Bear is saying that the 3 year minimum in a federal prison is fair. NOT the sentence he was given by the judge.
Mandatory Minimums - Off we go to the SCOC
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
Bear is saying that the 3 year minimum in a federal prison is fair. NOT the sentence he was given by the judge.
I said nothing about fair, but I will now. Life isn't fair. The years I spent in jail weren't fair. The fact that the economy tanked and almost killed me, isn't fair.
What I did say was, three years, for being in possession of an illegal, restricted weapon, is neither cruel, nor unusual, imho.
The Judge had a good case for not imposing the man min. So all the legalese written in the judgement is also required.
What's the point of even identifying restricted or banned weapons if there is to be a raft of exceptions to the rule.
Buddy could have been posing with a basement full of pot plants that weren't his, he'd still be on the hook for the consequences.
well, since you didn't say fair.... if you didn't feel that it was cruel and unusual, then what would you characterize the 3 year minimum as being?
I know, a lot of things in life aren't fair. Our justice system though, should be.
Her opinion, which from what I have read, is formulated by activism. She has a history of weak rulings when she was in bail court. Her ruling here, doesn't surprise me in the least.
All the legalese she uttered in her ruling, was...
“Section 12 of the Charter provides that, ‘Everyone has the right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment.’ That right is enshrined in our Constitution, which is declared to be the ‘supreme law of Canada’ such that any law inconsistent with the Charter is ‘to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force and effect,’”
“Possession of a loaded restricted or prohibited firearm is a serious matter. But, typically, it is the circumstances in which the gun is possessed, and what is done with the gun, that give rise to the more serious concerns affecting community safety. It is also difficult to see how inflicting cruel and unusual punishment on an individual can be justified based on an overall legislative objective of general deterrence.”
Whether you are playing with a firearm, or pointing it at a cashier, it is just as dangerous. Actually, I'd lean to saying that playing with it, while balancing a laptop, is actually more dangerous.
Her argument, actually the lack thereof, when invoking section 12, is in my opinion, erroneous at best, and based solely on her ideology.
I think simply being in possession of a restricted and unregistered firearm isn't that big of a deal (depending upon what the firearm is). Acting like an idiot with one is a big deal. It also depends upon the history of whomever is in possession of it. Smickle's an idiot. His relative is an idiot for having it loaded.
And 3 yrs isn't that bad, IMO, when you consider a convicted person might get time off from serving the full sentence.
I'd have suggested a few months of weekend lockup (or some time that correlated to his work schedule) and conditions about the future in regards to firearms.
And 3 yrs isn't that bad, IMO, when you consider a convicted person might get time off from serving the full sentence.
I'd have suggested a few months of weekend lockup (or some time that correlated to his work schedule) and conditions about the future in regards to firearms.
Severe. Which is why you won't find me playing with loaded restricted, illegal weapons.
There's a saying in my community, "There's Justice, than there's Just Us."
I'm stuck trying to balance a past wrought with criminality and a belief in the law, that separates us from the animals.
in the news:
Canada Risks Repeating ‘U.S. Mistakes‘ With Mandatory Minimum Sentences In Bill C-10
A high-profile group of current and former law enforcement officials from the United States is calling on the Canadian government to reconsider the mandatory minimum sentences for minor marijuana offenses proposed in Bill C-10, arguing that the taxation and regulation of marijuana is a more effective policy approach to reducing crime.
On Wednesday, the law enforcers released a letter outlining their concerns, addressed to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Canadian senators. It is signed by more than two dozen current and former judges, police officers, special agents, narcotics investigators and other criminal justice professionals, all of whom are members of the group Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP). The letter strongly reinforces the failure of U.S. crime policies that those proposed in the Canadian federal government’s Bill C-10 legislation seem to be modeled on.
“Through our years of service enforcing anti-marijuana laws, we have seen the devastating consequences of these laws,” the letter states. “Among the greatest concerns is the growth in organized crime and gang violence. Just as with alcohol prohibition, gang violence, corruption and social decay have marched in lockstep with marijuana prohibition.”
