Inside the Gated Community community *, this qualifies as controversial stuff.
Our legislation will reverse the onus so that people charged with serious gun crimes will have to demonstrate to the courts why they should not stay in custody until their trial.Too many Canadians are victims of criminals who are out on bail.
Just this month, a 23-year-old Toronto man accused of shooting four people – four people – in London, was granted bail.
Rejecting the Crown’s argument that the man was a threat to public safety, the judge, acting under the current law, ordered him to stay home with his mother.
He promptly vanished.
For the rest of us plebes, it simply makes sense. Jacks Newswatch concurs.
The issue was bail hearings and I’m here to tell you now that I have watched as more than my fair share of “neer do wells” have “talked the talk” and “walked the walk” as I took the shackles off them — “many” thanks to a JP that failed to understand that protection of the public comes first. I also escorted them back into court a week later for a bail violation.
Via Newsbeat 1.
We are going to be stuck with this mess of a legal system until there are major changes in the Senate. This will be the sixth piece of legislation regarding getting tough on crime. Five have already been voted down. What do you think the chances of this one making it? Slim, Nil and None.
Some of the Judges should be changed also for letting them out.They actually think they know human nature but they do not as we see so often. The public has no way to get rid of dead beat judges.Now if they were elected ,out the door next time up for election.At the very least that would be better than this party hack getting it,because he's agood old boy.Thats how they unload there not to brights,give them life time jobs.
The LIEberals' Firearms Act already includes plenty of PAPERWORK "reverse onus" clauses, so I have to wonder why it is that they're against it when it comes to an actual violent crime? Could it be that they really don't give a damn about it?
The issue is quite clear. Our Justice system has become a clear enabler to the criminal to continue his or her behavior. Much of that can be hung on the hook of the criminal code. Quite a bit of the blame belongs on the lap of a "left-leaning,restorative justice minded judiciary". I think that the majority of Canadians have been driven to the point that they are quite prepared to have the pendulum swing the other way, more in a direction that protects victims and actually PUNISHES perpetrators.
Canadians are now saying "enough". Our laws must first and foremost "protect" the citizenry. Then it must provide punishment and (here's a new concept for the bleeding hearts) DETERENCE!!!! Those who would contemplate violence and havoc upon other Canadians need to know in no uncertain terms that they will be dealt with harshly. Our system must be such that "they don't want to go there"!!!
The Great Canadian Liberal way,.. reward failure. They Libs were taken by the waco Criminology Professor's "doesn't act as a deterent" argument.
The bleeding heart kleenex-crowd just does not understand the term Moral-Hazard. Da, like, you mean if people can get-away-with-it they will try for more. And more, until we have a big problem ??
The decades and decades of pampering the perpetrators while brushing off the victims, has got to come to an end. It must have been so sickening for the victim's families to watch, over and over again, the clip of the Bernardo and Karlamalka's wedding, in the carriage, smiling. Beyond hurt. The Media should be taken to the alley in cases like this.
Just Society. Just do nothing.
Bail is way too easy in Canada these days.
And another aspect of bail is this: Virtually every criminal I ever met recognized that, in most cases, sentencing for multiple offences will generally be concurrent because our judges are such patsies. Accordingly, they recognized bail for what it was, a "get out of jail free card" for any and all offences committed AFTER they were released on bail. Since they had already been busted on the first, say, B&E, once released, there were virtually no consequences for any further B&E offences. And we wonder why our crime rates are so high.
If repeat offender wants to kill someone or rape someone, then let them..... in jail.
the only consolation I have as a londoner, is the gunman hitailed out of here asap.
on the other hand, I will be paying ms deb matthews (lieberal) constituency office a call regarding my enquiry as to the FACT victims of theft have no rights to information vital to their interests. in a case involving theft of my brand new $500 BBQ right out of my backyard, the local probation office cited the statute governing their function claiming there is no obligation for them to advise me of the probation conditions of the thief; ie, that there was ALREADY a restraining order against him, and the document included his address which I needed to pursue the restitution order in my favour which was, you guessed it, dumped square in my lap to enforce.
Ive got it here somewhere, perhaps someone in the legal profession in ontario can corroborate this.
The solution is obvious. From now on...all violent criminals released on bail will be required to perform yard services for those in the legal community. The criminal minded will not be paid for their efforts, but they will be obligated to sleep on the couch in the Honourable Judges guest room, and perhaps babysit the Judges Grandkids on weekends.
Just this tiny little bit of trust...will turn around this poor miscreants who were no doubt "mad bad" by society.
Think it would work?
I watched the PM, McGuinty & Miller on the annoucement & was impressed.
However as MaryM said we have already seen previous annoucements that went NO WHERE because of the soft on crime. After this announcement the rhetoric started with an 1 activist, lawyer i don't what he was stating that this will infringe on the criminals constitutional rights.
Infinge On the Criminals CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!! What about the VICTIMS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
The example the PM gave of the man on the lamb after getting bail & to stay at home with Mommy.
the only way to accomplish these changes is a majority government that will Get Tough on Crime.
One that will also abolish the Un-Elected Senate so that there bills can get passed.
Get rid of the wimps that are more worried of the rights of the criminal then the RIGHTS OF LAW BIDING CANADIANS.
