[Newsbot]

Title: Rathgeber tables bill aimed at repeat offenders
Category: Law & Order
Posted By: DrCaleb
Date: 2015-06-10 08:19:43
Canadian

[andyt]

Good idea. Why was the guy's criminal history not presented?

[Freakinoldguy]

IIRC unlike parole or outright release, when it comes to bail you can only present facts directly based on the case at hand because, according to the law what happened in the past has no bearing on the present until the accused has been found guilty when those past digressions are presented at a sentencing hearing which is unfortunately far to late for some people.

It's a good system if you want to keep putting the worst of the worst back on the street but, I doubt it'll get changed because as everyone knows from past experience, people on bail don't commit other crimes.

[andyt]

I think you're wrong. Past convictions can't be entered during the trial, but are fair game during a bail hearing. The prosecutor was either lazy or incompetent and should face sanction.

[Freakinoldguy]

Yup I remembered incorrectly. Here's what the Gov't says about bail hearings.

$1:

At the bail hearing, the Crown prosecutor and the defence lawyer summarize the evidence against the accused. The judge will consider such matters as whether the accused person has a criminal record or charges pending, the seriousness of the charge, and whether it involves any violence.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-j ... /sece.html

So in reality the only information about the accused that the Judge gets is if the offender had a criminal record or charges pending. So like I said before I don't think that info gives specifics and says what the previous charges or outcome of those charges were.

So given that most of the people the system sees for bail are previous offenders my guess would be that it's in one ear and out the other. The blah blah blah here's your bail.

If the judges could actually see the rap sheet of these guys my guess would be that no sane person would let most of these repeat offenders out on bail. But, as it is now the judges are protected from the wrath of the citizens by the fact that they can claim they knew the offender had a record but they didn't know just how bad he was.

But you are right this guy shouldn't have been out on bail and even if they didn't know what specific crimes he'd committed the length of his previous convictions should have been enough to deny.