Criminals have too many rights

[fvkasm2x]

http://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-n ... y-defeated

Sickens me that the bleeding hearts in power voted against this.

Long story short:

When a criminal goes up before a judge, they only talk about the offense in question. They aren't allowed to mention that, say, he's been convicted 19 times previously. Or that this home invader is also suspected in abducting a child, raping and killing them...

The bill would have made it mandatory for a Crown prosecutor to present an accused person’s criminal record and any outstanding charges during a bail hearing.

For those that never hears about the RCMP shot in St Albert a short time back, they went to pick a guy up and he shot them, then killed himself (at least he did that). Before the scumbag was let out of jail:

the judge at Rehn’s bail hearing was not told about Rehn’s lengthy criminal past, and Rehn was granted bail despite having dozens of prior convictions on his record while facing 29 outstanding charges under the Criminal Code.

[maryjane48]

“Overwhelmingly (they) were against the changes being proposed because of the complications it would create by delaying the justice system, which ends up letting more people out of prison and not being tried through the trial system because of the long delays in the process,” said Amarjeet Sohi, Liberal MP for Edmonton-Mill Woods and a cabinet minister.


from your link .


we have seen here in bc criminals walk free because of delays from ovrr crowding . is that what you want more of ? i notice how she took the time to take jabs at our priminster instead of focusing on bail rules for that province . the bail system there failed her not our federal laws .

[What_the]

Succinctly, it's only until one is standing before a judge innocently that these laws make sense. And why they are, that they are.

[Bsuds]

Succinctly, it's only until one is standing before a judge innocently that these laws make sense. And why they are, that they are.

How many of these "Innocent" ones do you think there are that have multiple previous convictions?

I would also suggest that even if they were innocent of that particular offense that there were many that they did do that they weren't caught. Why do we keep letting these multiple offenders off with minimal or no repercussions!

What about the rights of their victims?

[GordonH]

Succinctly, it's only until one is standing before a judge innocently that these laws make sense. And why they are, that they are.

How many of these "Innocent" ones do you think there are that have multiple previous convictions?

I would also suggest that even if they were innocent of that particular offense that there were many that they did do that they weren't caught. Why do we keep letting these multiple offenders off with minimal or no repercussions!

What about the rights of their victims?

Justice system appears to say to hell with the rights of the victims, they are overworked protecting the rights those charged/guilty.
impo it should be reversed, leave the protecting of charge rights up to defence attorneys not the crown.

[maryjane48]

the fed govt said that province can adjust its bail laws so all info can be presented when warranted plus set bails higher for worst offenders

[Smurf]

How about no bail and no time served for idiots like this guy. Our system is failing the victims terribly. The only way they can make a proper decision to protect the public is to have all the information. This lack of basic information probably cost a man his life.

[What_the]

There's a couple of things that always stick out in my mind regarding these thoughts from posters, which aren't wrong at all. It may seem that way that the victims don't have rights but I think one has to consider how our justice system evolved.

In law class in high school one thing always stuck out for me and for which I believe our entire system is predicated-
its better for 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be imprisoned. Today's day and age it may sound novel, but this ideal and concept was born during a time that enlightenment and academia was becoming forefront, the 19th century. History considers the renaissance as the age of enlightenment, however men were not free, always at the whim of lords and the church. As you may recall, either of which could have one strung up, tortured or both.. For ridiculousness of simple beliefs in fairy tales/religion

With the advent of modern society came the notion of individual freedom and that the state must clearly show guilt of a crime and presumption of innocence paramount to a free society.

While touring a castle in Scotland some years back (the tower of London as well at a different time), the prison was part of that. Good gods, standing in these places looking at the implements of torture, thinking what it must have been like to be charged of a crime like blasphemy or heresy, for which really, there is no defence. To end up imprisoned and die for nothing more than a whim of "authority" or the hatred of a small man.

Interesting note. The term "screw" used by inmates referring to guards, came from being made to turn a device that did nothing but turn like a screw, for nothing other than torture

Anyway, I could keep going but, in the 21st century we have men in the highest positions of power still publicly debating the use of torture to get what they want. The only thing stopping them, are laws such as this.

And that is why these laws are the way they are.

