Supreme Court idiots strike down min sentencing for gun crimes

[RUPERTKBD]

Let me preface this by stating that I loathe guns. Anyone who's ever seen me argue with the resident CDC gun "enthusiasts" will know this.

However, I dislike any sort of mandatory minimum sentencing. That's the same slippery slope that the US has gone down. Let the courts determine sentencing on a case by case basis, weighing all the evidence rather than referring to some "chart" that tells them what sort of punishment is warranted.

[Lancaster]

Wasn't there a case of some Korean War vet who is like around 90 and living in assisted care, who had a pistol as a souvenir. Somehow the staffs working there discovered it (weird considering what reason they have going through his stuff in the first place), and reported it to the cops. According to the letter of the law, he should be sent away behind bars for 3 years.... nobody in their right state of mind would consider that to be the correct choice of action.

I'm all for throwing the books at criminals and those willing to use a firearm to provoke, threaten and commit a crime with, but throwing people in jail due to an Authorization To Transport license lapsing, or moving without filing the proper paperwork with Canada Firearms or maybe just lending a gun to a friend at a gun range to shoot, etc. Those actions shouldn't involve jail time, large fines or even a criminal record.

The minimal sentencing law affects those who wants to follow the rules and maybe slipped up more than just random scum with a gun.

[Webster6]

Talk to me after your neighbourhood has a drive by and someone gets shot, or worse, an innocent get the bullet.

Some a hole shot up my house few years back and the bullet was 10 feet away from my daughter's window. I would want that guy to pay and not have some liberal idiotic judge slap him on the wrist.

Do you live in Compton?

[McBackup]

Do you live in Compton?

Probably Surrey.

[grandmaster]

Probably Surrey.

I do now. Lol.

House got shot in New West. We were on a busy road. Neighbour's window got shot out same night. I would love to get my hands on whoever did that.

Don't think a neighbourhood is immune. Lots of gangsters live in places you would never think.

[Webster6]

Probably Surrey.

[iLLmAtlc]

tell us how you really feel TC

[Bocivus]

Each gun crime has it's own set of unique actions and stamping a mandatory sentence for every one of them that differ in severity, circumstance, intent etc makes no sense. I'm all for harsh punishment for violent offenders with intent to murder someone but some of the "crimes" don't need a mandatory harsh sentence. Like the Pennsylvania resident who crossed into New Jersey who had a legal conceal carry permit for the state of Pennsylvania and was stopped by the police. She admitted to the officer that she had it and that she forgot that she couldn't have it once she crossed the state line. The officer locked her up and she was charged with a pretty heavy felonious crime. It was probably an honest mistake and the NJ government tried to really make an example out of her. Lucky for her, Gov. Christie saw it for what it was and pardoned her.

[vavoom]

This is a good thing, last thing we need is an american style jail everybody mentality. Either you did something that warrants jail time or you didn't. By having minimum sentences, you just run into situations where people that shouldn't be imprisoned are put into prison. Nobody is saying that gun crimes shouldn't be punished, but as in everything in life, discretion is necessary.

[thedestroyerofworlds]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mandatory-sentences-staying-in-crime-bill-nicholson-says-1.1143651

Mandatory sentences staying in crime bill, Nicholson says

U.S. group warns against 'costly failures' of minimum sentences for minor drug crimes

The Canadian Press Posted: Feb 22, 2012 9:06 AM ET Last Updated: Feb 22, 2012 6:49 PM ET

Federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson is standing by mandatory minimum sentencing legislation, despite a new warning that such laws don't work.

Nicholson said the law, which includes mandatory minimum sentences for drug offences, is "very targeted."

"We develop our criminal law legislation looking at the experiences from around the world, from Britain and other countries," Nicholson said at a news conference Wednesday in Regina.

"But again, ours is a Canadian solution to Canadian issues and we make no apology for that."

The comments came after an attorney who helped U.S. politicians write mandatory minimum sentencing laws during the 1980s issued a warning for Canadian parliamentarians.

Eric E. Sterling, who once served as counsel to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, said imposing long jail terms for minor drug offences has been a mistake in the U.S. and won't work in Canada.

"When you start going down this road of building more prisons and sending people away for long periods of time, and you convince yourself that this is going to deter people, you've made a colossal mistake," said Sterling, who is now the president of the Maryland-based Criminal Justice Policy Foundation.

"We have learned the hard way that long sentences are not deterring people from selling drugs when the profits are so great."

