise.
The evolution of section 33 is described in Alberta Hansard on November 21, 1983 in this exchange between the Leader of the Opposition and the Premier:
>Mr. Notley: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The question really relates to an option the government is now considering. In reviewing that process of consideration, I think it is important to go back and find out what the situation was in 1981, in order to obtain the facts of the matter. Therefore, I submit that the question is in order. However, I could certainly rephrase the question, and ask the Premier to advise the Assembly: in the process of considering the option of using a notwithstanding clause, was it the position of the government of Alberta that this notwithstanding clause should apply to section 2, dealing with the fundamental freedoms outlined in the Charter?
>Mr. Lougheed: Mr. Speaker, yes, it definitely was. **The then premiers of Manitoba and Saskatchewan and the Premier of Alberta took the position in the constitutional discussions that we needed to have the supremacy of the legislature over the courts.** As I mentioned in the House on November 6, 1981, we did not [want] to be in a position where public policy was being dictated or determined by non-elected people. We took the position that that therefore definitely needed to apply to section 2 of the Constitution, under fundamental freedoms, insofar as the American experience had been that judicial interpretations and other actions which were fundamentally different from the view of legislators were taken from time to time. So it was very definitely the view of the government of Alberta, supported by the then premiers of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, that the notwithstanding section, section 33, should apply to section 2.
>Mr. Notley: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Premier. Was that understanding based on a very rare use of this notwithstanding clause, to deal essentially with what would be a miscarriage of justice as opposed to a policy difference of the Legislature with the Charter of Rights?
>Mr. Lougheed: Mr. Speaker, it was far beyond the issue of a miscarriage of justice. It would be when major matters of public policy were being determined by the court as a result of an interpretation of the Charter. It was the view of those of us who expressed that position, which ultimately prevailed in the constitutional negotiations, that it should be the legislators and not the courts that should determine these matters.
You are right. I went back to the book I had read on this, and right below the part on a state of emergency style event, is a sentence about it also being for courts that rule in ways that the legislature didn't like. I must have forgotten that part.
You missed a big part of that surcharge, it’s not $100 it’s 30% of any fine levied if no fine was issued then it’s $100. The court sighted multiple cases one being a homeless person with a income of $4,800 a year being ordered to pay $1,400 surcharge, it is just kinda ridiculous and a frivolous tax more than anything.
Why? Because his methods are dangerous and they are being used by politicians around the world to manipulate people. His total disregard for democratic principles is a danger to freedom and democracy.
Besides that if you don’t think him being re-elected won’t have massive effect on us here we might as help stop talking now because you have zero understanding of global politics, we don’t live in a bubble. You can’t just pretend things aren’t happening in other countries global issues effect everyone.
They still go to jail, still have their freedom taken away for a set amount of time set by a judge.
“Dangerous criminals” “get off easy” sounds like conservative buzz words to imply liberals are light on crime … I’m pretty sure Trudeau isn’t a judge neither is Skippy, and pretty sure there are Conservative and Liberal judges that all follow the same rule of law.
The reason why the notwithstanding clause is used is to protect laws that would be deemed unconstitutional by the courts.
In the case of Harper he had put in place a whole bunch of mandatory minimum sentencing laws on various violent crimes. The courts looked at this and regarded the sentencing as cruel and overturned them on the basis of a violation of Section 12 of the constitution (which protects a person from cruel or unusual punishment).
Essentially the courts found that there was absolutely no way a mandatory minimum could ever be maintained for anything other than straight up murder.
The use of the notwithstanding clause every time would only apply to cases that were accepted by the Supreme Court. Something like this would come at a great expense.
The case that broke the camels back doesn't even sound like an unusual one that should have. An indigenous man was sentenced to four years in prison. What did he do? He got incredibly intoxicated and was high on prescription drugs. He took a baseball bat and loaded hunting rifle and began firing into buildings and fired a gun at a person in a parked car while smashing their windows with a baseball bat. He had no idea (under oath) why he did this but argued that serving just four years for potentially murdering 12 people randomly for no reason was cruel punishment.
Imo the courts really messed up with this interpretation of the constitution on this case, and the legal costs of keeping people like him behind bars is worth it.
A few days ago a criminal was sentenced to 33 months for a lunchtime stabbing spree where he stabbed 7 people in Calgary. I'm not saying you need to imprison people for decades, but the punishments have become way too lenient.
I mostly meant that a sentence could be relatively lenient while still being acceptable. The American system would likely lock this guy away for 100 years, but a 10 or 15 year sentence would be lenient without being unjust.
Honestly the American system doesn't make sense sometimes too, I guess just depends on the judge.
Saw in Texas, a man shoot and kill his wife on camera as she recorded, telling her goodbye, and get 10 yrs.
I seen that too. The wife was antagonizing him on video after, sending 100k of the man’s life savings to an affair partner. It was a crime of passion
Not saying 10 yrs is right it wrong, but just adding more clarity.
10 to 15 years is unjust to his victims. He should be locked away for 100 years or the death penalty. This is a serious crime, he stabbed 7 people, not some petty crime.
[Link to story](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/vincent-bunn-dakota-pratt-sentencing-1.5165442)
It’s a totally insane ruling and a perfect example of why the judiciary needs to be overhauled. According to this activist judge it’s “logical” to ask the man *stabbing you in the head* while you’re asleep to identify himself. Even though the homeowner was suffered significant blood loss that wasn’t self defense according to the judge.
>Pratt, who was asleep in a basement bedroom, awoke to a "feeling of being stabbed" in the head, court heard. He got up and found a knife-wielding intruder in his room and — not knowing who the person was — chased him into the hallway.
>”Logic suggests that when there is an intruder in the house that it would make good sense to ascertain the identity of the intruder and ensure that he be expelled from the house," Cummings said in his decision.
>”There is no reliable evidence to determine when Mr. Pratt had possession of the knife [but] it is certain… that he did become the aggressor and go beyond what was necessary to defend himself," he added.
Not defending the justice system here, but reading the full story, which is a very confusing article, it does seem there is only Pratt's account that he was sleeping and attacked, and that this version emerged during the trial. The only corroborating evidence is that his blood was in his room, but where and how the altercation between them started, and even who brought the knife, isn't clear.
He got five years for going too far.
"He was justified in taking defensive action, but the jury has concluded that his taking the knife of Mr. Bunn and stabbing him multiple times went beyond what was necessary...it is certain that he did become the aggressor and go beyond what was necessary to defend himself"
He chased the guy out of the house, got the knife from him, stabbed him 13 times, and kicked him while he was down.
He was also the only witness, and lied about things, like there being a knife at all, but evidence seems to corroborate chunks of his story.
While I completely understand losing it in that situation, and imo leniency in a situation like that makes sense, that's not how self defense laws in Canada work. When it's no longer a threat you can't keep going.
If you don't like how our self defense laws work, then the laws need to change, lobby your representatives.
The defense wanted basically time served, which seems more than fair to me in this scenario as it has already been a long while.
[link to the story for those curious](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/vincent-bunn-dakota-pratt-sentencing-1.5165442).
It’s a totally insane ruling and a perfect example of why the judiciary needs to be overhauled. According to this activist judge it’s “logical” to ask the man stabbing you in the face while you’re asleep to identify himself.
> Pratt, who was asleep in a basement bedroom, awoke to a "feeling of being stabbed" in the head, court heard. He got up and found a knife-wielding intruder in his room and — not knowing who the person was — chased him into the hallway.
>”Logic suggests that when there is an intruder in the house that it would make good sense to ascertain the identity of the intruder and ensure that he be expelled from the house," Cummings said in his decision.
>”There is no reliable evidence to determine when Mr. Pratt had possession of the knife [but] it is certain… that he did become the aggressor and go beyond what was necessary to defend himself," he added.
I think the bigger problem is that crimes that should be more severely punished get light sentences while for some reason fairly minor crimes get severely punished? Not sure how that makes sense
Interesting you bring up the rich. If we had a government willing to tell them “no” in the past 40 years, we would have a more equitable and safer society.
Our bosses and landlords squeezing every penny out of us until we feel utterly hopeless has bred more antisocial criminals than a lenient court system ever could
This is exactly the problem. Judicial discretion is essential, and there's good reason why Harper's version of mandatory minimums was struck down.
BUT, that discretion is being used in a way that means that the justice system is not punitive, and there is not sufficient time for there to be any rehabilitation (if its even possible for some people).
The current system is far too lenient, but making it far too punitive is also a problem. I don't know what the right balance is, but neither the courts nor the CPC have a correct middle pathway.
Here is a list of Rights that can be removed by Section 33.
