Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Government moves to control repeat offenders

TENILLE BONOGUORE

Globe and Mail Update with Canadian Press

Latest comment posted at 3:54 PM EST 17/10/06

Reverse-onus bill to make criminals prove why they should not be listed as dangerous offenders sets Canada on slippery slope to U.S.-style justice system, legal scholar argues ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Jack Ryan from VictoriaToronto, Canada writes: People are going to post that this is the 'Americanization' of the Canadian (non)penal system and that it doesn't work. Well 'wrong' it does work. Unlike the system in some American states where any three convictions lead to an automatic lifetime of incarceration (you could be jailed for life for three shoplifting convictions), these are for three violent offences, and just carry an additional minimum of seven years. There is not one judge in Canada who gives anyone much more than the minimum. And I'll happily pay extra taxes for repeat 'violent' offenders to dine at my expense behind bars. Don't just bash the policy because it is a Conservative policy. Think about it. There won't be that many criminals who this applies to, but they will deserve it.
  2. Puntal Puntal from Calgary, Canada writes: Why is this country obsessed with protecting criminals' rights above all else? Once you commit a crime, you should necessarily be demoted to some secondary class of rights (of course, those protecting due process must remain in place as they are critical to the system's overall progress). I'm sure the families affected by james whitmore's actions this summer (abduction of 2 boys after being convicted something like 11 separate times in the past) would be thrilled to hear if he was back on the streets. This isn't '3 strikes' law, if it's limited to the most severe violent/sexual offences. It's simply evidence that society has lost patience with someone who blatantly disregards the laws by which 99% of us abide.
  3. J Kay from Canada writes: Besides violating every principle upon which the justice system is based, that being the onus is alway on the crown to prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt, the reverse-onus set an essentially impossible burden on the defendant. In simple terms, 'prove you are NOT a danger to society'. That is, prove a negative. Given the impossibility of that task I suspect few if any defendants will be able to avoid being labled as dangerous offenders and forever labelled as such. The onus should remain on the crown, given the vast resources and powers that the crown has in prosecuting and making such determinations, it is unreasonable and frankly immoral to place the onus on the defendant no matter how henious, odious said person is. If the case that the defendant is a danger to society has merit then the crown should not have difficulty proving it. The abject failure of three strikes laws to curtail violent crime where they have been attempted before simply supports the case for voting down this proposed legislation.
  4. Have Pun Will Travel from Christmas Island writes: This should have been done years ago.
  5. Gordon Clark from Vancouver, Canada writes: Coming soon to a neighbourhood near you, dozens of new federal prisons! Wait until the nimbies hear about it and start threatening their MPs with new work in the private sector.
  6. Guillaume Afleck from Ottawa, Canada writes: By addresing repeat violent and sexual crimes only this bill seems like a sensible balance compared to the arbitratry nature of the US three felony strikes type laws. It ensures that some guy doesn't get life for stealing a piece of pizza. Unless he steals it by killing and or raping the pizza store owner. And then he should go away forever. Obviously this law is not as much about deterrence as it is about incarcerating guaranteed offenders before they repeat their crimes on more innocent victims. Nothing wrong with that. The reverse onus sounds pretty sensible here. The liberals would never pass this because they take parliamentary seats in jurisdictions that contain prisons - and they gave prisoners (lifers!) the vote! (Peter Milliken from Kingston and the Islands come on down!) Another hit for the new government of Canada.
  7. Paul Jones from kitchener, Canada writes: although i dont oppose this legislation, i like the approach of Dr. Anand better. i think he has some good ideas that should be discussed.
  8. Scott England from Calgary, Canada writes: “They incarcerate very large numbers of people who are not that dangerous,” I thought that this Act was to only deem someone a dangerous offender who had a third violent or sexual assault. Does the professor think that repeat-rapists are not that dangerous?
  9. Richard Ball from Charlottetown PEI, Canada writes: “All the evidence says if you want to reduce rates of violence, you need to tackle the risk factors of people, particularly young, violent men.” Yes. We should seek to give our children the best possible start in life: a stable home that includes both their mother and their father. This does not guarantee success, but it increases its likelihood.
