...in the disturbingly disproportional incarceration rates of males;
37 The next question is the meaning to be attributed to the words "with particular attention to the circumstances of male offenders". The phrase cannot be an instruction for judges to pay "more" attention when sentencing male offenders. It would be unreasonable to assume that Parliament intended sentencing judges to prefer certain categories of offenders over others. Neither can the phrase be merely an instruction to a sentencing judge to consider the circumstances of male offenders just as she or he would consider the circumstances of any other offender. There would be no point in adding a special reference to male offenders if this was the case. Rather, the logical meaning to be derived from the special reference to the circumstances of male offenders, juxtaposed as it is against a general direction to consider "the circumstances" for all offenders, is that sentencing judges should pay particular attention to the circumstances of male offenders because those circumstances are unique, and different from those of non-male offenders. The fact that the reference to male offenders is contained in s. 718.2(e), in particular, dealing with restraint in the use of imprisonment, suggests that there is something different about male offenders which may specifically make imprisonment a less appropriate or less useful sanction.
Text of the original ruling is here. This convoluted bit of reasoning is worth a read, if only to challenge your logic centers.
What seems to been overlooked is that the majority of crimes commited by aboriginal offenders are against other aboriginals. As a result, the majority of aboriginal victims of crime receive "two-tier" justice as well. For example, the battered aboriginal spouse is more likely to see her abuser released back into the community than had the crime occured in a non-aboriginal relationship.
Star Phoenix news brief;
A former chief and two others from a Saskatchewan First Nation have been sentenced to two years of house arrest.The men were convicted of pocketing about $1 million from the treaty land entitlement trust fund of the Saulteaux First Nation.
They also signed cheques for another $1.8 million to friends and relatives in excess of their legitimate wages.
The Crown prosecutor had asked that the men serve three to five years in federal prison on their criminal breach of trust conviction.
Isolated case? Hardly.
Then there is the on-going situation at First Nations University, where apart from the turmoil over faculty and administrative firings, a 32 member board comprised mostly of chiefs and other First Nations representatives will suck over $600K from the budget this year. ($300,000 of that for a forensic audit). Then, there's the $100,000 "management fee" for the Saskatchewan Federation of Indian Nations.
By way comparison, the 12 member board of the U of S in Saskatoon operates at a $87,000 cost.
It is seldom that problems with First Nations crime and poverty are raised without bringing past injustices by the Canadian government to the table. Fair enough, but one would think that this history would lead to a more proactive attitude by both First Nations and the Canadian justice system in preventing and punishing current ones.
These days, the first ones to kick aside the interests of First Nations people on their way to the trough are their own leaders. So long the "wages of crime" amount to a $100K a year salary to sit around the house, that's not likely to change.
Posted by Kate at September 9, 2005 9:23 AM
There is a criminal offense here, compounding the criminal offences referred to in these texts provided by the most severly stuffed of the stuffed shirts of our hoplessly inflated leagal community.
That offense is the outrageous affront to the Canadian public who are expected to accept this convolouted drivel as reasonable clear concise presentation of fact and point.
This lengthy dissertation smokescreen is either an attempt to lend mystical value and weight justifying undue lengths of time wasted in process, or it is simply an inability to clarify an opinion efficiently.
This is a crime because it is terrible waste of time and money and ellicits nothing less than disgust from all those who take time to read through the smoke screen.
The house of legalease in Canada needs not a renovation, but a total demolition and rebuild.
Peeew! What a stink! 73s TG
Yeah lawyers always walk around looking very important with very large black briefcases.
Makes you wonder that the cost of doing business would be much less and that reduction passed on to the consumer but for the lawyers.
Of course they have there place but it would be nice if they could spare us there bullshit and gouging in all that they do.
Posted by: doug at September 9, 2005 12:08 PMInequities? A Reserve is a microcosm of Canada under this corrupt Liberal government. Our 'Chiefs' at the trough have stolen billions from us too--and they don't even get house arrest.
Oh what a shame!! As a percentage of the population, do "Aboriginals' commit more white-collar crime than Canadians of European Descent? Admittedly, the fish rots from the head -- and the venal nature of First Nations’ self-governance and the resultant politics of self-enrichment are travesties no reasonable man can defended.
