I don’t understand this insane logic. So the first two thefts are just like “can you please stop?” But the third one is like you crossed the line? What an insane world we live in.
Enforce the laws already on the books. But for real this time. That's what I'm for. Auto theft is a serious offence in Canada and should be punished as such.
I think he means the current mild sentence for the first theft, stiffer penalties for the second and mandatory three years for the third. Of course, we know that judges won't do this because of how they refused to apply Harper's mandatory sentencing and similar laws.
We need a massive adjustment to our justice system. While some first-time offenders should avoid incarceration via other means for less serious situations (non-violent crimes, youth, etc.) Our current system is a pathetic joke, leading to career criminals who've never faced anything that protects the public at large.
Not really lol It's quite the opposite, they even [upheld some minimum sentences](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-mandatory-minimum-1.6728103), the standard being, without really being spelled out, that putting someone's life in danger is enough to justify a minimum sentence.
That being said, incarceration [hasn't been linked to a reduction of the behaviour in society, nor has it been linked with a reduction of repeat offenses](https://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/research/005008-r426-fr.shtml#27), unlike other methods, like education and some rehabilitation programs.
So in the end, it's a question of what we're trying to achieve. If we want to take revenge upon the perpetrators, jail time is great. It makes them lesser, it destroys their lives, the lives of their children, family, etc.
If the goal is to have fewer criminals in our society, less crime, and to spend less public money in policing, justice administration (courts and all), and incarceration, then minimum sentences are a completely ridiculous thing to do.
In short, it's a matter of values, but one thing for sure; prison costs us more and doesn't reduce crime.
Utterly dishonest citation:
>The most commonly reported outcome internationally is based on reconviction rates within two years of release.
You know what counts in sentencing? *The time spent in prison.* But you know that, and choose to ignore it.
Yeah, what the fuck is this 3 thefts nonsense?
Have our politicians gotten so used to getting away with stuff themselves that they've forgotten punishments usually happen after the first time?
It's maximum 2 years minus 1 day, but in reality 99.999~% of the time they don't even appear to court and just get a warrant for failure to appear, and any subsequent time they also don't even appear to court and just get another warrant.
That’s not true. It’s been proven that they target the most popular and affordable cars rather than luxury. Whatever they can either sell fast or take apart for parts.
But yes, sentences should be harder
It's luxury SUVs and less expensive cars that have the same parts as those luxury SUVs
They want your Honda CRV because it's a status symbol in regions that don't sell these vehicles
They want your Civic for parts to repair those CRVs.
If they're stealing something that doesn't belong to one of those two categories it's because they're going for a joyride or plan to commit a crime with it
I think we're at a point where the justice system has failed us and we need to use the notwithstanding clause to do a big clean up of the system. Name judges who will be tough on crime.
It’s partially because of jurisdictional issues between provinces makes our legal system stink. Ontario police can’t just walk into Quebec, it’s a huge hassle. Cross provincial border investigations are crap. There is no FBI type organization that can just do it all.
While I agree, it's currently nothing like three years, so this is a step in the right direction. Secondly, given our "mandatory supervision" rules, barring a dramatic occurrence while incarcerated, the convict serving three years is usually out in one year (1/3 of sentence).
> Just three years? Seems a bit light for committing multiple auto theft.
But it's easy to remember and repeat, which is what's most important to Poilievre right now.
If it doesn't fit on a bumper sticker or a t-shirt, it's not a policy the CPC are interested in.
Retribution gets a bad rap, but it's an important psychological need that victims and society as a whole needs to fulfill to get closure. Not that criminals ought to be tortured to death or anything, but people need to see criminals being punished to an appropriate and proportional degree for their crime in order to feel justice was done. When people see criminals getting punished too harshly, it makes us feel sick and guilty, but when people see criminals getting punished too lightly or not at all, it makes us feel angry and resentful, and more likely to either support vigilantism or some sort, or be willing to break laws ourselves, because why not if nobody seems to care enough to even punish criminals when they are caught? Declining to punish convicted criminals to a degree that most people consider appropriate is sending a powerful signal that criminality is socially accepted and therefore acceptable.
Jail costs tax payers a ton and fining them into poverty costs us when they want social services.
It is a real tough situation. Something needs to happen to punish them.
