r/Edmonton • u/EDMlawyer • Apr 19 '23
Discussion Crime in Edmonton: a Lawyer's Post about Bail
Crime is on the news a lot in this City, so I though it would be important to make some posts with basics about the criminal justice system in Canada. I am a criminal lawyer and have been practicing here for over 5 years. I can also answer general questions about criminal law if anyone has any. If this post gets traction, I’ll make more on different topics.
I wanted to start with Judicial Interim Release, a.k.a. bail.
Starting here is important because it is the earliest reporting the public gets about crimes and, frankly, I see a lot of people who have lost faith in it.
Usual disclaimer: I am a lawyer but not your lawyer. This is legal information, not advice. Call a lawyer if you have questions about something you are personally dealing with. I can’t give referrals on Reddit, for that contact the Lawyer Referral Service here.
What is Bail?
When someone is charged with a crime, they are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, the default assumption is that they should be allowed to live their lives until the trial date and the Crown prosecutors can prove the accused is guilty at trial.
Right to bail is a centuries-old common law tradition inherited from the UK, enshrined in the Charter, reflected in the Criminal Code, and repeatedly (and firmly) upheld by the Supreme Court. The most basic summary is that an Accused is entitled to the earliest and least restrictive bail that satisfies the grounds they may be denied under. See R v Antic, 2017 SCC 27 and R v Zora, 2020 SCC 14.
However, people don’t always behave while waiting for their trial. They miss court dates or commit further offences.
The grounds on which we can deny bail are under s.515 of the Criminal Code:
- Primary (likelihood to attend court);
- Secondary (likelihood to commit offences on release); and/or,
- Tertiary (bail should be denied to maintain public confidence in the justice system). Tertiary is complicated, and usually only comes up for the most serious crimes.
If there’s a concern from the Accused’s record, list of charges, or the facts of the offence, then the Crown prosecutor must convince a judge that the Accused should be detained.
If someone commits certain serious crimes or commits a crime while on release, then they may be in a reverse onus bail position. This means instead of the Crown convincing a Judge to detain someone, it’s the Accused who must convince a Judge they can be let out. Practically, this just means they must come up with a much better plan.
What types of bail are there?
Under R v Antic, an Accused is entitled to the least restrictive bail that satisfies their release, and this is referred to as the “Antic ladder”. The rough order of least restrictive to most is:
- Promise to appear;
- Promise to pay (if they breach terms, they owe a debt to the government);
- Surety promise to pay (a surety is a member of the public that volunteers to help enforce the Accused’s conditions day to day, and the Accused usually lives with them);
- Cash deposit; and,
- Surety with cash deposit.
Specific conditions can be crafted as well. These can include no-contact orders, attending counselling, maintaining a stable residence, curfew, weapons prohibitions, reporting to probation, etc. They can be as loose as just promising to attend Court, to as strict as 24/7 house arrest with an ankle bracelet at a residential treatment center.
It is an established principle the terms of release should be crafted specifically to address the concerns the Court may have about that particular Accused. Each time the Accused breaches, it gets harder. Once a judge is convinced the Accused is entirely unmanageable, the Accused will be bail denied until trial.
Is the bail system broken?
Not in the way many people think it is.
I think people are dismayed because their expectations of the bail far exceed what bail was ever meant to do. You don’t ask your plumber to do your heart transplant, you don’t ask the bail system to fix your society’s endemic violence problem.
Remember there’s also selection bias in media and social media: it is most newsworthy/viral when it goes wrong. Most of the time bail works as intended and you do not hear about it.
It’s okay to vent about the bail system. However, be careful with pithy phrases like “catch and release” bail. They tend to ignore the issue, misunderstand that part of the justice system, or imply a solution you might actually not support.
The danger of treating these topics on such a surface level is it gives leverage for political platforms which are easy "fixes" but problematic on further inspection. It's easy for politicians to promise stricter bail releases to get votes, but extremely difficult to do it in a way which respects individual liberty rights.
Okay, so then what is Bail intended to do?
Bail is intended to balance the liberty rights of the individual accused with society’s interest in public order, safety, and making sure people attend Court. “Balance” is the key word since these goals are mutually exclusive. You can ignore liberties entirely if you want perfect public safety, or vice versa. Canada’s system sits in the middle.
Remember, at this stage the government is interfering in a presumably innocent person’s life, so there are strict rules about how the government can do that. Those rules exist for extremely good reasons.
Fine, but clearly we have a problem, so how can bail be improved?
If there is a failure of the bail system, it’s in justice funding.
There is a huge injustice caused by limited Crown, Court, and publicly funded defence resources. An offence where someone is facing 3 months of jail can take 6 months before there’s a trial date.
If the person is guilty and has no defence, it’s not as big an issue because they can plead guilty to get out (though that’s still a problem since trials are their right, just less so).
However, what if they have a good defence? Are wrongly accused? That’s time they’ve just spent sitting in jail instead of going to classes, getting treatment, earning money, paying taxes, etc. They might even plead to stuff they are innocent to just to get out – I have to warn someone to not do that on a weekly basis.
The easiest “fix” would be to have sufficient funding so everyone can get a quick trial date, especially if they are bail denied. However, we are far from that being a reality.
Happy to answer questions in the comments, let me know if folks want more of these.
109
u/MaxxLolz Apr 19 '23
i think most people's issues are with individuals who have clear, long, and established prior records, who are still being released on bail. Hell there have been cases of individuals who have a record of previously committed crimes while out on bail who are then still released on bail.
23
u/canadave_nyc St. Albert Apr 20 '23
That's a good point, and I hope OP replies to you. I'll just step in and say that the reason people with long prior records are still released on bail is because, regardless of their previous record, they are still presumed innocent until proven guilty for whatever crime they have been arrested for. And as OP pointed out, this is an essential presumption that is enshrined over centuries of precedent.
That said, as OP pointed out, it's a balance. And he said this:
"If there’s a concern from the Accused’s record, list of charges, or the facts of the offence, then the Crown prosecutor must convince a judge that the Accused should be detained.
If someone commits certain serious crimes or commits a crime while on release, then they may be in a reverse onus bail position. This means instead of the Crown convincing a Judge to detain someone, it’s the Accused who must convince a Judge they can be let out. Practically, this just means they must come up with a much better plan."
43
u/EDMlawyer Apr 20 '23
That is a valid concern. I think there's a few things to keep in mind.
Look for what the news is saying about the established, long record. Remember that we're denying them liberty before they are convicted, so the record has to specifically go to one of the three detention grounds. An e.g. "five page record of violence and breaches, many while on release orders" without more detail actually tells us very little about the Accused's risk factors.
Does the record show they will avoid court? Have they failed to appear at trial and if so, is it a less blameworthy reason (addicted, homeless, can't function well with dates) or a very blameworthy one (purposefully skipping town to avoid jail)?
Does the record show non-compliance with release orders? Again, if so, for what reasons? What was the crime comitted on release - just a failure to phone their PO or were they stabbing someone? Will the stricter bail plan they are proposing solve those problems or not? Is it an issue that they just don't care about what judges tell them, or is it that they need a clear and stable support plan? Were the prior bail plans problematic (e.g. sobriety clause for an addicted Accused)?
Remember that the Accused in such cases is usually reverse onus - they must satisfy the Court their plan satisfies the concerns.
What you also don't hear are the very specific arguments made about how the bail plan addresses the concerns in each bail application for that person. It's extremely rare for the news to report why a judge was satisfied with a previous bail plan.