  10. Greg R from Canada writes: To clarify for readers who will fear we are abandoning the presumption of innocence until proof of guilt, this reverse-onus legislation applies to cases of repeat conviction for the most heinous offences. Cases like Peter Whitmore etc. This will not be a universal phenomenon. Further, to respond to Dr. Anand's last comments, more police may be desirable, but by itself does not mean less crime. The UK has one of the largest police forces per-capita of any nation, as well as the highest use of Closed-circuit TV monitoring, yet weak laws and poor enforcement mean that they still have some of the industrialized world's worst rates of violent crime, particularly assaults and home invasions. Tough laws are vital to combat violent crime, and (as any Victims' support group will tell you) this is a step in the right direction.
  11. Harvey Mushman from cambridge, Canada writes: You know we can talk and talk and talk about rights and the charter for an eternity without ever doing or accomplishing anything to change the status quo...which pretty much everyone agrees is inadequate to protect society from cronic offenders. This proposed legislation might not be perfect but at least it is an attempt to fix a system that is not working. It sure beats the 'tough talk' and 'zero action' governments we've become accustomed to in Canada.
  12. maurizio arani from woodbridge, Canada writes: And I'm sure that more judges and better crime provention would have stoped Paul Bernardo. YAH RIGHT!! These layers don't care about public safety and the comunities. They put criminals rights before the public. They care about the bottom line and how much they make. Harpper is on the right track. Tougher laws and more jails longer sentences to keep these sickos away longer or for good
  13. Kenneth Williment from Canada writes: Good luck surviving a charter challenge!
  14. Kim Morton from Canada writes: Perhaps if some of these dogooders were attacked by a repeat offender who is running around loose because his lawyer convinced a judge that he had a bad childhood and didn't really mean to kill little kids they would change their minds as to who the law is to protect.
  15. BC Guy from Canada writes: At last we are seeing sensible legislation that will better ensure that the criminal takes responsiblity for the choices that he or she makes. It is high time that we stopped following the advice of the so-called 'experts'. It is their advice that has led to the current untenable situation. The current approach enables and facilitates ongoing irresponsiblity. It is true that the criminal is often a victim of incredibly sad circumstances. Still, that in no way mitigates against his or her responsiblity for choosing to repeatedly commit violent or sexual crimes.
  16. Chris Edwards from Canada writes: Ahh, so much to say, so little time. As a Liberal supporter, I have always been frustrated with their stance on law and order. I support this bill by the Harper government, which is not a position I find myself in often. It is high time something was done about repeat violent offenders, and I have yet to hear anybody put up a logical or common sense defence in opposition to this bill. Is it a deterrent? Who cares? It will be a deterrent for THAT criminal. Given the information that has been disseminated thus far, in fact, in my view it may not even go far enough. I am eager to hear details on what crimes this actually applies to - hopefully they have not spread the net TOO wide, but on the flip side, hopefully it is wide enough. I'd say start at serious aggravated assault and go from there - basically, anything that causes serious lifelong repercussions to the victim. As for the reverse onus and constitutional challenge angles - because of this it may not stand, which is unfortunate. I think it is also redundant - once a violent offender is on their third conviction for a serious, violent crime, have they not proven by their own actions that they are likely to repeat the offence. I think it should be taken out of the hands of the courts at that point - nevermind proving they are dangerous. Nevermind giving them a chance at parole in seven years. They have proven themselves dangerous by their own actions, and I don't care if some smooth talking psychopath can behave well and fool a shrink into thinking he's cured. Enough victims. Enough said. No need to back up the courts. Lock 'em up and don't hear from them at all. I'll likely be in some company I don't usually like to keep on this one, but my God, some common sense in this regard is long past due.
  17. T T from Canada writes: I agree that more crime prevention is needed. However, crime prevention is not going to stop people who are already hardboiled criminals. This piece of legislation is a no brainer for anyone who cares about our society and its increasing violence. And another thing, this is not the 'three strikes you're out law' that was passed in the US. It is nothing like it. I wish people would stop making the comparison. I totally support this legislation. Funny how the only people who seem to have a problem with it are mainly criminal defense lawyers (Gee, I wonder why).