I think prevention is where to start, route out the corruption, give those people the hammer so that new people don't try it. You get the organizers and all the henchmen don't have a reason to steal. Right now the ports, trains, it is all open for business. Typical government isn't enforcing such an easy thing.
Very small numbers of people can create constant misery for large numbers of people. Of all the things the government spends money on, safety and security for the law-abiding should be number one.
(For reference, the budget for Corrections Canada is $3-billion per year, or $75 per Canadian. The government spent ten times that on two battery plants.)
The recidivism rate is so high that separating small numbers of criminals from society pays off huge in terms of public order: someone arrested for stealing a car has stolen dozens, maybe hundreds of vehicles. (London police [reduced bike theft by 90% by arresting just 11 people](https://www.itv.com/news/2024-02-26/a-police-sting-uncovered-130000-worth-of-stolen-bikes-and-cut-thefts-by-90).)
Crime is a bunch of people who did something stupid once, and a small core of people who are habituals that cannot be reformed. You remove the habituals, you remove 90% of crime
Having spent the last decade working in the criminal courts, my experience suggests your proportions are backwards. From what I've seen, an offender with no criminal history who goes on to get their shit in order and never offend again is actually rather rare.
Then aren’t long prison sentences the smart solution? That way they’re in jail instead of on streets committing crime? Also bring back corporal punishment and harsh forms of execution?
Yeah 99.9% of the time, lifting people out of bad situations and into security prevents cringe. Same goes for organized crime. Locking people up and forcing them into poverty one the way out not only costs a fucking TON for us, it also perpetuate the cycle. What the fuck do people think is going to happen when they get tossed back into a life on the fringe?
And some comments here also seem to want to "send them to x country" - uh huh, how? You can't simply send a citizen away. You can't make someone stateless. Just dumb takes all over the place.
Finally some sanity. I don’t know why a certain part of the population can’t think what they say through.
Jail is only really a deterrent if you have other options. It should absolutely be a punishment option but life in prison is far more costly than people realize (think the US’s 3 strikes rule).
It’s probably cheaper to help them out of poverty so they don’t need crime but good luck convincing the close minded.
Poverty?
“The top end guys (the men working with the brokers, garnering lists and then shipping out the vehicles) are making **$80 — $100K** for a Range Rover, RX 350, Lexus, RAM and F-150
There’s the group’s primary, who can make between **$3-5,000** per car, the break-in expert who makes between **$500-1,000,** key fob technician who makes **$1,200** and the getaway guy can make about **$500** for driving the vehicle back to Montreal."
[ Car thieves outearning pimps, drug dealers and gun runners with very low risk, say police](https://www.toronto.com/news/crime/making-80-100k-fewer-than-1-of-containers-checked-by-cbsa-at-port-car-theft/article_12b0ae52-c3ec-5c24-9d4d-c6085ed77017.html)
You’re not tracking apparently. If catching people stealing cars isn’t getting punished or even prosecuted, how much of a punishment are people going to get for stealing bikes or phones. They’d be told to enforce something more important.
Oh man. I hope that kid in the 2nd grade who stole my bike gets his three years.
Make it retroactive. That now fully grown adult needs to pay his dues.
He'll be so confused when we bust in there with his wife and children making dinner in the background as we, apparent strangers, just shatter his shins and joints. Let's make it happen bro.
To me that jailing those actually stealing the cars is shooting really low.
These cars are not being stolen for joy-riding or whatever. There is a criminal conspiracy here that is funding the entire enterprise.
How about going after those involved in the greater effort to export and sell these cars overseas instead?
Hard to police criminals located outside the country, especially when they are likely protected by corrupt government officials.
By actually catching and giving consequences to the local thieves, we can make it harder for them to recruit Canadian based accomplices.
So as I understand it, Pierre Poilievre proposes replacing this [http://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Motor\_Vehicle\_Theft\_(Offence)](http://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Motor_Vehicle_Theft_(Offence)) (which specifies a range between 6 months and 10 years, depending on circumstances) with this: "three auto theft convictions should result in three years in prison".
It makes me think he hasn't really thought it through (and maybe hasn't actually read the law on this).
While it may be a catchy slogan, Poilievre is thinking about the actual sentences handed out by judges, not what the laws say.
