N3WMAN
Well-known member
Correct. Bail is only payable if the accused fails to comply with the terms of their bail.
For those wondering, we don't allow bail bonds in Canada.
|
|
|
this bail thing is just like brbing your way out, but in a nice way!
- Thread starter rashidme
- Start date
For those wondering, we don't allow bail bonds in Canada.
And further, the courts RARELY take bail money when conditions are breached, and even when they do they almost never take the full amount. It drives me nuts.
XXXXX is charged with two counts of impaired driving causing death, one count of impaired driving causing bodily harm and several other offences in the head-on crash, all of which have yet to be proven in a court of law. He is scheduled to return to court
Read more: http://www.cp24.com/news/accused-impaired-driver-in-fatal-crash-granted-bail-1.946582#ixzz25smndIpI
I see two sides of the debate as I know a victim from another crime that will have to wait probably 2 or 3 years to see justice partly done. They are recovering from criminal injuries while the alleged perpetrator is working at full salary and enjoying life. The victim has lost a ton of income and years of the right to the enjoyment of life. They will never recover the lost income or time. The final judgement will leave the perpetrator with relatively little harm by comparison. One can understand (But not condone) the gun and shovel solution.
On the other hand we have HTA 172. Although not a criminal charge the ALLEGED perpetrator gets immediate punishment without benefit of a trial. Suddenly locking someone up and throwing away the keys isn't as clear cut.
What if you saw a wallet fall from someone's pocket and as you were picking it up to return it they turned around, grabbed you and accused you of being a pick pocket. They want you immediately thrown in jail. You were being a good samaritan.
News service A reports a man making a citizens arrest after catching a pick pocket red handed. SOB pick pocket scumbag.
News service B reports a good Samaritan being assaulted after trying to help a person who dropped their wallet. SOB ingrate.
When the evidence presented by the news media seems so compelling it's eay to say just hang the SOB but would you want to be tried by a news service? There is no way that a news service will report all the details, some of which will be very important.
OpenGambit
Banned
a right side and a wrong side.
As in all cases he has been accused, not found guilty. It's interesting how people's opinions change when it's them, whose head is on the chopping block. We are all entitled to due process, even when the outcome may be a slam dunk.
regardless, there seems to be too many problems with the bail system.
here's one case that caught my eye recently:
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/09/07/alleged-kidnapping-victim-describes-capture-near-barrie
oilycreek
Banned
It's better if he's out on bail. If the case takes 2 or 3 yrs to settle, and he's sitting in jail, he gets a 2 for 1 credit. If he does 2 yrs in custody and gets sentenced to 5 yrs, he is credited with 3, then gets out right away for good behaviour,but if he's out on bail and gets 5 yrs he will serve at least 3.3 yrs.
Sent from my A500 using Tapatalk 2
Sent from my A500 using Tapatalk 2
OpenGambit
Banned
Thats not how it works...
But hey you have never let facts get in the way of talking before.
Last edited:
OpenGambit
Banned
the problem being that its a constitutional right? or that the Crown can't get it right 100 % of the time?
There is no universe where its morally right to deny bail as a matter of routine. It fundamentally needs to be a positive obligation on the crown to prove it because it involves punishing people before they are being found guilty.
bail is routinely granted in most criminal cases, or the accused is released by police. You can always find situations where something doesn't work out, but those are a small minority and doesn't take away from the principles that underlie the practice.
Last edited:
Perceived.
OpenGambit
Banned
the suggestion that all perceptions are equal is ridiculous. many views simply should not be given legitimacy because they are devoid of reason and morality and have no place in civilized society.
And if people actually knew what they were talking about this thread wouldn't even exist.
we have people here that think:
bail is somehow a bribe to get out of jail
pre-trial custody ends up with less jail time
2nd degree murder doesn't have intent to kill..
and yes. all of that is wrong, the end.
