SCC Rules Victim Surcharge Cruel And Unusual Punishment

[Greg Carr]

Mandatory victim surcharge cruel and unusual punishment, top court rules
Stephen Harper’s Conservative government made the charges mandatory in 2013.
The Canadian PressDec. 14, 2018 7:10 a.m.Canada & WorldNews

The Supreme Court of Canada says a law that makes people convicted of crimes pay surcharges to help victims is unconstitutional.
In a 7-2 decision delivered this morning in Ottawa, the Supreme Court found the mandatory victim surcharge amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.
The court says the surcharge creates a crushing financial burden on poor people and places them under constant threat of being arrested and jailed if they do not pay.

Judges have been forced to impose a one-size-fits all punishment that does not take into account the individual’s ability to pay, the court says.
Read more: Confusion surrounds controversial victim surcharge fees
Stephen Harper’s Conservative government made the charges mandatory in 2013.
The decision means no victim surcharges can be imposed in any conviction, starting immediately.
The Canadian Press

https://www.surreynowleader.com/news/mandatory-victim-surcharge-cruel-and-unusual-punishment-top-court-rules/
==================================================================================
Poor ppl are often the victims of crime committed by other poor ppl. How much will the govt lose in funding now that the surcharge has been eliminated by judicial fiat?

[Dave Smith]

Post by Greg Carr
Mandatory victim surcharge cruel and unusual punishment, top court
rules Stephen Harper’s Conservative government made the charges
mandatory in 2013. The Canadian PressDec. 14, 2018 7:10 a.m.Canada &
WorldNews
The Supreme Court of Canada says a law that makes people convicted of
crimes pay surcharges to help victims is unconstitutional. In a 7-2
decision delivered this morning in Ottawa, the Supreme Court found
the mandatory victim surcharge amounts to cruel and unusual
punishment. The court says the surcharge creates a crushing financial
burden on poor people and places them under constant threat of being
arrested and jailed if they do not pay.

That is a step in the right direction. Ontario has been applying a 20%
victim of crime surcharge on provincial offenses for almost 30 years.
People who speed, fail to wear seat belts, drive with expired plates etc
have been paying into a fund that is supposed to be used to compensate
victims of crime, and there is no reason for that.

The province also screws people who have had their license suspended by
charging them a $198 reinstatement fee. That is totally unfair. If you
are convicted of an offense you are doing time or paying a fine, and if
it involves a suspension that is an additional penalty. If you are
unaware of a conviction and don't pay the fine, or if you cannot afford
to pay, your license is suspended, and then there is the additional $198
cost.

[Liberals are VERMIN!]

Post by Dave Smith

Post by Greg Carr
Mandatory victim surcharge cruel and unusual punishment, top court
rules Stephen Harper’s Conservative government made the charges
mandatory in 2013. The Canadian PressDec. 14, 2018 7:10 a.m.Canada &
WorldNews
The Supreme Court of Canada says a law that makes people convicted of
crimes pay surcharges to help victims is unconstitutional. In a 7-2
decision delivered this morning in Ottawa, the Supreme Court found
the mandatory victim surcharge amounts to cruel and unusual
punishment. The court says the surcharge creates a crushing financial
burden on poor people and places them under constant threat of being
arrested and jailed if they do not pay.

That is a step in the right direction. Ontario has been applying a 20%
victim of crime surcharge on provincial offenses for almost 30 years.
People who speed, fail to wear seat belts, drive with expired plates etc
have been paying into a fund that is supposed to be used to compensate
victims of crime, and there is no reason for that.
The province also screws people who have had their license suspended by
charging them a $198 reinstatement fee. That is totally unfair. If you
are convicted of an offense you are doing time or paying a fine, and if
it involves a suspension that is an additional penalty. If you are
unaware of a conviction and don't pay the fine, or if you cannot afford
to pay, your license is suspended, and then there is the additional $198
cost.

Don't forget, if you don't pay within 3 years, you have to go through all the testing again, like a 16 year old to get a new license. This is because people honestly(!) forget all about how to drive in 3 years. Money, money, MONEY!

[Dave Smith]

Post by Liberals are VERMIN!

Post by Dave Smith

Post by Greg Carr
Mandatory victim surcharge cruel and unusual punishment, top
court rules Stephen Harper’s Conservative government made the
charges mandatory in 2013. The Canadian PressDec. 14, 2018 7:10
a.m.Canada & WorldNews
The Supreme Court of Canada says a law that makes people
convicted of crimes pay surcharges to help victims is
unconstitutional. In a 7-2 decision delivered this morning in
Ottawa, the Supreme Court found the mandatory victim surcharge
amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. The court says the
surcharge creates a crushing financial burden on poor people and
places them under constant threat of being arrested and jailed if
they do not pay.

That is a step in the right direction. Ontario has been applying a
20% victim of crime surcharge on provincial offenses for almost 30
years. People who speed, fail to wear seat belts, drive with
expired plates etc have been paying into a fund that is supposed to
be used to compensate victims of crime, and there is no reason for
that.
The province also screws people who have had their license
suspended by charging them a $198 reinstatement fee. That is
totally unfair. If you are convicted of an offense you are doing
time or paying a fine, and if it involves a suspension that is an
additional penalty. If you are unaware of a conviction and don't
pay the fine, or if you cannot afford to pay, your license is
suspended, and then there is the additional $198 cost.

Don't forget, if you don't pay within 3 years, you have to go through
all the testing again, like a 16 year old to get a new license. This
is because people honestly(!) forget all about how to drive in 3
years. Money, money, MONEY!

It is not quite like a new driver if it is 3-10 years. You do have to
take the eye test and road tests, but you can book the G1 road test as
soon as you have done the written and eye test, and can book the G2 test
as soon as you complete the G1 road test.

Not many people get suspended for that long. Most suspensions are only
for a few months. There are longer ones for repeat drunk driving, and
some people who get suspended just don't bother to get it reinstated.
They just keep driving without a license. It may surprise you how many
people get caught driving under suspension. I used to deal with people
who were driving despite having had their licenses suspended for years,
sometimes decades. One guy I charged for driving under suspension two
dozen previous convictions.

[Liberals are VERMIN!]

Post by Dave Smith

Post by Liberals are VERMIN!

Post by Dave Smith

Post by Greg Carr
Mandatory victim surcharge cruel and unusual punishment, top
court rules Stephen Harper’s Conservative government made the
charges mandatory in 2013. The Canadian PressDec. 14, 2018 7:10
a.m.Canada & WorldNews
The Supreme Court of Canada says a law that makes people
convicted of crimes pay surcharges to help victims is
unconstitutional. In a 7-2 decision delivered this morning in
Ottawa, the Supreme Court found the mandatory victim surcharge
amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. The court says the
surcharge creates a crushing financial burden on poor people and
places them under constant threat of being arrested and jailed if
they do not pay.

That is a step in the right direction. Ontario has been applying a
20% victim of crime surcharge on provincial offenses for almost 30
years. People who speed, fail to wear seat belts, drive with
expired plates etc have been paying into a fund that is supposed to
be used to compensate victims of crime, and there is no reason for
that.
The province also screws people who have had their license
suspended by charging them a $198 reinstatement fee. That is
totally unfair. If you are convicted of an offense you are doing
time or paying a fine, and if it involves a suspension that is an
additional penalty. If you are unaware of a conviction and don't
pay the fine, or if you cannot afford to pay, your license is
suspended, and then there is the additional $198 cost.

Don't forget, if you don't pay within 3 years, you have to go through
all the testing again, like a 16 year old to get a new license. This
is because people honestly(!) forget all about how to drive in 3
years. Money, money, MONEY!

It is not quite like a new driver if it is 3-10 years. You do have to
take the eye test and road tests, but you can book the G1 road test as
soon as you have done the written and eye test, and can book the G2 test
as soon as you complete the G1 road test.
Not many people get suspended for that long. Most suspensions are only
for a few months. There are longer ones for repeat drunk driving, and
some people who get suspended just don't bother to get it reinstated.
They just keep driving without a license. It may surprise you how many
people get caught driving under suspension. I used to deal with people
who were driving despite having had their licenses suspended for years,
sometimes decades. One guy I charged for driving under suspension two
dozen previous convictions.

Is that all? Why isn't he in jail?

