 Judges defy order to impose Tories' victim-services surchargeLaw & Order | 206816 hits | Dec 09 8:20 am | Posted by: DrCaleb  Judges in several provinces are rebelling against the Conservative government�s attempt to make all convicted criminals pay a surcharge to fund victim services. The mandatory charge is a new flashpoint between the judiciary and the federal government. TwoCommentsview comments in forum Page 1 2 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
Have them pay $100 because they've had their day in court? No, how about they pay the $100 because they have been found guilty of an offence. No one has to pay a surcharge just for showing up. The judge was being deliberately obtuse.
Have them pay $100 because they've had their day in court? No, how about they pay the $100 because they have been found guilty of an offence. No one has to pay a surcharge just for showing up. The judge was being deliberately obtuse.
Why should committing a crime be taxed?
And they thing I don't get is if the money is for 'victim services', what does that mean? Where does the money go?
I'm not sure it's the judge that's being obtuse.
No one pays a surcharge for "having their day in court".
No one.
You can have your day in court and walk out without paying a dime, but you usually have to be found not guilty. The guilty, however, sometimes do pay a surcharge and I'm not crying for them Argentina.
For many people, this surcharge is appropriate. What's wrong is taking the discretion away from the judges. As they said, they're paid 1/4 million a year and more and more and just supposed to be gavel bangers. Just let Vic Toews program a computer to be the judge, save a fortune and give him something to do in his retirement. Be sure to program in "if you're not with us you're with the pornographers - guilty."
Why should committing a crime be taxed?
And they thing I don't get is if the money is for 'victim services', what does that mean? Where does the money go?
You ask "why"? I ask "why not"? We're taxed on damn near everything else. Make offenders fund/help fund services to the victims of crime? I think it's a great idea.
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/news-nouv/ ... 32731.html
My only issue is that we pay victim surcharges on victimless "crimes". Speed 16 km/h over the limit and get caught? You're paying the surcharge.
Why should committing a crime be taxed?
And they thing I don't get is if the money is for 'victim services', what does that mean? Where does the money go?
You ask "why"? I ask "why not"? We're taxed on damn near everything else.
That doesn't make it right. Just because some injustice has continued does not mean that it must continue. If the government wants to increase services for victims, I'm all for it. But as you say, for someone to be convicted of a victim less crime does not mean they should compensate some imaginary victim.
That doesn't make it right. Just because some injustice has continued does not mean that it must continue. If the government wants to increase services for victims, I'm all for it. But as you say, for someone to be convicted of a victim less crime does not mean they should compensate some imaginary victim.
My only issue with the surcharge is that it is too expansive, it is applied to "victimless crimes" which it shouldn't.
Now those who commit crimes against other people (assault, theft, etc) IMO should be paying the surcharge. I don't care if they're making 9 bucks an hour or 90. You pay!
That doesn't make it right. Just because some injustice has continued does not mean that it must continue. If the government wants to increase services for victims, I'm all for it. But as you say, for someone to be convicted of a victim less crime does not mean they should compensate some imaginary victim.
My only issue with the surcharge is that it is too expansive, it is applied to "victimless crimes" which it shouldn't.
Now those who commit crimes against other people (assault, theft, etc) IMO should be paying the surcharge. I don't care if they're making 9 bucks an hour or 90. You pay!
I guess we'll just differ on the latter point. I think if you commit a crime and are convicted, the Judge determines what restitution society demands of the accused. I don't think government should make it a tax grab at the same time.
Now those who commit crimes against other people (assault, theft, etc) IMO should be paying the surcharge. I don't care if they're making 9 bucks an hour or 90. You pay!
Ahh...If you are convicted of assault, theft, etc you go to jail, therefore unemployed and unable to pay a fine.
And if you are only making 9$/hr, you can't afford your home, let alone food and clothing. Desperate people being produced by this. Society really does not need this.
I think if you commit a crime and are convicted, the Judge determines what restitution society demands of the accused. I don't think government should make it a tax grab at the same time.
Why do we have people on parole who commit more offenses? I think everyone I know was frustrated that these criminals keep getting out. I know here in Calgary, even the Police chief was calling out the justice system saying his officers would arrest drug suspects and within a day they were back on the same street dealing again.
I know I was frustrated with all the cases being reported of convicted fellons killing, robbing, beating and stealing again while out of jail, some already had multiple offenses. While some people may not like the idea of mandatory sentencing (and I too, am not completely convinced) at least there was an attempt to obligate judges to not let serial repeat hard cases out early, or off with light sentencing.
I am not sure these new laws are hitting the mark on where they needed tightening or not but it seems that it's pissing off many in the justice system.
Well...better them pissed off than the general public over another serious crime committed by a repeat offender due to a wimpy sentence.
Maybe it isn't perfect, lets tweak it so it's more palatable, but I understand the direction they wanted to take. I know not every case is the same, but it was getting so ridiculously laughable before that something had to be done.