Liberal senators make amendments to crime bill

So when the Liberal party can't be soft on crime, we can trust the Liberal appointed senators to look out for crminals rights.

I'm not very smart when it comes to understanding all the laws but I believe they should get tough on crime. I would love to see:

1 for 1 pre-sentencing credit. 1.5 or 2 for 1 would just cause the accused to draw his trial on longer.

minnimum 25 years with no parole for murder 1 and parole after at the boards discretion if the person has been classified as a dangerous offender (which is done after trial). Multiple murders would have to be served one after the other and not at the same time.

manslaughter conviction for drug dealers who it can be proved they provided a drug to a junkie who OD'ed causing death. If not a manslaughter conviction than perhaps a charge to the same effect as those criminally responsible for an accident.

harsher sentence for criminals who commit crimes using a gun. Also a automatic sentence for those caught carrying or dealing in guns.

For those who are deemed "not criminally responsible" due to a mental state, should serve the same sentence as if they were in a psychiatric institution and not to be realeased even when their sentence expires until they are deemed mentally fit.

longer sentences for those who commit the same crimes against children, the elderly and the mentally challenged.

This is just off the top of my head and maybe some (or all) of it exists but it's some of the things I would love to see.

I heard yesterday this is going against Iggy's wishes, he asked them not to tinker with it.

Just go,s to show how far out of touch this party has become, reminds me of the Mulroney boys

Ignatieff has to get his senators in line or his credibility is sunk. The Tories know law 'n order sells and they are exploiting it. The "random check" drunk-driver bill will get huge public support and will pass the Commons easily. Can Ignatieff afford to let his guys in the Senate hold it up?

Gets them votes from the prison population.

It shows that Iggy is weaker than we thought and the Liberal Senators know it.

That aside, I agree with 1.5 days for each day on remand. I would have preferred 1.25 but 1.5 was the standard for years in Canada, the UK , Australia etc. It's just the pinky judges that the Libs appointed decided 2 for 1 was better. This codifies what remand prisoners will get credited for.

Being on remand is much more onerous than serving time in a pen. There are few opportunities to engage in constructive programs that are the norm in a Corrections Canada facility.
Remand prisoners at least know that they will get a credit while they on remand which keeps the lid on a potential mutiny or other discipline issues.

I know that we should just say 'fuck them' and throw away the key but let's remember that remand prisoners have yet to be proven guilty.

I would accept the 1.5 for 1 deal IF we had an efficient, timely court system. Right now, this function is being abused terribly.

Personally I think you start to serve when you check into the prison no time for bugger all before that lets get tough.

I really don't give a shit whether they are "remand" prisoners or not. Their sentence starts after their trial and they are found guilty. There should not be any credit for time served, we are not dealing with boy scouts. If they are dumb enough to do the crime, they should do the time.

The problem is, up untill the court date, their not guilty. What lawyers are doing is dragging out the process because they know that it will reduce the total sentance.

Make it one for one. No value in dragging it out then.

I agree.
The argument is that the condition in the temp. holding are overcrowded and they also don't have access to programs, etc. Poor babies, eh? Then if they want to get out of those conditions earlier, they can just plead guilty and get it over and done with.

I just thought it funny that a thread came through here about Canada addopting an "American style" justice system because they were building some new jails. Sounds to me that that's exactly what we need here.

Or at least it will incent the lawyer to get to trial.