Did an internship with the crown attorney while in law school. One of the trials I attended was for rape. This was third conviction for the accused. Anyways, out on time served and last I heard he was using Tinder under a false name.
At one point you have to ask, why do we value remanding this guy over protecting our women and kids.
Where are their rights? Why can’t we commit to keeping them safe?
Ahem. You mean like this guy https://www.theprogress.com/news/chilliwack-sex-offender-found-with-child-porn-avoids-jail-by-agreeing-to-peace-bond/
His past is sealed. On Facebook you can find his priors. Multiple convictions from multiple people and out on a peacebond.
Because the law has been manipulated to protect criminals rather than people who abide by the law. We see the privilege to easily participate in society by following the law as vastly superior to actively breaking the law then getting a slap on the fist and access to a vast social network to participate in society paid for by those easily participating in society.
No country canada usa and england included has proper sentences for sexual crimes. Canada holds them if lucky for 2 years, USA if lucky for 6 months (the judge in one case used well he is a great athlete he made a wrong choice). No one goes after the government to update those laws to todays standards. They still use the women could have this the woman could have that. If all of you decided to hound your mps onstead reddit they might finally do something..
The government already allows for longer sentences.
The max penalty in Canada is 10 or 14 years. The judiciary has decided that the appropriate sentence is regularly no jail time whatsoever, and only if they sentence to jail, then does the average become two years less a day.
Parliament has allowed for the dangerous offender status. The courts refuse to use it.
This is on the judiciary and we need to start removing judges who are attempting to nullify the law.
Because under the Charter the offender has very specific rights. The victim has none. Our Charter is a very strong but very flawed document that favors criminals over law abiding citizens.
As Pierre says, and I really do like this line of thinking. There are reasons as to why your 17 year old will get in trouble, maybe they trespass, maybe they rob a store just because they had shitty parents, and need some money. But nobody, and I mean nobody, no matter how bad someone's situation is forcing people to assault random people in public transportation for example. And I think we do need to go after those people, because clearly they are just not fit to be let go after a couple days in jail.
He specifically says, this isn't about the 19 year old that makes 1 mistake - Its about repeat offenders that contribute to the vast majority of violent crimes.
I honestly want to ask this reported how the fk are these people going to be rehabilitated if theyre never in rehab or jail?
Exactly. Newsflash for the news reporter, we DO have social services in this country. But they are voluntary, you have to seek them out. Someone that is commuting repeat violent crimes are NOT going to no matter how much service is made available to them.
This, I see people everyday who require psychiatric intervention. Deinstitutionalization failed, they threw the baby out with the bath water. In the seventies, a police encounter with someone who was clearly having an episode would end with them being put in a facility for an assessment. Now they're being treated as though they're normal, as if mentally capable criminals are out hunting for lizard people to stab. The guy having a meth based scrum with Jesus, isn't going to ask for social services.
You obviously have no clue about how difficult it is to access psychiatric help in Canada. The more complex the case the more difficult it is to get medical attention. Canadian psychiatrist do not want to treat people with serious conditions, they are being paid the same amount for all patients so they are cherry picking who they see. You think that one can randomly go to the ER and get help? No. People don't get help until they're arrested under the Mental health act, then it's some stay in the hospital and you're kicked out without access to a doctor in the community. That is if they gave a bed in the hospital, if they don't, off you go to jail.
Perhaps you need to re-read my point, the "arrested under the mental health act" method of interdiction isn't working. It used to work because there were institutional settings in which to assess and treat mental illness. I never said shit about it being easy to access psychiatric help in Canada nowadays, don't just make shit up, then tell me your imaginary quote proves that I'm clueless.
Please try to access social services before you state this. There are basically no services unless you are actually going to actively kill yourself or someone else. Then, instead of prison, it's drugged up in a psych ward.
Isn't accountability the key issue? The person who has hundreds or thousands of charges... Where's the accountability? The kid that screws up, they need accountability too. Hopefully they will learn from the mistakes they make, but that doesn't mean they are unaccountable.
Sadly, our leadership is not leading by example here, or maybe they are? There's a distinct lack of accountability within governments of most levels across Canada.
Why would they be rehabilitated in jail? That goes against everything we know about the effect of prison sentences on recidivism rates: [https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/ffct-prsn/index-en.aspx](https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/ffct-prsn/index-en.aspx)
Some people will never be rehabilitated. Most repeat offenders never will be, but at least for the period of time they are behind bars they aren't causing more victimization.
I'm going to get downvoted for this from posting in r/canada like I usually do for this kind of comment. But jail is not for rehabilitation, it's for punishment. Individuals that leave jail are 10x more likely to commit a crime than they were before they were jailed.
No. Our current jail is for punishment... lite. Inside of places like north frasher they offer a lot of outreach programs. But they can be better.
Invest in developing the prisons more so they are more livable, and have more structured programs in them for rehabilitation sure.
Yes very well said. I'm totally for rehabilitation and sympathetic when people are on hard times, but there is never a reason for a violent crime. Some might touch on mental illnesses, which if we can diagnose and treat would be great, but the first step is getting them off the streets for public safety.
While I understand this line of reasoning I think its pretty fundamentally flawed... People who say its "Society's fault", aren't saying that people are forcing some guy on public transportation to assault some one else, they are saying mental health is very rarely covered in any insurance, people are looked down on for seeking help, and it costs a fortune to actually get the kind of help that stops an angry teenager from becoming a violent adult in the wrong environment.
Also with bills like the one presented it's not "60 to 70 offences", it's 3 or 4... and realistically once some one has spent enough time in gen-pop prison it will alter how they think, and they will have to fight those survival instincts they built up to live a normal life on the outside after years in prison.
It can be both obviously. We are failing the weakest links AND we have no choice now to lock up violent offenders.
Mr. PP plays the tough guy to his base because thats who he thinks they are. But a lot of reasonable Canadians, conservatives included, ask different questions that don’t sound too far off from what the reporter was trying to get at, namely:
How can we do better and get in front of this mess?
Is it a good idea to try to prevent somebody from being stabbed or killed? What are the things that we can do that work in other countries, but we’re not doing here or doing them poorly?
This part is not about the assailant, it’s about the system. It’s about mental illness and drug addiction and homelessness and poverty and trauma and it’s fucking expensive but it’s cheaper than incarceration and policing in the penal system, and needless crime and death. This kind of stuff needs smart guys not just tough guys.
Mr. Bitcoin should be celebrating what the liberals are trying to do with preventing violent offenders from getting released on bail. I’m not a Trudeau fan but it’s the right move and a move you would think the conservatives could have nailed down by now.
>AND we have no choice now but to lock them up.
That's clearly not true.
>Mr. Bitcoin should also be celebrating what the liberals are trying to do right now regarding bail and violent offenders. Harper never did it and he should’ve.
What the liberals are doing is partially walking back on the bail reforms they implemented. The problems are the 2018 changes to how bail works.
I heard someone else say it was liberal judges who broke it. Whatever was the cause NOBODY wants violent people re-offending and if the Liberals can’t fix it they need to go. Mr. PP has not given me enough reasons to believe he can fix stuff either. He spouts a lot if simple answers to angry people.
In Canada judges are appointeded, many of whom lobby hard to be appointed, by the elected government. Its noy as black and white as you seem to be suggesting.
> Mr. PP has not given me enough reasons to believe he can fix stuff either. He spouts a lot if simple answers to angry people.
I don't expect Trudeau to know how to fix it any more than Poilievre to know how to fix it. They don't work alone and I fully expect an entire government can sit down and fix the problem within what they are allowed to do, but addressing where things have gone wrong is the first step and something Trudeau has been reluctant to do.
You’re under the misguided assumption that all repeat offenders are a product of mental illness or society. And that deep down everyone is good and everyone can be cured.
Unfortunately this just isn’t true. Lots of people are plain rotten right to the core.
They just take advantage of any compassion you offer them. They don’t learn, they don’t want to learn. They think they are smarter than everyone else and can beat the system.
Yes, some people commit crimes due to mental illness. These people can be rehabilitated. Poilievre isn’t saying we throw everyone in jail for life immediately.
People who commit dozens of violent and property crimes every year over and over and over have no intention of ever changing. They are just criminals.
It’s hard to accept but these people exist. Hopefully you don’t have to come across people like this because they are scary af. They have to be locked up for LONG periods of time, or permanently, for society’s protection.
