1-year minimum drug sentence 'cruel and unusual': judge despite 21 previous convictions

Yep, giving this poor disadvantaged individual a year in prison because of a mandatory sentencing system is travesty of justice and Stephen Harper's Conservatives are just like Putin and his minions.

(Sarcasm off)

This is just another reason we need to fire every pseudo judge in this country who won't or can't live within the regulations and replace them with people who can pass a commons sense test.

Having an education apparently doesn't mean you have a clue about reality. As a matter of fact the criminal with the "grade 10" education appears to have more smarts than the guy who was sentencing him.

A one year stint in the can is far from cruel and unusual for this career criminal.

Funny that you try to justify a Mandatory sentence by discussing the specifics of the accused...because a Mandatory sentence is exactly the opposite of that!

Point being if its a mandatory minimum, you dont get to sentence the accused based on their specifics, everyone gets the same sentence regardless of whether they are a life-long deadbeat or a good person going hrough a rough patch.

Judges oppose mandatory minimums because justice must not be arbitrary, rather it must be based on the facts of the case and the accused. By pre-determining the sentence that any and all persons must face, the sentence is arbitrary.

Arguing about the sentence is futile. What diff does it make if he gets 2 years or 2 months. When he gets out he'll just do the same thing again and again. 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.

Alternatively, open up rehab centers far from town where a guy like this has to stay for 3 years or more. Problem is, the guards won't want to work there, and they'll smuggle in drugs to increase their income. They can't keep drugs out of prisons now. Same with visitors - having visitors is an important part of rehab, but visitors also bring in drugs. So how to make a place like that drug free? Then, you can't just dump him on the street when he gets out, all clean and with new social skills and job training. So you have to spend a lot more money to keep him on the straight and narrow when he gets out. Nobody wants to pay for this, it would cost at least $100,000 a year for many many years to keep one person off drugs. We'd never swing it (aside from the civil rights concerns) so better to just go with option one.

I wasn't justifying anything. Only saying that I don't see what is "cruel and unusual" about sending this chronic offender to the can for a year.

That's all.

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.

I think you mean they all need to pass a reactionary or conservatism test.

The only reason there are mandatory minimum sentences is because these judges failed to pass sentences commiserate to the crimes, plain and simple. In the real world if you're incapable of doing your job which in this case is protecting society, stopping recidivism, and ensuring rehabilitation, then your boss will have to directly supervise your actions won't he? Which is where we're at now.

BTW what do you communists know about trials. IIRC the only ones you people ever had were of the show variety so, I don't think you should come on here and lecture anyone about justice especially considering your political bent.

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.

I think you mean they all need to pass a reactionary or conservatism test.

The only reason there are mandatory minimum sentences is because these judges failed to pass sentences commiserate to the crimes, plain and simple. In the real world if you're incapable of doing your job which in this case is protecting society, stopping recidivism, and ensuring rehabilitation, then your boss will have to directly supervise your actions won't he? Which is where we're at now.

I know exactly what you mean FOG. I think this also fits into the category of, "A few idiots spoil it for everyone". An example from an incident in Cambridge several years back comes to mind. How a judge can justify handing out less than 3 years to someone for shaking his girlfriend's baby to death is beyond me.

However, what's going to be interesting will be seeing just how this minimum sentencing will be meted out. Is some high level govt official(or their spouse) caught with a small amount of blow going to get the same sentence as John Doe who's caught with the same amount?

I also think the concept is a complete joke when you consider there are separate sentencing guidelines for the FN.

When you google the judge, you will see he loves letting people off light,
and is exactly the reason mandatory minimums needed to be introduced.

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

Judges trying to make laws should be fired immediately.

Thus I find it odd that you look up to such a practice, making sure every trial is a show trial. Sound logic.

Like I said, your only wish is that all the judges be conservative reactionaries, or forced to be.

So now you're a mind reader.

I could give a fat rats ass about political affiliation of any judge. The only thing I'm wishing for is justice to be served and not become beholding to some left wing, "there are no criminals just victims", judges personal agenda.

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.