[gordo]

On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 07:57:23 -0800 (PST), Greg Carr

Post by Greg Carr
Mandatory victim surcharge cruel and unusual punishment, top court rules
Stephen Harper’s Conservative government made the charges mandatory in 2013.
The Canadian PressDec. 14, 2018 7:10 a.m.Canada & WorldNews
The Supreme Court of Canada says a law that makes people convicted of crimes pay surcharges to help victims is unconstitutional.
In a 7-2 decision delivered this morning in Ottawa, the Supreme Court found the mandatory victim surcharge amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.
The court says the surcharge creates a crushing financial burden on poor people and places them under constant threat of being arrested and jailed if they do not pay.
Judges have been forced to impose a one-size-fits all punishment that does not take into account the individual’s ability to pay, the court says.
Read more: Confusion surrounds controversial victim surcharge fees
Stephen Harper’s Conservative government made the charges mandatory in 2013.
The decision means no victim surcharges can be imposed in any conviction, starting immediately.
The Canadian Press
https://www.surreynowleader.com/news/mandatory-victim-surcharge-cruel-and-unusual-punishment-top-court-rules/
==================================================================================
Poor ppl are often the victims of crime committed by other poor ppl. How much will the govt lose in funding now that the surcharge has been eliminated by judicial fiat?

Another evil law from Harper overturned by the supreme court of
Canada. He truly hated the poor.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

[Dave Smith]

Post by gordo
On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 07:57:23 -0800 (PST), Greg Carr

Post by Greg Carr
Mandatory victim surcharge cruel and unusual punishment, top court rules
Stephen Harper’s Conservative government made the charges mandatory in 2013.
The Canadian PressDec. 14, 2018 7:10 a.m.Canada & WorldNews
The Supreme Court of Canada says a law that makes people convicted of crimes pay surcharges to help victims is unconstitutional.
In a 7-2 decision delivered this morning in Ottawa, the Supreme Court found the mandatory victim surcharge amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.
The court says the surcharge creates a crushing financial burden on poor people and places them under constant threat of being arrested and jailed if they do not pay.
Judges have been forced to impose a one-size-fits all punishment that does not take into account the individual’s ability to pay, the court says.
Read more: Confusion surrounds controversial victim surcharge fees
Stephen Harper’s Conservative government made the charges mandatory in 2013.
The decision means no victim surcharges can be imposed in any conviction, starting immediately.
The Canadian Press
https://www.surreynowleader.com/news/mandatory-victim-surcharge-cruel-and-unusual-punishment-top-court-rules/
==================================================================================
Poor ppl are often the victims of crime committed by other poor ppl. How much will the govt lose in funding now that the surcharge has been eliminated by judicial fiat?

Another evil law from Harper overturned by the supreme court of
Canada. He truly hated the poor.

What he hated was criminals. The victim fund surcharge has been around
since 1989 and the only change that Harper's government made was to make
it mandatory. On other words, no matter what sort of lies and bullshit
the convicted person's lawyer made up, that surcharge would be applied.
Given that the surcharge is a percentage of the monetary fine, you
should perhaps complain about the amount of the fine. Criminals are
pretty good with their old manta don't do the crime if you can't do the
time.

I guess you had not made note of the fact that the Liberals had talked
about doing away with the mandatory part of the surcharge and going back
to allowing the convicted person to apply for an exemption from it. They
never got around to it.

[gordo]

On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 17:23:59 -0500, Dave Smith

Post by Dave Smith

Post by gordo
On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 07:57:23 -0800 (PST), Greg Carr

Post by Greg Carr
Mandatory victim surcharge cruel and unusual punishment, top court rules
Stephen Harper’s Conservative government made the charges mandatory in 2013.
The Canadian PressDec. 14, 2018 7:10 a.m.Canada & WorldNews
The Supreme Court of Canada says a law that makes people convicted of crimes pay surcharges to help victims is unconstitutional.
In a 7-2 decision delivered this morning in Ottawa, the Supreme Court found the mandatory victim surcharge amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.
The court says the surcharge creates a crushing financial burden on poor people and places them under constant threat of being arrested and jailed if they do not pay.
Judges have been forced to impose a one-size-fits all punishment that does not take into account the individual’s ability to pay, the court says.
Read more: Confusion surrounds controversial victim surcharge fees
Stephen Harper’s Conservative government made the charges mandatory in 2013.
The decision means no victim surcharges can be imposed in any conviction, starting immediately.
The Canadian Press
https://www.surreynowleader.com/news/mandatory-victim-surcharge-cruel-and-unusual-punishment-top-court-rules/
==================================================================================
Poor ppl are often the victims of crime committed by other poor ppl. How much will the govt lose in funding now that the surcharge has been eliminated by judicial fiat?

Another evil law from Harper overturned by the supreme court of
Canada. He truly hated the poor.

What he hated was criminals. The victim fund surcharge has been around
since 1989 and the only change that Harper's government made was to make
it mandatory. On other words, no matter what sort of lies and bullshit
the convicted person's lawyer made up, that surcharge would be applied.
Given that the surcharge is a percentage of the monetary fine, you
should perhaps complain about the amount of the fine. Criminals are
pretty good with their old manta don't do the crime if you can't do the
time.
I guess you had not made note of the fact that the Liberals had talked
about doing away with the mandatory part of the surcharge and going back
to allowing the convicted person to apply for an exemption from it. They
never got around to it.

It was the mandatory law that made it evil and that affected the poor
and disadvantaged. Harpers get tough on crime was never meant to be
tough on crime. It was meant to take away a judges ability to judge
and to use restorative justice.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

[Greg Carr]

Post by gordo
On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 17:23:59 -0500, Dave Smith

Post by Dave Smith

Post by gordo
On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 07:57:23 -0800 (PST), Greg Carr

Post by Greg Carr
Mandatory victim surcharge cruel and unusual punishment, top court rules
Stephen Harper’s Conservative government made the charges mandatory in 2013.
The Canadian PressDec. 14, 2018 7:10 a.m.Canada & WorldNews
The Supreme Court of Canada says a law that makes people convicted of crimes pay surcharges to help victims is unconstitutional.
In a 7-2 decision delivered this morning in Ottawa, the Supreme Court found the mandatory victim surcharge amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.
The court says the surcharge creates a crushing financial burden on poor people and places them under constant threat of being arrested and jailed if they do not pay.
Judges have been forced to impose a one-size-fits all punishment that does not take into account the individual’s ability to pay, the court says.
Read more: Confusion surrounds controversial victim surcharge fees
Stephen Harper’s Conservative government made the charges mandatory in 2013.
The decision means no victim surcharges can be imposed in any conviction, starting immediately.
The Canadian Press
https://www.surreynowleader.com/news/mandatory-victim-surcharge-cruel-and-unusual-punishment-top-court-rules/
==================================================================================
Poor ppl are often the victims of crime committed by other poor ppl. How much will the govt lose in funding now that the surcharge has been eliminated by judicial fiat?

Another evil law from Harper overturned by the supreme court of
Canada. He truly hated the poor.

What he hated was criminals. The victim fund surcharge has been around
since 1989 and the only change that Harper's government made was to make
it mandatory. On other words, no matter what sort of lies and bullshit
the convicted person's lawyer made up, that surcharge would be applied.
Given that the surcharge is a percentage of the monetary fine, you
should perhaps complain about the amount of the fine. Criminals are
pretty good with their old manta don't do the crime if you can't do the
time.
I guess you had not made note of the fact that the Liberals had talked
about doing away with the mandatory part of the surcharge and going back
to allowing the convicted person to apply for an exemption from it. They
never got around to it.

It was the mandatory law that made it evil and that affected the poor
and disadvantaged. Harpers get tough on crime was never meant to be
tough on crime. It was meant to take away a judges ability to judge
and to use restorative justice.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

And horror of horrors he made mandatory minimum sentences for illegal gun possession which the courts ignored and he brought in mandatory 6 months in gaol for possession of child porn which horrified the courts and Liberal party who refused to vote for it.

[Dave Smith]

Post by Greg Carr

Post by gordo
It was the mandatory law that made it evil and that affected the
poor and disadvantaged. Harpers get tough on crime was never meant
to be tough on crime. It was meant to take away a judges ability
to judge and to use restorative justice.
--- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

And horror of horrors he made mandatory minimum sentences for illegal
gun possession which the courts ignored and he brought in mandatory 6
months in gaol for possession of child porn which horrified the
courts and Liberal party who refused to vote for it.

I recall a case of a guy who I charged for failing to have insurance,
and the JP was unwilling to impose the new minimum fine. It had
previously been a minimum $500 for a first offense and $1000 for a
subsequent offense but the province boosted it to $5000 and $10,000, so
that it was more expensive to get convicted than to pay for insurance.
The JP paused and sputtered, but our prosecutor pointed out that a
reduced fine could only be considered it there was an argument about
financial hardship, and the accused had not even bothered to appear.
They was no application for a reduce fine, so it could not be lowered.

