Allure Massage

harper's new sentencing minimums

red

you must be fk'n kid'g me
Nov 13, 2001
17,572
8
38
i think they are ridiculous. the judge should have the ability to take into account the circumstances of the crime and provide the proper sentence but this power is taken away by the new law.

as an example a thief who steals a calendar will get 12 months.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,486
12
38
There have always been minimums. Judges made Cons mad by occasionally ignoring them and trying to craft sentences that fit crime and criminal. The One Size Solution addresses the Knee Jerks, but at the cost of more prisons up front and harder criminals coming out after.

Crime problem? Nothing in this bill actually addresses that, unless your idea of a solution is to lock every offender away at our expense until they're too tired and old to do anything but panhandle.

Because uyou can guarantee all but the Blacks and the Drabinskys will re-offend.
 

OddSox

Active member
May 3, 2006
3,148
2
36
Ottawa
i think they are ridiculous. the judge should have the ability to take into account the circumstances of the crime and provide the proper sentence but this power is taken away by the new law.

as an example a thief who steals a calendar will get 12 months.
Hmm, where does it say that?
 

red

you must be fk'n kid'g me
Nov 13, 2001
17,572
8
38
I hear this is a big reduction from the prior sentence of 365 days.
they need these rules to stop criminals. if not then the guys who do those home invasions would turn it into a cottage industry
 

The Options Menu

Slightly Swollen Member
Sep 13, 2005
4,749
658
113
GTA
they need these rules to stop criminals. if not then the guys who do those home invasions would turn it into a cottage industry
Err, then why not adjust sentencing guidelines and add to the theoretical maximum sentence? This is very expensive red meat to the Conservative base, that won't actually sufficiently increase incarceration rates to change much (beyond making a better breed of criminal)**, in a context where most categories of crime are at their lowest level in decades.

** There are some more recent studies from the States that indicate a very high incarceration rate with very long sentences do reduce crime. It's not so much a deterrent, as it just physically keep people off the streets until they're too old to do much serious crime. The same studies show that this is a monstrously, freakishly expensive, way of reducing crime. Diverse before and after school programs, summer programs, (more) uniform educational opportunities, having an adult around, and decent jobs for young men (regardless of what they are) are all far better and cheaper solutions. The solution to crime is basically to keep men 'on the rails' and pointed in the right direction through their early 20s. After that it's mostly 'stuff you can't help'.
 

Mervyn

New member
Dec 23, 2005
3,549
0
0
i think they are ridiculous. the judge should have the ability to take into account the circumstances of the crime and provide the proper sentence but this power is taken away by the new law.

as an example a thief who steals a calendar will get 12 months.
Unless they steal the Calendar in July.

And Judges have only ever had the power to determine the length of a sentence, they never had to power to determine how long someone stays in prison.
 

Big Sleazy

Active member
Sep 13, 2004
3,535
8
38
Harpo is an idiot.

You want to reduce crime. Improve peoples standard of living. The biggest thieves IMHO is the Government and the Banks. Let's start with them first.

BS
 

red

you must be fk'n kid'g me
Nov 13, 2001
17,572
8
38
Err, then why not adjust sentencing guidelines and add to the theoretical maximum sentence? This is very expensive red meat to the Conservative base, that won't actually sufficiently increase incarceration rates to change much (beyond making a better breed of criminal)**, in a context where most categories of crime are at their lowest level in decades.

** There are some more recent studies from the States that indicate a very high incarceration rate with very long sentences do reduce crime. It's not so much a deterrent, as it just physically keep people off the streets until they're too old to do much serious crime. The same studies show that this is a monstrously, freakishly expensive, way of reducing crime. Diverse before and after school programs, summer programs, (more) uniform educational opportunities, having an adult around, and decent jobs for young men (regardless of what they are) are all far better and cheaper solutions. The solution to crime is basically to keep men 'on the rails' and pointed in the right direction through their early 20s. After that it's mostly 'stuff you can't help'.
some of these prisons have employment centres for the prisoners to learn skills. there is one in new york with a restaurant which allows prisoners to serve customers- they only serve simple foods foods like minute rice or day old breadbut they can leave jail after time is served.
 

red

you must be fk'n kid'g me
Nov 13, 2001
17,572
8
38
Unless they steal the Calendar in July.

And Judges have only ever had the power to determine the length of a sentence, they never had to power to determine how long someone stays in prison.
it used to be simple crimes would be dealt with through counselling- now if a kid steals a bowl of fruit he gets a date with the judge
 

afterhours

New member
Jul 14, 2009
6,319
4
0
more cases will go to trial
more people will go to jail for more time

the taxpayers will foot the bill for the above
 

afterhours

New member
Jul 14, 2009
6,319
4
0
some of new proposals are just plain dumb
why on earth growing pot at somebody else's house is an aggravating factor? farm hands who were hired to tend to the plants now will go to jail because they don't own the houses in which they work? how fucking stupid is that?
 

The Options Menu

Slightly Swollen Member
Sep 13, 2005
4,749
658
113
GTA
some of these prisons have employment centres for the prisoners to learn skills. there is one in new york with a restaurant which allows prisoners to serve customers- they only serve simple foods foods like minute rice or day old breadbut they can leave jail after time is served.
That's both the wrong country, and often not the general case. Heck, we just had reports yesterday that Canada isn't prepared for the population of ageing prisoners we already have, so we're piling more people into that system. Meanwhile cuts have been repeatedly proposed to things like prison farm programs, etc. Then there's the cost, which mostly gets eaten by the provinces.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,010
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
Mandatory minimums are stupid. Judges are intelligent, and generally make good decisions, taking into account the circumstances.

