...says the guy that comes to a thread about the "throw away the key act" and says nothing about the "throw away the key act". Hehehe yup, I'm in your head alright.
Andrew Coyne: No need for Tories’ ‘Throw Away the Key Act’
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
...says the guy that comes to a thread about the "throw away the key act" and says nothing about the "throw away the key act". Hehehe yup, I'm in your head alright.
Oh oh, you're upset already this morning.
Although, you came on in the wee hours already angry. Looking to stalk JLM.
Poor poor Cannuck.
Ottawa, judiciary set to clash over life without parole legislation
The Conservative government is setting the stage for a confrontation with judges over the introduction of life without parole for some killers – the harshest punishment, outside of the death penalty, in Canadian history.
The question that will inevitably come before the courts is whether leaving prisoners without hope of release, at least by a neutral decision-making body, meets Canadian standards of humane treatment.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the government intends to introduce legislation next week that would mean life with no chance of parole for “especially brutal” first-degree murders, those who kill police or prison guards and those who kill during a sex assault, kidnapping or an act of terrorism. Prisoners could petition cabinet for release after 35 years. Under current law, a life term is automatic for murder, with the first chance at full parole for first-degree murder after 25 years.
Over the past 18 months, the government and the judiciary have clashed repeatedly over criminal laws that limited judges’ discretion over sentencing, including mandatory minimum sentences. And a sentence of life without parole is the ultimate mandatory minimum.
Defence lawyers and constitutional scholars interviewed say a legal challenge to life without parole is almost certain soon after it becomes law. But while the challenge will be cast in legal terms – alleging cruel and unusual punishment, arbitrariness and disproportionality – what will really be decided is whether ending hope for classes of prisoners is in keeping with the basic tenets of the Canadian legal system.
“I think that civilized norms of justice include the idea that people can reform themselves and the system should provide some incentive and hope for them to do so,” University of Ottawa law professor Carissima Mathen said. “Society is entitled to use the criminal law to denounce behaviour, but we tend to reject retribution for its own sake.”
One question for Canadian judges will be whether the political review at 35 years offers a realistic hope of release. Mr. Harper stressed that the 35-year review is not parole but an appeal to cabinet, whose members are accountable to voters. In an e-mail, Prof. Mathen called this review a “complete non-starter. The whole point of sentencing is that we take it out of the political realm (once Parliament decides on the range of sentences).”
Judges might also look at hypothetical cases – a young person who kills someone during a hostage-taking, for instance. “The courts will take a very hard look at the proportionality of imprisoning a person who kills during a hostage-taking in his 20s when he is in his 70s and 80s,” University of Toronto law professor Kent Roach said.
The Supreme Court has barred Canada from extraditing prisoners to jurisdictions such as the United States where they might face the death penalty. The court said in 2001 that such extraditions would “shock the conscience of Canadians.” Last year, the Alberta Court of Appeal authorized an extradition of a suspected terrorist who could face life without parole in the U.S., saying the penalty would not shock Canadians’ consciences.
One question is whether the government can justify its contention that the bill is needed to protect society. Thus far, the government has made public no data on crimes committed by paroled killers. “It will be interesting to see what research and evidence the government has to support this idea,” said Nikos Harris, who teaches law at the University of British Columbia.
Judges have shown themselves willing to stand up to the Conservative government in unpredictable and surprising ways, even when they are not challenging the constitutionality of a law. For instance, they have evaded the government’s mandatory victim fine surcharge, a financial penalty payable by all offenders, no matter how poor, to fund victim services. Judges in several provinces refused to order the poor to pay, or granted 99 years to pay, or made sure the surcharge was $1.50.
Mr. Harper has fought back at times in an equally surprising way, declaring publicly last spring – outside of any formal process – that Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin had acted inappropriately in a case the government lost. The court had rejected Mr. Harper’s choice of a new Supreme Court judge, Marc Nadon.
Topics:
Ottawa, Ontario
Stephen Harper
Law
Supreme Court
Ottawa, judiciary set to clash over life without parole legislation - The Globe and Mail
The Conservative government is setting the stage for a confrontation with judges over the introduction of life without parole for some killers – the harshest punishment, outside of the death penalty, in Canadian history.
The question that will inevitably come before the courts is whether leaving prisoners without hope of release, at least by a neutral decision-making body, meets Canadian standards of humane treatment.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the government intends to introduce legislation next week that would mean life with no chance of parole for “especially brutal” first-degree murders, those who kill police or prison guards and those who kill during a sex assault, kidnapping or an act of terrorism. Prisoners could petition cabinet for release after 35 years. Under current law, a life term is automatic for murder, with the first chance at full parole for first-degree murder after 25 years.
Over the past 18 months, the government and the judiciary have clashed repeatedly over criminal laws that limited judges’ discretion over sentencing, including mandatory minimum sentences. And a sentence of life without parole is the ultimate mandatory minimum.
Defence lawyers and constitutional scholars interviewed say a legal challenge to life without parole is almost certain soon after it becomes law. But while the challenge will be cast in legal terms – alleging cruel and unusual punishment, arbitrariness and disproportionality – what will really be decided is whether ending hope for classes of prisoners is in keeping with the basic tenets of the Canadian legal system.