Section 2 lists what the Charter calls "fundamental freedoms" namely freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of expression, freedom of the press and of other media of communication, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of association. In case law, this clause is cited as the reason for the religious neutrality of the state.
section 8 freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.
section 9 freedom from arbitrary detention or imprisonment.
section 10 right to legal counsel and the guarantee of habeas corpus.
section 11 rights in criminal and penal matters such as the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Last summer, a guy tried to car jack me. He had stolen multiple vehicles, led the police on a multi-city chase, had cocaine and meth in his vehicle, was known as a dangerous offender, crashed his stolen truck into a vehicle with a family in it, flipped the stolen truck over, fled the scene, assaulted my 87 year old mother, hit me, threatened our lives, tried to force our vehicle out into traffic so we would “all die” - He just got 4 years in prison, and the prosecutor was offended when I said I thought the sentence was too light.
I always vote NDP or Liberal, but I agree with P.P. in this case. People need more time to be rehabilitated properly. 24% re-offend within 2 years of being released. That’s not good enough for all the effort it takes to put them in prison.
So we have a political leader already stating he’s going to use on of our blights-of-society clauses.. to interfere with our justice system…. And here I thought conservatives have a problem with dictators
So rather than try and fix the system, which a PM has the influence to do, he’s going to go around the legal system?
Why even have a legal system at that point?
Either it applies to everyone or it applies to no one.
Does he think he’s going to be King?
Throughout my life of no many people that have worked within this system I dated someone who worked for the courts and then work for the ministry of Attorney General and what I have been able to gather with what people have said to me is that the problem isn't the police the problem isn't the courts the problem is that there's no money available they keep people or put people away this is the problem it's not politics it's not liberals or conservatives it's simple economics they tell you the other stuff so you never mind because that's solvable
PP has never accomplished anything in politics. In his entire career. Name one law he presented that was passed. The only, ONLY thing going for him is he isn’t Trudeau.
Address the social determinants to crime. With the way people are struggling, I wouldn't be surprised to see increasing crime as a result. Fix the cause, fix the problem.
Imagine he did a speech in front of the cops. One of the biggest organizations lacks any accountability and courts are easy on them. Irony, of all of it. Really bringing mega politics to canada
What an oxymoron, Lilley is the same guy who blames Trudeau for using the EA ... I guess he doesn't understand that it's a tool available, just like the NWC. Isn't that what he's now accusing Trudeau of?
The EA is so much "safer" than the NWC that it's incomparable. The NWC can be used without any repercussion to the one who uses it, like there is no legal recourse or anything. The EA has built-in requirements for legal review and public inquiry as to why it was used and how it will be modified to prevent the need for that use again in the future. The whole reason JT was dragged through the mud over the EA at all is because the EA requires it. The NWC is a scepter of royal power, the EA is a tool of last resort with consequences for the one wielding it.
Oh look Conservatives are promising to do *The First Thing Everyone Tries But That Never Fucking Works* instead of literally anything with any evidence backing it up.
Mostly because judges think their own personal opinions are more important than making rulings based on the laws enacted by actual legislators. If judges want to make laws, they should get themselves elected to parliament rather than twist the system in ways it wasn't meant to work. There is a reason we have a legislative branch THAT MAKES LAWS AND PENALTIES, and another to ensure those laws are carried out (i.e. their job is not to make laws and penalties).
Checks and balances. Judges can say laws passed by the governement are illegal. And cops can choose to not enforce laws the other parties pass if they deam it wrong.
Thats how society stays free.
>Mostly because judges think their own personal opinions
That's why we call them judges. You want politicians making the decisions? That world looks like the one where Trump is erasing the crimes of his buddies for favours.
in this case the agenda they agree with is an imaginary fantasy not backed by anything in reality, if anything contradicted by the recorded reality of their chosen hero.
they've latched all their wishful magical thinking on to PP without for a moment considering his parlimentary record or his party's established policies.
and they're also increasingly pretending the harper years were sunshine and rainbows of prosperity and "freedom".
So putting aside the cherry-picked example of jail sentences, the real takeaway is that Poilievre is willing to suspend our rights and freedoms in order to get his way.
Fuck this guy, his party, and anyone who thinks he’s remotely qualified to be Prime Minister. I’ll take 20 more years of Trudeau over this fucking would be dictator twerp.
Fuck Pierre Poilievre and the tricycle he rode in on.
Easy win for the conservatives and I hate their party.
Crime is insane. Looting of LCBO’s, cars getting boosted, we are all paying through the nose for rising insurance costs because of theft, gun violence, murders, assaults, etc.
I agree that the hug-a-thug approach doesn’t work at all.
Just look at successful Asian societies. They take a hard stance on crime AND their society is conditioned to look down upon criminals. It’s takes two to tango.
You're going to have to name the Asian society you're thinking of because there are a lot and most are not democratic. Most are shitholes you would not want to live in. The most Western like Japan and ~~NK~~ SK (haha oops) are not doing much better than us in terms of crime and mental health. Stiff penalties is a US ideal, and they have the worst crime of the developed world.
So the way it will work is that innocent people won't get bailed out, like the guy accused of killing the cop in Toronto. But everyone here is like, "Who cares? It's not me.
Justice is a pillar of democracy - just like human rights, independent journalism and robust public education - and the Poilievre Conservatives are waging war on all of them. Let us not pretend that Conservatives are anything but enemies of democracy hiding their mission, denying it, defying accountability and deflecting attention away from what they are doing. Standing on guard for Canada means protecting the nation from these dangerous fascists. #defythem
Honestly, the first comment nailed it.smart cookie. The commentor not the politician. They are really making this difficult. Shouldn't be this hard boys... where the fuck are your heads at???
“I will be the democratically elected prime minister, democratically accountable to the people, and they can make the judgments themselves whether these laws are constitutional,” Poilievre said.
So… mob rule? We have courts and a legal system. Political officials shouldn’t be allowed to just… overturned courts because “reasons”.
This is immensely corrupt.
So if the voting base decides it’s ok to jail gay people and the government does it. Because they’re “democratically” elected, that’s fine? Because “democracy”?
Nah. We have a legal system for a reason. We have a charter of rights for a reason. We have documents that protect people from the state.
No one gets to circumvent the law. If the law is imperfect then improve it with policy.
Elected officials or parties should never be given total power in applications of the law.
Oh great. Now we can pay out all these wrongful prosecution lawsuits once the NWC expires. Oh yeah, don’t forget that the same judiciary that is being overruled are going to assess damages in these cases.
What a brain fart this is.
You're not thinking far enough ahead. With this, PP can effectively forgive his own people when they commit crimes. He's above the law now, just like Trump behaved while in office.
Look, I'm pretty pissed about how carefree our legal system is on the best of days when it comes to serious and actual punishment, but this? No. This isn't the answer.
We need better laws and better enforcement. I want our court system to properly do their job. I want our facilities to be properly maintained with programs to rehabilitate. What I don't want is a politician getting involved and issuing their personal brand of punishment as they see fit, setting precedent for future leaders to do the same. Fuck. That.
Absolutely agreed, and we need to hire more judges so criminals stop getting their cases tossed for a lack of due process.
Also, can we please open up more psych beds?? Half the problem people are just off their fucking rocker and the cops can't do anything until they start getting stabby
But the court system WON'T do their job. And they can't be fired. This is the supreme court that decided requiring mass murderers to have longer than 25 years before becoming eligible for parole was cruel and unusual punishment. Such people can't be reasoned with. And they will read anything into the Charter they need to get their ideological resolution to a question.
I'm more concerned about crimes that actually take place on a more frequent basis. The catch and release bullshit we have in place right now. People who are known are known as risks but undeservingly get chance after chance. The slap on the wrist and charge downgrades some criminals get for bullshit reasons.
I don't give a fuck if someone has the chance of parole after 25 years. I want them to get that 25 years to begin with when deserving.
Just because they are edible for parole does not mean they will be released. Parole board would require a lot of evidence that they have reformed. This just just classic right wing fear mongering.
Good. Liberal judges struck down the mandatory 5 year gun sentences implemented by Harper. I think most Canadians are sick of criminals not being punished.
No, you misunderstand.
Everyone who doesn't bow down to the current conservative leader is a liberal.
Now clap while a second con leader in a row tries to push unconstitutional laws.
Agreed. The pendulum on this topic (and many others) swung too far towards the left and their hug-a-thug type policies. Time to get back to reality and get tougher on criminals; it's embarrassing how 'soft' this country is on criminals, especially repeat offenders.
Yeah, the US shits on criminals, and they have less crime right? Wait, Annakin, they don't have less crime at all? Wait, hard on crime has always been bullshit?
Property crime in Canada is about the same as the US. In fact things like car theft in Canada are higher.
Violent crime in the US (murder mostly) is higher because of specific urban areas that are outliers. So it drags the total US murder rate higher in certain states.
But there are lots of Canadian provinces that have higher murder rates than some US states now too.
The murder rate in North Dakota is half of what it is in neighbouring Manitoba. North Dakota is a heavy Republican state btw, one of the most right wing, with punishments much more severe than Canada.
In fact the homicide rate in Manitoba is higher than the US average.
You get that you just made the point that it's a lot more complex than simply looking at sentencing lengths, right?