  18. garrett deyne from Mississauga, Canada writes: So instead of one lawyer trying to prove someone is dangerous now one lawyer is trying to prove he isn't. Same facts, same offender, same judge, same outcome. This is Harper pretending to get tough on crime without actually doing anything. Time to get more judges so dangerous offenders out on bail aren't out on bail waiting for trial for such a long time that they can commit more crimes. How about quick trials, that would actually help.
  19. Michael H from Edmonton, Canada writes: Why listen to experts when you have 'common sense' legislation? Why bother trying to improve the plight of Natives in Canada, just put the tools in place to lock them up and throw away the key? Why accept the failure of similar legislation in California when it sounds so simple and so good? Why acknowledge that crime rates are falling when the daily news broadcasts will convince people that it is not? Why let facts stand in the way when you can give the appearance of doing something about crime? Why let reality stand in the way of votes?
  20. Charles Wirrell from Cranbrook, B.C., Canada writes: About time!! No doubt the lefties will be having a hue and cry over this but we're talking about folks who have had 2-3 past CONVICTIONS of violent or sexual related crimes. This isn't about a 15 year old swiping a bag of chips and being tossed in jail for the rest of his life as the lefties would like us to believe but rather about the Clifford Olsens and Paul Bernardos of the world. The folks who are a clear a present danger to society if they ever see the light of day again! A law like this would have kept the likes of Karla Homolka or whatever she calls herself now in jail or at a minimum monitored for life to ensure others do not die by her hand.
  21. paul malouf from Montreal, Canada writes: Another dumb legislative idea. 1) law could be unconstitutional 2) huge cost in billions to imprison more people 3) not a deterrrent, look at US. Thus harper is playing politics. Liberals & Conservatives are not governing well. They should remember 'Peace Order & Good Government'. It seems good government has been replaced by dumb governnment.
  22. fedup taxpayer from ottawa, Canada writes: Let me see, most Liberals are lawyers and if these career criminals are put away for good then they won't have any repeat business. Really quite simple if you are a Liberal.
  23. True North from Canada writes: 'We, the government, cannot prove that you are dangerous in a court of law and so, in the spirit of the law passed today by our masters in the US, will make you try to prove you deserve your rights.'
  24. Proud Canadian from United States writes: Liberal justice critic Sue Barnes raised concerns that the proposed changes could cause a backlog within the penal system and face a valid constitutional challenge. Oh why didn't you say so, well let's not put anyone in Jail then. Looks like 13 years of Liberal neglect and inepitude is coming home to roost.
  25. Rick Czarnota from Calgary, writes: It's about time. There is no excuse to commit even one violent or sexual crime. If someone is convicted of a third violent or sexual crime they should be removed from society permanently. In fact anyone convicted of two violent or sexual crimes should be removed from society permanently. Allowing the second conviction is simply to placate the people who make excuse after excuse for violent criminals who have proved they are not worthy of the rights and freedoms Canadian citizens enjoy.
  26. Bob Rollheiser from Canada writes: It is time that people were made resposnable for their actions. Those doo gooder social engineers try and point out that jail dosn't help. The hug-a-thug bunch haven't solved anything after years of trying, so what would they suggest? Every one deserves a second chance but those who will not learn from their mistakes should be prevented from repeating them. The general public expects a degree of protection from criminals, finally we have a government that is trying to do just that.
  27. Evan Davies from Canada writes: I don't like the idea of a 'three strikes and you're out' system, but it's interesting to see that there's some support from the opposition parties and from the legal establishment. What I'd like to know is why the government has not spent more time talking to academics and practicing lawyers -- the actual experts. The points at the end of the article sound quite sensible.
  28. Proud Canadian from United States writes: NDP justice critic Joe Comartin was skeptical, calling the bill “a bit of an overkill” and saying he has serious doubts that it could stand up to constitutional scrutiny. Try saying that to the victims Joe. THERE IS NO OVERKILL WHEN IT COMES TO DEALING WITH CRIMINALS!!!!!
  29. JD Wood from Toronto, Canada writes: Well finally the Stephen Harper government has taken steps to throw the administration of justice into disrepute. What's next? We will be having to PROVE that Stephen Harper and his right-wing party? should not be elected? A reverse onus election clause? They tried that in 1933, Stevo.
