CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 29189
PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2020 11:43 am
 


Title: Williams Lake, B.C., moves forward with plan to use GPS tracking on prolific offenders
Category: Law & Order
Posted By: Freakinoldguy
Date: 2020-03-02 10:37:54
Canadian


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14316
PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2020 11:43 am
 


"It raises privacy concerns, it raises unreasonable conditions of bail and concerns with restriction of liberty," she said. "A municipality does not have the power to do that, and they are well outside of the realm of what is within their jurisdiction on this one."


This isn't first time offenders FFS it's prolific criminals who are terrorizing a community. But what's more concerning is this twit actually claims it's a restriction of liberty. Well if our judicial system did it's job these assholes wouldn't have to worry about an ankle bracelet denying them liberty it would be the prison system doing that for them.

Sadly this endeavor will end up in the SCoC and we all know how it'll turn out. Because, in Canada the fact is that protecting the public from proflific criminals has been replaced with criminals rights.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 9669
PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2020 2:23 pm
 


Oooh the town's so damn big they must've got a grant and bought ONE tracking device!
You can ask anyone in the street "where's so and so" and they'll point "over there".


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 12120
PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:26 pm
 


Freakinoldguy wrote:
"It raises privacy concerns, it raises unreasonable conditions of bail and concerns with restriction of liberty," she said. "A municipality does not have the power to do that, and they are well outside of the realm of what is within their jurisdiction on this one."


This isn't first time offenders FFS it's prolific criminals who are terrorizing a community. But what's more concerning is this twit actually claims it's a restriction of liberty. Well if our judicial system did it's job these assholes wouldn't have to worry about an ankle bracelet denying them liberty it would be the prison system doing that for them.

Sadly this endeavor will end up in the SCoC and we all know how it'll turn out. Because, in Canada the fact is that protecting the public from proflific criminals has been replaced with criminals rights.

No kidding. :roll:


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 24215
PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2020 6:00 pm
 


Freakinoldguy wrote:
"It raises privacy concerns, it raises unreasonable conditions of bail and concerns with restriction of liberty," she said. "A municipality does not have the power to do that, and they are well outside of the realm of what is within their jurisdiction on this one."


This isn't first time offenders FFS it's prolific criminals who are terrorizing a community. But what's more concerning is this twit actually claims it's a restriction of liberty. Well if our judicial system did it's job these assholes wouldn't have to worry about an ankle bracelet denying them liberty it would be the prison system doing that for them.

Sadly this endeavor will end up in the SCoC and we all know how it'll turn out. Because, in Canada the fact is that protecting the public from proflific criminals has been replaced with criminals rights.

Quote:
The GPS bracelet will be put on the individual's ankle, and it will track them 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It will only be removed once the individual can convince the Crown, and the community, that they've become a "good, upstanding" citizen

That's the problem there. There is no sentence, and is instead based off a vague platitude that's entirely subjective.

People have ankle bracelets all the time, but they have a set about of time where they have to wear them, not "as long as we deem necessary". It would probably run afoul of section 12 of the Charter if brought before the courts.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 9669
PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2020 7:20 pm
 


Probably?
Quote:
as long as we deem necessary


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14802
PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2020 7:35 pm
 


I don’t have a problem with this sort of option being one tool available as a last resort for the most extreme offenders but it smells like the same kind of flawed thinking behind American-style 3 strikes laws and other harsh mandatory sentencing laws, which were at first pledged to be only for the worst of the worst but then quickly became the norm. It seems they’re being a little coy with who exactly is going to get this treatment. Rules seem a little vague which means it’s ripe for abuse and unfair arbitrary application.

As others have pointed out, an open-ended sentence isn’t going to fly either

Also these points seem valid:


Quote:
"A municipality does not have the power to do that, and they are well outside of the realm of what is within their jurisdiction on this one."

Before taking such drastic measures, Farrell said it's important to have supports in place for repeat offenders for conditions that may lead them to crime, such mental illness, substance use, homelessness and poverty.

"What kind of supports are put in place or available to this individual in the community so that they can be set up for success, rather than recycled through the system over and over and over again?" she said. "There might be underlying causes which is influencing this person to reoffend."


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 9669
PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2020 8:45 pm
 


Basically, it is just a modernized ankle bracelet combined with ass backwards thinking on what they can do with it.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14316
PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2020 10:07 pm
 


Tricks wrote:
Freakinoldguy wrote:
"It raises privacy concerns, it raises unreasonable conditions of bail and concerns with restriction of liberty," she said. "A municipality does not have the power to do that, and they are well outside of the realm of what is within their jurisdiction on this one."