Sterling is one of 28 current and former law enforcement officials in the U.S. who have written to Canadian senators, as well as Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the premiers. They take issue with Bill C-10, known as the Safe Streets and Communities Act, which includes mandatory minimum sentences for drug offences and is currently being studied in the Senate.

The letter, written by the organization called Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, is the latest salvo in the dispute over Bill C-10, as well as the debate over the legalization of marijuana.

Earlier this month, four former B.C. attorneys general made a similar argument, saying marijuana prohibition is fuelling gang wars and clogging the courts.

This week, Shawn Atleo, national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, criticized the bill, telling a Senate committee that intervention and rehabilitation, not incarceration, is the right approach for aboriginal peoples.

Despite the ongoing and continued pressure, the Conservative government said it has no intention of decriminalizing or legalizing marijuana.

'Costly failures'

In their letter, the law enforcement officials argue that mandatory minimum sentences have been "costly failures" in the U.S. and have led to greater organized crime and gang violence, corruption and social decay.

"These policies have bankrupted state budgets as limited tax dollars pay to imprison non-violent drug offenders at record rates instead of programs that can actually improve community safety," the organization writes.

In fact, Sterling said when the U.S. wrote its mandatory minimum laws in 1986, about 36,000 people were locked up in federal prisons. He said that number has now jumped to about 200,000.

"Probably we have on the order of half a million Americans behind bars on drug charges nationwide," he said, after taking into account those who are serving time in state prisons, too.

If it costs $25,000 to incarcerate an individual in a U.S. prison annually, then the country is spending billions of dollars locking up people for drug offences, added Sterling.

The organization calls on Canadian politicians to endorse the taxation and regulation of marijuana.

After all, it says the U.S. is becoming more progressive with its pot laws, noting 16 states and the District of Columbia have enacted medical marijuana laws and 14 states have taken steps to decriminalize possession.

"We changed our minds and we encourage you to do the same," the group writes.

"Taxation and regulation of marijuana have the potential to dramatically improve community safety, raise tax revenue for cash-starved governments and allow precious law enforcement resources to be directed towards criminal activities where law enforcement actually reduced crime."

The 28 signatories include former and current police chiefs, border, customs and immigration agents, judges, prosecutors, correctional officials, law enforcement officers, and legislative counsel.

Nicholson said Wednesday that he hasn't read the letter, but insisted the government will move forward.

"Over the years there has been introduced mandatory penalties by different governments. I think there's about 40 of them in the criminal code, so they're nothing new to this government," he said.

"But I believe they send out the right message to individuals that if you start bringing, for instance, drugs into this country, if you're into the business of trafficking, there will be a price to pay and you'll be going to jail."

This is a little bit unrelated to the discussion of mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes, but it correlates nicely. You have US officials telling the Herr Harper government that mandatory minimum sentences are a mistake, yet they still go along with it. Increased sentences will not deter those that want to do crime.

Gun nuts say the registration of guns won't stop criminals from getting/using guns. Yet they then say that tough punishments will deter criminals from gun crimes. Which one is it? They either give a crap and will follow the law, or they won't. You can't have both.

[Lancaster]

This is a little bit unrelated to the discussion of mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes, but it correlates nicely. You have US officials telling the Herr Harper government that mandatory minimum sentences are a mistake, yet they still go along with it. Increased sentences will not deter those that want to do crime.

Gun nuts say the registration of guns won't stop criminals from getting/using guns. Yet they then say that tough punishments will deter criminals from gun crimes. Which one is it? They either give a crap and will follow the law, or they won't. You can't have both.

It's that those commit paperwork crimes (eg. address changes, improper order of possession, old collections, improperly pinned magazines, etc) are punished the same as some gangster totting high powered automatic weapons with a box of live grenades.

Criminals don't care about the punishments, as they are less likely to be caught than people who do carry a PAL.

An example would be.... buddy and I are going to the range to shoot. He let me borrow his handgun while there. My buddy then leave early due to a family emergency, but I still had his gun. At the end of the day I pack all my guns includes his and even properly lock them all and separate the ammo, etc. I plan to swing back his home to drop off his piece, but along the way a cop pulled me over for whatever the reason (speeding, broken tail light, random license check, etc).... and immediately, as recommended, I mention that I carry a PAL, got the ATT and do have some firearm in my car. The police then decides to check up on them and make sure they're all properly stored. The officer then noticed that I have one firearm that wasn't registered to me. Under the minimum sentencing law, I will be charged and will be spending the next 3 years in prison.... all because my friend left his gun to me and I decided to return it back to him.

