[gonavy47]

That's right, tell me what I think! It wasn't a "cheap partisan point". It was my reality! And you laughed at it! Typical liberal arrogance! You can't accept the truth that liberals are soft on crime, have set the judicial "playing field" through majority governments, and when the conservatives try to do something about it, they are stymied by the senate. The article that you provided stated that violent crime is not lower, and yet you manipulate the stats to say all crime is lower. It is not lower. Read your article. You are so quick to blame me about using partisan politics, that you can't handle the truth when it's put before you. You are the partison one, buddy!

[BeaverFever]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

But, to be fair. If on the odd chance one of these whiners get's off after serving time awaiting trial, he should be monetarily compensated for his ordeal. This might just speed up the justice system, since everyone knows that money, not rehabilitation or punishment is the driving force in the judicial system.

Not a bad idea in principle, but it has some practical problems:

1) Youd have to compensate that person not just for their hardship, but lost wages, loss of employment, damage to their reputation and standing in the community, broken mariages, the fact they can no longer sleep at night, etc etc. It could become very expensive. Especially when you factor in not only the people found innocent, but all those who have their charges dropped or withdrawn or stayed by the Crown before the trial concludes which is actually a very large number and happens almost daily, much more often than people being found not guilty at the end of a trial.

2)Especially with respect to drugs, guns and some other serious crimes, the people who are found innocent or have their charges dropped may be innocent of THAT PARTICULAR crime, but are usually people known to police with long ongoing criminal associations and long ongoing criminal histories; I like to call these people "innocent criminals." Even people who are the "usual suspects" and regularly commit crimes will occasionally get arrested and charged for crimes they didnt actually commit. The Crown regularly drops charges when witnesses change their story, are found to be not as independent or credible as first believed, police mislpace or mishandle evidence, etc. etc. Due to their associations, they often get caught up in drug or gang sweeps but in a specific arrest, the court or the prosecutor may find out late in the game that they dont have any evidence directly linking them to a particlar charge THIS TIME.

3)And more often than most people think, police can be overly aggressive and what would otherwise be a legitimate criminal case can be thrown out because beat cops were racially profiling or deliberately going on fishing expeditions with illegal stop-and-frisk searches without cause etc so even people who likely actually HAVE committed the crime they are charged with can sometimes go free.

My point with the last two is that under your proposal taxpayer money would be paying out large sums to "innocent criminals" as well as guilty criminals who manage to beat the charges. There has to be a better way.

[OldChum]

Why cannot the criminals be men or women and accept their punishment like a man or a women and shut up. You want to play do the time .

[DerbyX]

gonavy47 gonavy47:

That's right, tell me what I think! It wasn't a "cheap partisan point". It was my reality! And you laughed at it! Typical liberal arrogance! You can't accept the truth that liberals are soft on crime, have set the judicial "playing field" through majority governments, and when the conservatives try to do something about it, they are stymied by the senate. The article that you provided stated that violent crime is not lower, and yet you manipulate the stats to say all crime is lower. It is not lower. Read your article. You are so quick to blame me about using partisan politics, that you can't handle the truth when it's put before you. You are the partison one, buddy!

Typical con stupidity.

You mentioned your daughters car theft as a partisan point like "hey, how dare you say crime is down when this happened." Ignorant of the fact that her misfortune doesn't change the fact that crime is down from the 80s. You used your own daughters pain for political gain. That is sick.

Then you continue the con strawman attack by crying that Libs are soft on crime. A typical partisan ploy and one you post no evidence for.

Under the Liberal majorities crime decreased or can't you read yet? Of course the truth is that crime rates of specific crimes have fluctuated but no evidence whatsoever exists that "lax Liberal laws and justice" resulted in higher crime.

Your entire rant is basically an ad hominem attack on the Libs based not on fact but on your partisan crying that the Libs must be responsible, not because the evidence supports that conclusion but because you want to believe it.

That's a pretty big bag of fail to eat.

[ridenrain]

That's not true to say the Libs are soft on justice. Ignatieff isn't.. It's just that the party dosen't agree with him.

