When we start asking DOJ officials what their policy slant is, that's the day we should switch roles. I'd take the security, though; I wouldn't mind being a DOJ person.
But I respect your answer on the policy question.
I have a question. It's back to the hypothetical. I think we're all trying to get our heads around the discretion that might be used. Double murder, same circumstances: that's clearly first degree. If the judge decides that on the first murder the person should not be eligible for parole for 25 years, how is he or she going to separate the second murder, which is the same? The person is automatically ineligible for parole for over 50 years in that situation. I don't know how he could use the discretion in one case and not the other.
You're saying that on the second murder he could say he's using his discretion and is granting parole eligibility and equating the two murders the same.... To me, the problem might be.... The discretion is there and that's good. I remark, by the way, that it isn't there in Bill S-6. I wonder why it isn't, because we're dealing with a similar part of the code; that's faint hope and so on. That's one question, I guess.
Second, would we not be better off if we gave the judge a little more discretion on the number of years? In other words, a judge might look at those two instances and consider 25 years. He might be on the borderline as to whether he wants to go 50 years. He might very easily say 35, but we have this choice between the second-degree 10 and the first-degree 25.
You see on TV that in the American courts they can just pick a number out of the air and say, “You're not eligible for parole for 36 years”. In Canada, you can pick 10, you can pick 25, and, in the case of two murders, you can pick 50. But you can't pick between 25 and 50 in two first-degree murders, as far as I can tell. I wonder if it might be good to have a sliding scale. If you're going to give discretion, you should give it. You shouldn't say you have a choice between 25 and 50, or 75, or whatever the case.
In three-person murders, I think we get a little far afield. The choice between 25 and 75 is pretty large as well. But between 25 and 50 there might be a judge who thinks, “This guy is 40 and he should pay”. No question: each murder is equal in the eyes of the law in terms of the denunciation. But in a choice between 25 and 50, heaven knows, the judge might think that somebody might be able to rehabilitate themselves.
I'd like your comment about whether we should have something in between, and I'd also like a comment on Bill S-6.