(Why does it sound like I’m about to defend them?)
And past injustices, far from absolving future improprieties, should only steel that desire to reclaim their formidable legacy; even though -- the sordid two hundred years prior duly noted -- from the 60’s scoop till present day, the Governmental policy-mix has been regrettable, an ambivalence between harsh ward-ship or malign neglect and outright indulgence.
To strike a balance that is faithful and accommodating to the First Nations while, at the same time, being agreeable but not cumbersome on ‘Non-Aboriginal’ Canadians is the test. Though, it’s warming to see that white-collar crime is treated as lightly in the ‘Aboriginal’ tier as it is in the ‘Non-Aboriginal’ tier. But I’m sure you keep an even score.
Posted by: Oppressed and White at September 9, 2005 12:17 PM"Though, it's warming to see that white-collar crime is treated as lightly in the "Aboriginal" tier as it is in the "Non-Aboriginal" tier."
Actually, no. White collar crime in the non-aboriginal population is treated far more harshly. Had these three jokers been white and ripped off an income trust, they'd be in jail today - unless of course, they had been Liberal party organizers and cabinet ministers stealing from government advertising programs.
The only racism here is Kate failing to admit her racist bigoted views!
/channeling MWW.
(I'm joking you guys, really!)
Let's not forget the "hate-based" crimes law passed back in '95-'96 timeframe. If I (a white straight male) am beaten up by John Smith in an unprovoked attack, then John Smith may only receive 3 months in jail, but if John Smith beats up a gay guy or a "visible minority" then John Smith could get sentenced to 1 year in jail simply because he beat up someone more worthy of sympathy than me! Affirmative action in progress!
#2 - Kate, great point about Indian victims receiving less justice than others because the perpetrators were Indian. I hadn't thought of that one. You're dead on!
It looks like Madame Justice has taken off her blindfold and has her finger on one side of the scales!
Right.
Posted by: Oppressed and White at September 9, 2005 12:29 PMI've started the stopwatch to see how long it takes one of MWW's many, many personalities to show up foaming and spitting...
Posted by: Stephen McAllister at September 9, 2005 12:57 PMSet all the fluff about her aboriginal status aside, and look at the facts of the case: this woman chased down and killed her husband, boasting afterward about it ("got you, you fucking bastard") and got a paltry three years sentence. She got day parole in six months and full parole about a year prior to the Supreme Court's hearing (and/or decision - isn't clear) of the case.
If I get the math right, she did 18 months - the Supreme's ruling came out in April 1999 which puts her release at April 1998 assuming the "year prior" refers to the decision date as its starting point. The sentencing was February 1997, the murder September 1995 - she was free on bail during the interim.
That's a travesty no matter who the victim and the perpetrator are.
Posted by: Ian in NS at September 9, 2005 1:10 PMMaybe it's because I am a lawyer, but I understood the convoluted legalese. And the way I read it, especially given the decision - which was to confirm that she was guilty despite this law - was two judges trying to grapple with (a) a law that had no historic or legal precedent so they had to come to a legal understanding of the wording of a law that, I get the sense, they didn't like (even if just from a pure drafting point of view because so much is left for subjective thinking) and (b) regardless of what they thought of the law on principle, they thought that it was misinterpreted by the lower courts and it is actually their job to correct lower court misinterpretations.
And this is a bad law for lots of reasons. The two tier justice system analogy works on three levels: aboriginal criminal vs. non-aboriginal criminal; aboriginal victive vs. non-aboriginal victim; and white collar vs. blue collar (with all due respect to Kate's view, as easy a ride as jail and parole may be for someone who murders, for the few high profile cases that send a lawyer or banker to summer camp they still get the same early parole but also tennis whites to play with while they sip their ice tea knowing no one has touched or hardly touched their "hard earned" money). (It probably also has a fourth two-tier element to it, as I wonder if, a propos of Kate's revision to the excerpt, a male aboriginal would have been treated the same as a female, but don't tell any of my liberal friends I wondered that out loud since it doesn't really count since it is made parenthetically. ;-))
It's also just plain bad drafting. I mean just what the heck does "with particular attention to the circumstances" mean? That's what they are grappling with. And, without saying so directly, they seem to say: 'not much, but this is the law we were given to interpret so interpret we must'.
