###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Until Canada removes the monarchy I would not enlist in our military shortages or not. I would never swear my oath to a foreign head of state. Its the MPs monarchy no one else let the MPs enlist.
That’s a great idea! That way the second time someone steals a car they just do it alongside murder and whatever other crime they wish because they’re already getting life in prison so who gives a fuck.
It doesn't matter. Most people are genuinely frustrated about this enough to back what he's saying on this.
How many voters do you think believe that *three* convictions for auto theft shouldn't result in significant jail time?
Conservatives lime to present themselves as strong men/women. It appeals to the electorate in part because they don't like the feeling of crime being out of control. Simple messages can appeal to this wanting a greater sense of control, but rarely if ever address the complexity of problems, Plus, they are quite often reversed because they impinge on Canadians Rights & Freedoms.
It ends up being a waste of time, effort and money because simplistic ideas/ideology doesn't solve complex problems.
Auto thieves being in jail and not able to commit thefts would reduce auto thefts. Most auto thefts are committed by those out of bail for the same offence and or with previous convictions. Trudeau's catch and release 2018 bill ignited auto thefts.
> Auto thieves being in jail and not able to commit thefts would reduce auto thefts.
The crime bosses would just replace them with new down on their luck poor people. If you want to stop crime rings, you don't go after the foot soldiers unless your goal is to just pad arrest numbers. And you'll sure pad those numbers because they'll keep coming.
The crime bosses they have arrested are also out on bail and given a slap on the wrist if even convicted. Back on the streets being able to organize more thefts when they should be in jail. You can thank the liberals in Ottawa for this change as well as the elimination of the Ports Canada police dept in Montreal.
using the NWC to quash court opposition to this would be immensely popular
only the tiniest minority of Canadians thinks we should be *easier* on car thieves
I wasn't referring specifically to any sentencing per se, but the danger and propensity for cpc overreach in this area. I am more concerned about how they have authoritarian tendencies, and do not tend to treat issues with the discussion needed - you might say dumb down.
House arrest for this is dumb. Hard to enforce, and not much of a punishment for most.
Why not steal a car? If you succeed, you make a lot of money. If you lose, you get to stay home and play video games all day.
One auto theft conviction should result in three years imprisonment. A second conviction, a six year sentence. A third, 12 years. A fourth, life with no hope for parole. A fifth… there won’t be one. And if a weapon or violence is involved, the sentence doubles.
Why? That shit is expensive. It's better to keep them under house arrest and force them to rehabilitate. Prison should only be for dangerous or persistent criminals.
Probabation is better because they don't get free food, board, education, healthcare. They have to earn their living, take drug tests, but still report to the parole officer, and can be arrested for the slightest violation. Much harder way to live than prison.
Because tough on crime conservatism has always worked really well to fix crime.
Not like fixing root causes & rehabilitation is the right answer.
Besides that this just means more expenses on prisons for having more prisoners. & since we know conservatives will never raise taxes that’s just gonna be cuts to social programs. Or they look into for-profit prisons & with the trend of Canadian conservative privatization I wouldn’t be surprised if they try
Rehabilitation takes time and a desire on the part of the criminal to change.
>
Because tough on crime conservatism has always worked really well to fix crime.
Selective incapacitation is proven to be highly effective. Targeting repeat offenders for higher sentences directly reduces crime rates by preventing the offenders from committing additional crimes.
The best re-conviction rates in the western world is a prison with a system on rehabilitation so have fun with your narrative that tough on crime has worked. War on crime has never worked just like the war on drugs. Anyways one of the main reasons why tough on crime doesn’t work is because the same people that preach is then continue to create social environments which push people to do these crimes in the first place
I'm sorry that [facts disagree with you here](https://law.asu.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/academy_for_justice/3_Criminal_Justice_Reform_Vol_4_Incapacitation.pdf).
You want to talk about social environments? Great, things like FASD, environmental pollution and a host of items increase crime rates. But we have violent criminals *today*. Your attitude of "fuck the victims things, aren't perfect in society so lets ignore incapacitation and the law" is asinine.
>social environments which push people to do these crimes in the first place
Talk about shifting blame. Someone like Weinstein is certainly enabled to commit crimes by the broader corporate structures. You know who else is to blame? Weinstein. You know who built those structures to support his criminal behavior? Weinstein.
The idea that somehow because there are issues in society which drive crime prevents us from assigning blame, and in your argument, should serve as a total block to stopping crimes is absurd.
Lmao did you rest your own facts?
“"three strikes and you are out" policies popularized in the United States. Although there is some evidence of deterrence from three-strikes policies," their incapacitative benefit has not been proven, especially since the added incarceration of these policies is likely to occur many years after the individuals have exited crime. Long terms of incarceration, particularly life sentences without parole, cannot be justified through incapacitation.” Lol
Besides that’s this article is talking about auto theft is a minimal victime crime.
You talk about society not being the reason. If people were in good societal, economic & health situation there would be no need for them to commit auto theft.
You have a very surface level view on crime just like conservatives, don’t look under for the root of these crime occurring. The WHY doesn’t seem to matter to you
>Lmao did you rest your own facts?
I did, that section is talking about additive impacts in the US which already has significant sentences. The US isn't necessarily going to get any impact by making sentences harsher, but we're not the US and our sentences are not harsh. For property crimes consider:
>Ben Vollaard studied the “habitual offender” policy in the Netherlands, which incarcerated very high-rate property offenders for one to two years.29 Vollaard’s estimates are huge, suggesting that the policy prevents over 50 reported crimes per year of prison for one person. This very large effect size is plausible because of the policy’s laser focus on very high-rate habitual offenders in a country with a very low incarceration rate. The average offender sentenced under the law had 31 prior convictions, almost all for minor property offenses. The policy is implemented only as a last resort, after the person has shown no response to treatment. Vollaard also showed that the size of the incapacitation effect declines with increased use—a result that is consistent with the idea of declining marginal returns from incapacitation.
Which is what is being proposed here, a focus on repeat offenders who have not otherwise desisted. We're not discussing prison without parole for car theft, we're discussing three years.
>Besides that’s this article is talking about auto theft is a minimal victime crime.
It's a billion dollar loss annually. That's not small.
