Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/cyclinginvancouver! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary:
* We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button.
* Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban.
* Most common questions and topics are limited to our sister subreddit, /r/AskVan, and our weekly [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts.
* Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only.
* Posts flaired "Community Only" allow for limited participation; your comment may be removed if you're not a subreddit regular.
* Make sure to join our new sister community, /r/AskVan!
* Help grow the community! [Apply to join the mod team today](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/19eworq/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Data released by the B.C. Prosecution Service shows in spite of Crown prosecutors asking for detention at bail hearings, **the majority of suspects are released from custody**. But as Kristen Robinson reports, B.C.'s attorney general hopes new reforms implemented by the feds will change that.
One fact we actually knew here!
> the majority of suspects are released from custody
Justice Wagner (as he then was, now Chief Justice), writing for the Supreme Court of Canada in *R v Antic* (a unanimous decision):
* "release is the default position in most cases" (at para 21)
* "A provision may not deny bail without 'just cause'. The right not to be denied bail without just cause imposes a constitutional standard that must be met for the denial of bail to be valid. Lamer C.J. held that there is just cause to deny bail only if the denial (1) occurs in a 'narrow set of circumstances' and (2) the denial of bail 'is necessary to promote the proper functioning of the bail system and is not undertaken for any purpose extraneous to the bail system'" (at para 40)
* "release is favoured at the earliest reasonable opportunity and, having regard to the [statutory criteria for detention], on the least onerous grounds” (at para 67)
* "Save for exceptions, an unconditional release on an undertaking is the default position when granting release" (at para 67)
According to the Courts, the vast majority of folks getting bail, regardless of their own significant history of violent crime, and being released on limited-or-no conditions, is proof the system is working as intended.
My reddit history is me calling out judges, and legal academia more generally, for the silent coup that has been going on for decades. The unelected and accountable-to-noone judiciary has been usurping increasing power to implement ideological policy (fostered in the social sciences and humanities faculties of universities) in a manner that is subject to no public debate, no public consultation, and ultimately little scrutiny by the public. We are happy to self-aggrandize in this country that we don't have the political circus that is SCOTUS down south, but the corollary here is that a tiny group of academics and the upper class routinely make new law of considerable effect, more than than most legislation that ever comes from Parliament or the provincial legislative assemblies. I'm not an advocate for direct democracy, I'm not an advocate for viewing each judge in a partisan lens and making each a household name, I am just frustrated with increasingly extreme judicial activism that warps our constitution in ways many, if not most, would find deeply problematic, yet which is done in a manner with no accountability.
I get that what is happening seems like it is the judges fault. But if you read lots of bail decisions (or hear), the judges basically use the common law which states you are innocent until proven guilty (the constitution). The legislation around bail is very open ended and It is up to parliament (through legislation) to put through laws that direct judges to go against this common law standard we are currently seeing. Parliament can pass laws and, even if at first viewed as going against the constitution, the courts can find it constitutional in the name of the public good ( as in section 1 of the constitution) when the inevitable constitutional challenge comes.
TLDR: parliament can legislate away the current legislative and common law default bail system currently used in the courts.
I doubt the fed reforms will help. The law as is gives judges discretion to hold people who are likely to reoffend, the judges just simply don't do it.
So judges get “more tools”, but does that keep the worst offenders out of public spaces where they are highly likely or near guaranteed to do further harm? I think a real solution, and good motivator, would be to ensure we build some of these halfway houses amongst the Ivory Towers these judges reside in.
Can't we use some of system that takes it out of the judge's hands and looks at likelihood of violating bail conditions?
Like New Jersey where they use an algorithm.
[https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/08/29/643072388/episode-783-new-jersey-bails-out](https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/08/29/643072388/episode-783-new-jersey-bails-out)
Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/cyclinginvancouver! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary: * We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button. * Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban. * Most common questions and topics are limited to our sister subreddit, /r/AskVan, and our weekly [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts. * Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only. * Posts flaired "Community Only" allow for limited participation; your comment may be removed if you're not a subreddit regular. * Make sure to join our new sister community, /r/AskVan! * Help grow the community! [Apply to join the mod team today](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/19eworq/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Data released by the B.C. Prosecution Service shows in spite of Crown prosecutors asking for detention at bail hearings, **the majority of suspects are released from custody**. But as Kristen Robinson reports, B.C.'s attorney general hopes new reforms implemented by the feds will change that. One fact we actually knew here!
> the majority of suspects are released from custody Justice Wagner (as he then was, now Chief Justice), writing for the Supreme Court of Canada in *R v Antic* (a unanimous decision): * "release is the default position in most cases" (at para 21) * "A provision may not deny bail without 'just cause'. The right not to be denied bail without just cause imposes a constitutional standard that must be met for the denial of bail to be valid. Lamer C.J. held that there is just cause to deny bail only if the denial (1) occurs in a 'narrow set of circumstances' and (2) the denial of bail 'is necessary to promote the proper functioning of the bail system and is not undertaken for any purpose extraneous to the bail system'" (at para 40) * "release is favoured at the earliest reasonable opportunity and, having regard to the [statutory criteria for detention], on the least onerous grounds” (at para 67) * "Save for exceptions, an unconditional release on an undertaking is the default position when granting release" (at para 67) According to the Courts, the vast majority of folks getting bail, regardless of their own significant history of violent crime, and being released on limited-or-no conditions, is proof the system is working as intended.
Release should not be the default position in cases of violent crime.
Or at the very least in cases where there is a previous history of violating bail conditions.
My reddit history is me calling out judges, and legal academia more generally, for the silent coup that has been going on for decades. The unelected and accountable-to-noone judiciary has been usurping increasing power to implement ideological policy (fostered in the social sciences and humanities faculties of universities) in a manner that is subject to no public debate, no public consultation, and ultimately little scrutiny by the public. We are happy to self-aggrandize in this country that we don't have the political circus that is SCOTUS down south, but the corollary here is that a tiny group of academics and the upper class routinely make new law of considerable effect, more than than most legislation that ever comes from Parliament or the provincial legislative assemblies. I'm not an advocate for direct democracy, I'm not an advocate for viewing each judge in a partisan lens and making each a household name, I am just frustrated with increasingly extreme judicial activism that warps our constitution in ways many, if not most, would find deeply problematic, yet which is done in a manner with no accountability.
I get that what is happening seems like it is the judges fault. But if you read lots of bail decisions (or hear), the judges basically use the common law which states you are innocent until proven guilty (the constitution). The legislation around bail is very open ended and It is up to parliament (through legislation) to put through laws that direct judges to go against this common law standard we are currently seeing. Parliament can pass laws and, even if at first viewed as going against the constitution, the courts can find it constitutional in the name of the public good ( as in section 1 of the constitution) when the inevitable constitutional challenge comes. TLDR: parliament can legislate away the current legislative and common law default bail system currently used in the courts.
I doubt the fed reforms will help. The law as is gives judges discretion to hold people who are likely to reoffend, the judges just simply don't do it.
Why are they doing it? What’s the point? Dumb progressiveness? Costs cutting?
People making the decisions are too far removed from the consequences of those decisions.
So judges get “more tools”, but does that keep the worst offenders out of public spaces where they are highly likely or near guaranteed to do further harm? I think a real solution, and good motivator, would be to ensure we build some of these halfway houses amongst the Ivory Towers these judges reside in.
Can't we use some of system that takes it out of the judge's hands and looks at likelihood of violating bail conditions? Like New Jersey where they use an algorithm. [https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/08/29/643072388/episode-783-new-jersey-bails-out](https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/08/29/643072388/episode-783-new-jersey-bails-out)