Our unelected Senate at work

[Jethro Bodine]

Nice to see once again the Liberal dominated senate is doing its best to prevent any real reform our country's fucked up justice system.

From today's Winnipeg SUN:

Chomiak has formally opposed that credit, and recently travelled to Ottawa to argue his case before the Senate, which is contemplating Bill C-32, a proposed law that would eliminate the credit in most cases but still allow judges to grant some credit if they give reasons.

Late yesterday, the Senate justice committee voted to amend the proposed law so that convicts would get 1.5 days of credit instead of a single day, a move which angered federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson.

Nicholson said the amendments "basically gutted the bill."

 

[Thatotherguy]

From today's Winnipeg SUN:

Chomiak has formally opposed that credit, and recently travelled to Ottawa to argue his case before the Senate, which is contemplating Bill C-32, a proposed law that would eliminate the credit in most cases but still allow judges to grant some credit if they give reasons.

Um Jethro... You didn't quote enough for us to know what you're talking about. What credit are they talking about, and why would the difference between 1 day and 1.5 days mean anything? Context is crucial!

 

[planetsmurf]

i think he means that when a someone spends sometime in jail before he/she is convicted they will get credit for that time being served. i guess now they will get 1.5 days instead instead of just 1 day. but i am going out on a limb here

 

[OscarMann]

The Senate is under the control of the parties. Those apointed by the Liberals do what they are told and those appointed by the conservatives do what they are told. It is just another political tool of our elected officials.

 

[PatB5678]

we need a reformed senate

"Sounds to me like the senate has their heads screwed on right on this issue."

Oh give me friggen break! None of the Senators have been elected. They have absolutely no right to stop or amend the laws created by our elected representatives. We elect our MP's to represent our interests and values in the creation of public policy.

These Senators, whether they be Liberal or Conservatives are just party shills and or friends of whatever PM appointed them. And they have the nerve to have a veto on a democratically elected government?? That sucks.

If the Senate wants to have a say in what law are created then let them be elected by the people of each province that they are intended to represent.

 

[CJ Tylers]

The senate has the right to veto or ammend any given bill presented to them. They are called the House of Sober Second Thought for a reason...and when they actually perform as such, bills are usually improved by the changes.

In contrast, poor bills that are ram rodded through the house of commons often have piss poor clauses and nasty rammifications... or really big loop holes. Let's be clear, the House of Commons passes laws in order to promote themselves to the public (quite often)...it falls to the senate to actually make these laws work in a sensible way.

To paraphrase Honouable Larry Cambell, "it's the senates job to review bills." Not, as some think, to bow to the House of Commons and the Dictatorship of Harper (I did like that quote!).... or to the whims of any house leader. They are expected to abide by party wishes, but their stated job is above and beyond party desires.

Now... regarding the credit for time served business... it isn't designed at a bonus to the defendant. It's designed to force the crown to ensure the defendants right to a speedy trial. Without the credit for time served clause, the crown has no reason NOT to fillibuster while the defendant languishes in pretrial detainment (prison, jail...whatever). Effectively, they could continue on like this until a judge forces them into action, and then push for whatever extensive charges they can muster.

Our justice system is slow enough as is...why introduce an incentive to slow it down even more? Not that I like the idea of going easy on criminals, far from it. I just can't stand Harpers short sighted "tough on crime" BS that he spouts out his oozing pie hole.

Let's look at his general bent:
1) Election polls show we've fallen from massive majority
2) Push all the simple solution buttons we can, pray for mindless sheep to eat it up

Getting tough on crime it great. Preventing crime is better. Cutting education and poverty line support (Gordo is guilty of this) massively increases crime stats a few years down the road. Making sentencing so damn tough that criminals decide they'd better make their arrest "worth it"...tends to make them more violent, unpredictable, and dangerous.

A cornered animal fights to the death, and we are simply fur-less animals. Say we get into the 3 strikes your out business, or mandatory minimum sentencing... or both... now instead of a parole situation (parole is supposed to be monitored), you have a guy that is facing a massive sentence anyway...one more body won't hurt. Denial of parole simply means that when their time is up, they are free to go... without any monitoring of their actions or where abouts.