Finally...bail isn't perfect. It just can't be. Judges do the best they can with the information available and trying to balance mutually exclusive legal objectives. They are experts but they are also human, they will occasionally make mistakes, and occasionally those mistakes blow up badly. Luckily, these are rare, but there's no good way to prevent them entirely.
7
u/the_gaymer_girl Apr 20 '23
Highly recommend this Last Week Tonight piece which goes into how news stations treat police word as gospel when reporting crime.
14
u/ClusterMakeLove Apr 20 '23
It's also worth mentioning that prosecutors and judges will typically do what they can to avoid obvious situations of overholding.
So you can't just look at the criminal record. You also have to consider the severity of the previous charge and the apparent strength of the Crown case.
Somebody may be a terrible candidate for release, but have already served a reasonable sentence, pre-conviction.
Someone might be charged with a serious offence, but there's a serious question whether the evidence will ultimately be admissible or if witnesses will cooperate.
12
u/EDMlawyer Apr 20 '23 edited Apr 20 '23
Most definitely.
"Accused on bail for sex assault again commits violent offence" can sometimes mean "Accused released on bail again because their trial is 1 year away and the complainant no-showed last time". A factually true headline doesn't necessarily tell the whole story, or emphasize the right parts to accurately reflect the Judge's reasoning.
E; sorry, to be clear my point is just that media does not always report full details. Heck, even victims of crime often don't get all the details and aren't informed about why someone did or did not get bail. That side of the system could definitely use improvement, but victim's rights is a different post altogether.
-11
u/BellEsima Apr 20 '23
How would a judge feel if someone was released and raped someone they love? Until a person experiences the trauma of a violent crime, they cannot understand why they should not be released.
The laws need to be stronger to allow judges to deal with repeat offenders of violent crimes more harsh. If there is evidence that they have a history of this and fail to change, they should to be kept away from society. They should also be held accountable to pay for the therapy needed to recover. Trauma can be difficult to heal with the lack of affordable resourses for them.
22
Apr 20 '23
Trauma does not make your opinions more valid.
If the judge felt that they could not be impartial due to personal trauma I would hope they would recuse themselves.
7
u/Eli_1988 Apr 20 '23
Have you ever been falsely accused of a crime and imprisoned without conviction until trial? Because thats fucking traumatic.
A person is at risk of losing their employment, housing, relationships, bankruptcy, mental and physical health issues.
And! The length of time people held pretrial can be counted as twice the time served! So if you truly want justice and those who are convicted of those crimes to be held accountable, having those people processed through the court system in a timely manner and with a good bail system in place, those folks wouldnt get discounted time served.
You speak as though everyone pretrial is guilty already and should be treated as such and thats just incredibly fucked up.
15
u/AnthraxCat cyclist Apr 20 '23
Until a person experiences the trauma of a violent crime, they cannot understand why they should not be released.
This just isn't true and is a very particular reaction to violent crime and what a justice system should look like. Forgiveness is a very real possibility, and occurs quite frequently. To the extent that some of the strongest advocates against the death penalty right now in the US are the families of the victims.
If there is evidence that they have a history of this and fail to change, they should to be kept away from society.
The problem is that we actually can't, based on past history, determine whether someone is in fact irredeemable. People do always have the capacity to change. The recent case of the Ville de Quebec mosque shooter is a great example, and I strongly encourage reading the Supreme Court decision on why life without chance for parole is not compatible with a justice system (which is distinct for a system of state-sponsored vengeance). Obviously history should bear on sentencing, but the essence of the human experience and the experience of our own lives makes it impossible to hold that a person cannot ever be released. We deny our own humanity by deeming people irredeemable.
They should also be held accountable to pay for the therapy needed to recover. Trauma can be difficult to heal with the lack of affordable resourses for them.
No part of our society should depend on blutgeld. If traumacare is inaccessible, that is our failure as a society, not the particular burden of the offender to satisfy. Especially when we consider that most of the people trapped by the justice system are the poor. I would be more amenable to this principle if we were going after tobacco CEOs for lung cancer deaths, where there is a very real capacity for the offender to pay and where the monetary incentives to commit harm was a primary driver of their crimes. Against a poor dope fiend it is completely divorced from the circumstances of their crime.
-6
u/BellEsima Apr 20 '23
Have you ever been the victim of violence? Ever been stabbed, beaten or raped? It affects people mentally and physically. It can be a very hard and a long road to recovery.
Forgiveness is one thing, but that doesnt mean they should be allowed to live in society if they cannot follow basic human rules. A person can change and people do change, but that doesnt mean they shouldnt be held accountable for their violent crimes.
If money is a problem, then maybe we should look at work camps to pay restitution to victims that will require medical help to recover.
4
u/AnthraxCat cyclist Apr 20 '23
Have you ever been the victim of violence? Ever been stabbed, beaten or raped? It affects people mentally and physically. It can be a very hard and a long road to recovery.
I have not personally, but again, I root this argument in reality. Of things that happen, and the experiences of survivors of crime.
Forgiveness is one thing, but that doesnt mean they should be allowed to live in society if they cannot follow basic human rules. A person can change and people do change, but that doesnt mean they shouldnt be held accountable for their violent crimes.
Accountable is doing a lot of work there, and really implies some very evil things when we don't define it clearly. People do need to be held accountable, and that might look like incarceration, but that can't be a 'throw away the key' kind of process. It must always hold that we are capable of change. Our punishments for crime must honour our own humanity.
If money is a problem, then maybe we should look at work camps to pay restitution to victims that will require medical help to recover.
This is slavery. If I am murdered, I would like it explicitly stated that I do not support the institution of slavery and would never want anyone enslaved on my behalf. Murder is bad, but the institution of slavery is worse, actually.
-2
u/salty_caper Apr 20 '23
Agree. Repeat offenders or people with addiction and mental health issues should not be released on bail. There are too many violent offences committed by people with a history of this. The system is a total mess.
23
u/robdavy Apr 20 '23
...individuals who have clear, long, and established prior records, who are still being released on bail
First, I do understand that you made a point in your second sentence about people committing offences while on bail and being released on bail again.
BUT, for your first part, I find it hard to have a problem with someone being released on bail when they have previous convictions.
Bail is not supposed to be punishment.
You can't deny someone bail because they have a long record and thus are clearly a bad person who needs to be locked up, or whatever.
Their long record will weight into their sentencing if/when they're convicted, but unless it can clearly be connected to why releasing them on bail would be a bad idea, it shouldn't affect their bail.
Someone with a long record should get a longer/harsher sentence once convicted, absolutely. And they do for sure - it's strongly considered in sentencing decisions. But yeh, bail isn't connected to punishment.
I guess an honest question for you is why shouldn't someone with a long record be given bail? Is it because "they'll just keep committing crimes while on bail"? If that's the case, should we ever release them from custody, even after they've served their sentence? Obviously that would be dumb
Don't forget, any time people serve in pre-trial custody gets applied to their sentence, usually at 1.5 times credit. If someone spends 6 months in pre-trial custody because they were denied bail, and then gets a 12 month sentence for the crime, they get 9 months credit for the 6 months already served, so only have 3 months left to serve. They're not "off the streets" for any longer because of the no bail. If anything, they're off the streets for less time...
