• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

What We Deserve

OldSolduer

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
11,751
Points
1,140
We really do get the government we deserve, and when an official appointed by our levels of government pass sentences or laws we, as a public don't like, we as a collective body weep and whine over how "government doesn't listen". Bear with me.

Graham James was convicted and sentenced to two years in prison yesterday for sexually abusing young hockey players. See link:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/two-years-for-destroying-lives-143609536.html

Now the majority of Winnipeggers in polls think the two years is not enough. I got news for you Winnipegers and Canadians: You elected the government that appointed the judges. In fact, the majority of you, IIRC, didn't bother to wander over to your polling station and vote. Now you whine and weep that the sentence wasn't enough, yet you won't bother to call or e-mail your MP, MLA or any elected representative.

Get off your fat tail ends and do something instead of whining "the government won't listen".

Rant ends.  :rage:
 
If only it was as simple as "elect me, and I'll get all the prisoners the sentences they deserve!".  In Common Law, sentences are passed based on prior sentences, hence jurisprudence. It is incredibly difficult to have a breakthrough in jurisprudence as the judge must explain why his verdict varies from the ones that were passed before his.

Canadian Law gives enough leeway to judges to make tougher decisions, they are just restricted by a system which is over 1000 years old!

[/law lesson]

Edit to add: This is a very simplistic explaination of how our justice system works; a cole's note version, if you'd like.
 
How many of the people who are outraged at outcomes like the one yesterday would also conveniently forget their outrage when the government proposes tougher sentences?
 
While I agree that people do need to take a stronger stance on these things and get involved, I don't think that the judges were elected at the last election....in some cases, not even in the last three elections depending on the judge's tenure. 

So thinking that, people DO need to get involved, as it will take time to change.
 
frank1515 said:
If only it was as simple as "elect me, and I'll get all the prisoners the sentences they deserve!".  In Common Law, sentences are passed based on prior sentences, hence jurisprudence. It is incredibly difficult to have a breakthrough in jurisprudence as the judge must explain why his verdict varies from the ones that were passed before his.

Canadian Law gives enough leeway to judges to make tougher decisions, they are just restricted by a system which is over 1000 years old!

[/law lesson]

Edit to add: This is a very simplistic explaination of how our justice system works; a cole's note version, if you'd like.

Agreed, but by the same token, the public can make it clear that they want something different and so judges can legitimately start to step up the sentences in the same way that they have been gradually reduced over the years.  Now, we cannot expect that a current offender will get life when there is a precedent that would only give him two years, but we can expect that a judge could increase it to three years and set a new precedent with an explanation.  In this manner, over time sentences can change.  We've seen this with drunk driving.  Sentences are much harsher now then they were 25 years ago, largely due to society's increasing moral outrage.

Jim is right, we the people have to make it clear that we want change and that means getting involved and at the very least getting out to vote!  If you don't vote, then SHUT UP!  Too many good people have sacrificed too much to take this right, privilege and responsibility for granted.
 
We need some activist judges who will not rely on precedents.
 
Rifleman62 said:
We need some activist judges who will not rely on precedents.

Unfortunately, our legal system simply doesn't work that way.  We would have to switch to a codified system, like that of France and I'm not sure we want to go there...
 
Pusser said:
Unfortunately, our legal system simply doesn't work that way.  We would have to switch to a codified system, like that of France and I'm not sure we want to go there...

I agree.  Look at Quebec and their system, it's the same as France's. I agree with Pusser and Mr. Seggie, change has to start at the individual level. By those means, we'll be able to have judges that aren't scared of getting shot down by the Supreme Court for not following Jurisprudence.

All in all, Graham James' case is a good example of why there is a need for culture change, especially when the lives of young children are forever changed by some sick F*** trying to get off.
 
What the public needs to do is engage their MP and MLA and demand change, or the ballot box may reflect a different result next time round.

The government appoints judges. We elect governments.

Right now the tail (criminal court) is wagging the dog.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the new "tough on crime bill" seek to correct weak sentencing like this?

Northalbertan
 
Northalbertan said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the new "tough on crime bill" seek to correct weak sentencing like this?

Northalbertan

It might but I bet you see all kinds of Charter challenges after the first sentencing.
 
Rifleman62 said:
We need some activist judges who will not rely on precedents.

:eek: -  Be careful what you wish for ...

I am of the opinion that you will see the Federal courts adopting a more shall we say conservative approach as liberal appointees retire.

I am also of the opinion that part of the reason for C30 is give the courts less latitude in sentencing.

The two year sentence does seem like a bad joke.
 
Back
Top