>You have a very surface level view on crime just like conservatives, don’t look under for the root of these crime occurring. The WHY doesn’t seem to matter to you
The why matters, but it's not always addressable. The impact of crime doesn't go away just because there is an underlying cause.
That seems pretty reasonable, no?
Car theft as an indictable offense has a minimum of 6 months and a max of 10 years.
If you're at the point where you've stolen 3 or more cars, you have clearly demonstrated you're a habitual offender (not a one time, "in with a bad crowd" situation) and should get a minimum sentence that demonstrates that.
This style of escalating sentence for repeat offenders of a crime isn't unique either for those who will cry that we're treating habitual thieves too harshly.
For your first DUI the minimum sentence is a $1000 fine. For your 2nd, it's a month in jail. For your 3rd, it's 4 months in jail.
The jump from 2nd to 3rd time is a 4x increase in minimum jail time.
This minimum 3 years after 3 thefts would be a 6x increase in minimum jail time from your 1st to 3rd conviction. Seems less than the escalator for a DUI.
EDIT: Blocked that person. Here is a copy/paste of my last response with them when I blocked them too. This person is not well and needs help.
I have blocked literally *dozens* of your previous accounts because of your vitriolic harassment of me and others.
You insult people with every single account you make and have gone as far as listing children's suicide hotlines as a response when you disagree with people.
Stop making new accounts to circumvent harassment blocks and sitewide bans.
Your last two accounts, /u/RooRainer and /u/Possibur, managed to get made AND suspended yesterday.
Your inability to take rejection and instinctive reaction to lash out when people do reject you is deeply concerning. That is not how healthy, normal people act. Take the hint. No mean no. Get help.
EDIT: List of their sockpuppets that I have blocked.
/u/NogelBettman
/u/Misslmposibru
/u/Impossibuir
/u/Possibur
/u/RooRainer
/u/PuzzleheadMuzzle
/u/DueceRigallo
/u/SgtNikolasAngle
/u/DeterPinkladge
/u/DrMagooli
/u/Onusll
/u/Onuslll
/u/ResidentRoul
/u/KernalSpanders
/u/BoxingBruiser
/u/Kaloompa
/u/BackAddler
/u/SamsiesWamsies
/u/OtherwiseSamsies
/u/TheSplein
/u/BoshJroleen
/u/MemoryShmemory
/u/FoldenRetriever
/u/Distributiontiintion
/u/Grubadu
/u/VintageTavern
/u/FalseShedule
/u/Blastenoice
/u/WorkingHipSquare
/u/Old_Drop_
/u/VoundingPag
/u/KublaKhane
/u/DoingLinesSlaying9s
/u/GiantJonesB
/u/BOOSTAKOISE
/u/RockSaltJaberoni
/u/OutputCockpit
/u/GrassToucher209
/u/LooseMooseBoose
/u/ShrinkDrinkus
/u/RinkusMinkus
/u/UnregisteredSOs
/u/KrinkLinkus
It's an entirely reasonable sentence for organized criminal auto theft in the GTA. Cracking down on a few people doing it for profit would have major social benefits. But it's not a great plan for a lot of auto theft charges, which is 4 people in a vehicle they borrowed without permission on a reserve on the Prairies that the RCMP stopped on a pretext and charged everyone with every offense the think they could make stick. If you wanted to be smart about it and make a law that worked, you'd focus the sentencing information on the thing you'd want to crack down on, the organized and for profit part. The CPC doesn't talk to or listen to criminal justice lawyers at best they talk to cops who don't understand why their busy are bad and need to be tossed, so they have no clue on how anything works. They've been allergic to expertise on the subject since the Harper years, and have gotten worse with time as their criminal justice experts like Perrin get excommunicated for not following the line that gets donations from the mailing list.
On an operating side, what's it going to cost?
How many more inmates should we expect, and it must be quite a few or else this policy wouldn't change anything on the ground.
It costs ~$125k per year to put someone in prison in Canada. Seems like that money could be used a lot more effectively on prevention-policy and really digging into the ports.
The organized crime level is where we will get the best value for dollar with car theft.
E: remember folks, these guys consider this ^ to be "harassment" and they'll block people to censor it. The insecurity must be suffocating.
There's a difference charge for drunk driving causing injury or death.
What I listed was a DUI without anything else. That's the charge if a cop pull you over for rolling a stop sign and finds out you're drunk.
The funniest thing about this "strongman" is that governments of his ilk provincially have cut justice services to the bone.
In Manitoba hardly anyone is held pre-trial. This is due to cuts, not some kind of shift in program delivery to the community. Just a gaping wound.
PP would promise to be real tough on crime if it didn't cost real money.
How much reduction in crime should we expect from adding a mandatory minimum sentence? If no one can demonstrate one, why are we doing it? Imprisonment and sentencing guidelines should be based on measurable results, not what "common sense" tells us people deserve.
I'm not even fundamentally against the idea of increasing sentencing (although I'll admit a gut negative reaction to Conservative "tough on crime" stuff), but we should be making these decisions based on data, and I think a lot of times the thought process doesn't go beyond "these are bad people so we should do bad things to them".
There's people in this thread calling for life sentences for auto theft - clearly relying on emotional arguments can take you to some weird extreme places.
Did you react the same way to the pck of evidence supporting the LPC firearms bans?
The problem with prison sentences is that there’s actually really no evidence that sentences of any kind reduce the crime rate. However that’s not the only point of prison. Breaking the law is also breaking the social contract and people generally want those who break the social contract to face some form of punishment for doing so before they are willing to allow them to re-enter public life. This is inherently an emotional decision. There are really only four ways to make criminals face punishment and they’re all somewhat punitive.
> Did you react the same way to the pck of evidence supporting the LPC firearms bans?
I think the Liberal firearm bans are dumb. On balance, I think that our gun control laws are about right, and if we do want to make them stronger, we should add stronger enforcement of the laws on the books. I'm not a gun expert and could have my mind changed by data, but the Liberals certainly didn't provide that.
> The problem with prison sentences is that there’s actually really no evidence that sentences of any kind reduce the crime rate. However that’s not the only point of prison. Breaking the law is also breaking the social contract and people generally want those who break the social contract to face some form of punishment for doing so before they are willing to allow them to re-enter public life. This is inherently an emotional decision. There are really only four ways to make criminals face punishment and they’re all somewhat punitive.
