One of the stated reasons for the prorogation of Parliament was that the resetting of Senate committees would better allow the Tories to pass their crime legislation, parts of which had been held up in the Upper Chamber in the past.
But the Liberal justice critic says his party is not going to approve speedy passage of all the crime legislation through the House of Commons -- even if that leads to accusations of being labeled "soft on crime" -- when Parliament resumes this week.
"What you are going to see in the coming weeks is a more focused discussion from us," said Dominic LeBlanc. "We are not going to be wedged anymore. We will look at each bill one-by-one to see if it is more effective for public safety," the New Brunswick MP explained.
The Liberals, and other critics, say the Conservatives have often brought forward bills that allow them to promote an anti-crime stance, even if the changes to the justice system would have little practical impact in preventing crime.
"This is the first government to politicize the Criminal Code," said Mr. LeBlanc.
He accused the Conservatives of bringing forward "gimmicky" bills with "silly names" such as the "Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murderers Act."
In that case, the names of Robert Pickton and Clifford Olson were invoked by Justice Minister Rob Nicholson when he announced the bill last fall. The amendments would permit a judge to impose consecutive parole ineligibility periods for multiple murderers. There is no instance, however, when a convicted serial killer has been released on parole. The changes would not apply to Pickton or Olson since they are not retroactive.
There were nearly 20 crime bills that died when the federal government prorogued Parliament and the Conservatives are promising to re-introduce all of the legislation.
Mr. Nicholson rejected suggestions that the crime package is about politics over substance, in an interview Monday with the National Post. "We have a broad based approach. We are trying to give police the tools they need, punish crime and give greater rights to victims," he said.
The bill aimed at multiple murderers as well as plans to eliminate the "faint hope" clause will mean that families of crime victims will not have to repeatedly attend parole hearings for these offenders, explained Mr. Nicholson.
He defended, for example, a controversial bill that would impose minimum jail terms for low-level marijuana grow operators. "These are people in the business of trafficking. One of the ways to break up this activity, is putting these people in jail," said Mr. Nicholson.
Critics of the government's crime bills such as Craig Jones, executive director of the John Howard Society of Canada, said the legislative package could actually decrease public safety. "This is not about being tough on crime, it is about being stupid on crime," said Mr. Jones.
"Nothing will change for serious offenders," stated Mr. Jones. But mandatory jail terms for petty car thieves and marijuana grow-ops will clog already crowded provincial jails with people on the low end of the criminal spectrum, he observed. "If you put people in jail, they get worse," said Mr. Jones. "We are going to create a cohort of harder persons."
But the Liberal justice critic says his party is not going to approve speedy passage of all the crime legislation through the House of Commons -- even if that leads to accusations of being labeled "soft on crime" -- when Parliament resumes this week.
"What you are going to see in the coming weeks is a more focused discussion from us," said Dominic LeBlanc. "We are not going to be wedged anymore. We will look at each bill one-by-one to see if it is more effective for public safety," the New Brunswick MP explained.
The Liberals, and other critics, say the Conservatives have often brought forward bills that allow them to promote an anti-crime stance, even if the changes to the justice system would have little practical impact in preventing crime.
"This is the first government to politicize the Criminal Code," said Mr. LeBlanc.
He accused the Conservatives of bringing forward "gimmicky" bills with "silly names" such as the "Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murderers Act."
In that case, the names of Robert Pickton and Clifford Olson were invoked by Justice Minister Rob Nicholson when he announced the bill last fall. The amendments would permit a judge to impose consecutive parole ineligibility periods for multiple murderers. There is no instance, however, when a convicted serial killer has been released on parole. The changes would not apply to Pickton or Olson since they are not retroactive.
There were nearly 20 crime bills that died when the federal government prorogued Parliament and the Conservatives are promising to re-introduce all of the legislation.
Mr. Nicholson rejected suggestions that the crime package is about politics over substance, in an interview Monday with the National Post. "We have a broad based approach. We are trying to give police the tools they need, punish crime and give greater rights to victims," he said.
The bill aimed at multiple murderers as well as plans to eliminate the "faint hope" clause will mean that families of crime victims will not have to repeatedly attend parole hearings for these offenders, explained Mr. Nicholson.
He defended, for example, a controversial bill that would impose minimum jail terms for low-level marijuana grow operators. "These are people in the business of trafficking. One of the ways to break up this activity, is putting these people in jail," said Mr. Nicholson.
Critics of the government's crime bills such as Craig Jones, executive director of the John Howard Society of Canada, said the legislative package could actually decrease public safety. "This is not about being tough on crime, it is about being stupid on crime," said Mr. Jones.
