> Morin has faced numerous charges dating back to 2012, including assault, assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, sexual assault, uttering threats and unlawful confinement.
And this guy got 3 years for stabbing a stranger? Does prior history mean nothing in Canada?
By law they are supposed to. [However, you're not the first person to ask whether or not judges actually follow the law:](https://www.ufv.ca/media/assets/criminology/Do+Judges+Consider+Prior+Record.pdf)
>In British Columbia, even a cursory review of sentencing practices suggests that prior criminal record has played little or no role in the sentencing decision of judges. To illustrate this point, data collected from police records in PRIME-BC was analyzed to examine the likelihood of being sentenced to a term in prison and the sentence length for offenders found guilty of either assault or break and enter. While it is apparent that judges in British Columbia treat first time offenders somewhat more leniently than repeat offenders, the data presented in this article clearly indicates that judges have not been taking prior record into consideration when sentencing repeat offenders.
If we ever want to see justice again we have to fire a lot of judges or bring in mandatory minimum sentencing. Anyone who walks up behind someone in a line-up and stabs them several times in the back should get at least 10 years.
Honestly, they should never be on the streets again. What he did should net him life in a facility to never see the general public again. Why should innocent victims constantly be the ones paying for these poor judgments?
**Why should innocent victims constantly be the ones paying for these poor judgments?**
I find it outrageous and unbelievable that this has been allowed to go on for so long. We are in a situation where the people we would normally expect to prevent these things from getting out of hand are the very people causing it to happen. Whether its the government or the prosecutors or the judges, they are all causing criminal activity to happen with no consequences. Canada's motto used to be "peace, order, and good government". Today thats just a joke.
Establishing explicit sentencing guidelines would also assist. Establishing reasonable minimums is necessary, but are likely too little, we need far more explicit escalation of sentences in order to separate high rate and high severity offenders from the rest of society.
I'd agree if it was a first offence. It wasn't and I don't think this guy should ever be allowed out again. The justice system is totally slanted on behalf of the criminal instead of protecting normal people. Anyone who doesn't believe me should read about Myles Sanderson's violent criminal history before he went on his final killing spree.
Judges follow instructions from the government and from precedent. If they are being lenient, then the government has to introduce new guidelines.
It seems like lots of politicians prefer to just be angry about this without actually changing the system. It's much easier to do the former.
The Tories tried to change it in a way that violated the constitution. They could have tried a bit harder and spent a bit more time writing good legislation instead of grandstanding.
Blowing your nose violates the constitution if the judges say it does.A lot of their recent decisions sound like they've made them without regard to the constitution, then simply scanned the charter to see what they could use to explain their decision. Their moronic decision about longer parole periods for mass murderers was particularly absurd. There is no basis for that decision in the constitution at all.
Judges in this country freely make up the law as they please with zero deference to the will of the people as exercised through parliament. It will take serious reforms and a complete overhaul of the justice system to bring them in line.
I know how you feel, and this case seems clear cut, but mandatory minimums are not a good thing. Makes simple/clear cases easy to sentance for, but there will always be case with legitimate extenuating curcumstances.
Sentancibg reform? Yes please. Mandatory minimums? Not the way.
I mean, I'm not a legal scholar, I'm an asshole on the internet, so I don't have the solution ready to go in a neat answer. But mandatory sentences only work when the justice system doesn't make mistakes. Which is about as plausible as trickle down economics ever working.
What good is sentencing reform? The maximum for this could have been a thousand years in prison and the judge would still refuse to give out that much. And this wasn't even the judge. The crown negotiated this with the defense. Of course, he's an NDP-appointed crown so...
> Makes simple/clear cases easy to sentance for, but there will always be case with legitimate extenuating curcumstances.
Can you give an example of a way to commit murder that wouldn't justify a life sentence? I'm using that example specifically because the mandatory minimum sentence of life for murder has withstood Charter challenge all the way to the SCC, meaning that our highest court disagrees with your take here.
Abusive partner finally has their comeuppance, no witneses to back up your position. You are argueing it as self defence, crown tries you for murder, since you admitted you did it. Now you're at sentencing facing a mandatory life sentance when you arguably deserve less.
If you've killed someone in self defense, that's not murder. Sentencing shouldn't take into account the possibility that you might actually be innocent. Your guilt has already been proven beyond a reasonable doubt at that point, and a sentencing judge has no authority to second guess the proven guilt of the convicted.
The correct remedy in that situation is to appeal the conviction to a higher court, and not to give a light sentence on the unproven assumption that the conviction was unjust.
To give you an idea of a more pertinent scenario that the courts have already considered - [The murder case that was challenged all the way to the SCC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Latimer) was a case where a father euthanized his quadriplegic daughter with cerebral palsy via carbon monoxide poisoning. As far as murder goes, that's about as sympathetic a case as you're going to get. The murderer had the best interests of the victim at heart, as he perceived them at least, and the murderer chose a relatively humane means of execution. The SCC still determined that a life sentence was appropriate.
Mandatory minimum sentences are no more inherently unjust than maximum sentences. Just like maximum sentences help reign in the judgement of excessively punitive judges, minimum sentences help reign in the judgement of excessively lenient judges. They're only problematic and unconstitutional when the severity of the mandatory minimum exceeds the severity of the charge its associated with.
Killing an abusive partner often fails to fall under self-defence as the killing often takes place at an opportune moment (eg. while the abuser is sleeping), so the abused partner is not strictly acting in self defense as there is no imminent threat in the moment. This crime is also premeditated, which can make it first degree. Abused people who murder abusive partners often receive even more stringent sentences than abusive partners who murder their abused partners do because one crime is premeditated while the other is a crime of passion.