  30. remi houle from Chicoutimi, Canada writes: More police in the street? How about less criminals in the streets?
  31. silver paladin from Calgary, Canada writes: Amazing! No matter what, everything seems to feel that the solution to society problem is to throw fistful after fistful of dollars into fixing things. Organizations and professors keep coming up with ideas that the solution is only by spending more and more tax payers monies. If the people in society would act more responsible, then there would be much less problems, and a lessor burden on the tax system. Instead, we live in a society that feels everyone should have all these extra rights, that everyone deserves everything, and nobody is to have self-blame for their actions. Why should anyone accept the blame for their actions, when the tax-payers should just keep spending money to solve unsolveable problems. Repeat violent offenders are just that VIOLENT. Why are they in jail in the first place? Because they broke laws. Why are they called violent offenders? Because they commit crimes with violent means or violent ends. If a person has to prove that they ARE NOT violent after three such punishments - well, obviously they have more than proven that they are not only violent in the past, but are repeat violent offenders. Keep the scum off the street. The Liberals messed everything up when they removed the LAST RESORT punishment - Capital Punishment. We as a society may not return to capital punishment, but something needs to be done to the violent offenders - and a slap on the wrist (again thank you Lieberals, lefties) is certainly not working.
  32. The Philosopher King from Canada writes: I'm all for segregrating dangerous individuals from the general population, but if it is so obvious that these people are dangerous, why the reverse onus? It seems that abandoning the principle of innocent before proven guilty, especially when we're talking about the commission of future crimes not current ones, is a dangerous precident to enshrine in law. And for the brainiacs: yes these people have committed crimes for which they must account, but the question here is one of indefinite incarceration on the basis of committing future crimes. We MUST be sure not to set precidents which can be used in other cases to deny people their rights, regardless of whether you've written them off or not. Until we actually have a restorative justice system and not the current vengence system we have in place, such things will be neccessary. Perhaps if we as a society could get over the petty notion of 'punishment' and move forward with more progressive means of eliminating recidivism, we might actually nip this cycle in the bud. It's like the man who repeatedly bangs his head against a brick wall in the determined belief that eventually the wall will break, when all it really does is cause a bigger headache. Time to grow up and join the 21st century people.
  33. Rob S from Toronto, Canada writes: It's about time something was done to keep violent criminals and sex offenders behind bars inside of the current revolving door system that constantly lets these creeps out to perpetrate more crimes. Justice should err on the side of victims and the innocent general public at large! We have way too many examples where people with a violent history or multiple serious sex offences have been let out and they ultimately murder some innocent person or child. There is absolutely nothing wrong with making these continual offenders justify why they should not be a danger to society as opposed to automatically releasing them to laugh at the justice system one more time. To them the constant revolving door process is a joke and is just another invitation to commit even more crimes with very little consequences! Good on the Conservatives for keeping another promise! To the bleeding heart Lieberals and N-dippers who will scream and shout and mumble about the new law not standing up to a constitutional challenge I say 'too bad'. Let the new law be tested in court. That's democracy at work - something of course which is an anathema to the Lieberals and NDP! I'm sure we will also hear the usual suspects (many of whom reside on these posts!) come out of the woodwork and blame it all on George Bush and link him to Mr. Harper once more - how tiresome their constant chanting of US bogeymen and their lack of understanding reality is! What is important is protecting not just the security and life of the public but that of our children in particular. If this new law puts the reverse onus on some repeat low-life sex offender to justify why they should be set free then so be it! Better that than another one of our children is raped or murdered or even worse - both!!!!
  34. Ken Rush from Canada writes: The fact that the Defense Lawyers are opposed to this bill tells me it is a good idea. Who gives a skunk's perfume if it will stand up constitutionally. This protects innocent people and if it saves one person/child who so called slips through our system then it is worth it.
  35. I R from Canada writes: So begins the attacks by the Harper government on undermining the decisions made by the Supreme Court of Canada...
  36. Bradley Hill from writes: I find it refreshing that our current politicians are prepared to govern and make the laws instead of abdicating that responsibility to the supreme court in the name of the Charter of Rights.
