Third times a Charm
In Toronto today, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced that the government will introduce legislation next regarding dangerous offenders (ht to Robert @ MyBlahg). The proposed bill would see someone deemed a dangerous offender after their 3rd time convicted of a violent and/or sexual crime. CBC has a report as well as the G & M.
Now, I think we still need to wait and see the legislation in full but so far, this sounds like a great idea. Anything that can be done to remove repeat violent offenders from the streets is a good thing in my opinion. So far the reaction in the blogosphere to the announcement has been mixed, mostly (and unsurprisingly) along strict partisan lines, but with some exceptions.
There seems to be two main criticisms against this plan, one that is typical of the Harper = Bush/ anti-american crowd, and then one which is actually well reasoned. The first is that this is simply a copy of the Three Strikes laws introduced in various states (most notably in California). This law differs from those in that it only applies to those that have committed 3 violent crimes, instead of any 3 crimes that many of the american laws cover. The second is that this may fail the "Oakes" test, or the "reverse onus" clause. This is where the burden is shifted to the individual to prove that they are innocent of the offence. Now, I'm no lawyer and I sure as hell won't claim to fully understand constitutional law, so I think we will need to wait and see how exactly the law is written to see if it'll pass the test rather than condemn it beforehand.
Now, I think we still need to wait and see the legislation in full but so far, this sounds like a great idea. Anything that can be done to remove repeat violent offenders from the streets is a good thing in my opinion. So far the reaction in the blogosphere to the announcement has been mixed, mostly (and unsurprisingly) along strict partisan lines, but with some exceptions.
There seems to be two main criticisms against this plan, one that is typical of the Harper = Bush/ anti-american crowd, and then one which is actually well reasoned. The first is that this is simply a copy of the Three Strikes laws introduced in various states (most notably in California). This law differs from those in that it only applies to those that have committed 3 violent crimes, instead of any 3 crimes that many of the american laws cover. The second is that this may fail the "Oakes" test, or the "reverse onus" clause. This is where the burden is shifted to the individual to prove that they are innocent of the offence. Now, I'm no lawyer and I sure as hell won't claim to fully understand constitutional law, so I think we will need to wait and see how exactly the law is written to see if it'll pass the test rather than condemn it beforehand.
Tags:
posted by Daz at 10:07 p.m.
3 Comments:
I want to read the fine print on this legislation, too. But from what I'm reading and hearing so far, this is actually a legal tool that will come into effect after the third conviction for a violent crime. It's meant as a further sentencing guide to judges and a cautionary guide to parole boards -- not to the cops and trial lawyers. There can be no reverse onus on something that is not used until after a conviction is gained.
The next problem that particular scenario sets up is that if a jury knows they are deliberating on a third crime in which violence is a factor, they might not want to convict for fear of actually causing justice to be done. We have such bleeding heart juries in this country!
Daz,
I love this issue, I'm really interested in the constitutionality of it. I'm gonna post on it (and the Oakes case) tomorrow.
Good point Chimera. I guess we will have to wait and see exactly what it says.
Chimera,
That's why I want to wait for the full bill. If it is just a change in sentencing guidelines then I'm not sure if Oakes applies. Just sent a e-mail to a friend thats a little more familiar with the const. law about that.
Olaf,
Can't wait to see your take on the issue. Loving the MTTMT series, by the way.
Post a Comment
<< Home