[Newsbot]

Title: Supreme Court quashes mandatory sentences for gun crimes
Category: Law & Order
Posted By: DrCaleb
Date: 2015-04-14 07:23:41
Canadian

[uwish]

WTF, people are screaming for harsher sentencing and these scumballs get away with it again?

[andyt]

$1:

The ruling said the mandatory minimum sentence could ensnare people with "little or no moral fault" and who pose "little or no danger to the public." It cited as, an example, a person who inherits a firearm and does not immediately get a license for the weapon.

I agree with what the court said here. I'm not sure tho that the two cases mentioned in the op represent "little or no moral fault."

[DrCaleb]

uwish uwish:

WTF, people are screaming for harsher sentencing and these scumballs get away with it again?

Mandatory minimum sentencing isn't 'harsher' sentencing. It removes the judges discretion when handing out sentences. If it's harsher sentences that are called for, then the laws should be changed to reflect that. There shouldn't be an automatic sentence just because a gun is involved.

It reflects on your signature too!

$1:

"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow."

So to paraphrase your signature; "To require minimum sentences involving guns is to make gun possession a crime for even minor offenses that would not result in jail time otherwise. The non-violent use of guns by the majority would be criminalized because of a few lawless people."

Like in the article:

$1:

The ruling said the mandatory minimum sentence could ensnare people with "little or no moral fault" and who pose "little or no danger to the public." It cited as, an example, a person who inherits a firearm and does not immediately get a license for the weapon.

So, not being licensed would automatically result in prison time, if this law were to stand.

If we want harsher sentences for crime, change those laws! The US found this out with it's "three strikes" laws, that people would get 25 year sentences for shoplifting. Totally inappropriate.

[andyt]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

If we want harsher sentences for crime, change those laws! The US found this out with it's "three strikes" laws, that people would get 25 year sentences for shoplifting. Totally inappropriate.

That's what the feds did, is make the law harsher, and it was struck down. How else, except mandatory minimums could a law be made harsher?

[uwish]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

uwish uwish:

WTF, people are screaming for harsher sentencing and these scumballs get away with it again?

Mandatory minimum sentencing isn't 'harsher' sentencing. It removes the judges discretion when handing out sentences. If it's harsher sentences that are called for, then the laws should be changed to reflect that. There shouldn't be an automatic sentence just because a gun is involved.

It reflects on your signature too!

$1:

"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow."

So to paraphrase your signature; "To require minimum sentences involving guns is to make gun possession a crime for even minor offenses that would not result in jail time otherwise. The non-violent use of guns by the majority would be criminalized because of a few lawless people."

Like in the article:

$1:

The ruling said the mandatory minimum sentence could ensnare people with "little or no moral fault" and who pose "little or no danger to the public." It cited as, an example, a person who inherits a firearm and does not immediately get a license for the weapon.

So, not being licensed would automatically result in prison time, if this law were to stand.

If we want harsher sentences for crime, change those laws! The US found this out with it's "three strikes" laws, that people would get 25 year sentences for shoplifting. Totally inappropriate.

it is already jail time if your license expires and you own firearms. That IS the current law....

[PublicAnimalNo9]

I dunno man, minimum sentencing for non-violent firearms offences(for those permitted to own a firearm) seems a little counter-intuitive when contrasted with Harper's scrapping of the LGR and his claims that rural residents essentially need firearms for protection.

[DrCaleb]

uwish uwish:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

So, not being licensed would automatically result in prison time, if this law were to stand.

If we want harsher sentences for crime, change those laws! The US found this out with it's "three strikes" laws, that people would get 25 year sentences for shoplifting. Totally inappropriate.

it is already jail time if your license expires and you own firearms. That IS the current law....

And this law would mean a Judge has no discretion in giving the person additional time just because a gun was involved - besides the legislated minimums for not registering.

How would that make society safer? The SCoC says it doesn't.

[uwish]

murder is already illegal guess what, it still happens.

[BartSimpson]

What an act of idiocy it is to require licenses for firearms! The only people who comply with such ill-conceived notions are people you don't need to worry about in the first place. The criminals don't give a **** about nonsense like this.

[Freakinoldguy]

Strange. Minimum Mandatory sentences for firearms offences were introduced in 1977 under our favorite Prime Minister, and then amended under the Little Guy from Shawinigan.

