Deceased/Not Found Canada - Alvin, 66, & Kathy Liknes, 53, Nathan O'Brien, 5, Calgary, 30 Jun 2014 - #20

[otto]

"MacKay said wiretap evidence has shown that criminals have taken advantage of Canada’s tendency to sentence concurrently for multiple crimes and that it’s no longer acceptable.

“Criminals were overheard discussing the fact that you could kill someone in Canada and then kill another one free, that is that there was a discount because the time can be served concurrently,” he said.

http://o.canada.com/news/politics-a...-to-consider-expanding-consecutive-sentencing

"On December 2, 2011, the Protecting Canadians by Ending Multiple Murders Act was enacted. This Act ensures that individuals who are convicted of committing multiple murders serve their parole ineligibility period consecutively. This means the number of years allocated by a judge to be served without parole is now served one after another, not concurrently. Furthermore, judges are now able to impose consecutive 25-year parole ineligibility periods. The government’s rationale is to allow one period of parole ineligibility for each victim, for offenders convicted of more than one first-, or second- degree murders.

Under the new legislation, it is not mandatory for a judge to impose consecutive parole ineligibility periods for offenders convicted of multiple murders. The individual judge maintains discretion in these cases. The judge may consider: the character of the offender, the nature and circumstances of the offence, and any jury recommendations before deciding on whether to impose consecutive 25-year parole ineligibility periods. First-degree murder and two categories of second-degree murder carry a mandatory life sentence with a 25-year parole ineligibility period. The remaining categories of second degree murder carry a mandatory life sentence with a 10 to 25 year period of not being eligible for parole."

http://crcvc.ca/docs/consecutive-sentencing-2012.pdf

 

[LoisLane]

"MacKay said wiretap evidence has shown that criminals have taken advantage of Canada’s tendency to sentence concurrently for multiple crimes and that it’s no longer acceptable.

“Criminals were overheard discussing the fact that you could kill someone in Canada and then kill another one free, that is that there was a discount because the time can be served concurrently,” he said.

http://o.canada.com/news/politics-a...-to-consider-expanding-consecutive-sentencing

"On December 2, 2011, the Protecting Canadians by Ending Multiple Murders Act was enacted. This Act ensures that individuals who are convicted of committing multiple murders serve their parole ineligibility period consecutively. This means the number of years allocated by a judge to be served without parole is now served one after another, not concurrently. Furthermore, judges are now able to impose consecutive 25-year parole ineligibility periods. The government’s rationale is to allow one period of parole ineligibility for each victim, for offenders convicted of more than one first-, or second- degree murders.

Under the new legislation, it is not mandatory for a judge to impose consecutive parole ineligibility periods for offenders convicted of multiple murders. The individual judge maintains discretion in these cases. The judge may consider: the character of the offender, the nature and circumstances of the offence, and any jury recommendations before deciding on whether to impose consecutive 25-year parole ineligibility periods. First-degree murder and two categories of second-degree murder carry a mandatory life sentence with a 25-year parole ineligibility period. The remaining categories of second degree murder carry a mandatory life sentence with a 10 to 25 year period of not being eligible for parole."

http://crcvc.ca/docs/consecutive-sentencing-2012.pdf

What disturbs me about this article is that Justice Minister PM needs to reference a wire tap to "prove" criminals take advantage of the system. Why would the whoever's make a point of expressing this article in such a way? Sounds like a cover-up or agenda pushing, or fear marketing to me.

http://crcvc.ca/docs/consecutive-sentencing-2012.pdf[/QUOTE]

 

[Sillybilly]

What disturbs me about this article is that Justice Minister PM needs to reference a wire tap to "prove" criminals take advantage of the system. Why would the whoever's make a point of expressing this article in such a way? Sounds like a cover-up or agenda pushing, or fear marketing to me.

http://crcvc.ca/docs/consecutive-sentencing-2012.pdf

I don't find that disturbing at all ... the general public has known this for years, so the reference to the wiretaps as an example just emphasizes that criminals know it as well, and discuss taking advantage of it.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

The new consecutive sentencing laws were in place at the time of the murder.

Yes, I have posted that myself previously. I was referencing the Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act mentioned by news.talk, which is currently *not* law.

 

[Sillybilly]

I am interested to see if the Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act which could be law by next spring will impact this case.

<rsbm>

Unless the bill that was tabled has changed since Bezan introduced it, that particular law shouldn't be a consideration in sentencing if DG is found guilty:

from:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...df/bezan_tables.pdf+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

The potential for a 40 year parole ineligibility period is only applicable for those convicted of abduction, sexual assault and murder of an individual. In Bill C-478, the number of years one could be ineligible for parole is not a mandatory minimum, but is based on the discretion of the presiding judge. Similar to other pieces of legislation that use judicial discretion, should an individual be charged with all three of the crimes listed in Bill C-478, the courts can set a parole ineligibility period anywhere from 25 to 40 years based on judicial discretion.

Seems the "charges" (methinks ^^ they meant "convictions") must consist of all 3 offences listed.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

Did you even read the article? From 2012:

Sure did. It says 'veered away"...not stopped.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

In the documentary on the 5th Estate, the interrogation method was used on a witness. The method was not intended to be used on witnesses, it was intended for suspects. Garland is a good suspect - totally different ball game. What's happening in Peel Region is simply bizarre - unbelievable that it's been going on for a few decades with little change other than with newly appointed Judges - which seem to be making a difference.

In one of the articles that Stan posted...CPS used it. Has nothing to do with the Peel thing at all. Focus Otto.

 

[Tinkerbel1]

It wouldn't surprise me if Garland tries to use some sort of mental defect defence ... isn't that one of his lawyer's specialties?

