[Newsbot]

Title: Ontario judge strikes down mandatory minimums for firearms trafficking
Category: Law & Order
Posted By: Curtman
Date: 2012-07-06 16:13:30
Canadian

[Curtman]

$1:

An Ontario Court judge has struck down a cherished part of the Harper government's tough-on-crime agenda.

Justice Paul Bellefontaine ruled Friday in Oshawa, Ont., that Christopher Lewis � a crack dealer who offered to sell an undercover police officer a gun � should not have to face the mandatory minimum sentence of three years in jail for firearms trafficking.

The dumb-on-crime agenda fails to deliver.. Again. Surprise, surprise.

$1:

The judge agreed, saying the penalty was disproportionate. He gave Lewis one year in jail for the firearms offence � although he also gave him an extra two years for other drug-related offences.

So, net result is the guy still serves the mandatory minimum. But the judge doesn't like the Harperites telling him what to do.

$1:

But it's not the first time a judge has challenged Ottawa's 2008 law. In February, Ontario Superior Court Judge Anne Molloy struck down a three-year minimum sentence for a first offence of illegally possessing a loaded gun.

And mandatory minimums are the best idea they had in their dumb-on-crime agenda. The rest was legislation they stalled the Paul Martin government from passing. Canadians are getting fed up with their solutions that don't work.

[Bodah]

Just for you Curt... to help ya out.



Happy place .... happy place.

[BartSimpson]

Three years is unfair?

[CDN_PATRIOT]

Justice Paul Bellefontaine is a bleeding heart left-winger that is party to blame for our justice system being so lame and toothless.

-J.

[Freakinoldguy]

Suprise suprise, Curtman defending the fact that some left wing judge decided to flaunt the law and give a crack dealing restricted firearm seller a reduced sentence.

[Curtman]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Suprise suprise, Curtman defending the fact that some left wing judge decided to flaunt the law and give a crack dealing restricted firearm seller a reduced sentence.

Not at all. Off with his head. I'm just taking issue with the dumb on crime agenda. I'm not defending anything. The conservatives can let us know why their solutions fail. Remember when they said there would only be a recession if the Liberals were elected?

They have no clue how to reduce crime or fix the economy. That's about it for their platform for the past 6 years.

[Bodah]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Suprise suprise, Curtman defending the fact that some left wing judge decided to flaunt the law and give a crack dealing restricted firearm seller a reduced sentence.

Our judges are just hotel managers moving 'clients' around due too limited space. I think we should build a supermax up north, build it near a natural resource and take advantage of the free labour then harvest it in a sound environmental manner.

[Gunnair]

Curtman Curtman:

$1:

An Ontario Court judge has struck down a cherished part of the Harper government's tough-on-crime agenda.

Justice Paul Bellefontaine ruled Friday in Oshawa, Ont., that Christopher Lewis � a crack dealer who offered to sell an undercover police officer a gun � should not have to face the mandatory minimum sentence of three years in jail for firearms trafficking.

The dumb-on-crime agenda fails to deliver.. Again. Surprise, surprise.

$1:

The judge agreed, saying the penalty was disproportionate. He gave Lewis one year in jail for the firearms offence � although he also gave him an extra two years for other drug-related offences.

So, net result is the guy still serves the mandatory minimum. But the judge doesn't like the Harperites telling him what to do.

$1:

But it's not the first time a judge has challenged Ottawa's 2008 law. In February, Ontario Superior Court Judge Anne Molloy struck down a three-year minimum sentence for a first offence of illegally possessing a loaded gun.

And mandatory minimums are the best idea they had in their dumb-on-crime agenda. The rest was legislation they stalled the Paul Martin government from passing. Canadians are getting fed up with their solutions that don't work.

I have to admit, I'm not quite sure what you are doing here.

Crack dealer tries to sell a gun to a cop - drug peddling criminal holding illegal firearms and then trying to sell them.

Just making sure we're on the same page here.

Judge takes the guilty bugger, looks at the mandatory sentence of three years that he should be giving the drug peddling crack dealer trying to sell illegal firearms and decides in a fit of pique against the government that this piece of work - crack dealing illegal weapons seller - does not deserve three years in jail for the offence of trying to sell an illegal weapon (because everyone knows that illegal weapons aren't used for bad things and that innocent people don't get hurt) Though, once the fit of pique ends and his point is made to the government, he tacks on two more years for good measure to bring the sentence to..... (drum roll emoticon needed) three years.