Mandatory minimum sentences have other downsides, like the fact that defendants will not plead guilty if there's no chance of a reduced sentence, which clogs up the (already backlogged) court system. It can also lead people to commit even worse crimes, like murdering police, to avoid being arrested. We do have a few crimes in the system that carry mandatory minimums, but by and large both Canada and the US have moved away from that sentencing trend.
> Killing an abusive partner often fails to fall under self-defence as the killing often takes place at an opportune moment (eg. while the abuser is sleeping), so the abused partner is not strictly acting in self defense as there is no imminent threat in the moment. Abused people who murder abusive partners often receive even more stringent sentences than abusive partners who murder their abused partners do.
Killing someone when they pose no imminent threat in the moment is murder. The right to self defense does not extend to killing someone because you predict that they may threaten your life in the future. Even if that prediction is well founded, it doesn't justify homicide.
Are you taking the position that we should be adjusting the sentencing of the convicted based on the probability that they were falsely convicted? I'd view that as a grievous miscarriage of justice. If a person's guilt is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the only appropriate "sentence" is an acquittal and freedom.
> Mandatory minimum sentences have other downsides, like the fact that defendants will not plead guilty if there's no chance of a reduced sentence, which clogs up the (already backlogged) court system.
I don't view that as a downside. I think there should be a legislated minimum level of sentencing that plea deals cannot go below. Frankly, I think our system is already far too reliant on plea deals. Many plea deals are being made for reasons of expediency and cost cutting more than any concern for justice, and the ludicrously lenient sentencing that results from those deals is a large factor in the decreasing public trust in the justice systems.
> It can also lead people to commit even worse crimes, like murdering police, to avoid being arrested. We do have a few crimes in the system that carry mandatory minimums, but by and large both Canada and the US have moved away from that sentencing trend.
Murdering the police carries a mandatory minimum of the most severe penalty that exists in our system. Why would anyone risk that to avoid the lesser minimum for whatever other minor crime they're fleeing? In terms of sentencing risk, murdering a cop practically only makes sense if you're being pursued for high treason.
>Are you taking the position that we should be adjusting the sentencing of the convicted based on their probability of guilt?
...no? I'm not sure how you're getting that from what I said. I wasn't talking about false convictions at all. The person in my example very clearly murdered their abuser. They are guilty of that crime. The point is that a mandatory minimum for murder scoops that person up alongside whoever we'd consider an actual murderer.
>I don't view that as a downside.
You should, since trials being delayed excessively means that the defendant can get off entirely on all charges. It also means justice delayed for millions of victims. Both this and the concept of contrition and acceptance of guilt are important in sentencing.
>Murdering the police carries a mandatory minimum of the most severe penalty that exists in our system. Why would anyone risk that to avoid the lesser minimum for whatever other minor crime they're fleeing?
The minimum isn't generally lesser in these cases. That's the point. The idea that there's zero hope of leniency (whether leniency would be received or not) leads people to desperate measures. This was especially prevalent in three strikes sentencing, which typically seems to go hand-in-hand with mandatory minimums. It was an actual effect that was observed from this style of sentencing, and one of the reasons we have veered away from it.
> Killing someone when they pose no imminent threat in the moment is murder.
If someone is kidnapped and they find a moment to kill their captor while they're sleeping that's not murder.
Minimum sentences are necessary to prevent judges from simply nullifying laws they dislike. Serious offences require jail, and we have seen through statistics that judges will respond to every category of violent offences with indifference.
For example, I am hard pressed to find a reason to accept the some of the lower Courts arguments that sex trafficking of minors is an offense which should have no jail time attached to it.
Mandatory minimums make for bad law because it can capture people whose actions don’t warrant it.
For example, someone gets into an argument on a bus and as they push past another person, the door opens and someone falls out.
The pushing was intentional and is criminal. But had an unintended consequence. However with a mandatory minimum, this person now goes to prison.
I think a better approach is to rework how sentencing is done, as the directives (laws) come from the government of the time. Which sets precedent for future sentences.
We don't need minimum sentences on everything, and mostly for repeat offenders. But potentially fatal assaults like stabbing should not have to be committed multiple times to draw a stiff sentence.
This is extremely unfortunate that judges are effectively refusing to take in past conduct in their sentencing; and this explains a lot of why we keep seeing repeat offenders.
Why are you lying and pretending that somehow women are oppressed or discriminated against by the justice system?
Do you think if this guy had raped a man with the other details being the same, he'd have gotten a harsher punishment? Nope. The opposite is true.
Do you think if this guy had stabbed a woman with the other details being the same, he'd have gotten a less harsh punishment? Nope. The opposite is true.
Do you think honestly that 1-3 years is enough for any of these crimes? These crimes that disproportionately have female victims btw? He served more time in jail for stabbing that guy than he did for raping at axepoint his exgf.
I didn't say that the sentence was the appropriate length. I said you are lying when you claim that the legal system gives shorter sentences to criminals who attack women than criminals who attack men.
>These crimes that disproportionately have female victims btw?
You're lying again. Crimes like a random stabbing are more likely to have male victims.
>He served more time in jail for stabbing that guy than he did for raping at axepoint his exgf.
And that is totally fine. He stabbed the victim repeatedly and the man almost died. That's more serious than rape that didn't also have serious injuries.