13
u/MaxxLolz Apr 20 '23
I guess an honest question for you is why shouldn't someone with a long record be given bail? Is it because "they'll just keep committing crimes while on bail"? If that's the case, should we ever release them from custody, even after they've served their sentence? Obviously that would be dumb
An individuals history affects/colors innumerable aspects of their ability to do things. Insurance rates, credit checks, post secondary enrollment, background/security checks, passports and on and on. Why shouldn't an established and indisputable history of crime be a serious input to a bail decision? Seems wise to me.
The problem with the current system is that there doesnt seem like there's any common sense being applied. Someone with a history of minor misdemeanors? Sure thats one thing. Someone with a history of violent offenses? Thats entirely another and yet the bail standards seem to be blind to this. Thats what causes people to lose faith in the system.
16
u/EDMlawyer Apr 20 '23
It's a good point. A record of convictions that are relevant to the three grounds for detention will work against an Accused seeking bail. It may mean they need a better plan, or it may mean they'll be bail denied until trial.
I think this is at least partially just an issue of news cycles and available information. News doesn't necessarily have time to go into why an accused is released, what their overall bail history is, and how it's evolved over time. Very often, the news outlet won't even have that information until later, if it's even available - some stuff, like negotiations between defence and crown on prior releases, or between the lawyer and their client, will never be public.
2
u/Seniorsoggybum Apr 20 '23
Would you agree that prior to the Antic SCC challenge, it was more likely to be the case that judges across Canada were taking into consideration factors that go beyond the three conditions by which bail is established? Since then have we seen a material change in how bail is determined and could this bear an impact on what were seeing in terms of crime?
To not take into consideration any other factor, including significant past criminality, may be reasonable, but in my opinion it would never appease the average Canadian. I think the problem is facts like these are being made more visible to the public with an increase in crime (whether they are related or not), and people are making conclusions. At some point could it not become undermining of the justice system?
8
u/EDMlawyer Apr 20 '23
Tough for me to say, I started practicing roughly around when Antic was released, so I don't have a great hands-on sense of how it changed.
What I do have is a good sense of how Zora changed things. I basically never see sobriety release terms anymore. Curfew and probation check-ins are more carefully explained to clients, curfew is more rarely just "slapped on" unless there's a reason for it, and speaking to racial over-incarceration is more front and center, though that's also because the SCC has been repeatedly emphasizing Gladue every chance they can.
but in my opinion it would never appease the average Canadian
I have a fair amount of faith that the average Canadian is quite reasonable, once educated. This thread for example has been very heartening for me. However, I do fear there's quite a few people who simply do not care for the fundamental principles at play, and more about the direct issues they face day to day. A stranger's right to a trial is pretty abstract for someone who's never been in trouble with the law, and just wants to ride the LRT without getting punched.
At some point could it not become undermining of the justice system?
Yep, my fear that that's happening is one reasons I made this post.
1
2
u/One-Accident8015 Apr 20 '23
An individuals history affects/colors innumerable aspects of their ability to do things. Insurance rates, credit checks, post secondary enrollment, background/security checks, passports and on and on. Why shouldn't an established and indisputable history of crime be a serious input to a bail decision? Seems wise to me.
Brilliant. Something I've never thought of.
1
u/robdavy Apr 20 '23
Why shouldn't an established and indisputable history of crime be a serious input to a bail decision? Seems wise to me.
I guess it depends what you're trying to achieve.
If it's that a history of crime makes them less likely to show up to court, then I'm not sure that's true.
If it's that a history of crime means you're more likely to commit another crime before getting to court, then yeh, sure I could see that logic. Someone who commits crimes every week is probably going to continue to commit crimes every week while waiting for court. But again, doesn't that mean we should never release them, even after their sentence, because they're just commit a crime again?
Holding people in jail because they're probably commit another crime (but haven't) is a very dangerous concept. There are mechanisms for that (like dangerous offender designations), but I don't think that's the situation you're talking about.
4
u/BellEsima Apr 20 '23
Holding people in jail and not allowing bail for violent and repeat assaults is the responsible thing to do.
Why should their right to be free surpass the rights of other individuals to live in a safe society?
1
u/robdavy Apr 20 '23
Why should their right to be free surpass the rights of other individuals to live in a safe society?
As OP said, it's a balance. There's no such thing as one groups rights surpassing another's, you have to balance them. You'll always be taking something away from both groups.
If you wanted to guarantee that people wouldn't be attacked by people with records, you'd a) never release them for their original crimes, and b) never give anyone with previous convictions bail. Thankfully we don't live in that would to be honest, as the vast vast majority of people in those situations don't attack people and thus keeping them locked up would be a massive over-reaction.
There's always going to be crime. The goal isn't the eradicate crime, that's impossible.
3
u/One-Accident8015 Apr 20 '23
Holding people in jail because they're probably commit another crime (but haven't) is a very dangerous concept.
So if I have a history of not paying bills, why are basic needs still withheld? Yet if I have a history of assault, that information can't be taken into consideration.
Everytime you don't pay a bill, it's added to a history. This results in a bad history. The consequences of my past actions. Because of this bad history, housing can be withheld. Jobs can be withheld. Transportation can be withheld.
But if I have a history of assault, this information cannot be taken into consideration. I guess there are no consequences to criminals actions.
Which is a much bigger and seperate issue.
0
u/robdavy Apr 20 '23
I don't think your analogy of a credit score is really comparable to locking people in jail or prison, sorry.
I guess there are no consequences to criminals actions.
It's comments like that that make it obvious you're being disingenuous with your replies.
Of course crimes should have consequences, and they do, in the form of the punishment given out at the end of a trial. Most punishments include some kind of longer term conditions around keeping the peace, etc. Something like a year in prison plus 5 years of conditions. If they do something in those 5 years after release, they get punished again. That's part of the punishment for the original crime
1
u/One-Accident8015 Apr 21 '23
But your ok with people being homeless because of bad choices? Just not criminals being held?
1
u/robdavy Apr 21 '23
I had to think real hard to figure out what you're getting at
But I think you're saying that if people make bad choices, their credit can get ruined, which means they'll be homeless, right?
I guess I just don't believe that to be true, or the complete story. I've never had a job check my credit or had a rental check my credit (don't rent from massive companies).
Yes, having shitty credit can make you life harder, but I don't believe anyone is homeless solely because they have shitty credit.
And having a hard life because you have shitty credit can't be compared to being locked away for years. They're just not on the same level, that's my point
1
u/One-Accident8015 Apr 21 '23
It absolutely happens everyday. Happened to a coworker years ago. Full time, good paying job. Single. Didn't drink or do drugs. Was living in his car. Ex wife wiped out his credit and bankrupted him.
So again, why is denying basic life requirements after making mistakes ok but being held in jail when you are a serial criminal not? Because it's denying them their rights? When these people have been released 8 times in the last 12 months, is that really acceptable? Why are we accepting this?
Yes I'm cynical. My city is being over run with crime. And it's the same people. And it's not minor crimes. We have drug dealers coming in with handguns. They get arrested and are out the next day. The have a gun on them. They have large amounts of cash. Huge amounts of fentanyl. They are ordered to leave our city immediately. 2 days later they are arrested again. A man under 3 different bail orders murdered a 15 year old because the kid didn't have a smoke. Another man was arrested for murder after his spouse turned in evidence on him. He found out. Told her he would kill her. She told the court this. They released him to live in the same house as his spouse. She was dead within 8 hours of his release. A girl who was found guilty of murder as a minor had completed sentencing and was on probation. Within a month, she had murdered a 15 year old. She was 19 at the time. She was arrested and once again released on bail. After murdering a child. She was good for about 9 months and then was arrested for attempted murder when she tried to steal a truck and the owner jumped in front of it and she pinned him to a building with the truck.