"Nothing will change for serious offenders," stated Mr. Jones. But mandatory jail terms for petty car thieves and marijuana grow-ops will clog already crowded provincial jails with people on the low end of the criminal spectrum, he observed. "If you put people in jail, they get worse," said Mr. Jones. "We are going to create a cohort of harder persons."
Crimwas easily the most important local issue cited in a poll last September of residents in 10 cities across Canada, conducted by Ipsos Reid for Global News. Far behind in terms of significance were property taxes, transportation and municipal services.
"There is a widening gap between rhetoric and reality," when debating crime issues, said Mr. Jones. For politicians who want to provide context when discussing public safety, "there is no upside," he suggested.
REFORMING THE JUSTICE SYSTEM
The federal Conservatives have passed several pieces of anti-crime legislation while in power, with plans to reintroduce more when Parliament resumes. Critics say many of the initiatives will do little to reduce crime.
TRUTH IN SENTENCING ACT
Changes to credit for pre-trial custody took effect last week. Previously, it was up to an individual judge to determine credit for pre-trial custody before sentencing. It was customary to award two-for-one credit. A primary reason was that "dead time" does not count toward parole eligibility. So an offender who was not free on bail before trial would spend a longer time in custody for the exact same offence and same sentence as someone who was granted bail. The amendments set the norm as one-for-one credit for pre-trial custody. If "circumstances justify" a judge may allow 1.5-for-one credit. Critics of the changes say it will do little to affect the time an offender spends in custody. A judge is required to use the "totality principle" when sentencing, so post-conviction incarceration may be reduced to make up for a lack of pre-trial credit.
CONDITIONAL SENTENCES
Presently, a conditional sentence or "house arrest" is not available if a judge is going to impose a sentence of two years or more. The Ending Conditional Sentences for Property and Other Serious Crimes Act amendments would take away the right to a conditional sentence for anyone convicted of a crime with a maximum penalty of 14 years in prison, regardless of what a judge deemed to be appropriate punishment. Nearly 40 offences in the Criminal Code would be affected. Most of these crimes, though, such as serious sexual assault, kidnapping, child luring and arson, would rarely, if ever, result in a conditional sentence under the current framework.
SENTENCE DISCOUNTS
The Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act would permit a judge to impose consecutive parole ineligibility periods for someone convicted of more than one count of murder. For example, an individual convicted of two counts of first-degree murder could be sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for at least 50 years instead of 25 years. There are presently nine people convicted of more than one count of first-degree murder who have been released on parole, according to the National Parole Board. On average, a person convicted of first-degree murder in Canada spends more than 28 years in prison before release on parole. This is higher than every other western nation other than the United States.
"There is a widening gap between rhetoric and reality," when debating crime issues, said Mr. Jones. For politicians who want to provide context when discussing public safety, "there is no upside," he suggested.
REFORMING THE JUSTICE SYSTEM
The federal Conservatives have passed several pieces of anti-crime legislation while in power, with plans to reintroduce more when Parliament resumes. Critics say many of the initiatives will do little to reduce crime.
TRUTH IN SENTENCING ACT
Changes to credit for pre-trial custody took effect last week. Previously, it was up to an individual judge to determine credit for pre-trial custody before sentencing. It was customary to award two-for-one credit. A primary reason was that "dead time" does not count toward parole eligibility. So an offender who was not free on bail before trial would spend a longer time in custody for the exact same offence and same sentence as someone who was granted bail. The amendments set the norm as one-for-one credit for pre-trial custody. If "circumstances justify" a judge may allow 1.5-for-one credit. Critics of the changes say it will do little to affect the time an offender spends in custody. A judge is required to use the "totality principle" when sentencing, so post-conviction incarceration may be reduced to make up for a lack of pre-trial credit.
CONDITIONAL SENTENCES
Presently, a conditional sentence or "house arrest" is not available if a judge is going to impose a sentence of two years or more. The Ending Conditional Sentences for Property and Other Serious Crimes Act amendments would take away the right to a conditional sentence for anyone convicted of a crime with a maximum penalty of 14 years in prison, regardless of what a judge deemed to be appropriate punishment. Nearly 40 offences in the Criminal Code would be affected. Most of these crimes, though, such as serious sexual assault, kidnapping, child luring and arson, would rarely, if ever, result in a conditional sentence under the current framework.
