Xort Xort:
Lemmy Lemmy:
Your definition of probation is poor.
Would you like to quote a better one?
A sentence that puts the offender on a period of supervision and places conditions on his life.
Xort Xort:
Probation is an alternative to jail time. It's a cost saving method used by the legal system to give an illusion of justice.
Sure, it's an alternative to jail time. And jail time is an alternative to probation. And a community service order is an alternative to both. And a fine is an alternative to all three.
Xort Xort:
Care to list crimes that do not carry a possibility of jail time, only probation?
It depends on other similar cases and what was handed out. The statute only tells a fraction of the story. The judge also has to examine precedents. If this person committed an offence with a maximum penalty, say, of 2 yeas in jail, but it was his first offense, the judge can't just arbitrarily decide to give him jail time. He/she has to examine precedents to determine sentencing options. If the previous 1000 offenders who did the same thing this guy did got probation, the judge has to give this guy probation, even if jail time is the maximum in the statute. So while the offence, as written in the Code may list jail as an option, it may not apply to a specific incident. You need the statute and the case law equally.
Furthermore, the Criminal Code specifically states that prison out to be used only as a last resort. You make it sound like jail is the first option. Nope, it's the last.
In any case, your claim was that he got out early from a jail term. That's parole, not probation. You either didn't know the difference between the two or you were purposely exaggerating to paint this guy as a worse offender than he likely was. There was nothing in the article to suggest your claim that "he was let go before his time was done." Instead of back-peddling and deflecting, why not just man-up and admit you were wrong?