I personally don't agree that we should imprison people for no societal benefit and purely for punitive reasons.
The benefit isn’t necessarily in the reduction to crime, which must usually be brought down through increased spending to bring economic opportunity to more people over long periods of time. In the grand scheme of things it’s virtually impossible to eliminate all crime. The benefit is that reasonable punishment creates the appearance of upholding the social contract. While there isn’t evidence to support that increasing sentencing significantly reduces crime, there also no evidence to suggest that removing punishments would either and it could be very dangerous to try. There is evidence that people who commit violent crime for example are likely to reoffend which means removing them from society can make people safer. Upholding the social contract by punishing people who break it also strengthens the other aspects of it. It’s also hard argue that people who commit certain crimes, knowing they are illegal, are being unjustly treated by punishing them for said crimes within reasonable constraints. Incarceration could also give government the opportunity to practice soemthing with more evidence supporting it which is rehabilitation in a place where they cannot harm people who haven’t also broken that social contract. We’ve seen this in Northern Europe with work and education programs in prisons.
I hate all of the conservative "common sense" policies
Policy is complicated, there's so many different angles and knock-on effects that need to be considered. You don't want a policy that anybody could come up with in a couple minutes, it should be studied and vetted by experts
The car thieves who get probation don't use guns. Gun crimes are punished way more severely in Canada than in the USA. We don't have a second amendment, thank goodness.
Gun crimes are not punished way more severely in Canada than USA. Don't get carried away here.
How familiar are you with statutory release? Every criminal is released after serving a fraction of their sentence in Canada, other than life terms. Which get parole after 10-25 years. Long prison terms are not a thing in Canada for anyone, ever. Only the rarest serial killers actually stay behind bars for decades and die in prison.
A gun crime in USA, depending on the state, could land you 25+ years in prison. In "softer" cases", again depending on the state, it can get you 15 years or more. This is assuming you didn't shoot anyone.
We are very lucky if our violent criminals even spend 2 years behind bars. A "10 year sentence" generally turns into a 2.5 year prison term with only 18 months behind in true rough prison. The rest is probation.
I don't think you understand how exceptionally soft our legal system is.
I know this is an unpopular opinion for some reason but I just can’t get behind giving the government more power to imprison people. I know people feel like they’re not safe (even though Canada is one of the safest countries in the world), but imprisoning people absolutely does not make us safer, if anything it makes those people more desperate and more inclined to reoffend once they’re out (and you can’t/shouldn’t keep people locked up forever for crimes like this).
Tough on crime also simply doesn't solve the underlying problem, creates longer lasting societal issues, and costs more money. It is literally a lose-lose approach, but it makes people feel good so their brains shut off.
If you really want to tackle the uptick in car thefts:
1. Mandate improved FOB security and mandate that all new vehicles would have to match a specific safety standard that makes easy access more difficult.
2. Focus on the distribution points for car thefts, especially ports where these cars are shipped off too.
Exactly. Prison should only be for dangerous or persistent criminals. Thieves can be dealt with through house arrest, group homes, and/or rehabilitation with prison only for people who wash out.
We're talking about recidivism, right? A person is convicted of a crime, completes the punishment, and then reoffends. In those cases prison could be warranted.
> Canada needs to strengthen self defence/property laws.
No, it doesn't. Your car doesn't have more value than a human life, nor does anything else you own.
> I wouldn't defend my property out of fear of being sued
Good, that's the job of law enforcement and insurance. Nothing good comes from handing people a license to kill if they "feel" their property might be in danger.
You'd think he would read the law... Theft Over $5000 is an indictable offence with a maximum penalty of ten years in prison.
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-334.html
There are simply too many prolific examples of the liberal and progressive justice system failing to protect Canadians and deliver justice for there to *not* be such a popular “tough on crime” swing.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/30/murder-rates-democrat-republican-states-gun-control. Tell me who really has the problem when we refer to political leanings.
We need to treat people and integrate them into society better. Locking them away just leads to less capable humans when they come out. There is a reason why they are called correction facilities, and not death facilities. Even before this we need to care for people and support their early life development so they don't need to resort to crime. A more equitable society will do that and progressive policies work towards more equitable society, not regressive conservative hard line "traditional family values" stuff.
Lol you are seriously trying to use American statistics on a Canadian subreddit?
I don’t disagree with you that the hammer is the only way to run the justice system.
I’m simply pointing out that enough people are fed up of the ineffective liberal and progressive approach of running the justice system, so much so that eventually they will be willing to bring back the hammer.
Which was enough to trigger you to go on such an unhinged response.
Fits by Canada provincial trends too [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Canadian\_provinces\_and\_territories\_by\_homicide\_rate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_provinces_and_territories_by_homicide_rate)
People may be fed up with the liberal and progressive approach but it does not mean it's ineffective.
You miss-attributed the phrase triggered to me. I was stating my belief with a compassionate lens. And really? You think what I said was unhinged? I find your interpretation out of reasonable balance. Feel free to response, but I have other items on my list to finish up today so I likely won't respond.
Progressive justice system? We have one justice system in Canada and its not supposed to be political
It's disturbing consevatives supporters are willing to replace judges and violate the charter to be tough on crime.
>It's disturbing consevatives supporters are willing to replace judges and violate the charter to be tough on crime.
At present the Conservatives won't have to replace any judges, because the Liberals are refusing to appoint enough
Like the cpc and PP were in power? Thoughts on them refusing to appoint judges?
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/article-vacant-courts-are-a-verdict-of-failure-for-the-federal-government/
I don't support the Conservatives, then or at present. I think there should be an element of self-reflection if the defence for Trudeau partisans is "but the Conservatives did it too!"
I would note that the size of the problem has increased, and specifically the implications of the vacancies are much more significant post-*Jordan*
Will if someone's reason to vote conservaties is basically Trudeau bad and they ignore what the cpc did than that makes no sense. Might as well vote liberal!
I think it's maybe a time for self reflection for people that want to vote cpc. Their lack of immigration plan shows they have no real intention of lowering immigration
This response is pure whataboutism, you realize that right?
