I see the new Attorney Genital for BC, Wally Oppall is calling for harsher penalties for property crime. Well, duh? Where was this dickless wonder when he was a judge? How many stiff sentences did he ever hand out? As I recall as an appeal court judge he found more ways to release offenders than punish them. Funny that now he can't really do anything about it cracking down on crime is a better idea than when he was able to actually sentence people. Another hypocrite.
Wally Oppall
- Thread starter Cock Throppled
- Start date
I disagree - the fact is judges are limited by what the statute law says (Criminal Code) and by what previous judges have set as an appropriate sentence. Having said that, criminal law is a Federal responsibility and not Provincial and so BC's AG can only ask the Federal AG to change the law, he can't actually change it.
I disagree with your disagreement. A judge has latitude in sentencing. If a lower court judge gives what seems to be a harsher than ususal sentence it can go to appeal. Oppall was an appeals judge and spent a lot of time reducing sentences when he had the choice (with his cohorts) to uphold or even increase penalties.
If anyone has an interest in understanding sentencing in this province, then this website is probably not a bad place to start.
The previous Chief Judge of the Provincial Court had a website where she answered questions from concerend citizens. Much of it was about sentencing (personally, I believe that the public's fears, whipped up by media disinformation campaigns about our supposedly "slap on the wrist" justice system, was the whole reason why the courts have been forced to respond in new ways like this).
http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/ju...kthechiefjudge/Answerstoaskthechiefjudge.html
This is the one about sentencing in general:
One writer indicated he had contempt for the judicial system in this Province which he believes favours the criminal over the victim. As examples of injustices he refers to a sentence in a particular case which he thought was a "slap on the wrist". He also suggested police are exhausted from "the limitations to [their] job". He suggested there was a link between the country's immigration policies and crime. He wishes to know where he can "lodge [his] concern and contempt".
Other writers have also raised questions concerning the sentencing process and expressing concern that judges are too lenient, or not upholding the law in specific cases.
The following draws upon the responses provided to such questions.
Response:
I acknowledge receipt of your email to "Ask the Chief Judge" in which you have expressed concerns about the justice system. Specifically, you have raised the issues of sentencing, policing, and immigration. You also asked where else you can direct your concerns. I can tell you about the sentencing process undertaken by judges and the laws applicable to that process.
Concerns about government policies and legislation might be directed to the Minister of Justice. Concerns or questions about policing might be directed to the B.C. Solicitor General. Questions regarding immigration may be directed to Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
While I cannot comment on any specific cases, I can provide you with some information about sentencing principles. I would first like to point out that judges are members of society and generally live in the communities in which they preside. Many of them have also been victims of crime along with their neighbours. In this sense it cannot be assumed that judges are somehow removed from the experiences and concerns of our society, nor that they have any inherent motivation that is somehow different from or at odds with those of other members of the community. Judges not only want to see justice done, they are required to impose it and to be governed by the rule of law. They also care passionately about justice and about performing their duties conscientiously, fairly and responsibly.
I will outline some of the principles applicable to sentencing of persons convicted of criminal offences. The Criminal Code of Canada and other criminal legislation provides for maximum sentences ranging from six months to life imprisonment depending upon the nature of the offence. Many charges proceed "summarily," based upon a decision by the Crown (prosecutor), which means the maximum jail sentence would be 6 months, or in some cases, 18 months in jail. Conditional sentence orders of imprisonment, fines, suspended sentences, conditional and absolute discharges are also available sentencing options. On many of these, conditions may be imposed, including community work service, restitution, counseling and other measures designed to achieve the goals of sentencing.
In deciding the appropriate sentence, a Court is governed by the sentencing principles set out in Part XXIII of the Criminal Code, and by applicable case law. Those principles require the judge to consider the circumstances of the offence and the offender, any aggravating or mitigating circumstances, other similar previous cases, and to decide what sentence best achieves the objectives of denunciation, deterrence, protection of the public, rehabilitation, reparation, responsibility, and respect for the law. There is also a provision that jail is a last resort. The balancing of these factors means that a sentence is not dictated by any one of them at the expense of the others. For example, a judge must balance the need to rehabilitate an offender with the need to deter him and others from committing offences where appropriate. In every sentencing decision the Judge has a discretion, but that discretion may only be used within the limits set by Parliament. Parliament makes the law. Judges apply the law with all of the above factors in mind.