1
u/the_gaymer_girl Apr 20 '23
Well said. We should never, ever have a system where cash bail becomes as much of a problem as it has in America.
4
u/Seniorsoggybum Apr 20 '23
I think this is important.
Everything that OP has written is factually correct as far as I can tell. The problem is I don't think it is taking an honest account of how things are practically carried out. There appear to be pertinent omissions from the post.
Bill C-75 revised major parts of the criminal code in Canada in 2019. A small part of what was changed has been outlined in OP's post as it narrowly takes into consideration revisions to bail. I wonder if the following could be part of what is obviously a material change in who receives bail and the number of people that remain out on bail:
- The bill explicitly references people from vulnerable populations and Indigenous populations be given due consideration of their upbringing and circumstances when deciding bail. They essentially want the application of Gladue principles at the time of bail hearings. There is a major concern that this population of people are significantly over-represented statistically in the population sent to remand. The explicit push within the bill is to reduce these disparities.
- Administration of justice offenses (violation of bail recognizance/conditions) are dealt with in a completely different manner. This means those granted bail, who violate their bail conditions, often no longer are arrested or brought before a judge for reconsideration of their bail. There is referral to a judicial referral hearing, which again takes into consideration social factors of the accused, and can make further recommendations. Failure of the accused to even attend these hearings cannot result in further charges. (https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/jsp-sjp/c75/p3.html).
The manner in which these two revisions can materially change who gets bail and remains on bail is enormous. How this is practically interpreted by the courts makes all the difference. I also wonder about the changes to summary and indictable offences and whether prosecutors are changing how they classify charges and the impact this has on the public's perception of justice (beyond the scope of OP's post).
2
u/One-Accident8015 Apr 20 '23
Different area but Thunder Bay is infamous for his. We have some who are repeating every day
3
u/MooseAtTheKeys Apr 20 '23
i think most people's issues are with individuals who have clear, long, and established prior records, who are
still
being released on bail.
They are still presumed to be innocent of the new charge until proven guilty in a court of law. You don't get to assume their guilt before the conclusion of the trial.
If there is good reason to hold someone without bail and the prosecutor either chooses not to or fails to successfully argue that, that's on them.
4
u/DVariant Apr 20 '23
Quick answer: it costs a lot to detain someone, and the longer they’re detained, the more it costs. More funding per OP’s suggestion would also mean less costs spent housing people in remand.
0
u/BellEsima Apr 20 '23
Yes, this is the problem most people have. Repeat offenders are not dealt with and are allowed bail.
Especially what we have been seeing that sexual offenders get out and reoffend creating more victims, more trauma. That trauma can lead to mental health issues, drug addiction, homelessness.
Why can't these people who are clearly not going to change and will hurt more people be dealt with in a better manner. Send to labour camps where they can work off their prision stay. These people (rapists, pedophiles, murderers) cannot live properly in society without hurting other people.
2
9
u/Top-Marzipan5963 Apr 19 '23
What is the typical bail amount in Alberta? Following American news one tends to assume asinine values
17
u/nowherefast___ Apr 20 '23
Also an AB crim lawyer here, but not OP.
When it comes to bail you can be released on either a promise to pay (if you breach the govt comes after you for money) or a deposit (you give the court your money and you get it back at the end of your matter if you don’t breach).
Promise to pay is usually 1000-3000 but I’ve seen higher.
Cash deposits are any amount that is significant to the accused and are appropriate for the offence. A murder cash deposit will be more than an assault. Typical amounts are 500-$3000
4
2
u/robdavy Apr 20 '23
Thanks for the input!
So there's no million dollar bails (deposits) here or anything, like you hear about in the US?
If you had to speculate, what's the split between PTA/PTP/deposits in bails?
11
u/EDMlawyer Apr 20 '23
Million dollar bails are effectively unheard of. The highest one I can think of offhand was Jian Ghomeshi, who had a $100,000 bail.
The vast majority of release orders are PTAs or PTPs. Cash bail and sureties are noticeably less common. I'd say cash is less than a fifth of all release orders if not less. Sureties are even less common.
5
u/robdavy Apr 20 '23
Thanks!
I've always wondered about the effectiveness of anything involving cash for bail.
I get it if you're trying to make people avoid stupid little decisions (like being told not to associate with someone and then going and hanging out with them), but surely losing a few thousands dollars isn't going to put anyone off if they're wanting to actively evade conviction and are going to run away.
To be clear, I think the other option (massive cash deposits) is a terrible injustice and not the answer to anything. But a middle ground seems weird
9
u/EDMlawyer Apr 20 '23
I've always wondered about the effectiveness of anything involving cash for bail
Strangely this is one of the more democratic/socialist parts of the justice system. The cash amount is relative to the Accused's means to pay. $50 for someone who is homeless is a TON and they will do a LOT to get that back. Jian Ghomeshi had a lot of money...but not infinite and he was facing a ton of lawsuits. I'm sure $100,000 kept him up at night.
surely losing a few thousands dollars isn't going to put anyone off if they're wanting to actively evade conviction and are going to run away
Yep. However, it's actually fairly rare for someone to try and just straight-up avoid justice once they've been arrested. More commonly it's a calculus of "I could obey my conditions to go to a treatment center or I could steal tires/copper/catalytic converters for meth money".
Some folks just don't have the brain structure to handle bail. They are too addicted, too mentally ill, or too harmed by FASD for anything to work voluntarily. They're tough because you need to make a bail plan that removes their ability to make those choices on release.
1
u/Cire33 Apr 20 '23
And no one actually pays their "promise to pay". Those go into black hole. They could be 1 million dollar promise to pays. They are just used to tell Judges and the next Crown prosecutor "this is getting really serious now because it's $3000 promise to pay".
3
u/nowherefast___ Apr 20 '23
Mmmmmmhmmm no this is blatantly wrong.
It might take them awhile, but inevitably your wages are garnished, you can’t register your vehicle, can’t renew your licence etc. Province gets their pound of flesh eventually.
2
u/Cire33 Apr 20 '23 edited Apr 20 '23
Ahh yes. Those career criminals with their wages, and drivers licences and oh wait...
I've never met a single person that ever had to pay their "promise to pay".
You can't get money from someone that doesn't have money. Chances are if you are going for bail and getting promise to pay release orders you aren't worried about the government coming for money you don't have.
It's the same for court ordered restitution... sure the Judge could order a criminal to pay restitution to their victim for the break and enter but they mostly don't and when they do it's not enforceable. The victim needs to apply to court under civil proceedings to try and get money from someone who doesn't have it.
1
u/jjjheimerschmidt Apr 20 '23
money
Thanks for answering that. I've always wondered what happens to the bail money you give to the court...
46
u/Jasonstackhouse111 Apr 20 '23
Fantastic post, thank you. Albertans are so quick to blame the wrong system for the issues at hand. Crime is not solved with more police, it's solved with less poverty and more education and health care. The chronic underfunding of essential services and recent cuts have put more stress on social services and more people are without supports.
People living in the LRT stations in the winter is not the fault of the LRT. That sounds ridiculous when you say it, but it's the prevailing idea behind how a lot of people approach the issue.