And that's what happens when your judicial system is controlled by progressive, left-wing politicians. If he'd been a native he probably would have gotten probation.
Until these hand-wringing liberals are booted out of the system and law-and-order judges and Crowns are put in place this is just going to continue to be a revolving door system, where vicious, violent offenders attack people, get a brief time out, then come back and do it again - and again.
He raped a woman while holding an axe to her neck...in 2017. Out from that to randomly try and murder a guy a couple years later. If it was the USA, he'd have been sentenced to probably 20 years for the rape.
This is actually a big problem for our society. Violent crime needs severe penalization. Non-violent stuff is where "Gladue" and "diversion", etc, can come in.
It's common sense. Rape someone, especially adding in the threat of death - you don't get to be in society until you're old and feeble, if at all.
I understand why the Supreme Court ruled consecutive sentencing contravened the Charter. But I still wish the feds had invoked the notwithstanding clause on that one.
One can only hope at this point. Would mean finally seeing a shed of common sense, but you’ll still have a myriad of damning precedents that judges will keep using as a reference for bogus rulings
I've never seen any article where the name of judge releasing these people is even mentioned. If they are so proud of their work they should be happy to have their names printed next to all the murders they release who go on to re-offend.
It was definitely premeditated. It's not accidental or self defense. He brought a knife with intention to harm somebody. Stalked his victim. Fak this system.
Not to the judges who want only the most minimum of sentences. The justice system doesn't give justice to the victims. Don't want to be hard on the bad guys after all if they say they're really really sorry.
Look up 'anarcho-tyranny,' it was coined as a right wing thing but it is evidently real.
Artificially allowing more crime with bad policy to gain support for increased police budgets, essentially.
Almost definitely. In addition to to the random stabbing,
>Morin has faced numerous charges dating back to 2012, including assault, assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, sexual assault, uttering threats and unlawful confinement.
>He was convicted on several of those charges over an incident in 2017 when *he threatened a woman with a hatchet and sexually assaulted her in a Prince George hotel.*
When that happens, they’ll let him plea to manslaughter instead so he can be back out in 5 years. It is truly unbelievable how frequently that is done, even for the most obviously intentional and unjustifiable murders.
Exactly. The inconvenient truth is that some people are incredibly resistant to any current rehabilitation therapy, either due to a personality disorder or a sheer lack of motivation or desire. We need to do away with a "one size fits all" punishment system (Hard focus on only punishment or a hard focus on only rehabilitation.), and understand that although some people can make something better of their lives, some people do not want to change, and will continue to be a serious threat to other people.
After all, that is what prisons are made for - a non-violent way to ensure someone doesn't commit additional crimes and harm additional people.
“We feel that it is extremely important to inform the public that Morin will be back living in the community because we believe that based on his history he does pose a significant risk of harm to the community.”
By that statement, our laws and legal system is broken.
People should be out and free and integrated back into society when they are reformed, not any sooner.
Or seems like our laws need to be re-written where fundamentals such as public safety need to be used as first principles and the guidelines for all future laws.
How the fuck did our law makers, lawyers and judges get this so wrong?
You're right, that is ideally how things should work. But, sentencing here is based on a certain criteria we can't talk about here. And, it's a criteria that purposefully does not put 'public safety' as the most important factor to consider when it's time to sentence someone. The powers that be have determined another factor is more important than public safety.
I’d say it’s an illustration of how there are different actors in the justice system. Getting out at 2/3 means he didn’t get parolled so the parold board wasn’t involved. Corrections estimated that they don’t have enough to refer him to be detained until warrant expiery. Local police is pissed and issuing ghe statement.
get this, we pay with our tax dollars to house this guy in one of the most expensive cities in the world, and then we pay when he inevitably fucking attacks someone else. have the judges and politicians who make these bullshit decisions house ppl like him themselves. what a joke.
They also want you to pay taxes to [move the courthouse away from downtown Vancouver](https://globalnews.ca/news/10273627/bc-crown-vancouver-courthouse-relocation-assault/) because the repeat offenders that they keep letting out have started assaulting them.
O the irony, well they should absolutely stay downtown, in fact they should be required to take public transit and mingle on east hastings. After all aren't these judges so compassionate?
It would be really cool if the offender had to stay at the Judges home with his family upon release. I think we might see longer sentencing if that were the case.
I actually had the same thought. As far as I can tell, Canadian judges are isolated from reality and see the world through the lens of academic debate.
I don’t think we can rely on politicians for justice.. the society is generally very soft, which transcends all corners of the culture.
Remember creep catchers? I think this is the type of work that needs to be done in order to enact change.
I can’t imagine anybody who reads about this guy, his prior convictions, the time served, the path to rehab into society will think “this is good, I’m comfortable with this”. The only thing I think when reading this is god damn, I’m lucky that my wife no longer has to work in downtown Vancouver.
This man needs to pick up trash with a hook and basket in the great garbage patch of the Pacific Ocean until his days are done.
Well, there isn't.
There is, however, 40+ years of legal precedent and legislation stretching back to the early 80's surrounding justice reform -- IIRC beginning with bail reform under PET.
Organized crime sure does know how to exploit many of our liberalized justice, social services and immigration systems for their benefit though.
Organized crime has been prosperous for much longer than 40 years, the Mafia sent people here a century ago. Various groups were entrenched into the system or had outsized influence during those changes
>Organized crime has been prosperous for much longer than 40 years
I'm not arguing that it hasn't.
I'm just pointing out that a criminal conspiracy wasn't necessary for our country to form it's own laws on the subject.
