Thought experiment - Exec/Legislative & Fed/Prov relations in our system

[brihard]

Basically my argument is simply that if the law is useless it shouldn't exist. If the law has become outdated, it is the job of the House of Commons or the Senate to have it repealed or updated. There is so much in the criminal code which could simply be removed and it wouldn't have a effect (for example, look at the laws on corrupting morals, quite a few of those could be removed without issue).

There are currently laws in the books that are not enforced yet not removed simply because they like to have them or are afraid if they are applied then they will be struck down. Much like how the Polygamy laws were not applied until very recently in BC because they were afraid if they were applied then they would be struck down due to charter challenge.

I wasn't trying to focus on firearms laws, I was just trying to use a example of the laws I am aware of and are selectively enforced.

Not a particularly good example. Mark Marek was convicted of corrupting morals S.163 just three days ago for publishing the video of a murder. Just because a criminal code section is rarely invoked does not mean it is entirely useless or should be struck down. Many criminal charges exist for extremely unusual or unlikely situations but that nonetheless invoke a public interest in their prohibition. Some criminal code sections fade into obsolescene and are nullified by formal legal action - laws criminalizing down sodomy, or abortion, for instance- but others remain very seldom used yet on the books for the rare instance where they fit an unusual set of circumstances that must be addressed punitively.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Am I going to raid dollar stores selling crappy plastic nunchakus, or am I going to work on domestic driving investigations, drunk driving enforcement, probation breaches and the like?

There's a bridge between theory and reality that you need to cross.

I fully understand what and why as I do regulatory works, at the same time our "fixes" at the coal face allow stupid laws and regulations to live on and not be dealt with. Not blaming, just a observation, if police did raid every store and arrest them and charge them with prohibited weapons, the politicians will be scrambling to fix the laws. Instead the politicians get a free pass and police have to navigate around useless or flawed legislation. Sadly the same people who wrote that crap, also wrote the entire Firearms Act.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Not a particularly good example. Mark Marek was convicted of corrupting morals S.163 just three days ago for publishing the video of a murder. Just because a criminal code section is rarely invoked does not mean it is entirely useless or should be struck down. Many criminal charges exist for extremely unusual or unlikely situations but that nonetheless invoke a public interest in their prohibition. Some criminal code sections fade into obsolescene and are nullified by formal legal action - laws criminalizing down sodomy, or abortion, for instance- but others remain very seldom used yet on the books for the rare instance where they fit an unusual set of circumstances that must be addressed punitively.

Just looking at section 163, it is very broad and undefined. Currently many things which are commonplace at the moment could easily fall under that portion of the law. Viagra, porn, cosmopolitan, etc. are all technically illegal under the law according to S 163 but because it isn't enforced these things are commonplace. Is it right that it is only selectively enforced? Maybe the law should be re-written to be explicit in what it considers 'obscene' material. Would society accept this law if it was being enforced like the police are meant to?

For your example, you could just make a law stating that it is illegal to publish videos of murder, which is very clear and to the point instead of a catch all type law. A poorly written law, does more harm than good, as if someone was to actually start enforcing our laws the way they are written, most of us would be in jail.

Enforce the laws as they are written, and politicians would have to change them do to upcry. If they don't then someone else will be elected and they will. It is not the job of the police to selectively enforce, it is the job of the politicians to ensure the laws they are enforcing are worthwhile.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Just looking at section 163, it is very broad and undefined. Currently many things which are commonplace at the moment could easily fall under that portion of the law. Viagra, porn, cosmopolitan, etc. are all technically illegal under the law according to S 163 but because it isn't enforced these things are commonplace. Is it right that it is only selectively enforced? Maybe the law should be re-written to be explicit in what it considers 'obscene' material. Would society accept this law if it was being enforced like the police are meant to?

For your example, you could just make a law stating that it is illegal to publish videos of murder, which is very clear and to the point instead of a catch all type law. A poorly written law, does more harm than good, as if someone was to actually start enforcing our laws the way they are written, most of us would be in jail.

Enforce the laws as they are written, and politicians would have to change them do to upcry. If they don't then someone else will be elected and they will. It is not the job of the police to selectively enforce, it is the job of the politicians to ensure the laws they are enforcing are worthwhile.

The "definition" of obscene can, likely, never be "agreeable." We'd be better off to have 338 MPs debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

It's far better ~ more efficient and cheaper ~ to let police officers, crown prosecutors and judges sort it out, day-by-day and community-by-community.

Consistency is a much overrated commodity.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Truthfully, much of this could be resolved by a though overhaul of the Criminal Code and various regulations with the force of law. Stripping out old, outdated, redundant or otherwise laws and regulations, and simplifying others so they are in fact understandable by a "reasonable man" would do wonders for the system.

To re- write the criminal code would do 27 years of Charter of Rights jurisprudence a great injustice. Statutes that are entirely re-written are suddenly open to new interpretations, potentially de-evolutionary. But if this was to happen, I would favour eliminating the criminal code and instituting a penal code for certain core offences, and then have other laws which govern activity relating to enforcement or prohibition. That would be a much larger project, potentially even revolutionary, but one that would clarify a lot of things and potentially remove the idiocy of the way we do things here: for example breaching the aeronautics act results in not one but 2 prosecutions (one under the Ccc, the other under the AA). And then there is sentencing .... A whole other bag of trouble.

There is a school of thought that the true reason for the blizzard of laws and regulations isn't "just" to codify behaviours, but to actively set minefields and traps for the unwary, to be triggered at the pleasure of the political class.

- this is called Family Law. Without a marriage contract, it is a trap that is supporting a multi billion dollar legal industry, not to mention all the spin off benefits like forced real estate sales, divestiture of investment assets, legalized slavery for spousal support etc.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Until you get Crown prosecutors believing they are the final judge and financial and emotionally destroy people for the audacity of defending themselves. Like going after the gunsmiths home as “proceeds in crime” for his refusal to register. Or “unsafe storage” for someone who’s house has been firebombed or a Firearms business  that has is run through the grinder for failing to “play the game” (that one was RCMP) 

 

[quadrapiper]

- this is called Family Law.

Anything to be said for removing "family" matters, barring support of children from law entirely? Bin common law, marriage, spousal support, and the rest of the shooting-match. Other than marriage commissioners and rather a lot of lawyers, I can't see who'd lose.

 

[brihard]

Just looking at section 163, it is very broad and undefined. Currently many things which are commonplace at the moment could easily fall under that portion of the law. Viagra, porn, cosmopolitan, etc. are all technically illegal under the law according to S 163 but because it isn't enforced these things are commonplace. Is it right that it is only selectively enforced? Maybe the law should be re-written to be explicit in what it considers 'obscene' material. Would society accept this law if it was being enforced like the police are meant to?

For your example, you could just make a law stating that it is illegal to publish videos of murder, which is very clear and to the point instead of a catch all type law. A poorly written law, does more harm than good, as if someone was to actually start enforcing our laws the way they are written, most of us would be in jail.

Enforce the laws as they are written, and politicians would have to change them do to upcry. If they don't then someone else will be elected and they will. It is not the job of the police to selectively enforce, it is the job of the politicians to ensure the laws they are enforcing are worthwhile.

You sewered yourself in the first five words, and kept digging from there.

You can almost never meaningfully 'just look at' a section of the Criminal Code. Much of the meaning of those words is given definition by our extensive body of common law jurisprudence. Rarely is something 'undefined' just because you do not see the words in black and white in your copy of the C.C.C.

It absolutely IS the job of the police to 'selectively' enforce laws. I've articulated the reasons for that a few times now and don't see a need to repeat myself.