Judge rejects "outrageous" mandatory gun sentence

Discussion for firearms and less-lethal equipment.
User avatar
Homer
Rookie Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 9:51 am
Location: Oshawa, Ontario
Contact:

Re: Judge rejects "outrageous" mandatory gun sentence

Postby Homer » Sat Jul 07, 2012 8:00 pm

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
(Sorry - one wasn't nearly enough)
"They have the Internet on computers now!"

User avatar
RGW
Grand Poobah
Posts: 974
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 6:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Judge rejects "outrageous" mandatory gun sentence

Postby RGW » Sun Jul 08, 2012 5:54 am

And to think - they are talking bullet bans in Toronto for the law-abiding..

User avatar
Bald Man
Lord of the Poobahs
Posts: 1240
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 10:12 am

Re: Judge rejects "outrageous" mandatory gun sentence

Postby Bald Man » Mon Jul 09, 2012 8:50 am

This is how Liberals think, very twisted logic. Go easy on criminals, control and hammer law abiding citizens

User avatar
gotchya
Rookie Member
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 3:37 pm
Location: 10-20
Contact:

Re: Judge rejects "outrageous" mandatory gun sentence

Postby gotchya » Sun Jul 15, 2012 7:29 pm

The decision has been posted,

R. v. Lewis, 2012 ONCJ 413 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/frznd

Mr. Lewis is clearly a violent recidivist and past probation and custodial sentences have not deterred him from crime. He has no previous weapons offences or drug convictions, although materials filed show the aggravated assault and robbery sentence to be a “drug rip off”, where he set up a drug purchaser/client of his to be robbed, during which another individual stabbed the victim.
...
Mr. Lewis has pled guilty to the drug offences, he has no previous like convictions or convictions for weapons offences. He has served two short adult sentences and is physically and intellectually capable of success in the community if he chooses a law abiding lifestyle. Given his youth, rehabilitation remains a factor that deserves considerable weight. I do not consider Mr. Lewis to be at the point where protection of society by way of a long penitentiary sentence is appropriate.


These two paragraphs of the judge seem to contradict themselves, how can rehabilitation be a factor, when the accused shows little prospect of rehabilitation, namely that he is likely to re-offend.

At another paragraph the judge quotes the subject's criminal history, looking at it, it appears that the subject has shown an escalation in violence first uttering threats, assault, then aggravated assault, ultimately to assaulting a peace officer. And now the subject is guilty of offering to traffic in a firearm as well as drug trafficking.

It seems clear there is an escalation of the subject's conduct. While the judge notes the offer was "hallow", as he had no means or intent to do such, he still did offer to do it. If someone is capable of acquiring drugs(which are prohibited), what excludes the possibility that one wouldn't be able to obtain a gun which is easier to obtain than drugs.

I might be a little imaginative, however, I could see the subject committing a robbery from a lawful gun owner to obtain such a gun given his history of violence and robberies in a "drug rip-off".

I find that this judge's reasons and reasoning contradicts itself. It appears that this is another case of a judge who was pushing a political opinion rather than enforcing the law.

Hopefully this is appealed.
Last edited by gotchya on Fri Aug 24, 2012 2:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."-Burke, Edmund
ImageImage

User avatar
Bald Man
Lord of the Poobahs
Posts: 1240
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 10:12 am

Re: Judge rejects "outrageous" mandatory gun sentence

Postby Bald Man » Sun Jul 15, 2012 8:43 pm

Heard a crown going on and on in court recently during recess about how she hates Harper and his mandatory sentences, she was open about being an NDP supporter. I gather most lawyers share the same political views which includes judges.

User avatar
gotchya
Rookie Member
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 3:37 pm
Location: 10-20
Contact:

Re: Judge rejects "outrageous" mandatory gun sentence

Postby gotchya » Sun Jul 15, 2012 10:42 pm

Bald Man wrote:Heard a crown going on and on in court recently during recess about how she hates Harper and his mandatory sentences, she was open about being an NDP supporter. I gather most lawyers share the same political views which includes judges.