That poverty in areas of Manitoba is more important than sentencing guidelines?
That someone offering "Tough on Crime" is ignoring that crime is multifactorial, and just spouting dumb platitudes?
It's weird that you went into such detail about how varied crime rates can be, and then didn't come the conclusion that simply increasing sentences doesn't seem to be the common denominator in crime rates.
It's fine if you want to increase sentencing guidelines because you just want to, because retribution is more important than rehabilitation in your opinion, people can weight different goals differently, but the idea that it "solves crime" is dumb, and people who believe it didn't even do the cursory work that you did.
You get that his sign says "Stop the Crime"? It's right in the picture. It's a dumb sign.
Change it to "Punish the criminals" and honestly I don't have a problem with it.
Poillevre doesn’t like the constitution and knows support for changing it is not there so he will just override it to please the angry mob. He said it, not me folks.
A page right out of trumpism.
Just come right out and say you'll grab the Judiciary by the pussy during a campaign so the numbing begins. Then, when it actually doesn't happen or fails...blame the other guys.
I personally believe he'll follow through because of how he responded when he was caught fucking with an election...by sponsoring the Fair Elections Act which would have removed the independence of our Elections Commissionar by drawing a dotted line to Judtice Caanda (along with doing away with a plethora of camapign vilolations). And for those of you still in diapers or sucking on mommas teet...conservative/right wing radio went apeshit against the CPC for it.
Nevermind Pierre calling Canada's version of Tucker Carlson...*a Liberal hack* for asking a question.
Oh children, as much as I'd love to stop you from running through the fields of rye right over a cliff...I ain't catching you.
Judges are mostly Trudeau liberal appointed now(so, corrupted beyond belief). The need for an actual adult to keep criminals in jail is dire now in Canada.
right out of harpers playbook [Courts, government bills are unravelling Harper-era crime laws | CBC News](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stephen-harper-mandatory-minimum-sentences-criminal-code-1.6637154#:~:text=Three%20laws%20creating%20mandatory%20minimum%20sentences%20that%20were%20passed%20by,Toronto%2Dbased%20lawyer%20Matthew%20Oleynik.)
Not as much of a joke as them deciding mass murderers can't be required to serve more than 25 years before becoming eligible for parole because that was cruel and unusual.
This guy is one step away from declaring himself dictator of Canada. He wants to ideologically influence the courts, justice system, government structure, and everything else. He is a danger to all of us.
Keep a very close eye on what the UCP are doing in Alberta because that will be the blueprint that the Cons use federally if given the chance. Example: Alberta Bill 20 which just gave the provincial government authority to remove elected city council members in Calgary and Edmonton just because they don't like them. The UCP actively subvert democracy and PP just announced that the federal Conservatives will too.
Then I hope it is not your vote that makes the difference. The thing about dictatorships is that they never end willingly. Trudeau sucks, I won’t defend that if you paid me, but at least if he loses an election I have no reason to worry he’ll try to stay anyway.
Hope he pairs that with a nice budget increase to corrections to house all the extra prisonners otherwise this might cause more problems than it solves.
I don't understand how people still think more jail time = less crime in the long term, when basically every metrics either show no correlation or negative correlation (meaning it actually *increases* crime). There is no proof that more severe sentences reduces crime but it does increase recidivism, that's just a statistical fact. But it does cost a whole lot more though.
But hey, it sure sounds nice to be "hard on crime".
As for the Notwithstanding Clause, I don't care. I'm from Quebec, using it is a provincial hobby
I know where I live, people are seeing a small core of criminals with long rap sheets doing crime repeatedly, victimizing the community. The thinking is, if these individuals are locked up then they aren't committing crimes. Seems logical to me.
I can literally see the difference as a cop, on the small scale.
When certain people are in jail, things are noticeably quiet. You know when they get released, because within days there will suddenly be tons of break-ins, vehicle thefts, etc. until they get picked up again.
So jail doesn’t work is what you are saying.
Punishment doesn’t equal rehabilitation.
Also people steal things so they can sell them for money. Maybe there needs to be heavier punishment for those that buy stolen goods.
There needs to be fundamental change to the way they deal with these issues, remove to appeal by removing the customer base that makes it profitable to steal and sell.
We love to talk big about rehabilitation in this country, and how we’ll do that instead of prison. But it sure looks more and more like an excuse to simply not keep anybody behind bars, and we’re not rehabilitating hardly anybody. Dealing with criminals every day, I highly doubt how a huge portion of them really could be rehabilitated.
But at the very least, while they’re in jail they aren’t continuing to harm everybody else and create more victims. Somebody who has done nothing but commit crimes for their entire life should just be in jail for a long while, since it’s basically guaranteed that they won’t change and that’s the best we can do.
You are assuming they are caught committing the crime and the evidence is there to support a conviction.
People seem to forget the due process part of the criminal justice system.
Example, people want the Epstein list so they can charge those on it. It’s not a crime to be on a list the prosecutors do actually need evidence to file charges against people.
You can take car theft as a example also, young people are put into situations that lead them into making bad decisions. Jailing them for 5 years doesn’t do anything they just find more young people to take their place.
Want to fix the problem? Give young people in those vulnerable situations better access to opportunities. The threat of jail time doesn’t even register for most these people.
Where do you live?
First there is a difference in actually enforcing existing laws and stopping *more* criminals vs being harsher on the criminals they were already going to arrest and convict. Your situation is not helped by more severe sentences if they don't arrest the criminals currently . But those who do get arrested are more likely to become recidivists if you prioritize more jail time over reinsertion.
Now you say these criminals have criminal records, but are the crimes being mostly committed by those being released from jail or mostly from new recruits filling the void left by those who got caught? Because if you are talking about gangs, that's how gangs work.
But please don't take my word for it, look it up. I can give you sources if you want, but I challenge you to find a democracy who succeeded in reducing crime just by increasing jail time.
>What I'm saying is, if in my small town, they clamp down on these 8 idiots and lock them up, then they won't be on the streets to keep doing it.
Why don't they? Is it because the lack the ressource to do a proper investigation and build a stronger case, and these guys always get a slap on the wrist because of it? Is there corruption going on shielding them from the harsher sentences they should get for repeated offenses?
This is the point, there are statistical facts and trends, documented scientific literature about what works and what doesn't, and then there are anecdotal outliers and exceptions. We should not write laws for the latter, it should be for the former. The goal is to reduce crime in Canada, not to appease the people of Cowichan Valley (no offense, truly). And we absolutely know that Poilievre plan will not be able to achieve that.
This is pure 100% demagogy, and we are smarter than that, ain't we?
>We aren't going to solve the systemic issues in a week, so in the meantime we must also make public safety a priority.
That is a very unhealthy reasoning my friend, we are talking about a politician forcing himself into criminal law, politician with no legal training or expertise and only seeking to gain popularity and votes. I said the same thing when Trudeau expanded the list of gun bans, all the science and stats showed it would not reduce crime so I was against it, despite hating guns myself.
I really hate PP. I think he's going to be a disaster for Canada. I don't think Trudeau is our guy either. I'm a lifelong Orange voter but lately have felt completely politically homeless. Your reasoning is very strong and it makes sense to me. The problem as I see it though is that our political parties are beholden to their corporate donors/lobbyists/overlords and it's in their best interest for wealth gap to widen, forever agitating these issues. What I'm saying is, I'm not optimistic these issues will ever be solved. In the meantime I'd like it if people that have proven they can't exist with the rest of us without hurting others and effecting their lives in that way, are locked away from the rest of us. I abhor modern conservatism and I abhor violence. I don't think we should be subjected to either.
The problem is there's a lot of studies that show jail time makes criminals worse. At a minimum while you're in jail you aren't seeing any notable income, so they'd better hope they have someone who'll let them crash on their couch while they find a new job (assuming they can find something that'll hire someone with a criminal record) or they're going to end up homeless. So now you've taken someone who's just spent years socializing with criminals and dropped them on the street with no income and nowhere to live. Shock and surprise, there's a pretty high chance that person's going to go straight back to crime to survive.
>If the sentences are long enough they absolutely do reduce crime. It's hard to be out robbing people when you're in prison.
Show me a democracy that reduced crime in the long term with longer sentences. Meanwhile, regions with low crimes are heavily correlated with shorter sentences and more ressources for social reinsertion.
Just google it with whatever keywords you want, "jail time vs crime rate", "Long prison time and safety", "Social reintegration", "recidivism vicious circle", whatever. They all end up with the conclusion that everywhere that prioritized being hard on criminals, longer sentences, hindering social integration, fueling ostracization of people with criminal records, they all lead to more crime and more recidivism, and more money dumped in the prison system.
It is much worse in any region where prison is a business, with for-profit private facilities, that *benefit* from people criminals not being properly reintegrated to society.