SENTENCE DISCOUNTS
The Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act would permit a judge to impose consecutive parole ineligibility periods for someone convicted of more than one count of murder. For example, an individual convicted of two counts of first-degree murder could be sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for at least 50 years instead of 25 years. There are presently nine people convicted of more than one count of first-degree murder who have been released on parole, according to the National Parole Board. On average, a person convicted of first-degree murder in Canada spends more than 28 years in prison before release on parole. This is higher than every other western nation other than the United States.
AUTO THEFT
New offences of motor vehicle theft and of tampering with vehicle identification numbers would be created. These offences are presently covered by the theft and possession of property obtained by crime sections of the Criminal Code. The amendments would carry many of the same potential penalties, although auto theft would not be separated into "theft under $5,000" and "theft over $5,000." There would also be a mandatory minimum of six months in jail for anyone convicted of a third motor vehicle theft. Defence lawyers say that a third conviction under the present provisions would nearly always result in a sentence of at least six months in jail. The legislative summary provided for the federal government points out that automobile thefts in Canada have steadily declined since 1997.
SERIOUS TIME FOR THE MOST SERIOUS CRIME
This act would phase out the "faint hope" clause that permits someone convicted of a life sentence to seek a reduction in parole eligibility, after spending at least 15 years in prison. Anyone seeking a reduction must first convince a judge there is merit to a claim. If successful, then the application is heard by a jury. Two-thirds of a jury must approve any reduction in parole eligibility. This will no longer be possible under the proposed amendments. Since the first faint hope hearing in 1987, about 13% of those considered eligible for a review, have had their parole eligibility reduced. As of October 2009, there are 74 people previously convicted of first-degree murder who were released on parole as a result of faint hope. None has had parole revoked, according to the National Parole Board.
CONTROLLED
DRUGS AND SUBSTANCES ACT
According to the Act amendments:
- A minimum one-year sentence would be mandatory for trafficking in more than three kilograms of marijuana for a criminal organization, or if there was a threat of violence or a weapon involved. The minimum penalty would increase to two years if the trafficking is near a school.
- A mandatory minimum of two years in prison for production of drugs such as cocaine, which is lower than sentences now traditionally handed down by court for this type of offence.
- There would be mandatory minimums for marijuana grow-op producers, such as two years in prison for more than 500 plants. The amendment may not affect current sentencing trends, as the B.C. Court of Appeal upheld a two-year sentence in 2007 for a large-scale grow-op and suggested house arrest was acceptable only in rare cases.
The most controversial of the amendments would require courts to impose a nine-month minimum jail term for production of anywhere from one to 200 marijuana plants.
New offences of motor vehicle theft and of tampering with vehicle identification numbers would be created. These offences are presently covered by the theft and possession of property obtained by crime sections of the Criminal Code. The amendments would carry many of the same potential penalties, although auto theft would not be separated into "theft under $5,000" and "theft over $5,000." There would also be a mandatory minimum of six months in jail for anyone convicted of a third motor vehicle theft. Defence lawyers say that a third conviction under the present provisions would nearly always result in a sentence of at least six months in jail. The legislative summary provided for the federal government points out that automobile thefts in Canada have steadily declined since 1997.
SERIOUS TIME FOR THE MOST SERIOUS CRIME
This act would phase out the "faint hope" clause that permits someone convicted of a life sentence to seek a reduction in parole eligibility, after spending at least 15 years in prison. Anyone seeking a reduction must first convince a judge there is merit to a claim. If successful, then the application is heard by a jury. Two-thirds of a jury must approve any reduction in parole eligibility. This will no longer be possible under the proposed amendments. Since the first faint hope hearing in 1987, about 13% of those considered eligible for a review, have had their parole eligibility reduced. As of October 2009, there are 74 people previously convicted of first-degree murder who were released on parole as a result of faint hope. None has had parole revoked, according to the National Parole Board.
CONTROLLED
DRUGS AND SUBSTANCES ACT
According to the Act amendments:
- A minimum one-year sentence would be mandatory for trafficking in more than three kilograms of marijuana for a criminal organization, or if there was a threat of violence or a weapon involved. The minimum penalty would increase to two years if the trafficking is near a school.
- A mandatory minimum of two years in prison for production of drugs such as cocaine, which is lower than sentences now traditionally handed down by court for this type of offence.
- There would be mandatory minimums for marijuana grow-op producers, such as two years in prison for more than 500 plants. The amendment may not affect current sentencing trends, as the B.C. Court of Appeal upheld a two-year sentence in 2007 for a large-scale grow-op and suggested house arrest was acceptable only in rare cases.
The most controversial of the amendments would require courts to impose a nine-month minimum jail term for production of anywhere from one to 200 marijuana plants.
No comments:
Post a Comment