I wouldn't say that. I imagine the views of lawyers are as diverse as the population.

At the end of the day, a judge is expected to administer the law objectively, without regard for political affiliation or personal opinion. Facts ought to speak for themselves.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."-Burke, Edmund
ImageImage

User avatar
Bald Man
Lord of the Poobahs
Posts: 1240
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 10:12 am

Re: Judge rejects "outrageous" mandatory gun sentence

Postby Bald Man » Mon Jul 16, 2012 7:23 am

gotchya wrote:
Bald Man wrote:Heard a crown going on and on in court recently during recess about how she hates Harper and his mandatory sentences, she was open about being an NDP supporter. I gather most lawyers share the same political views which includes judges.

I wouldn't say that. I imagine the views of lawyers are as diverse as the population.

At the end of the day,
a judge is expected to administer the law objectively, without regard for political affiliation or personal opinion.
Facts ought to speak for themselves.



you really think they all do this?

User avatar
gotchya
Rookie Member
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 3:37 pm
Location: 10-20
Contact:

Re: Judge rejects "outrageous" mandatory gun sentence

Postby gotchya » Mon Jul 16, 2012 4:31 pm

Bald Man wrote:you really think they all do this?


No, not all. I do think there are a lot that do, there are even some who I'd suggested are frustrated by some of the decisions of their colleagues.

No system is perfect, if we get elected judges we politicize the judiciary. Our current system is by no means perfect, however, the appropriate manner is for the judiciary to recognize deficiencies when they exist and deal with them appropriately, increased sentences, allowing the appeal, quashing the declaration, and possibly removing the judge from office, etc.

While I believe that judges should be afforded some discretion in their sentencing I believe that mandatory minimums are nessisary in circumstances where the judges exercise of discretion has been ineffective and Parliament seeks to signal a denunciation of various actions. In the case of firearm related offenses.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."-Burke, Edmund
ImageImage

User avatar
Bald Man
Lord of the Poobahs
Posts: 1240
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 10:12 am

Re: Judge rejects "outrageous" mandatory gun sentence

Postby Bald Man » Mon Jul 16, 2012 5:44 pm

gotchya wrote:
Bald Man wrote:you really think they all do this?


No, not all. I do think there are a lot that do, there are even some who I'd suggested are frustrated by some of the decisions of their colleagues.

No system is perfect, if we get elected judges we politicize the judiciary. Our current system is by no means perfect, however, the appropriate manner is for the judiciary to recognize deficiencies when they exist and deal with them appropriately, increased sentences, allowing the appeal, quashing the declaration, and possibly removing the judge from office, etc.

While I believe that judges should be afforded some discretion in their sentencing I believe that mandatory minimums are nessisary in circumstances where the judges exercise of discretion has been ineffective and Parliament seeks to signal a denunciation of various actions. In the case of firearm related offenses.


Harper came into power and brought in mandatory sentences for gun crimes particularly to deal with the gang violence in Toronto and elsewhere. I find it ironic that in this very same city, a Toronto judge shot down these sentences which under minds the will of Parliament.

Anyways. what can you do. Can't say Harper didn't try.

User avatar
gotchya
Rookie Member
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 3:37 pm
Location: 10-20
Contact:

Re: Judge rejects "outrageous" mandatory gun sentence

Postby gotchya » Fri Aug 24, 2012 2:06 am

Sorry to rehash an old thread, I'd like to point out some interesting jurisprudence that further supports the increased emphasis on deturance as a principle to be emphasized in crimes involving firearms and the necessity for mandatory sentences.