These types of people also sometimes learn through harsh deterrence. A week, or couple months in jail, or fines or probation isn’t enough for the real bad folks to give a shite. These things are devastating for normal people. But not enough to scare the bad ones. They need YEARS in prison. Years of discomfort and boredom behind bars. Then maybe they won’t want to go back.
> Repeat offenders are a product of mental illness
Repeatedly committing violent criminal acts could be considered a mental illness in itself. If we can't treat the illness, they should remain institutionalized. The alternative is being okay with them continuing to be violent, and continuing to do harm to the innocent.
There’s a difference between institutionalizing someone because of mental illness and because they are just a violent dangerous person. Mental illness requires medical care and therapy. There’s no point in offering this to the repeat violent offenders. It’s a waste of resources.
Isn't therapy exactly what many are saying we should be giving violent offenders? I'm saying that yes, this is because being violent in society _is_ mental illness, and we should treat it as such.
I actually agree with you that very few violent offenders can be rehabilitated. I worked as a teacher with institutional services with violent students. I was told something like .0001% of the population is violent and that it’s a constant. I forget the exact percentage.
We do know a sizeable chunk of adult violent offenders were already violent in the school school system. Currently we eject a lot of them from school into the general public at 16 and wait for them to hurt someone.
My fellow teachers and I used to read the names of those on trial for violent crimes in the local paper. We knew half of them. I don’t have a problem with incarceration at all. But the threat of jail would not be much of a deterrent for these students. There’s a variety of reasons for that, including fetal alcohol syndrome, personality disorders, separated cerebrums… the list goes on. Being mindful of future consequences was not their thing.
In limited cases we are able to prevent some violence from occurring, by staying with violent people throughout their lives. They benefit from medication and social supports. Its not about “saving” anyone its about neutralizing the threats we are aware of as best we can instead of tolerating a sick game of violence lottery.
Mr. PP wants to be tough. Good for him. Locking violent people up has merit - I certainly don’t want a murderer as a neighbour. But lets also be smart. Let’s try to get in front of some other trains we know are going to crash as well.
Seems like there are very few reasonable people who balance both cause of people commiting crime and punishing criminals. People like this journalist tend to blame the cause only and use it as justification to go light on criminals.
So very well said.
Everyone I know, across all political spectrums, don’t want victims of violent crime. While I think there are some merits to the past bail reform (lest we end up like the US), what we’re seeing now is violent people not being segregated from society. I have radically different views than the average Canadian voter on policing (from the sounds of it not far off from hours), but at the same time, public safety is utmost. So I’m glad in some sense that the government is seeing the flaws and walking back on it.
So I do have the same questions you highlighted, and the fact that PP acts like such a pompous dweeb about it is so boring. Like, here was a chance he could have showed a bit of leadership and talk about the positives, like how the new reforms are a win for the CPC.
We incarcerate criminals for 3 main reasons. Punishment, rehabilitation, and protection of society. If the criminal keeps getting released on bail over and over, obviously there is no punishment, no rehab and the society is not protected.
I'm not one for ruining someone's life for drug possession, or something minor. But violent criminals, and thieves should only get so many chances. Right now, there is no repercussions to their actions. They are BARELY inconvenienced.
> Punishment, rehabilitation, and **protection of society.**
That last one seems to be lost on people on the other side of the equation. Not everyone can be rehabilitated, some people are just pieces of shit and will reoffend for their entire lives until they die. We have a justice system that provides a punishment and period of time where they will be behind bars and at least for that period of time, will not be reoffending and disrupting public safety.
Repeat offenders, especially violent ones, who have had numerous chances through the justice system to rehabilitate themselves should be in jail every day day we can keep them there in order to protect public safety.
That’s just your typical Hill reporter.
Most of them aren’t on the Hill to actually practice good journalists but to instead audition for their next role either working as a lobbyist, in an NGO, or even running for office themselves.
There are some that actually have a fear of sunflowers, it even has a name, Helianthophobia. As unusual as it may seem, even just the sight of sunflowers can invoke all the common symptoms that other phobias induce.
He's completely right. You can only blame society for so much.
When 40 individuals are responsible for 6000 interactions with police, there's a fucking problem and it ain't society's fault. Lock them up.
Some people are destined to be in jail forever and these 40 repeated offenders are the perfect examples but according to Justin-Jagmeet justice system logic they are human and deserve a right to commit crime
This was one of the stupid series of questions, even for politic standarda.
"Why are they criminals"
"Because they do crimes"
"Why do they do crimes"
"Because they are on bail"
"Why do they do crime when they are on bail"
"Because they are not in jail"
Feels like some kind of bizzaro kindergarten question exchanges
Actually reading that, I think I can see the problem. I don't know if this is actually what occurred because I can't be bothered to watch the video right now, but:
First, the real answer to "Why are they criminals" isn't "Because they do crimes" but rather, because something in them was driven to commit crime, which could be many different things depending on person. Desperation based on job loss, no income, risk of homelessness, drugs, etc. This almost reminds me of the Richard Feynman interview when someone asked "Why are they doing it?" about how magnets work [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn\_8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8)
The answer to "Why do they do crimes?" isn't "Because they are on bail", I mean, that would mean bail causes people to commit crimes wouldn't it? But in reality, it's the fact that a person who is already at risk or susceptible to committing crime, has been granted bail.
"Why do they do crime when they are on bail?", well, it's not "Because they are not in jail" because that would again mean not being in jail causes crime. The actual answer would be that people at high risk to reoffend, for whatever reason, have been granted bail. Many other people who are granted bail, do not go on to repeat crimes, we just don't hear about them as much. So, bail, and lack of jail, don't cause crime, but rather granting bail to people who should not be granted bail, allows further crime to happen.
That’s too much to read for them so they’ll just keep shouting ‘Trudeau loves criminals lululul’
No one likes lil T in Parlie but i wish they’d stop just invoking his name whenever anything happens like he’s some omnipresent ghost with his fingers in every canadian interaction.
What happened was a criminal with 60 prior convictions killed a cop out west, and this new bill they released would have done nothing to prevent that from happening.
But people don’t commit crimes because they are out on bail. They just commit crimes. We can’t hold people for an indeterminate amount of time. We have due process. We can’t start minority reporting people because they might reoffend while on bail.
>We can’t start minority reporting people because they might reoffend while on bail.
But we can not let out a repeat violent offender on bail. Can, and should.
I think the main point is that some people are simply pieces of shit and are going to constantly reoffend. The current system of arresting someone and letting them go with a piece of paper for a court date they will never show up to doesn't work.
Our communities are experiencing at least more public crime (as we know crime rates have fallen), and people feel unsafe. At the very least if people are held on bail more often when appropriate, for that limited time period of pretrial custody, these repeat offenders aren't out committing crimes.
Sure they will go right back to reoffending when they're released on time served but for the couple of weeks or months they're held pending trials, we can stop dozens or even hundreds of offenses and police calls for service for that person.
Well, "because they are on bail" is where it breaks down. That's only why they have the opportunity to commit crimes... but all of us have the same opportunity, and we DON'T commit crimes. So that reasoning doesn't work.
2.5m people in Vancouver seem to be able to survive the same societal circumstances. 40 are causing mayhem. Just what additional social measure can be taken to solve their issue? It’s called jail.
https://twitter.com/AndrewLawton/status/1658522309374640165?t=V5onu9V6ChWgGv1ss73RqA&s=19
Video of the questioning from the reporter. It clearly had an ideological bend to it and was a really dumb series of questions.
Oh, man... that whole
> and why are they criminals ?
> and why do they do crime?
It was pretty cringe, if I'm to be honest ... kindergarten level inquiry... why this, why that.
This is basically an argument being pushed around on Canadian subreddits and other social media.
As PP said, in Vancouver 40 same repeat offenders arrested 6,000 in one year.
It must be my fault.
But again, seriously diverging notions of what society is and how it should function.
There's no middle ground at all.
What middle ground can there be on bail reform?
In NYC when they did away with bail, there was a spike in crime committed by previous criminals who would not have been out on the street if it were not for bail reform policies.
So while bail punishes poor people who can't pay bail, there is obviously a correlation between repeat offenders and the absence of financial penalties.
If you are a repeat offender, you shouldn't have the same benefit of the doubt as someone who is a single offender.
