[Newsbot]

Title: Judges defy order to impose Tories' victim-services surcharge
Category: Law & Order
Posted By: DrCaleb
Date: 2013-12-09 08:20:50
Canadian

[saturn_656]

Can't pay the fine? Don't do the crime.

[andyt]

$1:

“Can you imagine being a person who’s got mental illness, who lives under the local underpass, at the hospital or on a park bench, who eats at the soup kitchen, and you’re going to have them pay $100 because they had their day in court?” he asked.

[saturn_656]

andyt andyt:

$1:

“Can you imagine being a person who’s got mental illness, who lives under the local underpass, at the hospital or on a park bench, who eats at the soup kitchen, and you’re going to have them pay $100 because they had their day in court?” he asked.

Have them pay $100 because they've had their day in court? No, how about they pay the $100 because they have been found guilty of an offence. No one has to pay a surcharge just for showing up. The judge was being deliberately obtuse.

[andyt]

I'm not sure it's the judge that's being obtuse.

[DrCaleb]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

andyt andyt:

$1:

“Can you imagine being a person who’s got mental illness, who lives under the local underpass, at the hospital or on a park bench, who eats at the soup kitchen, and you’re going to have them pay $100 because they had their day in court?” he asked.

Have them pay $100 because they've had their day in court? No, how about they pay the $100 because they have been found guilty of an offence. No one has to pay a surcharge just for showing up. The judge was being deliberately obtuse.

Why should committing a crime be taxed?

And they thing I don't get is if the money is for 'victim services', what does that mean? Where does the money go?

[saturn_656]

andyt andyt:

I'm not sure it's the judge that's being obtuse.

No one pays a surcharge for "having their day in court".

No one.

You can have your day in court and walk out without paying a dime, but you usually have to be found not guilty. The guilty, however, sometimes do pay a surcharge and I'm not crying for them Argentina.

[andyt]

Probably just lead to judges enacting no penalty for people they deem too badly off to pay this. OR the creative way they found mentioned in the article.

For many people, this surcharge is appropriate. What's wrong is taking the discretion away from the judges. As they said, they're paid 1/4 million a year and more and more and just supposed to be gavel bangers. Just let Vic Toews program a computer to be the judge, save a fortune and give him something to do in his retirement. Be sure to program in "if you're not with us you're with the pornographers - guilty."

[saturn_656]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Why should committing a crime be taxed?

And they thing I don't get is if the money is for 'victim services', what does that mean? Where does the money go?

You ask "why"? I ask "why not"? We're taxed on damn near everything else. Make offenders fund/help fund services to the victims of crime? I think it's a great idea.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/news-nouv/ ... 32731.html

$1:

The increases to the victim surcharge in this bill are in keeping with the Government's priority of ensuring that offenders are accountable to victims of crime. As the surcharge money is used by the government of the province or territory where the crime occurred to help fund services to victims of crime, raising the victim surcharge amounts will directly benefit victims of crime.

My only issue is that we pay victim surcharges on victimless "crimes". Speed 16 km/h over the limit and get caught? You're paying the surcharge.

[DrCaleb]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Why should committing a crime be taxed?

And they thing I don't get is if the money is for 'victim services', what does that mean? Where does the money go?

You ask "why"? I ask "why not"? We're taxed on damn near everything else.

That doesn't make it right. Just because some injustice has continued does not mean that it must continue. If the government wants to increase services for victims, I'm all for it. But as you say, for someone to be convicted of a victim less crime does not mean they should compensate some imaginary victim.

[saturn_656]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

That doesn't make it right. Just because some injustice has continued does not mean that it must continue. If the government wants to increase services for victims, I'm all for it. But as you say, for someone to be convicted of a victim less crime does not mean they should compensate some imaginary victim.

My only issue with the surcharge is that it is too expansive, it is applied to "victimless crimes" which it shouldn't.

Now those who commit crimes against other people (assault, theft, etc) IMO should be paying the surcharge. I don't care if they're making 9 bucks an hour or 90. You pay!

[DrCaleb]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

That doesn't make it right. Just because some injustice has continued does not mean that it must continue. If the government wants to increase services for victims, I'm all for it. But as you say, for someone to be convicted of a victim less crime does not mean they should compensate some imaginary victim.

My only issue with the surcharge is that it is too expansive, it is applied to "victimless crimes" which it shouldn't.

Now those who commit crimes against other people (assault, theft, etc) IMO should be paying the surcharge. I don't care if they're making 9 bucks an hour or 90. You pay!

I guess we'll just differ on the latter point. I think if you commit a crime and are convicted, the Judge determines what restitution society demands of the accused. I don't think government should make it a tax grab at the same time.

[fifeboy]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Now those who commit crimes against other people (assault, theft, etc) IMO should be paying the surcharge. I don't care if they're making 9 bucks an hour or 90. You pay!

Ahh...If you are convicted of assault, theft, etc you go to jail, therefore unemployed and unable to pay a fine.

And if you are only making 9$/hr, you can't afford your home, let alone food and clothing. Desperate people being produced by this. Society really does not need this.

[bootlegga]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I think if you commit a crime and are convicted, the Judge determines what restitution society demands of the accused. I don't think government should make it a tax grab at the same time.

I'd rep if I could!

[uwish]

While I am not sure I agree with this surcharge, one of the underlying reasons the government is 'forcing' judges to do things is because in the past a vast number (perhaps a majority, at least from everyone I have spoken to about it) of Canadians are tired of our 'revolving door' of the justice system.

Why do we have people on parole who commit more offenses? I think everyone I know was frustrated that these criminals keep getting out. I know here in Calgary, even the Police chief was calling out the justice system saying his officers would arrest drug suspects and within a day they were back on the same street dealing again.

I know I was frustrated with all the cases being reported of convicted fellons killing, robbing, beating and stealing again while out of jail, some already had multiple offenses. While some people may not like the idea of mandatory sentencing (and I too, am not completely convinced) at least there was an attempt to obligate judges to not let serial repeat hard cases out early, or off with light sentencing.

I am not sure these new laws are hitting the mark on where they needed tightening or not but it seems that it's pissing off many in the justice system.

Well...better them pissed off than the general public over another serious crime committed by a repeat offender due to a wimpy sentence.

Maybe it isn't perfect, lets tweak it so it's more palatable, but I understand the direction they wanted to take. I know not every case is the same, but it was getting so ridiculously laughable before that something had to be done.