“We were deeply involved with the war on drugs and have now accepted, due to our own experience and the clear evidence before us, that these policies are a costly failure,” the letter continues. “Marijuana prohibition drives corruption and violence and tougher laws only worsen the problem.”
Bill C-10, titled “The Safe Streets and Communities Act,” is currently being heard by the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Among other proposals, the bill calls for stricter mandatory minimum sentences for minor marijuana offenses, including minimum six-month sentences for growing as few as six marijuana plants.
“The Canadian government believes the answer is to get tougher on criminals,” said Norm Stamper, retired chief of police in Seattle, Washington. “But as we’ve learned with our decades-long failed experiment with the ‘war on drugs,’ the stricter sentencing proposed in the bill will only serve to help fill jails. It will not reduce harms related to the illicit marijuana trade, make Canadian streets safer or diminish gang activity.”
U.S. Law Enforcement Officials Call On Canadian Prime Minister To Legalize Marijuana | The Weed Blog
Canada Risks Repeating ‘U.S. Mistakes‘ With Mandatory Minimum Sentences In Bill C-10
A high-profile group of current and former law enforcement officials from the United States is calling on the Canadian government to reconsider the mandatory minimum sentences for minor marijuana offenses proposed in Bill C-10, arguing that the taxation and regulation of marijuana is a more effective policy approach to reducing crime.
On Wednesday, the law enforcers released a letter outlining their concerns, addressed to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Canadian senators. It is signed by more than two dozen current and former judges, police officers, special agents, narcotics investigators and other criminal justice professionals, all of whom are members of the group Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP). The letter strongly reinforces the failure of U.S. crime policies that those proposed in the Canadian federal government’s Bill C-10 legislation seem to be modeled on.
“Through our years of service enforcing anti-marijuana laws, we have seen the devastating consequences of these laws,” the letter states. “Among the greatest concerns is the growth in organized crime and gang violence. Just as with alcohol prohibition, gang violence, corruption and social decay have marched in lockstep with marijuana prohibition.”
“We were deeply involved with the war on drugs and have now accepted, due to our own experience and the clear evidence before us, that these policies are a costly failure,” the letter continues. “Marijuana prohibition drives corruption and violence and tougher laws only worsen the problem.”
Bill C-10, titled “The Safe Streets and Communities Act,” is currently being heard by the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Among other proposals, the bill calls for stricter mandatory minimum sentences for minor marijuana offenses, including minimum six-month sentences for growing as few as six marijuana plants.
“The Canadian government believes the answer is to get tougher on criminals,” said Norm Stamper, retired chief of police in Seattle, Washington. “But as we’ve learned with our decades-long failed experiment with the ‘war on drugs,’ the stricter sentencing proposed in the bill will only serve to help fill jails. It will not reduce harms related to the illicit marijuana trade, make Canadian streets safer or diminish gang activity.”
U.S. Law Enforcement Officials Call On Canadian Prime Minister To Legalize Marijuana | The Weed Blog
So who has Harper been listening to?
(in part)
THE Global Commission on Drug Policy says it’s "very weird" that Canada is taking a tougher line on marijuana when governments across the globe are reconsidering the war on drugs.
In an open letter Wednesday to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the Brazil-based commission calls on Canada to stop pursuing the "destructive, expensive and ineffective" prohibition of pot.
Louise Arbour, a former Supreme Court of Canada judge, former Brazilian president Fernando Cardoso, former Swiss president Ruth Dreifuss and Virgin Group founder Richard Branson are among the signatories to the letter that warns Canada is repeating "the same grave mistakes as other countries."
"Building more prisons, tried for decades in the United States under its failed war on drugs, only deepens the drug problem and does not reduce cannabis supply or rates of use," says the letter. "Instead, North American youth now report easier access to cannabis than to alcohol or tobacco."
The commission includes an ideological cross-section of world leaders, among them George Shultz, former U.S. secretary of state in the Reagan Republican presidency, former Mexican president Ernesto Zedillo and Paul Volker, the former head of the U.S. Federal Reserve.