0:

wanted.jpg [ 27.62 KiB | Viewed 213 times ]

[gonavy47]

First of all my opinion is not a "rant",typical liberal arrogance. Tell me what I think, and deflect my points by calling it a rant. Your shtick is trying to defend the liberals failed policies, by attacking me. Talk about sick! We are not living in the utopian crime-free paradise that you claim. We are living in the liberal legacy of coddling criminals and a judicial system that is inefficient and for the most part impotent. You guys just can't stand it when you aren't in power. All that arrogance going to waste, and it doesn't look like you libs will be back anytime soon, now does it? And THAT is a huge bag of fail to munch on. Bon apetit!

[DerbyX]

gonavy47 gonavy47:

First of all my opinion is not a "rant",typical liberal arrogance. Tell me what I think, and deflect my points by calling it a rant. Your shtick is trying to defend the liberals failed policies, by attacking me. Talk about sick! We are not living in the utopian crime-free paradise that you claim. We are living in the liberal legacy of coddling criminals and a judicial system that is inefficient and for the most part impotent. You guys just can't stand it when you aren't in power. All that arrogance going to waste, and it doesn't look like you libs will be back anytime soon, now does it? And THAT is a huge bag of fail to munch on. Bon apetit!

Its a grade A rant sunshine. Lets examine your failures.

1) Crime is up or rampant because of the Liberals.

You haven't once posted anything to support this claim. In fact when evidence is posted you simply claim that its all the Libs fault anyway.

2) The Liberals have failed polices.

Really? Which ones? The ones that have made us a very safe and peaceful country to live in? What about the PC polices? Mulroney had a majority yet crime was higher.

3) Coddling criminals.

Yawn.

4) An inefficient and ineffective justice system.

Based on what? Define inefficient and provide evidence to support your conclusion. Define ineffective and provide evidence as well. You won't because you just want to claim its all the Libs fault.

5) We can't stand it because we aren't in power.

This is about what will work and what won't and if you are keeping up Iggy's Libs supported the bill even if the senate amended it.

6) Arrogance?

Seems to me sunshine that you are the arrogant guy spouting all kinds of nonsense that Canada would be so much better off crime wise if only we had con laws, con judges, and con sentences. No proof, just arrogance.

Not once have you posted a single shred of evidence to support your partisan claim that higher crime is the fault of the Liberals.

Fail.

[gonavy47]

Not once have you shown proof that it isn't, Sunshine.

[DerbyX]

Yes I did sunshine. You just claim its because of other reasons. The onus is on you to prove your point over my evidence.

[gonavy47]

Your "evidence" sweetheart, is only your liberal slant on what a Utopian society we live in. Your claim that we have a safe place to live, because of liberal policies is ludicrous and unfounded. Your argument against liberal policies coddling criminals was I believe, "yawn", hardly an argument and very arrogant I might add. You only have to look at the results of the judicial system to see that it isn't working,(light sentences, releases because of delays,the amount of repeat offenders). The fact that Iggy isn't supported by the liberal senators, is only an indication of his waning leadership. The fact that Iggy supported the bill, shows that he agrees that something is broken! Or did that fact escape you? You have the audacity to put the onus on me to explain your party's failings? Really? You call me arrogant, you don't know the meaning of the word. I'm not arrogant, I'm fed up! As are a lot of Canadians, when they see what's going on in the courts. I don't need con judges, con sentences, or con laws, just common sense. Judges with common sense. Serious crimes dealt with in a serious manner. That guarantees a safe society to live in, not concerning ourselves with criminals rights over the crimes they commit, or over the victims rights. Violent crimes are at the same level they were in the 80's. In the 60's it was front page news if somebody got shot. What happened between the 60's and the 80's? Take a look at the prevailing government of that era. Guess who! So go ahead, bend and twist the facts to suit you. Attack any opposition to your political party. Make it personal even. Whatever it takes, right? Oh, I'm sorry, I used the "R" word. Notice I didn't double-space my reply to take up room and make it seem more important. Have a nice, crime-free day. I hope it never happens to you.

