In all of this discussion, I have to wonder why it is that the judges and the judiciary/crown attorneys are, by and large, getting free passes re the firearms discussion.
It is the judges who impose the penalties and if they choose to set the bar low (and in far to many criminal firearms related cases they are), then their underlings such as crown attorneys and the police have little power.
It is the crown attorneys who choose what charges to lay, what charges to drop, and what charges to "trade off" for whatever re far to many firearms offenses. The lame duck excuse of dropping charges because of "being unlikely to result in a conviction" is contributing to keeping the bar very low. If crown attorneys are pretty sure the judges are unlikely to convict based on past experience, no wonder the bar remains very low and little wonder that the lower echelons of the police departments are seeming doing less than might be done to bring about prosecutions.
It is judges who make the decision to convict and apply sentences concurrently or consecutively. For decades, Liberal appointed judges have been choosing the "concurrent" approach and this has been/still is sending a very wrong message - particularly as it regards multiple firearms offenses arising from a single illegal/criminal situation. The new age activist judges are not only adjudicating law these days, but in fact are making law as well. The bigger question becomes - who controls the judges? Judges controlling judges works no better than it does when other groups "control" their own members.
Meanwhile, the upper echelons of the police departments combining with Liberal politicians seem bent on making it increasingly difficult for law abiding firearms owners rather than focusing on where they should - the criminal element that are using/possessing firearms to the detriment of society at large.
|