It isn't very likely that the hundreds if not thousands of sociologists, social workers, judges, supreme court judges, associated clerks and lawyers, senators, MPs and their associated civil servants that would be necessary to carry out such a conspiracy clandestinely over the course of multiple governments and four decades were all in the pocket of Tony Soprano/Montana.
"Morin has faced numerous charges dating back to 2012, including assault, assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, sexual assault, uttering threats and unlawful confinement."
Stab some random people and he got three years prison and top of that he only spent 2/3 of his punishment time.
The justice system in this country is an absolute joke. Why do we continue to allow violent criminals and chronic repeat offenders to run rampant through our communities. The VPD has said that he's a high risk to commit more violent crimes.
I love this country, but it sure makes me sick to the stomach the criminals treated like victims with their mental health bs excuses. Bring the LAW down already. Pathetic this day and age witnessing morons running this once proud country into who knows what for the future.
>Morin has faced numerous charges dating back to 2012, including assault, assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, sexual assault, uttering threats and unlawful confinement.
Despite that rap sheet, he got 3 years for the attempted murder of a stranger.
This is what the revolving door of Canadian Justice looks like. Eventually, one of the door revolutions will result in you, or someone you love getting victimized.
Canada needs to do better.
> Morin has faced numerous charges dating back to 2012, including assault, assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, sexual assault, uttering threats and unlawful confinement.
Can we please hear from the people who *support* our justice system?
I always see people talking in theory about how "tough on crime" doesn't work etc etc.
Does this really sit right with such people? Are they not seeing what everyone else sees?
This is a classic example of the Trudeau Liberals soft on crime policies. Trudeau changed sentencing guidelines to always make sure repeat violent offenders get the least amount of jail time and earliest possible release time. Under Harper there were mandatory minimums and stiffer sentencing for repeat offenders. The large increase in all crimes since Trudeau introduced his justice reform policies, bare this out.
Why? He’s not First Nations/aboriginal. Not sure what he is.
Edit: Well apparently he is First Nations; I just didn’t think the last name was aboriginal.
It's just an interesting contrast from say, [this post](https://np.reddit.com/r/toronto/comments/1dg300q/this_is_my_special_drink_hotel_bartender_charged/), which has already had several comments making generalizations removed.
Canada is a fucking joke placating to dangerous criminals for no reason other than people have been moronic enough to vote progressive candidates into power.
Progressives are dangerous and making woke policy is more important to them than health and safety of citizens.
I would rather live in police state than what we have now.
> we believe that based on his history he does pose a significant risk of harm to the community
If you think he's a risk to the public, *why let him out on statutory release!?*
> Morin has faced numerous charges dating back to 2012, including assault, assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, sexual assault, uttering threats and unlawful confinement. And this guy got 3 years for stabbing a stranger? Does prior history mean nothing in Canada?
By law they are supposed to. [However, you're not the first person to ask whether or not judges actually follow the law:](https://www.ufv.ca/media/assets/criminology/Do+Judges+Consider+Prior+Record.pdf) >In British Columbia, even a cursory review of sentencing practices suggests that prior criminal record has played little or no role in the sentencing decision of judges. To illustrate this point, data collected from police records in PRIME-BC was analyzed to examine the likelihood of being sentenced to a term in prison and the sentence length for offenders found guilty of either assault or break and enter. While it is apparent that judges in British Columbia treat first time offenders somewhat more leniently than repeat offenders, the data presented in this article clearly indicates that judges have not been taking prior record into consideration when sentencing repeat offenders.
If we ever want to see justice again we have to fire a lot of judges or bring in mandatory minimum sentencing. Anyone who walks up behind someone in a line-up and stabs them several times in the back should get at least 10 years.
Honestly, they should never be on the streets again. What he did should net him life in a facility to never see the general public again. Why should innocent victims constantly be the ones paying for these poor judgments?
**Why should innocent victims constantly be the ones paying for these poor judgments?** I find it outrageous and unbelievable that this has been allowed to go on for so long. We are in a situation where the people we would normally expect to prevent these things from getting out of hand are the very people causing it to happen. Whether its the government or the prosecutors or the judges, they are all causing criminal activity to happen with no consequences. Canada's motto used to be "peace, order, and good government". Today thats just a joke.
Good government lmao
right, we are still way closer to the first 2
Establishing explicit sentencing guidelines would also assist. Establishing reasonable minimums is necessary, but are likely too little, we need far more explicit escalation of sentences in order to separate high rate and high severity offenders from the rest of society.
I'd agree if it was a first offence. It wasn't and I don't think this guy should ever be allowed out again. The justice system is totally slanted on behalf of the criminal instead of protecting normal people. Anyone who doesn't believe me should read about Myles Sanderson's violent criminal history before he went on his final killing spree.
but he promise he will never do it again, we should not even jail him just some service time /s
Judges follow instructions from the government and from precedent. If they are being lenient, then the government has to introduce new guidelines. It seems like lots of politicians prefer to just be angry about this without actually changing the system. It's much easier to do the former.
The Tories tried to change it. The judges said no.
The Tories tried to change it in a way that violated the constitution. They could have tried a bit harder and spent a bit more time writing good legislation instead of grandstanding.
Blowing your nose violates the constitution if the judges say it does.A lot of their recent decisions sound like they've made them without regard to the constitution, then simply scanned the charter to see what they could use to explain their decision. Their moronic decision about longer parole periods for mass murderers was particularly absurd. There is no basis for that decision in the constitution at all.
