Cons "mull" minimums for white collar

[Nuggler]

Yes indeedy; you read it first on CC.

Tories mull minimum sentences for white-collar crime


I figure they'll hand out at least 30 days for any fraud over 5 million or so......maybe.

If the perp wasn't molested by his gramma when he was a tad. Or if "remorse" is shown..................after getting caught.

House arrest probably for the above.

Too rich!!!:evil3:

 

[AnnaG]

Wow. I can imagine that the Glibs won't like that.

 

[Nuggler]

Wow. I can imagine that the Glibs won't like that.

None of any will.

 

[Walter]

Wow. I can imagine that the Glibs won't like that.

Because most of them would be spending time in the big house.

 

[karrie]

I've never been a fan of minimum sentences. I feel that each case ought to be looked at on its own merits, with rehabilitation being a key component of sentencing decisions, NOT retribution.

But, given the thought out nature and the high level of education that is inherent in most white collar crime, I feel that there isn't really much to 'rehabilitate', and the idea of minimum sentences doesn't bother me nearly as much.

 

[AnnaG]

I've never been a fan of minimum sentences. I feel that each case ought to be looked at on its own merits, with rehabilitation being a key component of sentencing decisions, NOT retribution.

But, given the thought out nature and the high level of education that is inherent in most white collar crime, I feel that there isn't really much to 'rehabilitate', and the idea of minimum sentences doesn't bother me nearly as much.

Doesn't bother me a bit that some jerk gets a dozen years for conning dozens of people out of their life savings either. Or that politicians who do things like Shawinigate, Adscam, etc might get a few years, too.

 

[Goober]

I've never been a fan of minimum sentences. I feel that each case ought to be looked at on its own merits, with rehabilitation being a key component of sentencing decisions, NOT retribution.

But, given the thought out nature and the high level of education that is inherent in most white collar crime, I feel that there isn't really much to 'rehabilitate', and the idea of minimum sentences doesn't bother me nearly as much.

Talk to the people who have had their lives ruined - the stresses from heart attacks to breakdowns - marriages lost - education funds gone - these people are treated and out in minimum time - steal 50 mil from a bank and see how long you go away for - wheter you use a gun on not - a thief is a thief -
50 mill - lock him up - when released work and pay into a fund - no leaving the country - no passport - l;eads a life of little cash but has freedom - perfect advert - and min cost after 10 or 20 years - I am OK with that.

 

[Nuggler]

8O Holy poop, we'all agree on something!!!

:angry3:sickening thought, eh wot.

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: Minimum Sentences

I oppose minimum sentences, because I feel that we should protect the principle of an independant judicial system. Honourable justices should have the discretion to hand down sentences based on the particulars of each case, on a case-by-case basis. Proposals to enforce minimum sentences have nothing to do with justice—they are a play on the temptation of so many Canadians to take personal revenge on “the accused”. Our judicial system should be handing down decisions and sentences based on facts, the law, and the particulars of each case—not the wishes for revenge of the majority. I hope that the Honourable the Senate of Canada forces a comprehensive study on such a proposal (as is entirely within our honourable senators’ authority) to ensure that we are not doing damage to the fundamental principles of justice with this proposal (assuming the proposal passes the House of Commons).

 

[AnnaG]

I oppose minimum sentences, because I feel that we should protect the principle of an independant judicial system. Honourable justices should have the discretion to hand down sentences based on the particulars of each case, on a case-by-case basis. Proposals to enforce minimum sentences have nothing to do with justice—they are a play on the temptation of so many Canadians to take personal revenge on “the accused”. Our judicial system should be handing down decisions and sentences based on facts, the law, and the particulars of each case—not the wishes for revenge of the majority. I hope that the Honourable the Senate of Canada forces a comprehensive study on such a proposal (as is entirely within our honourable senators’ authority) to ensure that we are not doing damage to the fundamental principles of justice with this proposal (assuming the proposal passes the House of Commons).

Your honorable justices should have the ability to deal with each case individually and mete out what they think is appropriate. Unfortunately, sometimes they hand out inappropriate judgements.