That's right, when you get out, your debt to society is considered fulfilled. Whether you're a danger or not... your time is done and there's nothing that can be done to you. No social work, no wardens, no warnings to your neighborhood (well, there isn't supposed to be). You could still be a murderous lunatic, but there is no legal method of keeping you once your sentence is fulfilled (as long as you haven't given them reason to re evaluate your sentence).

....

Now, let's flip the coin. Police make all sorts of mistakes. Even judges and juries do... innocent people get stuck in the defendants docket. How long must an innocent person languish in pretrial, just because there is no pressure on the crown to start the trial? If there's no credit for time served, then that innocent person could be there a very long time... and as far as I'm concerned, 1 day in prison for an innocent is too much.

So there's the reason for having credit... speedy due process. It makes for a better justice sytem & protects the rights of innocent people. Oh, and since we have an "innocent until proven guilty" clause in our laws, that means everyone and anyone...up until the handing down of the verdict.


Which reminds me, I heard that the closing arguements of the officers invovled in the YVR death was that "police make mistakes. They are human, and are allowed to make mistakes... even if that mistake causes death."

Call me crazy, but wouldn't anyone else that makes that "mistake" be charged with manslaughter at the least, and more likely muder (without premeditation) being what the crown would go for? Considering they are simply looking at a misconduct charge, of which penalties could range from discharge to desk duty (to a small leave without pay)... I think they should man up and realize that they are getting off REALLY easy compared to anyone else in the country.

 

[Karl Blues]

Making sentencing so damn tough that criminals decide they'd better make their arrest "worth it"...tends to make them more violent, unpredictable, and dangerous.

A cornered animal fights to the death, and we are simply fur-less animals. Say we get into the 3 strikes your out business, or mandatory minimum sentencing... or both... now instead of a parole situation (parole is supposed to be monitored), you have a guy that is facing a massive sentence anyway...one more body won't hurt. Denial of parole simply means that when their time is up, they are free to go... without any monitoring of their actions or where abouts.
.

These statements are well-born out by the statistics in the US, which is "tough on crime". A huge prison population, and plenty of violence to go around.

 

[Thatotherguy]

Now... regarding the credit for time served business... it isn't designed at a bonus to the defendant. It's designed to force the crown to ensure the defendants right to a speedy trial. Without the credit for time served clause, the crown has no reason NOT to fillibuster while the defendant languishes in pretrial detainment (prison, jail...whatever). Effectively, they could continue on like this until a judge forces them into action, and then push for whatever extensive charges they can muster.

And this is exactly the problem. It's designed to force the crown to ensure that the defendant gets a speedy trial, but it clearly doesn't work. 15% of defendants spend 30 days to 3 months in remand, and 7% spend more than 3 months in remand. These percentages are much higher than they were a decade ago (they were 10% and 4% respectively). In fact, our prison system houses more people in remand than serving sentences. That's pretty fucked up.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that some defendants and defense councils intentionally delay proceedings when they expect the defendant to be found guilty in order to reduce the overall sentence because of the standard 2 for 1 credit. Of course, studies suggest that this practice is nowhere near as common as some would have you believe, and that in fact the vast majority of defendants do whatever they can to speed up their trials. The problem is that the current system allows that potential for abuse.

Bottom line, our current remand system and the sentencing credit which goes along with it need reform. I think removing the 2 for 1 credit is a necessary part of that, but only if it's done in conjunction with other measures that will ensure a speedy trial. The amount of time defendants spend in remand is ridiculous.

Say we get into the 3 strikes your out business, or mandatory minimum sentencing...

The problem is that the sentences that criminals face need to be long enough to support public confidence in the justice system (which they're not - it's completely unscientific, but I can't remember ever having a conversation with anyone about the justice system where they felt it actually protected society), but flexible enough that the "cornered criminal" effect that you describe doesn't happen. IMO we need average sentences somewhere in between what we currently have and what the US has. It's a fine line to walk, as the very "tough on crime" sentences clearly don't work - look at the crime numbers in the US for proof. On the other hand, our "soft on crime" sentences destroy public confidence in our justice system.

Denial of parole simply means that when their time is up, they are free to go... without any monitoring of their actions or where abouts.

That's right, when you get out, your debt to society is considered fulfilled. Whether you're a danger or not... your time is done and there's nothing that can be done to you. No social work, no wardens, no warnings to your neighborhood (well, there isn't supposed to be). You could still be a murderous lunatic, but there is no legal method of keeping you once your sentence is fulfilled (as long as you haven't given them reason to re evaluate your sentence).