This isn't first time offenders FFS it's prolific criminals who are terrorizing a community. But what's more concerning is this twit actually claims it's a restriction of liberty. Well if our judicial system did it's job these assholes wouldn't have to worry about an ankle bracelet denying them liberty it would be the prison system doing that for them.

Sadly this endeavor will end up in the SCoC and we all know how it'll turn out. Because, in Canada the fact is that protecting the public from proflific criminals has been replaced with criminals rights.

Quote:
The GPS bracelet will be put on the individual's ankle, and it will track them 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It will only be removed once the individual can convince the Crown, and the community, that they've become a "good, upstanding" citizen

That's the problem there. There is no sentence, and is instead based off a vague platitude that's entirely subjective.

People have ankle bracelets all the time, but they have a set about of time where they have to wear them, not "as long as we deem necessary". It would probably run afoul of section 12 of the Charter if brought before the courts.


I would assume that these "prolific offenders" will either be on probation and still committing crimes like the article said or the ankle bracelet will be part of their sentence.

Either way if it slows down the criminal activities I'm in favour of it. But you're right it'll likely be tossed out as either an infringement of their rights or will if they've been found guilty or put on probation be considered cruel and unusual punishment.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14316
PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2020 10:09 pm
 


BeaverFever wrote:
I don’t have a problem with this sort of option being one tool available as a last resort for the most extreme offenders but it smells like the same kind of flawed thinking behind American-style 3 strikes laws and other harsh mandatory sentencing laws, which were at first pledged to be only for the worst of the worst but then quickly became the norm. It seems they’re being a little coy with who exactly is going to get this treatment. Rules seem a little vague which means it’s ripe for abuse and unfair arbitrary application.

As others have pointed out, an open-ended sentence isn’t going to fly either

Also these points seem valid:


Quote:
"A municipality does not have the power to do that, and they are well outside of the realm of what is within their jurisdiction on this one."

Before taking such drastic measures, Farrell said it's important to have supports in place for repeat offenders for conditions that may lead them to crime, such mental illness, substance use, homelessness and poverty.

"What kind of supports are put in place or available to this individual in the community so that they can be set up for success, rather than recycled through the system over and over and over again?" she said. "There might be underlying causes which is influencing this person to reoffend."


I was wondering the same thing. The Municipality has no authority over what the courts do so this seems a little bit out of their jurisdiction. But if they can convince a judge that this is the best option for crime deterrence then he might just agree and make this part of the punishment or condition for bail.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 24215
PostPosted: Tue Mar 03, 2020 8:12 am
 


Freakinoldguy wrote:
Tricks wrote:
Freakinoldguy wrote:
"It raises privacy concerns, it raises unreasonable conditions of bail and concerns with restriction of liberty," she said. "A municipality does not have the power to do that, and they are well outside of the realm of what is within their jurisdiction on this one."


This isn't first time offenders FFS it's prolific criminals who are terrorizing a community. But what's more concerning is this twit actually claims it's a restriction of liberty. Well if our judicial system did it's job these assholes wouldn't have to worry about an ankle bracelet denying them liberty it would be the prison system doing that for them.

Sadly this endeavor will end up in the SCoC and we all know how it'll turn out. Because, in Canada the fact is that protecting the public from proflific criminals has been replaced with criminals rights.

Quote:
The GPS bracelet will be put on the individual's ankle, and it will track them 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It will only be removed once the individual can convince the Crown, and the community, that they've become a "good, upstanding" citizen

That's the problem there. There is no sentence, and is instead based off a vague platitude that's entirely subjective.

People have ankle bracelets all the time, but they have a set about of time where they have to wear them, not "as long as we deem necessary". It would probably run afoul of section 12 of the Charter if brought before the courts.


I would assume that these "prolific offenders" will either be on probation and still committing crimes like the article said or the ankle bracelet will be part of their sentence.

Either way if it slows down the criminal activities I'm in favour of it. But you're right it'll likely be tossed out as either an infringement of their rights or will if they've been found guilty or put on probation be considered cruel and unusual punishment.

I don't think it's a bad thing, but it needs an end date. Sentencing normally is X years/months. Not "when we deem you not a shit person"


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests



cron
 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.