If he doesn't use some soft of mental defect defence, he is charged with two first degree murders, which could be consecutive. Would the second degree murder charge fall into the new "consecutive sentencing" laws?

Even if its not consecutive, DG would be in his 80's when released...he probably would not get early parole in this case. Its 3 big charges.

 

[otto]

What disturbs me about this article is that Justice Minister PM needs to reference a wire tap to "prove" criminals take advantage of the system. Why would the whoever's make a point of expressing this article in such a way? Sounds like a cover-up or agenda pushing, or fear marketing to me.

http://crcvc.ca/docs/consecutive-sentencing-2012.pdf

I think it is agenda pushing. Canada has never had consecutive sentencing, so there had to be some sort of justification to change the law. The fact that criminals were heard - most likely inadvertently discussing sentencing - claiming that the second murder was free is a bit of a concern. It was true that if someone premeditated the murder two people, the convicted felon would receive one life sentence with parole eligibility after 25 years for both murders ... same result whether it was one or two people. Today it is different. One murder means parole eligibility after 25 years, two murders could mean parole eligibility after 50 years - at the discretion of the Judge.

The criminal code is now more closely aligned with the practices in the US. If it ever gets to the point where Canadians are sentenced to prison for hundreds of years, I will believe that the politicians in Ottawa have lost their minds. That sort of sentencing has always struck me as absurd.

 

[news.talk]

Sure did. It says 'veered away"...not stopped.

[veer]

verb*(used*without*object)

to*change*direction*or*turn*about*or*aside;shift,*turn,*or*change*from*one*course,position,*inclination,*etc.,*to*another:

-----
The bottom line is that convictions are being upheld, and the policies of our public institutions are being monitored for misapplication. Additionally, there is a reason for Defense Council.

While I cannot confirm through MSM links that the CPS has stopped using this technique, I did ask a friend who works as a Detective and was told that their policies have changed to reflect the ruling.

 

[news.talk]

Yes, I have posted that myself previously. I was referencing the Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act mentioned by news.talk, which is currently *not* law.

Always keeping me on my toes dear. Your point is valid and most likely correct. I cannot find a direct answer to support it either way.

 

[otto]

In one of the articles that Stan posted...CPS used it. Has nothing to do with the Peel thing at all. Focus Otto.

As far as I can understand of the Calgary case where Judge Mike Dinkel, in May 2011, accused a detective of questioning a suspect using Reid Techniques, it seems to be about a woman that ran a daycare in her home ... and where a child in her care suffered a head injury and then died. If not the adult in charge, who is responsible?

It's a sad day when a suspect wriggles out of suffering the consequences of actions by complaining that during 8 hours of questioning she said she didn't want to answer questions, but at the same time she did not choose to remain silent. I have no sympathy for a woman that allows a child to be killed during her watch.

 

[otto]

<rsbm>

Unless the bill that was tabled has changed since Bezan introduced it, that particular law shouldn't be a consideration in sentencing if DG is found guilty:

from:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...df/bezan_tables.pdf+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca



Seems the "charges" (methinks ^^ they meant "convictions") must consist of all 3 offences listed.

Regarding the proposed Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act amendment to the criminal code, I don't see how it factors in because it states:

" ...would amend section 745 of the Criminal Code to provide that a person convicted of an abduction, sexual assault, and murder of the same victim in respect of the same event or a series of events would be sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole until the person had served a sentence of between 25 years and 40 years, as determined by the presiding judge after considering the recommendations"
- Colin Mayes; Okanagan, Shuswap, BC

https://openparliament.ca/debates/2014/5/30/colin-mayes-1/

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Always keeping me on my toes dear. Your point is valid and most likely correct. I cannot find a direct answer to support it either way.

Not swept off your feet? Perhaps I need a new voice in your head...

 

[news.talk]

Regarding the proposed Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act amendment to the criminal code, I don't see how it factors in because it states:

" ...would amend section 745 of the Criminal Code to provide that a person convicted of an abduction, sexual assault, and murder of the same victim in respect of the same event or a series of events would be sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole until the person had served a sentence of between 25 years and 40 years, as determined by the presiding judge after considering the recommendations"
- Colin Mayes; Okanagan, Shuswap, BC

https://openparliament.ca/debates/2014/5/30/colin-mayes-1/

It would only factor in if a suspect was eligible based on when it comes into force and *if* one or more of the victims were abducted prior to the murder - which I personally don't believe was the case.

 

[news.talk]

Not swept off your feet? Perhaps I need a new voice in your head...

But your voice sounds so sweet!

 

[deugirtni]

Even if it that new bill is in effect by the time that DG would be sentenced, if he would be found guilty, and if it would apply to crimes committed prior to taking effect, this new bill will not relate to DG, as sillybilly mentioned a few posts ago (BBM):

SUMMARY
This enactment amends the Criminal Code to provide that a person convicted of the abduction, sexual assault and murder of the same victim in respect of the same event or series of events is to be sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole until the person has served a sentence of between twenty-five and forty years as determined by the presiding judge after considering the recommendation, if any, of the jury.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=6520051&File=19

Always keeping me on my toes dear. Your point is valid and most likely correct. I cannot find a direct answer to support it either way.

 

[otto]

It would only factor in if a suspect was eligible based on when it comes into force and *if* one or more of the victims were abducted prior to the murder - which I personally don't believe was the case.

We haven't heard about an abduction or a sexual assault, and without all three criminal acts against one of the three victims, this proposed law (amongst many) would not apply.

 

[news.talk]

We haven't heard about an abduction or a sexual assault, and without all three criminal acts against one of the three victims, this proposed law (amongst many) would not apply.

Isn't that what I said?

 

[otto]

Isn't that what I said?

I guess so. All three offences have to have taken place against one victim, and the only offence in this case is murder times three. If there was an abduction and a murder, the proposed law still would not apply.