[herbie]

OldChum OldChum:

Why cannot the criminals be men or women and accept their punishment like a man or a women and shut up. You want to play do the time .

Why can't you just pay your taxes and stop looking for all those deductions?
Why check out more than one grocery store?

Nobody will pay more than they have to.
The kid who smashed my windows and tried to rob my store got four months.
Seems fair enough.
He got busted for it in December. His trial was in June.
They OR'd him. He would have got time served even if there was no pretrial credit.
So some advocate or smarter defendant would've launched a claim he'd served six months to do a four month term or 12 with credits to do a 4 month term and be demanding compensation.
We could fix that by hiring more Judges and Prosecutors and flying them here at anytime, but that doesn't make much goddam sense for caseloads that are 99% B&E, domestic abuse and drunkeness does it?

Let's count the posts until some constipated conservative says he should have done the six month wait in pre-trial PLUS the four month sentence and consider himself lucky cuz he did break a window!

[gonavy47]

herbie herbie:

OldChum OldChum:

Why cannot the criminals be men or women and accept their punishment like a man or a women and shut up. You want to play do the time .

Why can't you just pay your taxes and stop looking for all those deductions?
Why check out more than one grocery store?

Nobody will pay more than they have to.
The kid who smashed my windows and tried to rob my store got four months.
Seems fair enough.
He got busted for it in December. His trial was in June.
They OR'd him. He would have got time served even if there was no pretrial credit.
So some advocate or smarter defendant would've launched a claim he'd served six months to do a four month term or 12 with credits to do a 4 month term and be demanding compensation.
We could fix that by hiring more Judges and Prosecutors and flying them here at anytime, but that doesn't make much goddam sense for caseloads that are 99% B&E, domestic abuse and drunkeness does it?

Let's count the posts until some constipated conservative says he should have done the six month wait in pre-trial PLUS the four month sentence and consider himself lucky cuz he did break a window!

And you would compensate the jerk for the two months extra he served? Really? Wow. By the way I'm not as constipated as you are, it's gotten to your reasoning centre.

[bootlegga]

gonavy47 gonavy47:

DerbyX DerbyX:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_Standings_in_the_Canadian_Senate

Appointment breakdown

* Thirty-four current senators were appointed on the advice of Prime Minister Jean Chretien (Liberal, 1993-2003)
* Twenty-eight current senators have been appointed on the advice of Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Conservative, 2006-)
* Seventeen current senators were appointed on the advice of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney (Progressive Conservative, 1984-1993)
* Sixteen current senators were appointed on the advice of Prime Minister Paul Martin (Liberal, 2003-2006)
* Eight current senators were appointed on the advice of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau (Liberal, 1968-1979, 1980-1984)
* One current senator was appointed on the advice of Prime Minister Joe Clark (Progressive Conservative, 1979-1980)

By your own figures that's 58 liberal appointees vs. 46 conservative. That's a difference of twelve. Provided that all the old folks actually leave their beds to go and vote, that's a liberal majority.

Yeah, but the key difference is the time in office. The PCs/Conservtative have been in for a little more than a decade (Clark - 1 yr, Mulroney - 9 yrs, Harper 3yrs), while the Liberals listed have been in for the rest of the time since 1968 (almost 3 times as long).

That's the key difference. In one third the time they have appointed almost as many senators as the Liberals.

[EyeBrock]

And why do you think they appointed those senators boots? Maybe they should have left the slots open for the next ( and I'm sure it will happen one day, just not for a while) Liberal government?

What kind of politician would just leave the Senate alone so it could be further stacked?

It's obvious that the triple E thing won't happen with the Tories in a minority. The Libs and Bloc have seen to that.
What else should he have done?

Step away from the partisan brink 'cos I know you can!

[Bodah]

IMO once a bill makes it through the house the only job the senate should have is to vote yea or nay, without any tinkering and this isn't happening.

Since the senate reform bill has been stuck, Harper might as well send in people to unstick it ! He is playing by the premade rules he's trying to fix after all, so any accusations of hypocrisy are moot.

The liberals have stacked the senate and the conservatives are the party that will fix it.

One Senator at a time.