14

‘More rhetoric than reality’


 

Steve Sullivan, the former victims ombudsman, reviews the government’s crime legislation.

In the hundreds of pages of would-be law, I found only a few that deal with victims. Among those are several provisions that enhance the rights of victims in the corrections and parole system. These are important provisions, but were first introduced in 2005 by the Liberal government of Paul Martin.

The provisions to toughen sentencing for sex offenders will be welcomed by most. Few of us lose sleep over child-sex offenders spending more time in prison. But some of the reforms will toughen the sentences for low-risk offenders, with low rates of recividism. They won’t make children safer, but will cost five times more than what is being invested in Child Advocacy Centres that support abused children.


 

‘More rhetoric than reality’

  1. This comment was deleted.

    • Really. Name one.

      • If you don’t feed the troll he might just leave.

        • Thanks. I didn’t have my detector on this morning.

        • But he has a photo with a cool hat. Trolls aren’t allowed to wear cool hats right?

          • Now, now, I know it must be hard to be a super-hero and practice non-violence, but we are a family comment board or something.  So, no THWACKing or BOFFing the hat from the troll!

          • I will restrain myself, but not because I’m the hero macleans needs, but because I’m the hero macleans deserves.

  2. Mr. Sullivan, you fail to understand that the point of this legislation is not to assist victims, but to ensure that people who have sinned get to experience hell here on earth, regardless of what that means for the rest of us or what effects it might have when they get out.

    • Well, the kind of cons who write this sort of legislation don’t really believe we have a future anyway, so why should a criminal?

      • But the reason we have no future is not because of climate change …

        • What happens when you read revelations without considering the same God gave us free choice. Nothing is written.

          • Why are we going religous when discussing a crime bill? Sure some Tories’ moral code is probably influenced by their religion but in all likelihood religion likely influences the moral code that causes some to oppose this bill. It just seems a bit superficial to brand this with religous extermesim intead of arguing the merit of the bill itself.

          • I took this exchange to be a fairly lightearted one. No offence intended to those who are sincerely moved by religious principles.

          • Ah sorry about the over reaction. I guess I’m still stinging from Stockwell Day 2000

Sign in to comment.