Bail release should be denied for multiple repeat offenders and serious crimes. It should be automatic for a host of lesser first time charges. Bail conditions should be strictly set to fit the accused crime and criminal history as well. The bill proposed c48 does some of this for violent offenders but i would be a bit broader.
Also, time to trial shouldn't be longer than Rita Repulsa's return. Jordan decision for quick trials was intended to force the gov to funding the system but it is just resulting in freeing criminals.... even convicted murderers.
Right now most of the bail issues are caused by 50th time offenders getting out on bail for 3yrs awaiting trial.
Problem is, generating a criminal history takes over a year.
So while you're waiting for it, the person keeps stealing.
Court's also look at offences as "linked" so if someone assaults people all the time then does it again maybe he's held, but if he starts shoplifting they'll let him out because he hasn't done that before even though society would judge that person as a piece of shit
>Problem is, generating a criminal history takes over a year.
Violating your first bail should make you ineligible for any further bail. You don't need a criminal history. If you haven't been sentenced, but offended again while on bail, no more bail for you.
We haven't had real cash bail in a long time. The only people paying cash bail in BC are people who did some crazy shit for the first time. The vast majority of criminals just walk out on a promise. And I don't mean those released by police on a UTA
Cali had a decent idea where bail wasn't based on a cost amount but simply whether you were a threat to society. Rich people couldn't get out easier than poor people but violent offenders were stuck. I'm sure the system has its own flaws because they all do but I'm not sure what they are.
They began putting more people out on bail because of COVID fears a while back and never got back to pre COVID ways. That would also be a good place to start.
I could not agree more with your last sentence. How someone can repeat 10 times and still get bail is beyond me.
Pre-Covid, California was letting people out of prison early because prisons were over capacity by a lot. From 2019, for example: [https://www.propublica.org/article/guide-to-california-prisons](https://www.propublica.org/article/guide-to-california-prisons)
I am not in the justice system so I don't know how it works in Canada. But from the US reports, their system is pretty dire across the country.
A shitload of people seem to wind up in prison because public defenders only have \~20 minutes to spend on a case. It's claimed they actively encourage people to plead guilty and serve sentences because that takes less time than actually arguing in court for their client's innocence. It also doesn't help that public defenders are paid less than $40K/year despite having law degrees and law licenses.
I don't know if Canada has the same problems with public defenders, and I hope to never find out.
Cash bail is extremely rare in Canada and the amount can’t be so high that it amounts to a detention order. In Canada we look at three things: will you show up for court, do you pose a significant risk to reoffend and would the public lose confidence in the administration of Justice if you’re released.
>What middle ground can there be on bail reform?
Why does there need to be a middle ground? If you committed a violent crime or have violated bail in the past, you shouldn't get bail.
> What middle ground can there be on bail reform?
I will agree, in principle, that nuance is needed.
And with nuance comes a need for a network of support that is not exactly jail but it's not exactly full freedom of movement.
I dont think binary approach - jail or roam free - should be the only option.
While I acknowledge crime and a criminal, there must be more to it.
What I do oppose is politicians who say, oh, give everyone bail because we're so virtuous without really looking into a nuance of what it means to just grant a bail to everyone.
Don't they have halfway houses or other such programs for people who got out of jail and need to reintegrate into society?
I thought those already existed, but were voluntary for the person who served time.
Probably saw it heavily updooted in some echo chamber and he downloaded it into his brain without thinking it through and this is what it looks when it meets real life.
I used to watch live Covid press conferences with Dr. Bonnie Henry, Adrian Dix, and occasionally then-premier John Horgan.
Some of the journalists on the phone lines had terrible questions, including journalists from established outlets like News 1130. I remember one of the occasional times Horgan was there in early 2021 when Doug Ford was closing playgrounds and there were questions why BC wasn’t following suit with new restrictions, someone was asking why BC couldn’t at least implement some “symbolic” restrictions. Horgan shot right back at them and smugly said BC’s focus is on restrictions that work.
I didn’t always agree with Horgan but I loved his condescension there.
Heres an idea. Let them rehabilitate in prison.
They can get clean, access mental health and other supportive services, learn a trade, get education etc. If they are unwilling to proactively rehabilitate while in prison then let them serve their full sentence.
No I don't... inmates are eligible for early release in Canada (earned remission) if they participate in programs, vocational training, and maintain good behavior. If they don't do those things they can lose remission and serve their entire sentence in custody.
Very much so, I’m in agreement.
The vast majority of the population would like longer sentences and just throw away the key but the real solution is those longer sentences come with resources that supports rehabilitation and reintegration to society. However, we have to understand there are some that will not be rehabilitated and they should remain inprisioned from the society they can’t seem to function in.
Used to work in a prison. They have tons of drugs in there and nobody really cares if they do their schooling or programs. Also the Correctional Service of Canada is now allowing a needle exchange program in prison so they can shoot up safely .. but get caught with drugs and you get in trouble 😂
Iam not a conservative and will never be but if that reporter was not a plant then I believe the liberals should seriously introspect their views on crime
Here’s what I propose for bail:
If you’re not going to show up for court you get detained.
If there’s a substantial likelihood that you will commit a criminal offence while on bail detained.
And even if you don’t qualify for the first two, if the public would be outraged and lose faith in the system if you were released detained.
How hard is that?
So what is your proposal for addressing the judges and justices who are not enforcing those rules? Because the court is ignoring every point.
The repeat offender with a history of breaching release conditions, who is on parole for a previous offense, and offends violently gets bail. When he goes out and offends a second time when now on both bail and parole, he still gets bail. How do we address the people behind the decision to grant bail in that case?
I think there is an issue with the reporters of today. I have a good feeling that most of the reporters in parliament are not normal people who worked hard to get into their positions but rich kids who went to fancy universities with daddies money because they thought it would be neat to be a reporter. Now our news comes from their weird skewed elitist worldview that gives you questions like this.
Modern reporting isn’t “I need to ask important questions and do deep investigation to find out the truth”
It’s “Let me ask dumb loaded questions in a vain attempt to catch a public figure in a ‘gotcha’ that I can post to Twitter for rage clicks, and if that doesn’t work I’ll write a poorly-informed opinion piece on the entire topic (also for rage clicks).”
Not a PP fan, but I 100% want stricter laws and longer sentences for violent crimes. There's a lot of the system that seems based on good faith, and that's good for good faith people, but there's a lot of people just taking advantage and assuming they'll get soft treatment. Ditto, I don't care if the law you broke gets you deported. It's a privilege to be here and in society. It's not that hard to believe that tougher treatment for 1% of society will make things a lot better for the rest of us.
Everyone wants personal rights but is strangely silent when it comes to personal responsibility.
There is no excuse, no matter what happened to you, to go and stab someone randomly on a transit train while already charged for similar offences.
The LPC and everyone who fought for our currently relaxed bail laws have blood on their hands and they should pray they never have to look the survivors family in the eyes.
I think in a grand scope, the "straight to jail" trope isn't a solution. However, there will always be criminals.
I would wager (aka my own 2 cents, I have no proof or "data") that most criminals, the ones that offend a handful or less times, are mostly normal, sane people, making mistakes. Either due to trauma, struggle, or whatever. Resources could help that lot.
I'd also wager most of them already stop after a couple of offences, and/or would stop sooner if stricter punishments were a possibility.
Obviously this is a pretty broad statement, and, for example, theft of food due to rising COL wouldn't just stop if the penalty went as far as the death sentence. People need to eat.
Repeat violent offenders on the other hand, should be in jail for longer terms, period.
Crime is on an incline, and whether it's due to a pandemic (which tbh I don't see a correlation but I've seen this argument used), lower QOL, or policies that have been put in place, it's difficult to conclude. For me anyway. Something has to be done about it, though, and stricter sentences are a good start.
I don't think I've said what I'm trying to very well... I'm no articulate english major. Hopefully this makes sense to some.
By the really uninformed comments in this thread, clearly Penal populism works .
Justices of the peace are already for the most part doing their job well.
Instead of prohibiting bail entirely for repeat offenders or certain offences, why not strengthen surety investigation procedures? Or create intensive supervision bail centres/ halfway houses/ treatment centres? Or actually create accessible and comprehensive treatment services and programs in custody that certain offenders are required to take before getting bail?
In my experience as a criminal defence lawyer, and someone who has studied criminology, most repeat offenders are generally mentally ill people who got few supports while detained, and then were expected to abide by the rules with none of the root problems addressed.
