I am of the opinion that one of the biggest problems of the Canadian justice system is the lack of minimum sentences for most crimes. We give judges far too much individual power to descide what is a fair sentence. Now that I have said that, the wonderful legal team that advises our government tells us that minimum sentences do not stand a chance of getting past the "Charter of Rights and Freedoms". WTF? According to a government lawyer, (Section 12 of the Charter) "Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment."
So what exactly is the definition of cruel? According to Webster online it is:
1 : disposed to inflict pain or suffering : devoid of humane feelings
2 a : causing or conducive to injury, grief, or pain (a cruel joke) b : unrelieved by leniency
Does a minimum sentence inflict pain? I guess it is a pain to be in prison and not being out free to commit more crime. Suffering? You bet. Having "Billy Bob" come visit you in the shower with his slippery bar of soap would definately come under suffering. Devoid of humane feelings? Most definately. We would not want to hurt the criminals feelings now would we. More bad news. Unrelieved by leniency. This means we "must" be lenient to the criminal element in our society.
Guess there is no point going into the definition of unusual is there.
Now if you really want to be liberal about section 12. We could easily read the "or punishment" seperate from the rest of the wording. So if you really think about it, "punishment" of any kind is against the charter. Time to let everyone out of the prisons, close up the doors, lay off all the gaurds, parole officers and anyone else employed by the prison system.
Seems appropriate that webster would have chosen (a cruel joke) to use as an example for this definition.
Thank you very much PET and all the signatories to the charter. You truely have created a "free" society.
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Minimum Sentences
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
But, when committing a crime against a country, or section thereof, so you not them give up your constitutional rights? Thats they way law should be interpreted. Freedom , for example is a right, but that right is removed when a crime is established. Will they now claim that being in prison is a violation of their right to freedom??
I am having a tough time figuring out why a minimum sentence would be concidered "cruel and unusual treatment or punishment". If that is the case then why is it that several other offences currently in the books have such? Should not then those laws/sentences be challenged in SCOC or simply ammended according to this logic?
AS much as "Injustice can result when the document gets too specific" the reverse can be said to be true as well. A vague document can be interpreted in many ways by many people.
As far as judges taking into account extenuating circumstances, I would agree to a point that this is necessary. Again this could be taken into account in the wording of the law and its sentecing rules.
It does seem to me that judges are handing out much more lenient sentences as the years go by.
I will definately agree that the 3 strike policy is crazy. The severity of the crimes commited should be taken into account. Obviously we don't want habitual criminals roaming our streets but this one goes beyond reason when lesser crimes are concerned.
Dino,
At one time that is how it was. You lost a lot of your "rights" once sentenced for a crime. You did not have the right to vote, to recieve free education, ect... Those days are long gone. The criminal now has more rights than the rest of society with freedom being the only exception. With some of the current sentences being handed down even that could be argued. I still don't get the "Double Credit rule" that they are using for time served while waiting for trial. Is it twice as bad in holding facilities as it is in prison? Where is the logic in this?
So Peter... hypothetically speaking... If a repeat serial rapist was caught after brutally raping 35 young women, after being released from prison for the same crime, you are saying that there should still be no minium sentence?
IMO, after the second time such person does something like that, then they should be put away for life... MINIMUM.
That is what I got off of your post. Am I wrong? If so please tell me.
Post a Comment