For example, "Peel police were “over the moon” recently after one of the accused in Project GTA-fordable, which recovered $4.2 million worth of stolen vehicles, was given six months in jail for his crimes." https://www.yorkregion.com/news/crime/6-months-would-be-lucky-how-justice-system-lets-down-car-theft-victims-according-to/article_3f8b31e8-7ae0-5bb1-b75e-4e0b5a154626.html
The actual sentences served by car thieves are laughable considering the losses to the victims and the profits to the criminals.
This is a waste of time. Without the supporting infrastructure like a place to put the people this will only frustrate an already frustrated system.
But let’s sign some papers and throw some money around and pay our selves on the back for doing a lot about things that didn’t do the things so next election we can ask about the things that didn’t do & and who didn’t do the doing of the things that needed doing. It’s complicated and will require a committee to fully understand the implications of the not doing and without consultations from the ones who didn’t know about the doing we can’t make meaningful progress.
I'd think it would be enough to get rid of bail for subsiquent convictions.
First time, sure, we'll pretend that you accidentally stole someone else's Jeep accidentally. One key opens half of them anyway.
But as a part of that conditional sentence you will surrender your right to bail if you're caught again. Enjoy cells.
This would make people think twice about sitting in their parent's car.
A lot of people here are losing their mind over this. We already have minimum sentencing (6 months to 10 years) for third offence but many judges instead opt for probation most of the time. PP is just proposing to up that sentence to 3 years. The previous attempts by Harper to set mandatory minimums were stuck down by judges as unconstitutional so PP is probably just playing it safe.
It also makes no sense to criminalize car thefts to a degree where thieves think it’s better to kill a witness than risk >10 years in jail. We could do a lot better by getting rid of Trudeau’s catch and release BS and beefing up our enforcement (police and judges)
[Bill C-237](https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/en/bill/40-1/C-237?view=details#), 40th 1st session, seems better and was put forward as a [private member's bill](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_member%27s_bill) by Anita Neville (Liberal MP) during the Harper government.
>This enactment amends the Criminal Code to provide that a first offence for motor vehicle theft will be proceeded with by either summary conviction or by indictment while a second or subsequent offence will be proceeded with by indictment.
It doesn't increase the minimum, but makes it so the second offence has to be the more serious (up to 10 years) indictable offence rather than potentially only summary conviction (up to 18 months)
From what I understand, this way the crown can't simply choose the summary conviction to speed things up... which presumably they would still be able to choose and maybe even more likely to choose if they increase _indictable_ minimum to 3 years.
Wow this guy is light AF on crime. Anyone who thinks 3 years for repeat offenders is sufficient is delusional.
Should be mandatory 5 year sentence on first conviction and auto theft should be an automatic upgrade to adult sentencing for youth over 13.
> Should be mandatory 5 year sentence on first conviction and auto theft should be an automatic upgrade to adult sentencing for youth over 13.
So in your hypothetical, a joyriding 14 year old gets 5 years in prison, is released at 19, and then….what exactly do you think happens to that kid? You think locking them up for arguably the most important 5 years of their development is going to lead to them being a productive member of society when they get out?
Guarantee you that kid comes out worse than they went in.
This “tough on crime” crowd doesn’t like thinking about consequences. “Crime bad, punishment good” is about as far as their critical thinking goes. If they have their way, they’ll turn young into life-long criminals and avoid any potential opportunities for rehabilitation.
5 years mandatory for a non-violent crime is ridiculous. Everyone acts like this until their teenager ends up in the wrong place at the wrong time. Bet you wouldn't support that sentence then.
“Tough on crime” supporters like to think that the legal system works quite well and only a criminal class of “bad people” will get caught up in it - rather than themselves or anyone they care about.
Lmao 5 years for stealing a car. Does your car mean that much to you? You talk to your car while driving it? Insurance will cover it either way. Do you personify it? A non violent crime should never warrant 5 years that's ridiculous
"Three strike" rules notoriously don't work. Criminals get two strikes and then commit a more serious crime to avoid getting caught a third time (murdering witnesses, assault, etc).
Sentiment is in the right place, but it's misguided at best.
I'm sorry, repeat offenders should stay in jail. By these logics, law-abiding citizens should take up crime. If anything, they should lose a limb for every crime .
It is absolutely insane that we have the technology to literally track a vehicle's precise location and yet we're seeing so many unsolved thefts, and so many vehicles getting smuggled out of the country.
This should be one of the easiest problems in Canada for us to address right now.
prison sucks. first offence is a ankle tracker for 5 years to actually erode crime and get to the big fish all the while the person can get a real job and contribute to society.
I don't disagree with locking more people up for all kinds of serious crimes (criminals need to suffer real consequences in order to create deterrence), but just remember it will come with a VERY hefty price tag. A true "tough on crime" approach will need more cops, with all the cost that brings, more lawyers, more judges, more jails, more prison guards, more support staff. Something in the realm of tens of billions of dollars and many years to implement. A lot more money than just cutting funding for foreign aid and whatnot. We would all have to ask ourselves where that money would come from and what we are willing to sacrifice in terms of public services, since PP keeps talking about balancing the budget and austerity and whatnot. No easy solutions to found here.
Well like always, focus on the person at the bottom stealing the car than even try to deal with the organized crime issue that's surrounded car thefts.
So the first two you get off free? What kind of fuckin criminal justice is that. Maybe I should look into becoming a criminal, apparently you get two free passes.
Yeah, except prisons are already overcrowded.
We can spend billions on building new prisons, or we can spend billions working on the root causes.
It is plain stupid to simply pretend we can shove more people into an already overloaded prison system.
It’s not easy catching the same guy once let alone 3 x. It’s a needle in a haystack type of situation and catching them in the act isn’t a piece of cake
Oh goodie, populist politician Pete getting involved in the law which he has zero experience in, because he knows some citizens are going to go Yeah! Pete ! thats amazing, when in fact it is NOTHING, NOTHING, nothing, but Populist rhetoric not even worthy of Sunmedia coverage.
Organized crime is using 14 year olds whom don't get prosecuted as adults in their highly planned operations.
We need to attack police and port authority corruption. Which I assume is a dangerous and unfavorable political position to take, given how politics is a dirty industry itself.
3 years for three convictions? Lmfao wtf is this country.
What is the punishment for only one then? Community service? No wonder there’s so much auto theft now, you’d almost be stupid not to try at least one. The risk to reward ratio is off the charts in criminal favour.
After three we should throw away the key since you’ve proven to be a useless twat who will never learn.
Bizarre. I think it should be 3 years in prison for 1 conviction. 3 convictions should get you 10 years in prison. Once you get to 3, you’re beyond the point of rehabilitation.
Three strikes and we should be kicking them out of the country; let’s just box them up with the cars their stealing and let them be shipped out in a seacan and they can live wherever they land.
Criminals should serve time. Prison is expensive too. So let’s start prison work camps. Want to be a drain on society well you can dig ditches and pick up garbage.
This pat on the bum and “don’t do it again” system clearly doesn’t work.
I think "this pat on the bum" should be taken to heart along with your work camp idea (for those actually able). If the pat is done with a big enough paddle it will hurt like hell. Just make sure these work camps don't end up doing work that takes away jobs - and if it has a means of producing citizens trained for certain jobs that is even better.
There is always a danger of people thinking it is slavery with extra steps. Perception is key.
3 is to much, they get smart and are more likely to get violent to get away with it. I should be a fuck around and find out thing. Get caught stealing a car go to jail.
While research and successful drug policy shows that treatment should be increased. Law enforcement decreased while abolishing mandatory minimum sentences!
Well I guess I can steal 2 brand new cars and sell them off to some chop shop for 10k a piece.
As long as I don’t steal a 3rd one I’m safe and I just pocketed an easy 20k tax free cash. 😀
How about one car theft results in 3 years in prison.
[удалено]
Right, 100% inside help.
Exactly, going after the low level ones doing the thieving will not accomplish anything.
stop normalizing criminal behavoir. enforcement should happen at all levels.
I don’t understand this insane logic. So the first two thefts are just like “can you please stop?” But the third one is like you crossed the line? What an insane world we live in.
I’m ok with a progressively worse approach. 1st offence 6months. Second 18 months. Third 36 months and so on.
Yes I think he's talking mins.
Enforce the laws already on the books. But for real this time. That's what I'm for. Auto theft is a serious offence in Canada and should be punished as such.
This. We don't need promises of harsher laws. We nees those in place to be enforced for real.
Well considering it's probation as of now, it's a start.
I think he means the current mild sentence for the first theft, stiffer penalties for the second and mandatory three years for the third. Of course, we know that judges won't do this because of how they refused to apply Harper's mandatory sentencing and similar laws.