(And in case anyone is thinking this must violate some Charter right, it doesn't seem like anyone made a constitutional argument so the SCC can't find the law unconstitutional.)
TB
Cerberus
Well they commit over 12 times as many offences as the white sot next door where you live kate.
Now I have 3 children if 2 are being good all day and the third is a terror what idiot parent would say well we have to be nice to the third child that's being a jerk and harder on the other two???
If anything I would be tougher on the one causing trouble. But this is canada there is a law we have to be stupid beyond all reasonable doubt.
Well I submit we have an idiotic government.
'Urban crime rates for Aboriginal people are 4 ½ times higher than the non-Aboriginal rate in Calgary and 12 times the non-Aboriginal rates in Regina and Saskatoon.'
http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/gs/soci_e.html
Don't tell that to anyone or they'll sue your a__ off like Jim Pankiw.
Posted by: DrWright at September 9, 2005 5:18 PMI think that people should read decisions first and comment later;
the sentencing decision on the Saulteaulx case will be posted soon on the Sask Law Society website. The name of the case is R v Gopher, Moccasin & Night, from Court of Queen's Bench.
The judge's comments in his decision were scathing, but not just against the accused: also against the trust company and the culture that led to the offence; you would agree with his comments.
The Court then considered what to do with this guys: they have no money: it was squandered, spent on family and frends, used to buy votes, junkets, etc.... There were little if any financial controls at the Band; checks an balances were inadaquate; the accused has various health problems, family commitments, that they posed no threat to the collective; one had a farm for decades, but lost it becasue he never owned it; the complainants from the band were also Guilty- there was collective Guilt on most of the community;
So what do you do with these Indians? Its tragic all around; I do agree that "the system" is to blame in large part- this community was not born predisposed to crime and poverty....
please read the judgment first- if you disagree, then comment: but i think that al of you critics will grudgingly accept the verdict if you read it.
The Decision finding them Guilty should already be posted- it is very lengthy, but interesting.
I think that people should read decisions first and comment later;
the sentencing decision on the Saulteaulx case will be posted soon on the Sask Law Society website. The name of the case is R v Gopher, Moccasin & Night, from Court of Queen's Bench.
The judge's comments in his decision were scathing, but not just against the accused: also against the trust company and the culture that led to the offence; you would agree with his comments.
The Court then considered what to do with this guys: they have no money: it was squandered, spent on family and frends, used to buy votes, junkets, etc.... There were little if any financial controls at the Band; checks an balances were inadaquate; the accused has various health problems, family commitments, that they posed no threat to the collective; one had a farm for decades, but lost it becasue he never owned it; the complainants from the band were also Guilty- there was collective Guilt on most of the community;
So what do you do with these Indians? Its tragic all around; I do agree that "the system" is to blame in large part- this community was not born predisposed to crime and poverty....
please read the judgment first- if you disagree, then comment: but i think that al of you critics will grudgingly accept the verdict if you read it.
The Decision finding them Guilty should already be posted- it is very lengthy, but interesting.
Gabe Gopher!!!
Gabe Gopher!!!
Let the entire criminal justice system of Canada come Opher!
You do not want to be gopher!
Who was the politician a few years ago that was overheard stating that we should have killed them all when we had the chance? I think he was from Newfoundland. I want him to run for PM.
Meanwhile, at least the punishment for being the waste of skin (and our taxes) that most of them appear to be is, simply being aboriginal. Again, you do not want to be gopher!
Posted by: Duke McGoo at September 10, 2005 11:01 AMOur 'justice' system has no other purpose than a make-work project for LAWYERS! Here in Toronto, MPF Financial Services got a contract to supply computers to City Hall for 43 Million dollars over three years. This contract was re-written to five years for a final price-tag of 102 million dollars. Two subsequent enquiries cost 19.2 million dollars,(employing more than 60 LAWYERS)- and nobody went to jail! Duh!
