New "three-strikes" bill for violent offenders
- Thread starter Hank C
- Start date
I totally agree except for the clogging the court's part. I think everyone is refering to the California system..this one is not the same. In California the 3 strikes are ANY strikes...stealling a loaf of bread counts. The Conservative bill is 3 violent offences. Of course anyone who has been violent 3 times should be locked away!!
With that said it is also very true as Sassy said, we give people light sentences let then out early, give them 3 for 1 while waiting for trial, and of course the dreaded plea bargin..
As usually the full political effect method is played before the long term methods...unfortunately it is the slow and steady ways that have a result but they take longer then ones political career
Last edited:
The other solution is to execute all those convicted of murder first degree, and what would be legally termed violent sex crimes against adults or children.
I know, what do I mean by violent? Where a weapon is used to control the victim or the victim is killed. To compensate for unusual circumstance, those crimes that received first degree status, would result in the death penalty being an option.
I know, what do I mean by violent? Where a weapon is used to control the victim or the victim is killed. To compensate for unusual circumstance, those crimes that received first degree status, would result in the death penalty being an option.
There are several arguments to be made against this stand.........
I really don't understand how anyone can support capital punishment on a single conviction after hearing of all the innocent men convicted of first degree murder.
At least now they can be released and compensated.
What do you do when you've executed an innocent man? Dig him up and apologize?
Oh yeah.........the "several arguments" Milgaard, Marshal, Morin....et al.
The problem with legislation of this type is the fact that all too often we have what is called selective enforcement of the law. This means that for a given crime or set of crimes a person will be charged for committing misdemeanors whereas others may be charged with felonies. This difference is especially true when comparing white versus black suspects in crimes. The gap is even greater when comparing female versus male suspects. And that gap is greater still when comparing white females versus black males.
What steps will be taken to insure that the laws will not be selectively enforced and that prosecutions will be done on a just basis without regard to race or gender?
What steps will be taken to insure that the laws will not be selectively enforced and that prosecutions will be done on a just basis without regard to race or gender?
I'm all for locking away violent offenders first charge with no parole. But seeing as how we are unlikely to get that, I think this is a step in the right direction.
When I studied "Introduction to Law Inforcement' whilst studing Criminology I was surprised to learn so many "Females" and "Non Whites" were in prison for writing bad cheques or cheque fraud. I was equally disturbed to learn that woman can be sent to jail (Provincal 2 years less a day) for two years because she wrote a wonky cheque to "Walmart". I came away from this course disturbed that a crime against "Industry or Business" is considered "Serious" enough to do jail time but a crime against a "Person" is rarely punished. This bothers me, why is Business and Industry given preferential treatment? We as a Society elect Government to act on our behalf, when did the Goverment decide "Businesses and Industry" are more important the "We the People". We are suppose to have input into all new laws that come into affect but we lost control along the way and the Goverment took away our right to decide what is considered "Right or Wrong'. I want my voice back! It's time to push aside the Business/Big Industry lobby groups and have Canadian Voices heard again.
To answer Sassy,
1, Most of Canada's politicains, are or were businessmen/women or lawyers with friends that own businesses, lol.
2, Governments, rarely do anything for the people, unless it's "Gauranteed" that there is something in it for them.
Lets here from all the "polls" quoters on this. The last poll, I can remember on Capital punishment, indicated that most Canadians were in favour of the death penelty?
1, Most of Canada's politicains, are or were businessmen/women or lawyers with friends that own businesses, lol.
2, Governments, rarely do anything for the people, unless it's "Gauranteed" that there is something in it for them.
Lets here from all the "polls" quoters on this. The last poll, I can remember on Capital punishment, indicated that most Canadians were in favour of the death penelty?
how lovely to see the harper introduce the concept of "guilty until proven innocent".
how lovely to see so many so easily hand out life and death from the comfort of their chair.
a society is measured by how it treats its "enemies", its "weak", its "unwanted"....
to those that would pass out such summary judgement,
how will it feel when it is your turn to face summary judgement?
to sassy,
in order for a society to be able to respond to changing conditions (ie. remain dynamic), it is necessary that no individual be critical to its functioning. A role may be "critical", but the individual filling it must not be. This is the case in modern societies, and as such, the individual is disposable. The corporations are less disposable and as such are granted greater protections (albiet they too are disposable, but with a higher cost).
So you cry over your disposable status, yet so quickly wish to dispose of others? You can not have both.
how lovely to see so many so easily hand out life and death from the comfort of their chair.
a society is measured by how it treats its "enemies", its "weak", its "unwanted"....
to those that would pass out such summary judgement,
how will it feel when it is your turn to face summary judgement?
to sassy,
in order for a society to be able to respond to changing conditions (ie. remain dynamic), it is necessary that no individual be critical to its functioning. A role may be "critical", but the individual filling it must not be. This is the case in modern societies, and as such, the individual is disposable. The corporations are less disposable and as such are granted greater protections (albiet they too are disposable, but with a higher cost).
So you cry over your disposable status, yet so quickly wish to dispose of others? You can not have both.
Re: New Government Bill
In my opinion, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (dangerous offenders and recognizance to keep the peace) is a dangerous piece of legislation. While the motivation behind the bill may be sound (in exemplia, to further safeguard the public from possible threats), I would submit to the membership that the bill is in fact unconstitutional, in that it would violate Section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Whether or not someone may be dangerous, that does not mean that we should violate their human rights—if we were do willing to do so, then that would suggest that such rights really aren't as valued as we would like to suggest. I would hope that the several opposition parties use their majority in the Senate of Canada and the House of Commons to ensure that this bill does not pass; or, at the least, passes with strong amendments.