Actually, if I understand this legislation it doesnt even go that far. If you are charged with a number of gun offences you can still get bail. Bail would be refused if you have been previously convicted of a gun offence. I just hope Harper puts in money into the justice system. Too many people walk because they are held too long. That is also unfair to the innocent that sit in jail for years waiting for trial. We need quicker trials.
Hmmmmm another reverse onus solution....Allan Rock would be so proud his Canadian police state marches on. Although most of us never expect to be charged for a serious "gun crime" it was still comforting that the state would have to prove it's case to a judge over such a serious matter that could instantly incarcerate us while we await a trial ( which could take months or years as they drag their feet because you are on ice)....weakening habeas corpus and state's burden of proof....two absolute civil/legal rights we in the commonwealth have had since the Magna Carta.
Now, before you jump on my back with the typical accusations of being a godless liberal ( even though I am a CPC party organizer) let me show you how this can damage innocent or honest people. It is a bad justice policy to use reverse onus when other legal means are available to hold a dangerous suspect.
Our laws evolve as a matter pf precedent. That means laws evolve as a matter of the judgments made in court and as conventional processes are accepted...in this case reverse onus ( a breech of charter rights) has been established as a legitimate part of the legal process (if it goes unchallenged long enough).
Now, consider that there are many regulatory regimes built upon federal legislating which make federal "crimes" out of paperwork misdemeanor. Once such federal regulatory regime which can "criminalize" an honest person with a minor administrative or paperwork misdemeanor is the current firearms act. ALL charges issued under the regulatory regime are deemed to be a matter of reverse onus...these also can be described as "gun crimes" as the law involves charging civilians with firearms. As a matter of course virtually ALL honest people who have complied with the firearms act dictates for papering themselves and their firearms will be in breech of the law at some point when they find themselves in the period of time between expirery of their license via change of address and the issuance of a new license and registrations ....in this time frame they can be charged with a "gun crime ( having firearms without license and registration) and with reverse onus as part of the process they may find themselves incarcerated having to prove they deserve bail....I can see how this will go...a gun owner charged with a "gun crime" asking for bail and being allowed to go back to a home filled with unregistered unlicensed firearms ( until his new paperwork arrives ...if it ever does once they learn he has been arrested for a "gun crime).
It's past time that real conservatives reject all these flaky breeches and truncations of civil rights which have become the hallmark of the liberal jurocracy....get a spine and protect these rights and don't compromise your principles just because a conservative politician falls into the trap of using Statist liberal approaches to justice.
Reverse onus? Un-Frikkin'-Acceptable Mr. Harper..that is the type of legal solution I would expect the smarmy liberal scumbags that ran the justice department for the last decade.
Reverse onus?? Ooooh, that's BAD!!! You call it "zero tolerance" when you're in favour of it - "Let's show zero tolerance for bail to gun crime perpetrators!" Now that sounds PC!
A man I know, well he's actually a friend, has an alcohol and dope problem. So no drivers licence, unsteady work, COURT ORDER to ABSTAIN from ALCOHOL, the shot.
Why is he my friend? Well he's a hard worker and he's honest.That's better than a Lieberal some would say...
Well he was in court for being drunk (okay) and disorderly(I was not there). My point is after the judge looked at his record, which goes back to 1988 (18 years folks) he got a $300+ fine.
Same as last time..
I think it's time to try jail. The present situation is not working. Judge is "trying to be NICE".
We are not impressed.
among other things, why dont they put one of those parole braclets on the dude? gonna cut it off you say? fine, put 5 or 6 of them on and then see if the gunman can still stay ahead of the wave. cripes, you could put a nice big fat one around their neck. like it or lump it.
The right to be considered innocent until proven guilty is one of the benchmarks of the justice system of a civilized country. I think this is an example of politicians doing what they do best, making new laws. We don't need to do this to accomplish what needs to be done. All we need to do is let the system work the way it is supposed to work. When bail is granted there are conditions attached - like don't get caught selling drugs again, or shooting people or carrying a gun, or being out after dark etc. This is routinely ignored and people who are out on bail get bailed out again after a second offence, and third offence. Courts don't have to be because violation of bail conditions is already grounds to hold someone until trial. Start taking bail conditions seriously and the problem is solved without any new laws. Of course this would require more spending on jails and courts and crown attornies and legal aid etc etc etc. Unless the justice department has these resources changing laws isn't going to help because even with a "reverse onus" law there still wont be anywhere to lock these criminals up.
OK people. Let's not get carried away over the issue of "gun crime" like it is somehow worse than regular crime.
If the perp beats a family to death with an ax, is that somehow better than if he shot them with a 12 ga. pump?
I didn't think so.
What is happening is that we are falling into the trap that lefties have set for us by declairing that gun crime is somehow more evil than regular crime. You don't punish the tool - you punish the criminal. Let's not lose focus.
Reverse onus: sounds like a way for the system to shirk it's duty of proving guilt to some extent. For the accused to argue he deserves to stay out of jail for life (could even be on a charge of simple assault), I forsee aggressive crown attorneys eyeing political opportunities with the increase of successful convictions, thereby eroding the nature of justice. I'm not on the side of criminals who use or carry guns, but it's mostly the disatvantaged and marginalized members of the community who fill the jails. A great portion of these in Ontario jails are immigrants who should not be here in the first place. The tax payer has to dole out coin so this guy can live in the lap of luxury???? Kick them back to their own country...let them have the guns there.