So, I get that you don't like the legislation but irrespective of that, I'm more curious as to why you would use this example - the crack dealer trying to sell illegal weapons - as an example of the evils of minimum sentences.

The 75 year old recreational pot smoker with seven plants in his back yard going to jail for six months is a more logical example.

You didn't make your case here.

[Curtman]

Gunnair Gunnair:

I have to admit, I'm not quite sure what you are doing here.

Crack dealer tries to sell a gun to a cop - drug peddling criminal holding illegal firearms and then trying to sell them.

Just making sure we're on the same page here.

Judge takes the guilty bugger, looks at the mandatory sentence of three years that he should be giving the drug peddling crack dealer trying to sell illegal firearms and decides in a fit of pique against the government that this piece of work - crack dealing illegal weapons seller - does not deserve three years in jail for the offence of trying to sell an illegal weapon (because everyone knows that illegal weapons aren't used for bad things and that innocent people don't get hurt) Though, once the fit of pique ends and his point is made to the government, he tacks on two more years for good measure to bring the sentence to..... (drum roll emoticon needed) three years.

So, I get that you don't like the legislation but irrespective of that, I'm more curious as to why you would use this example - the crack dealer trying to sell illegal weapons - as an example of the evils of minimum sentences.

The 75 year old recreational pot smoker with seven plants in his back yard going to jail for six months is a more logical example.

You didn't make your case here.

The only case to be made is that mandatory minimum sentencing isn't a solution to anything. The solution if there is one is through addressing the growing wealth disparity, creating jobs, and really doing something about organized crime.

I have no problem with a 25 year minimum sentence for trafficking illegal weapons. I just don't think it will do any good.

[OnTheIce]

Curtman Curtman:

The only case to be made is that mandatory minimum sentencing isn't a solution to anything. The solution if there is one is through addressing the growing wealth disparity, creating jobs, and really doing something about organized crime.

Getting back to reality, you're not going to solve wealth disparity or organized crime, so stick to discussing something that actually links to reality.

People like this need to be punished accordingly and 3 years for selling an illegal weapon seems pretty fair to me.

Like Gun said, you failed to make your case. All that came across was "WAAAAA HARPER BAD"

[PluggyRug]

Curtman Curtman:

I have no problem with a 25 year minimum sentence for trafficking illegal weapons. I just don't think it will do any good.

Your first sentence is contradicted by the second. That deserves a mandatory minimum sentence, or would that be two consecutive sentences.

[Curtman]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Curtman Curtman:

The only case to be made is that mandatory minimum sentencing isn't a solution to anything. The solution if there is one is through addressing the growing wealth disparity, creating jobs, and really doing something about organized crime.

Getting back to reality, you're not going to solve wealth disparity or organized crime, so stick to discussing something that actually links to reality.

People like this need to be punished accordingly and 3 years for selling an illegal weapon seems pretty fair to me.

Like Gun said, you failed to make your case. All that came across was "WAAAAA HARPER BAD"

You think 3 years of con-college will put this guy on the straight and narrow? You're not the person to talk to about reality, obviously.

[OnTheIce]

Curtman Curtman:

You think 3 years of con-college will put this guy on the straight and narrow? You're not the person to talk to about reality, obviously.

Yea, because love, cuddles and a pat on the back is all these crack and weapons dealers need?

6 months and a guaranteed job at McDonalds is all this guy needs to stop living a life of crime and money.

[Curtman]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

Curtman Curtman:

I have no problem with a 25 year minimum sentence for trafficking illegal weapons. I just don't think it will do any good.

Your first sentence is contradicted by the second. That deserves a mandatory minimum sentence, or would that be two consecutive sentences.

It doesn't contradict it. If the Harperites introduced a bill to put a 25 year minimum sentence on trafficking an illegal weapon, would MP's vote for it? Definitely. Why would I be opposed to it? People have the choice to buy a gun legally or illegally.

It'll be thrown out of court right away anyway. No progress.