The law says maximum sentences must be reserved for among the worst cases and among the worst offenders. If people continue to commit criminal offences, they often receive successively longer jail sentences, within the limits that the law prescribes. The law also provides for indeterminate (indefinite) sentences for certain persons convicted of serious personal injury offences, in certain circumstances. There is also provision for minimum sentencing and long term supervision of long-term offenders. (see Part XXIV of the Criminal Code).
Sentencing is an inexact process, but in our democratic society, we have adopted principles of fairness and balance in the treatment of offenders that may result in sentences less severe than would be the case if the sentence were dictated by only one factor.
It seems a common perception among members of the public that leniency is a sentencing principle, and that sentences in Canada are low compared to other countries. Leniency is not one of the principles outlined in the Criminal Code or case law. The process calls for balance and fairness. BC courts impose jail sentences as frequently as courts in other provinces, and Canada's rate of imprisonment and sentence lengths are similar to those in most other democratic countries. Canada's crime rate is also low compared to other countries, and is, for the most part, falling.
Countries with comparatively high rates of incarceration and longer sentences, like the U.S., do not have correspondingly low crime rates. In fact, countries in Europe with much lower imprisonment rates (per convicted offender) also have much lower crime rates. That suggests that those with higher crime rates and higher relative rates of imprisonment are not achieving crime deterrence. There are many studies and working groups currently looking at earlier and better solutions to the kinds of societal problems that result in higher crime rates. For instance, the Vancouver Street Crime Working Group is currently looking at the issue of repeat offenders who commit property and quality of life crimes in Vancouver. That group's website address is: www.bcjusticereview.org/working_groups/street_crime/street_crime.asp.
However, the issues of sentencing policy, minimum sentences, and overall imprisonment rates are not issues that judges struggle with on a daily basis. By law, judges are to assess the case before them based upon the applicable law and the individual circumstances of the case and the offender, in a way consistent with the treatment of other similar cases. Judges engage in the balancing process described above, and sentences imposed all criminal cases are the result of that balancing process; i.e. the sentence the judge considers will best achieve the many goals listed above within the parameters of the applicable laws. Sentences which in the view of the Crown (who represents the public in the court process) do not adequately address the requisite factors may be appealed. It may interest you to know that very few sentencing cases are appealed, and even fewer are reversed on appeal.
It may also be of some interest that in the United Kingdom, where the law and range of sentences is similar to that in Canada, a public panel assists in an advisory capacity regarding sentencing www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/saphome.htm. That site has examples of focus groups faced with fact patterns of actual cases. These groups tend to guess that the judge sentenced more leniently than actually occurred, and tend themselves to suggest sentences lower than those actually imposed. One could conclude from this that often the public perception of sentencing as "light" does not reflect the reality. One reason for this may be that media accounts of court proceedings cannot fully capture all of the factors that a court must consider in imposing sentence.
If you wish to obtain more information about the justice system, the BC Courts' website contains a Legal Compendium at: Legal Compendium. The portion dealing with sentencing can be found at: www.courts.gov.bc.ca/legal_compendium/Chapter23.asp.
I trust this will be informative, and thank you for your inquiry.
Carol Baird Ellan
Chief Judge
Provincial Court of British Columbia
The previous Chief Judge of the Provincial Court had a website where she answered questions from concerend citizens. Much of it was about sentencing (personally, I believe that the public's fears, whipped up by media disinformation campaigns about our supposedly "slap on the wrist" justice system, was the whole reason why the courts have been forced to respond in new ways like this).
http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/ju...kthechiefjudge/Answerstoaskthechiefjudge.html
This is the one about sentencing in general:
One writer indicated he had contempt for the judicial system in this Province which he believes favours the criminal over the victim. As examples of injustices he refers to a sentence in a particular case which he thought was a "slap on the wrist". He also suggested police are exhausted from "the limitations to [their] job". He suggested there was a link between the country's immigration policies and crime. He wishes to know where he can "lodge [his] concern and contempt".
Other writers have also raised questions concerning the sentencing process and expressing concern that judges are too lenient, or not upholding the law in specific cases.
The following draws upon the responses provided to such questions.
Response:
I acknowledge receipt of your email to "Ask the Chief Judge" in which you have expressed concerns about the justice system. Specifically, you have raised the issues of sentencing, policing, and immigration. You also asked where else you can direct your concerns. I can tell you about the sentencing process undertaken by judges and the laws applicable to that process.
