Crime
And that problem is crime.
Right now the States has 5% of the world population, and 25% of the
inmates and most of that can be traced right back to the “war on drugs”
and “minimum sentencing!”
And now, to add insult to injury, our Conservative Party wants to follow them down that rocky road.
(I voted for these guys…………., but that doesn’t mean I agree with everything they do!)
Despite
the warnings from south of the border, Canada’s Justice Minister Rob
Nicholson is standing by the Conservative’s tough-on-crime legislation.
“We propose maximum sentencing, that’s Parliament’s decision, and in many cases we decide what the minimum sentence would be,” Nicholson said. “That doesn’t take away the right of the judge’s ability to decide guilt or innocence.”
Asked if the circumstances surrounding a crime should factor into the sentencing, Nicholson maintained that the government’s role is “to set the guidelines.”
Nicholson said that mandatory minimums send the “right message” that certain offences carry serious consequences.
He also denied that the Conservative’s tough-on-crime agenda has led to more people behind bars.
Right now the States has 5% of the world population, and 25% of the
inmates and most of that can be traced right back to the “war on drugs”
and “minimum sentencing!”And now, to add insult to injury, our Conservative Party wants to follow them down that rocky road.
(I voted for these guys…………., but that doesn’t mean I agree with everything they do!)
Tim Lynch of the libertarian-leaning CATO Institute
told CTV’s Question Period on Sunday that while keeping a violent
criminal incarcerated does keep streets safer, the same is not true with
non-violent offenders.Referring to low-level drug-traffickers who are often incarcerated
under minimum sentencing legislation, Lynch said: “There’s no
corresponding increase in public safety. For these low-level offenders
in the drug trade, they’re immediately replaced, so it doesn’t have any
effect on the level of crime.”
Julie Stewart, president of the U.S.-based Families Against Mandatory Minimums, said the judge who handed her brother a mandatory minimum sentence for a drug offense admitted that he didn’t agree with the ruling.
“At the sentencing he said, ‘My hands are tied,’” Stewart recalled. “It was contrary to everything I understood about American justice. I thought the judge was the one in the end, the neutral party, who would determine what the appropriate sentence was.”
Stewart said she’s hoping the proposed justice act that was introduced by Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy and Republican Sen. Rand Paul last week will soon become law.
In a statement, Leahy described mandatory minimums as a “great mistake.”
“I am not convinced it has reduced crime, but I am convinced it has imprisoned people, particularly non-violent offenders, for far longer than is just or beneficial,” he said. “It is time for us to let judges go back to acting as judges and making decisions based on the individual facts before them. A one-size-fits-all approach to sentencing does not make us safer.”
Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/will-canada-heed-u-s-warnings-on-mandatory-minimum-sentences-1.1209164#ixzz2OYNpQlHf
Julie Stewart, president of the U.S.-based Families Against Mandatory Minimums, said the judge who handed her brother a mandatory minimum sentence for a drug offense admitted that he didn’t agree with the ruling.
“At the sentencing he said, ‘My hands are tied,’” Stewart recalled. “It was contrary to everything I understood about American justice. I thought the judge was the one in the end, the neutral party, who would determine what the appropriate sentence was.”
Stewart said she’s hoping the proposed justice act that was introduced by Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy and Republican Sen. Rand Paul last week will soon become law.
In a statement, Leahy described mandatory minimums as a “great mistake.”
“I am not convinced it has reduced crime, but I am convinced it has imprisoned people, particularly non-violent offenders, for far longer than is just or beneficial,” he said. “It is time for us to let judges go back to acting as judges and making decisions based on the individual facts before them. A one-size-fits-all approach to sentencing does not make us safer.”
Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/will-canada-heed-u-s-warnings-on-mandatory-minimum-sentences-1.1209164#ixzz2OYNpQlHf
Despite
the warnings from south of the border, Canada’s Justice Minister Rob
Nicholson is standing by the Conservative’s tough-on-crime legislation.“We propose maximum sentencing, that’s Parliament’s decision, and in many cases we decide what the minimum sentence would be,” Nicholson said. “That doesn’t take away the right of the judge’s ability to decide guilt or innocence.”
Asked if the circumstances surrounding a crime should factor into the sentencing, Nicholson maintained that the government’s role is “to set the guidelines.”
Nicholson said that mandatory minimums send the “right message” that certain offences carry serious consequences.
He also denied that the Conservative’s tough-on-crime agenda has led to more people behind bars.
No comments:
Post a Comment