  37. Chris Hay from Regina, Canada writes: 'Mr. Toews said the bill would act as a deterrent and reduce repeated, dangerous crime' Hunh? I'm willing to grant Minister Toews is partially correct - with longer jail sentences this bill will reduce REPEATED dangerous crimes. but 'act as a deterrent' ???? I'm not sure what the Minister is smoking (for his sake, one hopes it is legal - otherwise with his new 3-strikes law proposal, he too will become incarcerated), but I have yet to read any valid statistic or hear any convict state that the harshness of a law actually caused him to stop and think of the consequences of continuing to commit his/her crime. All this law will accomplish is a false 'feel good' move by the government and substantially increase the prison population without actually solving anything. By all means, and agreed, serious crime acts should be punished accordingly, but to attribute a law such as this to preventing those acts is to seriously mislead the pubic.
  38. Steven Koning from Bloomfield Ontario, Canada writes: Some ivory tower inhabitant says this is the slippery slope to US conditions and the crime rate is already going down. Well, what this will do is make the crime rate go down even more, and all bleeding heart violent criminal lovers should remember their own mantra which is that if it saves only one life, then it's worth the trip to jail. All those decrying the cost of jails, well that's the cost of not having the death penalty.
  39. Chris Edwards from Canada writes: To #19 - I am happy to take up your challenge. Q) Why listen to experts when you have 'common sense' legislation? A) Because experts will talk and talk and talk and talk - experts have had plenty of time to do something about this, and the reasons why such legislation is necessary still exist. Q) Why bother trying to improve the plight of Natives in Canada, just put the tools in place to lock them up and throw away the key? A) Nice bit of paternalism. Why can't we do both? Are natives not just as responsible for their actions as anybody else? Q) Why accept the failure of similar legislation in California when it sounds so simple and so good? A) Because you are using an argument that holds no water at all - this is not the American three strikes law. Q) Why acknowledge that crime rates are falling when the daily news broadcasts will convince people that it is not? A) Indeed, crime rates are falling. This is about locking up the worst of the worst. It is not designed to reduce crimes, but to punish and make us safe from those who would repeat heinous offences over and over again. Apples and oranges. Q) Why let facts stand in the way when you can give the appearance of doing something about crime? A) What facts are you referring to? The fact that heinous crimes ARE committed by people who do this again and again? In my small city alone there are two cases in front of the courts. This is not a bill designed to do something about crime in general - only violent crime perpetrated over and over again by the same criminals. Q) Why let reality stand in the way of votes? A) Whose reality? Yours, or the reality of the people and families who are victimized by these people? Are you saying they don't exist? Tell you what - why don't we just sentence them to live with you and your family?
  40. mini wheat from Toronto, Canada writes: If the criminals were given the upper end of sentencing ranges, 14 years instead of 14 months, then we wouldn't have to wait for their 3rd conviction, they would have already spent 28 years in jail for their first two. The real agenda here is to reduce the power of lenient judges who throw away common sense to get quick guilty pleas and free up the courts. Overall good move by the government and the civil service of the Dept. of Justice. Next project - mandatory minimum sentences. I support you 100%.
  41. Steve D from St. John's, Canada writes: The main complaint against this seems to be the claim that it abandons the presumption of innocence and the onus on the state to prove someone's guilt. Not so. The offender's guilt has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt at least three times prior to this statute being invoked. The extra term is just a bonus to reward the repeat violent and/or sexual offender's dedication to their calling, and their refusal to learn from the previous slaps on the wrist administered in the first two episodes. This law doesn't threaten the liberty of the innocent.
  42. Dat Guy from edmonton, Canada writes: I have a better idea - just let all these repeat violent offenders including the sexual ones into the regular prison population where their sentence will probebly be death by inmate justice. It will only take a few of those to convince some inmates to reconsider their actions.
  43. M W from Victoria, Canada writes: So to all of the people on here that are against the three strikes you are out, have you ever been a victim of a serious crime; RAPE, MURDER, ROBBERY or PEDOPHILIA? A victim can be a person directly or indirectly affected. Forget the religious beliefs for why you are against three strikes you are out, just give me a straight answer.