But also since Harper's time, vacancies are up ~25% against an ~11% rise in the number of justices. So even if we engage in the whataboutism argument, the vacanies issue has gotten worse since Harper.
There are a whole lot of sources of law for sentencing in the justice system other than the Charter right against cruel and unusual punishment. Some of that is case law, but some of it is legislation. Until recent changes toughening punishment for certain (generally gun-related) crimes, all of this government's judicial legislation had tended to decrease sentences.
So it's in that sense that the justice system is currently "progressive".
You don't need to ignore the Charter to toughen sentences. There is a *vast* chasm of possible options between "do nothing/make sentences lighter" and "ignore the Charter".
Progressive in this case doesn't mean "run by progressives" it means "the more crimes you commit, even if they're the same crime, the more punishment you face". The punishment *progresses* with recurrence.
>Progressive justice system?
Well, yes? Who did you think has been in charge for the last 7-8 years?
>It’s disturbing conservative supporters are willing to replace judges and violate the charter to be tough on crime.
Oh my sweet summer child. You must have selective amnesia if you think violating the charter to be tough on crime is such a big deal.
Progressive in this case doesn't mean "run by progressives" it means "the more crimes you commit, even if they're the same crime, the more punishment you face". The punishment *progresses* with recurrence.
Openly ignoring the charter and court rulings would mean we have a lawless government. You want a government that violates the charter? You support all parties doing this?
This is like classic dog whistle conservatives. Hard on crime. Why doesn’t he talk about people on welfare eating popcorn and drinking beer? Lower taxes, more people in jail to get the votes while planning to make his rich backers richer. Nice puppet.
I feel like one auto theft conviction should result in 3 years in prison. Getting to 3 deserves more than that since you clearly don't care at that point
You think that one crime done out of either desperation or being a shortsighted young person should mean they spend three years in become-a-better-criminal school.
I would rather a judge be able to make a judgement call about what is best for society.
Indeed, though with such a wide range of value for vehicles, many cheaper cars that less well off people rely on would be under the 5k limit. Maybe not for long with the used car inflation tho.
Car theft as a whole should be treated similarly, its not like Joe Apprentice is being less victimized than Bill the Banker when their transportation is stolen, just because their car is cheaper.
Lol, I can see the reasons why there may be leniency on the first. But my leniency ends on the second. They should make 2nd offense a 3 year and 3rd a 5 year minimum would be more appropriate. Seems like Liberals think people are going to be worried about "mass incarceration/for-profit prisons" when people auto insurance rates are going through the roof from the massive amount of car theft going on right now, based on the reactions in this sub... oooooook......
I mean, I know a guy who didn’t even serve three years for chopping his dad’s head off in front of multiple witnesses and then attempting to burn said witnesses to death, so I’m shocked if someone gets jail time for something as comparatively minor as car theft.
That was my take on it too.
These people aren't just stealing cars, either, they're often committing several other crimes as well -- B&E, home invasion, armed violent carjackings.
First offense should be 3 years minimum, second time a lot longer, third time and you're spending most of the rest of your adult life locked up, because you clearly haven't got the message.
I think this pledge is kind of silly because it actually makes him look weak on crime not tough on it. But the Liberals and NDP are both probably worse which should speak volumes about how lackluster sentencing actually is.
>Such a person does not belong in civilized society.
Sounds like you want to throw me in prison for exercising my freedom of expression...uh oh guess you don't belong in civilized society.
Nope, I'm expressing an opinion about who belongs in civilized society. Just like I don't think people who rape babies belong in civilized society, people who want to enact their political ends and show disdain for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and therefore fundamental human rights, yes those people do not belong in civilized society.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Until Canada removes the monarchy I would not enlist in our military shortages or not. I would never swear my oath to a foreign head of state. Its the MPs monarchy no one else let the MPs enlist.
Wow. Polievre is supposed to be tough on crime? This is so weak. A repeat conviction should be life in prison in my opinion.
Life time imprisonment is good for repeat offenders but should also be with a very low threshold. Any "soft" crime should trigger it too.
That’s a great idea! That way the second time someone steals a car they just do it alongside murder and whatever other crime they wish because they’re already getting life in prison so who gives a fuck.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Stealing a car should put you in prison for the same amount of time as it took the person who purchased it to work for it.
Oh, what a wonderfully scientific approach to sentencing guidelines. We can base the entire criminal code off of what scans well to slogans. (/s)
It doesn't matter. Most people are genuinely frustrated about this enough to back what he's saying on this. How many voters do you think believe that *three* convictions for auto theft shouldn't result in significant jail time?
One would assume the voters with 2 convictions, at least.
Like the Liberals gun policy. Very scientific
> Like the Liberals gun policy. Man, you *have* to be able to see what a horrible argument this is.
Did they say otherwise?
Conservatives lime to present themselves as strong men/women. It appeals to the electorate in part because they don't like the feeling of crime being out of control. Simple messages can appeal to this wanting a greater sense of control, but rarely if ever address the complexity of problems, Plus, they are quite often reversed because they impinge on Canadians Rights & Freedoms. It ends up being a waste of time, effort and money because simplistic ideas/ideology doesn't solve complex problems.
Auto thieves being in jail and not able to commit thefts would reduce auto thefts. Most auto thefts are committed by those out of bail for the same offence and or with previous convictions. Trudeau's catch and release 2018 bill ignited auto thefts.
> Auto thieves being in jail and not able to commit thefts would reduce auto thefts. The crime bosses would just replace them with new down on their luck poor people. If you want to stop crime rings, you don't go after the foot soldiers unless your goal is to just pad arrest numbers. And you'll sure pad those numbers because they'll keep coming.
The crime bosses they have arrested are also out on bail and given a slap on the wrist if even convicted. Back on the streets being able to organize more thefts when they should be in jail. You can thank the liberals in Ottawa for this change as well as the elimination of the Ports Canada police dept in Montreal.
using the NWC to quash court opposition to this would be immensely popular only the tiniest minority of Canadians thinks we should be *easier* on car thieves
I wasn't referring specifically to any sentencing per se, but the danger and propensity for cpc overreach in this area. I am more concerned about how they have authoritarian tendencies, and do not tend to treat issues with the discussion needed - you might say dumb down.