Another scenario is.... a violent convicted sex offender is in possession of an AK-47 with 30 round magazines, along with having bodyarmour, 1 grenade and prohibited small handguns that could easily be concealable. He uses guns to violently attack his spouse, threatening to kill her with it too. Eventually, someone leaked to police of the situation and they move in, arrest him and confiscate all his illegal weapons. Minus the assault charges and uttering of threats, his sentencing for his possession of illegal weapons is the minimum 3 years.

Regardless of your stance on firearm, does anyone believe that I, an individual who has tried to obey all the rules and just made a slight slip up that injure/hurt nobody.... should be punished the same as some violent person who has guns illegally and uses it against others and society?

[desiboynux4lifee*******]

15 shootings in the last month in Surrey. What a world we live in,just no justice. This is why you hope the old chirstian philosphy is true ( the court after death eg judgement blah blah) This world just doesn't provide justice, and now with the increase of Surrey jacks this will be a great future for Surrey residents. Thank you!

If I was the law I say bring back the death penalty but then you got the 'moral' people who come out of and say its inhumane lol It will take some innocent people getting killed before they realize what is happening in Surrey will slowly grow into different cities. This will be a massive problem in 10 years mark my words.

[Ghostsof1915]

I have no real issues with our Gun Laws in Canada. After all, if you need a licence to drive a car, and you can kill yourself and others in a car, why not have a licence for firearms. I do find some of the rules make no sense. I would like it if they simply stated any firearm regardless of calibre can hold a maximum of 10 rounds. I would also be ok if the minimum barrel length on a handgun was lowered from 4.2" to 4". Is .2" really that less concealable?

I agree Lancaster that paper work crimes should be not be punished the same way as someone intentionally breaking the laws.

However, it takes 2 seconds to put a trigger lock on your firearms. Perhaps another 30 seconds to unload a firearm, and either put in a container to transport. So to not be able to pack up during a family emergency is a little weak. I'd understand more if say a family member is in a hospital. You packed everything up properly and secured it. But you didn't go directly home you go to the hospital.

After being at the hospital you get pulled over, and a police officer asks why you didn't go straight home with your firearms? Then you explain the why. Even still despite the fact you've done a technical breach (if you were transporting a restricted firearm), I'm pretty sure most police officers would give you a warning, but they would understand given the circumstances.

[Standing_Tall#37]

This should go for all the laws... Get caught with possession of dope? Guess what it's illigeal, 1 month in jail. Get caught doing gang activity, 3- months in jail. Kill someone and found guilty....lethal injection. And Yes the Judges in this country are idiots, but lawyers are just as bad, they never want to resolve things. It's all designed to keep people in court and fighting, making them all big bucks. Although I may be a bit bitter because my ex(even after being found guilty) was only sentenced to conditional probation after trying to stab our children. And guess what? 3 years later she still gets to see them, because the judge is such a chicken$&!# and makes sure her rights are equal to those of moms that actually care about their kids.

[grandmaster]

This should go for all the laws... Get caught with possession of dope? Guess what it's illigeal, 1 month in jail. Get caught doing gang activity, 3- months in jail. Kill someone and found guilty....lethal injection. And Yes the Judges in this country are idiots, but lawyers are just as bad, they never want to resolve things. It's all designed to keep people in court and fighting, making them all big bucks. Although I may be a bit bitter because my ex(even after being found guilty) was only sentenced to conditional probation after trying to stab our children. And guess what? 3 years later she still gets to see them, because the judge is such a chickencrap and makes sure her rights are equal to those of moms that actually care about their kids.

Sorry to hear about your situation.

This damn system is a joke.

There is no justice in this system. It is designed for lawyers and judges to make money and corrupt any righteousness by design.

[vavoom]

 

15 shootings in the last month in Surrey. What a world we live in,just no justice. This is why you hope the old chirstian philosphy is true ( the court after death eg judgement blah blah) This world just doesn't provide justice, and now with the increase of Surrey jacks this will be a great future for Surrey residents. Thank you!

If I was the law I say bring back the death penalty but then you got the 'moral' people who come out of and say its inhumane lol It will take some innocent people getting killed before they realize what is happening in Surrey will slowly grow into different cities. This will be a massive problem in 10 years mark my words.

 

Let's all be glad that you are not the law.

Your statements presuppose that the shooters, if caught, would not get at least the minimum sentence of 3 years.

[TLindenIsGod]

Gun crimes really aren't the place to start looking into our laws when we have high-risk sex offenders being released while the public is told he'll probably commit again... or the criminally not responsible side of things. The Vince Li case is a great example of this.