  44. Sam B from Cambridge, Canada writes: #3 J Kay - this bill is not changing one iota, the requirement of the Crown to prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt. What this bill is saying, is after the Crown has proven it's case, beyond a reasonable doubt, 3 times nonetheless, it's up to the offender to prove that he/she will not be a danger to society after they serve their 3rd sentence. They're simply changing the definition of dangerous offender to somebody who has sexually or violently assaulted, another person three times in the past. If you fall into that category, you have to prove why you shouldn't be considered a threat to society. Frankly, I want the person who has raped 3 times, tried to kill somebody 3 times, or has been convicted of manslaughter 3 times to be removed from society. Incarceration isn't always about rehab or deterrence, but also about protecting society from people who have shown themselves unable/unwilling to interact with society without causing irreparable harm to another. Like others, I'll wait until I get the details on what specific crimes are included under the 'sexual or violent' heading, before supporting or opposing it. I also think you need grassroots programs aimed at populations at-risk to offend, however that will only help deal with tomorrows criminals, not today’s. A true crime fighting program would include community programs to stop people from going down the path to begin with, jail time as a deterrent, rehab during incarceration is an absolute must (to aid those who the community programs missed), and then isolation from society for those who have repeatedly shown an incapability to co-exist with society. As much as this may burn the partisans, you need ideologies from both the 'right' and the 'left' to arrive at a workable solution.
  45. Alec Owen from Canada writes: A wedge issue. A sop to the thoughtless. A great vote-grabber. See the herd run. We have a dangerous offenders' act which would be sufficient with knowledgable judges. I cannot support any legislation which imposes the onus on a convicted person to prove that he is not dangerous. Nor I would not support any legislation that imposes an onus on a person standing for public office to prove he is not a thief or an idiot.
  46. Chris Edwards from Canada writes: #32 states 'Perhaps if we as a society could get over the petty notion of 'punishment' and move forward with more progressive means of eliminating recidivism, we might actually nip this cycle in the bud.' Petty notion of punishment? Tell it to the families, tell it to the murdered and raped, tell it to the scarred for life. So in your world, nobody deserves to be punished? People like you create the problem you are arguing for. Sure, let us search out means to prevent recidivism - hell, let's have a whole societal shift while we're at it. I'm all for it, really. Let's eliminate the poverty and parental abuse that most often leads to this behaviour. Sounds good to me - I do support that long term goal. In the meantime, while we wait a lifetime, let's allow ourselves to be revictimized over and over again. Try to follow the argument and stay on point - we aren't talking about the first or even second violent offence. It should satisfy you a great deal that before your beloved and downtrodden violent scumbags are put away for life, they get three shots at killing, maiming, raping, and mutilating men, women, children, your friends, neighbours, family, or even yourself.
  47. J. Smith from Canada writes: Hmm...Police Groups and Victims rights groups agree with the bill. Scum of the earth defence lawyers and violent criminals oppose it. I guess it is good then.
  48. grealy ted from Whitby, Canada writes: So , some affirmative-action appointed university 'professor' dislikes Harpers proposed Dangerous Offender legislation. Who really cares what those type think!
  49. Pragmatic Pundit from Canada writes: I didn't realize crime was out of control in Canada??? Is this just news to me? I guess all those statistics saying crime is near all-time low records makes it a priority. Should crime be under provincial jurisdiction you harpercrites.
  50. stand up mimi from Vancouver, Canada writes: I agree with #32 - this legislation does endanger the principle of innocent until proven guilty which our legal system is based on. The onus should never be on the defendant to prove innocence, and in this case one would have to prove they are innocent of future crimes. It's reactionary to abandon our principles just because we think it will keep violent criminals from reoffending. They will have had to reoffend twice anyway, before this legislation would be used on them. In the worst cases, that might mean three brutal murder cases before they are locked away. It would be much better to give violent sex offenders harsher sentences the first time they offend. This new legislation is just a quick fix at the peril of our rights and freedoms.