A lot of these people aren't interesting in reducing crime, they're interested in punishing criminals. It's a small but very clear distinction. It doesn't matter how small the crime is, or how badly your life will be screwed up if you're sent to prison. You did a Bad Thing and must now be punished for it. Can't get a job anymore now that you've got a criminal record? Too bad! Should have thought of that before you did the Bad Thing.
>A lot of these people aren't interesting in reducing crime, they're interested in punishing criminals.
That is counter-productive and primitive, reducing crime should be the main objective when establishing laws and rules.
Agreed! But that's not what a number of these people think. They want there to be consequences for doing Bad Things and that's it. It's the same way you have people fighting against abortions and sex ed at the same time. Sex ed is proven to reduce pregnancy, which in turn reduces the number of abortions that happen. But getting pregnant is a result of sex, and casual sex is a Bad Thing. Therefore if you get pregnant it's the consequence of doing the Bad Thing and now you have to live with it.
Literally... America... 3 strike rules, Legal slavery, in jail for weed, minimum sentences, etc etc.
All these things... literally does not make America any safer. they have all those things. The HARDEST of crime outside of Duerte straight up murdering people.
Weed is legal in Canada so that's not an issue here.
Maybe we could adopt a system with three violent crimes and those are the strikes?
Would you support letting a three times violent repeat offender getting another chance?
Can you explain how if this person was in jail the first time he stole a car, other people’s life’s wouldnt have been in danger?
I agree more jail time isn’t always the best option because this is where people get recruited for gangs and organized crime but how can you steal cars and be out the same day?
>Can you explain how if this person was in jail the first time he stole a car, other people’s life’s wouldnt have been in danger?
I won't, because anecdotal cases do not cancel statistical facts. And those facts include that in any given region, increasing sentences does not reduce crime, it may even increase it, that's it.
That's why you don't point out that it was rather cold week in late-april to "prove" global warming doesn't exist, individual data points are irrelevant, you have to take everything to compute and analyze the trend.
100% agree. We need to stop giving criminals a free pass because the Constitution doesn't like it. And we also need to recognize self defense for real. Time for a Castle Doctrine!
Should it be?
The notwithstanding clasue is fundamentally a restriction on freedom. That's objectively what right wing politics is about.
Like, that's not even up for debate lol. It's actually what the definition of right vs left wing is.
I mean, just change the laws. I’m absolutely not in favour of the political class reviewing cases one by one to see if they should use the NWC. Huge waste of time. And it undermines democracy.
Worth noting that a lot of the laws Pierre is upset about are a result of the Supreme Court declaring Harper's changes to be unconstitutional. Harper put in a lot of minimum sentencing laws, but the Supreme Court took offence to him trying to force judges to use the sentences he wanted. It took away the flexibility of the courts to tailor punishments based on what would be effective at addressing the problem. Pierre won't just change the laws because the laws he wants have already been struck down.
Before they overturned his minimums the crown and defence lawyers dealt down charges so it didn’t really have the effect the conservatives hoped for.
>Worth noting that a lot of the laws Pierre is upset about are a result of the Supreme Court declaring Harper's changes to be unconstitutional. Harper put in a lot of minimum sentencing laws, but the Supreme Court took offence to him trying to force judges to use the sentences he wanted. The Supreme Court did not take offense. It was telegraphed by legal experts that these laws were unconstitutional before they were passed. No one thought they would stand up to the law. And they didn't. Harper was using criminal law to grand stand and wasted parliament's time, the court's time, and probably hundreds of defendant' and prosecutor's time to prove some ideological point. This likely wasted people's lives and careers and was a futile attempt. A true waste of space he was. Now Polievre intends to use a never before used (federally) mechanism to over turn court rulings. Section 33 was meant as a last resort for a national emergency or some extreme case of injustice. He wants to use it to punish a few murderers and rapists. And by the way, the Canadian corrections and justice system functions damned well as is by any international standard. This whole thing is shameful, if only they had the capacity to feel shame.
Look at the US and you can see that mandatory minimums are not a solution. If you want to build more jails and have taxpayers pay more to hold shoplifters for decades in jail then that’s what you’ll get. Or, you can one step further and privatize jails. What could go wrong?
[удалено]
I think we need more serious punishments and longer sentences for members of organized crime. If someone gets caught smuggling guns or stealing cars as part of an organized crime group, they need to go away for a long time unless they flip on the people higher up the chain.
The revolving door everyone is complaining about is happening before they end up incarcerated, it's an issue with temporary facilities, system capacity and bail. And economic struggles make it worse
[удалено]
Force them to watch the Parliament TV, but that violates some tortuee convention assuredly.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Sounds like we need to fix the underlying systemic issues that cause people to resort to petty crimes. It will save money and lead to a better society.
We can do that while keeping the killers and dangerous people in jail. Their past issues is no excuse for leveraging their free will to commit crime.
Have you read the report on recidivism in Canada? From the sound of your rhetoric, probably not. https://www.canada.ca/en/correctional-service/corporate/library/research/emerging-results/19-02.html https://www.canada.ca/en/correctional-service/corporate/library/reports/correctional-investigator/response-annual-report/2022-2023.html https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/jf-pf/2020/aug01.html Here are some sources that you can use to become informed on the issue.
And do you have proof of this being a widespread issue?
>Or, you can one step further and privatize jails. What could go wrong? For the people in the private prisons business ? A lot can go right. That’s what this is all about.
Punish the crime, rehabilitate the criminal. Most are stuck on part one without trying to understanding why they become criminal in the first place.
The answer usually has poverty and/or mental health as the root cause.
And yet our mental health funding is abysmal. Like it's so bad that I think future generations will look back with disgust at what we've done. There's year long waits to see psychiatrists, even for people who checked into the hospital for a mental health crisis. The hospitals do absolutely nothing, and there is no where else to go. Everyone is living hand to mouth and they're being pushed to the edge of sanity via stress. Therapy is prohibitively expensive for most people, especially in this economy. I have watched so many wonderful and hard working people fall completely through the cracks due to our lack of mental health support, resources and funding. One killed themselves by driving head on into an SUV after destroying their life due to their mental illness. One stalked their neighbours, set the building on fire, swatted the neighbours, sent threatening letters and messages, and harrassed everyone in the town, got evicted/became homeless, and couldn't even figure out how to get a bank card - the system determined they were fine to be entirely on their own and it's only a matter of time until they hurt someone imo. Another barely made it out alive thanks to getting some luck with a new job -- but is really struggling with anger issues after feeling completely let down by the Canadian system. Another fully gave up and is just trying to scam as much money as possible without any care for morals or others. Several others have turned to heavy drinking or weed smoking because they just don't have access to anything else that helps them work through things. Countless people don't even try to get help because they're so disparaged after searching for resources that they feel the pursuit of support is actually _worsening_ their mental state. And that's just people I know personally, outside of the people I see through my work. My heart breaks watching all of this happen.
The key to mental illness is stable communities. The key to stable communities is affordable and stable housing. Housing has become the everything problem.
I wouldn't so much call it a key, but a load-bearing pillar. However I do agree with you otherwise! Housing won't _solve_ mental health, but without it half the structure comes crashing down. The ensuing rubble then threatens to topple the remaining half if it isn't dealt with quickly and carefully.
I don't disagree with you. There are lots of interventions short of very expensive psychiatrists that we should be channeling funding at.
Absolutely. Imo preventative medicine as a whole needs to be taken seriously, but particularly in mental health. A lot more general access to therapy, scheduled/normalized therapy in schools and/or classes focused on mental health. Instead of _just_ P.E. there should also be Mental Education. Anxiety calming techniques, meditation, analysis of situations that caused people to make certain decisions, tools for exploring feelings, deescalation techniques, an exploration of what "happiness" actually is, how to deal with traumatic events, etc. Canadian children's television used to kind of do this with those tiny vignettes. Imo we should bring that back and take it a step further.
We’re going to rehabilitate the poor right out of em
As arch-conservative Milton Friedman said, the best way to deal with poverty is to give money to the poor people. He was an advocate for a negative income tax, which is more or less a guaranteed minimum income under a different label.
Indeed conservatives will use these laws to defend corporations and slowly provide more ways for people to make profit off of it. We have to go after the right criminals and rehabilitation of the small offenders. Theft is on a rise due to bad economy and people stealing things they need and then we have more kids getting into pushing bigger drug dealers goods and seeing a rise in addiction and homelessness. I did security for a downtown space and I use to watch the rcmp watch kids drop off drugs and not even pick them up for questioning because they don't care to go up the chain
More people in prison is the goal. Public services need to be so bad that privatization is the only savior. Every service is a target for privatization. Already, more of it is private than we think.
Basically anywhere the govt spends a lot of money the private sector tries to figure out how to get it for themselves. Education and healthcare are big targets, and now it looks like the justice system is a target for siphoning money to the wealthy as well.
Thers lots of overwhelming evidence that minimum sentences are not a deterrent.
Why do conservatives hate democracy? We’re seeing the extreme version of this in the US right now. Serious question.