R. v. Clayton, 2005 CanLII 16569 (ON CA), <http://canlii.ca/t/1kt5v>
[41] An examination of the factors identified in Simpson within the factual context of this case begins with an identification of the nature of the duty engaged in by the police when the roadblock stop was implemented. The police were investigating criminal activity, hoped to apprehend individuals in possession of dangerous weapons and seize those weapons before they could be used in criminal activity to harm others. Criminal conduct involving the use of firearms, especially handguns, is a serious and growing societal danger. The law abiding segment of the community expects the police to react swiftly and decisively to seize illegal firearms and arrest those in possession of them. The risk posed to the community by those in possession of handguns gives an added significance to police efforts to seize those weapons and apprehend those in possession of them beyond the always important police duty to investigate and prevent criminal activity. [Emphasis Added]


R. v. Clayton, 2007 SCC 32 (CanLII), [2007] 2 SCR 725, <http://canlii.ca/t/1rxzv>
110 In my view, we may take judicial notice of the following information for the purpose of evaluating the objective said to be pressing and substantial:
(i) “Homicide in Canada” (2005), 26:6 Juristat 1
· “Following a substantial increase in 2004, the national homicide rate climbed another 4% in 2005 to 2.04 victims per 100,000 population, marking its highest point in nearly a decade.. . .
There were 222 victims killed by a firearm in 2005, 49 more than the previous year. This is the third consecutive annual increase in firearm homicides. Handguns accounted for about 6 in 10 firearm homicides.” [p. 1]
· “In 2005, the most common method used [to commit homicide] was shootings, accounting for one-third (34%) of all homicides.” [p. 4]
· “In 2005, handguns accounted for 58% of all firearm-related homicides whereas rifles/shotguns and sawed-off rifles/shotguns accounted for 30% (Table 7)” [p. 5]
· “Over the past decade, the number of homicides involving gangs reported by police has steadily increased (Table 11). . . .

The biggest increase occurred in the province of Ontario, where the number of gang-related homicides doubled from 14 in 2004 to 31 in 2005. Most of the increase in Ontario was in Toronto. . . .
Compared to other types of homicide, those that are gang-related more often involve firearms. Over two-thirds (69%) of gang-related homicides were committed with a firearm, usually a handgun, compared to just over one-quarter (27%) of non-gang-related killings.” [p. 8]
(ii) Canada. Department of Justice. Research and Statistics Division. Firearm Statistics: Updated Tables, January 2006, Tables 15 and 17
· The rate of “Offensive Weapon Offences”, which include carrying, pointing, or possessing prohibited weapons or restricted weapons without authorizations has increased from 50 per 100,000 population in 2000 to 57 per 100,000 in 2004.
· The number of “Discharge Firearm With Intent” offences has increased from 140 in 2000 to 225 in 2004.
· The following are the percentages of violent crimes involving firearms in which a handgun was used in 2004:
· Homicide: 72.0%
· Attempted murder: 71.9%
· Sexual Assault: 66.7%
· Non-sexual assault: 46.9%
· Kidnapping: 76.1%
· Robbery: 85.1%
113 The protection of society from the flaunting of illegal handguns in a crowded public place is clearly pressing and substantial, in my view.


It seems that Parliament has taken notice of the increase in gun violence and according imposed a minimum mandatory sentence on those who possess firearms illegally, in doing so Parliament seeks to send a message, namely deterrence on those who would illegally possess firearms, especially since the courts have found a nexus between firearm homicide and gang activity, as well as the presence of a firearm and homicide.

It seems to me that the legislation meets the three branches of the Oakes test, given the legislation is drafted to solve a problem, the legislation is rationally connect to the objective sought, and now the question turn to proportionality...a question to be answered another day, however, I will say this, that someone sentenced to serve a year would be eligible for parole within 4 months (having served 1/3 of his sentence) at which point he would be under the supervision of the parole system.

Having read the decision,the learned justice failed to place the due emphasis on deterrence, especially since she sentenced the person to a conditional sentence.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."-Burke, Edmund
ImageImage

User avatar
bigbadjoe108
Sage Member
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:07 pm
Contact:

Re: Judge rejects "outrageous" mandatory gun sentence

Postby bigbadjoe108 » Mon Aug 27, 2012 8:43 pm

They should just ban stupid judges.
VVV

shootemup
Sage Member
Posts: 450
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 1:02 am
Location: Fraser Valley, B.C.
Contact:

Re: Judge rejects "outrageous" mandatory gun sentence

Postby shootemup » Fri Aug 31, 2012 12:31 pm

That would really thin the herd...
Jackbooted Cig Enforcer


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest