Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  There are tools that way. There used to be both a defence and a crown psychiatric examination on dangerous offender applications of their choice, and then the court made a decision. Frankly, I thought that was a fair system. That's 15 seconds.

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  I don't. There are certain hours--and I can only speak for Ontario--allowed for this sort of thing. I would think if we go to the current regime, where you have to have the accused show why they shouldn't be, they will be the kinds of cases that we call in Ontario “big case manag

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  To say I've done a study, no. California, obviously, has a three-strikes-and-you're-out law. Some states have. Laws, obviously, differ from state to state in the United States, plus they have their own federal jurisdiction. All I can say is that anecdotally my understanding is t

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  I would say it is not. Usually sentences, as has been indicated, increase from one time to another. We do have the provision to declare that person dangerous, but again, just to say that because it's a third conviction....There are different degrees of dangerousness, and the pros

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  Well, the difficulty is that some of the crimes include assault or assault causing bodily harm. Bodily harm can be a black eye. You're probably not going to get two years in penitentiary for that, but it's broad. So is robbery. There are different sorts of robbery. When I used th

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  If I could just begin, we've had the Criminal Code for a long time. Obviously, the Criminal Code needs amendments from time to time when things are found to be problematic in it. The question that this legislation isn't answering is that we've had this same Criminal Code, and we

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  That may be a risk because of the decision. The difficulty is that the initial test for dangerousness really has nothing to do with resources. That may come into more whether one applies an indeterminate sentence--

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  That's right, because they may be treated when they're in jail, and if they're treated in jail then they may not be so incorrigible that they can't be released at some time. That's where it comes into it, I believe. The question is on resources, the resources now on both ends of

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  I would think so, because that will be raised by the defence.

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  I think that will occur because all the crown has to show is that it's the third offence in those cases, and then the burden shifts to the accused to go and show that he didn't have...or he's not dangerous for whatever reasons. That might be very difficult. There's this presumpti

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  I think that might be a bit unusual. In the cases that I've done--and I've dealt with some dangerous offender cases--it's generally well known that no matter what the problem is, the person is warehoused. The reason for that is the presumption that they're not going to get out pe

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  If I may, I think that with the first case that comes up like this you're going to see a charter challenge, and that's a charter challenge that will probably go all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. And I would think that whatever lawyer gets that first case will be chompin

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  There's no question that it brought back what was the old regime prior to what we have in the Criminal Code now, where the judge finds dangerousness and then determines whether it's an indeterminate or a definite sentence. The difficulty is that that doesn't change the issue of t

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  The onus was always on the crown to establish what the sentence should be. Here there's the presumption of that first finding, which is the dangerousness. There used to be a second part of the test, which was then to determine the sentence. Well, here there's a presumption of dan

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  Thank you. Good morning to all. I'm here along with Evan Roitenberg on behalf of the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers. I want to thank you all for allowing us to attend and be witnesses this morning. I'm going to make a few brief opening remarks and then Mr. Roitenbe