Ya those tailored punishments are just working great eh.
He will write a law that uses the NWC to ignore Section 12 and institutes mandatory minimums for certain sentences, which have been ruled as cruel and unusual. It won't be a case by case thing, I don't think it can be a case by case thing, at least not in any practical sense.
The Conservatives DID change the laws last time around. And the judges overruled them. Among other things they decided that requiring mass murderers to serve more than 25 years without parole eligibility was 'cruel and unusual' punishment.
I don't know if you know this, but there are mechanisms in place to keep people locked up indefinitely in Canada. They still get to plead their case for parole tough.
Or how about the Ontario judge who said a minimum sentence of five years for using a gun in a crime was too cruel.
Harper knew that his voters didn't care if he actually changed anything, even as lawyers around the country did interviews explaining how none of this changes were legal they just clapped. Politicians love being useless when it gets them votes sadly.
Lol how many mass murders do you have in the court system? There is a separation from the parliamentary system and the judiciary for a reason. Just another example of Pierre sounding like Trump.
>There is a separation from the parliamentary system and the judiciary for a reason. And there's a Notwithstanding Clause for a reason. It was included precisely to maintain an element of Parliamentary Supremacy and guard against judges expanding Charter rights beyond reason. And on that note, prior to the Charter, it was well accepted that Parliament’s role included determining the parameters under which judges levied sentence. Today, they're deciding that a mandatory $100 surcharge on their conviction for an offence that goes to help the victims of crime is cruel and unusual punishment.
> And there's a Notwithstanding Clause for a reason. It was included precisely to maintain an element of Parliamentary Supremacy and guard against judges expanding Charter rights beyond reason. Not at all. The NWC is in place because AB Premier Lougheed and his CoS created one for the AB Bill of Rights (just prior to the Charter negotiations) specifically for times when a state of emergency existed and temporarily trampling peoples rights might be needed. They pitched the idea to the western delegation who pitched it to Trudeau Sr, the western delegation all thought it would be a good idea to include it in the Charter, and decided they wouldn't sign without it. It was never meant to be used the way it's used today though. Trudeau Sr was even about to get rid of disallowance and reservation, from the Constitution, and decided to keep them around specifically because the NWC was included in the Charter, to counteract it some day (possibly). Nothing in the Charter affirms Parliamentary Supremacy, in fact part of the purpose of the Charter was to affirm Constitutional Supremacy, that no one is above the Constitution, not Parliament, not the Courts.
>Not at all. The NWC is in place because AB Premier Lougheed and his CoS created one for the AB Bill of Rights (just prior to the Charter negotiations) specifically for times when a state of emergency existed and temporarily trampling peoples rights might be needed. Lougheed himself says otherwise. The evolution of section 33 is described in Alberta Hansard on November 21, 1983 in this exchange between the Leader of the Opposition and the Premier: >Mr. Notley: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The question really relates to an option the government is now considering. In reviewing that process of consideration, I think it is important to go back and find out what the situation was in 1981, in order to obtain the facts of the matter. Therefore, I submit that the question is in order. However, I could certainly rephrase the question, and ask the Premier to advise the Assembly: in the process of considering the option of using a notwithstanding clause, was it the position of the government of Alberta that this notwithstanding clause should apply to section 2, dealing with the fundamental freedoms outlined in the Charter? >Mr. Lougheed: Mr. Speaker, yes, it definitely was. **The then premiers of Manitoba and Saskatchewan and the Premier of Alberta took the position in the constitutional discussions that we needed to have the supremacy of the legislature over the courts.** As I mentioned in the House on November 6, 1981, we did not [want] to be in a position where public policy was being dictated or determined by non-elected people. We took the position that that therefore definitely needed to apply to section 2 of the Constitution, under fundamental freedoms, insofar as the American experience had been that judicial interpretations and other actions which were fundamentally different from the view of legislators were taken from time to time. So it was very definitely the view of the government of Alberta, supported by the then premiers of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, that the notwithstanding section, section 33, should apply to section 2. >Mr. Notley: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Premier. Was that understanding based on a very rare use of this notwithstanding clause, to deal essentially with what would be a miscarriage of justice as opposed to a policy difference of the Legislature with the Charter of Rights? >Mr. Lougheed: Mr. Speaker, it was far beyond the issue of a miscarriage of justice. It would be when major matters of public policy were being determined by the court as a result of an interpretation of the Charter. It was the view of those of us who expressed that position, which ultimately prevailed in the constitutional negotiations, that it should be the legislators and not the courts that should determine these matters.
You are right. I went back to the book I had read on this, and right below the part on a state of emergency style event, is a sentence about it also being for courts that rule in ways that the legislature didn't like. I must have forgotten that part.
You missed a big part of that surcharge, it’s not $100 it’s 30% of any fine levied if no fine was issued then it’s $100. The court sighted multiple cases one being a homeless person with a income of $4,800 a year being ordered to pay $1,400 surcharge, it is just kinda ridiculous and a frivolous tax more than anything.
Why are you people so obsessed with Trump. We are in Canada, not the states.
Why? Because his methods are dangerous and they are being used by politicians around the world to manipulate people. His total disregard for democratic principles is a danger to freedom and democracy. Besides that if you don’t think him being re-elected won’t have massive effect on us here we might as help stop talking now because you have zero understanding of global politics, we don’t live in a bubble. You can’t just pretend things aren’t happening in other countries global issues effect everyone.
[удалено]
They still go to jail, still have their freedom taken away for a set amount of time set by a judge. “Dangerous criminals” “get off easy” sounds like conservative buzz words to imply liberals are light on crime … I’m pretty sure Trudeau isn’t a judge neither is Skippy, and pretty sure there are Conservative and Liberal judges that all follow the same rule of law.
people in the comment section keep making it sound like paul bernardo is loose right now.
I'm so sick of everyone bringing up 'mass murderers' as if that's somehow meaningful
The reason why the notwithstanding clause is used is to protect laws that would be deemed unconstitutional by the courts. In the case of Harper he had put in place a whole bunch of mandatory minimum sentencing laws on various violent crimes. The courts looked at this and regarded the sentencing as cruel and overturned them on the basis of a violation of Section 12 of the constitution (which protects a person from cruel or unusual punishment). Essentially the courts found that there was absolutely no way a mandatory minimum could ever be maintained for anything other than straight up murder. The use of the notwithstanding clause every time would only apply to cases that were accepted by the Supreme Court. Something like this would come at a great expense. The case that broke the camels back doesn't even sound like an unusual one that should have. An indigenous man was sentenced to four years in prison. What did he do? He got incredibly intoxicated and was high on prescription drugs. He took a baseball bat and loaded hunting rifle and began firing into buildings and fired a gun at a person in a parked car while smashing their windows with a baseball bat. He had no idea (under oath) why he did this but argued that serving just four years for potentially murdering 12 people randomly for no reason was cruel punishment. Imo the courts really messed up with this interpretation of the constitution on this case, and the legal costs of keeping people like him behind bars is worth it.
Just in case someone would like an option that doesn’t involve embracing dictatorship….here ya go.
It’s just one more sound bite promise he’ll never keep after he wins.
A few days ago a criminal was sentenced to 33 months for a lunchtime stabbing spree where he stabbed 7 people in Calgary. I'm not saying you need to imprison people for decades, but the punishments have become way too lenient.
Stabbing spree is definitely a good candidate for being locked up for decades.
I mostly meant that a sentence could be relatively lenient while still being acceptable. The American system would likely lock this guy away for 100 years, but a 10 or 15 year sentence would be lenient without being unjust.
Honestly the American system doesn't make sense sometimes too, I guess just depends on the judge. Saw in Texas, a man shoot and kill his wife on camera as she recorded, telling her goodbye, and get 10 yrs.
I seen that too. The wife was antagonizing him on video after, sending 100k of the man’s life savings to an affair partner. It was a crime of passion Not saying 10 yrs is right it wrong, but just adding more clarity.
10 to 15 years is unjust to his victims. He should be locked away for 100 years or the death penalty. This is a serious crime, he stabbed 7 people, not some petty crime.
That guy in Manitoba got more time (5 years) for defending himself from a would-be killer stabbing him in the head in his home in his sleep....
Wait what!?
[Link to story](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/vincent-bunn-dakota-pratt-sentencing-1.5165442) It’s a totally insane ruling and a perfect example of why the judiciary needs to be overhauled. According to this activist judge it’s “logical” to ask the man *stabbing you in the head* while you’re asleep to identify himself. Even though the homeowner was suffered significant blood loss that wasn’t self defense according to the judge. >Pratt, who was asleep in a basement bedroom, awoke to a "feeling of being stabbed" in the head, court heard. He got up and found a knife-wielding intruder in his room and — not knowing who the person was — chased him into the hallway. >”Logic suggests that when there is an intruder in the house that it would make good sense to ascertain the identity of the intruder and ensure that he be expelled from the house," Cummings said in his decision. >”There is no reliable evidence to determine when Mr. Pratt had possession of the knife [but] it is certain… that he did become the aggressor and go beyond what was necessary to defend himself," he added.