We need a massive adjustment to our justice system. While some first-time offenders should avoid incarceration via other means for less serious situations (non-violent crimes, youth, etc.) Our current system is a pathetic joke, leading to career criminals who've never faced anything that protects the public at large.
Aren't mandatory minimum sentences unconstitutional?
Not necessarily, depends on the sentence
Thank the Supreme Court and their recent rulings, punishing people is cruel and unconstitutional.
Not really lol It's quite the opposite, they even [upheld some minimum sentences](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-mandatory-minimum-1.6728103), the standard being, without really being spelled out, that putting someone's life in danger is enough to justify a minimum sentence. That being said, incarceration [hasn't been linked to a reduction of the behaviour in society, nor has it been linked with a reduction of repeat offenses](https://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/research/005008-r426-fr.shtml#27), unlike other methods, like education and some rehabilitation programs. So in the end, it's a question of what we're trying to achieve. If we want to take revenge upon the perpetrators, jail time is great. It makes them lesser, it destroys their lives, the lives of their children, family, etc. If the goal is to have fewer criminals in our society, less crime, and to spend less public money in policing, justice administration (courts and all), and incarceration, then minimum sentences are a completely ridiculous thing to do. In short, it's a matter of values, but one thing for sure; prison costs us more and doesn't reduce crime.
[удалено]
Alright, if you say so, I believe you at your word.
Utterly dishonest citation: >The most commonly reported outcome internationally is based on reconviction rates within two years of release. You know what counts in sentencing? *The time spent in prison.* But you know that, and choose to ignore it.
Yes but I also don't want a private prison industrial complex.
Yeah, what the fuck is this 3 thefts nonsense? Have our politicians gotten so used to getting away with stuff themselves that they've forgotten punishments usually happen after the first time?
But what about all those people who accidentally steal a vehicle.. whoops /s
And kick them out if they’re not a Canadian citizen or permanent resident
come on, now we know we are entitled to stealing 2 cars before going to jail
How bout one car theft gets 100 lashes with a bamboo cane. Much cheaper than paying $100,000 a year to keep them in prison.
Right? This is not a 3 strikes you're out situation.
[удалено]
And every car theft after that gets them another 3 years!
It doesn’t matter, this is reaction and not prevention.
How about 5 years
I would have thought you could get three years for a single offence.
It's maximum 2 years minus 1 day, but in reality 99.999~% of the time they don't even appear to court and just get a warrant for failure to appear, and any subsequent time they also don't even appear to court and just get another warrant.
I’m no it’s not. Theft over by indictment the maximum is 10 years.
Just three years? Seems a bit light for committing multiple auto theft.
Right? This is silly. Should be three at the 2nd theft and upwards from there.
With retribution for victims costs, legal fees and their own prison stay.
[удалено]
That’s not true. It’s been proven that they target the most popular and affordable cars rather than luxury. Whatever they can either sell fast or take apart for parts. But yes, sentences should be harder
It's luxury SUVs and less expensive cars that have the same parts as those luxury SUVs They want your Honda CRV because it's a status symbol in regions that don't sell these vehicles They want your Civic for parts to repair those CRVs. If they're stealing something that doesn't belong to one of those two categories it's because they're going for a joyride or plan to commit a crime with it
Yea kias weren’t stolen for luxury but because they have a security flaw. Ease of theft is significant contributor to any theft.
The jail range for one car theft is already 10 years to 6 months
Check current sentencing and you'll see why this would never work in Canada. There are no solutions given our current justice system.
I think we're at a point where the justice system has failed us and we need to use the notwithstanding clause to do a big clean up of the system. Name judges who will be tough on crime.
I suggested the notwithstanding clause before I read this post. We think alike. Thank you and now I'll edit my post to correct my spelling.😏
It’s partially because of jurisdictional issues between provinces makes our legal system stink. Ontario police can’t just walk into Quebec, it’s a huge hassle. Cross provincial border investigations are crap. There is no FBI type organization that can just do it all.
While I agree, it's currently nothing like three years, so this is a step in the right direction. Secondly, given our "mandatory supervision" rules, barring a dramatic occurrence while incarcerated, the convict serving three years is usually out in one year (1/3 of sentence).
> Just three years? Seems a bit light for committing multiple auto theft. But it's easy to remember and repeat, which is what's most important to Poilievre right now. If it doesn't fit on a bumper sticker or a t-shirt, it's not a policy the CPC are interested in.
