jjinvan said:
It always amazes me when people say that locking up criminals doesn't reduce crime..
It always amazes how quickly people will be gulliable by going for the highly simplistic when it comes to issues of the day.
jjinvan said:
Suppose you put all the violent criminals in jail, are the rest of us going to suddenly go on killing sprees to keep the statistics up?
That's quite silly.
jjinvan said:
I do agree that in the US they've taken it too far where they include things like shoplifting a pack of gum as a 'strike'. But, in the case of violent criminals or sexual preditors etc.. I totally agree with the proposed law.
As much as the Tory government will say over and over again that their policy will target violent criminals, bet on it ending up filling gaols and penitentaries with all sorts of convicts in for much lesser crimes.
jjinvan said:
For those of you who haven't read the proposed law, what it basically says is that those who have committed 3 violent or sexual crimes, they would be declared a 'dangerous offender' by default instead of the crown having to go to a judge and 'prove' that they were dangerous (you'd think 3 convictions would be enough proof anyway?)
Got a link so one can read the bill? Thanks
jjinvan said:
The thing about being declared a 'dangerous offender' is that all the manditory early release rules etc do not apply. Instead of the crown having to prove that they should be kept in jail, they have to show that they should not be kept in jail.
Take Whitmore as an example, at all of his parole hearings, the experts testified that he was very likely to commit more crimes as soon as he was released, but, because he wasn't declared a 'dangerous offender' they couldn't keep him in jail anyway. Why wasn't he classified as a 'dangerous offender'? Well, ask the liberal appointee judge who refused to grant the crown that request...
So it's the fault of a Liberal appointed judge? I find it scary that Conservative types in Canada resort on a constant basis to justify their policies by bitching about Liberal appointees. Such a political focus is sold as wanting to root out politics in appointments but really it shows how political the Conservatives are going to be.
jjinvan said:
As far as the liberals or the senate defeating such a law, I personally would LOVE to see us go into an election on the issue of the un-elected liberal senate (who have been recently shown to be a bunch of self serving crooks) over-riding the elected parliment. I'm sure Mr Harper would also love that.
The best thing for the Senate would be to eliminate it. It serves no purpose and if Senators came to Ottawa with some kind electoral mandate then the possibility of endless deadlock arises. In theory the Senate is more powerful than the Commons. It is scary that Conservative types are blindly determined to get senators some how elected with zero regard to the power structure in Parliament.
jjinvan said:
I also strongly doubt that the Bloq would risk an election (with polls showing they'd lose about 1/2 their seats to the conservatives) over something that doesn't really make a difference to Quebec that they can point to.
Oh? I heard on the news this week the BQ is regaining support.
jjinvan said:
The NDP of course, would vote against this law. If anyone cares.
Yet whenever the NDP support a Conservative policy then Conservative types are a gushing with compliments. T
jjinvan said:
The liberals would likely bitch and moan about it but would also be very careful not to bring down the government over it as they do NOT want an election with Whitmore as their poster-boy.. There just aren't enough pedophile votes for them to go after (otherwise they would).
Look for the next federal election to come next spring, with the Harper government falling with a no-confidence motion on its budget. I think the Tories, NDP and BQ are banking on the Liberals still being on the disorganized side of things following their leadership convention. More so if between now and then the race becomes bitter. The Liberals are still healing from the bullshit of the Paul Martin coronation.