Concerns about government policies and legislation might be directed to the Minister of Justice. Concerns or questions about policing might be directed to the B.C. Solicitor General. Questions regarding immigration may be directed to Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
While I cannot comment on any specific cases, I can provide you with some information about sentencing principles. I would first like to point out that judges are members of society and generally live in the communities in which they preside. Many of them have also been victims of crime along with their neighbours. In this sense it cannot be assumed that judges are somehow removed from the experiences and concerns of our society, nor that they have any inherent motivation that is somehow different from or at odds with those of other members of the community. Judges not only want to see justice done, they are required to impose it and to be governed by the rule of law. They also care passionately about justice and about performing their duties conscientiously, fairly and responsibly.
I will outline some of the principles applicable to sentencing of persons convicted of criminal offences. The Criminal Code of Canada and other criminal legislation provides for maximum sentences ranging from six months to life imprisonment depending upon the nature of the offence. Many charges proceed "summarily," based upon a decision by the Crown (prosecutor), which means the maximum jail sentence would be 6 months, or in some cases, 18 months in jail. Conditional sentence orders of imprisonment, fines, suspended sentences, conditional and absolute discharges are also available sentencing options. On many of these, conditions may be imposed, including community work service, restitution, counseling and other measures designed to achieve the goals of sentencing.
In deciding the appropriate sentence, a Court is governed by the sentencing principles set out in Part XXIII of the Criminal Code, and by applicable case law. Those principles require the judge to consider the circumstances of the offence and the offender, any aggravating or mitigating circumstances, other similar previous cases, and to decide what sentence best achieves the objectives of denunciation, deterrence, protection of the public, rehabilitation, reparation, responsibility, and respect for the law. There is also a provision that jail is a last resort. The balancing of these factors means that a sentence is not dictated by any one of them at the expense of the others. For example, a judge must balance the need to rehabilitate an offender with the need to deter him and others from committing offences where appropriate. In every sentencing decision the Judge has a discretion, but that discretion may only be used within the limits set by Parliament. Parliament makes the law. Judges apply the law with all of the above factors in mind.
The law says maximum sentences must be reserved for among the worst cases and among the worst offenders. If people continue to commit criminal offences, they often receive successively longer jail sentences, within the limits that the law prescribes. The law also provides for indeterminate (indefinite) sentences for certain persons convicted of serious personal injury offences, in certain circumstances. There is also provision for minimum sentencing and long term supervision of long-term offenders. (see Part XXIV of the Criminal Code).
Sentencing is an inexact process, but in our democratic society, we have adopted principles of fairness and balance in the treatment of offenders that may result in sentences less severe than would be the case if the sentence were dictated by only one factor.
It seems a common perception among members of the public that leniency is a sentencing principle, and that sentences in Canada are low compared to other countries. Leniency is not one of the principles outlined in the Criminal Code or case law. The process calls for balance and fairness. BC courts impose jail sentences as frequently as courts in other provinces, and Canada's rate of imprisonment and sentence lengths are similar to those in most other democratic countries. Canada's crime rate is also low compared to other countries, and is, for the most part, falling.
Countries with comparatively high rates of incarceration and longer sentences, like the U.S., do not have correspondingly low crime rates. In fact, countries in Europe with much lower imprisonment rates (per convicted offender) also have much lower crime rates. That suggests that those with higher crime rates and higher relative rates of imprisonment are not achieving crime deterrence. There are many studies and working groups currently looking at earlier and better solutions to the kinds of societal problems that result in higher crime rates. For instance, the Vancouver Street Crime Working Group is currently looking at the issue of repeat offenders who commit property and quality of life crimes in Vancouver. That group's website address is: www.bcjusticereview.org/working_groups/street_crime/street_crime.asp.
However, the issues of sentencing policy, minimum sentences, and overall imprisonment rates are not issues that judges struggle with on a daily basis. By law, judges are to assess the case before them based upon the applicable law and the individual circumstances of the case and the offender, in a way consistent with the treatment of other similar cases. Judges engage in the balancing process described above, and sentences imposed all criminal cases are the result of that balancing process; i.e. the sentence the judge considers will best achieve the many goals listed above within the parameters of the applicable laws. Sentences which in the view of the Crown (who represents the public in the court process) do not adequately address the requisite factors may be appealed. It may interest you to know that very few sentencing cases are appealed, and even fewer are reversed on appeal.
It may also be of some interest that in the United Kingdom, where the law and range of sentences is similar to that in Canada, a public panel assists in an advisory capacity regarding sentencing www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/saphome.htm. That site has examples of focus groups faced with fact patterns of actual cases. These groups tend to guess that the judge sentenced more leniently than actually occurred, and tend themselves to suggest sentences lower than those actually imposed. One could conclude from this that often the public perception of sentencing as "light" does not reflect the reality. One reason for this may be that media accounts of court proceedings cannot fully capture all of the factors that a court must consider in imposing sentence.
