[andyt]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Brenda Brenda:

bootlegga bootlegga:

I doubt that suddenly criminals are going to flock here and say," I can do whatever I want because I can't be deported back to the hellhole I came from, hahaha!"

Cases like this are far and away the exception, not the rule. Very few immigrants will a face a death penalty if they are deported back to their home country, and in the few rare cases that they do, then we should use discretion and make sure they don't get deported.

Yes, I agree, that is what I am saying. But you do NOT have to do that by sentencing someone to 2 years minus a day while anyone else would get more, you can do that by adding something like "you will not be sent back to Vietnam after you served your 8 year sentence and you will be on probation for x time".

Judges can't do that - they don't control the immigration system.

If he had given him an 8 year sentence, then this guy would have been deported because the bureaucracy at Immigration would have gotten involved.

Of course, the criminal could have then launched a series of appeals and reviews, which would have cost the government a small fortune. Instead, the judge used his discretion and saved you and I a lot of tax dollars and the possibility of An being deported and then executed.

Brenda Brenda:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Life isn't black and white - there are shades of gray - and judges need to be able to use their judgement in sentencing to take that into account.

Which does still not mean they should sentence a murderer to 2 years minus a day only because Canada abolished the death sentence and their country of birth did not.

Sure it does. If the judge doesn't take into account how the immigration system works in conjunction with the justice system, then this guy gets executed.

As I said, Canada has long taken the stand that we will not deport criminals to a nation that will execute them.

Your last sentence argues against everything you said above. He could have received the longer sentence, then immigration could have launched an investigation into the claim he faces a death sentence, contacted Vietnam for assurances he wouldn't be killed, etc.

By your logic, a murderer in Canada also should get two years less a day if he faces execution in his home country. Instead, just as with this guy, we would lock him up, and if he's released, start an investigation whether it's possible to send him home.

Used to be that you were subject to deportation if your conviction had the possibility of a 10 yr sentence, ie even if you yourself got probation. Maybe they changed it.

[Brenda]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Brenda Brenda:

bootlegga bootlegga:

I doubt that suddenly criminals are going to flock here and say," I can do whatever I want because I can't be deported back to the hellhole I came from, hahaha!"

Cases like this are far and away the exception, not the rule. Very few immigrants will a face a death penalty if they are deported back to their home country, and in the few rare cases that they do, then we should use discretion and make sure they don't get deported.

Yes, I agree, that is what I am saying. But you do NOT have to do that by sentencing someone to 2 years minus a day while anyone else would get more, you can do that by adding something like "you will not be sent back to Vietnam after you served your 8 year sentence and you will be on probation for x time".

Judges can't do that - they don't control the immigration system.

So change that. Give them that leniency.

$1:

If he had given him an 8 year sentence, then this guy would have been deported because the bureaucracy at Immigration would have gotten involved.

Change that. This country is based on immigration and immigrants. They commit crimes.

$1:

Of course, the criminal could have then launched a series of appeals and reviews, which would have cost the government a small fortune. Instead, the judge used his discretion and saved you and I a lot of tax dollars and the possibility of An being deported and then executed.

So judges have the power to send someone to prison, but not to tell immigration to NOT send this guy back. Since it does not happen that often, that would be an easy change, no?

$1:

Brenda Brenda:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Life isn't black and white - there are shades of gray - and judges need to be able to use their judgement in sentencing to take that into account.

Which does still not mean they should sentence a murderer to 2 years minus a day only because Canada abolished the death sentence and their country of birth did not.

Sure it does. If the judge doesn't take into account how the immigration system works in conjunction with the justice system, then this guy gets executed.

Change the immigration law in conjunction with the justice system, and give the judges the power to sentence immigrants with the distinction that they will not be sent back to a few countries listed as "unsafe".

$1:

As I said, Canada has long taken the stand that we will not deport criminals to a nation that will execute them.

Which is fine. So how come this guy would be sent back if the sentence was longer than 2 years when Canada "will not deport criminals to a nation that will execute them"? Because that only works when the sentence is under 2 years, or more than life.

[Brenda]

Btw, what Andy said.

[andyt]

Can't really blame the judge tho. He knows that the Reformacons are a bloodthirsty bunch who have no qualms about executing somebody, whether here or in another country. He's just making sure this doesn't happen.

[Brenda]

andyt andyt:

Can't really blame the judge tho. He knows that the Reformacons are a bloodthirsty bunch who have no qualms about executing somebody, whether here or in another country. He's just making sure this doesn't happen.

I understand that. But what I do not understand is that the system apparently does not allow for a judge to make an exception when it comes to adding something to his sentence when it comes to immigration (or more, deportation) while they can tweak the sentencing overall.

If Canada just does not deport people to countries who execute over nothing (like Vietnam, in this guy's case) then he should not have had to make the decision he made, but just give him a sentence everyone should have gotten if they did what this guy did.