Oddly enough the Supreme Court has had no issue with bills when they were Liberal instituted which, leads me to believe this latest ruling has less to do with protecting the public and fair play than another salvo being fired by the Supreme Court of Canada against what they perceive as their biggest competition, the Conservative Government.

$1:

5.2 Mandatory Sentences for Firearm Offences

Over half of the mandatory sentencing provisions in Canada deal with firearms offences. These provisions were first introduced in 1977 and have been amended with the enactment of Bill C-68 in December, 1995. Section 85 of the Criminal Code calls for a one-year minimum penalty for using a firearm during the commission of an offence and a three-year MMS for subsequent convictions. These penalties are to be served consecutively to any other sanction imposed for the primary offence. Bill C-68 introduced ten four-year minimum sentences for serious crimes, such as manslaughter, sexual assault, robbery, and kidnapping (Appendix A).

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj- ... /p5_1.html

So, the Conservatives should get their head out their ass and amend that part of the bill to ensure that innocent gun owners are left the fuck alone especially given the high handed illegal actions of the RCMP in High River. That way it'd take away the SCC's biggest excuse for claiming the bill unconstitutional.

[herbie]

Not the same thing.
Using a firearm got you an extra sentence, but Judges still had discretion.
The rulings are about a Court being a court, not a red light camera.

[Freakinoldguy]

So, you're saying a mandatory minimum sentence isn't a mandatory minimum sentence unless it's instituted by the Conservatives?

Seems to me that the only difference between the Liberal Bill and the Conservative Bill is the amount of time to be served for the offenses.

$1:

The Ontario Court of Appeal struck down the law in 2013, calling it “cruel and unusual punishment,” so the province is appealing.


The Appeal Court struck down both the three-year mandatory minimum for a first offence of possessing a loaded prohibited gun, as well as the five-year sentence for a second offence.


The government is urging the Supreme Court to reverse that ruling, arguing the law does not breach the charter protection against cruel and unusual punishment.


The new sentencing rules were enacted in 2008 as part of a sweeping omnibus bill introduced by the federal Conservatives.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015 ... rimes.html


Okay so let me get this straight. A one year sentence with a sliding punishment scale is just fine but, a 3 year sentence with a graduated punishment scale is cruel and unusual?

Fair enough because, god knows we wouldn't want to inconvenience any gun wielding criminals by actually removing them from society for an extended period of time.

But, with regards to your statement could you please enlighten me as to how minimum mandatory sentences under the Liberals meant "at the judges discretion" where as under the Conservatives they mean hard and fast?

It's like I said before. The bill and it's intent is a improvement on the old one but it's been extremely poorly written and thought out which means that to ever get it passed the Conservatives are going to have to rewrite and resubmit it with much more clarification. Clarification which has to include alot more protection for legal gun owners so instances like High River don't end up meaning prison sentences for innocent people.

[andyt]

Think, man. We have all sorts of mandatory minimums that the court has never had a problem with. The section you quote is about using a fire arm during the commission of an offense - ie it's a separate charge with a separate penalty.

What the judges had a problem with is the provisions just for possessing an illegal firearm. And yes, that the mandatory minimum for that crime was too severe. Make it one year and they probably would have no problem. But the concern is that the law sweeps up people who just forget to register their weapon or some such minor infraction, that a judge would have given a very lenient sentence to, but this law prevents the judge from doing that. He has to treat the gang banger the same as the farmer who didn't make it to the firearms office in time.

Given my bias, I'm not really worried about someone who's otherwise legit getting a stiff sentence for an illegally owned gun. I want stiff sentences for gun crimes. But I can see the judges point. And as you say yourself, all the Reformacons have to do is re-write the law so it meets the judges test. You seem to be arguing out of both sides of your mouth here, where you say the law is poorly written and should be changed, then slam the Harper appointed Supreme court for saying just that.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Strange. Minimum Mandatory sentences for firearms offences were introduced in 1977 under our favorite Prime Minister, and then amended under the Little Guy from Shawinigan.

Oddly enough the Supreme Court has had no issue with bills when they were Liberal instituted which, leads me to believe this latest ruling has less to do with protecting the public and fair play than another salvo being fired by the Supreme Court of Canada against what they perceive as their biggest competition, the Conservative Government.

Not really. According to the criminal law policy section of Justice Canada, there are 66 criminal offences that carry mandatory minimum sentences in Canada, 28 of which were introduced by Conservative govts. Two by the previous PC govt and 26 by Harper.
The problem as you say, is the wording needs some serious clarification when it comes to firearms.