Michael R. Barrick

From what I have read, the issue is not presumed guilty but rather, in cases of violent gun crimes, the person who is charged must prove that s/he is not a danger to society and as such should be granted bail.

It is similar to the proposed changes to the Dangerous Offender legislation which would put the onus on the criminal after the end of their incarceration period is not dangerous to the public. Again this is for violent and repeated crime such as someone who has done multiple stints in jail for violent crime.

It is nice to believe in the Good of Man, but we have to be realistic that there are bad people and those people are getting a lot worse.

It is about time that a government got tough on crime instead of pandering to bleed hearts that think that with the right programs criminals will cease committing crime. There are just some people who do not wish to be good upstanding citizens.

From:

Having to prove you are not a danger is a presumption of guilt, Ziv. Not for the purpose the trial but for the purposes of the bail and is considerably different than the Dangerous Offender legislation you mention. Post incarceration the individual has already been found guilty and there is nothing wrong with having the onus on the convicted crimial to prove they are no longer a danger. Prior to conviction an individual is innocent under the law, he's simply been accused. In this scenario where someone accused of a crime involving a firearm is presumed guility for the purposes of the bail hearing it's all to easy to abuse the system to the detriment of free and innocent individuals. What if, for example, someone that looks like you commits an armed robbery at a shop in your neighbourhood. You are picked up a few blocks away while walking home. You have no history of criminal activity, but you also have no alibi, no way to prove it wasn't you for - your bail is automatically denied and you're held for months waiting your trial.

Because you are still presumed innocent at the trial you aren't convicted of the crime, but 17 months have gone by, you've lost your job, the bank has foreclosed on your home, and your daughter's first memories of you that she'll take through life are of visiting you in jail.

Even worse, maybe you've said something in your blog that has really pissed someone off. They see a grainy video of the robbery on a Crime Stoppers commercial and call in your name out of spite. Again, you're found innocent in the end, but because you've been accused of a gun crime and without the means to prove your innocence at the bail hearing you spend months in jail.

From:

You make a fair case however, given the example there has to be more evidence against me. I have to have a gun, not that I used it, but there has to be something that can actuall connect me, a motive.

I have been in the situation you described before.

Some friend and me went to the video store to rent a video one saturday night, this was when I was in high school, we bussed.

On the way home from the bus stop we were pulled over by cops, a video store closer to where I lived was robbed by 3 teenage men that matched our description, they started to question us and search us, of course they found in the backpack the videos from the other video store but still they really didn't have anything that they could have charged us on, they could have arrested us sure, but they would have 24 hours to release us or charge us and they had no evidence.

The point I am making is that for the abuse of power which you speak of, there has to be more going on, there has to be finger prints, DNA, an actual visible picture.

I would also add, in the case of someone who has a completely clean record and are arrested and charged for a violent gun crime, the fact that they have such a clean record is evidence enough that they are not a harm to society.

From:

Guns can be thrown away. With an illegally aquired gun there is no record that you owned it in the first place. Random acts of violence don't necessiarily have clear motives, etc. You make good points, and we could probably argue scenarios ad infinitum, but it's all tangental.

I take it that you agreeing that there is presumption of guilt at the bail hearing. The bill won't fly because it clearly violates the Charter. What bothers me the most is that Prime Minister would suggest even trying to pass legislation that violates the Charter. It doesn't speak well to his understanding of the rights and freedoms of Canadians

From:

I think when one has already been convicted for previous violent crimes, when that person has been picked up again, the probability is that yes, they probably did do it.

Joe Average, or even someone who has had minner scrapes with Justice, should be given the benefit of the doubt, but a guy who has been convicted of violent crimes before, is a good chance that he did it.

You mentioned the charter of rights and freedoms, but no mention about personal responsability and obligations to society.

From:

Yes, but a person's history of convictions is how you argue that a person is a danger to society. That leaves the presumption of innocence alone. It is how it works now: you have a person accused of a violent crime, the prosecution argues that the person has a history of violent crime with his previous convictions as empirical evidence of a pattern of behaviour showing he represents a danger, therefore the person is denied bail. Whether you meant to or not, you've recognized the wisdom of the existing system.

The guilty person is responsible for their actions and has an obligation to society to pay restition for their crimes - no argument there. The issue is simply making damn sure the right person is being punished *before* the punishment begins. Presumption of innocence without prejudice is a free society's obligation to the individual.

From:

that is where we differ,it is because of this history that the accused must prove that he is not a danger. Make the accused in such situations do the work. The prosecution should be busy putting together its case for actual trial, and not having to argue why the person with such a history should be denied bail.

To the regular individual you are right, however, someone of such a case should be exempted as they clearly, given their history have no care for such things.

A perfect example is this violent purse snatcher guy, who was out awaiting a trial for a violent crime committed last year.

From:

Yeah, but don't you see that you're just complicating things? The senario you are proposing breaks down like this:

1. Everyone is presumed innocent.
2. If a person can be shown to be a potential danger by past history, they are presumed guilty.
3. If a person is presumed guilty they can argue they are not a danger.
4. If successfully prove they are not a danger they are granted bail.

Whereas how it works now:

1. Everyone is presumed innocent.
2. If a person can be shown to be a potential danger by past history, they are denied bail.

The pre-trial bail hearing is not a trial. When I say the "prosecution argues" I don't mean that in the sense of a dramatic Perry Mason style TV trial. The Crown's "argument" is as simple as submitting the accused's record of previous convictions to the judge. It's no more complex than the initial step you are proposing.

