Holly's Law

[The Blue Tory]

So apparently this morning, there was news that the Ontario Liberal Gov't were going to slash Holly's Law, which allowed the police to keep track of sexual offenders...

Later in the day, after receiving tremendous opposition from the people of Ontario, specifically Toronto, the Liberals flip flopped on their decision ([biased comment]just like they have on almost every other governmentally idiotic idea[/biased comment].

What is your views on this? Do you think it may infringe on sex offenders rights?

[jhunter]

Do you think it may infringe on sex offenders rights?

Canadians are willing, as a whole, to let loose their hold on certain rights for the protection of society as a whole. For instance, the right of free speech is curtailed to a certain degree to ensure that hate literature can not be made, and in doing so, hurt others.

I see no difference between this issue and the one you described. The rights to a sex offender to privacy of their sexual preference comes second to the rights of a community that includes potential victims of a person that may be free to repeat offend.

[Wood]

I'm not familiar with the actual legislation in question so I can't really comment, its easy to say rape is bad and therefore support the legislation. What I would particularly be worried about is how broad is it, I could imagine how a law like that could easily go too far.

I personally think its nice that we have a government that's willing to listen to the people, this is a democracy, the people are supposed to be ruling. Led rather than commanded.

[condor888000]

What exactly does this law allow?

[The Blue Tory]

What exactly does this law allow?
it allows the Metro police to keep track of the 700+ sexual offenders in Toronto, to prevent them from attacking again...

So now this is my point...

In Theory... Just like so many other things... this program is good... but it is also can be seen as a waste...

The problem with the bill is not lying within the bill, but lies with the Liberal Federal Government's slack stance towards Corrections... By not changing the Penal system so that the sexual offenders who committed horrendous acts, they get out after serving 1/3 to 2/3 of their sentence, meaning say Holly Jones' abductor and killer... he will most likely be sentenced upto 14 years... However due to the way the Corrections system is he'll be out in as soon as 5 years...

So if the Corrections system was retrofitted (hey isn't that one of CPC's platform issues?), and criminals were forced to serve at least 4/5 of their sentence before being eligible for parole, these sexual offenders will be less likely to recommit... Now this is where the Holly's Law should come in to play. They should be monitored for the first 5 years after they get out of jail... and if they don't commit again within those five years, its a pretty good bet that they have learnt their lesson, and they have re-earned their right to privacy, thus they should be no longer monitored by the Police, as keeping them on it, will be a waste of funding...

[condor888000]

The only problem is that they may just control themselves for five years before reoffending. From what was posted it seems like a good law, however that doesn't mean it's right. The American's think that the Patriot act is good, does that make it right?

[S Urbanoski]

Do you not think....That by breaking such simple laws - As not harming those we co-exist with, and such....That you LOSE your access to those rights?

"Rights" is such a fleeting term. And is something Canadians consistantly take for granted.

People who commit such horrendous crimes, are simply under the impression (masked in a great deal of just freakin' sickness) that their 'rights' will eventually put them into a position, once again, to harm another.

I love Canada, and all it has to offer (she says from Korea). But we need to be able to draw a sane line in the sand.

[The Blue Tory]

Do you not think....That by breaking such simple laws - As not harming those we co-exist with, and such....That you LOSE your access to those rights?

"Rights" is such a fleeting term. And is something Canadians consistantly take for granted.

People who commit such horrendous crimes, are simply under the impression (masked in a great deal of just freakin' sickness) that their 'rights' will eventually put them into a position, once again, to harm another.

I love Canada, and all it has to offer (she says from Korea). But we need to be able to draw a sane line in the sand.
Good point Sylena...

Consider this... everyday criminals who have committed abduction and murder have taken away the right of life from the person... Yet, if a cop violates a less serious right, by conducting a search without RPG, but just a hunch, and does find the murder weapon, then the criminal will get off scotch free because the cop violated his right to be free from arbitrary search...

How can someone claim they are having their right to privacy being violated by police, while they are still supposed to be having their right to freedom waived through the sentence, for taking away the rights of someone else?

There is no need for such a law, if the penitentiary and corrections system went under a reform and sentences were actually fulfilled...