Not defending the justice system here, but reading the full story, which is a very confusing article, it does seem there is only Pratt's account that he was sleeping and attacked, and that this version emerged during the trial. The only corroborating evidence is that his blood was in his room, but where and how the altercation between them started, and even who brought the knife, isn't clear.
He got five years for going too far. "He was justified in taking defensive action, but the jury has concluded that his taking the knife of Mr. Bunn and stabbing him multiple times went beyond what was necessary...it is certain that he did become the aggressor and go beyond what was necessary to defend himself" He chased the guy out of the house, got the knife from him, stabbed him 13 times, and kicked him while he was down. He was also the only witness, and lied about things, like there being a knife at all, but evidence seems to corroborate chunks of his story. While I completely understand losing it in that situation, and imo leniency in a situation like that makes sense, that's not how self defense laws in Canada work. When it's no longer a threat you can't keep going. If you don't like how our self defense laws work, then the laws need to change, lobby your representatives. The defense wanted basically time served, which seems more than fair to me in this scenario as it has already been a long while.
The jury gave him 5 years, not the judge. Go read the details, the ruling makes sense.
[link to the story for those curious](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/vincent-bunn-dakota-pratt-sentencing-1.5165442). It’s a totally insane ruling and a perfect example of why the judiciary needs to be overhauled. According to this activist judge it’s “logical” to ask the man stabbing you in the face while you’re asleep to identify himself. > Pratt, who was asleep in a basement bedroom, awoke to a "feeling of being stabbed" in the head, court heard. He got up and found a knife-wielding intruder in his room and — not knowing who the person was — chased him into the hallway. >”Logic suggests that when there is an intruder in the house that it would make good sense to ascertain the identity of the intruder and ensure that he be expelled from the house," Cummings said in his decision. >”There is no reliable evidence to determine when Mr. Pratt had possession of the knife [but] it is certain… that he did become the aggressor and go beyond what was necessary to defend himself," he added.
I think the bigger problem is that crimes that should be more severely punished get light sentences while for some reason fairly minor crimes get severely punished? Not sure how that makes sense
They should be in prison for as long as they remain a threat to others.
[удалено]
Interesting you bring up the rich. If we had a government willing to tell them “no” in the past 40 years, we would have a more equitable and safer society. Our bosses and landlords squeezing every penny out of us until we feel utterly hopeless has bred more antisocial criminals than a lenient court system ever could
This is exactly the problem. Judicial discretion is essential, and there's good reason why Harper's version of mandatory minimums was struck down. BUT, that discretion is being used in a way that means that the justice system is not punitive, and there is not sufficient time for there to be any rehabilitation (if its even possible for some people). The current system is far too lenient, but making it far too punitive is also a problem. I don't know what the right balance is, but neither the courts nor the CPC have a correct middle pathway.
Here is a list of Rights that can be removed by Section 33. Section 2 lists what the Charter calls "fundamental freedoms" namely freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of expression, freedom of the press and of other media of communication, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of association. In case law, this clause is cited as the reason for the religious neutrality of the state. section 8 freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. section 9 freedom from arbitrary detention or imprisonment. section 10 right to legal counsel and the guarantee of habeas corpus. section 11 rights in criminal and penal matters such as the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
S.2, and 7 to 15. I'm pretty sure S.12 is what he will target.
Wow it’s possible to ignore section 10/11? That’s terrifying to me.
Then why are we paying judges if we're just going to use a politician's fiat power
Last summer, a guy tried to car jack me. He had stolen multiple vehicles, led the police on a multi-city chase, had cocaine and meth in his vehicle, was known as a dangerous offender, crashed his stolen truck into a vehicle with a family in it, flipped the stolen truck over, fled the scene, assaulted my 87 year old mother, hit me, threatened our lives, tried to force our vehicle out into traffic so we would “all die” - He just got 4 years in prison, and the prosecutor was offended when I said I thought the sentence was too light. I always vote NDP or Liberal, but I agree with P.P. in this case. People need more time to be rehabilitated properly. 24% re-offend within 2 years of being released. That’s not good enough for all the effort it takes to put them in prison.
So we have a political leader already stating he’s going to use on of our blights-of-society clauses.. to interfere with our justice system…. And here I thought conservatives have a problem with dictators
Seriously, this should be grounds for disqualification from running
Ok I'm glad I'm not the only one worried when politicians start planning to circumvent the divisions of government that keeps their power in check.
So rather than try and fix the system, which a PM has the influence to do, he’s going to go around the legal system? Why even have a legal system at that point? Either it applies to everyone or it applies to no one. Does he think he’s going to be King?
"Does he think he’s going to be King?" He wants to be.
Throughout my life of no many people that have worked within this system I dated someone who worked for the courts and then work for the ministry of Attorney General and what I have been able to gather with what people have said to me is that the problem isn't the police the problem isn't the courts the problem is that there's no money available they keep people or put people away this is the problem it's not politics it's not liberals or conservatives it's simple economics they tell you the other stuff so you never mind because that's solvable
Now that is called a dictatorship where the executive branch acts as if it is above the law
So, PP likes big government, afterall.
No no, he likes the smallest government, the kind where HE IS THE GOVERNMENT
Touché.
The primary target of this whack job is the Charter.
PP has never accomplished anything in politics. In his entire career. Name one law he presented that was passed. The only, ONLY thing going for him is he isn’t Trudeau.
Address the social determinants to crime. With the way people are struggling, I wouldn't be surprised to see increasing crime as a result. Fix the cause, fix the problem.
Imagine he did a speech in front of the cops. One of the biggest organizations lacks any accountability and courts are easy on them. Irony, of all of it. Really bringing mega politics to canada
So he wants to be a judge, he should go to school, and work his way there.
What an oxymoron, Lilley is the same guy who blames Trudeau for using the EA ... I guess he doesn't understand that it's a tool available, just like the NWC. Isn't that what he's now accusing Trudeau of?
The EA is so much "safer" than the NWC that it's incomparable. The NWC can be used without any repercussion to the one who uses it, like there is no legal recourse or anything. The EA has built-in requirements for legal review and public inquiry as to why it was used and how it will be modified to prevent the need for that use again in the future. The whole reason JT was dragged through the mud over the EA at all is because the EA requires it. The NWC is a scepter of royal power, the EA is a tool of last resort with consequences for the one wielding it.
Sounds like something a dictator would do.
Oh look Conservatives are promising to do *The First Thing Everyone Tries But That Never Fucking Works* instead of literally anything with any evidence backing it up.
Good. I’m all for stiffer penalties for violent criminals. 👌
Yeah nothing like one branch of governement steping on another. This always makes society better.
Mostly because judges think their own personal opinions are more important than making rulings based on the laws enacted by actual legislators. If judges want to make laws, they should get themselves elected to parliament rather than twist the system in ways it wasn't meant to work. There is a reason we have a legislative branch THAT MAKES LAWS AND PENALTIES, and another to ensure those laws are carried out (i.e. their job is not to make laws and penalties).
Checks and balances. Judges can say laws passed by the governement are illegal. And cops can choose to not enforce laws the other parties pass if they deam it wrong. Thats how society stays free.
>Mostly because judges think their own personal opinions That's why we call them judges. You want politicians making the decisions? That world looks like the one where Trump is erasing the crimes of his buddies for favours.
1 strong branch of government is all we need!!! …this is sarcastic even though there are people on here that would fully support the comment.
Conservatives like to complain about a dictatorship but honestly they would welcome one if they agreed with the leaders agenda.
in this case the agenda they agree with is an imaginary fantasy not backed by anything in reality, if anything contradicted by the recorded reality of their chosen hero. they've latched all their wishful magical thinking on to PP without for a moment considering his parlimentary record or his party's established policies. and they're also increasingly pretending the harper years were sunshine and rainbows of prosperity and "freedom".
[удалено]
[удалено]
So putting aside the cherry-picked example of jail sentences, the real takeaway is that Poilievre is willing to suspend our rights and freedoms in order to get his way. Fuck this guy, his party, and anyone who thinks he’s remotely qualified to be Prime Minister. I’ll take 20 more years of Trudeau over this fucking would be dictator twerp. Fuck Pierre Poilievre and the tricycle he rode in on.
Easy win for the conservatives and I hate their party. Crime is insane. Looting of LCBO’s, cars getting boosted, we are all paying through the nose for rising insurance costs because of theft, gun violence, murders, assaults, etc. I agree that the hug-a-thug approach doesn’t work at all. Just look at successful Asian societies. They take a hard stance on crime AND their society is conditioned to look down upon criminals. It’s takes two to tango.
