That's not what's happening. What's happening is that the $1 fine is being added to the existing sentence, so before October 20th, a guy would get 6 months jail, after October 20th it's 6 months jail plus a $1 fine. Before, a guy would get a suspended sentence with probation, now it's a $1 fine plus probation. Judges who adopt this practise -- and while it's a significant number, it isn't a majority, as there are other ways to get around the provisions -- aren't replacing meaningful (ha ha) sentences with the $1 fine, they're adding the fine to the sentence they would previously have imposed.Fmotlgroupie wrote:No, the surcharge doesn't, but obviously the quantum of a sentence reflects to a large degree the court's views on the seriousness of an offence and whether it is so ring that the court denounces, and a $1 fine is, in such terms, a declaration that an offence is basically de mini is and not worthy of denunciation (see R v Omeasoo http://canlii.ca/t/g29nv ).
Nobody cares that much about the Provincial surcharges for Provincial offences. We're not talking about people who own cars. Also, the point of principle has less to do with it being life-altering, and is more about the idea that justice should apply to everybody. A $100 surcharge has a grossly disproportionate impact on a person being sentenced in Vancouver's Downtown Community Court than it does on a person who's being sentenced for whatever crime they committed up in Whistler.As to the grievance itself, I'm blown away that a $100 fine (1/27.5 of the $2750 mandatory no-insurance Ticket around here, I think about 1/50 in Ontario) is somehow a life-altering amount is, well, belief-straining at best.
You are correct, B.C. has no fine-option program.I would suggest that perhaps your jurisdiction doesn't have a fine-options program (where the government lets you work off a fine rather than paying it in cash), but Alberta has one and still we hear the same (they can never pay the surcharge!) rhetoric here.
Please tell me more about the federally funded victim support programs. Everything you talk about are provincially funded programs that pre-exist the federal victim surcharge legislation. The money collected under this scheme goes into the federal government's general revenue.First of all, I think that you don't understand the nature of the surcharge. It isn't related directly to the particular victim of a given offence, but rather goes into a fund that each province (I believe) keeps for funding victim support services. In some jurisdictions, some victims can apply to the fund for compensation for specific damages, but it also funds victim services societies, non-profit quangos which offer counselling, court preparation, etc. to victims of crime.
No argument there. Again, the problem is that justice is supposed to apply to everybody, not just people who have jobs and can travel internationally.A more functional accused, say a functional alcoholic who has a job and has turned hings around that he wants to travel to the US, can DARN WELL PAY $100 PER CRIMINAL CONVICTION! It isn't that much compared to the price of anything else in the world.
You obviously do. I've been a prosecutor for 14 years. The people I know are the judges, prosecutors, defence lawyers, court clerks, sheriffs, and police who work in the justice system. So yes, I'm reasonable confident that we do indeed move in different circles.As you can probably tell from my tone, the people I know are appalled by the judges' conduct, instead. I must move in different circles.