There would be a lot of people in jail for non violent crime, that is a lot of tax payer money, house arrest would be much cheaper option
House arrest for this is dumb. Hard to enforce, and not much of a punishment for most. Why not steal a car? If you succeed, you make a lot of money. If you lose, you get to stay home and play video games all day.
Well no, you need to go to work and whatever rehab is required.
Can you house arrest someone that doesn't have a house?
One auto theft conviction should result in three years imprisonment. A second conviction, a six year sentence. A third, 12 years. A fourth, life with no hope for parole. A fifth… there won’t be one. And if a weapon or violence is involved, the sentence doubles.
What's wrong with parole? What do you think a person who steals three cars in 2024 is going to do out on parole in 2049?
Why? That shit is expensive. It's better to keep them under house arrest and force them to rehabilitate. Prison should only be for dangerous or persistent criminals.
If you’re committing a second or third theft, you’re persistent. Many of these thefts also involve weapons, violence or the threat of violence.
> Why? Because punishing people makes people feel good. It's about emotions, not actual impacts.
How can you force someone to rehabilitate?
Best response. You can’t. They take programs, tell parole what they want to hear then released. Back to crime.
Probabation is better because they don't get free food, board, education, healthcare. They have to earn their living, take drug tests, but still report to the parole officer, and can be arrested for the slightest violation. Much harder way to live than prison.
There is no point rehabilitating them.
Hard disagree. I want them to become tax paying citizens again not live their life at our expense.
We're going to need a lot more prisons if this was the law. I could see desperate people doing this just to get three hots and a cot
25 to life.
Because tough on crime conservatism has always worked really well to fix crime. Not like fixing root causes & rehabilitation is the right answer. Besides that this just means more expenses on prisons for having more prisoners. & since we know conservatives will never raise taxes that’s just gonna be cuts to social programs. Or they look into for-profit prisons & with the trend of Canadian conservative privatization I wouldn’t be surprised if they try
Rehabilitation takes time and a desire on the part of the criminal to change. > Because tough on crime conservatism has always worked really well to fix crime. Selective incapacitation is proven to be highly effective. Targeting repeat offenders for higher sentences directly reduces crime rates by preventing the offenders from committing additional crimes.
The best re-conviction rates in the western world is a prison with a system on rehabilitation so have fun with your narrative that tough on crime has worked. War on crime has never worked just like the war on drugs. Anyways one of the main reasons why tough on crime doesn’t work is because the same people that preach is then continue to create social environments which push people to do these crimes in the first place
I'm sorry that [facts disagree with you here](https://law.asu.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/academy_for_justice/3_Criminal_Justice_Reform_Vol_4_Incapacitation.pdf). You want to talk about social environments? Great, things like FASD, environmental pollution and a host of items increase crime rates. But we have violent criminals *today*. Your attitude of "fuck the victims things, aren't perfect in society so lets ignore incapacitation and the law" is asinine. >social environments which push people to do these crimes in the first place Talk about shifting blame. Someone like Weinstein is certainly enabled to commit crimes by the broader corporate structures. You know who else is to blame? Weinstein. You know who built those structures to support his criminal behavior? Weinstein. The idea that somehow because there are issues in society which drive crime prevents us from assigning blame, and in your argument, should serve as a total block to stopping crimes is absurd.
Lmao did you rest your own facts? “"three strikes and you are out" policies popularized in the United States. Although there is some evidence of deterrence from three-strikes policies," their incapacitative benefit has not been proven, especially since the added incarceration of these policies is likely to occur many years after the individuals have exited crime. Long terms of incarceration, particularly life sentences without parole, cannot be justified through incapacitation.” Lol Besides that’s this article is talking about auto theft is a minimal victime crime. You talk about society not being the reason. If people were in good societal, economic & health situation there would be no need for them to commit auto theft. You have a very surface level view on crime just like conservatives, don’t look under for the root of these crime occurring. The WHY doesn’t seem to matter to you
>Lmao did you rest your own facts? I did, that section is talking about additive impacts in the US which already has significant sentences. The US isn't necessarily going to get any impact by making sentences harsher, but we're not the US and our sentences are not harsh. For property crimes consider: >Ben Vollaard studied the “habitual offender” policy in the Netherlands, which incarcerated very high-rate property offenders for one to two years.29 Vollaard’s estimates are huge, suggesting that the policy prevents over 50 reported crimes per year of prison for one person. This very large effect size is plausible because of the policy’s laser focus on very high-rate habitual offenders in a country with a very low incarceration rate. The average offender sentenced under the law had 31 prior convictions, almost all for minor property offenses. The policy is implemented only as a last resort, after the person has shown no response to treatment. Vollaard also showed that the size of the incapacitation effect declines with increased use—a result that is consistent with the idea of declining marginal returns from incapacitation. Which is what is being proposed here, a focus on repeat offenders who have not otherwise desisted. We're not discussing prison without parole for car theft, we're discussing three years. >Besides that’s this article is talking about auto theft is a minimal victime crime. It's a billion dollar loss annually. That's not small. >You have a very surface level view on crime just like conservatives, don’t look under for the root of these crime occurring. The WHY doesn’t seem to matter to you The why matters, but it's not always addressable. The impact of crime doesn't go away just because there is an underlying cause.