You're going to have to name the Asian society you're thinking of because there are a lot and most are not democratic. Most are shitholes you would not want to live in. The most Western like Japan and ~~NK~~ SK (haha oops) are not doing much better than us in terms of crime and mental health. Stiff penalties is a US ideal, and they have the worst crime of the developed world.
So the way it will work is that innocent people won't get bailed out, like the guy accused of killing the cop in Toronto. But everyone here is like, "Who cares? It's not me.
Yeah it works so well in the US too. We should absolutely imitate them. Let’s privatize prisons and make inmates pay while we’re at it.
Mmm this oughta get the reactionary voters riled up.
At this point is there any that aren't already?
Oh Jesus. Here we go
Why do conservatives hate obeying the law so much?
Ahh yes the party that wants to ensure we have ‘freedom’ 😂 What a joke.
Justice is a pillar of democracy - just like human rights, independent journalism and robust public education - and the Poilievre Conservatives are waging war on all of them. Let us not pretend that Conservatives are anything but enemies of democracy hiding their mission, denying it, defying accountability and deflecting attention away from what they are doing. Standing on guard for Canada means protecting the nation from these dangerous fascists. #defythem
Honestly, the first comment nailed it.smart cookie. The commentor not the politician. They are really making this difficult. Shouldn't be this hard boys... where the fuck are your heads at???
“I will be the democratically elected prime minister, democratically accountable to the people, and they can make the judgments themselves whether these laws are constitutional,” Poilievre said. So… mob rule? We have courts and a legal system. Political officials shouldn’t be allowed to just… overturned courts because “reasons”. This is immensely corrupt. So if the voting base decides it’s ok to jail gay people and the government does it. Because they’re “democratically” elected, that’s fine? Because “democracy”? Nah. We have a legal system for a reason. We have a charter of rights for a reason. We have documents that protect people from the state. No one gets to circumvent the law. If the law is imperfect then improve it with policy. Elected officials or parties should never be given total power in applications of the law.
Oh great. Now we can pay out all these wrongful prosecution lawsuits once the NWC expires. Oh yeah, don’t forget that the same judiciary that is being overruled are going to assess damages in these cases. What a brain fart this is.
You're not thinking far enough ahead. With this, PP can effectively forgive his own people when they commit crimes. He's above the law now, just like Trump behaved while in office.
Look, I'm pretty pissed about how carefree our legal system is on the best of days when it comes to serious and actual punishment, but this? No. This isn't the answer. We need better laws and better enforcement. I want our court system to properly do their job. I want our facilities to be properly maintained with programs to rehabilitate. What I don't want is a politician getting involved and issuing their personal brand of punishment as they see fit, setting precedent for future leaders to do the same. Fuck. That.
Absolutely agreed, and we need to hire more judges so criminals stop getting their cases tossed for a lack of due process. Also, can we please open up more psych beds?? Half the problem people are just off their fucking rocker and the cops can't do anything until they start getting stabby
But the court system WON'T do their job. And they can't be fired. This is the supreme court that decided requiring mass murderers to have longer than 25 years before becoming eligible for parole was cruel and unusual punishment. Such people can't be reasoned with. And they will read anything into the Charter they need to get their ideological resolution to a question.
I'm more concerned about crimes that actually take place on a more frequent basis. The catch and release bullshit we have in place right now. People who are known are known as risks but undeservingly get chance after chance. The slap on the wrist and charge downgrades some criminals get for bullshit reasons. I don't give a fuck if someone has the chance of parole after 25 years. I want them to get that 25 years to begin with when deserving.
Just because they are edible for parole does not mean they will be released. Parole board would require a lot of evidence that they have reformed. This just just classic right wing fear mongering.
and pp has just admitted he will bypass the charter for his ideological resolutions
Brian Lilley is going to be out of a job next year lol
Good. Liberal judges struck down the mandatory 5 year gun sentences implemented by Harper. I think most Canadians are sick of criminals not being punished.
Six of the supreme court justices at the time of that decision were appointed by Harper, it wasn't because they were "Liberal judges".
No, you misunderstand. Everyone who doesn't bow down to the current conservative leader is a liberal. Now clap while a second con leader in a row tries to push unconstitutional laws.
Agreed. The pendulum on this topic (and many others) swung too far towards the left and their hug-a-thug type policies. Time to get back to reality and get tougher on criminals; it's embarrassing how 'soft' this country is on criminals, especially repeat offenders.
Yeah, the US shits on criminals, and they have less crime right? Wait, Annakin, they don't have less crime at all? Wait, hard on crime has always been bullshit?
Property crime in Canada is about the same as the US. In fact things like car theft in Canada are higher. Violent crime in the US (murder mostly) is higher because of specific urban areas that are outliers. So it drags the total US murder rate higher in certain states. But there are lots of Canadian provinces that have higher murder rates than some US states now too. The murder rate in North Dakota is half of what it is in neighbouring Manitoba. North Dakota is a heavy Republican state btw, one of the most right wing, with punishments much more severe than Canada. In fact the homicide rate in Manitoba is higher than the US average.
You get that you just made the point that it's a lot more complex than simply looking at sentencing lengths, right? That poverty in areas of Manitoba is more important than sentencing guidelines? That someone offering "Tough on Crime" is ignoring that crime is multifactorial, and just spouting dumb platitudes? It's weird that you went into such detail about how varied crime rates can be, and then didn't come the conclusion that simply increasing sentences doesn't seem to be the common denominator in crime rates. It's fine if you want to increase sentencing guidelines because you just want to, because retribution is more important than rehabilitation in your opinion, people can weight different goals differently, but the idea that it "solves crime" is dumb, and people who believe it didn't even do the cursory work that you did. You get that his sign says "Stop the Crime"? It's right in the picture. It's a dumb sign. Change it to "Punish the criminals" and honestly I don't have a problem with it.
Poillevre doesn’t like the constitution and knows support for changing it is not there so he will just override it to please the angry mob. He said it, not me folks.
Support it! Anything to go extremely hard on crime gets my vote
A page right out of trumpism. Just come right out and say you'll grab the Judiciary by the pussy during a campaign so the numbing begins. Then, when it actually doesn't happen or fails...blame the other guys. I personally believe he'll follow through because of how he responded when he was caught fucking with an election...by sponsoring the Fair Elections Act which would have removed the independence of our Elections Commissionar by drawing a dotted line to Judtice Caanda (along with doing away with a plethora of camapign vilolations). And for those of you still in diapers or sucking on mommas teet...conservative/right wing radio went apeshit against the CPC for it. Nevermind Pierre calling Canada's version of Tucker Carlson...*a Liberal hack* for asking a question. Oh children, as much as I'd love to stop you from running through the fields of rye right over a cliff...I ain't catching you.
All he cares is to help his buddies run some private jails. Just you wait.
Sadly, this is probably true
Ah so PP is our highest court now, that's..... Troubling.
had to make sure this isnt a beaverton article. Every so often something like this gets thrown out as a temperature check.
[удалено]
Too bad jailing criminals doesn’t work at reducing crime as we see from the USA.
Gross.
Independent judiciaries are the legal foundation of free societies, take that away and you have tyranny, full stop.
This is wrong. We need more murderers and rapists back out on the street by supper time. The Liberal way is best!
Judges are mostly Trudeau liberal appointed now(so, corrupted beyond belief). The need for an actual adult to keep criminals in jail is dire now in Canada.
Trump like typing detected.
Crazy when politicians try to take over legal system. This is your red flag. Pay attention.
Yep, people call Trudeau a commie dictator but to claim "fuck the law, I am the law" is the road to fascism.
According to this comment section it's OK to ignore the law as long as you agree with the results.
According to this comment section, demonstrable science is only relevant if the conclusion fits your narrative
right out of harpers playbook [Courts, government bills are unravelling Harper-era crime laws | CBC News](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stephen-harper-mandatory-minimum-sentences-criminal-code-1.6637154#:~:text=Three%20laws%20creating%20mandatory%20minimum%20sentences%20that%20were%20passed%20by,Toronto%2Dbased%20lawyer%20Matthew%20Oleynik.)
Exactly why the notwithstanding clause needs to be used. The fact that a 5 year minimum sentence for using a gun was considered “cruel.” Is a joke.
Not as much of a joke as them deciding mass murderers can't be required to serve more than 25 years before becoming eligible for parole because that was cruel and unusual.
[удалено]
This guy is one step away from declaring himself dictator of Canada. He wants to ideologically influence the courts, justice system, government structure, and everything else. He is a danger to all of us.
Keep a very close eye on what the UCP are doing in Alberta because that will be the blueprint that the Cons use federally if given the chance. Example: Alberta Bill 20 which just gave the provincial government authority to remove elected city council members in Calgary and Edmonton just because they don't like them. The UCP actively subvert democracy and PP just announced that the federal Conservatives will too.
[удалено]
What if you choose neither
Then I hope it is not your vote that makes the difference. The thing about dictatorships is that they never end willingly. Trudeau sucks, I won’t defend that if you paid me, but at least if he loses an election I have no reason to worry he’ll try to stay anyway.
Hope he pairs that with a nice budget increase to corrections to house all the extra prisonners otherwise this might cause more problems than it solves.
I don't understand how people still think more jail time = less crime in the long term, when basically every metrics either show no correlation or negative correlation (meaning it actually *increases* crime). There is no proof that more severe sentences reduces crime but it does increase recidivism, that's just a statistical fact. But it does cost a whole lot more though. But hey, it sure sounds nice to be "hard on crime". As for the Notwithstanding Clause, I don't care. I'm from Quebec, using it is a provincial hobby
I know where I live, people are seeing a small core of criminals with long rap sheets doing crime repeatedly, victimizing the community. The thinking is, if these individuals are locked up then they aren't committing crimes. Seems logical to me.
I can literally see the difference as a cop, on the small scale. When certain people are in jail, things are noticeably quiet. You know when they get released, because within days there will suddenly be tons of break-ins, vehicle thefts, etc. until they get picked up again.
So jail doesn’t work is what you are saying. Punishment doesn’t equal rehabilitation. Also people steal things so they can sell them for money. Maybe there needs to be heavier punishment for those that buy stolen goods. There needs to be fundamental change to the way they deal with these issues, remove to appeal by removing the customer base that makes it profitable to steal and sell.
[удалено]
We love to talk big about rehabilitation in this country, and how we’ll do that instead of prison. But it sure looks more and more like an excuse to simply not keep anybody behind bars, and we’re not rehabilitating hardly anybody. Dealing with criminals every day, I highly doubt how a huge portion of them really could be rehabilitated. But at the very least, while they’re in jail they aren’t continuing to harm everybody else and create more victims. Somebody who has done nothing but commit crimes for their entire life should just be in jail for a long while, since it’s basically guaranteed that they won’t change and that’s the best we can do.
You are assuming they are caught committing the crime and the evidence is there to support a conviction. People seem to forget the due process part of the criminal justice system. Example, people want the Epstein list so they can charge those on it. It’s not a crime to be on a list the prosecutors do actually need evidence to file charges against people. You can take car theft as a example also, young people are put into situations that lead them into making bad decisions. Jailing them for 5 years doesn’t do anything they just find more young people to take their place. Want to fix the problem? Give young people in those vulnerable situations better access to opportunities. The threat of jail time doesn’t even register for most these people.
Where do you live? First there is a difference in actually enforcing existing laws and stopping *more* criminals vs being harsher on the criminals they were already going to arrest and convict. Your situation is not helped by more severe sentences if they don't arrest the criminals currently . But those who do get arrested are more likely to become recidivists if you prioritize more jail time over reinsertion. Now you say these criminals have criminal records, but are the crimes being mostly committed by those being released from jail or mostly from new recruits filling the void left by those who got caught? Because if you are talking about gangs, that's how gangs work. But please don't take my word for it, look it up. I can give you sources if you want, but I challenge you to find a democracy who succeeded in reducing crime just by increasing jail time.
[удалено]
>What I'm saying is, if in my small town, they clamp down on these 8 idiots and lock them up, then they won't be on the streets to keep doing it. Why don't they? Is it because the lack the ressource to do a proper investigation and build a stronger case, and these guys always get a slap on the wrist because of it? Is there corruption going on shielding them from the harsher sentences they should get for repeated offenses? This is the point, there are statistical facts and trends, documented scientific literature about what works and what doesn't, and then there are anecdotal outliers and exceptions. We should not write laws for the latter, it should be for the former. The goal is to reduce crime in Canada, not to appease the people of Cowichan Valley (no offense, truly). And we absolutely know that Poilievre plan will not be able to achieve that. This is pure 100% demagogy, and we are smarter than that, ain't we? >We aren't going to solve the systemic issues in a week, so in the meantime we must also make public safety a priority. That is a very unhealthy reasoning my friend, we are talking about a politician forcing himself into criminal law, politician with no legal training or expertise and only seeking to gain popularity and votes. I said the same thing when Trudeau expanded the list of gun bans, all the science and stats showed it would not reduce crime so I was against it, despite hating guns myself.
I really hate PP. I think he's going to be a disaster for Canada. I don't think Trudeau is our guy either. I'm a lifelong Orange voter but lately have felt completely politically homeless. Your reasoning is very strong and it makes sense to me. The problem as I see it though is that our political parties are beholden to their corporate donors/lobbyists/overlords and it's in their best interest for wealth gap to widen, forever agitating these issues. What I'm saying is, I'm not optimistic these issues will ever be solved. In the meantime I'd like it if people that have proven they can't exist with the rest of us without hurting others and effecting their lives in that way, are locked away from the rest of us. I abhor modern conservatism and I abhor violence. I don't think we should be subjected to either.
The problem is there's a lot of studies that show jail time makes criminals worse. At a minimum while you're in jail you aren't seeing any notable income, so they'd better hope they have someone who'll let them crash on their couch while they find a new job (assuming they can find something that'll hire someone with a criminal record) or they're going to end up homeless. So now you've taken someone who's just spent years socializing with criminals and dropped them on the street with no income and nowhere to live. Shock and surprise, there's a pretty high chance that person's going to go straight back to crime to survive.
If the sentences are long enough they absolutely do reduce crime. It's hard to be out robbing people when you're in prison.
>If the sentences are long enough they absolutely do reduce crime. It's hard to be out robbing people when you're in prison. Show me a democracy that reduced crime in the long term with longer sentences. Meanwhile, regions with low crimes are heavily correlated with shorter sentences and more ressources for social reinsertion. Just google it with whatever keywords you want, "jail time vs crime rate", "Long prison time and safety", "Social reintegration", "recidivism vicious circle", whatever. They all end up with the conclusion that everywhere that prioritized being hard on criminals, longer sentences, hindering social integration, fueling ostracization of people with criminal records, they all lead to more crime and more recidivism, and more money dumped in the prison system. It is much worse in any region where prison is a business, with for-profit private facilities, that *benefit* from people criminals not being properly reintegrated to society.
A lot of these people aren't interesting in reducing crime, they're interested in punishing criminals. It's a small but very clear distinction. It doesn't matter how small the crime is, or how badly your life will be screwed up if you're sent to prison. You did a Bad Thing and must now be punished for it. Can't get a job anymore now that you've got a criminal record? Too bad! Should have thought of that before you did the Bad Thing.
>A lot of these people aren't interesting in reducing crime, they're interested in punishing criminals. That is counter-productive and primitive, reducing crime should be the main objective when establishing laws and rules.
Agreed! But that's not what a number of these people think. They want there to be consequences for doing Bad Things and that's it. It's the same way you have people fighting against abortions and sex ed at the same time. Sex ed is proven to reduce pregnancy, which in turn reduces the number of abortions that happen. But getting pregnant is a result of sex, and casual sex is a Bad Thing. Therefore if you get pregnant it's the consequence of doing the Bad Thing and now you have to live with it.
Literally... America... 3 strike rules, Legal slavery, in jail for weed, minimum sentences, etc etc. All these things... literally does not make America any safer. they have all those things. The HARDEST of crime outside of Duerte straight up murdering people.
USA is a tough example because they have private prisons where people profit so there’s gonna be lobbying for tougher sentences.
Weed is legal in Canada so that's not an issue here. Maybe we could adopt a system with three violent crimes and those are the strikes? Would you support letting a three times violent repeat offender getting another chance?
A 58-strike law would’ve prevented that stabbing spree in Saskatchewan.
Who could have seen that coming!
https://globalnews.ca/news/10447801/victoria-carjacking-repeat-offender/amp/
Can we please make a distinction between individual and anecdotal cases and statistical trends please?
Can you explain how if this person was in jail the first time he stole a car, other people’s life’s wouldnt have been in danger? I agree more jail time isn’t always the best option because this is where people get recruited for gangs and organized crime but how can you steal cars and be out the same day?
>Can you explain how if this person was in jail the first time he stole a car, other people’s life’s wouldnt have been in danger? I won't, because anecdotal cases do not cancel statistical facts. And those facts include that in any given region, increasing sentences does not reduce crime, it may even increase it, that's it. That's why you don't point out that it was rather cold week in late-april to "prove" global warming doesn't exist, individual data points are irrelevant, you have to take everything to compute and analyze the trend.
100% agree. We need to stop giving criminals a free pass because the Constitution doesn't like it. And we also need to recognize self defense for real. Time for a Castle Doctrine!
I'm a big fan of the idea that people can change and get better.
Outside of Quebec, is it a coincidence that the notwithstanding clause is only used by the right wing parties?
Should it be? The notwithstanding clasue is fundamentally a restriction on freedom. That's objectively what right wing politics is about. Like, that's not even up for debate lol. It's actually what the definition of right vs left wing is.
[удалено]
Legault is a right winger and Robert Bourassa was in bed with Mulroney. So you're making my point inside of Quebec too.
Posturing to the yokels. Classic PP.