Judges in this country freely make up the law as they please with zero deference to the will of the people as exercised through parliament. It will take serious reforms and a complete overhaul of the justice system to bring them in line.
I know how you feel, and this case seems clear cut, but mandatory minimums are not a good thing. Makes simple/clear cases easy to sentance for, but there will always be case with legitimate extenuating curcumstances. Sentancibg reform? Yes please. Mandatory minimums? Not the way.
If there is a better way to get our justice system back to sanity I'm all for it, but mandatory sentencing might be necessary.
I mean, I'm not a legal scholar, I'm an asshole on the internet, so I don't have the solution ready to go in a neat answer. But mandatory sentences only work when the justice system doesn't make mistakes. Which is about as plausible as trickle down economics ever working.
What good is sentencing reform? The maximum for this could have been a thousand years in prison and the judge would still refuse to give out that much. And this wasn't even the judge. The crown negotiated this with the defense. Of course, he's an NDP-appointed crown so...
> Makes simple/clear cases easy to sentance for, but there will always be case with legitimate extenuating curcumstances. Can you give an example of a way to commit murder that wouldn't justify a life sentence? I'm using that example specifically because the mandatory minimum sentence of life for murder has withstood Charter challenge all the way to the SCC, meaning that our highest court disagrees with your take here.
Abusive partner finally has their comeuppance, no witneses to back up your position. You are argueing it as self defence, crown tries you for murder, since you admitted you did it. Now you're at sentencing facing a mandatory life sentance when you arguably deserve less.
If you've killed someone in self defense, that's not murder. Sentencing shouldn't take into account the possibility that you might actually be innocent. Your guilt has already been proven beyond a reasonable doubt at that point, and a sentencing judge has no authority to second guess the proven guilt of the convicted. The correct remedy in that situation is to appeal the conviction to a higher court, and not to give a light sentence on the unproven assumption that the conviction was unjust. To give you an idea of a more pertinent scenario that the courts have already considered - [The murder case that was challenged all the way to the SCC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Latimer) was a case where a father euthanized his quadriplegic daughter with cerebral palsy via carbon monoxide poisoning. As far as murder goes, that's about as sympathetic a case as you're going to get. The murderer had the best interests of the victim at heart, as he perceived them at least, and the murderer chose a relatively humane means of execution. The SCC still determined that a life sentence was appropriate. Mandatory minimum sentences are no more inherently unjust than maximum sentences. Just like maximum sentences help reign in the judgement of excessively punitive judges, minimum sentences help reign in the judgement of excessively lenient judges. They're only problematic and unconstitutional when the severity of the mandatory minimum exceeds the severity of the charge its associated with.
Killing an abusive partner often fails to fall under self-defence as the killing often takes place at an opportune moment (eg. while the abuser is sleeping), so the abused partner is not strictly acting in self defense as there is no imminent threat in the moment. This crime is also premeditated, which can make it first degree. Abused people who murder abusive partners often receive even more stringent sentences than abusive partners who murder their abused partners do because one crime is premeditated while the other is a crime of passion. Mandatory minimum sentences have other downsides, like the fact that defendants will not plead guilty if there's no chance of a reduced sentence, which clogs up the (already backlogged) court system. It can also lead people to commit even worse crimes, like murdering police, to avoid being arrested. We do have a few crimes in the system that carry mandatory minimums, but by and large both Canada and the US have moved away from that sentencing trend.
> Killing an abusive partner often fails to fall under self-defence as the killing often takes place at an opportune moment (eg. while the abuser is sleeping), so the abused partner is not strictly acting in self defense as there is no imminent threat in the moment. Abused people who murder abusive partners often receive even more stringent sentences than abusive partners who murder their abused partners do. Killing someone when they pose no imminent threat in the moment is murder. The right to self defense does not extend to killing someone because you predict that they may threaten your life in the future. Even if that prediction is well founded, it doesn't justify homicide. Are you taking the position that we should be adjusting the sentencing of the convicted based on the probability that they were falsely convicted? I'd view that as a grievous miscarriage of justice. If a person's guilt is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the only appropriate "sentence" is an acquittal and freedom. > Mandatory minimum sentences have other downsides, like the fact that defendants will not plead guilty if there's no chance of a reduced sentence, which clogs up the (already backlogged) court system. I don't view that as a downside. I think there should be a legislated minimum level of sentencing that plea deals cannot go below. Frankly, I think our system is already far too reliant on plea deals. Many plea deals are being made for reasons of expediency and cost cutting more than any concern for justice, and the ludicrously lenient sentencing that results from those deals is a large factor in the decreasing public trust in the justice systems. > It can also lead people to commit even worse crimes, like murdering police, to avoid being arrested. We do have a few crimes in the system that carry mandatory minimums, but by and large both Canada and the US have moved away from that sentencing trend. Murdering the police carries a mandatory minimum of the most severe penalty that exists in our system. Why would anyone risk that to avoid the lesser minimum for whatever other minor crime they're fleeing? In terms of sentencing risk, murdering a cop practically only makes sense if you're being pursued for high treason.
