And the like.
Media reports abound about Judges dissing Tory efforts to get tough on crime.
These stories relate especially to minimum mandatory penalties; for instance, section 85 of the criminal code provides for a minimum 1 year sentence – rising to 3 year in subsequent convictions – for those who use a gun in the commission of an offence. Those terms are to be served consecutively to any other sentence rendered.
If anything, I think the mandatory minimum here should be 5 years since any use of a gun when committing an offence implies that the gunman was fully prepared to cause injury or death through its use.
But that aside, some judges are doing their best to defeat even modest mandatory penalties.
Justin Trudeau has come out to say that he trusts the Judges ‘to do the right thing’.
I don’t, as is evidenced by their past failures to consistently mete out stiff enough penalties.
We all are aware of examples - save I guess for Young Trudeau, but may favourite one is the case of the death of a young man –whose brother had worked with me - who was shot for refusing to buy a scum bag another beer.
I think I have mentioned that case in an earlier blog but the fact is the s.b. received only a 4 year sentence and was out in two.
Moreover, from his prison he was allowed to telephone and harass the victim’s family.
That said, there have been cases cited recently that show that there are a few cases where a mandatory sentence would be too severe and Judges have rightly turned to the ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ provisions of the Charter to grant the defendant relief.
But those types of cases are few and far between; the ultimate goal, of having the punishment fit the crime, remains.
Another trick Judges are using is in regard to imposing victim surcharges which the Tory Government has introduced to help assist the victims of crime. One report today had a Judge ordering the payment but spreading it over 50 years.
That Judge and Judges like him should be dismissed from the Bench.
Unless it is a constitutional matter, Judges should confine themselves to imposing the law rather than their personal opinions.
So, in the important area of crime and punishment – Harper is where he should be …on the side of the law abiding public.
As an aside, more and more people are speaking about the need to have our judges elected as many are south of the border. I am not so sure, but I do know that mechanisms need to be put in place to ensure that the public has its say when judges go rogue (i.e. similar in operation to the public police commissions).
As I see it…
‘K. D. Galagher’