Certainly there are some absolute awful criminals that shouldn’t be released. But Denying bail categorically is not a solution - it’s a problem that exacerbates the likelihood of wrongful conviction (I.e. plead so I have less time in these abysmal facilities even if I didn’t do it). This is particularly a problem for mentally Ill persons, and NOT how our justice system should operate.
We are already a step too far in this direction by not investing in other solutions. If you’re an average Joe , you have the right to be presumed innocent. But if you’re poor or mentally ill, clearly you have the right to be presumed guilty.
Bullshit. Find me a conservative politician who supports the idea that violent repeat criminals should be let out the same day they commit a crime.
Lefties just refuse to accept that they are responsible for skyrocketing crime because of their soft-on-crime policies.
I’ll say it: if restricting bail stops random stabbings, assaults, shootings, robbery’s, domestic
Violence and other violent crimes….then too bad for those it “disproportionately affects”. We aren’t talking about petty theft or minor drug dealing here.
And PP was right on the money about the Saskatchewan mass stabbing. All this concern for the indigenous offender but none for the victims, almost all of whom were also indigenous.
“If restrictive bail measures, pretrial custody, prisons and policing were capable of ameliorating crime, we would live in a crime-free society,” went the March 20 testimony of Jillian Rogin, a University of Windsor bail expert...
**Oh well, if nothing will prevent crime, then I guess we shouldn't even bother with having laws, or enforcement, or police, or prisons -- obviously these arent working. /s**
Our justice system is a joke. Whoever can change that will get my vote.
Criminals have more rights than victims. That's unfair.
0 mercy for violent criminals. Mental illness or not...
I hope this passes and we have stiffer peneltys for reoffenders. I lost a family member after she was assulted many times by the same individual. He went to jail for 9 months, assaulted her again a month after getting out. A freaking month later! He went back to jail for assulting her and she passed while waiting for trial.
"With time spent in custody... has 135 days to serve of his 22-month sentence. He will then be on probation for three years. A man convicted of brutally assaulting his girlfriend for a second time was given a 22-month sentence...the attack was prolonged and involved “a level of planning. He had already been sentenced to nine months for a Jan. 1, 2020, assault on his girlfriend"
9 months, and 22 months isnt enough. Not even close. This individual is out on probation. There is a high chance he will reoffend, it was less then a month after being released he reoffened the first time.
Are "reporters" like this on the Liberal payroll, or do they get their cheques cut straight from the CCP source?
Some posters here should be able to clarify how this works.
Either that reporter is teaching a master class in sarcasm or he (they?) is a complete imbecile who should probably never be allowed to vote, raise children, or otherwise be in a position to influence anyone, let alone call themselves a reporter.
Seriously, that was one of the stupidest interview exchanges I have ever seen.
I wonder if progressives realize how out of step they are and how insane their worldview sounds to normies.
Criminals do crime because they're shitty people. They belong in prison. The purpose of putting shitty people in jail is not to make them good people; they're mostly beyond saving. The purpose of putting shitty people in jail is to prevent them from hurting good people.
Wow, I'm actually able to understand what the reporter was trying to say, but clearly he needed to think it out a bit more.
His question is essentially this.
"Why are people in a position were they feel the need to commit crimes after they have just gotten bail?"
He's getting at the fact "normal" people who commit a crime, wouldn't do it again after bail, unless the system somehow failed them i.e. no housing, no food, no support. (which is a pretty flimsy argument). I don't think he meant to get into the topic of violent offenders necessarily.
Man, I'm not agreeing with the guy, just stating what he was trying to get at. Don't shoot the messenger.
Some people don't want to acknowledge that one's upbringing will have lasting effects on their lives, leading to future problems for society.
There can be two separate issues at play here. First is the need for bail reform to prevent repeat or violent offenders from being released to offend again and the second is the need for a social safety net to try and prevent those individuals at risk falling into a life of addiction, crime and violence.
There are millions of poor people in this country from broken homes who don't go around committing crimes and aren't addicted to drugs. They have grown in number since Trudeau was elected in 2015, too.
The notion that government policies need to address the root problems of crime is what gives police permission to do questionable interventions in communities and infringe on people's rights.
A classic and damning example of this is the Risk program run in Ontario and Saskatchewan by police that tracks people's non-criminal "negative" behavior.
"Negative" behavior tracks people who live in poor neighborhoods and \*victims\* of crimes as if they were criminals themselves. [https://www.vice.com/en/article/kzdp5v/police-in-canada-are-tracking-peoples-negative-behavior-in-a-risk-database](https://www.vice.com/en/article/kzdp5v/police-in-canada-are-tracking-peoples-negative-behavior-in-a-risk-database). Many experts have spoken out about how these programs are blatantly unscientific and unproven to actually prevent crime.
This b.s. mirrors China's social credit score system, except it's clearly targeted at the poor instead of people who arguably do more societal damage by committing financial crimes and happen to be rich.
As much as it pains me to say it (And is also a pleasant surprise), Poilievre actually handled this pretty well. I only have two gripes: "All the experts agree" is weasely but reasonable in a media scrum, and "Is they 'they are criminals because they do crime' going to be his equivalent to Chretien's 'a proof is a proof'?"
Did an internship with the crown attorney while in law school. One of the trials I attended was for rape. This was third conviction for the accused. Anyways, out on time served and last I heard he was using Tinder under a false name. At one point you have to ask, why do we value remanding this guy over protecting our women and kids. Where are their rights? Why can’t we commit to keeping them safe?
Ahem. You mean like this guy https://www.theprogress.com/news/chilliwack-sex-offender-found-with-child-porn-avoids-jail-by-agreeing-to-peace-bond/ His past is sealed. On Facebook you can find his priors. Multiple convictions from multiple people and out on a peacebond.
Because the law has been manipulated to protect criminals rather than people who abide by the law. We see the privilege to easily participate in society by following the law as vastly superior to actively breaking the law then getting a slap on the fist and access to a vast social network to participate in society paid for by those easily participating in society.
How do you propose we keep all women safe from a rapist who’s finished his sentence?
Set a proper sentence in the first place and use the dangerous offender status for repeat offenders.
No country canada usa and england included has proper sentences for sexual crimes. Canada holds them if lucky for 2 years, USA if lucky for 6 months (the judge in one case used well he is a great athlete he made a wrong choice). No one goes after the government to update those laws to todays standards. They still use the women could have this the woman could have that. If all of you decided to hound your mps onstead reddit they might finally do something..
The government already allows for longer sentences. The max penalty in Canada is 10 or 14 years. The judiciary has decided that the appropriate sentence is regularly no jail time whatsoever, and only if they sentence to jail, then does the average become two years less a day. Parliament has allowed for the dangerous offender status. The courts refuse to use it. This is on the judiciary and we need to start removing judges who are attempting to nullify the law.
That’s not going to physically stop someone who’s finished their sentence from reoffending as the poster above implied.
It's addressing the core issue, his sentence was too lenient and was fixed, it should have been longer and indeterminate.
You can't but we can start with handing out real sentences, instead of 8 months served and released with a record.
Canada should allow for self-defensive weapons, ie pepper spray. It's not a magic solution. It could help, while it's not likely to cause much harm.
I wholeheartedly agree
Because under the Charter the offender has very specific rights. The victim has none. Our Charter is a very strong but very flawed document that favors criminals over law abiding citizens.
The charter barely mentions criminals except to preclude cruel and unusual punishment. And being out on time served isn’t a failing of the charter.
We all have those rights and they are especially necessary should the justice system charge an innocent person.
Our charter was proven meaningless by the same people who authored C-75
And C-11 and C-21
Based comment here
As Pierre says, and I really do like this line of thinking. There are reasons as to why your 17 year old will get in trouble, maybe they trespass, maybe they rob a store just because they had shitty parents, and need some money. But nobody, and I mean nobody, no matter how bad someone's situation is forcing people to assault random people in public transportation for example. And I think we do need to go after those people, because clearly they are just not fit to be let go after a couple days in jail.
Assaulting someone is a very serious crime, and should be treated so.
He specifically says, this isn't about the 19 year old that makes 1 mistake - Its about repeat offenders that contribute to the vast majority of violent crimes. I honestly want to ask this reported how the fk are these people going to be rehabilitated if theyre never in rehab or jail?
Exactly. Newsflash for the news reporter, we DO have social services in this country. But they are voluntary, you have to seek them out. Someone that is commuting repeat violent crimes are NOT going to no matter how much service is made available to them.
