Bill C-10 just passed .... just saying

[FriendlyFoe]

Forum Sponsor

So why the hell are people not up in arms about this? How much longer are we going to allow this current government to change our laws in such a way that non violent people who commit minor crimes are subject to guaranteed minimum penalties? Have we not seen enough of this yet with what they've done to our driving laws, and now we're going to let the federal government pass even crazier laws.

I cant even find complete wording online, just random, scattered vaguely worded sections of the bill. Do we even get to know what these new laws are?

 

[silence]

Get used to new laws and back room bills being passed with this Conservative majority. There seems to be no middle ground anymore in politics just as the middle class has been squeezed to their last dollar. It's good to be tough on crime, though poorly written laws that are open to interpretation that mean the end of your life certainly isn't what we need when people can't even find work.

I am curious though to where all the pro-conservative political activists went that were claiming only good things to come when the conservatives get their majority...

 

[FriendlyFoe]

ill admit i was in favour of any majority govt just so something could actually get accomplished, but this isn't what i had in mind. Minimum mandatory sentencing is not only vile, but its something we cant afford. Besides what logic is there in making hardened criminals out of minor offenders???

heres the literature
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=5124131

Skim through the act and see how many times you find the term "mandatory minimum sentencing". Is this the sort of justice we stand for as canadians???

 

[psycho44]

Harper supports the death penalty what more do you expect? Every criminal will be shaking in their boots by the time Harper leaves office after he's made sentencing much harsher. This will also make some people think twice before engaging in illegal activities. I think he's working on decreasing the amount of money spent on incarcerating criminals. Read something about having incarcerated criminals pay financially for their jail terms but don't know if this is something Harper is looking into.

 

[tat2]

Every criminal will be shaking in their boots by the time Harper leaves office after he's made sentencing much harsher. This will also make some people think twice before engaging in illegal activities. I think he's working on decreasing the amount of money spent on incarcerating criminals.

:laughing3::laughing3::laughing3::laughing3:

 

[FiReSTaRT]

Harper supports the death penalty what more do you expect? Every criminal will be shaking in their boots by the time Harper leaves office after he's made sentencing much harsher. This will also make some people think twice before engaging in illegal activities. I think he's working on decreasing the amount of money spent on incarcerating criminals. Read something about having incarcerated criminals pay financially for their jail terms but don't know if this is something Harper is looking into.

Lol.. Mandatory minimums means more money on incarcerating criminals as they will be spending more time in jail. Not the way I wanted my tax dollars to be spent in a day and age of declining crime rates. Hell, we had a justice system that worked a hell of a lot better than the US - lower crime rates and lower recidivism rates proved it, but we're adopting their failed strategy instead. If you thought that the LGR was a big waste of tax dollars, just wait until we start paying for this little moral panic.

 

[psycho44]

It was somewhere close to $100k/year to incarcerate a criminal. I'm just saying I would be all for mandatory minimum if they somehow stop giving these criminals a luxury suite. Go after their financial assets to pay for the prison term like some countries do. Prisoners will think twice if the government goes after their assets and bank accounts to pay their jail stay. Or just hang them if they're a serial murderer, rapist, cop killer. Save more money that way than incarcerating them for 25 years which works out to a saving of $2.5mil/head.

 

[nobbie48]

ill admit i was in favour of any majority govt just so something could actually get accomplished, but this isn't what i had in mind. Minimum mandatory sentencing is not only vile, but its something we cant afford. Besides what logic is there in making hardened criminals out of minor offenders???

heres the literature
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=5124131

Skim through the act and see how many times you find the term "mandatory minimum sentencing". Is this the sort of justice we stand for as canadians???

I generally agree with you but I didn't think the Liberals would commit mass suicide by running Ignatiaff. The only thing missing was the poison Koolaid.
Look at the swings in party popularity. Not all that long ago it looked like the Tories were extinct. A slo-mo tank slapper.
The problem is that the politicians that we elect will reflect the honesty and ethics of the people that elected them. Most people are totally unable to understand that free things are in reality very expensive. The population in general has been stupified into non-responsibilty and believing that the sky is falling.

 

[optionfa]

So I know someone who has pending assault causing bodily harm charges, does this bill being passed mean he will get the minimum mandatory sentence, which I believe is a few months jail time??

The guy has no record and was originally supposed to get some sort of community service and anger management and drinking counciling.

Don't understand the legal jargon at all.

 

[coyo]

So I know someone who has pending assault causing bodily harm charges, does this bill being passed mean he will get the minimum mandatory sentence, which I believe is a few months jail time??

The guy has no record and was originally supposed to get some sort of community service and anger management and drinking counciling.

Don't understand the legal jargon at all.

Historically changes to the CC and other laws are NOT retro-active. Someone found today to have committed an offense several years ago when the elements of the offense were different (or didn't exist) can't be charged or sentenced under today's law, ie; if "Bob" was alleged to have sex with a 14 year old girl 10 years ago while he was 30 he is NOT guilty of an offense as the legal age of consent changed to 16 just under 4 years ago.

 

[RockerGuy]

I know in some countries, depends on the crime, they are sent to hard labour ie. stone breaking & mining.