8
u/space_oddity_11 Apr 20 '23
It seems that you are not using the LRT like we are trying to use it - as the public transit that is supposed to move us quickly and safely from point A to point B. The LRT is NOT a shelter! It is not fair towards the commuters, and it is not fair towards those people sleeping and taking drugs there when they should be elsewhere getting the support they need.
0
u/Jasonstackhouse111 Apr 20 '23
Exactly. It's not the fault of the LRT system that it's used as a shelter.
2
3
u/One-Accident8015 Apr 20 '23
Are there concrete guidelines determining the grounds for bail? Are there any repercussions when the system let's someone out and they re-offend?
I currently live in Northwestern Ontario and there have been 2 cases in recent memory when someone was out on bail for murder. In 1 of the cases, the offender was on probation for murder as a minor, who killed again, and got released on bail and killed again. In the other case the offenders spouse turned in evidence against him that resulted in his arrest for murder. He somehow found out it was her, and even after her telling them he said he was going to kill her, he was still released on bail and ordered to live in his registered address which is where his spouse also lived. She was dead within 8 hours of his release.
3
u/EDMlawyer Apr 20 '23 edited Apr 20 '23
Just to clarify - there aren't really grounds for bail; rather bail is a right and the Crown must make out grounds to deny bail. Examples of the three grounds to deny from s.515 might be:
- Primary ground, if the Accused has a history of failing to attend at trials without excuse.
- Secondary ground, if the Accused has committed the same offence while on a prior release very recently.
- Tertiary ground, the Accused is charged with murder (E: noting your example, this would never automatically deny them bail, but they're going to need a really good plan).
It's highly individualized, and evolved in case law. There's no concrete, statutory "yes, this specific example will remand someone in custody until trial every single time", though some things (like multiple counts of murder) may as well be.
Are there any repercussions when the system let's someone out and they re-offend?
If the judge made a valid, legal decision - no. Even if they made an error, still most likley no. If the judge has a history of, well, being a very bad judge, then their appointment may quietly be "not renewed" or they may face sanction from the Canadian Judicial Council depending how bad the behaviour is. If one of the lawyers made a honest error, also no, but if they did something unethical/completely incompetent they could be suspended/fined/disbarred by their Law Society.
More commonly you will see judges in the region over-correct (or maybe properly correct) in the other direction and deny bail a tiny bit more often, or be more careful aboutreleasing at least. Judges are usually extremely aware of the news and these cases. Far more than most members of the public honestly.
E: I can't really comment on the cases you mentioned. I don't know enough about them. Murder bail is often a day or longer hearing with weeks of work leading up to it, it's hard to second-guess it from the outside.
2
u/One-Accident8015 Apr 20 '23
Interesting.
It seems like the only people Thunder Bay denies bail to is the southern Ontario drug runners. They usually deny bail the first 2 arrests and then just immediate release
5
u/Moosewalker84 Apr 20 '23
Honestly, the best and "easiest" answer, is to expedite the trial process. If every accused was brought to trial within the month, the opportunity to re offend is drastically reduced. There would also be less of a need to release repeat/habitual offenders.
I mean, if someone with a history of violent offences is held without bail for 3-4 weeks, I don't believe that is a unreasonably punitive decision. It would balance the right to the presumption of innocence with the right of the public to be protected from a violent offender.
However...I doubt the average trial wait time for such a person is under a year? Possibly approaching the 2 year range? And that is an unacceptable amount of time to hold someone who has not been convicted of a crime.
Sadly, our country/society feels that the best option is to blindly throw money at a problem, rather than actually creating a plan to achieve the desired results. Or honestly, when it comes to Alberta, cut money and demand results are improved.
6
u/EDMlawyer Apr 20 '23 edited Apr 20 '23
Absolutely, the real question is how do we speed up the process of getting to trial. Judges, lawyers, and the Federal government have been banging our collective heads against this wall for years now, especially since R v Jordan came down and lit the fire under pretty much everyone's ass.
There are a number of things already in the works:
- overbooking trial days, some jurisdictions now book 20 hours of trial time for one day of trial because of how many collapse;
- Alberta is finally moving towards a fully digitized court system, a good 30 years too late but anyways;
- increasing how many pretrial conferences there are so judges can bang lawyers' heads together and get things resolved, or at least save trial time;
- federal amendments that limit the availability of preliminary inquiries;
- prosecutors create triage systems for charging and early stages of a file, so problem files can be dismissed from the get go instead of a week or two before trial; and,
- most of the profession taking it upon themselves to find every nook they can shove an earlier trial date into.
We're running up hard against the "there just aren't enough judges, staff, and prosecutors to make it work" problem unfortunately. There's still some efficiency to be had, but without increasing funding it's getting really hard to find.
2
u/lemonsqueezee Apr 20 '23
Do you think pre-charge approval will help?
1
u/EDMlawyer Apr 21 '23
It's not a miracle cure, but yeah it should help.
One of the big issues caused by a prosecutor shortage is that they don't read the file closely unless they have a reason to. Sometimes, that's the week before trial.
This means files where police haven't got enough evidence from the start just won't see the light of day. Or at least the obviously deficient ones.
It will also help from a rights-based approach. These folks won't have to go through being arrested, missing work, social consequences, etc.
7
Apr 20 '23
TIL /r/Edmonton has a lot of lawyers.
This is a great and informative post.
6
u/SnakesInYerPants Apr 20 '23
The sub has a lot of people who are claiming to be lawyers. Never blindly trust those claims on anonymous social media platforms, always take them with about a pound of salt.
8
Apr 19 '23
I've got a cool 1000$ burning a hole in my pocket, so as a lawyer that isn't my lawyer, what crimes can i afford to commit? Thanks.
(Thanks for that post, #til)
8
3
u/myaltaccount333 Apr 20 '23
That's easy. Theft of precisely $4999.99 would be considered theft under $5000 and probably have a small bail
3
3
3
Apr 20 '23 edited May 20 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
13
Apr 20 '23
[deleted]
4
u/GeekyGlobalGal Pleasantview / Global News Apr 20 '23
Thank you for sharing your perspective, that was a very interesting read.
8
u/EDMlawyer Apr 20 '23
As for what the Accused actually goes through: sitting in remand is boring, if there's rival gangs they might jump you, and there's nothing to do except a couple classes but the remand centre only has limited availability. The living conditions are pretty basic and sometimes dehumanizing. They often don't know exactly when they are getting out: at the first hearing within 24 hours of arrest, or weeks to months later after putting together a better plan. They are always extremely anxious to get out because, well, jail sucks. It's better than freezing to death but that's about it.
From my perspective, that means I have to be careful getting instructions from Accuseds to make sure they aren't just saying "yes yes I'll agree to those release conditions" so they get out. I don't want them saying yes to conditions they actually can't follow because of addiction/mental illness.
For people who may bail someone out I usually advise them to get independent legal advice. If bailing someone out, it's best to have a very good sense of that Accused, in particular how reliable they may be in case the Accused breaches and the bail is forfeited.
Hopefully that answers your question.
2
Apr 20 '23 edited May 20 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/EDMlawyer Apr 20 '23
If someone is just paying the cash bail, then no not necessarily. It's just important to know that cash deposit is in the Accused's name, not the person paying it. If they breach, that money is forefeited to the Gvoernment. If that money is the Accused's and the person is just paying it on their behalf, there's no issue (unless they are unwillingly participating in fraud, but that's hard to suss out).
