[PublicAnimalNo9]

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.

It only fails because appointed, bean-head, liberal judges seem to think that they have more say in how the laws should be applied than the democratically elected law makers.

[Zipperfish]

I'm not sure elected judges would help matters. You'd just end up with an even more politicized bench.

I agree with Gunny. I don't like Harper too much, but a crack dealer selling weapons isn't exactly the greatests example.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I'm not sure elected judges would help matters. You'd just end up with an even more politicized bench.

I agree with Gunny. I don't like Harper too much, but a crack dealer selling weapons isn't exactly the greatests example.

Dinnae need to elect them. Just make sure they fucking well understand that they dinnae MAKE the laws. If they wanna challenge them, take it to the SCC.
If judges over the last coupl'a decades had been doing their job instead of mollycoddling dirtbags, there wouldnae be a need for the Fed to come out with a revamped mandatory minimum sentencing.
Let's face it, the problem goes FAR beyond this latest farce of justice.

[OnTheIce]

Curtman Curtman:

People have the choice to buy a gun legally or illegally.

Considering street gangs and dealers aren't dealing with rifles not many people are going to shell out $250 bucks to get their firearms license to be able to purchase a handgun, do the courses and exams and then go to the store and buy a .45.

[Gunnair]

Curtman 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.

Uhhhh.......so, we've moved from crack dealing illegal weapons selling into wealth disparity?

I'm not really seeing he connection, at least not quite so clear cut as yourself.

[Gunnair]

Curtman 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.

Still not sure what you are suggesting here.

[Zipperfish]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Dinnae need to elect them. Just make sure they fucking well understand that they dinnae MAKE the laws. If they wanna challenge them, take it to the SCC.
If judges over the last coupl'a decades had been doing their job instead of mollycoddling dirtbags, there wouldnae be a need for the Fed to come out with a revamped mandatory minimum sentencing.
Let's face it, the problem goes FAR beyond this latest farce of justice.

I got no problem with them ruling on the Constitutionality of laws. They don't make laws; they just rule on their legality. Parliament has the option of changing the Constituion, but they can't pass unconstituional laws.

[andyt]

I understand the judges not liking mandatory minimums, and of course judges need flexibility in sentencing. But, I don't understand this judge's problem with giving a guy 3 years for illegally selling guns. I think that's a serious offense that requires serious jail time. And to pre-empt the pro gun people saying that prohibition against guns don't work - we don't have prohibition against guns. Guns are legal and well regulated, the way drugs should be.

[Curtman]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Uhhhh.......so, we've moved from crack dealing illegal weapons selling into wealth disparity?

I'm not really seeing he connection, at least not quite so clear cut as yourself.

Poverty causes crime. You don't see the connection?

Mandatory minimum sentences aren't a deterrent. They don't rehabilitate. They're a waste of time.

Dumb-on-crime means they have an agenda to reduce crime, and absolutely no effective way or idea how to do so.

We never moved anywhere. Illegal weapons, drugs, organized crime, and wealth disparity are one single issue.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Dinnae need to elect them. Just make sure they fucking well understand that they dinnae MAKE the laws. If they wanna challenge them, take it to the SCC.
If judges over the last coupl'a decades had been doing their job instead of mollycoddling dirtbags, there wouldnae be a need for the Fed to come out with a revamped mandatory minimum sentencing.
Let's face it, the problem goes FAR beyond this latest farce of justice.

I got no problem with them ruling on the Constitutionality of laws. They don't make laws; they just rule on their legality. Parliament has the option of changing the Constituion, but they can't pass unconstituional laws.

I agree. However, I don't think minimum sentencing "defies" the Constitution, as it were.

[Gunnair]

Curtman Curtman:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Uhhhh.......so, we've moved from crack dealing illegal weapons selling into wealth disparity?

I'm not really seeing he connection, at least not quite so clear cut as yourself.

Poverty causes crime. You don't see the connection?

Mandatory minimum sentences aren't a deterrent. They don't rehabilitate. They're a waste of time.

Dumb-on-crime means they have an agenda to reduce crime, and absolutely no effective way or idea how to do so.

We never moved anywhere. Illegal weapons, drugs, organized crime, and wealth disparity are one single issue.

I would disagree. I'm willing to bet there are some very wealthy criminals out there with much more wealth than me.

If I have less, should I take up crack dealing?

Yes, poverty creates some crime. However, let's not lose sight of the fact that the crack dealer has opted to carry out an illegal activity to make more money than he would have working at Timmies. That is a moral decision.

Poverty causing crime is the guy stealing food to feed his family. The drug addict breaking into your home is a crime cause by poverty, which itself was caused by the crime of illegal drug use.

Not buying the vice hood approach here.

[Curtman]

Gunnair Gunnair:

I would disagree. I'm willing to bet there are some very wealthy criminals out there with much more wealth than me.

If I have less, should I take up crack dealing?

If you have less than you need to live, you'll probably consider it when you see those wealthy criminals offering to get you started in the crack dealing business.

Gunnair Gunnair:

Yes, poverty creates some crime. However, let's not lose sight of the fact that the crack dealer has opted to carry out an illegal activity to make more money than he would have working at Timmies. That is a moral decision.

Sure it is. What difference is it going to make if this guy goes to jail for 5 years (3 mandatory gun crime + 2 for drug crimes) instead of 3 (1 gun crime + 2 drug crimes)? He's going to have much better morals with the extra two years I suppose?

As far as I'm concerned, you've just opened up a business opportunity for the guy who's going to replace him during that time. Tough on crime, would be actually doing something about crime, and the reasons people get involved in it.

[Prof_Chomsky]

Lots of studies in the USA have shown mandatory minimums serve no purpose at all and end up being detrimental because:
a) Criminals who deserve that punishment are already receiving it based on past precedent in the sentencing process.
b) Non career criminal types like the guy who turned to selling his grandfather’s Browning AR when food stamps ran out get sentenced to minimum sentences which wind up causing far more harm than good.

I don’t defend this crack dealer. He deserves at least what he got sentenced to. But I agree with the judge that mandatory minimums are ridiculous. They’re the invention of politicians looking for a crisp headline to say “we’re tough on crime”.

[BartSimpson]

Curtman Curtman:

Poverty causes crime.

What a pathetic and paternalistic 19th century view of the world that you have there. So all poor people are inclined to commit crimes just because of their economic status? And it's up to busybodies like yourself to take care of them by stealing other people's incomes and giving it to the poor to do what? Prevent crime by using the government to legalize theft?

If that was the case the USA would be the most peaceful nation in the world given that we've spent six trillion dollars on the poor over the past fifty years.

Take your communist ideas and shove them up your *** because they've been tried and they failed. Utterly.

[andyt]

I think income disparity causes crime, more so than poverty. So you probably misapplied that 6 trillion. Also, when the people at the top are seen to steal and cheat and rig the system to get what they've got, there's probably a trickle down effect that people at the bottom figure they should emulate their superiors.