Posted by: dave at September 10, 2005 12:01 PMDuke, your comments are disgraceful. You're ignorant. You're part of the problem, not the solution.
Posted by: Rumpole at September 10, 2005 6:45 PMDidn't one of the individuals in the Gabe case relate that he only had a Grade 8 Education - and didn't know what he was doing was wrong.
Come on please - are he that stupid to believe that stealing/embezzling isn't wrong.
Posted by: Merle at September 10, 2005 7:07 PMRumpole,
You think what you think because you don't know the difference between a problem and a solution.
like most left-leaners, you like the process not results.
Who do you work for?
"The Court then considered what to do with this guys: they have no money: it was squandered, spent on family and frends, used to buy votes, junkets, etc.... "
I see. Only good money managers should face incarceration. Be sure to blow everything you steal, and you'll be promoted to house arrest. Check.
"There were little if any financial controls at the Band; checks an balances were inadaquate;"
Stealing someone else's property is theft, whether it is held in a bank or laying on their kitchen table.
"the accused has various health problems, family commitments,"
So do honest people. So what?
" that they posed no threat to the collective;"
What? They just squandered hundreds of thousands of the "collectives" money - money that might have gone to helping kids get better schooling, money that might have made it more likely that some in the next generation would make it past Grade 8.
"one had a farm for decades, but lost it becasue he never owned it;"
The two wrong rule applies.
"the complainants from the band were also Guilty- there was collective Guilt on most of the community;"
Bullshit. There is no such thing as "collective" guilt. Individuals make decisions, and individuals should face the consequences, not spread them around to the bystanders and others just minding their own business.
That's what drives me nuts about these judgements. They're concocted and defended in a fairy tale land where nobody is ever responsible for themselves, but everyone is responsible for everyone.
No wonder progress is so slow for First Nations people. Excuses, denial, abdication of responsibility at the highest levels, with a justice system that reinforces and apologizes for itself at every level.
Posted by: Kate at September 10, 2005 10:10 PMMerle, As an observer, [ nosy parker really], I attended supreme court proceeding in Vancouver when stock trading promoters were being tried and charged for illegal practices. It was damn fascinating.
One of the elgant looking promoters in his Florsheims and $1000 suit claimed he only had an eighth grade education.
Your comment rang that bell. The *no education* ploy didn't seem to make any difference that I could detect. 73s TG
Posted by: TonyGuitar at September 10, 2005 10:26 PMFirst of all, bear in mind that the sentence was imposed in a reserve context- a little communist island (surrounded by socialist Sk)
These accused are not "white-collar" at al: they do not know what florsheims are, maybe do not own a tie.
imagine you're a poor Indian on the res - I presume you know the history that got yourself there- then imagine the feds come along and give tens of millions of dollars- to grow the reserve larger- as if that will alleviate the social and economic problems.
5 people were charged- one plead Guilty, one committed suicide within days of being charged, three convicted after trial.
the farm comment- I meant he farmed reserve lands, never owned them.
the easy thing to do would ahve been to send these guys to the pen for a few years- it almost happened.
All I can say is read the judgment- then decide. At least the judge thought about things, researched, and had some understanding before he spoke- he didn't just beak off with assumptions and prejudices. Also, the judge understood the problem; how this happened, why, what role government and a FN financial institution played, and he tried to do something constructive about it.
Once again, please read first, then comment. I agree that there are problems with our justice system (and I include CSC in this). We also have a tragic situation with FN people in W Canada.
A young McCoy from teh Thunderchild First Nation passed away recently in Iraq; he had been a marine, and was working for an American security co- RIP.
Some of the comments in the Gopher Judgment (convicting) and sentencing are very applicable to the current situation in Ottawa- i don't know if that was done consciously.
please read/think first. expert commentary later.
Rumpole said "he didn't just beak off with assumptions and prejudices."
That's exactly what he did.
He assumed that all Indians are victims and lightened his sentence to no penalty based on his world view that Indians are dumb or naive , or inferior or who knows what and therefore not responsible for their own actions, even when caught stealing over a million dollars.
Disclaimer : I don't think that Indians are any different than me or anyone else. Except in the horrible way that our liberal piece of shit guv-ment treats them.