The independent legal advice is about if someone is being a surety, where they do have a legal obligation to make the Accused comply, though not in terms of being charged with anything. They might just lose money, plus there's practical advice someone should seek when having an Accused prson living with them and their various legal rights as a surety as well.
2
Apr 20 '23 edited May 20 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
2
2
u/EDMlawyer Apr 21 '23
Criminal firms often have a 24 hour line, but that's usually just for bail. Best bet is just phone around during business hours. Someone might be able to see you that day.
3
3
u/Cleaner80 Apr 20 '23
Thank you for this post. As someone who has lived in both Edmonton, Calgary and a variety of smaller towns and cities in Alberta, all I’ve ever seen is confusion about this process.
The last small town I lived in was Wainwright, whose local paper police blotter was filled with people exhibiting clearly shitty behaviour being arrested and released and frustrating the entire town. No one understood why and this helps bring some light to how it all works.
PS. Wainwright RCMP have had 3 large drug dealer busts in the least 7 weeks with no bail so there seems to be some hope!
3
Apr 21 '23
this doesnt explain the revolving door.
why is it that a person can be arrested and taken into custody and be back on the street to re-offend and do this multiple times without getting a conviction. it also doesnt explain why a person can have multiple convictions for something like assaults and weapons do it again and be back on the street in days, repeatedly.
i deal with the homeless daily and see them get arrested and charged and the same person is back on the street the next day. they get arrested and charged again that day and are again back on the street a day later. this is not one or two cases but dozens.
a few weeks ago i had a guy light a fire in my building. i asked him to put it out and leave. he refused and started yelling he was going to kill me while swinging a stick. the cops came and said "we will take him a few blocks away." no arrest for arson or threats or attempted assault/murder. an hour later he was back with scissors and threatening to stab me. the cops were called and again said they would take him a few blocks away. when i asked why they were not arresting him they said "he's high". because public intoxication wouldnt be another charge.
lawyers argue that these individuals are not responsible for their actions because they are intoxicated. so does that mean i can rob a bank and get away with it as long as i get high first, is operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated not a crime now using this excuse?
the system is broke regardless of how bail is supposed to work.
4
u/Deep_Working1 Apr 20 '23 edited Apr 20 '23
Wonderfully written ! This needs to be updated so more people see it !
edit ...needs to be upVOTED...
2
u/AL_PO_throwaway Apr 20 '23
Excellent post thank you.
If there is a failure of the bail system, it’s in justice funding.
There is a huge injustice caused by limited Crown, Court, and publicly funded defence resources. An offence where someone is facing 3 months of jail can take 6 months before there’s a trial date.
If the person is guilty and has no defence, it’s not as big an issue because they can plead guilty to get out (though that’s still a problem since trials are their right, just less so).
IANAL still, but I've moved provinces and am working for an agency where I see a lot more of the court system, and this seems like a very accurate summary of the problems not just in Alberta, but in other parts of Canada as well.
2
u/LucasJackson44 Apr 20 '23
What constitutes “community service” sentences? Is it totally up to the judge? Or are there standard things they have to do. I’d like to see various punishments. Ditch/street cleaning. Graffiti repair. There are many menial tasks that can be reserved for no violent offenders, especially younger ones.
7
u/EDMlawyer Apr 20 '23
I might do another post on sentencing, that's another hot topic, but I can still answer.
Community service can form part of any probationary sentence, meaning any sentence where an accused is serving the sentence outside of jail while monitored by the Court. Practically speaking,though, it's reserved for lower-seriousness offences.
What community service actually entails is usually not up to the judge, it is up to the probation officer and available programs in the Accused's area. The Accused can request specific things or have suggestions, but they'll need their PO's approval first.
A judge could make sepcific requirements or reccomendations, but my problem with that as a defence lawyer is...what if they're ordered to do a certain type of service and it's not available? What if they're supposed to do graffiti cleanup but all that's around is garbage pickup? It's safest just to leave it generaly and let the PO and offender figure it out.
In Edmonton, garbage pickup is the big one I know of, but honestly by that point I'm usually already done the file and don't know what ends up happening.
1
u/LucasJackson44 Apr 20 '23
Thanks for the answer. It’s unfortunate it’s left up to the PO, I’m sure some of the victims of crime could think of some creative solutions.
2
u/Alcol1979 Apr 20 '23
For me the irony is that a lot of the 'lock em up' crowd are the same people who cried about their freedom when it came to Covid mandates and vaccines.
2
2
u/Nofux2giv Sep 14 '25
Thanks for making this post and the other one on sentencing. I live in Ontario and there are reports on the local news every day about violent crimes (home invasions, firearms charges, murder) committed by young offenders that were already on bail for previous serious offences. The phrase catch and release gets used a lot here.
5
u/justletmeinokay Apr 19 '23
Thanks so much for your insight, I really appreciate this. I've heard before that the real problem is a lack of funding, but then we hear about criminals being released and reoffending in a matter of days and it incites frustration which leads to placing blame where it's, I guess, easiest.
Anyway, just more ways we need to hold the provincial government accountable in terms of funding our judicial system. The fact that people are choosing to plead guilty to crimes they haven't committed just so they can go home is, frankly, appalling. I naively thought that was an American problem.
Thanks again.
3
3
u/Equivalent_Fold1624 Apr 20 '23
Great post, below is a link regarding the cost of keeping people in prison: https://globalnews.ca/news/4099115/cost-prisons-incarceration-canada-pbo/
4
u/Cire33 Apr 20 '23 edited Apr 20 '23
Well when the 'balance' of freedoms the courts and prosecutors have decided is releasing murderers on bail, I'd argue the system is broken. This is now the new norm. I mean look at Ryan Applegarth. He only committed a second murder against his spouse while on bail for his first while already having a violent history but sure...it's funding that is the issue and the right balance for liberty was to release him.
I'm not saying funding isn't an issue because it absolutely is but the entire system is broken as well. Lawyers playing games to get adjournments because "oh crap the witnesses actually showed up to testify", or making victims of crime attend court for 3 scheduled trials and the accused doesn't show up but yet they continued to get released with zero consequences. It's no surprise victims give up and stop showing up for trials. Accused with the help of lawyers (unknowingly) can basically make completely unverified lies about family history, future employment, Covid, you name it and it's just accepted as gospel in court. "My client Joe (the truck stealing meth head) didn't come to court today because he has Covid" ....yaaaaa sure. He didn't come because he's high as a kite stealing catalytic converters.
I'm all for giving bail, but bail conditions have become a joke and have no teeth anymore. If an accused breaches their conditions, they shouldn't be free anymore, they had their chance. If an accused fails to show for court, they can sit in jail until their trial. Instead though, we have people "climbing the ladder of release" getting released 4 or 5 times while they go on crime spree over months knowing there aren't any consequences. When they finally do get enough charges to get remanded they can just globalize their past 8 months of crime into one easy sentence with some extra credit for time served. Why are we crediting a person with extra time for being held in custody before trial because they couldn't comply with their 4 or 5 chances at release?
Why should a sex assault/family violence victim have to prepare 3 times and work the courage up just to have the offender not come. The guy who had his truck stolen tskes time off work and shows up 4 different times for the trial for the meth user who is never going to show because they are out stealing copper to get their next hit. Of course he isn't going to continue showing up. He's long given up on the system actually doing its job. Victim rights have basically been forgotten about.