It is becoming apparent that The Honourable Vic Toews, P.C., M.P., the Member for Provencher, the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada, is exercising the sort of knee-jerk reactionary legislative agenda as has been so common to this present Government of Canada. With the passing of each and every day, I look more forward to the dissolution of the Thirty-ninth Parliament of Canada, and the restoration of a government that will do some good for Canada.
In my opinion, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (dangerous offenders and recognizance to keep the peace) is a dangerous piece of legislation. While the motivation behind the bill may be sound (in exemplia, to further safeguard the public from possible threats), I would submit to the membership that the bill is in fact unconstitutional, in that it would violate Section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Whether or not someone may be dangerous, that does not mean that we should violate their human rights—if we were do willing to do so, then that would suggest that such rights really aren't as valued as we would like to suggest. I would hope that the several opposition parties use their majority in the Senate of Canada and the House of Commons to ensure that this bill does not pass; or, at the least, passes with strong amendments.
It is becoming apparent that The Honourable Vic Toews, P.C., M.P., the Member for Provencher, the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada, is exercising the sort of knee-jerk reactionary legislative agenda as has been so common to this present Government of Canada. With the passing of each and every day, I look more forward to the dissolution of the Thirty-ninth Parliament of Canada, and the restoration of a government that will do some good for Canada.
Go hug a criminal, you pussy liberal putz. You are, either a bloody saint, never been affected by crime or like the reast of the "oh those poor criminal" sect, a complete moron.
Not a lawyer; however, I did start to think that leaving the kind people on Canadian Content without my daily splashes of colour was a cruel and unusual punishment, and therefore in derogation of my duties as the resident Minister of Colours and Post Formatting!
Drop by and I will gladly give you a hug. Would that work for you?
How lovely to see the reactionaries at work. There is nothing like a personal attack to deflect from a lack of a valid argument, is there?
I'm of the opinion that the act should be amended to not only include violent crimes but other crimes in general as well. In other words a person should be labelled a chronic or repeat offender and he should be faced with a reverse onus if he is repeatedly convicted of various criminal offences. That person should also be punished on an increasing scale- irrespective if his last conviction was a break and enter or assault and the current conviction is theft.
Where the crimes are particularly egregious ( whether violent or not, i.e sexual assault with a weapon, or defrauding an elderly or invalid person or failing to provide the necessities of life) the court should consider the inhumanity of the act and punish accordingly.
I also agree that the possible sentences we currently have are adequate- provided they are enforced. Break and Enter into a house is a crime punishable by life in prison - why? because our forefathers recognized that our home is our castle and to invade it is an extreme criminal act. No one has ever received life however for that crime.
Where the crimes are particularly egregious ( whether violent or not, i.e sexual assault with a weapon, or defrauding an elderly or invalid person or failing to provide the necessities of life) the court should consider the inhumanity of the act and punish accordingly.
I also agree that the possible sentences we currently have are adequate- provided they are enforced. Break and Enter into a house is a crime punishable by life in prison - why? because our forefathers recognized that our home is our castle and to invade it is an extreme criminal act. No one has ever received life however for that crime.
Lawn Order
How about the pedophiles who are clearly freaks - victims under 10 yrs old and so on - get a spot in jail for as long as they need [life for many] and we make room for them in our overcrowded jails by letting the non-violent pot growers and other drug-without-violence 'criminals' OUT of jail.
Make some room for the voiolent criminals too. There are so many people in jail who just WANT to be there - I heard this from someone who did time . What these ones need is some other accomodation and likely some treatment for illness or mental issues - most of them are sick with AIDS or some chronic illness and they get better care in jail and regular meals - they do it "for survival".
Why are they in jail instead of violent people who get let out after three years? Overcrowding is cited as the reason for short sentences for violent criminals, so let the others out and just get them the care they need - ITS A LOT CHEAPER!!!!! Jailtime costs about $100,000 per person per year, and if there was "accomodations for the chronically ill" - minimal "at home" nursing care and complete medical prescription coverage would only cost about $50,000 per person per year, at the most .
As for the druggies in jail, they could all be freed if we gave them their dope - NONE of their crimes would occur because they only do them for dope. Its so stupid, especially when overcrowding is letting pedophiles go.
How about the pedophiles who are clearly freaks - victims under 10 yrs old and so on - get a spot in jail for as long as they need [life for many] and we make room for them in our overcrowded jails by letting the non-violent pot growers and other drug-without-violence 'criminals' OUT of jail.
Make some room for the voiolent criminals too. There are so many people in jail who just WANT to be there - I heard this from someone who did time . What these ones need is some other accomodation and likely some treatment for illness or mental issues - most of them are sick with AIDS or some chronic illness and they get better care in jail and regular meals - they do it "for survival".
Why are they in jail instead of violent people who get let out after three years? Overcrowding is cited as the reason for short sentences for violent criminals, so let the others out and just get them the care they need - ITS A LOT CHEAPER!!!!! Jailtime costs about $100,000 per person per year, and if there was "accomodations for the chronically ill" - minimal "at home" nursing care and complete medical prescription coverage would only cost about $50,000 per person per year, at the most .
As for the druggies in jail, they could all be freed if we gave them their dope - NONE of their crimes would occur because they only do them for dope. Its so stupid, especially when overcrowding is letting pedophiles go.