As bad as the Conservative government's crime reform agenda is and has been, there is one bright spot that I think should be noted. The Conservatives are planning on altering the criminal code to allow greater discretion for the individual to defend himself or herself against an aggressor.
As things stand now it is deeply ambiguous who would get in more trouble. The person that tried to rob you, or you for punching out the person who tried to rob you. Correcting this, and freeing the individual to defend his or her own self and property is an important positive move.
Showing posts with label law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label law. Show all posts
Mandatory minimums and plea bargains
Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the Conservative's crime bill is the unwillingness to learn from what has happened in the United States. Plenty of evidence regarding the negative consequence of mandatory minimums. Just two days ago the New York Times took a look at how mandatory minimums have influenced plea bargain negotiations.
The justice system should not be set up in a way that discourages people from trying to prove their innocence. It should be about finding the truth not locking up as many people for as long as possible.
Some experts say the process has become coercive in many state and federal jurisdictions, forcing defendants to weigh their options based on the relative risks of facing a judge and jury rather than simple matters of guilt or innocence. In effect, prosecutors are giving defendants more reasons to avoid having their day in court.
“We now have an incredible concentration of power in the hands of prosecutors,” said Richard E. Myers II, a former assistant United States attorney who is now an associate professor of law at the University of North Carolina. He said that so much influence now resides with prosecutors that “in the wrong hands, the criminal justice system can be held hostage.”
The justice system should not be set up in a way that discourages people from trying to prove their innocence. It should be about finding the truth not locking up as many people for as long as possible.
The Conservatives thinks that growing pot is worst than raping a child
Of course my title isn’t true. I am willing to bet that 99.9% of all Conservatives, much like 99.9% of all sane decent human beings, would agree that raping a child is worst than growing pot. So it is incredibly puzzling to me why the Conservative government would want to create a justice system that views pot growers as being worst than child rapists. As Ethan Baron of the Province points out, the proposed sentencing guidelines for pot growers is harsher than for a pedophile:
As I suggested above, I don’t think that Conservatives take rape, especially pedophilia, lightly. But you do have to question why pot growers should be viewed even more harshly. Unlike a pedophile a drug dealer is not performing an act of aggression; a drug dealer does no violate the harm principle.
We can debate if not violating the harm principle is enough to say something should be legal, but surely we can agree that crimes that actively hurt people should be viewed as worst under the law?
Producing six to 200 pot plants nets an automatic six-month sentence, with an extra three months if it's done in a rental or is deemed a public-safety hazard. Growing 201 to 500 plants brings a one-year sentence, or 1½ years if it's in a rental or poses a safety risk.
The omnibus legislation imposes one-year mandatory minimums for sexually assaulting a child, luring a child via the Internet or involving a child in bestiality. All three of these offences carry lighter automatic sentences than those for people running medium-sized grow-ops in rental property or on someone else's land.
A pedophile who gets a child to watch pornography with him, or a pervert exposing himself to kids at a playground, would receive a minimum 90-day sentence, half the term of a man convicted of growing six pot plants in his own home.
The maximum sentence for growing marijuana would double from seven to 14 years, the same maximum applied to someone using a weapon during a child rape, and four years more than for someone sexually assaulting a kid without using a weapon.
As I suggested above, I don’t think that Conservatives take rape, especially pedophilia, lightly. But you do have to question why pot growers should be viewed even more harshly. Unlike a pedophile a drug dealer is not performing an act of aggression; a drug dealer does no violate the harm principle.
We can debate if not violating the harm principle is enough to say something should be legal, but surely we can agree that crimes that actively hurt people should be viewed as worst under the law?
Making sex offender registry public is a bad idea for public safety
The PC Party’s idea of a website of registered sex offenders makes no sense as a public safety proposal. I can understand the concept behind a registration for sex offenders and I can certainly understand restrictions on where someone convicted of specific sex crimes can live, but I don’t understand how a website would do anything for “a law-abiding family’s right to safety.”
No other policy would be as certain to turn a complying registered sex offender into a noncompliant convict running from the law. A sex offender that is known by his/her neighbours is certain to be driven out wherever she/he goes. Eventually any individual is bound to start ignoring the rules and refusing to cooperate with authorities.
Since there are 14,000 registered sex offenders in Ontario, it would be an impossible task to hunt them all down if they all or most decide to become noncompliant. So then you won’t know if your neighbour is a convicted sex offender and neither would the police.
Furthermore vigilantes are not uncommon where this policy has been introduced in the States. I can definitely understand the desire to beat your neighbour to a pulp if you discovered that your neighbour had once sexually assaulted a child (I actually got a little angry just typing the words “sexually assaulted a child). But that natural human emotion is not conducive to public safety and it does great injustice to sex offenders who were convicted of more minor crimes.
If anything it is likely that publishing the names of sex offenders would be bad for public safety.
No other policy would be as certain to turn a complying registered sex offender into a noncompliant convict running from the law. A sex offender that is known by his/her neighbours is certain to be driven out wherever she/he goes. Eventually any individual is bound to start ignoring the rules and refusing to cooperate with authorities.
Since there are 14,000 registered sex offenders in Ontario, it would be an impossible task to hunt them all down if they all or most decide to become noncompliant. So then you won’t know if your neighbour is a convicted sex offender and neither would the police.
Furthermore vigilantes are not uncommon where this policy has been introduced in the States. I can definitely understand the desire to beat your neighbour to a pulp if you discovered that your neighbour had once sexually assaulted a child (I actually got a little angry just typing the words “sexually assaulted a child). But that natural human emotion is not conducive to public safety and it does great injustice to sex offenders who were convicted of more minor crimes.
If anything it is likely that publishing the names of sex offenders would be bad for public safety.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)