Supreme Court rejects appeal of Conservative crime sentencing law

Good to see Canada's "lax on crime" laws are going to continue unabated, after all we wouldn't want the poor disadvantaged criminals to actually be punished, like their victims.

Sorry about the Link not working damned Yahoo news. So here's one that should be a little better.


Supreme Court softens Tories' tough-on-crime sentencing law

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme ... -1.2606789

Not sure if I am reading this right but this judge overturned the thief's attempt to shorten his sentence.

Isn't that a good thing?

In a rare ruling from the bench today, the court dismissed the appeal of a petty criminal from Toronto who argued that he deserved greater credit for pre-trial custody.

Calvin Clarke unsuccessfully argued that even though he was formally charged after the act came into force, he deserved credit because he actually committed the offences prior to that.

My mistake read the new link. For some reason there's about a dozen topics related to this and some of them are dated today which is just confusing and I of course posted the wrong one.

Anyway the new link explains that the Supreme Court softened the Conservatives tough on crime bill.

This whole ruling probably has less to do about justice and more to do with the power of the court's to do whatever the fuck they want without any outside interferences like victims rights or set punishments for criminals.



So standby for the Conservatives dominated Parliament to "expressly" alter the ruling for early release eligibility and fire another salvo in what it turning out to be a war between the justice system and the Government. But, what I don't understand is the loss of parole and early release statement?

Did the Gov't stop these programs in the bill or is it just some legalese crap from the Supreme Court. I keep seeing where they're letting out dangerous offenders on parole and early release because, it's quite noticeable when the fuckers keep walking away from halfway houses and work release programs just like they've been doing for over 40 years.

I could support a one for one detention to custody ratio if half of Ontario's prisons weren't operating beyond capacity. This means that cells which are meant to house 2 inmates are housing 3.

I know what you are probably thinking; can't do the time, don't do the crime.

But also consider that detention centers are housing inmates that are awaiting trial and so the presumption of innocence still exists while in detention.

Moreover, the Charter of Rights section 11b describes our right as Canadians to a speedy trial:

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right...
(b) to be tried within a reasonable time;

And so, there exists a balance here, if it is to be said that the period of detention which a presumed innocent inmate is incarcerated is reasonable, the time for which he is being awarded the credit for enduring harsher conditions should be viewed as equally reasonable, in my view.

Essentially, the further you delay someones right to a speedy trial, the more you have to compensate them for retarding that right.

Oh and the early release/parole thingy is that when an inmate is in a penitentiary; Offenders are eligible for full parole after serving one-third (three-ninths) of their sentence and for statutory release after serving two-thirds (six-ninths) of their sentence. Two-thirds of the offenders in the sample received an "early" release.
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/research/forum ... -eng.shtml

The Abolition of Early Parole Act changed the old system of allowing Accelerated Parole Review, which allows those convicted of non-violent offences to obtain day parole after serving one-sixth of their sentence and full parole after serving one-third.
http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/nws/n ... 1-eng.aspx

(i.e. they got rid of day parole after 1/6 of the sentence for non-violent criminals)
The crucial element of the bill is the elimination of APR by removing all references to the procedure from the CCRA, which is the foundation of the federal correctional system (clauses 2 to 9 of the bill), and from related statutes (clauses 11 to 13 of the bill), including the Criminal Code, the Anti-terrorism Act and the Criminal Records Act.

If the bill is passed, offenders incarcerated in the federal correctional system will no longer be eligible for day parole after serving one sixth of their sentence. At the earliest, they will be eligible six months before their full parole eligibility date, or after serving six months of their sentence, whichever is longer.

Another result of abolishing APR is that the PBC will no longer be able to grant an offender parole if it considers that there is a risk the offender will commit an offence, even one not involving violence, before the sentence expires. At present, the PBC has no choice but to grant parole to offenders who are entitled to APR if it considers that there are no reasonable grounds to believe they will commit an offence involving violence before the sentence ends.

Finally, in order to be granted parole, whether day parole or full parole, all offenders will now have to satisfy the PBC, at a hearing, that they are able to live in society as law-abiding citizens and that they will comply with the conditions imposed.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/ ... ibrary_prb
And so really, even with a double credit for detention, they can still spend more time incarcerated than a sentenced criminal.

I am all for tougher sentences and stricter parole rules but the law needs to be applied evenly. This change would have created a scenario where the sentence is more severe in the event that your trial has been prolonged which I don't think is proper application of the law.

PRetrial prison time is deemed to be harsher because there are absolutely no programs or facilities for the inmates. And they can spend years there with our snail pace justice system. I know many think inmates should not get programs or facilities, just be welded into a box to be let out, maybe, at the end of their sentence. If we could just treat them badly enough, that would teach them for sure.

1 1/2 times credit makes sense to me.

What do we do with all the poor saps who spend a long time in pretrial and then are found innocent. Imagine if that happened to you.

In many cases, I am for longer sentences, but only if we offer the inmate all the help we can to rehabilitate while in prison. Just tacking on hard time seems to do nothing positive - just look at the US for that. Stricter parole laws are absolutely necessary, but more than laws we need more parole officers to enforce them.

Man I've gotta quit posting at 0200 in the morning especially after taking a pain killer.

Okay back on topic. How about a compromise. Pretrial statutes. If you aren't tried in a certain amount of time and it can be proven that the Crown is the cause of the unusual lengthy delay then you get your "two for, blue plate special". But, if it's your lawyer that caused this delay then you get nothing, nada sweet fuck all. Or, how about moving pretrial people into institutions that have these facilities, or maybe incorporating some of these facilities into the remand centers. I realise they haven't been found guilty yet, but I'm pretty sure some of the people who haven't been tried could benefit from some psychological help or trades training. And if you're found not guilty you get paid minimum wage plus per diem for your stay in prison. So you can get help, make a few bucks legally, and get started in a trade before you get back out on the street.

As for over crowding in prison, well the solution for that is set up a system that uses the crimes to dictate the sentencing and length of incarceration based on some discretion for the Judicial Branch and Parole Board. If you're Michael Le or Jamie Bacon you do 25 years no questions asked, but if you stole a couple of cars, then you stay till you've completed a rehab program and then you're out the door on probation but for every time you commit a crime after that, your sentence starts to increase with less time off for good behaviour and you lose your "two for" privilege.

All these things would cost more but at least we'd have a somewhat effective Criminal Justice System whereas now you go into pretrial sit, rot, get tried, get half your sentence reduced and get out to carry on with your criminal enterprises. It's a revolving door when you thing about it.