  51. The Philosopher King from Canada writes: #41 and #44 Wrong, so wrong. This law infers the commission of future crimes. In other words the person is being judged on something they HAVE NOT DONE YET. If anything should require the state to prove its case, this is it. What you all seem to be confusing here is conviction and principle. I'm all for protecting the public from these maniacs, but I'm not willing to abandon my principles in the name of exacting revenge upon them. How about you?
  52. Mervin Hollingsworth from Saskatoon, Sk., Canada writes: The looney left will oppose this legislation under the guise that it will not withstand a constitutional court challenge. That's code for no action. They continue to want to appease the social activists and other lobby groups who want to ensure that the rights of criminals come before the rights of victims. Pass the law, see what happens. If a challenge is brought then we will see what the Supreme Court says but until that happens anything they might say is pure speculation. Oh, I forgot the lefties etc. will not be able to have the government fund their legal challenges because the Court Challenges Program has been cancelled. That way they have to pay for it themselves and not have taxpayers funding to pay to sue their own government.
  53. Stan from Canada from from all over Canada, Canada writes: How often does it need to be said…”for repeat offenders that have been CONVICTED of three violent offences”. They have been found guilty by a Judge and/or a group of their peers. The guilt part has been determined under the presumed innocence phase. It is onto the punishment phase that this measure would kick in. The judge would admonish the convict this way “You have been found guilty of offence xyz and as such you will now be sentenced to Seven Year Imprisonment after which time you will have to have demonstrated that you no longer pose a threat to the general population. Unless and until such time as you can show this, you will remain imprisoned”. Yes, Yes, I realize you can not prove a negative. But how about this, the Warden says to said convict as he is being released from Prison after his second tour saying: “Hey Convict, you show up here again and you are here for life unless you can prove you are not going to do it again”. The Prisoner says: “Yes Mr Warden but my clever Lawyer says that no one can prove a negative.” Warden says : “AAHH, but yes you can. When you leave here and never do a Violent Crime again, you will have proven it. If however, you do come here again convicted of a Violent Crime, you will have shown that you are indeed unable to prove you are no longer a menace to society and here you will stay. Now go. Do good for once, and don’t come back”.
  54. The Philosopher King from Canada writes: #38 Steve you might want to check your facts there buddy. In the US, states with the death penalty spend so much on litigation that they could house the inmate for fifty years and still SPEND LESS MONEY than it costs to get the criminal executed. Perhaps before you shoot mouth off you should actually look up your pet theories and see if they're actually true or not. And incidentally, the stats quite explicitly show that countries will high incarceration rates actually have much higher crimes rates, whereas countries that spend the same money on prevention and rehabilitation have crime rates less than half as high on average. Oh but I guess like most neo-cons what you feel it true is much more important than the actual truth.
  55. J Luft from Calgary, Canada writes: Doesn't the left ever get tired of the 'U.S.-style justice system' boogy man? God it's getting tiresome.
  56. Theodore Street from Canada writes: I oppose this bill. Basically it creates trial or hearing at the end of a third sentence in a situation where no crime has been committed. The prisoner would have already served time for a third offence, and that the term of that sentence should already have been adjusted (or lengthened) to deal with the recivitism demonstrated by the second conviction. The minister appears to be recommending this bill only for political gain.
  57. John Hinkley from Thornhill, ON, Canada writes: Post #1 (Jack Ryan) says like it is. Let's not jump to conclusions and accept the Lieberal mantra that Harper and his conservatives are American clones. If you take the time to assess the facts, what Vic Toews is proposing makes a lot of sense (especially here it Toronto). The big problem is getting the judges to do proper sentencing to begin with so that the three strikes will apply.
  58. m mac from london, Canada writes: A good bill. A person is not being convicted of a crime, that has been established by previous bad acts. What bothers me is the fact that many are saying this and other legislation will not pass the constitutional challenge. If that is true then it is time to either amend the constitution or begin using the not withstanding clause. Judges are reading far more than was intended in the charter and people are being victimized by crimiinals as a result.
  59. Michael Owens from Calgary, Canada writes: Our judges are a joke.
  60. jack sprat from calgary, Canada writes: Violent crime way down in canada, judges already have the ability to declare someone a dangerous offender...this is hype and imagine the extra legal fees, etc. example, a person 18 gets into a bar fight, charged with assault, doesn't care to fight the charge, accepts a fine. Next, 10 years later, same person is in a small altercation but charged with assault agin...doesn't fight it as figting takes too much time, another fine. 5 years later, guy gets cut off in his car and crashed into, loses his temper and punches the guy...assault charge. Result, the guy has to prove he's not a dangerous offender...can someone tell me how you do that? Also, now he pays huge legal bills, he's in jail fighting this Act. Tons of money being spent when money should be spent on treatment for the guy, counselling, whatever...but is indefinite jail the answer. Judges can already put away the real bad guys. This is costing bajillions at the punishmnet end AFTER crimes are committed. Spend the money on preventative programs and more police on the street. Its cheaper and IT WORKS.
  61. J Kay from Canada writes: #44 Sam B: actually Sam it is changing it. No it doesnt change the onus on the court for the individual case but is does change the onus in terms of dangerous offender legislation. Currently the crown must prove that someone is a dangerous offender and that they have a high likelihood of reoffending. The fact that someone has committed three similar offenses may well help prove that but the onus to show some one is a dangerous offender should still be on the courts shoulders to prove, not the defendants. It is still, even if guilty of a third offense, the Crown's responsibility to prove beyond a resounable doubt that someone who has offended three times will re-offend again. I would like to see stats as to how many three time offenders become 4 time offenders. Why 3? Why not 4 or 5? Hell why not 2? It's simply arbitrary and overturns a basic principle of law for the past 300 years give or take.
  62. Don Bryant from Calgary, Canada writes: I have a great idea for all you NDP's and Liberals who think that criminals are the cream of society and that the victims of crime should be treated like pond scum - why don't you all offer that creature Peter Whitmore the opportunity to share your home with you? I'm sure you'd all be able to bond real good together.
  63. J.C. Davies from Canada writes: 'Dr. Michael Boudreau, assistant professor of criminology at St. Thomas University in Fredericton', no offense intended, but an assistant professor from a school most Canadians have not heard of is not exactly the most persuassive critic. BTW, is it or, or do most criminology professors actually favour the interests of criminals over the law abiding citizens.
  64. Kyl e from Edmonton, Canada writes: Sounds like a great law. Its about time! If a violent person hasn't learned after 3 offences they never will and the job of the justice system is then to ensure the public protected from future offences from these people by locking them away for good.
  65. Wayne B from Calgary, Canada writes: In addition to an excellent point by Steve D from St. John's, and a note to Kenneth Williment, paul malouf, The Philosopher King and others who see a future charter challenge. It may happen, but keep in mind that Canada's Law already applies reverse onus on serious charges, so it's not that big a stretch to apply the same to other serious charges. I offer one way a repeat offender can prove his way out and that would be to seek out and participate in programs, THAT ALREADY EXIST IN THE SYSTEM, that could curb deviant behavior. That would be a supporting effort... Of course, they would have to take some responsibility, ohh - shudder at the thought.
  66. K Ordos from Vancouver, Canada writes: Dangerous offenders and sexual predators don't deserve the same rights as the majority of law abiding citizens. If you're caught repeatedly for the same class of offence, it should certainly be up to the offender to prove why they should not be branded as a danger. It protects the rights of the next potential victim. I'm sure the left wing bleeding hearts will cry foul, just as I'm sure their tune would change if their lives were changed by the actions of a dangerous offender.
  67. Larry Robinson from White Rock, B.C., writes: This bill applies only to certain types of violent crime and it is those crimes that have the most negative impact upon society. It is a bit of exagerration to say we are heading to a three strikes policy for any crime. Surely we do not want the American system where millions are now in prisons that accomplish nothing but further hardening of the individual. Crime prevention is multi-faceted and this bill provides the deterrant to repeat violent offenders. Hopefully, effective societal change will result in fewer people being defined by this law.
  68. Roger Rabbit from Vancouver, Canada writes: I don't think this bill goes far enough. It should read that every single criminal must prove that they will never again commit a crime before they are released from prison. If they can not prove it, then leave them in jail. Just one question though. Can someone tell me what would the criteria are requried to prove that a person in prison will never again commit a crime? And when you have done that, can you tell me what next?

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.