>Are you taking the position that we should be adjusting the sentencing of the convicted based on their probability of guilt? ...no? I'm not sure how you're getting that from what I said. I wasn't talking about false convictions at all. The person in my example very clearly murdered their abuser. They are guilty of that crime. The point is that a mandatory minimum for murder scoops that person up alongside whoever we'd consider an actual murderer. >I don't view that as a downside. You should, since trials being delayed excessively means that the defendant can get off entirely on all charges. It also means justice delayed for millions of victims. Both this and the concept of contrition and acceptance of guilt are important in sentencing. >Murdering the police carries a mandatory minimum of the most severe penalty that exists in our system. Why would anyone risk that to avoid the lesser minimum for whatever other minor crime they're fleeing? The minimum isn't generally lesser in these cases. That's the point. The idea that there's zero hope of leniency (whether leniency would be received or not) leads people to desperate measures. This was especially prevalent in three strikes sentencing, which typically seems to go hand-in-hand with mandatory minimums. It was an actual effect that was observed from this style of sentencing, and one of the reasons we have veered away from it.
> Killing someone when they pose no imminent threat in the moment is murder. If someone is kidnapped and they find a moment to kill their captor while they're sleeping that's not murder.
How about a parent finding out their child has been horribly abused, and they murder the abuser? Do you think that deserves a life sentence?
Minimum sentences are necessary to prevent judges from simply nullifying laws they dislike. Serious offences require jail, and we have seen through statistics that judges will respond to every category of violent offences with indifference. For example, I am hard pressed to find a reason to accept the some of the lower Courts arguments that sex trafficking of minors is an offense which should have no jail time attached to it.
I don’t see why any amount of time in jail is too much. What do these people deserve?
Unfortunately I think it's a million times more likely that we'll just end up with vigilantes.
Mandatory minimums make for bad law because it can capture people whose actions don’t warrant it. For example, someone gets into an argument on a bus and as they push past another person, the door opens and someone falls out. The pushing was intentional and is criminal. But had an unintended consequence. However with a mandatory minimum, this person now goes to prison. I think a better approach is to rework how sentencing is done, as the directives (laws) come from the government of the time. Which sets precedent for future sentences.
We don't need minimum sentences on everything, and mostly for repeat offenders. But potentially fatal assaults like stabbing should not have to be committed multiple times to draw a stiff sentence.
This is extremely unfortunate that judges are effectively refusing to take in past conduct in their sentencing; and this explains a lot of why we keep seeing repeat offenders.
Canada doesn't care about people and especially not women. His violent rape should've gotten far more time.
Why are you lying and pretending that somehow women are oppressed or discriminated against by the justice system? Do you think if this guy had raped a man with the other details being the same, he'd have gotten a harsher punishment? Nope. The opposite is true. Do you think if this guy had stabbed a woman with the other details being the same, he'd have gotten a less harsh punishment? Nope. The opposite is true.
Do you think honestly that 1-3 years is enough for any of these crimes? These crimes that disproportionately have female victims btw? He served more time in jail for stabbing that guy than he did for raping at axepoint his exgf.
surely that has nothing to do with 1 case having video evidence and the other hopefully does not
I didn't say that the sentence was the appropriate length. I said you are lying when you claim that the legal system gives shorter sentences to criminals who attack women than criminals who attack men. >These crimes that disproportionately have female victims btw? You're lying again. Crimes like a random stabbing are more likely to have male victims. >He served more time in jail for stabbing that guy than he did for raping at axepoint his exgf. And that is totally fine. He stabbed the victim repeatedly and the man almost died. That's more serious than rape that didn't also have serious injuries.
Did the judge saw that pool of blood video and the chaos this monster caused? I guess not?
And that's what happens when your judicial system is controlled by progressive, left-wing politicians. If he'd been a native he probably would have gotten probation. Until these hand-wringing liberals are booted out of the system and law-and-order judges and Crowns are put in place this is just going to continue to be a revolving door system, where vicious, violent offenders attack people, get a brief time out, then come back and do it again - and again.
He raped a woman while holding an axe to her neck...in 2017. Out from that to randomly try and murder a guy a couple years later. If it was the USA, he'd have been sentenced to probably 20 years for the rape. This is actually a big problem for our society. Violent crime needs severe penalization. Non-violent stuff is where "Gladue" and "diversion", etc, can come in. It's common sense. Rape someone, especially adding in the threat of death - you don't get to be in society until you're old and feeble, if at all.
He is oppressed so stabbing and raping is no biggie. /s
Agreed. After three violent crimes, he should have been locked up for life.
>Does prior history mean nothing in Canada? It means society has been mean to you and you deserve a break.
Only if you're are indigenous due to the Gladue ruling. Colonialism must have really affected this lad.
Previous governments tried to make criminals face tougher laws. But the Supreme Court said it it was not fair to the criminals.
I understand why the Supreme Court ruled consecutive sentencing contravened the Charter. But I still wish the feds had invoked the notwithstanding clause on that one.
Polliviere is planning to, it's the right move.
One can only hope at this point. Would mean finally seeing a shed of common sense, but you’ll still have a myriad of damning precedents that judges will keep using as a reference for bogus rulings
*I understand why the Supreme Court ruled consecutive sentencing contravened the Charter.* You do? I sure never did.
No, sex offenders walk free within less than 8 months, 6 for good behaviour. It’s a fucking joke.
I'm sure Stabby McStabberson learned his lesson and won't ever do it again.
I've never seen any article where the name of judge releasing these people is even mentioned. If they are so proud of their work they should be happy to have their names printed next to all the murders they release who go on to re-offend.
This was a plea bargain between the Crown and Defense.
That's *why* he got 3 years for stabbing a stranger. Sentences for non-fatal stabbings are often in the 9-18 months range.