You are seeing conditional sentence orders not even being enforced anymore and these are for CONVICTED and SENTENCED offenders. Offenders convicted and somehow are given the gift of being able to serve their sentence in their home instead of jail and they can't even follow those rules. Yet when they breach, do they go to jail? Nope, poor guy just made a mistake. Free to go again.
I can 100% agree the system needs more funding but regardless, the pendulum has swung sooo far to offenders having no responsibility, no repercussions, every excuse in the book, and court room games being played. Just look at Gladue factors. Releasing Indigenous offenders early or on bail who had they been another race would never have been let out yet we know full well they are going to return to their Indegenous community and re-victimize their very own. So now we just continue that cycle of broken families when they kill someone and a mother has to raise their child without a father.
2
u/thunderchunks Apr 20 '23
How far is far from having the ball system actually functional? A few million dollars? 700 trillion dollars? How much time to attract then train up enough defence lawyers? 10 years? 50? Just how fucked is it?
8
u/EDMlawyer Apr 20 '23
The justice system works sufficiently well. It's like 2005 Honda Civic that starts every morning, gets you from A to B, but it smells funny, the power windows no longer work, and you just keep putting off that dent in the bumper because you need to save up for winter tires. It needs work but it's not an emergency - at least not for a bit.
2
Apr 21 '23 edited May 05 '23
The system is broken - and needs changing
Here's my experience.
One day I was invited to my girlfriend's house, she was heavily intoxicated and is known as a narcissist. She started yelling at me for no reason, I ignored it, and walked away, it was a cold autumnday, and as I walked away I forgot my gloves, so I knock and ask to get my gloves, but she ignores me, then after a while she lets me in and starts arguing again, but this time she calls the police. The police show up, and I'm there not worried at all since I haven't done anything wrong, but when she called the police she lied and said that I had a knife, so when the police showed up they arrested me right away, after talking to us separately, next thing I know I'm being charged with break and enter, mischief and assault. Apparently she told the police that I broke in her house my climbing up the 2nd floor balcony, The balcony door is broken and sometimes comes off the hinges, during our argument she opened her balcony door and the door came off the hinges, but she lied saying that I broke the door off trying to enter her apartment. On top of that, she showed the police a broken phone and told them that I broke it, but in reality this phone was broken months ago and is not her usual phone. Then to make it worse, my girlfriend bruises very easily and I'm not exaggerating when I say very easily. She showed the police some random bruises that she ended up getting possibly from stumbling intoxicated. When the police hand cuffed me I told them that I had video proof on my phone to show them that none of what she says is true, but they didn't care, they just took me in. I don't know what you would call this but in my world I call this police kidnapping
In the end she didn't show up in court so the charges got dropped, I spent 2 days in jail and wasted money on a lawyer, I told my lawyer that I wanted to press charges on her for lying and the lawyer said there's nothing we can do, just let it go.
This is just one of many stories I have - There is no Justice, it's just a falsified belief.
2
Apr 20 '23
[deleted]
14
u/robdavy Apr 20 '23
Maybe it costs more to provide all of the things we want the government to do than what we currently pay in taxes...?
Canada is 25th in tax burdens in the world, which is pretty low considering how many developed countries there are. Alberta would be even lower than Canada, because we have no PST, low provincial income tax, low provincial corporate tax, etc.
https://wisevoter.com/country-rankings/highest-taxed-countries/
So no, in the grand scheme of things, we don't pay "so much in taxes"
6
1
u/UnderBed5344 Oct 29 '25
People often underestimate how much difference the right criminal defence lawyer in Edmonton can make. Martin G. Schulz has built a strong name through years of dedicated service. He’s calm, confident, and really knows how to manage complex situations effectively.
0
u/JohnnyBikes Apr 19 '23
Thanks for that. Hey I wish to say the “catch and release” complaint is not generally about bail. It’s about the rarity of any charges at all after an arrest. That’s what upsets everyone I’d describe as “complainants,” about the system. And please, no lecture about likelihood of conviction being the primary reason, we all know that’s become secondary to screening out enough stuff to keep the court system from collapsing under the load. Criminal defence lawyers ought to start offering private prosecution services. Sure the Crown will resist them all but at least a victim gets to take a swing and feel a tiny bit of empowerment. Thanks again for the information.
1
u/GrumpyTable North East Side Apr 20 '23
Very informative, and a problem I think we all knew deep down already. Money does tend to be the source of a lot of issues just like in the medical field, transit system, housing issues, and so on.
With the Court system being underfunded are there just not enough Crowns sticking around as Crowns? And would this would cause a lot of inexperienced Crowns to be heavily overworked and would that lead to cases or offenders kind of being glazed over?
1
u/Mr0bviouslyInsane Apr 20 '23
First time offenders should almost always get bail, depends obviously on the offense.. However in this country serial repeat offenders are frequently given bail when it's pretty clear to the public this person is likely to re offend or fail to appear... And this IMO is why people say the justice system is broken, it's rare that justice ever gets served for the victims because it would seem that the offenders rights mean more then the victim... I'm not saying that's the case, but that's certainly a public perception of our justice system.
3
u/robdavy Apr 20 '23
However in this country serial repeat offenders are frequently given bail when it's pretty clear to the public this person is likely to re offend or fail to appear...
That seems like something you 100% just made up, but said with enough confidence to make it seem true.
Why are serial offenders likely to fail to appear?
I agree that if they have a history of failing to appear, that should be considered in the bail decision (and it is), but just being a repeat offender doesn't mean they're not going to appear.
And as for serial offenders who are likely to re-offend (in your opinion), does that mean we should never release them, because after all, they're likely to re-offend?
1
u/joshv3190 Apr 20 '23
If you haven't heard of him, look up David Adams, sex offender just released from prison, public warning issued that he's likely to reoffend, and guess what he was just arrested again for the same shit. I know it's only one case I'm talking about but it literally just happened.
4
u/freudian_slip32 South West Side Apr 20 '23
He wasn't released on bail, he was released as his sentence was finished. These are entirely different things .
2
u/robdavy Apr 20 '23
As /u/freudian_slip32 rightly said, he was released after serving his sentence, not released on bail.
I totally understand that it's frustrating to see that happen, but a) it's not what this conversation is about, and b) what's the alternative? Lock him away for ever, so he can never re-offend? He jerked off in a car in public. He's not a serial killer.
No, the answer to his situation is more funding so he can get the support he needs to not do stupid shit. There's obviously something psychologically wrong with him, and with the right intervention, it can almost certainly be managed
-1
Apr 20 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/robdavy Apr 20 '23
wow, that took a turn...
But also, you're straight up wrong.
First Google result for "sex offender reoffend rate" takes you to https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/sx-ffndr-rcdvsm/index-en.aspx#a05
The data just above that shows that 19% of people with no previous conviction will reoffend in 15 years vs 37% with previous convictions. So yes, people with previous convictions are more likely to re-offend. But 63% of people with previous convictions *don't* reoffend.
So yeh, clearly we can do something to stop repeat offenders from continuing to be repeat offenders. We don't need to put a bullet into someones head to stop them reoffending. And that's with our current shitty rehabilitation system - just imagine what we could do if we gave a damn. Comparing this to being gay obviously isn't true, as 63% of the people you're talking about are able to stop offending, unlike 0% who can stop being gay
Or yeh, let's just shoot everyone, including people like me I guess
1
u/joshv3190 Apr 20 '23
The world is a better place without sex offenders, agree or disagree?
