Tories mull minimum sentences for white-collar crime
OTTAWA — The Harper government is considering new legislation to create minimum mandatory sentences for people convicted of white collar crime, said Justice Minister Rob Nicholson on Thursday.
Nicholson said he’s hoping recent media coverage of investment consultants who allegedly swindled their clients will encourage opposition parties to support this and other criminal justice legislation currently before Parliament.
“Whenever we hear (about) people who are losing their money or who are the victims of fraud, our heart goes out to them, and we empathize with anybody who finds that their life savings has been stolen or disappeared, however the fraud is committed,” said Nicholson, who spoke to reporters on a conference call. “Our job at the federal level is to make sure that the laws of this country are up to date (and) as effective as possible.”
Nicholson added that parliamentarians also have a duty, under the Constitution, to provide guidance to the courts, but he said he was unable to provide further details of the government’s plans since they are still being developed.
[More]
Popularity: 15% [?]
Male, retired and the rest is of little interest to anyone. The site keeps me busy and if it helps others to stay abreast of daily events then my time is well spent.
Jack Says:
No interest in this so far. I guess people don’t worry about their investments.
My view — the sooner Harper pulls the plug the happier I will be. Not because I think he will lose. Rather, because I think he’ll catch everyone with their pants down.
I guess I’m impatient and I can’t see the government constantly sucking up to “socialists”.
Unlike the US Canada can do something about our situation (and rapidly).
I think Harper needs to make that a talking point in one of his “super secret” cabinet meetings.
Posted on August 14th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Mac Says:
I’m not a fan of minimum sentencing. It’s hard enough to get a conviction nowadays. Add in a minimum sentence and the judges will let everyone walk.
Posted on August 14th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
RL Says:
If the judiciary took a long look in the mirror and asked themselves why all these minimum sentencing laws are being passed, maybe they wouldn’t be necessary. I’m not the biggest fan of them either, but I wonder, if the parliament were to pass a sentencing guideline bill, ‘ie. the first priority of sentencing is public safety’, would the judges listen?
Posted on August 14th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
Cynapse Says:
3 eggheads and a copy of Enterprise Miner could figure out the proper sentencing for a host of crimes in a couple months, just using statistics. However, that would put a lot of judges out of business so don’t look for it.
Posted on August 14th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
Mac Says:
It might be a worthwhile exercise regardless, Cynapse…
Posted on August 15th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Cynapse Says:
If I ever got in office, stats would be cornerstone of most policies
Yep, that’s pretty biased, but it would also work. Regardless, it would be a good exercise. My guess is once a criminal has committed a certain sequence of crimes within a certain time period, he’s a shoe-in for murder – thus the last crime should carry about a 10+ year sentence. Also, there will probably be crimes where only parole numbers are given, meaning if the prisoner never acts impressively he never gets out, and can’t try before x years.
A much cheaper and sneakier way to use statistics could be to publish recidivism rate vs % of maximum sentence given for each judge. Make these stats mandatory and for public download. Add just a hint of a forthcoming law to remove derelict judges and hearts will stop bleeding quickly, non? Best part is there is very little most activists could say against it since the law hasn’t infringed on anyone’s rights in any way
Posted on August 15th, 2009 at 11:59 am
Mac Says:
Stats can be manipulated but I like the idea of publishing recidivism rates vs % of max sentences… perhaps we could also add the number of prisoners released who subsequently commit other crimes, all associated to the judge’s name? There are a number of other criteria which could be published… say criminals sentenced to parole only who subsequently “graduate” to more serious crimes… After all, it’s all a matter of pubic record.
Posted on August 16th, 2009 at 12:20 am
Cynapse Says:
Mac: Do you think doing something similar to this would cause judges to hand out tougher sentences … or would we have to stipulate some sort of punishment for judges whose “rates” are too bad. Is mere shame enough?
Posted on August 16th, 2009 at 12:25 am
Mac Says:
I suspect the shame would be enough. Most judges are all but anonymous until they made an error so egregious the media picks up the story. Back when journalists actually looked for stories, they used to hang around the courthouse to see who was being charged and how things play out. Nowadays, unless it’s a high-profile case, journalists don’t bother.
I’ve had defence lawyers tell me that they set the court dates for their clients after checking the judge schedules since they know which judges are soft on which crimes, which are most likely to convict or acquit, etc.
Posted on August 16th, 2009 at 12:39 am