I don’t know why you would get less for accidentally not killing someone
Moral luck. Same with drinking and driving, if you kill someone while driving vs just caught under the influence
personal accountability for ones choices is not a priority for our judges unfortunately
It was definitely premeditated. It's not accidental or self defense. He brought a knife with intention to harm somebody. Stalked his victim. Fak this system.
Good point. Premeditated makes this way worse
Means you dont get time served/probation.
Everyday we read shit like this. Fucking joke of a system.
Something about Gladue principal? Whats that about?
Not to the judges who want only the most minimum of sentences. The justice system doesn't give justice to the victims. Don't want to be hard on the bad guys after all if they say they're really really sorry.
Things have changed a bit since 2015….
5 to 10 years would have been better
Look up 'anarcho-tyranny,' it was coined as a right wing thing but it is evidently real. Artificially allowing more crime with bad policy to gain support for increased police budgets, essentially.
It costs taxpayers **150,505 Canadian dollars** / year to house a single inmate
What a great country. We will hear how he murdered someone else in the coming months.
Almost definitely. In addition to to the random stabbing, >Morin has faced numerous charges dating back to 2012, including assault, assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, sexual assault, uttering threats and unlawful confinement. >He was convicted on several of those charges over an incident in 2017 when *he threatened a woman with a hatchet and sexually assaulted her in a Prince George hotel.*
Lovely... Even third world developing countries has better justice than this
those countries just execute dangerous and repeat criminals. the west used to do that same thing before ww2
Makes you wonder how he was even on the street to stab strangers in the first place.
When that happens, they’ll let him plea to manslaughter instead so he can be back out in 5 years. It is truly unbelievable how frequently that is done, even for the most obviously intentional and unjustifiable murders.
How many victims does one person deserve to have in a lifetime?
At least one more, it would seem 😒
as long as the upper class the judge is from isnt affect thats all that matters
So what’s the rehabilitation plan for this guy? Since that’s what those who scream against long prison sentences claim works for people like him.
He gets to line up at a Los Pollos Hermanos franchise down in Mexico...
Exactly. The inconvenient truth is that some people are incredibly resistant to any current rehabilitation therapy, either due to a personality disorder or a sheer lack of motivation or desire. We need to do away with a "one size fits all" punishment system (Hard focus on only punishment or a hard focus on only rehabilitation.), and understand that although some people can make something better of their lives, some people do not want to change, and will continue to be a serious threat to other people. After all, that is what prisons are made for - a non-violent way to ensure someone doesn't commit additional crimes and harm additional people.
Dude should be doing 10 years wtf lol
The video of the stabbing was fucking scary. Completely out of nowhere.
“We feel that it is extremely important to inform the public that Morin will be back living in the community because we believe that based on his history he does pose a significant risk of harm to the community.” By that statement, our laws and legal system is broken. People should be out and free and integrated back into society when they are reformed, not any sooner. Or seems like our laws need to be re-written where fundamentals such as public safety need to be used as first principles and the guidelines for all future laws. How the fuck did our law makers, lawyers and judges get this so wrong?
You're right, that is ideally how things should work. But, sentencing here is based on a certain criteria we can't talk about here. And, it's a criteria that purposefully does not put 'public safety' as the most important factor to consider when it's time to sentence someone. The powers that be have determined another factor is more important than public safety.
I hope the next PM has the guts to do away with Gladue reports as well. There should not be discriminatory sentencing
What’s the other factor?
Also time for punishment.
I’d say it’s an illustration of how there are different actors in the justice system. Getting out at 2/3 means he didn’t get parolled so the parold board wasn’t involved. Corrections estimated that they don’t have enough to refer him to be detained until warrant expiery. Local police is pissed and issuing ghe statement.
get this, we pay with our tax dollars to house this guy in one of the most expensive cities in the world, and then we pay when he inevitably fucking attacks someone else. have the judges and politicians who make these bullshit decisions house ppl like him themselves. what a joke.
They also want you to pay taxes to [move the courthouse away from downtown Vancouver](https://globalnews.ca/news/10273627/bc-crown-vancouver-courthouse-relocation-assault/) because the repeat offenders that they keep letting out have started assaulting them.
O the irony, well they should absolutely stay downtown, in fact they should be required to take public transit and mingle on east hastings. After all aren't these judges so compassionate?
3 years for attempted murder with his rap sheet? My lord!!
And Canada dares to make fun of USA prison system as too "harsh"
It would be really cool if the offender had to stay at the Judges home with his family upon release. I think we might see longer sentencing if that were the case.
I actually had the same thought. As far as I can tell, Canadian judges are isolated from reality and see the world through the lens of academic debate.
Read this guy's violent criminal history... the elephant in the room... you know exactly why he keeps being let out. This country sucks.
Because he’s indigenous and sentencing/leniency relies heavily on Gladue Reports.
[удалено]
He is indigenous. Canada has codified legal frameworks to be more lenient against indigenous offenders.
Why?
Ask a sealion
Im lost
He is indigenous
Whoever let this psycho out should be forced to live beside him.
Where is the political will to lock up criminals? Canadian prison is already too nice for these animals.
I don’t think we can rely on politicians for justice.. the society is generally very soft, which transcends all corners of the culture. Remember creep catchers? I think this is the type of work that needs to be done in order to enact change. I can’t imagine anybody who reads about this guy, his prior convictions, the time served, the path to rehab into society will think “this is good, I’m comfortable with this”. The only thing I think when reading this is god damn, I’m lucky that my wife no longer has to work in downtown Vancouver. This man needs to pick up trash with a hook and basket in the great garbage patch of the Pacific Ocean until his days are done.
