banner ad

End Concurrent Sentencing

March 1, 2014 |

jailbarsIt’s been two weeks since I posted about the “Canadian’s lack of faith in the justice system”.  Since then, we have seen some dirt bag who drugged the children he was babysitting in order to have sex with them, get sentenced to 5 years.   Another douche got 10 years for sexually assaulting 21 women while they were under anesthesia.  Ten, yes, ten years.  Countless run of the mill habitual criminals have committed 20 and 30 criminal acts, only to be sentenced to 2 years less a day.  These lovely contributors to society benefit from the system that allows them to serve their time concurrently instead of spending time for each crime committed.

Why?  Why is it that poll after poll has specifically stated that most Canadians want to end concurrent sentencing for violent criminals, yet the system is still so unwilling to punish offenders for the 2nd, 3rd, or 31st crime for which they are charged and convicted?

Does not the 3rd victim, let’s say a grandmother who ended up with a broken jaw and cheek bone deserve justice of her own?  As it stands now, every offence committed after the first one, is basically a freebie.  Again, why?  Sure Canada has the dangerous offender’s provision, but short of the few like Bernardo, it’s use is sparse.  The Federal Government is now being forced to defend it’s 2008 Omnibus Bill to place mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes.  In November 2013, Ontario Superior Court struck it down as being unconstitutional.  Yet more instances of Judges making laws instead of enforcing what laws we do have.

Of course, the left claim that long prison terms do nothing for the criminal.  My answer – So what?  At least that person is not back out on the street committing further acts of terror and violence on the society at large.

One very recent large whole in our system has particularly raised my ire.  The guy that beheaded an innocent man on a bus is now able to get day parole and unsupervised days out to visit the beach, shop or whatever.  While this guy was viewed as “insane” when he committed the act, he is now medicated, and cooperative, therefore, he is allowed back out, among us.  Again, why?

While I understand the concept of mental health issues and mitigating circumstances (within reason), where does society benefit from having a potential powder keg milling among us?   Would not a minimum security prison environment be more fitting?  I certainly think so.

While the left have some strange notion that being soft on crime deters it and squeal in protest about the cost it takes to house criminals long term facilities, (and thus is a good reason to let them out early), would it not make more sense to require prisons to become self sufficient, or gasp – turn a profit via the labor of the inmates?   There are many models worldwide with varying degrees of success.  Why not try a couple?

Let’s not also forget that the victims of the child molesters, the sex offenders, the families who have lost loved ones to psychopathic murders have to spend thousands of their own money in counselling, medication and therapy.  There is little if any real long term help for the victims of crime.  Their suffering lasts in many cases far longer than the term of the criminal’s actual time in jail.  Again, why?

At the very least, we should end the concurrent sentencing model for violent crimes.  The police are doing their jobs by laying multiple charges, it’s time our judicial system reflect the truth that many of the criminal bodies before them should be doing 25 to 50 years for their crimes, not 5 to 10.

FacebookShare

Tags: ,

Category: Canada

Comments are closed.