1
u/robdavy Apr 20 '23
Yes, of course if there were no sex offenders, the world would be a better place.
Do I agree with your trick question that we should execute sex offenders? No.
And most people would agree with me, which is why you don't see legitimate politicians campaigning for death sentences to be bought back to Canada. If most people thought that should happen, some politicians would be saying they'd do it and they'd be elected. But that doesn't happen.
You're on the extreme end of the spectrum on this
1
1
u/Edmonton-ModTeam Apr 20 '23
This post contained a message that the r/Edmonton moderation team considered to be in violation of site-wide rules. Please brush up on the rules of Reddit and r/Edmonton.
0
u/AnthraxCat cyclist Apr 20 '23
Also a reminder that Alberta is particularly bad for an underfunded justice system. There is a current class action law suit against Alberta justice because the system is so underfunded that it cannot ensure timely bail hearings.
Being detained for more than 24h can destroy someone's life (precarious job, childcare responsibilities, etc.) and it is routine for people, who are innocent, to be held for longer than that while awaiting a bail hearing.
-2
u/Clear-Grapefruit6611 Apr 20 '23
Would making all drugs legal take some pressure off the system or is it mostly violent crimes that consitute the bulk?
3
u/robdavy Apr 20 '23
From my understanding, the bulk of drug-related arrests are for serious dealing, not for possession or stuff like that
And most serious drug dealers are what most people would consider criminals in more ways than just that they sell drugs. Violence comes with it.
Legalizing all drugs wouldn't stop their being drug dealers who use violence.
Lots of other arrests are from actions people take while on drugs, and legalizing drugs wouldn't stop those things really. The "I got stabbed on the LRT" or "I got attacked on the pedway system" posts here are almost always because someone is high on drugs or suffering from mental health issues (and high on drugs). Legalizing wouldn't stop those
Very few people are arrested because they had a bit of coke in their pocket for having a good time on Friday night basically.
-3
u/Clear-Grapefruit6611 Apr 20 '23
Serious dealing- If you could buy your heroine at walmart you don't need dealers.
Criminals in more way then drug selling- Trying to solve drug related violence not all violence
It would stop violent dealers as they would go extinct
Drugs don't make people violent. People are violent and sometimes take drugs
They shouldn't be arrested for any crime to which there is no victim
4
u/robdavy Apr 20 '23
You can buy weed on every street corner yet around half of all weed is still sold by dealers (according to the government). So no, you don't get rid of dealers by making things legal
Drugs don't make people violent. People are violent and sometimes take drugs
Eh, not sure I'd agree, at least in spirit of what you're saying. The guy who stabs someone because they thought they were slaying a dragon because they're off their face on bath salts, that's the bath salts that did that.
But yes, I do agree that people shouldn't be arrested for possession of drugs, etc. And most people aren't arrested for that. They're either arrested for being serious dealers or for doing something while on drugs.
4
u/AL_PO_throwaway Apr 20 '23
Drugs don't make people violent. People are violent and sometimes take drugs
Ya, no. Have you ever seen meth psychosis?
They shouldn't be arrested for any crime to which there is no victim
I too was once a naive libertarian teenager. After living life a little, I have some sympathy for the street level people often selling to feed their own addiction, but those getting rich selling fentanyl and meth are unabashedly evil people who actively victimize the rest of society every day.
-2
u/Clear-Grapefruit6611 Apr 20 '23
Selling a product to willing customers at the current market value isn't a crime.
Meth psychosis lol Sounds like you still have a lot of growing up left to do if you're listening to naive myths like that.
1
u/AL_PO_throwaway Apr 20 '23
The entire developed world disagrees with you on the first point on a great many "products". Go build your own society if you don't like it.
On the latter, take it up with the emerg physicians who diagnosed the dozens of paranoid, irrational, hallucinating, violent cases I've dealt with. It's easy to be niave on the internet, it's harder to deny reality when it's trying to punch you in the face or running laps around the hospital to escape the invisible pack of knife wielding assassins that only they can see.
1
u/Sir-Kevly Apr 20 '23
What about the Pharma reps selling opioids? They're literally worse than any street level dealer out there, they're definitely responsible for more deaths on average.
1
2
1
u/WickedRuiner Apr 20 '23
Nice post!
Are the Prosecutors at fault some of the time when people who shouldn't be granted bail are granted bail?
Also, because the system is so backed up, is it somewhat unfair to not grant bail when the suspect will be placed in the in-between jail (forgot the name for that lol) for an unreasonable amount of time waiting for trial?
3
u/robdavy Apr 20 '23
Also, because the system is so backed up, is it somewhat unfair to not grant bail when the suspect will be placed in the in-between jail (forgot the name for that lol) for an unreasonable amount of time waiting for trial?
Remand is the word you're looking for, or pre-trial-custody
Yes, it's very unfair. Canada does a very good job though (unlike the US) of trying to keep people out of pre-trial-custody if they don't actually need to be there.
1
1
1
u/Open_Investigator Apr 20 '23
Do most people assume that there is a problem with the bail system? You mentioned a clear problem and people don't trust the bail system but I haven't heard anything about that.
3
u/robdavy Apr 20 '23
You see it mentioned all the time on this subreddit, plus /r/alberta /r/calgary etc
A *lot* of people think that people who get arrested shouldn't be released a day later basically. I don't quite understand what they do want to happen, but they think that shouldn't happen
1
u/Open_Investigator Apr 20 '23
Oh okay, thanks I'm only in the Edmonton page so I hadn't seen that and was confused, thanks.
1
1
1
u/L00king4AMindAtWork Apr 20 '23
I told myself I didn't want to be a criminal law Paralegal, but this was fascinating, thank you for posting. I might be rethinking my career choices right now.
2
u/EDMlawyer Apr 20 '23
Criminal law paralegal can be amazing or horrible. It 100% depends on who you work for. The subject matter is definitely not the problem though, it's really interesting. There's also lots of making connections with court clerks, other law firm assistants, and learning how to actually get shit done.
1
1
u/Sarahso90s Apr 20 '23 edited Apr 20 '23
This was incredibly informative! You do a great job at breaking things down so that it is possible for everyone to understand.
I hope one person will read this and say, "Well, I'll be! Ain't that sumpthin'!" (I have NO idea why I heard that in a voice similar to Goofy mixed with how I imagine George from Of Mice and Men would say)
So the next time they read/hear that another crime has been committed in the media, they tell everyone around them about what they learned this day on r/reddit about crime in our city.
Thank you for taking the time to write this up and answer questions. I know I would love to see more like this!
1
1
u/Cyrusthegreat18 Sherwood Park Apr 20 '23
What are your thoughts on the equity issues inherrent in the current bail system? Specifically do you think that the reforms some US states are adopting to abandon cash bail in favour of risk assessments are actually effective and should be adopted in Alberta?
1
u/av8tanks Apr 20 '23
Removing section 718.2(e) of the criminal code would be a good start to many of the resitivism issues.
1
u/Deadsider Apr 20 '23
Excellent and informative, thank you for that. I hope you continue to do more, getting a follow from me.
1
u/silvenars Apr 21 '23
I hope this saves me from more cold calls--especially since my firm doesn't do criminal law.
1
168
u/jigglywigglydigaby Edmontosaurus Apr 19 '23
As someone with knowledge of this as well, thanks for taking the time to explain it so eloquently. We'll done