Say you put a mandatory minimum of 3 years in jail for assault with a weapon. Sounds reasonable right? It'll be sold to the public with a story about some gang banger who got off too easily. Everyone will feel it's an improvement.

Then along comes a guy who comes home to find a burglar smashing up his home. He grabs a baseball bat and chases the guy out. Gives him a good whack as the guy is running out the door.

Now because he hit the guy while he was FLEEING it's technically an assault. Today the judge would look at that, and say, yeah you went too far, you're guilty, but here's a discharge, or at worst a suspended sentence. A bit of a tongue lashing about taking things one step too far, and everybody goes home...

No sorry mandatory minimum, three years in jail, no opportunity to consider the circumstances.

Fucking retarded.
 

afterhours

New member
Jul 14, 2009
6,319
4
0
Mandatory minimums are stupid. Judges are intelligent, and generally make good decisions, taking into account the circumstances.

Say you put a mandatory minimum of 3 years in jail for assault with a weapon. Sounds reasonable right? It'll be sold to the public with a story about some gang banger who got off too easily. Everyone will feel it's an improvement.

Then along comes a guy who comes home to find a burglar smashing up his home. He grabs a baseball bat and chases the guy out. Gives him a good whack as the guy is running out the door.

Now because he hit the guy while he was FLEEING it's technically an assault. Today the judge would look at that, and say, yeah you went too far, you're guilty, but here's a discharge, or at worst a suspended sentence. A bit of a tongue lashing about taking things one step too far, and everybody goes home...

No sorry mandatory minimum, three years in jail, no opportunity to consider the circumstances.

Fucking retarded.
and then people who are facing mandatory minimums will start shooting to avoid arrest..welcome to the great US of A
 

The Options Menu

Slightly Swollen Member
Sep 13, 2005
4,749
658
113
GTA
Eliminate "young offends act" do the crime pay the time.
Yeah, because kids don't do dumb things. So your son gets in a fight in gym class and he does a mandatory minimum for assault, and it sticks with him pretty much forever? Sounds great. Basing policy on slogans is clearly the best way to build a better Canada.
 

Julian

New member
Jan 22, 2004
1,280
0
0
Sunnyvale Trailerpark
The dumb on crime bill...


Child rapist to get less time than pot grower
Incarcerated weed offenders to skyrocket
By Ethan Baron, The Province September 21, 2011 Comment 26 •Story•Photos ( 1 )
Under the Tories' omnibus crime legislation tabled Tuesday, a person growing 201 pot plants in a rental unit would receive a longer mandatory sentence than someone who rapes a toddler or forces a five-year-old to have sex with an animal.Photograph by: Luis Robayo, AFP, Getty ImagesPrime Minister Stephen Harper is getting tougher on pot growers than he is on rapists of children. Under the Tories' omnibus crime legislation tabled Tuesday, a person growing 201 pot plants in a rental unit would receive a longer mandatory sentence than someone who rapes a toddler or forces a five-year-old to have sex with an animal.

Producing six to 200 pot plants nets an automatic six-month sentence, with an extra three months if it's done in a rental or is deemed a public-safety hazard. Growing 201 to 500 plants brings a one-year sentence, or 1½ years if it's in a rental or poses a safety risk.

The omnibus legislation imposes one-year mandatory minimums for sexually assaulting a child, luring a child via the Internet or involving a child in bestiality. All three of these offences carry lighter automatic sentences than those for people running medium-sized grow-ops in rental property or on someone else's land.

A pedophile who gets a child to watch pornography with him, or a pervert exposing himself to kids at a playground, would receive a minimum 90-day sentence, half the term of a man convicted of growing six pot plants in his own home.

The maximum sentence for growing marijuana would double from seven to 14 years, the same maximum applied to someone using a weapon during a child rape, and four years more than for someone sexually assaulting a kid without using a weapon.

Here in B.C., if police and prosecutors don't rebel against the new laws, we're going to be hit with massive jail costs, says Simon Fraser University criminologist Neil Boyd. The new marijuana legislation will increase the proportion of pot criminals in B.C. jails from less than five per cent to around 30 per cent, at a cost of $60,000 to $70,000 per inmate annually, Boyd says.

"Why put people who are not violent in jail?" Boyd asks. "People who commit serious violent crime are already dealt with pretty harshly, and crime rates are down, not up."

Harper's U.S.-style war on drugs ignores our southern neighbour's expensive failed effort. "Eight states — including New York, where laws were the most punitive in the nation — have repealed most of these mandatory-minimum sentences, and dozens of other jurisdictions are considering repeal or reform," a February report from Human Rights Watch says.

Even the government's own Justice Department questions the use of mandatory minimums. "There is some indication that minimum sentences are not an effective sentencing tool," reads a 2010 report from the department. "They constrain judicial discretion without offering any increased crime-prevention benefits."

Provincial jails — where most people convicted under the new laws will end up — provide far fewer rehabilitation programs than federal prisons, leading to higher rates of re-offending, says Stacey Hannem, chairman of the policy review committee at the Canadian Criminal Justice Association.

"There's a real revolving-door problem in our provincial institutions," Hannem says. "If you're going to throw even more people in there, you can bet that the recidivism rate in the provincial system is likely to go up.

"If you want to get tough on crime, that's fine. But don't sell it as increasing public safety. That's just not true."


Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/news/Child+rapist+less+time+than+grower/5438011/story.html#ixzz1cajtM4P3
 

red

you must be fk'n kid'g me
Nov 13, 2001
17,572
8
38
the level of detail in the bill is astonishing. if someone hasn't paid over library fines- they plan to throw the book at them
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts