OTTAWA – Multiple murderers and serial killers could be ineligible for parole for their entire lives if a bill introduced on Wednesday becomes law.
Judges will be empowered to impose consecutive periods of parole ineligibility on murderers who kill more than one person, putting an end to “sentence discounts” which treat single and multiple killers the same, said Justice Minister Rob Nicholson.
A killer who murders three victims, for instance, could receive a life sentence with no parole eligibility for up to 75 years, rather than the current Criminal Code provision permitting first-degree murderers to apply after 25 years, regardless of the number of people they killed.
Mr. Nicholson said that “life will mean life” if his new bill passes Parliament.
“Once this bill becomes law, multiple murderers will no longer get volume discounts,” Mr. Nicholson told a news conference. “The value of each life taken will be acknowledged.”
He said that his motivation, in part, is to protect family members of victims from having to endure parole hearings every two years.
[More]
My prediction if this makes it into law is that it fails the charter test.
My preference would be that once the “lifer” enters his cell, that the door is welded shut. Cutting torch used when the cell is available for re-use.
mid island mike
Re: #1 — “My prediction if this makes it into law is that it fails the charter test.”
Don’t know, Mike. You may well be right but I applaud the effort. It’s something Canadians have been waiting on for decades and it’s long overdue.
There is always the “notwithstanding” clause – if anyone has the fortitude to use it.
True enough.
It’s a small step, but it’s about time. It is too bad Canadians don’t have the moral fortitude to protect our society by sentencing murderers to death. Unfortunately there are too many people that harbour such hatred for our society they would just as soon let murderers go, but they’re ‘Progressive’.
No politician has the will to use the notwithstanding clause. Trudeau just threw that in to appease the doubters but he probably knew the chance of it being used was nearly 0%.
As each year passes it becomes less likely to be used.
mid island mike
“No politician has the will to use the notwithstanding clause”
Here’s just one example and there are several others.
http://www.unitednorthamerica.org/notwithstanding.htm