If you wish to obtain more information about the justice system, the BC Courts' website contains a Legal Compendium at: Legal Compendium. The portion dealing with sentencing can be found at: www.courts.gov.bc.ca/legal_compendium/Chapter23.asp.
I trust this will be informative, and thank you for your inquiry.
Carol Baird Ellan
Chief Judge
Provincial Court of British Columbia
cock throppeled.. you are wrong.
That is why Wally Oppal decided to leave the bench so he could change many of the laws and make a difference... I think you are just ranting for the sake ..of it.
They are limited and have to follow the law. ..
That is why Wally Oppal decided to leave the bench so he could change many of the laws and make a difference... I think you are just ranting for the sake ..of it.
They are limited and have to follow the law. ..
One surefire method of assessing the effectiveness of our Justice System, and the appropriate'ness of sentencing is to break the Law oneself, and see what the outcome is, rather than stand on the outside and throw rocks at it. If this is too drastic, then read on...
Our Justice System is not perfect, but as a concerned citizen, the following questions beg your attention:
1. "What are you going to do, to improve it?
2. "What part are you willing to play in this process?"
3. "If you think it isn't your problem, then why are you complaining?"
Stand up, and be counted, or please have a seat!
Our Justice System is not perfect, but as a concerned citizen, the following questions beg your attention:
1. "What are you going to do, to improve it?
2. "What part are you willing to play in this process?"
3. "If you think it isn't your problem, then why are you complaining?"
Stand up, and be counted, or please have a seat!
Quotes from above:
"The law says maximum sentences must be reserved for among the worst cases and among the worst offenders. If people continue to commit criminal offences, they often receive successively longer jail sentences, within the limits that the law prescribes. "
Not only is the maximum almost never given, but the minimum has now become the standard. When people are murdered and sentences of 1 or 2 years are given that is not right. Above itm says those who continue to commit criminal offences OFTEN receive longer sentences. Shouldn't that be automatic? That's why we have people with 50 -60 convictions continuing to offend.
"Sentencing is an inexact process, but in our democratic society, we have adopted principles of fairness and balance in the treatment of offenders that may result in sentences less severe than would be the case if the sentence were dictated by only one factor."
Operative word there is MAY receive. Know what one of the mitigating factors is? If the crimes are committed in a "spree" - that is in one over a short period of time - then sentencing is concurrent. In other words, if someone commits horrific crimes, but does it quickly, over say a day or two, then the crimes sunsequent to the first few, don't impact sentencing. Yhose are free crimes. No extra penalty. No justice for those victims. Does that make sense? In case you think I'm making this up, it was answered by the retired supreme court justice on that web site.
"Countries with comparatively high rates of incarceration and longer sentences, like the U.S., do not have correspondingly low crime rates. In fact, countries in Europe with much lower imprisonment rates (per convicted offender) also have much lower crime rates."
Actually that is not true. Recent statistics show "Violent" crime in Canada rising and the equivalent in the US now falling.
"The law says maximum sentences must be reserved for among the worst cases and among the worst offenders. If people continue to commit criminal offences, they often receive successively longer jail sentences, within the limits that the law prescribes. "
Not only is the maximum almost never given, but the minimum has now become the standard. When people are murdered and sentences of 1 or 2 years are given that is not right. Above itm says those who continue to commit criminal offences OFTEN receive longer sentences. Shouldn't that be automatic? That's why we have people with 50 -60 convictions continuing to offend.
"Sentencing is an inexact process, but in our democratic society, we have adopted principles of fairness and balance in the treatment of offenders that may result in sentences less severe than would be the case if the sentence were dictated by only one factor."
Operative word there is MAY receive. Know what one of the mitigating factors is? If the crimes are committed in a "spree" - that is in one over a short period of time - then sentencing is concurrent. In other words, if someone commits horrific crimes, but does it quickly, over say a day or two, then the crimes sunsequent to the first few, don't impact sentencing. Yhose are free crimes. No extra penalty. No justice for those victims. Does that make sense? In case you think I'm making this up, it was answered by the retired supreme court justice on that web site.
"Countries with comparatively high rates of incarceration and longer sentences, like the U.S., do not have correspondingly low crime rates. In fact, countries in Europe with much lower imprisonment rates (per convicted offender) also have much lower crime rates."
Actually that is not true. Recent statistics show "Violent" crime in Canada rising and the equivalent in the US now falling.