Last edited:
oilycreek
Banned
That is how it works, unless the law has been changed. I have never heard of such change
Sent from my A500 using Tapatalk 2
Last edited:
OpenGambit
Banned
because it simulates actual timed served if he was sentenced on day one. Herp Derp. Wrong again. Keep trying.
oilycreek
Banned
In found an article that talks about the the government changing the law, and only allowing 2-1 for special cases, but judges have found a way around the law, but reducing the back time served on the back end, so as to equal it to 2-1 pre trial.
The last word, as it often happens, comes from the courts. As part of the endless game of “cat-and-mouse” between the courts and the legislature, judges are already coming up with innovative ways to address the issues raised by this new law. In the recent case of The Queen v. Marvin Johnson, Ontario Court Judge Melvyn Green recently found a way around the ban on 2:1 pre-trial custody by deciding that if he could not give Mr. Johnson credit for the time he had served at the front end of the process, he would simply reduce the amount of time that he would have left to serve on the back end. Case closed.
Sent from my A500 using Tapatalk 2
oilycreek
Banned
Here's a good article on how exactly they are doing it.
Tension between judges and the Harper government ratcheted higher Wednesday, as the courts approved a cornerstone of the federal tough-on-crime agenda only to turn around and map out a route for circumventing it.
An Ontario judge rejected a major challenge to the constitutionality of federal laws slashing enhanced credit for inmates who languish in pretrial custody.
Playing the politics of slogans and fear
Tory attack ads pack a punch that leaves Liberals reeling
Let's build opportunity, not prisons
However, the jurist - Ontario Court Judge Melvyn Green - promptly suggested that judges use their discretion to reduce overall sentences in order to reflect the harsh conditions that abound in provincial remand centres.
Judge Green was critical of the government for legislation based on what he called a groundless fear that defendants drag their heels in order to build up so-called dead time and take advantage of enhanced credit.
"The abuse that attracts much of the government's concern appears more chimeric than real," he said.
What authorities really ought to focus on, he said, is the fact that the unfairness of pretrial custody means that two individuals with identical cases can be punished in markedly different ways. If these discrepancies were widely known, Judge Green said, it "could only contribute to a sense of public outrage or abhorrence; a palpable sensation of unfairness.
"There appears no rational connection between the physical location at which one awaits one's trial and the duration of custody one ultimately serves for the offence," he said. "… Why should accused persons denied bail end up serving longer global periods of incarceration than those released pending their trials?'
While government has a legitimate right to restrict pretrial credit, judges have an equal right to use their wide sentencing discretion to treat defendants leniently if they have been locked up in oppressive conditions awaiting trial in an overcrowded court system, Judge Green said.
"Remand centres are also notoriously overcrowded and unlike prisons lack recreational and athletic programs and afford only very limited access to the outdoors and related facilities," he said. "Remand custody is notoriously 'hard time' and, in light of the paucity of facilities and programs, rightly described as 'dead time.' "
Sentencing judges confront two major inequalities, Judge Green said. The first is that awful conditions prevail in remand centres. The second is that dead time in pretrial custody is not included in a prisoner's earned remission and parole eligibility, should he eventually be convicted.
Prior to the new laws, sentencing judges lumped both inequalities together and subtracted two or more days from a sentence for every day spent in remand.
Judge Green instead split the inequalities of dead time into two separate categories. He said that sentencing judges can first reduce a sentence they intend to impose in order to reflect the harsh conditions of remand custody. Then, he said, they can then apply the law's new 1.5-to-1 credit solely for the purpose of replacing "lost" parole consideration.
A leading sentencing expert, University of Toronto criminologist Anthony Doob, said that Judge Green has executed an extraordinary coup. The Harper government can proudly claim that its legislation was upheld, he said, yet inmates will continue receiving extra credit at a rate that largely mirrors what they were getting in the past.
"It is a clever way of not challenging the legislation, while still challenging the legislation," Prof. Doob said. "It's an interesting way of doing it."
The legislation and subsequent court ruling come in the midst of long-standing friction between members of the judiciary and Stephen Harper's government. There is a widespread belief within his party's ranks that activist judges have used the Charter of Rights as a tool to usurp political powers and rewrite legislation as they choose.