This is my other big beef with the so-called justice system in Canada. Parole is not used in the way it was originally intended. It effectively reduces everyone's sentences unless they've been really really bad. That's wrong. The problem is that parole is the only legal method of monitoring convicted criminals after they've been released in order to prevent recidivism, and at the same time it's the only way that they can be released "early" (that's in quotes because it seems that the default in this country is to give everyone early parole unless there's an incredibly strong reason not to do so).

We need 2 different processes for this. Parole can stay the same as it currently is, but there can be a separate monitoring system which is automatically applied to any convicted criminal after release who has served his entire sentence without parole. Either that, or just keep parole, but it automatically gets tacked on to the end of every sentence, whether or not the convict is released early. Either of these similar solutions would prevent the current quandary that parole boards face in that if they don't grant parole, there'll be no way of monitoring a released convict's reintegration into society to ensure that it is successful.

Of course, this would require that more money be spent on the entire parole system, but I feel the benefits to society would be well worth it.

Which reminds me, I heard that the closing arguements of the officers invovled in the YVR death was that "police make mistakes. They are human, and are allowed to make mistakes... even if that mistake causes death."

Call me crazy, but wouldn't anyone else that makes that "mistake" be charged with manslaughter at the least, and more likely muder (without premeditation) being what the crown would go for? Considering they are simply looking at a misconduct charge, of which penalties could range from discharge to desk duty (to a small leave without pay)... I think they should man up and realize that they are getting off REALLY easy compared to anyone else in the country.

Fuck, tell me about it... Police should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us, as they're in a position of trust. They shouldn't be held to a lower standard.

 

[odin]

Fuck, tell me about it... Police should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us, as they're in a position of trust. They shouldn't be held to a lower standard.

A noble sentiment but unfortunately one that doesn't appear to be possible in reality. The RCMP has had a big increase in the number of staff positions requested but is having problems attracting recruits that meet their standards. In fact there has been a request by the RCMP to decrease the standards to solve this problem. Let's face it, the hours are long and the pay is not great, especially considering what high quality people can make in other fields. Rather than decreasing the standards they will need to raise them and therefore need more incentives to join. If you want the best you have to be willing to pay for it.

As for the tasering issue one of the reasons why tasers exist is due to previous public pressure over physical restraint methods. Although we look at the past with rose-coloured glasses the practices before often involved a nightstick and injuries. Trying to subdue someone who does not want to be subued isn't as easy as everyone thinks.

Unfortunately fallout from the Braidwood inquiry is probably going to make recruitment even more difficult.

 

[Thatotherguy]

The legal system itself needs to be revamped. Legal Aid is grossly underfunded and that leads to delays due to availability of legal council. Spurious charter challenges & pretrial motions also cause unnecessary delay & so the procedures need to be revised to streamline the process. And the Gov'ts need to spend less time enacting new laws for every percieved new ill & just review the current laws & amend them as needed. The interaction between the interpretation on a multitude of statues adds to the complexity of the cases before the courts, driving up costs & trial times.

Yes, this!

 

[CJ Tylers]

We need 2 different processes for this. Parole can stay the same as it currently is, but there can be a separate monitoring system which is automatically applied to any convicted criminal after release who has served his entire sentence without parole. Either that, or just keep parole, but it automatically gets tacked on to the end of every sentence, whether or not the convict is released early. Either of these similar solutions would prevent the current quandary that parole boards face in that if they don't grant parole, there'll be no way of monitoring a released convict's reintegration into society to ensure that it is successful.

Two thoughts...

1) prohibitively expensive,
2) Are you going to introduce new laws to allow for people to be reincarcerated for a crime that they've already done full time for if they break parole conditions? Are you going to change laws so that even upon finishing the full sentence served to you, you aren't really a free man for a while? Even though, by rights, you should be a free man?

The authority that the parole officer is supposed to have comes from the fact that they have the power to throw you back in prison for violations, because you haven't actually served your full term.

Changing it so that they have that power even after your full term is finished, well, that's getting a little authortarian for my liking. What's to stop it from going from 1 year to 10 years, just because some politician wants to appear tougher on crime? What's the next step? It's a slippery slope arguement, but not an impossible situation.