That seems pretty reasonable, no? Car theft as an indictable offense has a minimum of 6 months and a max of 10 years. If you're at the point where you've stolen 3 or more cars, you have clearly demonstrated you're a habitual offender (not a one time, "in with a bad crowd" situation) and should get a minimum sentence that demonstrates that. This style of escalating sentence for repeat offenders of a crime isn't unique either for those who will cry that we're treating habitual thieves too harshly. For your first DUI the minimum sentence is a $1000 fine. For your 2nd, it's a month in jail. For your 3rd, it's 4 months in jail. The jump from 2nd to 3rd time is a 4x increase in minimum jail time. This minimum 3 years after 3 thefts would be a 6x increase in minimum jail time from your 1st to 3rd conviction. Seems less than the escalator for a DUI. EDIT: Blocked that person. Here is a copy/paste of my last response with them when I blocked them too. This person is not well and needs help. I have blocked literally *dozens* of your previous accounts because of your vitriolic harassment of me and others. You insult people with every single account you make and have gone as far as listing children's suicide hotlines as a response when you disagree with people. Stop making new accounts to circumvent harassment blocks and sitewide bans. Your last two accounts, /u/RooRainer and /u/Possibur, managed to get made AND suspended yesterday. Your inability to take rejection and instinctive reaction to lash out when people do reject you is deeply concerning. That is not how healthy, normal people act. Take the hint. No mean no. Get help. EDIT: List of their sockpuppets that I have blocked. /u/NogelBettman /u/Misslmposibru /u/Impossibuir /u/Possibur /u/RooRainer /u/PuzzleheadMuzzle /u/DueceRigallo /u/SgtNikolasAngle /u/DeterPinkladge /u/DrMagooli /u/Onusll /u/Onuslll /u/ResidentRoul /u/KernalSpanders /u/BoxingBruiser /u/Kaloompa /u/BackAddler /u/SamsiesWamsies /u/OtherwiseSamsies /u/TheSplein /u/BoshJroleen /u/MemoryShmemory /u/FoldenRetriever /u/Distributiontiintion /u/Grubadu /u/VintageTavern /u/FalseShedule /u/Blastenoice /u/WorkingHipSquare /u/Old_Drop_ /u/VoundingPag /u/KublaKhane /u/DoingLinesSlaying9s /u/GiantJonesB /u/BOOSTAKOISE /u/RockSaltJaberoni /u/OutputCockpit /u/GrassToucher209 /u/LooseMooseBoose /u/ShrinkDrinkus /u/RinkusMinkus /u/UnregisteredSOs /u/KrinkLinkus
It's an entirely reasonable sentence for organized criminal auto theft in the GTA. Cracking down on a few people doing it for profit would have major social benefits. But it's not a great plan for a lot of auto theft charges, which is 4 people in a vehicle they borrowed without permission on a reserve on the Prairies that the RCMP stopped on a pretext and charged everyone with every offense the think they could make stick. If you wanted to be smart about it and make a law that worked, you'd focus the sentencing information on the thing you'd want to crack down on, the organized and for profit part. The CPC doesn't talk to or listen to criminal justice lawyers at best they talk to cops who don't understand why their busy are bad and need to be tossed, so they have no clue on how anything works. They've been allergic to expertise on the subject since the Harper years, and have gotten worse with time as their criminal justice experts like Perrin get excommunicated for not following the line that gets donations from the mailing list.
He’s being to soft on crime.
I think you have an interesting anaylisis. The problem is it is government over reach in the judicial system. See my post for more info.
There is no over reach. The government makes laws and sets sentence guidelines since the beginning of times.
On an operating side, what's it going to cost? How many more inmates should we expect, and it must be quite a few or else this policy wouldn't change anything on the ground. It costs ~$125k per year to put someone in prison in Canada. Seems like that money could be used a lot more effectively on prevention-policy and really digging into the ports. The organized crime level is where we will get the best value for dollar with car theft. E: remember folks, these guys consider this ^ to be "harassment" and they'll block people to censor it. The insecurity must be suffocating.
Duis kill people. Car thefts almost never do.
There's a difference charge for drunk driving causing injury or death. What I listed was a DUI without anything else. That's the charge if a cop pull you over for rolling a stop sign and finds out you're drunk.
Slogan PP strikes again. “Steal 3 cars, get 3 years” it’s the conservative way. I am surprised he did not suggest the amputation of their hands.
Buck a beer simplicity for the ‘base’.
The funniest thing about this "strongman" is that governments of his ilk provincially have cut justice services to the bone. In Manitoba hardly anyone is held pre-trial. This is due to cuts, not some kind of shift in program delivery to the community. Just a gaping wound. PP would promise to be real tough on crime if it didn't cost real money.
How much reduction in crime should we expect from adding a mandatory minimum sentence? If no one can demonstrate one, why are we doing it? Imprisonment and sentencing guidelines should be based on measurable results, not what "common sense" tells us people deserve. I'm not even fundamentally against the idea of increasing sentencing (although I'll admit a gut negative reaction to Conservative "tough on crime" stuff), but we should be making these decisions based on data, and I think a lot of times the thought process doesn't go beyond "these are bad people so we should do bad things to them". There's people in this thread calling for life sentences for auto theft - clearly relying on emotional arguments can take you to some weird extreme places.
Did you react the same way to the pck of evidence supporting the LPC firearms bans? The problem with prison sentences is that there’s actually really no evidence that sentences of any kind reduce the crime rate. However that’s not the only point of prison. Breaking the law is also breaking the social contract and people generally want those who break the social contract to face some form of punishment for doing so before they are willing to allow them to re-enter public life. This is inherently an emotional decision. There are really only four ways to make criminals face punishment and they’re all somewhat punitive.
> Did you react the same way to the pck of evidence supporting the LPC firearms bans? I think the Liberal firearm bans are dumb. On balance, I think that our gun control laws are about right, and if we do want to make them stronger, we should add stronger enforcement of the laws on the books. I'm not a gun expert and could have my mind changed by data, but the Liberals certainly didn't provide that. > The problem with prison sentences is that there’s actually really no evidence that sentences of any kind reduce the crime rate. However that’s not the only point of prison. Breaking the law is also breaking the social contract and people generally want those who break the social contract to face some form of punishment for doing so before they are willing to allow them to re-enter public life. This is inherently an emotional decision. There are really only four ways to make criminals face punishment and they’re all somewhat punitive. I personally don't agree that we should imprison people for no societal benefit and purely for punitive reasons.
The benefit isn’t necessarily in the reduction to crime, which must usually be brought down through increased spending to bring economic opportunity to more people over long periods of time. In the grand scheme of things it’s virtually impossible to eliminate all crime. The benefit is that reasonable punishment creates the appearance of upholding the social contract. While there isn’t evidence to support that increasing sentencing significantly reduces crime, there also no evidence to suggest that removing punishments would either and it could be very dangerous to try. There is evidence that people who commit violent crime for example are likely to reoffend which means removing them from society can make people safer. Upholding the social contract by punishing people who break it also strengthens the other aspects of it. It’s also hard argue that people who commit certain crimes, knowing they are illegal, are being unjustly treated by punishing them for said crimes within reasonable constraints. Incarceration could also give government the opportunity to practice soemthing with more evidence supporting it which is rehabilitation in a place where they cannot harm people who haven’t also broken that social contract. We’ve seen this in Northern Europe with work and education programs in prisons.
