Supreme Court quashes mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes

[phreak]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sup...ry-minimum-sentences-for-gun-crimes-1.3031847

It took about 7 years to make illegal the punishment which was obviously 'cruel and unusual' in the first place for any sane person. How many people were prosecuted (persecuted?) based on the barbaric law during that period? Canadian 'democracy' at work...

In this case it's all about real crimes which should be prosecuted - it's just the punishment that was way unreasonable. C-36 is different: it's all about persecuting knowingly innocent people for consensual sex with adults based on a bizarre extremist ideology, which never had any roots in this country. The fate of C-36 is easily predictable - it will be quashed by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional... well... in a number of years. So for the time being the inherently persecutory 'law' is aimed solely at persecuting a clearly identifiable group of people for something as innocent as adult consensual sex. Should the UN definition of a convention refugee now include this category?

My point is: how come it takes so long to get rid of something obviously and knowingly unconstitutional (or even outright criminal) in a supposedly 'democratic' country? And how come there is nothing in place to prevent the corrupt government from easily implementing knowingly unconstitutional 'laws'? If a proposed law is so controversial, why can't it be reviewed by the Supreme Court BEFORE in comes in force?

 

[P3t3rp4n]

 

[phreak]

Please note that both of the persons who were convicted had their sentences upheld as appropriate for the crimes that they committed. The SCoC found that there are some reasonably likely scenarios where an an administrative infraction would lead to a disproportionate mandatory minimum sentence (e.g. failing to renew a firearm possession license before your old one expires while possessing firearms that were legally acquired leads to a 3 year minimum sentence under the overturned law).

These are the two cases which were brought up before the Supreme Court: I assume there are many more since 2008 which were not.

Mandatory minimums for ANY crime are 'cruel and unusual' by definition as the only justification for having them is 'deterrence'. It has been proven over the centuries that the harshest punishments NEVER reduced crime rates. Even medieval punishments like chopping a hand off for stealing didn't lead to ANY reduction in theft rate. In some cases it may be appropriate to put someone in jail for 3 years or even more for having a loaded gun; in other cases conditional sentence is sufficient - it all depends of the circumstances and intentions. In fact, implementing mandatory minimums can be considered a crime in itself as the consequences of severe persecution for minor crimes are often way more serious than those crimes.

Only uneducated/retarded/extremist/evil person may even consider mandatory minimums as they are immoral, costly and absolutely useless from any practical point of view.

 

[InnocentBoy]

Funny how DUI is not a problem anywhere else but "first world"nations.

These are the two cases which were brought up before the Supreme Court: I assume there are many more since 2008 which were not.

Mandatory minimums for ANY crime are 'cruel and unusual' by definition as the only justification for having them is 'deterrence'. It has been proven over the centuries that the harshest punishments NEVER reduced crime rates. Even medieval punishments like chopping a hand off for stealing didn't lead to ANY reduction in theft rate. In some cases it may be appropriate to put someone in jail for 3 years or even more for having a loaded gun; in other cases conditional sentence is sufficient - it all depends of the circumstances and intentions. In fact, implementing mandatory minimums can be considered a crime in itself as the consequences of severe persecution for minor crimes are often way more serious than those crimes.

Only uneducated/retarded/extremist/evil person may even consider mandatory minimums as they are immoral, costly and absolutely useless from any practical point of view.

 

[steiln]

"Only uneducated/retarded/extremist/evil person may even consider mandatory minimums as they are immoral, costly and absolutely useless from any practical point of view. " Meet Steven Harper

 

[morementum]

Only uneducated/retarded/extremist/evil person may even consider mandatory minimums as they are immoral, costly and absolutely useless from any practical point of view.

That is why we need the death penalty back and actually USED for cases that are so clearly of such evil that no alternative suffices.

 

[vancity_cowboy]

Mandatory minimums for ANY crime are 'cruel and unusual' by definition as the only justification for having them is 'deterrence'. It has been proven over the centuries that the harshest punishments NEVER reduced crime rates.

i agree there is no deterrent to other peole committing the same crime - there never is. the criminal mind will always try to figure out a way to commit a crime

but i disagree in terms of the sentenced individual - they will not be free for the term of their incarceration to commit their crimes and further victimize the innocent general population. and if the sentence is the death sentence, well that's one less criminal victimizing the innocent general population

the supreme court was right that the law included victims of administrative lapses such as non-renewal of licences, which should never be a criminal offence, and should never lead to jail time. firearms permits should be like driver's licences - the holder of the licence should be informed by mail at their listed address that their licence is due for renewal by the listed date, and failure to do so will be accompanied by a fine, which if not paid will lead to confiscation of the firearms

 