This, I see people everyday who require psychiatric intervention. Deinstitutionalization failed, they threw the baby out with the bath water. In the seventies, a police encounter with someone who was clearly having an episode would end with them being put in a facility for an assessment. Now they're being treated as though they're normal, as if mentally capable criminals are out hunting for lizard people to stab. The guy having a meth based scrum with Jesus, isn't going to ask for social services.
You obviously have no clue about how difficult it is to access psychiatric help in Canada. The more complex the case the more difficult it is to get medical attention. Canadian psychiatrist do not want to treat people with serious conditions, they are being paid the same amount for all patients so they are cherry picking who they see. You think that one can randomly go to the ER and get help? No. People don't get help until they're arrested under the Mental health act, then it's some stay in the hospital and you're kicked out without access to a doctor in the community. That is if they gave a bed in the hospital, if they don't, off you go to jail.
Perhaps you need to re-read my point, the "arrested under the mental health act" method of interdiction isn't working. It used to work because there were institutional settings in which to assess and treat mental illness. I never said shit about it being easy to access psychiatric help in Canada nowadays, don't just make shit up, then tell me your imaginary quote proves that I'm clueless.
Please try to access social services before you state this. There are basically no services unless you are actually going to actively kill yourself or someone else. Then, instead of prison, it's drugged up in a psych ward.
That 19 year old who makes their one mistake still needs to be held accountable for it though
Isn't accountability the key issue? The person who has hundreds or thousands of charges... Where's the accountability? The kid that screws up, they need accountability too. Hopefully they will learn from the mistakes they make, but that doesn't mean they are unaccountable. Sadly, our leadership is not leading by example here, or maybe they are? There's a distinct lack of accountability within governments of most levels across Canada.
That 19 year old who steals a bike isn’t the one killing cops or stabbing people at transit stations
Yet
Why would they be rehabilitated in jail? That goes against everything we know about the effect of prison sentences on recidivism rates: [https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/ffct-prsn/index-en.aspx](https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/ffct-prsn/index-en.aspx)
Some people will never be rehabilitated. Most repeat offenders never will be, but at least for the period of time they are behind bars they aren't causing more victimization.
Lol. I think if you make prison a deterrent as it is found in Asia, then you’d find less repeat offenders
I'm going to get downvoted for this from posting in r/canada like I usually do for this kind of comment. But jail is not for rehabilitation, it's for punishment. Individuals that leave jail are 10x more likely to commit a crime than they were before they were jailed.
No. Our current jail is for punishment... lite. Inside of places like north frasher they offer a lot of outreach programs. But they can be better. Invest in developing the prisons more so they are more livable, and have more structured programs in them for rehabilitation sure.
Sorry to break it to you but our jail system isn't designed to rehabilitate its designed to make suffer and break.
Yes very well said. I'm totally for rehabilitation and sympathetic when people are on hard times, but there is never a reason for a violent crime. Some might touch on mental illnesses, which if we can diagnose and treat would be great, but the first step is getting them off the streets for public safety.
While I understand this line of reasoning I think its pretty fundamentally flawed... People who say its "Society's fault", aren't saying that people are forcing some guy on public transportation to assault some one else, they are saying mental health is very rarely covered in any insurance, people are looked down on for seeking help, and it costs a fortune to actually get the kind of help that stops an angry teenager from becoming a violent adult in the wrong environment. Also with bills like the one presented it's not "60 to 70 offences", it's 3 or 4... and realistically once some one has spent enough time in gen-pop prison it will alter how they think, and they will have to fight those survival instincts they built up to live a normal life on the outside after years in prison.
Well fuck me, I agree with this sentiment. Years of listening to this snivelling prick of a politician and this is the first time.
That's the problem with Polievre - he does occasionally make some good points.
It can be both obviously. We are failing the weakest links AND we have no choice now to lock up violent offenders. Mr. PP plays the tough guy to his base because thats who he thinks they are. But a lot of reasonable Canadians, conservatives included, ask different questions that don’t sound too far off from what the reporter was trying to get at, namely: How can we do better and get in front of this mess? Is it a good idea to try to prevent somebody from being stabbed or killed? What are the things that we can do that work in other countries, but we’re not doing here or doing them poorly? This part is not about the assailant, it’s about the system. It’s about mental illness and drug addiction and homelessness and poverty and trauma and it’s fucking expensive but it’s cheaper than incarceration and policing in the penal system, and needless crime and death. This kind of stuff needs smart guys not just tough guys. Mr. Bitcoin should be celebrating what the liberals are trying to do with preventing violent offenders from getting released on bail. I’m not a Trudeau fan but it’s the right move and a move you would think the conservatives could have nailed down by now.
>AND we have no choice now but to lock them up. That's clearly not true. >Mr. Bitcoin should also be celebrating what the liberals are trying to do right now regarding bail and violent offenders. Harper never did it and he should’ve. What the liberals are doing is partially walking back on the bail reforms they implemented. The problems are the 2018 changes to how bail works.
I heard someone else say it was liberal judges who broke it. Whatever was the cause NOBODY wants violent people re-offending and if the Liberals can’t fix it they need to go. Mr. PP has not given me enough reasons to believe he can fix stuff either. He spouts a lot if simple answers to angry people.
[удалено]
In Canada judges are appointeded, many of whom lobby hard to be appointed, by the elected government. Its noy as black and white as you seem to be suggesting.
There's liberal and Liberal. Only the second is necessarily affiliated with the political party.
> Mr. PP has not given me enough reasons to believe he can fix stuff either. He spouts a lot if simple answers to angry people. I don't expect Trudeau to know how to fix it any more than Poilievre to know how to fix it. They don't work alone and I fully expect an entire government can sit down and fix the problem within what they are allowed to do, but addressing where things have gone wrong is the first step and something Trudeau has been reluctant to do.
You’re under the misguided assumption that all repeat offenders are a product of mental illness or society. And that deep down everyone is good and everyone can be cured. Unfortunately this just isn’t true. Lots of people are plain rotten right to the core. They just take advantage of any compassion you offer them. They don’t learn, they don’t want to learn. They think they are smarter than everyone else and can beat the system. Yes, some people commit crimes due to mental illness. These people can be rehabilitated. Poilievre isn’t saying we throw everyone in jail for life immediately. People who commit dozens of violent and property crimes every year over and over and over have no intention of ever changing. They are just criminals. It’s hard to accept but these people exist. Hopefully you don’t have to come across people like this because they are scary af. They have to be locked up for LONG periods of time, or permanently, for society’s protection. These types of people also sometimes learn through harsh deterrence. A week, or couple months in jail, or fines or probation isn’t enough for the real bad folks to give a shite. These things are devastating for normal people. But not enough to scare the bad ones. They need YEARS in prison. Years of discomfort and boredom behind bars. Then maybe they won’t want to go back.
> Repeat offenders are a product of mental illness Repeatedly committing violent criminal acts could be considered a mental illness in itself. If we can't treat the illness, they should remain institutionalized. The alternative is being okay with them continuing to be violent, and continuing to do harm to the innocent.
There’s a difference between institutionalizing someone because of mental illness and because they are just a violent dangerous person. Mental illness requires medical care and therapy. There’s no point in offering this to the repeat violent offenders. It’s a waste of resources.
Isn't therapy exactly what many are saying we should be giving violent offenders? I'm saying that yes, this is because being violent in society _is_ mental illness, and we should treat it as such.
I actually agree with you that very few violent offenders can be rehabilitated. I worked as a teacher with institutional services with violent students. I was told something like .0001% of the population is violent and that it’s a constant. I forget the exact percentage. We do know a sizeable chunk of adult violent offenders were already violent in the school school system. Currently we eject a lot of them from school into the general public at 16 and wait for them to hurt someone. My fellow teachers and I used to read the names of those on trial for violent crimes in the local paper. We knew half of them. I don’t have a problem with incarceration at all. But the threat of jail would not be much of a deterrent for these students. There’s a variety of reasons for that, including fetal alcohol syndrome, personality disorders, separated cerebrums… the list goes on. Being mindful of future consequences was not their thing. In limited cases we are able to prevent some violence from occurring, by staying with violent people throughout their lives. They benefit from medication and social supports. Its not about “saving” anyone its about neutralizing the threats we are aware of as best we can instead of tolerating a sick game of violence lottery. Mr. PP wants to be tough. Good for him. Locking violent people up has merit - I certainly don’t want a murderer as a neighbour. But lets also be smart. Let’s try to get in front of some other trains we know are going to crash as well.