Hostility has repeatedly surfaced over topics ranging from the judicial appointment process to specific judgments involving child pornography, immigration and the rights of the criminally accused.
Official reaction on both sides to this decision, however, was positive. A federal Department of Justice spokesman, Pamela Stephens, said Tuesday: "We are pleased with the decision. Law-abiding Canadian families deserve to have confidence in their justice system. Our government is delivering on our commitment of ensuring that criminals serve the sentence that reflects the severity of their crime."
At the same time, Criminal Lawyers' Association president Paul Burstein, a harsh critic of federal sentencing measures, was equally positive.
"The decision will provide judges across Ontario with some very helpful guidance on why a presumption of enhanced credit remains the appropriate response to pre-sentence custody - and why the harshness of those detention facilities may still serve to mitigate a sentence," he said.
Mr. Burstein said that the judgment makes it crystal clear that under-funding "has created unnecessarily harsh conditions for pre-trial detainees that are much more oppressive than what society imposes upon offenders as part of an actual sentence of imprisonment."
The new federal law mandated one-for-one credit, but permitted judges to raise the credit to 1.5 days for one day in exceptional circumstances.
Judge Green said Tuesday that unfairly depriving remand prisoners of parole constitutes just such an exceptional condition.
When it comes to reducing actual sentences because of harsh conditions in remand centres, providing evidence of these conditions, "may not prove an arduous evidentiary burden."
His ruling came in a test case launched by lawyers for Marvin Johnson, a Toronto man charged with selling $20 worth of cocaine to an undercover police officer on Feb. 26, 2010.
Based on his previous record, Mr. Johnson, 41, was denied bail. He pleaded guilty to cocaine trafficking last May and has been in custody since then awaiting sentence as his lawyers challenged the new federal laws.
Prior to the new law, he could have expected that his sentence would reflect a 2:1 credit for his time in pretrial custody.
Judge Green reduced the 18-month sentence that he would have imposed on Mr. Johnson to 12 months, based on a calculation of a 1.5:1 credit on the 12 months he spent in pre-trial custody. In effect, it means that Mr. Johnson will be released on Friday.
m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/court-upholds-tough-on-crime-law-but-offers-a-way-around-sentencing-rules/article1917595/?service=mobile
Sent from my A500 using Tapatalk 2
Last edited:
OpenGambit
Banned
I said thats not how it works because of your MATH.
2 for 1 pretrial is given because of the amount of time that people ACTUALLY serve before being paroled. Without 2 for 1 credit given for pre trial, pre-trial custody would be more punishment than pro trial custody.
Like I said. its to simulate what would happen if you were given your sentence on day one.
Your incorrect assumption is that somehow people serve different amounts of time based on whether their custody is pre or post trial. That is exactly what the system is designed to prevent.
2 for 1 pretrial is given because of the amount of time that people ACTUALLY serve before being paroled. Without 2 for 1 credit given for pre trial, pre-trial custody would be more punishment than pro trial custody.
Like I said. its to simulate what would happen if you were given your sentence on day one.
Your incorrect assumption is that somehow people serve different amounts of time based on whether their custody is pre or post trial. That is exactly what the system is designed to prevent.
Last edited:
oilycreek
Banned
You're a liar. You never mentioned anything about my math, but nice try.
Before the change someone that did 12 months pre trial would have 24 months credited at sentencing. So if they were to get 3 yrs then they would only have to serve 12 months, take away 4 months for good behaviour, they would serves 8 months Plus 12 pre trial would be 20 months.. Someone that did not serve pre trial would be given 3 yrs, take away good behaviour they would serve 24 months. The 2-1 was because the pre trial was considered hard time.
Sent from my A500 using Tapatalk 2
Last edited:
OpenGambit
Banned
I said thats not how it works without specifying which part. Its not my fault that you didn't get it. You would have gotten it if you actually knew what you were talking about for once. I think its even more amusing that you can quote the article without understanding it.
Last edited:
oilycreek
Banned
Lmafo, so now I am suppose to read your mine. You are just trying to back track as usual.
I fully understand the article.
Sent from my A500 using Tapatalk 2
|
|
|
|
|