Their reservations are not theoretical, but are aimed directly at the Conservative government’s omnibus crime bill nearing passage in the Senate.
The letter states that "with the proposed implementation of mandatory prison sentences for minor cannabis-related offences under Bill C-10, Canada is at the threshold of continuing to repeat the same grave mistakes as other countries, moving further down a path that has proven im-mensely destructive and ineffective at meeting its objectives."
Global panel urges Canada to shift
(in part)
THE Global Commission on Drug Policy says it’s "very weird" that Canada is taking a tougher line on marijuana when governments across the globe are reconsidering the war on drugs.
In an open letter Wednesday to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the Brazil-based commission calls on Canada to stop pursuing the "destructive, expensive and ineffective" prohibition of pot.
Louise Arbour, a former Supreme Court of Canada judge, former Brazilian president Fernando Cardoso, former Swiss president Ruth Dreifuss and Virgin Group founder Richard Branson are among the signatories to the letter that warns Canada is repeating "the same grave mistakes as other countries."
"Building more prisons, tried for decades in the United States under its failed war on drugs, only deepens the drug problem and does not reduce cannabis supply or rates of use," says the letter. "Instead, North American youth now report easier access to cannabis than to alcohol or tobacco."
The commission includes an ideological cross-section of world leaders, among them George Shultz, former U.S. secretary of state in the Reagan Republican presidency, former Mexican president Ernesto Zedillo and Paul Volker, the former head of the U.S. Federal Reserve.
Their reservations are not theoretical, but are aimed directly at the Conservative government’s omnibus crime bill nearing passage in the Senate.
The letter states that "with the proposed implementation of mandatory prison sentences for minor cannabis-related offences under Bill C-10, Canada is at the threshold of continuing to repeat the same grave mistakes as other countries, moving further down a path that has proven im-mensely destructive and ineffective at meeting its objectives."
Global panel urges Canada to shift
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/11/o...-neighbor-and-go-straight-to-prison.html?_r=0
Mandatory minimums are idiotic.
Mandatory minimums are idiotic.
The issue was, and always has been, the revolving door issue which is why the Conservatives instigated the minimum sentencing to begin with. This particular Judge has used common sense and I agree with her position; unfortunately, you can't say that for many other Judges when it comes to actual "serious" crimes.
When individuals are using guns (or knives) as weapons to commit crimes, over and over again and Judges give lenient sentences, only to have the same people commit other crimes, it gets pretty frustrating for police and the communities they're sworn to protect. In addition, there is legislation that was "supposed" to add additional time in jail for the use of a weapon (guns) in committing a crime but that rarely happens because it's usually "bargained" away. So what's the point of having that particular legislation if it's not applied? As far as I'm concerned, that's not negotiable!!
There has to be a happy medium. Yes, minimum sentencing isn't the answer in some circumstances but appropriate in others. If Judges used more common sense, this wouldn't be an issue and we wouldn't have had this legislation to begin with.
How many times have you looked in the paper where there have been "be on the lookout for" because they haven't reported to their parole officer or half way house and have disappeared. Then look at the list of crimes they have commited - it's ridiculous! Most shouldn't have been out on the street to begin with.
JMHO
When individuals are using guns (or knives) as weapons to commit crimes, over and over again and Judges give lenient sentences, only to have the same people commit other crimes, it gets pretty frustrating for police and the communities they're sworn to protect. In addition, there is legislation that was "supposed" to add additional time in jail for the use of a weapon (guns) in committing a crime but that rarely happens because it's usually "bargained" away. So what's the point of having that particular legislation if it's not applied? As far as I'm concerned, that's not negotiable!!
There has to be a happy medium. Yes, minimum sentencing isn't the answer in some circumstances but appropriate in others. If Judges used more common sense, this wouldn't be an issue and we wouldn't have had this legislation to begin with.
How many times have you looked in the paper where there have been "be on the lookout for" because they haven't reported to their parole officer or half way house and have disappeared. Then look at the list of crimes they have commited - it's ridiculous! Most shouldn't have been out on the street to begin with.
JMHO