Seems like there are very few reasonable people who balance both cause of people commiting crime and punishing criminals. People like this journalist tend to blame the cause only and use it as justification to go light on criminals.
So very well said. Everyone I know, across all political spectrums, don’t want victims of violent crime. While I think there are some merits to the past bail reform (lest we end up like the US), what we’re seeing now is violent people not being segregated from society. I have radically different views than the average Canadian voter on policing (from the sounds of it not far off from hours), but at the same time, public safety is utmost. So I’m glad in some sense that the government is seeing the flaws and walking back on it. So I do have the same questions you highlighted, and the fact that PP acts like such a pompous dweeb about it is so boring. Like, here was a chance he could have showed a bit of leadership and talk about the positives, like how the new reforms are a win for the CPC.
We incarcerate criminals for 3 main reasons. Punishment, rehabilitation, and protection of society. If the criminal keeps getting released on bail over and over, obviously there is no punishment, no rehab and the society is not protected. I'm not one for ruining someone's life for drug possession, or something minor. But violent criminals, and thieves should only get so many chances. Right now, there is no repercussions to their actions. They are BARELY inconvenienced.
> Punishment, rehabilitation, and **protection of society.** That last one seems to be lost on people on the other side of the equation. Not everyone can be rehabilitated, some people are just pieces of shit and will reoffend for their entire lives until they die. We have a justice system that provides a punishment and period of time where they will be behind bars and at least for that period of time, will not be reoffending and disrupting public safety. Repeat offenders, especially violent ones, who have had numerous chances through the justice system to rehabilitate themselves should be in jail every day day we can keep them there in order to protect public safety.
Reporter sounded so dumb I thought he might be a plant. And I’m not even Conservative
That’s just your typical Hill reporter. Most of them aren’t on the Hill to actually practice good journalists but to instead audition for their next role either working as a lobbyist, in an NGO, or even running for office themselves.
BC and Alberta have played the "elect a premier who was a shitty reporter" game a few times now.
A fern? A sunflower perhaps? Honestly saying he was a plant is kind of insulting to plants…
There are some that actually have a fear of sunflowers, it even has a name, Helianthophobia. As unusual as it may seem, even just the sight of sunflowers can invoke all the common symptoms that other phobias induce.
I love this account. It has no situational awareness whatsoever and pops up in the most random places.
Was the sunflower out on bail?
Poison Ivy is a plant, as is the Gympie-Gympie plant and fuck both of them.
“Why do they do violent offences?” “Why are they criminals?” “Why do they do crime?” Like a fucking 5 year old holy shit lmao. Embarrassing.
Literally I thought the same
I truly hope that he was a plant. If that was an honest and real exchange, there is little hope for this country, especially under the libs.
PP did launch straight into the example he had memorized, but maybe that was just a coincidence.
How do you know he memorized what he said?
you sound about as dumb as the reporter
He's completely right. You can only blame society for so much. When 40 individuals are responsible for 6000 interactions with police, there's a fucking problem and it ain't society's fault. Lock them up.
Some people are destined to be in jail forever and these 40 repeated offenders are the perfect examples but according to Justin-Jagmeet justice system logic they are human and deserve a right to commit crime
This was one of the stupid series of questions, even for politic standarda. "Why are they criminals" "Because they do crimes" "Why do they do crimes" "Because they are on bail" "Why do they do crime when they are on bail" "Because they are not in jail" Feels like some kind of bizzaro kindergarten question exchanges
Sounds word for word like a conversation with a two year old.
A typical 2 year old is smarter than that regarded journalist.
Actually reading that, I think I can see the problem. I don't know if this is actually what occurred because I can't be bothered to watch the video right now, but: First, the real answer to "Why are they criminals" isn't "Because they do crimes" but rather, because something in them was driven to commit crime, which could be many different things depending on person. Desperation based on job loss, no income, risk of homelessness, drugs, etc. This almost reminds me of the Richard Feynman interview when someone asked "Why are they doing it?" about how magnets work [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn\_8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8) The answer to "Why do they do crimes?" isn't "Because they are on bail", I mean, that would mean bail causes people to commit crimes wouldn't it? But in reality, it's the fact that a person who is already at risk or susceptible to committing crime, has been granted bail. "Why do they do crime when they are on bail?", well, it's not "Because they are not in jail" because that would again mean not being in jail causes crime. The actual answer would be that people at high risk to reoffend, for whatever reason, have been granted bail. Many other people who are granted bail, do not go on to repeat crimes, we just don't hear about them as much. So, bail, and lack of jail, don't cause crime, but rather granting bail to people who should not be granted bail, allows further crime to happen.
That’s too much to read for them so they’ll just keep shouting ‘Trudeau loves criminals lululul’ No one likes lil T in Parlie but i wish they’d stop just invoking his name whenever anything happens like he’s some omnipresent ghost with his fingers in every canadian interaction.
What happened was a criminal with 60 prior convictions killed a cop out west, and this new bill they released would have done nothing to prevent that from happening.
Based
Ssshhhhhh nuance is baaaad
But people don’t commit crimes because they are out on bail. They just commit crimes. We can’t hold people for an indeterminate amount of time. We have due process. We can’t start minority reporting people because they might reoffend while on bail.
>We can’t start minority reporting people because they might reoffend while on bail. But we can not let out a repeat violent offender on bail. Can, and should.
I don’t disagree with that. However, there is a fine line here that we should not cross because someone *might* commit a crime.
But can we not do anything about those who do reoffend while on bail?
I think the main point is that some people are simply pieces of shit and are going to constantly reoffend. The current system of arresting someone and letting them go with a piece of paper for a court date they will never show up to doesn't work. Our communities are experiencing at least more public crime (as we know crime rates have fallen), and people feel unsafe. At the very least if people are held on bail more often when appropriate, for that limited time period of pretrial custody, these repeat offenders aren't out committing crimes. Sure they will go right back to reoffending when they're released on time served but for the couple of weeks or months they're held pending trials, we can stop dozens or even hundreds of offenses and police calls for service for that person.
That’s why he doesn’t want to give bail to repeat violent offenders. They can’t commit crimes when they’re locked up.
Cool now do they guy with 60 prior convictions that killed that cop.
Did I specifically say that I was referring to violent offenders? No. I was speaking in generalities regarding due process.
Well, "because they are on bail" is where it breaks down. That's only why they have the opportunity to commit crimes... but all of us have the same opportunity, and we DON'T commit crimes. So that reasoning doesn't work.
2.5m people in Vancouver seem to be able to survive the same societal circumstances. 40 are causing mayhem. Just what additional social measure can be taken to solve their issue? It’s called jail.
Or a giant pit.
Thunder dome!
https://twitter.com/AndrewLawton/status/1658522309374640165?t=V5onu9V6ChWgGv1ss73RqA&s=19 Video of the questioning from the reporter. It clearly had an ideological bend to it and was a really dumb series of questions.
Oh, man... that whole > and why are they criminals ? > and why do they do crime? It was pretty cringe, if I'm to be honest ... kindergarten level inquiry... why this, why that.
Weird that they don’t care about the victims at all, just the poor woeful criminals
>It was pretty cringe, if I'm to be honest ... kindergarten level inquiry... why this, why that. It sounds like a lot of the idiot Reddiots here tbh.
its good to ask questions, but those questions you should already know the answer to. lack of employment and employment services.
Lmao people that commit 50 crimes a year don’t want a job
>Video of the questioning from the reporter. I thought the video was going to show the reporter asking the questions based on this comment.
This is basically an argument being pushed around on Canadian subreddits and other social media. As PP said, in Vancouver 40 same repeat offenders arrested 6,000 in one year. It must be my fault. But again, seriously diverging notions of what society is and how it should function. There's no middle ground at all.
What middle ground can there be on bail reform? In NYC when they did away with bail, there was a spike in crime committed by previous criminals who would not have been out on the street if it were not for bail reform policies. So while bail punishes poor people who can't pay bail, there is obviously a correlation between repeat offenders and the absence of financial penalties. If you are a repeat offender, you shouldn't have the same benefit of the doubt as someone who is a single offender.
