A Conservative friend of who is a lawyer said this earlier today -- I agree.
His point, although he favours prison in many cases, is that everyone has a story to tell and fixing sentences by reference to a crime, as opposed to the criminal, is an unproductive idea.
2 comments:
I have been saying the same thing for years.
For example, I wrote a post in 2006saying that if Canada were to ever reintroduce the death penalty they should excute not murders per say but dangerous offenders.
http://themaplethree.blogspot.com/2006/04/dangerous-offender-status-and-capital.html
I have also questioned in the past the emphasis placed on mens rea.
http://themaplethree.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2006-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&updated-max=2007-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=29
Among other things, I said that the XYY defense represented a reductio ad absurdum of the whole notion of mens rea.
"Used in the 1970s the XYY argument is in its most basic form this. Males with an extra Y chromosome are inherently violent and thus are not criminally responsible for their actions. The defense failed, but only because the defense was based on bad science. In theory is could have worked. In our legal system, it is possible that someone could be found not guilty because they are inherently violent."
Although I realize that it would be highly problematic, I have toyed with the idea of what it would be like if sentencing were an actuarial science.
Looks like if C-15 passes injunctions are ready to go in the courts because it covers non-licenced medical marijuana patients. In Ontario one has a common law right to medical marijuana -- the cops will still charge you (and the Crown will drop or stay when you present a defense to keep the illusion the law is in place) but you really don't need a licence.
Many thanks for your testimony on C-15. It's a bad bill but it won't last long!
Post a Comment