quote:

Originally posted by Dr. DAS Ever see those tv shows where people who have wild animals for pets get attacked? .

like this?

___________________
DALLAS STAR ™ °¤§£¤y°

Treat people as if they are what they ought to be and you may help them to become what they are capable of being.

Last edited by dallastar on Nov-17-2006 at 03:26

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT don't say "blah blah blah"...the presumption of innocence is fundamental to our justice system. Just because the "dangerous offender" status is difficult to have placed upon a criminal doesn't mean the onus should be shifted to them. If the legislation is flawed, address it. This is a b.s. feel good intiative meant to pacify conservative voters...just like street racing and increasing mandatory jail terms.

The proposal would not scrap the presumption of innocence.

___________________
Nathan Fake - Outhouse (Valentino Kanzyani Remix) || ID PLZ! PVD ID!!!
Disco and classical had sex while watching a sci-fi movie. Their child: trance.

quote:

Originally posted by MKpacha gotta love a man who knows how to tame his curls!

I propa lolled

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ShadoWolf The proposal would not scrap the presumption of innocence.

really?

quote:

The Prime Minister noted that the proposed legislation will put the onus on offenders convicted of a third violent or sexual offence to prove that they should not be declared dangerous offenders. Those who fail to do so will be subject to an indeterminate jail sentence, with no eligibility for parole for seven years.

am I missing something?

I still think a better idea is for legislators to address the laws and penalties for those crimes.

This reverse onus idea seems like they're admitting that they don't know what to do about it...so let's have the accused prove why they shouldn't be designated a dangerous offender.

Perhaps the reason nothing gets done about the legislation is because with a 4-year mandate, most governments are too concerned with keeping up appearances for political gain to actually do anything effective. Add to that that a minority gov't could be toppled at any time, and what you get is democracy inaction.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT really? am I missing something? I still think a better idea is for legislators to address the laws and penalties for those crimes. This reverse onus idea seems like they're admitting that they don't know what to do about it...so let's have the accused prove why they shouldn't be designated a dangerous offender.

Have you read the bill?

I only got through the first page or so, Criminal Law construction ftl.

Anyhow, it doesn't really remove the presumption of innocence. My take on this is: when accused (they actually use the word "offender" so that makes you think the person appearing in court is no longer simply accused, but rather convicted) appears in court for a "designated offence" after having been charged at least two previous times for a designated offence, and having been punished on at least two of those offences to a period of not less than two years (doesn't mention total or each, but I assume each), then he is presumed to be a "dangerous offender".

So what you have, rather than a presumption of guilt, is all that previous evidence (two previous convictions that were "dangerous" enough that he served time in prison). The offender can then rebut that presumption.

Its like "with the intent to sell". Its not really removing the presumption of innocence, but its saying "what else would he be doing with five kilos of coke"? There is evidence that goes into making the presumption, and it seems (to me) to be a fair change of onus. And it is rebuttable.

quote:

Originally posted by Dr. DAS Perhaps the reason nothing gets done about the legislation is because with a 4-year mandate, most governments are too concerned with keeping up appearances for political gain to actually do anything effective. Add to that that a minority gov't could be toppled at any time, and what you get is democracy inaction.

Although I would normally agree with that, but the conservatives have done a hell of a lot (especially recently).

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT am I missing something?

In a word, yes.

Put simply, the criminal has to be convicted three times beyond a reasonable doubt, and is presumed innocent at trial. AFTER THAT THIRD CONVICTION, during the sentencing phase, he will be deemed to be a Dangerous Offender unless he proves otherwise.

It's a welcome change.

___________________
Nathan Fake - Outhouse (Valentino Kanzyani Remix) || ID PLZ! PVD ID!!!
Disco and classical had sex while watching a sci-fi movie. Their child: trance.

Last edited by ShadoWolf on Nov-17-2006 at 16:01

quote:

Originally posted by TO guy Although I would normally agree with that, but the conservatives have done a hell of a lot (especially recently).

As I said in my first post, "I'm not a fan of the Conservatives by any means, and certainly not of Harper, but the new government is actually doing some good work."

quote:

Originally posted by Dr. DAS As I said in my first post, "I'm not a fan of the Conservatives by any means, and certainly not of Harper, but the new government is actually doing some good work."

then what's with this post?

quote:

Originally posted by Dr. DAS Perhaps the reason nothing gets done about the legislation is because with a 4-year mandate, most governments are too concerned with keeping up appearances for political gain to actually do anything effective. Add to that that a minority gov't could be toppled at any time, and what you get is democracy inaction.

quote:

Originally posted by TO guy then what's with this post?

I'm a very complicated individual.

No, MarkT was saying that the new dangerous offender bill was a band-aid solution, when they should be revising the existing legislation...which is where the 'democracy inaction'post comes from. This is in reference to one piece of law.

As a whole, I think the Conservatives are the exception to the rule this term...even if they are a bunch of douchebags. On that note, I'm going to exclude Harper from douchebaggery right now because he refused to sell out to China on human rights, despite the potential economic implications. Good for him, and a good day for Canada.

Tomorrow however, he goes back to being a douche.

quote:

Originally posted by Dr. DAS I'm a very complicated individual. No, MarkT was saying that the new dangerous offender bill was a band-aid solution, when they should be revising the existing legislation...which is where the 'democracy inaction'post comes from. This is in reference to one piece of law. As a whole, I think the Conservatives are the exception to the rule this term...even if they are a bunch of douchebags. On that note, I'm going to exclude Harper from douchebaggery right now because he refused to sell out to China on human rights, despite the potential economic implications. Good for him, and a good day for Canada. Tomorrow however, he goes back to being a douche.

hahaha, nice.