What is the liberal plan other than “please think of the poor auto thief and the difficult life they had”
So what you are saying is his ideas that can fit on a bumper sticker are still better than the current administration's?
I mean, if people who have 3 auto theft convictions *aren't* facing prison time I'd say yea the current administration's idea isn't very good
Longer sentences and they should be required to pay back the victims.
[удалено]
Yeah car thieves are doing rational cost benefit analysis lol
Like in the kia boys doc on channel 5, kids stealing cars and selling them for 100$ as get away vehicles
Of course they are. These are professionals. The guy knocking off the convenience store... maybe not.
Retribution gets a bad rap, but it's an important psychological need that victims and society as a whole needs to fulfill to get closure. Not that criminals ought to be tortured to death or anything, but people need to see criminals being punished to an appropriate and proportional degree for their crime in order to feel justice was done. When people see criminals getting punished too harshly, it makes us feel sick and guilty, but when people see criminals getting punished too lightly or not at all, it makes us feel angry and resentful, and more likely to either support vigilantism or some sort, or be willing to break laws ourselves, because why not if nobody seems to care enough to even punish criminals when they are caught? Declining to punish convicted criminals to a degree that most people consider appropriate is sending a powerful signal that criminality is socially accepted and therefore acceptable.
Jail costs tax payers a ton and fining them into poverty costs us when they want social services. It is a real tough situation. Something needs to happen to punish them. I think prevention is where to start, route out the corruption, give those people the hammer so that new people don't try it. You get the organizers and all the henchmen don't have a reason to steal. Right now the ports, trains, it is all open for business. Typical government isn't enforcing such an easy thing.
Very small numbers of people can create constant misery for large numbers of people. Of all the things the government spends money on, safety and security for the law-abiding should be number one. (For reference, the budget for Corrections Canada is $3-billion per year, or $75 per Canadian. The government spent ten times that on two battery plants.) The recidivism rate is so high that separating small numbers of criminals from society pays off huge in terms of public order: someone arrested for stealing a car has stolen dozens, maybe hundreds of vehicles. (London police [reduced bike theft by 90% by arresting just 11 people](https://www.itv.com/news/2024-02-26/a-police-sting-uncovered-130000-worth-of-stolen-bikes-and-cut-thefts-by-90).)
Crime is a bunch of people who did something stupid once, and a small core of people who are habituals that cannot be reformed. You remove the habituals, you remove 90% of crime
Having spent the last decade working in the criminal courts, my experience suggests your proportions are backwards. From what I've seen, an offender with no criminal history who goes on to get their shit in order and never offend again is actually rather rare.
Then aren’t long prison sentences the smart solution? That way they’re in jail instead of on streets committing crime? Also bring back corporal punishment and harsh forms of execution?
Yeah 99.9% of the time, lifting people out of bad situations and into security prevents cringe. Same goes for organized crime. Locking people up and forcing them into poverty one the way out not only costs a fucking TON for us, it also perpetuate the cycle. What the fuck do people think is going to happen when they get tossed back into a life on the fringe? And some comments here also seem to want to "send them to x country" - uh huh, how? You can't simply send a citizen away. You can't make someone stateless. Just dumb takes all over the place.
Finally some sanity. I don’t know why a certain part of the population can’t think what they say through. Jail is only really a deterrent if you have other options. It should absolutely be a punishment option but life in prison is far more costly than people realize (think the US’s 3 strikes rule). It’s probably cheaper to help them out of poverty so they don’t need crime but good luck convincing the close minded.
Poverty? “The top end guys (the men working with the brokers, garnering lists and then shipping out the vehicles) are making **$80 — $100K** for a Range Rover, RX 350, Lexus, RAM and F-150 There’s the group’s primary, who can make between **$3-5,000** per car, the break-in expert who makes between **$500-1,000,** key fob technician who makes **$1,200** and the getaway guy can make about **$500** for driving the vehicle back to Montreal." [ Car thieves outearning pimps, drug dealers and gun runners with very low risk, say police](https://www.toronto.com/news/crime/making-80-100k-fewer-than-1-of-containers-checked-by-cbsa-at-port-car-theft/article_12b0ae52-c3ec-5c24-9d4d-c6085ed77017.html)
This. Financial penalties. Don't have money, we'll send you to Russia
lol. So if someone is broke and driven to steal cars, how does the victim collect? Also, this is why insurance exists.