After all a judge sets a sentence for a set number of years for a reason, not because that was their number of the day


I really would like to hear Lawrence's and Jim Gallagher's opinion on this subject since it both applies to them

[Wood]

Good point Sylena...

Consider this... everyday criminals who have committed abduction and murder have taken away the right of life from the person... Yet, if a cop violates a less serious right, by conducting a search without RPG, but just a hunch, and does find the murder weapon, then the criminal will get off scotch free because the cop violated his right to be free from arbitrary search...

How can someone claim they are having their right to privacy being violated by police, while they are still supposed to be having their right to freedom waived through the sentence, for taking away the rights of someone else?

There is no need for such a law, if the penitentiary and corrections system went under a reform and sentences were actually fulfilled...

After all a judge sets a sentence for a set number of years for a reason, not because that was their number of the day


I'm not sure I agree with your major premise: Tougher punishment means less crime. I haven't seen this to be evident, the US has much stricter laws than we do and their crime rate is embarassing compared to ours. In fact I would argue the opposite, I don't want a person who's been in jail for 25 years back into society, they have lost all connection with the outside world, it is these factors that are going to really determine whether or not he reoffends, things like getting a job, family connections, friends ect.

More specifically I don't think your argument about "arbitrary search" is s logical as you think. The rule of law is more important than specifics, because without the rule of law, our system of democracy would be useless. Police do have the right to search if they believe that a crime is currently taken place and nowadays they can get a warrant over the phone from a JP at anytime of the night. Therefore, an arbitrary search literally means that the officer had no reason to do it beyond his own predjudices. The protection of citizens from the state is a real and fundamental objective of the law. The simple answer is for the police to act responsibly.

As for the sentencing, once again, more disagreement. GEt them back into society in a halfway house before they become stagnant, you don't want our prisons to be breeding criminals like bacteria. And then ease them back in, by the end of their 15 years they should be free indivduals, untill the 15 years is up they should slowly regain their freedom through good behavior.

[The Blue Tory]

yes I know that about search... I was using that right as an example...

Doesn't it boggle the mind how someone can commit a crime depriving someone of a right, and yet not get convicted of it because of a technicality resulting from a charter issue.

With your mention to telewarrants... they can only be received from special JPs and you must have a valid reason as to why you can not get a warrant in person in addition to the other necessary stuff...

As to sentencing... there should be no set time that they can go up for parole at. If they haven't rehabilitated till the 19th year of their 20 year sentence, then they shouldn't be parolled until then... since they won't be ready to return

[Feeloo]

So if the Corrections system was retrofitted (hey isn't that one of CPC's platform issues?), and criminals were forced to serve at least 4/5 of their sentence before being eligible for parole, these sexual offenders will be less likely to recommit...


Do you have a source or something to back that up? I would be very interested in consulting it.

[Logan]

I'm not sure I agree with your major premise: Tougher punishment means less crime. I haven't seen this to be evident, the US has much stricter laws than we do and their crime rate is embarassing compared to ours.
if thats true then why does the US have a higher murder rate, by about 100 times, than us here in canada, i mean some staes in teh US still have the death penalty and still it happens.

[craig matthews]

a punishment will not stop a criminal , the criminal does what they do because they are trying to push there limits as far as it goes and evading the death penalty is as far as it goes

[sic_transit_gloria]

a punishment will not stop a criminal , the criminal does what they do because they are trying to push there limits as far as it goes and evading the death penalty is as far as it goes

That does not exuse the fact that what they have done is wrong. Sure they try to push limits, but they also break the law doing so, and thus must be punished accordingly.

[Wood]

if thats true then why does the US have a higher murder rate, by about 100 times, than us here in canada, i mean some staes in teh US still have the death penalty and still it happens.

Exactly! (I'm sure you realized that was his premise not mine) Stiffer penalties do not effectively reduce crime, propper rehabilitation is a far better answer. Being in prison hinders rehabilitation, the longer one is seperated from society the harder it will be to reintergrate them.


As for not letting people out until they "rehabilitate" how do you know when this occurs. How about all those people who would get let out for good behavior if only they'd admit to the crime. You know guys like David Milgaard and Donald Marshall who actually are innocent. I think I much prefer our current system over an arbitrary one, give them time to reajust to society that's what the ending of their term should be, and then once the time is up you've done your best to make sure they end up ok.