From:

At a certain point one has to make the difficult decision of the safety of the public v. the individual.

Governments do this all the time with land expropriation, which to many people is their whole life.

I know that it is a very slippery slope, just like post-9/11 anti-terror legislation.

But at what point should certain liberties be put aside for the betterment of all. I think that in this specific and well defined situation, we can turn a blind I to help society. It is a 3 Strikes law.

From:

I can respect that.

I don't agree, obviously, but it wouldn't be the only place we "draw the line" in a different place.

But don't you find it odd that I, the liberal, am arguing on the side of personal freedom and less government power, while you, the conservative, are arguing for less individual freedom and more government power?

From:

Normally I am of the opinion that the government is the problem, however, since the judicial system is so lax on criminal behaviour, this is one situation in which I believe more government is needed, sadly...

From:

It is about time that a government got tough on crime instead of pandering to bleed hearts that think that with the right programs criminals will cease committing crime. There are just some people who do not wish to be good upstanding citizens.

You hit the nail on the head, my sentiments exactly! It would be even better if we could bring back the death penalty to deal with these unco-operative sorts

From:

how about just for murderers. Perhaps, pedophiles, serial rapists, and serial murdered.

From:

The problem being that the death penalty is not a deterrent to the genuinely psychotic. A psychotic person, by definition, has a very limited ability to understand cause and effect (or even none at all) and really doesn't care about consequences. Meanwhile, because the punishment is absolute a mistaken conviction becomes an irreversible act of murder.

Better to put the person away for life (and *really* for life, not 25 years with the opportunity of parole after 5) and extract valuable work from them. I'd rather see the sorts criminals you mentioned sent to gulags in the far north to dig in mines or other such undesirable activities.

Make the punishment horrible enough to deter the people who do have a sense of consequence but make productive use of those who wouldn't be deterred anyway, as well as leave room to someone to survive and be compensated for an error in the courts.

From:

You are right on all 3 counts, however, given the bleeding heart judicial system that we have, one has to have other options.

If not capital punishment, then at least allow for consecutive jail terms instead of the current, concurrent which makes a joke of it all, all for true life sentences, such that the only time the person will be out of jail is when s/he literally breaths his/her last breath.

From:

I would definitely support a prison gulag system or exile in the far north.

As for the death penalty, whether it's a deterrent or not matters little; what matters is these fuckheads won't commit crimes again. But I do understand and see the need for absolute proof for a conviction - that has to be there as well.

I guess the problem I see with our legal system is people no longer have any sense of respect for social authority nor have to account fully for their own actions. They no longer fear the consequenses and ramifications of making poor decisions. It seems that the buck can be passed far too easy... "I did it because I'm poor, or got mental problems, blah blah etc. " Hogwash!... because there are a lot of poor and retarded people who don't commit crimes and act responsibly within our society.

From:

Until Harper went and recently declared Quebec a "nation within Canada", I was pretty much convinced to vote for him in the next election.

From:

not that you could vote for harper per se...but your reasoning is the perfect reason to vote for any other party...ha ha...

From:

not that you could vote for harper per se

I know, I know - but how many vote with their own riding in mind and not with a view as to who will make the PM job?

but your reasoning is the perfect reason to vote for any other party

Not sure what you mean by there except for simple, blind sarcasm?

As for the issue of Quebec, I have no problem with Quebec itself being a French-only province within the constraints of federalism, but to be recognised as some sort of "first-amongst-equals" could set a dangerous precident. Everyone else will then want the same recognition; next all the Injuns will want to be recognised as a *nation* on the same level of benefit as Quebec, etc. At that point, if we've not become one sooner, we've thus become an apartheid state, the difference being it's based on one's culture. Is that what you want?

From:

it was just blind sarcasm...i haven't an opinion on the quebec matter yet...i'm still gathering information before making my decision...on the face i'm not sure i agree, but there are good arguments for and against...that said i am surprised harper was the one who did it...and to be honest the first nations have a more legitimate claim to nation status than does quebec...

From:

that said i am surprised harper was the one who did it

Yes - my thoughts exactly. It comes across as being nothing more than an attempt to win votes in that province.

and to be honest the first nations have a more legitimate claim to nation status than does quebec

Between Quebec and the Native Indians, yes I would also say the Indians have a much stronger claim. But then again, I look at both groups as being conquered peoples. If we start giving Quebec and Native Indians special recognition, then we have to do the same with Anglo-Canadians (because they/we are also a key component in the formation and heritage of Canada) but I really don't see that happening. There'd be such a huge public outcry - so granted, if so... then why not the same outcry for Quebec and Indians as well? After all, we're all suppose to be equal, aren't we?

From:

it's a blatant attempt to curry favour and win votes in quebec...but i can't see it working too well...and it will certainly cost him some support in ontario and maybe even the atlantic provinces which he needs...i'd say it would cost him support out west, but the prairies and alberta are too stubborn and stupid to vote otherwise even if this rankles them...it may do a little damage in b.c., but for the most part the rednecks will stand by their man...

From:

the prairies and alberta are too stubborn [snip] to vote otherwise even if this rankles them

Agreed, my observation as well. It'll have much more effect in the East but practically none here in the West. Quebec by an large is a non-issue in BC.

From:

the sarcasm being that if you vote conservative that's the perfect argument to vote for anyone else, not the reasoning itself...

From: