Christie Blatchford: Conservativesí mandatory victim surcharge idea is boneheaded but


Goober
#1
Sorry Christie but you are wrong.
Christie Blatchford: Conservatives’ mandatory victim surcharge idea is boneheaded but judges should still comply | National Post


Ah Peter - Judges rebellion? Really- Or are they acting in the capacity they hold.

Rebellious judges will ‘see the wisdom’ behind mandatory victim surcharge, Peter MacKay says | National Post

OTTAWA — Justice Minister Peter MacKay is deflecting criticism of a new, mandatory victim surcharge, saying judges opposed to the measure will eventually “see the wisdom” of making sure victims of crime receive proper help.

MacKay was responding Monday to reports that say judges in Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta have either refused to order criminals to pay the surcharge or found ways to make it impossible for authorities to collect the fee.

Some judges and justice critics have said the surcharge places an unfair burden on those who don’t have the means to pay.

MacKay claims the money gathered from the surcharge is used to help victims with counselling and other services.
 
Zipperfish
#2
"What? The indigent can't pay? Are there no workhouses?"
 
petros
#3
since 1982 you can't force somebody to do something they don' t want to do.
 
BornRuff
#4
It is a stupid policy. They claim to be focused on victims of crime, yet they are putting up billions of dollars to be spent on criminals through mandatory minimum sentencing and are putting no real money into victims services. Instead they are yelling at judges, telling them to wring money out of people who can't pay it in the name of "victims", which makes a lot of noise, but accomplishes nothing.
 
taxslave
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by BornRuffView Post

It is a stupid policy. They claim to be focused on victims of crime, yet they are putting up billions of dollars to be spent on criminals through mandatory minimum sentencing and are putting no real money into victims services. Instead they are yelling at judges, telling them to wring money out of people who can't pay it in the name of "victims", which makes a lot of noise, but accomplishes nothing.

It appeals to their voter base. But by locking criminals up longer is helping to prevent victims. Just need to get rid of all the liberal judges that say oh he had a bad childhood so he needs to be let free to reoffend.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
#6
That Christie Blatchford is such a mouthpiece for THE RIGHT WING.
 
damngrumpy
#7
Lets see the perp is going to pay a surcharge for damages to the victim.
However all the victim will receive is about thirty percent from what i
heard on CBC. They were interviewing a Judge,
The rest of the money goes to government and some goes to the legal
aid system somehow. Like the judge said though these people can't
afford to pay anyway and you can't imprison people for debt.
It is a giant smoke and mirror scene where no one benefits.
 
petros
#8
How much will a professional victim make per year?
 
BornRuff
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

It appeals to their voter base. But by locking criminals up longer is helping to prevent victims. Just need to get rid of all the liberal judges that say oh he had a bad childhood so he needs to be let free to reoffend.

That is incorrect. There is a huge body of evidence that shows that mandatory minimums don't work.

All they are effective at is appealing to "tough on crime" voter bases.

Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpyView Post

Lets see the perp is going to pay a surcharge for damages to the victim.
However all the victim will receive is about thirty percent from what i
heard on CBC. They were interviewing a Judge,
The rest of the money goes to government and some goes to the legal
aid system somehow. Like the judge said though these people can't
afford to pay anyway and you can't imprison people for debt.
It is a giant smoke and mirror scene where no one benefits.

Lol, I heard the interview you are talking about, but you really need to listen a lot closer.

None of the money goes to the victim. It goes into a fund to pay for "victim services".

The 30% figure is the amount that is tacked on if the judge imposes a different monetary fine. For example, if the judge orders a $1000 fine, the perp also has to pay $300 on top of that into this fund for victims services. Otherwise, if there is no fine imposed, it is the standard $100/$200 for each item they are convicted of.

As you were saying though, it really doesn't make sense to impose fines on people who can't pay them, and as they mentioned in the interview, it makes no sense to try to fund a program by trying to tax people who can't pay. You can't get blood from a stone, and if they really try to rely on this to help victims, then it is victims that will suffer.
 
damngrumpy
#10
Thank you for pointing that out, its about where I came into the interview and I
mistakenly thought he said 30% was for the victim. The problem is victim
services will never see a penny because the perp has no money and most in
these cases don't have a dime or future prospects so its an empty shell in any
event.
 
no new posts