[Dave Smith]

Post by gordo
On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 17:23:59 -0500, Dave Smith

Post by Dave Smith
I guess you had not made note of the fact that the Liberals had talked
about doing away with the mandatory part of the surcharge and going back
to allowing the convicted person to apply for an exemption from it. They
never got around to it.

It was the mandatory law that made it evil and that affected the poor
and disadvantaged. Harpers get tough on crime was never meant to be
tough on crime. It was meant to take away a judges ability to judge
and to use restorative justice.

Sure. It affected the street urchins who spend their lives committing
petty crimes and victimized the rest of us. Who better to pay into a
fund to compensate victims of crime than the criminals who are
victimizing them.

The reason Harper made it mandatory was to force weak kneed judges from
imposing the surcharge, even though the judges always had the latitude
to reduce the fine enough that the fine and surcharge could have been a
lot lower. This is supposed to be a democracy where citizens vote for
MPs to do their will, and it is the government's mandate to establish
minimum and maximum finds. It should not be up to judges to reduced that
minimum any more than they should be able to impose a penalty harsher
than the one prescribed by law.

[gordo]

On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 18:50:43 -0500, Dave Smith

Post by Dave Smith

Post by gordo
On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 17:23:59 -0500, Dave Smith

Post by Dave Smith
I guess you had not made note of the fact that the Liberals had talked
about doing away with the mandatory part of the surcharge and going back
to allowing the convicted person to apply for an exemption from it. They
never got around to it.

It was the mandatory law that made it evil and that affected the poor
and disadvantaged. Harpers get tough on crime was never meant to be
tough on crime. It was meant to take away a judges ability to judge
and to use restorative justice.

Sure. It affected the street urchins who spend their lives committing
petty crimes and victimized the rest of us. Who better to pay into a
fund to compensate victims of crime than the criminals who are
victimizing them.
The reason Harper made it mandatory was to force weak kneed judges from
imposing the surcharge, even though the judges always had the latitude
to reduce the fine enough that the fine and surcharge could have been a
lot lower. This is supposed to be a democracy where citizens vote for
MPs to do their will, and it is the government's mandate to establish
minimum and maximum finds. It should not be up to judges to reduced that
minimum any more than they should be able to impose a penalty harsher
than the one prescribed by law.

The supreme court says you are wrong.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

[Dave Smith]

Post by gordo
On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 18:50:43 -0500, Dave Smith

Post by Dave Smith

Post by gordo
On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 17:23:59 -0500, Dave Smith

Post by Dave Smith
I guess you had not made note of the fact that the Liberals had talked
about doing away with the mandatory part of the surcharge and going back
to allowing the convicted person to apply for an exemption from it. They
never got around to it.

It was the mandatory law that made it evil and that affected the poor
and disadvantaged. Harpers get tough on crime was never meant to be
tough on crime. It was meant to take away a judges ability to judge
and to use restorative justice.

Sure. It affected the street urchins who spend their lives committing
petty crimes and victimized the rest of us. Who better to pay into a
fund to compensate victims of crime than the criminals who are
victimizing them.
The reason Harper made it mandatory was to force weak kneed judges from
imposing the surcharge, even though the judges always had the latitude
to reduce the fine enough that the fine and surcharge could have been a
lot lower. This is supposed to be a democracy where citizens vote for
MPs to do their will, and it is the government's mandate to establish
minimum and maximum finds. It should not be up to judges to reduced that
minimum any more than they should be able to impose a penalty harsher
than the one prescribed by law.

The supreme court says you are wrong.

Wow... an automatic denial without even reading or understanding what I
wrote. I explained why the government imposed the mandatory. The judges
responded with another childish demonstration of how they don't like to
be told what to do.

If the judges are truly concerned about the cost of the surcharge being
too much of a burden on criminals, who are the reason we need the
victims of crime fund, they have the authority to reduce the fine.
Instead of fining the convicted person $500 plus the $100 victim of
crime surcharge, the fine could be dropped to $400, which would call for
an $80 surcharge, bringing the total to even less that what the fine
would have been.

[gordo]

On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 14:18:15 -0500, Dave Smith

Post by Dave Smith

Post by gordo
On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 18:50:43 -0500, Dave Smith

Post by Dave Smith

Post by gordo
On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 17:23:59 -0500, Dave Smith

Post by Dave Smith
I guess you had not made note of the fact that the Liberals had talked
about doing away with the mandatory part of the surcharge and going back
to allowing the convicted person to apply for an exemption from it. They
never got around to it.