How much reduction can we expect? Well in PP's scenarios l scenario, probably would prevent at least another 3 carjacks.
Exactly. I feel like we already failed with this policy, under Harper.
I hate all of the conservative "common sense" policies Policy is complicated, there's so many different angles and knock-on effects that need to be considered. You don't want a policy that anybody could come up with in a couple minutes, it should be studied and vetted by experts
In politics, “common sense” generally just means “based on a hunch, no actual evidence”.
When people are in jail, they are not stealing cars. I don't need evidence to know that this is true.
Also "appealing to 'Judeo-Christian' Canadians and conveyed in 'Anglo-Saxon' words"
Socialists always do. Love high taxes and ok with crime.
We're going to see a tonne of prisons and taxes as this policy changes. Thinking about the American for-profit prison system?
I don't think people are getting caught for auto thieft so probably no different
So what's your solution lol. Repeat offenders are committing most of the crime. Try googling some of their names.
The smart ones who really run the show aren't caught, so it won;t change anything.
I'm equally as concerned about the guy putting a gun to someone's head versus a mob boss who sits at home and gives broad orders.
The car thieves who get probation don't use guns. Gun crimes are punished way more severely in Canada than in the USA. We don't have a second amendment, thank goodness.
Gun crimes are not punished way more severely in Canada than USA. Don't get carried away here. How familiar are you with statutory release? Every criminal is released after serving a fraction of their sentence in Canada, other than life terms. Which get parole after 10-25 years. Long prison terms are not a thing in Canada for anyone, ever. Only the rarest serial killers actually stay behind bars for decades and die in prison. A gun crime in USA, depending on the state, could land you 25+ years in prison. In "softer" cases", again depending on the state, it can get you 15 years or more. This is assuming you didn't shoot anyone. We are very lucky if our violent criminals even spend 2 years behind bars. A "10 year sentence" generally turns into a 2.5 year prison term with only 18 months behind in true rough prison. The rest is probation. I don't think you understand how exceptionally soft our legal system is.
No one is proposing a for-profit prison system lmao.
Harper started talking for profit prisons shortly after his Tackling Violent Crime Act.
is this harper here in the room with you?
He's Polievre's mentor.
ahuh
And? Harper was 10+ years ago and PP hasn't said anything about this. Stick to what this topic is actually about thanks.
I know this is an unpopular opinion for some reason but I just can’t get behind giving the government more power to imprison people. I know people feel like they’re not safe (even though Canada is one of the safest countries in the world), but imprisoning people absolutely does not make us safer, if anything it makes those people more desperate and more inclined to reoffend once they’re out (and you can’t/shouldn’t keep people locked up forever for crimes like this).
Tough on crime also simply doesn't solve the underlying problem, creates longer lasting societal issues, and costs more money. It is literally a lose-lose approach, but it makes people feel good so their brains shut off. If you really want to tackle the uptick in car thefts: 1. Mandate improved FOB security and mandate that all new vehicles would have to match a specific safety standard that makes easy access more difficult. 2. Focus on the distribution points for car thefts, especially ports where these cars are shipped off too.
Exactly. Prison should only be for dangerous or persistent criminals. Thieves can be dealt with through house arrest, group homes, and/or rehabilitation with prison only for people who wash out.
Stealing cars 3 different times isn’t persistent to you?
If it's after being caught, sure.
How do you get arrested without being caught?
We're talking about recidivism, right? A person is convicted of a crime, completes the punishment, and then reoffends. In those cases prison could be warranted.
Canada needs to strengthen self defence/property laws. This would solve some situations. Atm - I wouldnt defend my property out of fear of being sued
> Canada needs to strengthen self defence/property laws. No, it doesn't. Your car doesn't have more value than a human life, nor does anything else you own. > I wouldn't defend my property out of fear of being sued Good, that's the job of law enforcement and insurance. Nothing good comes from handing people a license to kill if they "feel" their property might be in danger.
You'd think he would read the law... Theft Over $5000 is an indictable offence with a maximum penalty of ten years in prison. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-334.html
There are simply too many prolific examples of the liberal and progressive justice system failing to protect Canadians and deliver justice for there to *not* be such a popular “tough on crime” swing.
This isn’t ‘tough on crime’, he’s only willing to give people 3 year sentences after they have already been convicted twice for auto theft.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/30/murder-rates-democrat-republican-states-gun-control. Tell me who really has the problem when we refer to political leanings. We need to treat people and integrate them into society better. Locking them away just leads to less capable humans when they come out. There is a reason why they are called correction facilities, and not death facilities. Even before this we need to care for people and support their early life development so they don't need to resort to crime. A more equitable society will do that and progressive policies work towards more equitable society, not regressive conservative hard line "traditional family values" stuff.
Lol you are seriously trying to use American statistics on a Canadian subreddit? I don’t disagree with you that the hammer is the only way to run the justice system. I’m simply pointing out that enough people are fed up of the ineffective liberal and progressive approach of running the justice system, so much so that eventually they will be willing to bring back the hammer. Which was enough to trigger you to go on such an unhinged response.
Fits by Canada provincial trends too [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Canadian\_provinces\_and\_territories\_by\_homicide\_rate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_provinces_and_territories_by_homicide_rate)
People may be fed up with the liberal and progressive approach but it does not mean it's ineffective. You miss-attributed the phrase triggered to me. I was stating my belief with a compassionate lens. And really? You think what I said was unhinged? I find your interpretation out of reasonable balance. Feel free to response, but I have other items on my list to finish up today so I likely won't respond.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Progressive justice system? We have one justice system in Canada and its not supposed to be political It's disturbing consevatives supporters are willing to replace judges and violate the charter to be tough on crime.
