[Public_Domain]

[Freakinoldguy]

So apparently you think it's quite alright for judges to push their own agenda's against the wishes of the Government and by extension the wishes of the people?

Why bother having a Government at all then. Whenever we need a law, we can just have some unelected judge write it and we'll all obey. You seem to think I want all judges to become right wing reactionaries but, by the same token left wing reactionary ones are quite acceptable to you.

[Public_Domain]

[desertdude]

Well the law says

$1:

the law that says anyone convicted of drug trafficking, who has already served time, must go to jail for a year.

So this is not technically true

$1:

everyone gets the same sentence regardless of whether they are a life-long deadbeat or a good person going hrough a rough patch.

You've got to be a convicted felon who has done time before for this law to effect you. This fool was dealing in all sorts of shit from meth to coke, 1 year is a joke TBH

andyt andyt:

Legalize drugs, give this guy medical grade dope that he can afford and won't kill him, and you stop his other crimes. Offer him treatment if he ever shows any interest.

And people who believe legalizing hard drugs like crack, meth and heroin will turn everything hunky dory are living in a fools paradise. A lot of criminals are behind bars and lot of crime is done by junkies trying to support their habit. Legal drugs won't change that demographic.

"Dope he can afford" Junkies have no semblance of normal life, when was the last time you saw a junkie working a 9 to 5 with a steady income, maybe at the start, but it goes downhill pretty fast when normal life gets taken over by trying to chase that high.

"Offer him treatment if he ever shows any interest." Once in trouble most will swear they want to get better, they were stupid, they have ruined their lives and of their families, will never do it again and want to go to rehab. As soon as they hit the streets its back to their old ways again.

I have no solution to offer but giving wrist slap sentences or making hard drugs legal isn't one either. I

[BeaverFever]

$1:

The only reason there are mandatory minimum sentences is because these judges failed to pass sentences commiserate to the crimes, plain and simple.

This assertion is based on what, the crime rate that's been falling for 40 consecutive years??

$1:

Too many judges letting too many 'victims' walk away, and completely forgetting
the real victims or the community.

Who is the 'real victim' of this man's drug possession, other than himself?

$1:

Judges trying to make laws should be fired immediately

Strikiing down unconstitutional laws is a fundamental part of the judicial system.

$1:

Like I said. This group of reticent judges who seem to think they're above the law they swore to uphold have brought this upon themselves by subverting the justice system to suit their own political and moral agenda. So, when they get censured or removed from the bench I'll be the first to stand up and applaud and if that makes me a right wing reactionary then so be it.

As above. For example, if Harper passed a law saying anyone guilty of jaywalking shall be boiled in oil, judges are not obligated to impose those sentences, the judiciary has the right and the obligation to strike down laws passed by politicians that fail to meet the standards of the Charter.

[sandorski]

Judges should just send Sentencing decisions to Harper. I mean, seems like he wants to decide it all anyway, maybe getting flooded with paper work will change his mind.

[BeaverFever]

sandorski sandorski:

Judges should just send Sentencing decisions to Harper. I mean, seems like he wants to decide it all anyway, maybe getting flooded with paper work will change his mind.

Harper has already taken research away from scientists and burned their books. Nobody with any affiliation to the federal public service can speak in a public forum without PMO pre-approval......why should judges get off easy just because the Judiciary is a separate branch of government indpendent from the Legislative branch?

None shall exist in Canada but that which is the will of the Harper.

[andyt]

desertdude desertdude:

andyt andyt:

Legalize drugs, give this guy medical grade dope that he can afford and won't kill him, and you stop his other crimes. Offer him treatment if he ever shows any interest.

And people who believe legalizing hard drugs like crack, meth and heroin will turn everything hunky dory are living in a fools paradise. A lot of criminals are behind bars and lot of crime is done by junkies trying to support their habit. Legal drugs won't change that demographic.

"Dope he can afford" Junkies have no semblance of normal life, when was the last time you saw a junkie working a 9 to 5 with a steady income, maybe at the start, but it goes downhill pretty fast when normal life gets taken over by trying to chase that high.

"Offer him treatment if he ever shows any interest." Once in trouble most will swear they want to get better, they were stupid, they have ruined their lives and of their families, will never do it again and want to go to rehab. As soon as they hit the streets its back to their old ways again.

