Gun sentencing law ruled unconstitutional

[oneh2obabe]

Ontario's highest court has ruled that a three-year mandatory minimum sentence for possessing a loaded prohibited gun is unconstitutional.

The Ontario Appeal Court ruling strikes down a plank of the federal Conservatives' 2008 omnibus bill.

The court found a three-year prison sentence for a first offence of the gun crime is "cruel and unusual punishment."

The court says the ruling has no significant impact on sentences for people engaged in criminal conduct or who pose a danger to others, saying they should continue to receive sentences to emphasize deterrence and denunciation.

The Appeal Court heard six appeals together in February because each involved a constitutional challenge to a mandatory minimum sentence for various firearm offences.

Federal government lawyers had argued in support of the law, raising a spate of gun violence in 2005, which first prompted Ottawa to propose the stiffer penalties.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/minimum-g ... -1.2423693

[maryjane48]

would this make the more than six plants unconstitutional to?

[KL3-Something]

would this make the more than six plants unconstitutional to?

no

[Atomoa]

would this make the more than six plants unconstitutional to?

no

All mandatory minimums are unconstitutional.

[maryjane48]

my postion is for the crimes everyone can agree onand we all know which crimes deserve , And which ones really dont , is the way it should be. the problem is the blanket on everything , it does need to be adjusted , i think anyways

[KL3-Something]

would this make the more than six plants unconstitutional to?

no

All mandatory minimums are unconstitutional.

Wrong. This only applies to mandatory minimums for firearms offences.

If "all mandatory minimums [were] unconstitutional" as you say then the 15 year minimum for second degree murder and the 25 year minimum for first degree murder would also be unconstitutional.

[Atomoa]

Mandatory minimums remove judicial discretion. Why even have a judge? If a person is charged with a MM, they will most likely plead it out even if they are 100% innocent if they have good legal advice. I see why the police love this - they become the judge and jury when they laid a charge. The lawyers just hash out "how much" punishment the accused will accept.

In the US, this nightmare caused their prison populations to explode and puts many people in the system that shouldn't be there, which inturn creates more crime and brings in less tax dollars for society.

I like judges who judge, not read numbers off a sentencing guideline sheet.

[KL3-Something]

Mandatory minimums remove judicial discretion. Why even have a judge? If a person is charged with a MM, they will most likely plead it out even if they are 100% innocent if they have good legal advice. I see why the police love this - they become the judge and jury when they laid a charge. The lawyers just hash out "how much" punishment the accused will accept.

In the US, this nightmare caused their prison populations to explode and puts many people in the system that shouldn't be there, which inturn creates more crime and brings in less tax dollars for society.

I like judges who judge, not read numbers off a sentencing guideline sheet.

In fact, they usually plead out to lesser offences so they don't receive the minimum sentences. Laying (or as is the case in BC, recommending ,a charge) is a long way from a conviction.

But I do find it interesting how in order to make your point about mandatory minimums you need to reference the US.

Back to the point of this thread: This decision does not affect mandatory minimums for other offences. There are about 40 other offences under the Criminal Code (and many more under provincial legislations) that carry with them minimum sentences (impaired driving, other firearms offences, sex offences involving children, driving while prohibited, speeding, driving while prohibited [MVA] and driving without insurance for example). The Supreme Court of Canada has also ruled, in 2000, that a minimum sentence of four years for Criminal Negligence causing Death where a firearm is used WAS constitutional.

Not to mention that this is a case out of a provincial appeals court. While persuasive in other jurisdictions, it is not a binding decision for the entire country. We may see it go to the Supreme Court of Canada, we may not.

Either way, this decision affects mandatory minimum sentencing for one specific offence ONLY.

[Atomoa]

Great, innocent people pleading out to lesser charges.

It's interesting that I use the US as a failed example of what MM's do as Canada is just starting down that same path of failure.

I didn't want to touch the pot topic, but the 21 year old with a college acceptance letter grows 7 plants and "the judge is powerless to use his brain" is a prime example of how taking the "judgement" out of judges circumvents the natural order of things. We have the power to reason for a reason. We are not robots reading off a sheet of paper.

[Gone_Fishin]

I didn't want to touch the pot topic, but the 21 year old with a college acceptance letter grows 7 plants and "the judge is powerless to use his brain" is a prime example of how taking the "judgement" out of judges circumvents the natural order of things. We have the power to reason for a reason. We are not robots reading off a sheet of paper.

He's an idiotic pothead. The conviction should serve as a wakeup call to get his poop in a group and straighten out his life before he wastes the taxpayers' money on a doomed to fail college stint, right before he ends up slinging donuts for the rest of his life.

[Atomoa]

He's an idiotic pothead. The conviction should serve as a wakeup call to get his poop in a group and straighten out his life before he wastes the taxpayers' money on a doomed to fail college stint, right before he ends up slinging donuts for the rest of his life.

...and let me guess - a criminal record, 2 years in jail, housed with rapists and actual violent offenders is going to put him on the "better path"?

The inability to get a student loan will sure help him out. Same goes with a decent job. I'm sure your very willing to help this guy out and hire a convicted felon, given you are so concerned with this hypothetical man's outcome in life. How many felons do you currently employ?

You're going to ruin his life and sentence him to a *certain* life of "slinging donuts" - to save him from - the chance that he might fail at college and end up slinging donuts?

Of course, how many people smoked pot, graduated college and are now making more money than you? I tried to steer away from the classic pot example, but this misguided example clearly illustrates MM's and their outcomes on society.

[Donald G]

The offence involved possession of a LOADED PROHIBITED weapon. Why would an average citizen need a LOADED PROHIBITED weapon? University courses are available in our Pens.