So, with my logic, the reasoning of this sentence just does not make any sense to me.

[andyt]

We just don't deport people who face the death penalty. We kept Charles Ng until the US gave assurances, we just had that Chinese billionaire sent back after years of wrangling because the Chinese finally agreed not to kill him (nudge nudge, wink wink) etc.

This judge has no bearing on Immigration. Immigration is a whole separate deal. But we don't sent people to be executed, so the judge didn't need to do this and set a new precedent. "Facing a death penalty back home? Commit the crime of your choice in Canada, and do a short stretch in prison. Act now, while supplies last."

But maybe we're making too much of a fuss. The crown only asked for 3 years, and mostly judges seem to split the difference between what the crown and the defence suggest, so it's not like this guy would have faced a much longer stretch. But, if he was in the federal system, he would have much better access to drug treatment, should he be so inclined.

[Lemmy]

andyt andyt:

We just don't deport people who face the death penalty. We kept Charles Ng until the US gave assurances.

Ng is actually the exception to the rule. He was sentenced to death and is currently on death row. The US likely won't carry out the sentence, but they very well may.

[andyt]

Well in that case maybe the judge had a point. I thought it was ironclad that we don't send people to be executed.

I'm against the death penalty for Canada. But, as far as other countries are concerned, you do crime there, you play by their rules, so I really have no problem sending people there, even Canadian citizens (assuming their crime warrants it).

[bootlegga]

andyt andyt:

Your last sentence argues against everything you said above. He could have received the longer sentence, then immigration could have launched an investigation into the claim he faces a death sentence, contacted Vietnam for assurances he wouldn't be killed, etc.

By your logic, a murderer in Canada also should get two years less a day if he faces execution in his home country. Instead, just as with this guy, we would lock him up, and if he's released, start an investigation whether it's possible to send him home.

Used to be that you were subject to deportation if your conviction had the possibility of a 10 yr sentence, ie even if you yourself got probation. Maybe they changed it.

Not at all - a murderer whose victims were Canadian likely would get a full sentence and then after it was over, probably would get deported - depending on which party wa in power when it ended.

On your other point, perhaps the judge was being proactive and trying to avoid all sorts of wasteful court costs by sentencing him to two yeas less a day...

[andyt]

You're not understanding me. A person who is wanted for execution in another country, who also commits murder here, what would you suggest the judge do in that case? I'm sure he would be sentenced to a long prison term here, then on his release, his deportation case would be adjudicated, and he would be found ineligible for deportation.

[Lemmy]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Not at all - a murderer whose victims were Canadian likely would get a full sentence and then after it was over, probably would get deported - depending on which party wa in power when it ended.

Except that most murderers don't get out, ever.

bootlegga bootlegga:

On your other point, perhaps the judge was being proactive and trying to avoid all sorts of wasteful court costs by sentencing him to two yeas less a day...

Exactly. In the case of murder, there's a minimum sentence (life), so the judge would be constrained by that minimum. The new Torrie omnibus crime bill, with its minimum sentences for narcotics offences, will take away this judge's leeway when it comes into full effect. So this guy seems to have gotten very lucky to have been sentenced now rather than a year from now.

[martin14]

Lemmy Lemmy:

The new Torrie omnibus crime bill, with its minimum sentences for narcotics offences, will take away this judge's leeway when it comes into full effect. So this guy seems to have gotten very lucky to have been sentenced now rather than a year from now.

Looks like it can't come fast enough.


You would think the possibility of deportation would keep him in line a bit, but I guess not.
Refugees committing crimes should be automatic ticket out.



Guy comes here, abuses our system by multiple cocaine trafficking convictions,

and people are applauding his lenient conviction... again.

Guessing we haven't heard the last of this loser.

[Xort]

Nice to see we will keep this guy around, it sure would be wrong to make someone responsible for their actions. The legal system might implode if they did that.

Maybe the government of Vietnam will hire someone to kill the guy once he gets out of jail. Maybe another immigrant drug dealer.

[Freakinoldguy]

This isn't 1976 and Vietnam isn't reeducating every escaped POW they catch or have returned with the business end of an AK anymore.

This is a country which wants to reintegrate into the society of nations and is planning on creating a tourism boom for itself, so the executing of middle aged males who got drafted by some corrupt South Vietnamese Government Official just for retribution doesn't make much sense.

This whole thing smacks of some bleeding heart in the justice system feeling sorrier for a criminal than his victims so Canada ends up getting stuck with Marvin the Dope dealing ARVN and his paranoid attorney.

[QBall]

andyt andyt:

Either give him the sentence he deserves, and then don't deport him without assurances from Vietnam that he would not be executed, or give him this sentence with a lengthy parole period afterward. If he breaks parole, no second chance, it's buh bye.

I doubt the Vietnamese want this guy back, so I doubt they'll be in a mood to negotiate. How about assurances from the Vietnamese that they'll make it look like an accident?