It was the mandatory law that made it evil and that affected the poor
and disadvantaged. Harpers get tough on crime was never meant to be
tough on crime. It was meant to take away a judges ability to judge
and to use restorative justice.

Sure. It affected the street urchins who spend their lives committing
petty crimes and victimized the rest of us. Who better to pay into a
fund to compensate victims of crime than the criminals who are
victimizing them.
The reason Harper made it mandatory was to force weak kneed judges from
imposing the surcharge, even though the judges always had the latitude
to reduce the fine enough that the fine and surcharge could have been a
lot lower. This is supposed to be a democracy where citizens vote for
MPs to do their will, and it is the government's mandate to establish
minimum and maximum finds. It should not be up to judges to reduced that
minimum any more than they should be able to impose a penalty harsher
than the one prescribed by law.

The supreme court says you are wrong.

Wow... an automatic denial without even reading or understanding what I
wrote. I explained why the government imposed the mandatory. The judges
responded with another childish demonstration of how they don't like to
be told what to do.
If the judges are truly concerned about the cost of the surcharge being
too much of a burden on criminals, who are the reason we need the
victims of crime fund, they have the authority to reduce the fine.
Instead of fining the convicted person $500 plus the $100 victim of
crime surcharge, the fine could be dropped to $400, which would call for
an $80 surcharge, bringing the total to even less that what the fine
would have been.

The Supreme Court still says you are wrong.You don't like what it said
but tough.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

[Dave Smith]

Post by gordo
On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 14:18:15 -0500, Dave Smith

Post by Dave Smith

Post by gordo
On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 18:50:43 -0500, Dave Smith

Post by Dave Smith

Post by gordo
On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 17:23:59 -0500, Dave Smith

Post by Dave Smith
I guess you had not made note of the fact that the Liberals had talked
about doing away with the mandatory part of the surcharge and going back
to allowing the convicted person to apply for an exemption from it. They
never got around to it.

It was the mandatory law that made it evil and that affected the poor
and disadvantaged. Harpers get tough on crime was never meant to be
tough on crime. It was meant to take away a judges ability to judge
and to use restorative justice.

Sure. It affected the street urchins who spend their lives committing
petty crimes and victimized the rest of us. Who better to pay into a
fund to compensate victims of crime than the criminals who are
victimizing them.
The reason Harper made it mandatory was to force weak kneed judges from
imposing the surcharge, even though the judges always had the latitude
to reduce the fine enough that the fine and surcharge could have been a
lot lower. This is supposed to be a democracy where citizens vote for
MPs to do their will, and it is the government's mandate to establish
minimum and maximum finds. It should not be up to judges to reduced that
minimum any more than they should be able to impose a penalty harsher
than the one prescribed by law.

The supreme court says you are wrong.

Wow... an automatic denial without even reading or understanding what I
wrote. I explained why the government imposed the mandatory. The judges
responded with another childish demonstration of how they don't like to
be told what to do.
If the judges are truly concerned about the cost of the surcharge being
too much of a burden on criminals, who are the reason we need the
victims of crime fund, they have the authority to reduce the fine.
Instead of fining the convicted person $500 plus the $100 victim of
crime surcharge, the fine could be dropped to $400, which would call for
an $80 surcharge, bringing the total to even less that what the fine
would have been.

The Supreme Court still says you are wrong.You don't like what it said
but tough.

Ahh... I see. You don't really understand the concept of the victims of
crime surcharge or the discretionary powers of judges to lower fines so
I will try to explain it again.... if the judges think that the fine
would be too much of a financial burden, they can reduce it by an amount
that would make it lower than what the total of the fine and surcharge
would have been.

They did not eliminate the surcharge. They only ruled on the mandatory
application of it. People will once again be able to able to be
exempted from the surcharge, and the judges will be able to reject their
applications. So where is your big victory?

[gordo]

On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 15:15:23 -0500, Dave Smith

Post by Dave Smith

Post by gordo
On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 14:18:15 -0500, Dave Smith

Post by Dave Smith

Post by gordo
On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 18:50:43 -0500, Dave Smith

Post by Dave Smith

Post by gordo
On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 17:23:59 -0500, Dave Smith

Post by Dave Smith
I guess you had not made note of the fact that the Liberals had talked
about doing away with the mandatory part of the surcharge and going back
to allowing the convicted person to apply for an exemption from it. They
never got around to it.

It was the mandatory law that made it evil and that affected the poor
and disadvantaged. Harpers get tough on crime was never meant to be
tough on crime. It was meant to take away a judges ability to judge
and to use restorative justice.

Sure. It affected the street urchins who spend their lives committing
petty crimes and victimized the rest of us. Who better to pay into a
fund to compensate victims of crime than the criminals who are
victimizing them.
The reason Harper made it mandatory was to force weak kneed judges from
imposing the surcharge, even though the judges always had the latitude
to reduce the fine enough that the fine and surcharge could have been a
lot lower. This is supposed to be a democracy where citizens vote for
MPs to do their will, and it is the government's mandate to establish
minimum and maximum finds. It should not be up to judges to reduced that
minimum any more than they should be able to impose a penalty harsher
than the one prescribed by law.

The supreme court says you are wrong.

Wow... an automatic denial without even reading or understanding what I
wrote. I explained why the government imposed the mandatory. The judges
responded with another childish demonstration of how they don't like to
be told what to do.
If the judges are truly concerned about the cost of the surcharge being
too much of a burden on criminals, who are the reason we need the
victims of crime fund, they have the authority to reduce the fine.
Instead of fining the convicted person $500 plus the $100 victim of
crime surcharge, the fine could be dropped to $400, which would call for
an $80 surcharge, bringing the total to even less that what the fine
would have been.

The Supreme Court still says you are wrong.You don't like what it said
but tough.

Ahh... I see. You don't really understand the concept of the victims of
crime surcharge or the discretionary powers of judges to lower fines so
I will try to explain it again.... if the judges think that the fine
would be too much of a financial burden, they can reduce it by an amount
that would make it lower than what the total of the fine and surcharge
would have been.
They did not eliminate the surcharge. They only ruled on the mandatory
application of it. People will once again be able to able to be
exempted from the surcharge, and the judges will be able to reject their
applications. So where is your big victory?

The mandatory penalty was Harpers evil way of hurting the poorest of
the poor. Did I ever tell you that he was the worst PM in Canadian
history.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

[M.I.Wakefield]

Post by gordo
On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 15:15:23 -0500, Dave Smith

Post by Dave Smith
They did not eliminate the surcharge. They only ruled on the mandatory
application of it. People will once again be able to able to be exempted
from the surcharge, and the judges will be able to reject their
applications. So where is your big victory?

The mandatory penalty was Harpers evil way of hurting the poorest of the
poor.

The mandatory penalty wasn't aimed at the poorest of the poor, Gordon, it
was aimed at convicted criminals.

Post by gordo
Did I ever tell you that he was the worst PM in Canadian history.

Constantly. It's the most obvious sign of your sad mental decline.

[Dave Smith]

Post by gordo
On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 15:15:23 -0500, Dave Smith

Post by Dave Smith
They did not eliminate the surcharge. They only ruled on the mandatory
application of it. People will once again be able to able to be
exempted from the surcharge, and the judges will be able to reject their
applications. So where is your big victory?

The mandatory penalty was Harpers evil way of hurting the poorest of
the poor.

As I have pointed out, the surcharge is only a percentage of the amount
of the fine. You aren't complaining about the amount of the fine. You
haven't even argued against the surcharge itself, only about the fact
that Harper's government made it mandatory instead of allowing a person
to be exempted if it caused too much financial hardship.

I can't think of anyone more deserving of paying into a fund for victims
of crime than the criminals who are victimizing people. One of the
arguments about the surcharge is that there are people who owe so much
money in fines and surcharges. There is always the silly suggestion that
if they stopped committing crimes they would not owe money for fines or
surcharges.


blah blah
blah blah
blah blah
blah blah

Post by gordo
Did I ever tell you that he was the worst PM in Canadian
history.

yes.

[Eric®]

Post by gordo
On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 17:23:59 -0500, Dave Smith

Post by Dave Smith

Post by gordo
On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 07:57:23 -0800 (PST), Greg Carr

Post by Greg Carr
Mandatory victim surcharge cruel and unusual punishment, top court rules
Stephen Harper?s Conservative government made the charges mandatory in 2013.
The Canadian PressDec. 14, 2018 7:10 a.m.Canada & WorldNews
The Supreme Court of Canada says a law that makes people convicted of crimes pay surcharges to help victims is unconstitutional.
In a 7-2 decision delivered this morning in Ottawa, the Supreme Court found the mandatory victim surcharge amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.
The court says the surcharge creates a crushing financial burden on poor people and places them under constant threat of being arrested and jailed if they do not pay.
Judges have been forced to impose a one-size-fits all punishment that does not take into account the individual?s ability to pay, the court says.
Read more: Confusion surrounds controversial victim surcharge fees
Stephen Harper?s Conservative government made the charges mandatory in 2013.
The decision means no victim surcharges can be imposed in any conviction, starting immediately.
The Canadian Press
https://www.surreynowleader.com/news/mandatory-victim-surcharge-cruel-and-unusual-punishment-top-court-rules/
==================================================================================
Poor ppl are often the victims of crime committed by other poor ppl. How much will the govt lose in funding now that the surcharge has been eliminated by judicial fiat?

Another evil law from Harper overturned by the supreme court of
Canada. He truly hated the poor.

What he hated was criminals. The victim fund surcharge has been around
since 1989 and the only change that Harper's government made was to make
it mandatory. On other words, no matter what sort of lies and bullshit
the convicted person's lawyer made up, that surcharge would be applied.
Given that the surcharge is a percentage of the monetary fine, you
should perhaps complain about the amount of the fine. Criminals are
pretty good with their old manta don't do the crime if you can't do the
time.
I guess you had not made note of the fact that the Liberals had talked
about doing away with the mandatory part of the surcharge and going back
to allowing the convicted person to apply for an exemption from it. They
never got around to it.

It was the mandatory law that made it evil and that affected the poor
and disadvantaged. Harpers get tough on crime was never meant to be
tough on crime. It was meant to take away a judges ability to judge
and to use restorative justice.

Unfortunately that whole "tough on crime" thing was a bit of a mirage.

[Greg Carr]

Post by Eric®

Post by gordo
On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 17:23:59 -0500, Dave Smith

Post by Dave Smith

Post by gordo
On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 07:57:23 -0800 (PST), Greg Carr

Post by Greg Carr
Mandatory victim surcharge cruel and unusual punishment, top court rules
Stephen Harper?s Conservative government made the charges mandatory in 2013.
The Canadian PressDec. 14, 2018 7:10 a.m.Canada & WorldNews
The Supreme Court of Canada says a law that makes people convicted of crimes pay surcharges to help victims is unconstitutional.
In a 7-2 decision delivered this morning in Ottawa, the Supreme Court found the mandatory victim surcharge amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.
The court says the surcharge creates a crushing financial burden on poor people and places them under constant threat of being arrested and jailed if they do not pay.
Judges have been forced to impose a one-size-fits all punishment that does not take into account the individual?s ability to pay, the court says.
Read more: Confusion surrounds controversial victim surcharge fees
Stephen Harper?s Conservative government made the charges mandatory in 2013.
The decision means no victim surcharges can be imposed in any conviction, starting immediately.
The Canadian Press
https://www.surreynowleader.com/news/mandatory-victim-surcharge-cruel-and-unusual-punishment-top-court-rules/
==================================================================================
Poor ppl are often the victims of crime committed by other poor ppl. How much will the govt lose in funding now that the surcharge has been eliminated by judicial fiat?

Another evil law from Harper overturned by the supreme court of
Canada. He truly hated the poor.

What he hated was criminals. The victim fund surcharge has been around
since 1989 and the only change that Harper's government made was to make
it mandatory. On other words, no matter what sort of lies and bullshit
the convicted person's lawyer made up, that surcharge would be applied.
Given that the surcharge is a percentage of the monetary fine, you
should perhaps complain about the amount of the fine. Criminals are
pretty good with their old manta don't do the crime if you can't do the
time.
I guess you had not made note of the fact that the Liberals had talked
about doing away with the mandatory part of the surcharge and going back
to allowing the convicted person to apply for an exemption from it. They
never got around to it.

It was the mandatory law that made it evil and that affected the poor
and disadvantaged. Harpers get tough on crime was never meant to be
tough on crime. It was meant to take away a judges ability to judge
and to use restorative justice.

Unfortunately that whole "tough on crime" thing was a bit of a mirage.

Scheer has made the right noises when it comes to crime but the media has barely passed on the info and they have mocked it and played up its opponents. OTOH the last poll I saw showed the Tories ahead. Hopefully the 600 million dollar bailout to the media won't fool the voters come election time.