OTTAWA -- The federal government is preparing three-strikes legislation that would make it easier to label criminals as dangerous offenders after a third serious conviction.The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
Unlike California's famous three-strikes-you're-out law, the proposed federal bill will not trigger an automatic life sentence for repeat offenders. What it will do is reverse the burden of proof in dangerous-offender hearings for people already found guilty of three violent crimes.
That means that once someone has been convicted a third time they will be considered guilty until proven innocent of being a dangerous offender.
11. Any person charged with an offence has the right... d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunalObviously, there's a difference between sentencing and criminal guilt, but even in sentencing the presumption of innocence stands.
If any kind of sense prevails at the Supreme Court, this law will be struck down. I think the Tories know that, and I think they know it will be a hard on to pass in any case. Frankly, I don't think they expect it to pass this parliament. They're setting up an issue to run an election campaign on next time.
Keep your heads up, everyone.
3 comments:
The concept of reverse onus being used in our legal system now is as a result of the Liberals who introduced it for certain types of offenders when they seek bail. Musta slipped your mind huh?
Can you give an example?
Oh, and, in case you didn't notice the NDP banner on the side, saying the Liberals did something buys you nothing with me.
Kursk you are wrong. That applies to civil law, not criminal law. Outside of Quebec, we have English common law, insided they have the Civil Code - for contracts, torts.
Not. Criminal. Law.
That is the exclusive pervue of the Federal Government under Section 91 of the Canada Act 1982 - Our Constitution.
Not to mention, reverse onus clauses in criminal law have already been struck down - R. v Oake in 1986.
Now, kursk, YOU may like to live in a society where you are guilty until proven innocent, but I prefer freedom to totalitarianism. As did the US founding fathers who ensured the same was included in their constitution.
BTW, crime has been drpping every year since 1990 - you are safer now than 30 years ago. There is no reason for this. It will not make you safer, only take away your freedom.
Gawd, why is it that conservatives are the biggest apologists for totalitarian tatics?
BTW McGuire, that reverse onus crap was an election promise, that never got fufilled. The SCC would stike it down in heart beat (see R V Oake above for the reason why).
Post a Comment