Pendulum swung too far the other way? Perhaps, all I know is I never want to be under that pendulum.... a torture device btw

[fvkasm2x]

Succinctly, it's only until one is standing before a judge innocently that these laws make sense. And why they are, that they are.

Someone with dozens of previous charges and someone who is currently charged with 19 offenses at the time is most likely NOT innocent.

In law class in high school one thing always stuck out for me and for which I believe our entire system is predicated-
its better for 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be imprisoned.

That's all well and good, but hardly applicable in the case being discussed, or the point at hand.

If a guy has been found guilty dozens of times previously, he shouldn't even be allowed on the streets at all... so there would be no worry about an innocent party being imprisoned.

[FreeRights]

A trial around a specific crime or incident should obviously be tried without regard to a person's previous crimes. What one has done in the past does nothing to prove whether a person had committed a recent crime.

Bail hearings are based on a person's likelihood of reoffending. A person's criminal history should absolutely be considered in this event. I do understand the opposition to this, as it's clear that a full review of the criminal justice system would be more effective, but I have my doubts that a thorough review will ever actually get done as it hasn't already.

[Smurf]

I agree fvkasm2x. What_the I believe what we are talking about here is 100% different than what you are thinking of. I have also been to a number of castles in the British Isles and Europe and also saw the tower of London and Madame Tussauds has excellent displays but this is a totally different thing. We are talking about a person, people with long lists of convictions and current charges and the judge, jury, parole hearing etc not being allowed to take that into consideration. This is ridiculous because it is definite proof of the person's past and their character in general. Even if they have changed LOL, it should still be reviewed before they are turned loose on the public again.

[bob vernon]

"Bring back the lash!"

Or how about this: if a person is convicted of a crime, all time off for time served and paroled time is re-instated. Because, obviously, correction hasn't occurred. Our prison system is called Corrections Canada. If a criminal has been released and then re-offends, he hasn't been corrected and his previously negated time should be re-instated.

Example: if a person is convicted of holding up a store and is sentenced to three years and is released after one-third of the sentence on mandatory release and then re-offends, two years more hangs in the balance. If he's found guilty and sentenced to 4 years, he owes 2 years on top of that 4 and serves that before (and not concurrently) with the 4. Sounds reasonable. I've seen news stories of crimes being committed by criminals on parole AND mandatory release. They owe time.

[FreeRights]

"Bring back the lash!"

Or how about this: if a person is convicted of a crime, all time off for time served and paroled time is re-instated. Because, obviously, correction hasn't occurred. Our prison system is called Corrections Canada. If a criminal has been released and then re-offends, he hasn't been corrected and his previously negated time should be re-instated.

Example: if a person is convicted of holding up a store and is sentenced to three years and is released after one-third of the sentence on mandatory release and then re-offends, two years more hangs in the balance. If he's found guilty and sentenced to 4 years, he owes 2 years on top of that 4 and serves that before (and not concurrently) with the 4. Sounds reasonable. I've seen news stories of crimes being committed by criminals on parole AND mandatory release. They owe time.

I'd agree with this in principle, but if our prisons are overcrowded now, I can only imagine what they would be like then.

[What_the]

Fair enough, my ideals got in the way of practicality. Mostly, I wanted to point out why things are the way they are. Why it's codified that way.And seems to me, erring on the side of caution. Probably these ideals are the same as American second amendment, where muskets and 600 rounds per minute 21st century arms are the same.

[Smurf]

I am still thinking about the theory that it is better to let 10 guilty go than imprison 1 innocent. I understand it but it still doesn't sit right with me. As an example lets say we release 10 guilty child molesters and 5 of them re-offend. I'm sure it would be much higher in real life. We have a minimum of 5 children molested, even one would be too many and probably ruined to some extent for life. In my mind I would actually sooner see the innocent person in jail even if it was me than those children hurt. The same for rapists, murderers and most major crimes. I just can't see endangering a number of innocent people to keep one innocent person out of prison. In the case we are talking about he is a re-offender even after spending time in prison so we can be pretty well positive what will happen. Are the multiple victims that these 10 guilty people will probably hurt not as important as the innocent man going to prison. Anyone know a woman that has been raped by a repeat offender.

Maybe someone can help me with this.