[phreak]

but i disagree in terms of the sentenced individual - they will not be free for the term of their incarceration to commit their crimes and further victimize the innocent general population. and if the sentence is the death sentence, well that's one less criminal victimizing the innocent general population

the supreme court was right that the law included victims of administrative lapses such as non-renewal of licences, which should never be a criminal offence, and should never lead to jail time. firearms permits should be like driver's licences - the holder of the licence should be informed by mail at their listed address that their licence is due for renewal by the listed date, and failure to do so will be accompanied by a fine, which if not paid will lead to confiscation of the firearms

The issue of mandatory minimums is way more complex than just obvious cases of innocent people who may be effected, like those with expired firearms permits. Mandatory minimums are not fair to REAL offenders either. If a crime is serious enough nothing prevents a judge to impose a sentence which is way longer when a mandatory minimum for this type of crime. So there is no need for mandatory minimums to keep in jail those, who deserve it, for a long time. The problem starts when there is no need for jail sentence at all or it would be appropriate to keep it short or conditional. The punishment should match the crime - if it doesn't it is definitely cruel and unusual. Jail also means spending more taxpayers money (100K per inmate per year).

Let's look at scenarios when jail time for having an illegal loaded gun may be warranted or not. When defining a guilt the fact that a person had a gun on him is really minor - it's all about his intentions. Examples: a person is

- a gang member and needs a gun for turf war and victimizing general public
- a hitman and needs a gun to carry out a hit
- a person with known crime connections who needs a gun for self-defence
- a teenager with no criminal connections and intentions, who likes firearms and wants to look 'cool'
- a law abiding citizen who is paranoid about the latest crime wave in Newton where he lives, who carries a loaded gun for self-defence as he doesn't believe cops can provide adequate protection (and he may be damn right!).
- a vigilante who decides to fight crime on his own

You can clearly see from the above examples that some cases may not warrant jail time at all as the offenders are not a threat to the society, nor did they have any criminal intentions; other cases may warrant long sentences, and some may warrant really short ones. There is no need for mandatory minimums.

 

[vancity_cowboy]

You can clearly see from the above examples that some cases may not warrant jail time at all as the offenders are not a threat to the society, nor did they have any criminal intentions; other cases may warrant long sentences, and some may warrant really short ones. There is no need for mandatory minimums.

in my lifetime i have seen many sentences that were far too lenient given the pain and grief that the criminal caused. i believe the judiciary is riddled with judges who have lost total touch with reality, or have been bought off, or have been told by their political masters that there is no more room in jail for any more inmates

no matter what the reason, the conservatives have taken the shortcut of providing some guidance to the judiciary in terms of minimum sentences

as usual, they have fucked it up by making the sentences apply where they shouldn't, but i am wholeheartedly behind the concept itself

 

[phreak]

in my lifetime i have seen many sentences that were far too lenient given the pain and grief that the criminal caused. i believe the judiciary is riddled with judges who have lost total touch with reality, or have been bought off, or have been told by their political masters that there is no more room in jail for any more inmates

no matter what the reason, the conservatives have taken the shortcut of providing some guidance to the judiciary in terms of minimum sentences

as usual, they have fucked it up by making the sentences apply where they shouldn't, but i am wholeheartedly behind the concept itself

Interesting... Could you provide some examples of sentencing which is lenient in your opinion? The reason why I'm asking is because people who have never been in jail or at least really familiar with the issue tend to consider pretty harsh sentences as lenient. What most people don't realize is that being in jail for any period (even a couple of weeks) is extremely horrible experience (unless you are a career criminal). So when I hear people saying something like 'He got only 3 years - it should be at least 5!', I'm thinking: why don't you ask RCMP to put you in detention for a few days, and then ask yourself if 3 years is long enough or not?

 

[sybian]

I know that when I arm myself with my saddle gun, and have a carrying permit, I'm not breaking the law.
I also know that if I wear my Colt .45 under my jacket, I am breaking the law if I ride onto Crown Land.
I realize this, and I know there will be consequences if I'm stupid enough to ride up to anyone just to say hello, because they could be anyone in authority.
I also know that if I have to defend myself from a animal attacking, and I'm seperated from my long gun, I always have my sidearm on me....And this has happened more than once.
For myself it's a calculated risk, and the possible sequence of events that you never consider.
If I injure myself and have to go into civilization,without returning home....The handgun gets buried in a hole, and retreived at a later date.
I have run across RCMP and guided them into remote areas for different reasons, and some don't have a problem with the shotguns over my front door, or a sidearm under my jacket.
But they realize it's different here, than most other places....The gun laws are very clear, and if I choose to break them, or view them as "grey" areas...I'll take my lumps and let the chips fall were they may. I realize there may be a fine, or jail time as the laws now stand..And I may go to prison..But I'd rather be an alive convict, than a dead Rancher feeding a Grizzly.