The Justice of the Peace is, in effect, binding the sentencing Court -- a higher level court -- months or years down the road. An odd legislative choice.
Moreover, if two for one is bad, why is 1.5 for one ok???
The more I see it the more I conclude the legislation really is just politics.
James Morton
1100 - 5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
4 comments:
You thought for a second it wasn't just politics?
Mr. Morton I am sorry I missed the previous post so this may be repetitive.
Concerning "More on Two for One" I am not sure if the linkage between the JP and the end result is really accurate.
We have mandatory bail review.
Also in this "smaller" jurisdiction there are very few contested bail hearings unless of course the accused is unrepresented and not wanting to use duty counsel or if the accused is simply not listening closely to his counsel. This rarely happens and is usually occurring only with persons with significant mental health issues.
I agree 100% with the final conclusion that this is all politics.
It is a shame this is all about politics as the system was not in need of fixing and I would think that with the incentive to plead early for 2 for 1 removed we will see more trials.
With more trials will come more demands for more police because the police are sitting around the courtroom waiting for a trial to be called (whether it proceeds or gets settled by guilty plea on the day of trial because enough time has accumulated). So the police get their pay cheques but are not on the street until more police get hired.
Obviously we are going to need more police and the "liberal/socialist judicial backlog and the defence lawyers get the blame.
Its absolutely and shamefully brilliant right-wing politics designed to build incremental change redirecting government resources to a "law and order" agenda.
Unfortunately, the general public just do not have the time or willingness to critically analyse what is being proposed by the Tories and as a result we will be living in a very different country in 2 to 3 years with less money for preventative programs and more money spent on policing.
It is politics because it will have a ripple effect in our society which the average voter will never comprehend or understand.
As well, I would bet that some judges reduce sentences to the "lower end" to balance out the end of 2 for 1. The Tories win again because they get to complain in 2-3 years that the judiciary is soft on crime.
So welcome to right wing incremental change. Its happening and its working.
You guys probably know more about than I do, but I would think removing the pre-trial credit would lead to more guilty pleas than the other way around.
It was my understanding the 1.5:1 ration was based on the fact that parole eligibility was calculated from the date of sentence rather than from the date of admission into custody. This is sometimes increased to 2:1 or even 3:1 based on the conditions in the remand facility (lack of rehabilitation programs, over-crowding etc).
So, if the credit is removed for people just because they have records, and these people are the ones most likely to be detained pre-trial, doesn't the legislation make it more onerous for people with criminal records to exercise their right to a trial?
Everyone has a right to a trial, and you should not be punished more severely just because you exercise that right.
Some very insightful posts -- thank you!
Post a Comment