The prison benefits by getting free labour to pay for their housing. Prisoners here probably have it much easy. I've heard they have cable & video games

 

[invictus43]

Lol.. Mandatory minimums means more money on incarcerating criminals as they will be spending more time in jail. Not the way I wanted my tax dollars to be spent in a day and age of declining crime rates. Hell, we had a justice system that worked a hell of a lot better than the US - lower crime rates and lower recidivism rates proved it, but we're adopting their failed strategy instead. If you thought that the LGR was a big waste of tax dollars, just wait until we start paying for this little moral panic.

True. I'm not really sure what they're responding too. Is crime really that bad here? And we're going to start following the US system? 30 years of evidence pointing out the fallacy of "more punishment means less crime". I'm sure in 10 years they'll be saying "look how many people are in our jails! Crime has skyrocketed!!" It's fairly sad and a little disappointing.

 

[Kri$han]

ill admit i was in favour of any majority govt just so something could actually get accomplished, but this isn't what i had in mind. Minimum mandatory sentencing is not only vile, but its something we cant afford. Besides what logic is there in making hardened criminals out of minor offenders???

heres the literature
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=5124131

Skim through the act and see how many times you find the term "mandatory minimum sentencing". Is this the sort of justice we stand for as canadians???

See, that's your first mistake: A minority government is amazing because nothing gets accomplished on all the minor/insignificant and controversial issues because every bill is heavily scrutinized; as it should be (what are we paying these ***hats for anyway?

In a minority government, only the major issues (that most people can agree on) get passed, and accomplished.

 

[coyo]

See, that's your first mistake: A minority government is amazing because nothing gets accomplished on all the minor/insignificant and controversial issues because every bill is heavily scrutinized; as it should be (what are we paying these ***hats for anyway?

In a minority government, only the major issues (that most people can agree on) get passed, and accomplished.

Your point is valid and in theory it would be better but the flaw in the system is that too often the opposition in a minority government votes against the government for no reason other than to oppose and discredit the government, it has nothing to do with what's best for the constituents. Where this won't occur is matters that would raise public outrage. A look at the way these fools conduct themselves in the House of Commons says a lot!

 

[invictus43]

Wasn't same-sex marriage passed by a minority government? And re-affirmed by 2 other minority governments?

 

[daught]

See, that's your first mistake: A minority government is amazing because nothing gets accomplished on all the minor/insignificant and controversial issues because every bill is heavily scrutinized; as it should be (what are we paying these ***hats for anyway?

In a minority government, only the major issues (that most people can agree on) get passed, and accomplished.

I never understood why people want a majority government. I want bills to be scrutinized from every angle. I don't want my government to be a bill making machine. Heck I shake my head at most bills. The less they do the better I am.

 

[regder]

Damn, didn't think this would go through. Has anyone ever proved that longer prison sentences have any sort of positive outcome for anyone?

 

[nobbie48]

Damn, didn't think this would go through. Has anyone ever proved that longer prison sentences have any sort of positive outcome for anyone?

The basic problem is that the law makers are not criminals and don't understand the criminal mind. How then can they concieve of ways of altering the criminal behavior?
The laws are to make the hoi polloi think the government is actually doing something.

 

[FiReSTaRT]

I know in some countries, depends on the crime, they are sent to hard labour ie. stone breaking & mining.

The prison benefits by getting free labour to pay for their housing. Prisoners here probably have it much easy. I've heard they have cable & video games

That's slave labor and I see 2 major issues with the system:
1) The government falls in love with the cash flow and starts looking at ways to have more people making money
2) The private sector gets involved and lobbies to get more people to make them money

I'll never agree to slavery.

True. I'm not really sure what they're responding too. Is crime really that bad here? And we're going to start following the US system? 30 years of evidence pointing out the fallacy of "more punishment means less crime". I'm sure in 10 years they'll be saying "look how many people are in our jails! Crime has skyrocketed!!" It's fairly sad and a little disappointing.

They're responding to a moral panic raised by Quebecor and their kin. Our crime rates are at an all-time low. They should be responding to the real issues like the rising gap between the rich and the poor and outsourcing, but that's too much to expect from our elected officials.

Your point is valid and in theory it would be better but the flaw in the system is that too often the opposition in a minority government votes against the government for no reason other than to oppose and discredit the government, it has nothing to do with what's best for the constituents. Where this won't occur is matters that would raise public outrage. A look at the way these fools conduct themselves in the House of Commons says a lot!

A majority government just whips the vote, so whatever Comrade Harper dreams up becomes the law or else.... I like minority governments because 3-5 comrades have their input into whipping MP's instead of just one, so there is a chance that we'll see 2, maybe even 3 :shock: points of view in the debate.

 

[nobbie48]

They're responding to a moral panic raised by Quebecor and their kin. Our crime rates are at an all-time low. They should be responding to the real issues like the rising gap between the rich and the poor and outsourcing, but that's too much to expect from our elected officials.


.

Can you even imagine the looks on peoples faces if the government got tough on corporate or political crime. Do that and all the other pieces fall into place.

Forum Sponsor