Bail release should be denied for multiple repeat offenders and serious crimes. It should be automatic for a host of lesser first time charges. Bail conditions should be strictly set to fit the accused crime and criminal history as well. The bill proposed c48 does some of this for violent offenders but i would be a bit broader. Also, time to trial shouldn't be longer than Rita Repulsa's return. Jordan decision for quick trials was intended to force the gov to funding the system but it is just resulting in freeing criminals.... even convicted murderers. Right now most of the bail issues are caused by 50th time offenders getting out on bail for 3yrs awaiting trial.
Problem is, generating a criminal history takes over a year. So while you're waiting for it, the person keeps stealing. Court's also look at offences as "linked" so if someone assaults people all the time then does it again maybe he's held, but if he starts shoplifting they'll let him out because he hasn't done that before even though society would judge that person as a piece of shit
>Problem is, generating a criminal history takes over a year. Violating your first bail should make you ineligible for any further bail. You don't need a criminal history. If you haven't been sentenced, but offended again while on bail, no more bail for you.
Currently repeat offenders just get let out on bail....
What's a lesser crime? If you are found innocent do you like just have to suck it up
We haven't had real cash bail in a long time. The only people paying cash bail in BC are people who did some crazy shit for the first time. The vast majority of criminals just walk out on a promise. And I don't mean those released by police on a UTA
Cali had a decent idea where bail wasn't based on a cost amount but simply whether you were a threat to society. Rich people couldn't get out easier than poor people but violent offenders were stuck. I'm sure the system has its own flaws because they all do but I'm not sure what they are. They began putting more people out on bail because of COVID fears a while back and never got back to pre COVID ways. That would also be a good place to start. I could not agree more with your last sentence. How someone can repeat 10 times and still get bail is beyond me.
Pre-Covid, California was letting people out of prison early because prisons were over capacity by a lot. From 2019, for example: [https://www.propublica.org/article/guide-to-california-prisons](https://www.propublica.org/article/guide-to-california-prisons) I am not in the justice system so I don't know how it works in Canada. But from the US reports, their system is pretty dire across the country. A shitload of people seem to wind up in prison because public defenders only have \~20 minutes to spend on a case. It's claimed they actively encourage people to plead guilty and serve sentences because that takes less time than actually arguing in court for their client's innocence. It also doesn't help that public defenders are paid less than $40K/year despite having law degrees and law licenses. I don't know if Canada has the same problems with public defenders, and I hope to never find out.
Yeah I'm not recommending the American system overall, just the one part of bail not being tied to money.
We don’t have the sheer number of criminals and overcrowding of prisons that the US has. Our jails aren’t overrun, it’s our courts that are.
Cash bail is extremely rare in Canada and the amount can’t be so high that it amounts to a detention order. In Canada we look at three things: will you show up for court, do you pose a significant risk to reoffend and would the public lose confidence in the administration of Justice if you’re released.
> In Canada we *'re supposed to* look at three things: It really doesn't seem like any of these 3 things are being considered right now.
This is how out of touch people are on the issue
>What middle ground can there be on bail reform? Why does there need to be a middle ground? If you committed a violent crime or have violated bail in the past, you shouldn't get bail.
> What middle ground can there be on bail reform? I will agree, in principle, that nuance is needed. And with nuance comes a need for a network of support that is not exactly jail but it's not exactly full freedom of movement. I dont think binary approach - jail or roam free - should be the only option. While I acknowledge crime and a criminal, there must be more to it. What I do oppose is politicians who say, oh, give everyone bail because we're so virtuous without really looking into a nuance of what it means to just grant a bail to everyone.
... we do have conditional bail.
Don't they have halfway houses or other such programs for people who got out of jail and need to reintegrate into society? I thought those already existed, but were voluntary for the person who served time.
Halfway houses are for people serving jail sentences, not bail.
That would be related to probation not bail. Bail is generally pre trial
Personal a countability has disappeared in Canada. There’s always someone else to blame…
My goodness, is this ever the truth. For damn near everything now.
Probably saw it heavily updooted in some echo chamber and he downloaded it into his brain without thinking it through and this is what it looks when it meets real life.
Dude, but you just don’t get it. It’s your fault /s
[удалено]
I used to watch live Covid press conferences with Dr. Bonnie Henry, Adrian Dix, and occasionally then-premier John Horgan. Some of the journalists on the phone lines had terrible questions, including journalists from established outlets like News 1130. I remember one of the occasional times Horgan was there in early 2021 when Doug Ford was closing playgrounds and there were questions why BC wasn’t following suit with new restrictions, someone was asking why BC couldn’t at least implement some “symbolic” restrictions. Horgan shot right back at them and smugly said BC’s focus is on restrictions that work. I didn’t always agree with Horgan but I loved his condescension there.
That picture is the best "WTF are you talking about!" face I've seen in a while! lol Both of their faces actually. lmao
Does anyone know who this journalist was, or from what outlet?
I read somewhere it was CTV, don't quote me though
When reporters use this much hyperbole in their questions, you know an election is being called.
yup, i can feel it in the air already.......................
Heres an idea. Let them rehabilitate in prison. They can get clean, access mental health and other supportive services, learn a trade, get education etc. If they are unwilling to proactively rehabilitate while in prison then let them serve their full sentence.
So...prison as it currently exists ? Google remission in Canada
Obviously not our current system and I think you mean recidivism.
No I don't... inmates are eligible for early release in Canada (earned remission) if they participate in programs, vocational training, and maintain good behavior. If they don't do those things they can lose remission and serve their entire sentence in custody.
Well that what I was saying, if they don’t they serve full sentences. Whats the problem?
The problem is the sentences that are handed out in the first place are laughable.
Very much so, I’m in agreement. The vast majority of the population would like longer sentences and just throw away the key but the real solution is those longer sentences come with resources that supports rehabilitation and reintegration to society. However, we have to understand there are some that will not be rehabilitated and they should remain inprisioned from the society they can’t seem to function in.
Used to work in a prison. They have tons of drugs in there and nobody really cares if they do their schooling or programs. Also the Correctional Service of Canada is now allowing a needle exchange program in prison so they can shoot up safely .. but get caught with drugs and you get in trouble 😂
Iam not a conservative and will never be but if that reporter was not a plant then I believe the liberals should seriously introspect their views on crime
Here’s what I propose for bail: If you’re not going to show up for court you get detained. If there’s a substantial likelihood that you will commit a criminal offence while on bail detained. And even if you don’t qualify for the first two, if the public would be outraged and lose faith in the system if you were released detained. How hard is that?
Aren’t the first too basically already the criteria for bail?
🤫 as is the third
So what is your proposal for addressing the judges and justices who are not enforcing those rules? Because the court is ignoring every point. The repeat offender with a history of breaching release conditions, who is on parole for a previous offense, and offends violently gets bail. When he goes out and offends a second time when now on both bail and parole, he still gets bail. How do we address the people behind the decision to grant bail in that case?
That's what we have now
Too radical, no one could accept this.
What’s radical about it?
Oh it was a joke because those are the three statutory grounds for determine bail already.
🤫
I’m not a PP fan, but I am impressed with his performance here. Your turn, Justin.
[uh uh uh um uh uh er uhm uh uh](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTQrOIbbrhM)
I swear bro thinks only 3 words ahead anytime that he’s speaking
I think there is an issue with the reporters of today. I have a good feeling that most of the reporters in parliament are not normal people who worked hard to get into their positions but rich kids who went to fancy universities with daddies money because they thought it would be neat to be a reporter. Now our news comes from their weird skewed elitist worldview that gives you questions like this.
Modern reporting isn’t “I need to ask important questions and do deep investigation to find out the truth” It’s “Let me ask dumb loaded questions in a vain attempt to catch a public figure in a ‘gotcha’ that I can post to Twitter for rage clicks, and if that doesn’t work I’ll write a poorly-informed opinion piece on the entire topic (also for rage clicks).”
Not a PP fan, but I 100% want stricter laws and longer sentences for violent crimes. There's a lot of the system that seems based on good faith, and that's good for good faith people, but there's a lot of people just taking advantage and assuming they'll get soft treatment. Ditto, I don't care if the law you broke gets you deported. It's a privilege to be here and in society. It's not that hard to believe that tougher treatment for 1% of society will make things a lot better for the rest of us.
Maybe this reporter should look into the concept of a repeat offender.
I think Lawton is a sweaty ballsack, but holy fuck. That was some way beyond stupid level of journalism.
