Parliament is not in a good position to sit in judgment over an individual offender. They have no knowledge of the facts in any individual case.

“Automatic” sentencing, such as a mandatory minimum sentencing regime, takes discretion away from the person that is in the best position to determine a sentence: the judge.

That is why we employ judges in the first place: to sit in front of an accused person; see them; hear their plea; and ultimately, decide upon a fit and appropriate sentence that is catered to the unique facts and circumstances of that person.

Thanks Mr. Stribopoulos

I think we spend to much time worrying about the so called poor accused who is spending their time in deplorable conditions. Thats where they belong, they committed a crime against us, society, innocent people.

Stop concerning yourself with the accused, leave them in jail to rot!!!

One possible unintended consequence of this legislation may be a backlog on the courts, as people push for quick trials (and the resultant Charter challenges on 8(b)), rather than serving dead time which without the ratio of credit no longer benefits the accused. In fact, serving dead time now most likely hurts them based on opportunities for defacto sentence reduction via early release/probation after sentencing.

While, as commented by Rob, this may be an opening salvo, and early release may be the next target by the government, the change that is proposed seems to alter the “rules of the game” and it will be interesting to see how the courts adapt to it. While one area of judical discretion has been taken away, sentencing is still an inherently flexible procedure, and judges are able to accomodate these changes, and still craft a sentence that is “fair” in their eyes.

I have one issue with your arguments. You mention that the period spent in pretrial custody is not open to remission for good behaviour and then you go on to discuss the parole regime for federal offenders.

There is no earned remission for federal offenders in Canada. Remission was abolished in 1969 when the system now known as statutory release was established. Before ’69, offenders earned early release with good behaviour that usually cut sentences by one third. Offenders were therefore released after serving two thirds of their sentences. The sentence was deemed completed (what we call warrant expiry today). Politicians decided to change the system because parole, introduced earlier, had shown such great results. Offenders released with some form of supervision and structure reoffended less often. The politicians decided that virtually all offenders should be released with structure and supervision, so they established what is now called statutory release (mandatory supervision formerly). This meant that the sentences of offenders were essentially lengthened, since that final third that was usually cancelled out through good behaviour (the remission), was now served in the community, under supervision.

And don’t forget this current Conservative government wants to eliminate statutory release, a tactic that was originally implemented because it showed promise in making communities safer. The Tories tout the plan to eliminate stat release as another get-tough measure, yet statutory release was established 40 years ago as a get-tough measure that replaced a soft-on crime loophole – earned remission.

Here in BC, judges seem bound to apply the 2-for-1 rule to forestall an appeal. It doesn’t seem discretionary to me.

Anyway, Bob Tarantino makes short work of your arguments here:

http://bobtarantino.blogs.com/blog/2009/03/how-not-to-argue-in-favour-of-2for1.html