I think there needs to be a defenite punishment length, but that you must be considered a free man afterwords. People who are considered dangerous offenders, and a high risk to the public...of course... should be kept locked up forever. We are somewhat able to do this right now... more power to keep people like manson off the streets would be better.

 

[HankQuinlan]

Every government that uses "we will get tough on crime" as their platform are always rascals with no useful policies. They use it to appeal to an electorate frightened by the constant emphasis on crime in the media. Welcome to Nancy Grace's world.

If you really want to reduce crime, work on a system that reduces child poverty and gives more emphasis on education.

 

[Thatotherguy]

Two thoughts...

1) prohibitively expensive,
2) Are you going to introduce new laws to allow for people to be reincarcerated for a crime that they've already done full time for if they break parole conditions? Are you going to change laws so that even upon finishing the full sentence served to you, you aren't really a free man for a while? Even though, by rights, you should be a free man?

1) Yes, I realize it would be expensive, that's why I said:

Of course, this would require that more money be spent on the entire parole system, but I feel the benefits to society would be well worth it.

2) Almost, but not quite. What I was envisioning was something along the lines of this:
Say that Crime A currently has sentencing guidelines of 10 years, with the possibility of parole after 5. This means that the worst offenders spend 10 years in prison with no oversight once they get out. In this new system the same Crime A might have a sentencing guideline of 10 years in prison, plus 2 years of post-prison monitoring (with the ability to be tossed back in prison if you're not living up to the conditions you're supposed to), for a total sentence of 12 years before you're fully a free man. The possibility of early parole would still be there for convicts who have shown positive progress while incarcerated.

It would require a major overhaul of our justice system, and it would be more complicated, and significantly more expensive, but I think it would be much more effective for violent criminals and repeat offenders. It probably wouldn't be worth instituting for minor offenses.

Obviously, I'm not a criminologist, but I think a system like this, combined with more effective preventative measures, and some way to reduce the time accused spend in remand, would be a huge improvement. The only reason I've focused on this issue rather than preventative measures and reducing time spent in remand, is because I have no ideas about what sort of improvements could be done in those areas.

 

[hunsperger]

...

Since the rates of all crimes in Canada have been dropping fairly steadily for decades,

quite frankly, a laughable statement...

 

[Thatotherguy]

Point 3 - If there is potential risk to the public, but low enough that you can't hold them as dangerous offenders, parole them. Do it early enough to have time to work with them while on parole. Put them in a halfway house, monitor them but work to integrate them into society while you have some control. It would be stupid to just keep them incarcerated for the full term of their sentence to "make sure they are punished" and then dump them unprepared back into society.

Thus third point is really what you are advocating except you want to add time onto their sentence to allow for parole. What is the benifit of adding an average of two more years onto each serious sentence? Note that these two years would be costly years of maintaining the prisoner in a prison, not the somewhat less expensive cost of administering a parolee.

The point is that currently the only people who actually serve their entire sentence behind bars are the worst offenders, or those who show no remorse and no progress while in prison. They're kept in jail in order to protect society from them. The whole problem is that they're then released without any monitoring of their reintegration into society. Adding a monitoring period onto the end of the sentence means that you can keep those people away from society for the same time as currently, without the drawback of having no idea if they're behaving themselves once they're released.

Simply saying "nobody should serve their full sentence, everyone should be paroled early" is counterproductive. Since everybody gets out early, there's no incentive for the convicts to improve themselves in prison through any of the programs available to them. Even worse, it increases the public perception of a revolving door prison system, and encourages a lack of faith in the entire justice system.

Yes, releasing everybody early on parole is a cheaper option, but that doesn't make it a good option.

 

[HankQuinlan]

quite frankly, a laughable statement...

Not at all. This is regularly reported, but pretty much ignored. One example:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/...21/canadian-crime-rate-continues-to-fall.aspx

The only crime statistic that has been on the rise is murder, likely related to the increase in gang crime and infighting. There are also lots of indications that the crime rate is more directly related to a decrease in young men in the demographics, rather than to any enforcement or judicial policies.

If we had sane drug policies, that would limit the profit motive for gangs.

The time devoted to reporting crime, however, is contantly on the increase, with all the cable "news" channels filling their time slots.

 

[hunsperger]

...

The only crime statistic that has been on the rise is murder

"all crime has been dropping for decades"...

not according to the National Post article...

your statement alone, does not support this claim...

but you guys spin it any way you want...