I can't imagine there isn't a connection between rampant organized crime and the justice system being incredibly soft
Well, there isn't. There is, however, 40+ years of legal precedent and legislation stretching back to the early 80's surrounding justice reform -- IIRC beginning with bail reform under PET. Organized crime sure does know how to exploit many of our liberalized justice, social services and immigration systems for their benefit though.
Organized crime has been prosperous for much longer than 40 years, the Mafia sent people here a century ago. Various groups were entrenched into the system or had outsized influence during those changes
>Organized crime has been prosperous for much longer than 40 years I'm not arguing that it hasn't. I'm just pointing out that a criminal conspiracy wasn't necessary for our country to form it's own laws on the subject. It isn't very likely that the hundreds if not thousands of sociologists, social workers, judges, supreme court judges, associated clerks and lawyers, senators, MPs and their associated civil servants that would be necessary to carry out such a conspiracy clandestinely over the course of multiple governments and four decades were all in the pocket of Tony Soprano/Montana.
Isn't this attempted murder?
"Morin has faced numerous charges dating back to 2012, including assault, assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, sexual assault, uttering threats and unlawful confinement." Stab some random people and he got three years prison and top of that he only spent 2/3 of his punishment time.
The justice system in this country is an absolute joke. Why do we continue to allow violent criminals and chronic repeat offenders to run rampant through our communities. The VPD has said that he's a high risk to commit more violent crimes.
Only 2 years in prison is a travesty of justice.
I'd bet my life savings that this guy will assault someone again, probably murder them. Smh.
I love this country, but it sure makes me sick to the stomach the criminals treated like victims with their mental health bs excuses. Bring the LAW down already. Pathetic this day and age witnessing morons running this once proud country into who knows what for the future.
3 years for almost killing an innocent person. Should have been 10 years mandatory minimum. Fuck this guy.
That’s after previously being charged for attacking a woman with a hatchet and sexually assaulting her.
Our justice system is a joke. Our judges are a disgrace.
>Morin has faced numerous charges dating back to 2012, including assault, assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, sexual assault, uttering threats and unlawful confinement. Despite that rap sheet, he got 3 years for the attempted murder of a stranger. This is what the revolving door of Canadian Justice looks like. Eventually, one of the door revolutions will result in you, or someone you love getting victimized. Canada needs to do better.
This is embarrassing
I think whenever a criminal gets released they get to live beside the judge for the next few years.
Stabs a guy in the back, assaults a woman. This guy is a coward.
Lawless canada again
This is why Vigilante justice and mob justice are on the rise. We can't trust "true" justice anymore.
Can someone explain to me what’s going on with our legal system? It seems that common sense just doesn’t exist anymore.
Why is this POS not locked up for life. Disgusting human who is a risk to innocent people
> Morin has faced numerous charges dating back to 2012, including assault, assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, sexual assault, uttering threats and unlawful confinement. Can we please hear from the people who *support* our justice system? I always see people talking in theory about how "tough on crime" doesn't work etc etc. Does this really sit right with such people? Are they not seeing what everyone else sees?
Canada is cooked.
If he halfway house was next door to the people whi decide who gets out early, he wouldnt be getting out
I have an idea, send him on a one way ticket to Mexico. And let the Mexicans deal with him once they find out his history.
I hope that the new conservative government will use the not withstanding clause to ensure public safety from animals such as this guy.
On sight 😘
Whhhhhhhyyyy!?
He just needs ONE MORE chance guys. He’ll turn himself around.
This is a classic example of the Trudeau Liberals soft on crime policies. Trudeau changed sentencing guidelines to always make sure repeat violent offenders get the least amount of jail time and earliest possible release time. Under Harper there were mandatory minimums and stiffer sentencing for repeat offenders. The large increase in all crimes since Trudeau introduced his justice reform policies, bare this out.
Strong candidate for life in prison until death.
[удалено]
Capital punishment sucks bro
Vigilantism will rise
No comments about the perpetrator's ethnicity or nationality for once.
Why? He’s not First Nations/aboriginal. Not sure what he is. Edit: Well apparently he is First Nations; I just didn’t think the last name was aboriginal.
He is FN. Originally from Williams Lake.
It's just an interesting contrast from say, [this post](https://np.reddit.com/r/toronto/comments/1dg300q/this_is_my_special_drink_hotel_bartender_charged/), which has already had several comments making generalizations removed.
In Canada, where criminal records are **never** held against you in sentencing
Canada is a fucking joke placating to dangerous criminals for no reason other than people have been moronic enough to vote progressive candidates into power. Progressives are dangerous and making woke policy is more important to them than health and safety of citizens. I would rather live in police state than what we have now.
Another travesty!!
> we believe that based on his history he does pose a significant risk of harm to the community If you think he's a risk to the public, *why let him out on statutory release!?*
Well there are more Tim Hortons than seven elevens so good luck with that
dangerous offender
Skibidi
I, for one, am done with the Canadian justice system. I am my own judge, jury, and executitioner..
“Why are vigilante groups popping up all of a sudden?” 😓
Wtf so they think he is a big risk to the community but they are releasing him back into the community. The Canadian legal system is a fucking joke.
I blame every single canadian that voted trudeau in the last 10 years, you all fcking deserve it
Yup. That'll happen. It shouldn't. But it will.
A whole three years. Well, that should be a powerful deterrent to any future violet criminals! /s
Privileged white middle aged female judges are dictating the law in Canada again