feel free to point out how this person would have been deterred or was somehow not deterred by a judicial decision. The consequence of his action is a life sentence, how the hell does a mandatory minimum change the deterrance factor? it doesn't, and guess what, a large majority of the bar, Crown and Defence, as well as the Bench, agree with this view.
The fact that a judge found that the mandatory minimum is excessive in another case where YOU DON'T KNOW THE FACTs does nothing for your argument. Unless that person became a gangster, you have no point.
I don't need to know the individual facts - the law was clear - be caught in possession of a loaded gun, and face the consequences of doing so. There is no if's, and's, or but's.
The issue is that this judge somehow felt this person "deserved another chance", when by design the 3 year minimum was a summary offense - get caught with a loaded weapon, it's a summary offense. No argument, no liberal hug-a-thug wiggle-room behind it. I don't need to know the facts, to know that handing out a 'get out of jail free' card isn't the correct ruling to make, on the part of the Judge, in ruling it unconstitutional. Nowhere in the Charter of Freedoms and Rights does it state that there is a freedom to bear arms, nor is there a clause that states that "Thou shalt be entitled to a get out of jail free card on first offense", therefore there is no wiggle-room for the defendant to state that his punishment is cruel and unusual. Don't do something that is explicitly illegal, with explicit consequences, and you don't face the explicit punishment.
Cruel and Unusual punishment being a 3 year sentence for possessing a loaded hand-gun, when the consequences of doing so is well known? Give me a break. By extension, you might as well say that being a first time offender and losing your drivers license for a year after driving drunk and being caught, is cruel and unusual punishment to his right to earn a living if he or she can't drive anymore to get to work. Might as well just hand the driver his keys back, and buy him the first round for his troubles, eh? After all, what are the chances that he's going to drive drunk again?
The consequences of breaking a law is meant to not only be a punishment to the offender, but also a deterrent to others. If there is no consequence, or there is a reasonable chance of being thug-hugged as in this case, then the law of the land is toothless.
As i said earlier - it's the Judicial system that is flawed in this province. It's high time to clean house, and remove these tainted judges who coddle these offenders (first time in front of the Courts, or not) in cases like these, at the expense of the law-abiding general public.
I don't know what the heck you mean by "The consequences of his action is a life sentence" .. so i'll not comment on that beyond saying that if you mean that by being simply convicted (with no mandatory minimum) that the offender is now marked for life by the conviction, is punishment enough, is just liberalistic poppy-cock. It's the offenders choice to carry an illegal, unlicenced, loaded firearm - not society's choice.
You might as well have blamed the fact that we don't pray in schools anymore and god could nip gansterism in the bud when they are 4.
I prayed in school (Lord's Prayer) and also sung the National Anthem every morning (In public school, GASP!), and to my knowledge none of my classmates blasted a cap in anyone's ***, or ended up in Warkworth Pen over the years since. There is something to be said in part about the declining morals in Canadian society over the years, since these morning rituals were removed in the interests of multiculturalism and Political Correctness. I'm certainly not religious, but these morning rituals did instill a sense of moral right and wrong, as well as community pride at a young age. Thanks for bringing that up!
I'd certainly be interested to know your stance on this morning's news, that the Ontario Attorney General has renewed calls to ban ALL hand-guns in Ontario..