I have no solution to offer but giving wrist slap sentences or making hard drugs legal isn't one either. I

Exactly, a lot of crime is done by junkies trying to come up with the $200 a day or more it takes to support their habit. Give this guy drugs, he won't be doing those crimes. Legal drugs will change that demographic

Saw a report on 60 minutes about heroin being given to addicts in Switzerland. (Swiss won't legalize pot, but do this, weird). Among them were teachers, musicians, etc. Ie people having regular jobs. If you have access to affordable heroin, you can maintain a job if you have it together otherwise (many drug users are mentally ill).

And, the Naomi and Salome trials for the same thing in Vancouver found that people are much more likely to go into treatment if they're already contacting the system to get their drugs. They also do way less crime and cost the health system way less money.

As you say, you have no solution. Why not try this one, since clinical trials actually indicate it will reduce harm to both the addict and society?

[martin14]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

$1:

Judges trying to make laws should be fired immediately

Strikiing down unconstitutional laws is a fundamental part of the judicial system.

No, it's the job of the Supreme Court to discuss the Constitutionality of laws,
not some local buttfuck.

[andyt]

Bullshit. Supreme court makes the final ruling, (if an appeal is made) on decisions handed down by lower court judges, who base it on their interpretation of the constitution.

[stratos]

From what I read in the article the Judge is asking the Supreme Court to look into it and make sure that it is constitutional. He has not imposed a different sentence he is just holding off until the Supreme Court rules on his arguments against it.

[BartSimpson]

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

I have a feeling that the desire to enforce absolutes is not something that is actually "common sense"
as not all people hold that ideological standing.

Then tell me when rape or child molestation are permissible?

[Freakinoldguy]

$1:

This assertion is based on what, the crime rate that's been falling for 40 consecutive years??

The reason that crime rates are falling has nothing to do with sentencing and everything to do with things like this. http://www.troymedia.com/2013/02/24/are ... y-falling/

$1:

Who is the 'real victim' of this man's drug possession, other than himself?

Did you read the article. The poor disadvantaged criminal who just wants to get high has 21 previous convictions including fraud, forgery, theft, weapons convictions and assault, yet you blithely defend him as just some poor drug user with a grade 10 eduction??? He's a career criminal. Not some kid caught with a dime bag.

$1:

Strikiing down unconstitutional laws is a fundamental part of the judicial system

.

$1:

As above. For example, if Harper passed a law saying anyone guilty of jaywalking shall be boiled in oil, judges are not obligated to impose those sentences, the judiciary has the right and the obligation to strike down laws passed by politicians that fail to meet the standards of the Charter.

Since we're using outrageous analogies here's one. Judges are civil servants are they not? So why should they be exempt from following the laws even if they disagree with them. We make Justices of the Peace marry gay couples even if they're opposed to gay marriage don't we? Both positions are based on personal moral beliefs so what's the difference, other than in the Animal Farm like attitude of people who champion one thing and abhor another?

[Freakinoldguy]

stratos stratos:

From what I read in the article the Judge is asking the Supreme Court to look into it and make sure that it is constitutional. He has not imposed a different sentence he is just holding off until the Supreme Court rules on his arguments against it.

His holding off sentencing is just a strawman because he appears to be using double speak to justify his soft on crime stance.

$1:

Galati says the charge and Lloyd's record could support a sentence of 12 to 18 months, well within the range of the federal mandatory minimum sentence. The judge says his problem is with the lack of discretion in applying it to low-level drug dealers like Lloyd, who sell drugs to feed their own addiction

Then give him 18 months and fight your anti minimum sentencing battle with a case that warrants it. These are the same judges who claim each case should be taken on a case by case basis and minimum mandatory sentencing prevents that well, Galati is now trying to subvert that argument by lumping this career criminal in with drug users which just doesn't wash.

$1:

"Many of these persons have prior convictions for drug offences. A one year jail sentence for this [type of] hypothetical offender goes well beyond what is justified by the legitimate penological goals and sentencing principles of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act," the judge wrote.

"It is a sentence which Canadians would find abhorrent or intolerable," Galati says. "Accordingly, I find that the mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment for one year... constitutes cruel and unusual punishment."

If this gentleman was a drug addict without the 21 prior convictions maybe but, he's not and you can't lump him in with his victims just to assuage your own conscience.

[Public_Domain]