 Canada's Supreme Court gives mixed rulings on gun crime penaltiesLaw & Order | 27207 hits | Jan 27 8:22 am | Posted by: DrCaleb  Canada's Supreme Court found one mandatory minimum sentence for a firearm offence unconstitutional and upheld two others in a pair of decisions published on Friday.Commentsview comments in forum Page 1 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
Who voted on this?
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
I just read this article on CTV, similar to the above link.
Mandatory minimum penalty for firing gun at house unconstitutional: Supreme Court
Hills argued the minimum four-year sentence in effect at the time for recklessly discharging a firearm into a house or other building violated the constitutional prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
Perhaps I'm not seeing this clearly but wouldn't discharging a firearm at a home, presumably where there are people inside, be an attempt to harm those inside? Like attempted murder? If so, why would a sentence in prison be cruel and unusual punishment? Do people have to actually die for a crime to be committed? This messaging seems to indicate it's peachy keen to fire a weapon into a home as long as no one gets hurt?
Hills argued the minimum four-year sentence in effect at the time for recklessly discharging a firearm into a house or other building violated the constitutional prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
Perhaps I'm not seeing this clearly but wouldn't discharging a firearm at a home, presumably where there are people inside, be an attempt to harm those inside? Like attempted murder? If so, why would a sentence in prison be cruel and unusual punishment? Do people have to actually die for a crime to be committed? This messaging seems to indicate it's peachy keen to fire a weapon into a home as long as no one gets hurt?
The cruelty part comes in because there is a minimum sentence involved for any crime including the use of a gun. If you steal a gun, it's the same mandatory minimum if you were to use a gun to rob a store. It removes the discretion of the Judge to weigh circumstances into the sentence. So, like you say, the punishment is the same if there was no one home, and if there was a house full of people. That doesn't fit with the 'fairness' guarantee of a trial in the Constitution.
Or, so goes the defendants argument. The court agreed. Mandatory minimum sentences are unfair, and unconstitutional.
In allowing Hills�s appeal, the Supreme Court said the mandatory minimum sentence was grossly disproportionate, given that a young person might fire a paintball gun at a house as part of a game.
�The mandatory minimum cannot be justified by deterrence and denunciation alone, and the punishment shows a complete disregard for sentencing norms,� Justice Sheilah Martin wrote on behalf of a majority of the court.
�The mandatory prison term would have significant deleterious effects on a youthful offender and it would shock the conscience of Canadians to learn that an offender can receive four years of imprisonment for firing a paintball gun at a home.�
You seriously mean to tell me that the legal system can't differentiate between a paintball gun and a lethal firearm when deciding which crimes to charge somebody with? That it can't tell the difference between mischief and vandalism (shooting with a paintball gun) and reckless endangerment (shooting a genuine firearm)?
Or am I putting too much faith in peoples' common sense?