“I think that civilized norms of justice include the idea that people can reform themselves and the system should provide some incentive and hope for them to do so,” University of Ottawa law professor Carissima Mathen said. “Society is entitled to use the criminal law to denounce behaviour, but we tend to reject retribution for its own sake.”
One question for Canadian judges will be whether the political review at 35 years offers a realistic hope of release. Mr. Harper stressed that the 35-year review is not parole but an appeal to cabinet, whose members are accountable to voters. In an e-mail, Prof. Mathen called this review a “complete non-starter. The whole point of sentencing is that we take it out of the political realm (once Parliament decides on the range of sentences).”
Judges might also look at hypothetical cases – a young person who kills someone during a hostage-taking, for instance. “The courts will take a very hard look at the proportionality of imprisoning a person who kills during a hostage-taking in his 20s when he is in his 70s and 80s,” University of Toronto law professor Kent Roach said.
The Supreme Court has barred Canada from extraditing prisoners to jurisdictions such as the United States where they might face the death penalty. The court said in 2001 that such extraditions would “shock the conscience of Canadians.” Last year, the Alberta Court of Appeal authorized an extradition of a suspected terrorist who could face life without parole in the U.S., saying the penalty would not shock Canadians’ consciences.
One question is whether the government can justify its contention that the bill is needed to protect society. Thus far, the government has made public no data on crimes committed by paroled killers. “It will be interesting to see what research and evidence the government has to support this idea,” said Nikos Harris, who teaches law at the University of British Columbia.
Judges have shown themselves willing to stand up to the Conservative government in unpredictable and surprising ways, even when they are not challenging the constitutionality of a law. For instance, they have evaded the government’s mandatory victim fine surcharge, a financial penalty payable by all offenders, no matter how poor, to fund victim services. Judges in several provinces refused to order the poor to pay, or granted 99 years to pay, or made sure the surcharge was $1.50.
Mr. Harper has fought back at times in an equally surprising way, declaring publicly last spring – outside of any formal process – that Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin had acted inappropriately in a case the government lost. The court had rejected Mr. Harper’s choice of a new Supreme Court judge, Marc Nadon.
Topics:
Ottawa, Ontario
Stephen Harper
Law
Supreme Court
Ottawa, judiciary set to clash over life without parole legislation - The Globe and Mail
Do victims have hope of rising from the dead and regaining the Canadian standard of humane treatment that the murderer took from them?
"Judges might also look at hypothetical cases – a young person who kills someone during a hostage-taking, for instance. “The courts will take a very hard look at the proportionality of imprisoning a person who kills during a hostage-taking in his 20s when he is in his 70s and 80s,” University of Toronto law professor Kent Roach said."
When the courts begin to run the country against the wishes, or without regard to the expressed majority wishes of the electorat, we are lost.
When the courts begin to run the country against the wishes, or without regard to the expressed majority wishes of the electorat, we are lost.
I think it's very dangerous to set one sentence for all cases. Hope Harper keeps that in mind. There used to be that "faint hope clause" that was removed several years ago. A person who was considered rehabilitated without undue risk to offend could be eligible for it. There was no obligation to use it, but it was there and I saw no harm in that. Or like I've always maintained-"there's an exception to every rule".
No, missed that, my mind has been on clocks!
No, missed that, my mind has been on clocks!
such as someone who kills another at a very young age and shows remorse as the years go on...at some point I think there should be consideration for release if it can be shown that there is little danger to society
on the other hand,
I am still thinking of that male out west who was released after having raped multiple times as well as confined women...to me, he should not be released but his jail sentence should show mercy for his prison stretch although he has not killed at this point, I think he is more dangerous than someone who has killed but shows remorse
the reason I picked that example (age) as someone who could possibly be redeemed is because looking back on myself when young, I think the impulse control is low, there is little to no wisdom although they think they know everything, and there is little understanding of the permanent nature of death...
as we age, things change...
I don't think it can be applied to every case but I certainly think there are instances of people who could be released...reality is 25 years which is life and is a long time and people do change
now rape and confinement, that I have a problem with because sexual urges and the need for power I think will always be a problem
also because anyone can kill, you, me, the next door neighbour, things can go off the rails given the right set of circumstances...I would look at the prerequisite for release as needing to conclude that they are unlikely to kill not that they never will
rape, I don't know because in many instances does the victim ever recover, if some is a repeat offender I am leery more so than murder
I was kind of thinking of a hypothetical case of a young person who has been held hostage for several years (like you read about once in a blue moon where a kid has been shackled to the bed) and finally when he reaches adult hood he/she breaks loose and murders his/her captor. A little far fetched? Perhaps.
life does not mean life in Canada
what is the difference between killing someone in a rage or confining and repeatedly raping them...one is alive technically, I'm not certain how alive that is
It does now.
1st and 2nd degree is the difference.
Rape once or confine and rape is still rape.
1st and 2nd degree is the difference.
Rape once or confine and rape is still rape.