Conservatives Don't Understand Freedom

[mbarrick]

When you pick up a gun and commit a crime you lose your right to be free.

From now on the justice system will stop giving you the benefit of the doubt and send you to jail for a long time.

— Stephen Harper

Nice sentiment, sure to get support from the backwater rednecks and easily the panicked sorts that elect these fascists.

What they are talking about here, hiding it behind the newspeak "reverse onus", is eliminating the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" and replacing it with a presumption of guilt. Much like the Americans doing away with habeas corpus, this flies in the face of the fundamental qualities that differentiate free countries from authoritarian tyrannies.

Section 11(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states states pretty damn clearly: "Any person charged with an offence has the right ... to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal".

Comments

[dream-king.livejournal.com]

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.

[mbarrick.livejournal.com]

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.

[dream-king.livejournal.com]

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.

[mbarrick.livejournal.com]

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?

[dream-king.livejournal.com]

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...