Trudeau would re-think Harper’s mandatory minimum sentences

- November 10th, 2013

Earlier this month, a judge in Kitchener, Ont. said he was “embarrassed” to do what Parliament had told him to do and levy a “victim surcharge” fine on those convicted of crimes.

Last month, a judge in Manitoba said the decision by Parliament (i.e. the Conservative majority) to impose mandatory miniumum sentences in all cases results in “cruel and unusual punishment” in some cases. The judge ignore Parliament’s wish and did not impose a mandatory minimum sentence.

Those two judges — and others who don’t like Parliament telling them what to do — have a friend in Justin Trudeau who, a few minutes ago on Twitter, responded to a question about mandatory miniumums this way:

 

Categories: Justice, Politics

Subscribe to the post

7 comments

  1. Blake Dunlop says:

    So what are you trying to say, Akin? What nefarious thing are you suggesting?

    JT was asked if his government (yes, he will soon have one) would reconsider the new mandatory minimum sentences rolled out by the CPC. He answered that, yes, he would do so.

    So what? Should not any new government look at aspects of society to see whether or not they are appropriate? This is all that he is saying, that he would look at something. He didn’t say whether or not he would change, eliminate or leave as is. He just said that he would look.

    Innuendo is the stock in trade of nefarious, untrustworthy, biased people that lack credibility. You seem bent these days to prove that you are one of these vile creatures.

  2. Kenneth Lawrence says:

    I think you’re doing a good job, David. Never mind the liberal drivel you get from Shiny Pony fans. Justin Trudeau demonstrates his ignorance every time he opens his mouth or tweets another shocking comment. Now he’s in backtrack mode after saying he admires the Communist dictatorship in China. That’s only because Sun News caught him saying it.

    • Patrick says:

      “Caught him”.

      He joked at the end of the quote, while poking fun at how much Harper would like to have the same dictatorial power as China, that “Sun News can report that I like China.”

  3. Mandatory Minimum Sentences are so judicially unsound that even *Texas* was warning our government to avoid instituting them. Alas the Harper Conservatives care not that these failed policies violate Section 7 of our Charter, because “Tough on Crime!” :-p
    “Canadians: Don’t Be Tricked by the “Safe Streets and Communities Act” – It’s Omnibusted!”
    http://maryjanecannabian.blogspot.ca/2011/09/canadians-dont-be-tricked-by-safe.html

  4. annie says:

    Mandatory sentencing doesn’t allow judges to do their jobs, and it doesn’t work.

    We don’t need to look much farther than the US to see the results of hamstringing judges with mandatory sentencing. Unless perhaps we want Canada to be the new record holder for the country with the largest prison population in the world?

    I agree with Blake. This is a non-issue.

  5. Reverend Ryan says:

    Mandatory minimums provide the “clients” (prisoners) for the Policing for Profit corporations, increases taxes dramatically, fills prisons to over-capacity and caters to a failed policy of prohibition. Harper has investments in the private prison industry – who are building new facilities to house all the ‘blacklist’ activists, protestors and opponents to this nefarious and corrupt agenda.

    The judiciary is required by the Charter and the Constitution to protect the rights of citizens from cruel and unusual punishment. Accordingly, the practice of imposing of mandatory minimums is a violation of the law. Odd that this legislation was passed, considering the fraud, scandal and apparent violations of the law by an increasing number of conservatives.

    Mandatory minimums have no place is a free and democratic society.

  6. Kenneth Lawrence says:

    A judge’s job should be to run a courtroom, not to determine the penalty for a given crime. That is the job of lawmakers, i.e. Parliament and the provincial legislatures, i.e. the people’s representatives, who, unlike unaccountable judges, are accountable to the people. Judges have had a free hand for too long, it’s time the people’s representatives determined how long a convicted criminal should be removed from society. Judges have long demonstrated their inability to act in the people’s best interest.

Comments are closed.