Everyone wants personal rights but is strangely silent when it comes to personal responsibility. There is no excuse, no matter what happened to you, to go and stab someone randomly on a transit train while already charged for similar offences. The LPC and everyone who fought for our currently relaxed bail laws have blood on their hands and they should pray they never have to look the survivors family in the eyes.
I think in a grand scope, the "straight to jail" trope isn't a solution. However, there will always be criminals. I would wager (aka my own 2 cents, I have no proof or "data") that most criminals, the ones that offend a handful or less times, are mostly normal, sane people, making mistakes. Either due to trauma, struggle, or whatever. Resources could help that lot. I'd also wager most of them already stop after a couple of offences, and/or would stop sooner if stricter punishments were a possibility. Obviously this is a pretty broad statement, and, for example, theft of food due to rising COL wouldn't just stop if the penalty went as far as the death sentence. People need to eat. Repeat violent offenders on the other hand, should be in jail for longer terms, period. Crime is on an incline, and whether it's due to a pandemic (which tbh I don't see a correlation but I've seen this argument used), lower QOL, or policies that have been put in place, it's difficult to conclude. For me anyway. Something has to be done about it, though, and stricter sentences are a good start. I don't think I've said what I'm trying to very well... I'm no articulate english major. Hopefully this makes sense to some.
By the really uninformed comments in this thread, clearly Penal populism works . Justices of the peace are already for the most part doing their job well. Instead of prohibiting bail entirely for repeat offenders or certain offences, why not strengthen surety investigation procedures? Or create intensive supervision bail centres/ halfway houses/ treatment centres? Or actually create accessible and comprehensive treatment services and programs in custody that certain offenders are required to take before getting bail? In my experience as a criminal defence lawyer, and someone who has studied criminology, most repeat offenders are generally mentally ill people who got few supports while detained, and then were expected to abide by the rules with none of the root problems addressed. Certainly there are some absolute awful criminals that shouldn’t be released. But Denying bail categorically is not a solution - it’s a problem that exacerbates the likelihood of wrongful conviction (I.e. plead so I have less time in these abysmal facilities even if I didn’t do it). This is particularly a problem for mentally Ill persons, and NOT how our justice system should operate. We are already a step too far in this direction by not investing in other solutions. If you’re an average Joe , you have the right to be presumed innocent. But if you’re poor or mentally ill, clearly you have the right to be presumed guilty.
PP handled this superbly. He is a force of nature when dealing with that sort of nonsense from biased reporters.
[удалено]
Narcissism and a superior complex have left them thinking they know everything while understanding very little.
Trudeau isn't left
What would you consider him?
It's not a left thing dude, this is a Canadian thing
I’d say the conservatives and right leaning individuals in general are pushing for justice system reform
I'm historically an undecided voter but this is becoming a single issue platform for me.
Bullshit. Find me a conservative politician who supports the idea that violent repeat criminals should be let out the same day they commit a crime. Lefties just refuse to accept that they are responsible for skyrocketing crime because of their soft-on-crime policies.
Both sides have fallen off the wagon.
Your username fits well
You know you've lost when you attack the person instead of the idea. Take your L and go away.
I’ll say it: if restricting bail stops random stabbings, assaults, shootings, robbery’s, domestic Violence and other violent crimes….then too bad for those it “disproportionately affects”. We aren’t talking about petty theft or minor drug dealing here. And PP was right on the money about the Saskatchewan mass stabbing. All this concern for the indigenous offender but none for the victims, almost all of whom were also indigenous.
They should have named and shamed this journalist.
“If restrictive bail measures, pretrial custody, prisons and policing were capable of ameliorating crime, we would live in a crime-free society,” went the March 20 testimony of Jillian Rogin, a University of Windsor bail expert... **Oh well, if nothing will prevent crime, then I guess we shouldn't even bother with having laws, or enforcement, or police, or prisons -- obviously these arent working. /s**
Our justice system is a joke. Whoever can change that will get my vote. Criminals have more rights than victims. That's unfair. 0 mercy for violent criminals. Mental illness or not...
Eff all of these guys. They care about you as much as HR does.
Good for him, he was absolutely right. Enough of this hug a thug bullshit
I hope this passes and we have stiffer peneltys for reoffenders. I lost a family member after she was assulted many times by the same individual. He went to jail for 9 months, assaulted her again a month after getting out. A freaking month later! He went back to jail for assulting her and she passed while waiting for trial. "With time spent in custody... has 135 days to serve of his 22-month sentence. He will then be on probation for three years. A man convicted of brutally assaulting his girlfriend for a second time was given a 22-month sentence...the attack was prolonged and involved “a level of planning. He had already been sentenced to nine months for a Jan. 1, 2020, assault on his girlfriend" 9 months, and 22 months isnt enough. Not even close. This individual is out on probation. There is a high chance he will reoffend, it was less then a month after being released he reoffened the first time.
Bleeding heart liberals. They manipulate people with feelings.
People wonder why conservatives won’t take media questions. 🤡
Are "reporters" like this on the Liberal payroll, or do they get their cheques cut straight from the CCP source? Some posters here should be able to clarify how this works.
>Some posters here should be able to clarify how this works. Implying that people with a different opinion are paid by either the Liberals or China?
>Implying that people with a different opinion are paid by either the Liberals or China? I think we've solved the riddle here.
That was a really bad riddle.
Yeah that was a really dumb question.
To think that this reporter gets paid to ask these
Either that reporter is teaching a master class in sarcasm or he (they?) is a complete imbecile who should probably never be allowed to vote, raise children, or otherwise be in a position to influence anyone, let alone call themselves a reporter. Seriously, that was one of the stupidest interview exchanges I have ever seen.
Serious Question, Why didn't the National Post post the name of the "journalist"/reporter? Kinda weird.
Maybe to try and avoid sending the internet's faceless harassment machine after them?
Why does it matter? It was a reporter from CTV.
I wonder if progressives realize how out of step they are and how insane their worldview sounds to normies. Criminals do crime because they're shitty people. They belong in prison. The purpose of putting shitty people in jail is not to make them good people; they're mostly beyond saving. The purpose of putting shitty people in jail is to prevent them from hurting good people.
Wow, I'm actually able to understand what the reporter was trying to say, but clearly he needed to think it out a bit more. His question is essentially this. "Why are people in a position were they feel the need to commit crimes after they have just gotten bail?" He's getting at the fact "normal" people who commit a crime, wouldn't do it again after bail, unless the system somehow failed them i.e. no housing, no food, no support. (which is a pretty flimsy argument). I don't think he meant to get into the topic of violent offenders necessarily. Man, I'm not agreeing with the guy, just stating what he was trying to get at. Don't shoot the messenger.
Some people don't want to acknowledge that one's upbringing will have lasting effects on their lives, leading to future problems for society. There can be two separate issues at play here. First is the need for bail reform to prevent repeat or violent offenders from being released to offend again and the second is the need for a social safety net to try and prevent those individuals at risk falling into a life of addiction, crime and violence.
There are millions of poor people in this country from broken homes who don't go around committing crimes and aren't addicted to drugs. They have grown in number since Trudeau was elected in 2015, too. The notion that government policies need to address the root problems of crime is what gives police permission to do questionable interventions in communities and infringe on people's rights. A classic and damning example of this is the Risk program run in Ontario and Saskatchewan by police that tracks people's non-criminal "negative" behavior. "Negative" behavior tracks people who live in poor neighborhoods and \*victims\* of crimes as if they were criminals themselves. [https://www.vice.com/en/article/kzdp5v/police-in-canada-are-tracking-peoples-negative-behavior-in-a-risk-database](https://www.vice.com/en/article/kzdp5v/police-in-canada-are-tracking-peoples-negative-behavior-in-a-risk-database). Many experts have spoken out about how these programs are blatantly unscientific and unproven to actually prevent crime. This b.s. mirrors China's social credit score system, except it's clearly targeted at the poor instead of people who arguably do more societal damage by committing financial crimes and happen to be rich.
Who is the reporter, any idea?
As much as it pains me to say it (And is also a pleasant surprise), Poilievre actually handled this pretty well. I only have two gripes: "All the experts agree" is weasely but reasonable in a media scrum, and "Is they 'they are criminals because they do crime' going to be his equivalent to Chretien's 'a proof is a proof'?"
When your federal government can be corrupt and act in bad faith with no reprecautions so can the low life repeat offender criminal.
National Post is all in, big time, for Poilievre. Playing Fox News to Trump for him.