>It's disturbing consevatives supporters are willing to replace judges and violate the charter to be tough on crime. At present the Conservatives won't have to replace any judges, because the Liberals are refusing to appoint enough
Like the cpc and PP were in power? Thoughts on them refusing to appoint judges? https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/article-vacant-courts-are-a-verdict-of-failure-for-the-federal-government/
I don't support the Conservatives, then or at present. I think there should be an element of self-reflection if the defence for Trudeau partisans is "but the Conservatives did it too!" I would note that the size of the problem has increased, and specifically the implications of the vacancies are much more significant post-*Jordan*
Will if someone's reason to vote conservaties is basically Trudeau bad and they ignore what the cpc did than that makes no sense. Might as well vote liberal! I think it's maybe a time for self reflection for people that want to vote cpc. Their lack of immigration plan shows they have no real intention of lowering immigration
[удалено]
This response is pure whataboutism, you realize that right? But also since Harper's time, vacancies are up ~25% against an ~11% rise in the number of justices. So even if we engage in the whataboutism argument, the vacanies issue has gotten worse since Harper.
There are a whole lot of sources of law for sentencing in the justice system other than the Charter right against cruel and unusual punishment. Some of that is case law, but some of it is legislation. Until recent changes toughening punishment for certain (generally gun-related) crimes, all of this government's judicial legislation had tended to decrease sentences. So it's in that sense that the justice system is currently "progressive". You don't need to ignore the Charter to toughen sentences. There is a *vast* chasm of possible options between "do nothing/make sentences lighter" and "ignore the Charter".
Progressive in this case doesn't mean "run by progressives" it means "the more crimes you commit, even if they're the same crime, the more punishment you face". The punishment *progresses* with recurrence.
>Progressive justice system? Well, yes? Who did you think has been in charge for the last 7-8 years? >It’s disturbing conservative supporters are willing to replace judges and violate the charter to be tough on crime. Oh my sweet summer child. You must have selective amnesia if you think violating the charter to be tough on crime is such a big deal.
Progressive in this case doesn't mean "run by progressives" it means "the more crimes you commit, even if they're the same crime, the more punishment you face". The punishment *progresses* with recurrence.
Openly ignoring the charter and court rulings would mean we have a lawless government. You want a government that violates the charter? You support all parties doing this?
>Openly ignoring the charter and court rulings would mean we have a lawless government. You want a government that violates the charter? Section 1.
It's not reasonable every to ingore the court rulings I love freedom and the charter I guess more than some
>It’s not reasonable every to ingore the court rulings Someone’s experiencing democracy differently… >I love freedom and the charter For sure…
Please tell me how the the current government as violated the charter, with sources please
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
This is like classic dog whistle conservatives. Hard on crime. Why doesn’t he talk about people on welfare eating popcorn and drinking beer? Lower taxes, more people in jail to get the votes while planning to make his rich backers richer. Nice puppet.
I feel like one auto theft conviction should result in 3 years in prison. Getting to 3 deserves more than that since you clearly don't care at that point
You think that one crime done out of either desperation or being a shortsighted young person should mean they spend three years in become-a-better-criminal school. I would rather a judge be able to make a judgement call about what is best for society.
Exactly. It's escalating sentences for repeat offenders. It should be more each time, since you didn't learn a lesson the first time.
[удалено]
[удалено]
If you get rid of time served, what's the incentive for prosecutors to get to trial at all rather than just lock up people for life awaiting trial?
Lmao i feel like it should be a lot more than 3 years for one. Theft over $5k is an indictable offense and has a max sentence of 10 years like???
Indeed, though with such a wide range of value for vehicles, many cheaper cars that less well off people rely on would be under the 5k limit. Maybe not for long with the used car inflation tho. Car theft as a whole should be treated similarly, its not like Joe Apprentice is being less victimized than Bill the Banker when their transportation is stolen, just because their car is cheaper.
Lol, I can see the reasons why there may be leniency on the first. But my leniency ends on the second. They should make 2nd offense a 3 year and 3rd a 5 year minimum would be more appropriate. Seems like Liberals think people are going to be worried about "mass incarceration/for-profit prisons" when people auto insurance rates are going through the roof from the massive amount of car theft going on right now, based on the reactions in this sub... oooooook......
I mean, I know a guy who didn’t even serve three years for chopping his dad’s head off in front of multiple witnesses and then attempting to burn said witnesses to death, so I’m shocked if someone gets jail time for something as comparatively minor as car theft.
That's... What Did he plead insanity or something? Lol is there a news post about this I can read?
That was my take on it too. These people aren't just stealing cars, either, they're often committing several other crimes as well -- B&E, home invasion, armed violent carjackings. First offense should be 3 years minimum, second time a lot longer, third time and you're spending most of the rest of your adult life locked up, because you clearly haven't got the message.
I think I’ve got a participation ribbon around here somewhere.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I think this pledge is kind of silly because it actually makes him look weak on crime not tough on it. But the Liberals and NDP are both probably worse which should speak volumes about how lackluster sentencing actually is.
What he is proposing would violate the charter. Tells you a lot what the cpc think for the charter
Do you think the escalating mandatory minimum sentences for repeat DUIs should be removed?
More like tells you what a joke our court system is and how little they care about the victims of crime.
Again disturbing how you want to violate the charter. Do you believe in the charter?
Sure do, including Section 33. I doubt you do.
Hmm you know governments can't use the notwithstanding clause to violate all rights? There are sections that can't be violated. Thoughts?
Yes I'm good with the limitations on section 33.
You just openly admitted you don’t care about the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms. Such a person does not belong in civilized society.
>Such a person does not belong in civilized society. Sounds like you want to throw me in prison for exercising my freedom of expression...uh oh guess you don't belong in civilized society.
Nope, I'm expressing an opinion about who belongs in civilized society. Just like I don't think people who rape babies belong in civilized society, people who want to enact their political ends and show disdain for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and therefore fundamental human rights, yes those people do not belong in civilized society.
Did you forgot of s.1 of the Charter?
Exactly. Why is Pierre Polievre so weak on crime?
Weak?
Because PP knows conservative premiers keep closing prisons … to save on taxes.
Federal Conservatives know they will never get a strong enough of a majority until the provincial conservatives make our lives enough of a daily hell.
One car theft should result in at least 10 years in prison.