New "three-strikes" bill for violent offenders

H

Hank C

Electoral Member
Jan 4, 2006
953
0
16
Calgary, AB
OTTAWA (CP) - The federal government is preparing three-strikes-you're-out legislation that would make it easier to label criminals as dangerous offenders after a third serious conviction.

The bill - part of the Conservative anti-crime package - will be tabled this fall, says Justice Minister Vic Toews.

He says that after three convictions for violent crimes, people would have to prove to a judge why they're not dangerous - which is a reversal of the traditional innocent-until-proven-guilty principle.

Toews says criminals should be presumed guilty - not innocent - after three such convictions.

Currently, someone convicted of a violent offence can be declared a dangerous offender after a court hearing initiated by Crown prosecutors.

The dangerous-offender designation is akin to a life sentence, although offenders can begin applying for parole after seven years.


©The Canadian Press, 2006

http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/NationalNewsArticle.htm?&src=n092015A.xml
 
I think not

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
I'm just curious about something Researcher87, we down South just love your maple syrup, does that make us more Canadian?

Believe it or not, we have a universal health care system (for the poor), does that make us more Canadian?

You had Thanksgiving before us, and we adopted it, does that make us more Canadian?
 
damngrumpy

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
All we need is a Federal dangerous offender law, who cares about three strikes? If someone is sexually abusing children they should go away for life the first time they are found guilty. Rape, murder and violent offences should all carry thirty year no parole sentences with the right for the state to extend those sentences if they deem the offender a danger.
Three strike laws and the like are just another way for lawyers to make more money, and personally I am sick of violent offenders, offending over and over again with a slap on the wrist.
 
Kreskin

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
I only support it if they hire Major League Baseball umpires to hand out the sentences - "STRIKE THREE!...YOOOOO"RRE OOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUTT! *turns..makes arm pump*
 
damngrumpy

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
Thirty years is a nice round number, and once the dangerous offender status has been handed down there need be no more court time spent on this trash, they would be locked up for thirty years and the sentence extended forever hopefully.
 
Sassylassie

Sassylassie

House Member
Jan 31, 2006
2,976
7
38
How about we start with making them do the sentence they were sentence to do? No more 1/3 less a day and time off for good behavior. 25 years to life means just that with no get out of jail card.

Three strikes out will only clog up the system, start enforcing the laws on the books. Catch and release has been the mantra for to long now. Do the crime do the time. Bring back work gangs, make them work whilst they are in jail. Stop pandering to Criminals, digging ditches and building roads may actually build character. Most are to lazy to work so they pick up a gun/knife and rob someone for cash.
 
damngrumpy

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in three strikes, I mean auomatic thirty year sentences for first time violent offenders. With the option to hold them longer after they serve the entire sentence no time off. And no these people should be held in seclusion, no visitors, no mingling with others, and no meaningful activities what so ever.
They would live a sparton life with no one to see and nothing to do, and only dispare to look forward too for a lifetime. This is the life they planned for others they tormented and or killed and it should serve them well to be handed the same condemnation.
 
R

Researcher87

Electoral Member
Sep 20, 2006
496
2
18
In Monsoon West (B.C)
damngrumpy said:
Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in three strikes, I mean auomatic thirty year sentences for first time violent offenders. With the option to hold them longer after they serve the entire sentence no time off. And no these people should be held in seclusion, no visitors, no mingling with others, and no meaningful activities what so ever.
They would live a sparton life with no one to see and nothing to do, and only dispare to look forward too for a lifetime. This is the life they planned for others they tormented and or killed and it should serve them well to be handed the same condemnation.
Click to expand...

I agree with were you are coming at but they have that system with 25 years. You can serve more than 25 years you can serve life if deemed by a panal, as shown Paul Bernardo, he will serve more than 25 years, he will always be in prison.
 
wallyj

wallyj

just special
May 7, 2006
1,230
21
38
not in Kansas anymore
You are neutral, Yeah,and I am a lesbian... After three convictions for violent crimes a person is guilty of being a dangerous offender in my mind.Why should we not take this person off the street? The onus should be on him to prove otherwise.And if he doesn't change his behaviour,should we believe him after the fourth conviction? Fifth? Where do we draw the line between compassion for the criminal and compassion for society?
 
T

tamarin

House Member
Jun 12, 2006
3,197
22
38
Oshawa ON
Why don't we just reinstate the common sensical? I'm not a big believer in prisons or their hefty tab demanded of the public. For minor offences put the person in stocks. Make him or her face public ridicule and shame. For more serious offences primitive conditions are in order and work crews assigned. For acts of violence or repeat offenders, you have to birch them. Inflict some physical pain. We've really grown soft and pop psychology has made puddin' of our brains. I'd rather whip a prisoner senseless than sentence him to two or ten years. And for career criminals and first degree murderers if you're not executing them you're not acting in your society's and your family's best interests.
 
K

KellyF

Nominee Member
Jun 22, 2006
54
0
6
Toronto
www.housepetition.com
I'm with Wallyj on this. If you are convicted three times of a crime...you are dangerous!!! Like a child molester or violent offender. Being convicted 3 times doesn't mean you've only committed the crime 3 times...it means you've been caught, tried and convicted 3 times. There's are thousands of people out there who have committed horrible crimes against children many many times, but are not considered "dangerous" and so they are left to continue their lives in society. Peter Whitmore anyone??!! I think we need stricter sentencing for those convicted of violent crimes and sexual crimes. Three times and you're out? Doesn't sound like justice for victims number 1 and 2.
 
Colpy

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
Sassylassie said:
How about we start with making them do the sentence they were sentence to do? No more 1/3 less a day and time off for good behavior. 25 years to life means just that with no get out of jail card.

Three strikes out will only clog up the system, start enforcing the laws on the books. Catch and release has been the mantra for to long now. Do the crime do the time. Bring back work gangs, make them work whilst they are in jail. Stop pandering to Criminals, digging ditches and building roads may actually build character. Most are to lazy to work so they pick up a gun/knife and rob someone for cash.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

I am against anuthing that includes reverse onus in proving guilt.

Have these people never heard of English Common Law?
 
temperance

temperance

Electoral Member
Sep 27, 2006
622
16
18
I see it says "will be able to make it easier to label them dangerous offenders ,label -hows that help ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom