Two weeks into my very own blog, and already I’m sick of seeing myself type. I have absolutely no interest in being another online critic. What I really want is discussion. Truth is the fruits of our combined knowledge, so I’m going to try something different. Every week or two, I’m going to pick a new topic, something pertinent to the world we live in, the sort of stuff we should be discussing. I will pick an issue, provide the background, and then invite discussion around some part of that issue. If nobody jumps on a topic after a week or two, I’ll pick a new one. The goal is to get a small group of people engaged in a short-term discussion about a specific topic.
Here goes. My topic this week is Canada’s new “Reverse Onus” bill, Bill C-27, which also goes by the name, “Three Strikes and You’re Out”.
The Background
Reverse Onus: A fundamental right enshrined in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is the right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty. Sounds familiar to all I’m sure. However, section 1 of the Charter gives government a small out if it can reasonably demonstrate why the infringement on any Charter right is justified in a democratic society. This is not used very often, but there are a few examples. Reverse onus clauses are one such example where the law says it is up to the accused person to prove themselves. Several of these types of clauses have been struck down over the years by the Supreme Court, as not being reasonably justifiable; others have survived.
Dangerous Offenders: In the interests of public safety, an offender may be classified as a dangerous offender if it can be shown that there is a significant risk they will commit future violent or sexual crimes. It is up to the prosecution to prove to the court why a particular offender should be deemed “dangerous”. An offender thus categorized may be imprisoned for an indefinite period of time, without the benefit of statutory release, until it is shown that the risk no longer exists. Dangerous offenders are eligible for parole after 7 years and if released, will remain under supervision for life. Those typically categorized as dangerous offenders include habitual criminals, sexual offenders and those committing violent offences such as armed assault, kidnapping or forced confinement.
Bill C-27: Bill C-27 proposes to remove, from the crown prosecution, the burden of proving why someone should be labelled as a dangerous offender, and put the burden of proof on the accused to prove why they are not a dangerous offender. This only comes into play when someone has been convicted of a third sexual or violent offence.
The Arguments
For:
It is right to lock up the worst, repeat offenders.
It will deter recidivism.
Recent incidences of repeat violent and sexual offences are frequently cited.
Against:
The reverse onus in this case will not stand up to a Charter challenge, so it’s a waste of time.
The reverse onus is an unreasonable burden on the accused and this legislation will therefore have the effect of creating too many “dangerous offenders” who may otherwise have been rehabilitated.
It is simply unnecessary. Current legislation is more than sufficient to protect society and this is nothing more than political posturing.
My Question
Will Bill C-27 make society safer?
ash…
I do not think this will make society safer, i think it would just change the way lawyers and courts go about throwing people in jail. also providing information for future acts is only speculation. if the benefit is that it will deter people from commiting a crime then lets just bring back capitol punishment.