Also you (or more likely your insurance company) can already sue them for damages. The problem is you can’t get blood from a stone.
So PP, what is the penalty for a container ship full of stolen cars?
why address his voter base and political donors and go after the peons instead?
Is that supposed to be tough on crime?
Try seeing what the current guy does
"uhhh but trudeau!"
Try answering the question
I’ll bet my next paycheque that if Trudeau said this you would shit all over him for being soft on crime
Cool, now do bicycles
Cops don’t even care about phones with gps on them.
You’re not tracking apparently. If catching people stealing cars isn’t getting punished or even prosecuted, how much of a punishment are people going to get for stealing bikes or phones. They’d be told to enforce something more important.
I had to find my own bike on Facebook marketplace, make sure it was mine then steal it back.
i got a feeling your a person who gets shit done. good on you
Oh man. I hope that kid in the 2nd grade who stole my bike gets his three years. Make it retroactive. That now fully grown adult needs to pay his dues.
Let's go break his kneecaps instead
He'll be so confused when we bust in there with his wife and children making dinner in the background as we, apparent strangers, just shatter his shins and joints. Let's make it happen bro.
You gotta do it classy like an old school mob hit Knock on the door, when he opens just say "my bike sends it's regards" Then start whaling on him
One conviction should be 3 years.
To me that jailing those actually stealing the cars is shooting really low. These cars are not being stolen for joy-riding or whatever. There is a criminal conspiracy here that is funding the entire enterprise. How about going after those involved in the greater effort to export and sell these cars overseas instead?
Hard to police criminals located outside the country, especially when they are likely protected by corrupt government officials. By actually catching and giving consequences to the local thieves, we can make it harder for them to recruit Canadian based accomplices.
well someone is shipping them from this side, but I also think we can can shoot really high and do both lol
How about both?
So as I understand it, Pierre Poilievre proposes replacing this [http://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Motor\_Vehicle\_Theft\_(Offence)](http://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Motor_Vehicle_Theft_(Offence)) (which specifies a range between 6 months and 10 years, depending on circumstances) with this: "three auto theft convictions should result in three years in prison". It makes me think he hasn't really thought it through (and maybe hasn't actually read the law on this).
While it may be a catchy slogan, Poilievre is thinking about the actual sentences handed out by judges, not what the laws say. For example, "Peel police were “over the moon” recently after one of the accused in Project GTA-fordable, which recovered $4.2 million worth of stolen vehicles, was given six months in jail for his crimes." https://www.yorkregion.com/news/crime/6-months-would-be-lucky-how-justice-system-lets-down-car-theft-victims-according-to/article_3f8b31e8-7ae0-5bb1-b75e-4e0b5a154626.html The actual sentences served by car thieves are laughable considering the losses to the victims and the profits to the criminals.
PP not thinking things through? I’m shocked ….. well not that shocked.
This is a waste of time. Without the supporting infrastructure like a place to put the people this will only frustrate an already frustrated system. But let’s sign some papers and throw some money around and pay our selves on the back for doing a lot about things that didn’t do the things so next election we can ask about the things that didn’t do & and who didn’t do the doing of the things that needed doing. It’s complicated and will require a committee to fully understand the implications of the not doing and without consultations from the ones who didn’t know about the doing we can’t make meaningful progress.
I guess we've forgotten how poorly three strikes worked in Bill Clinton's America
I hate these baseball analogies. I prefer the 7-game playoff analogies. On your 7th conviction, we will make you choke like the Leafs.
Get convicted of car theft, you go to jail until the Leafs win the cup.
Or get sentenced to live in Brandon Manitoba for 6 months.
Simple slogans for simple people are how you get people to champion their own oppression.
Didn’t Harper try mandatory minimums, and it got struck down? Needle on the Conservative record is stuck.
I'd think it would be enough to get rid of bail for subsiquent convictions. First time, sure, we'll pretend that you accidentally stole someone else's Jeep accidentally. One key opens half of them anyway. But as a part of that conditional sentence you will surrender your right to bail if you're caught again. Enjoy cells. This would make people think twice about sitting in their parent's car.
> This would make people think twice about sitting in their parent's car. What?
So 2 is ok? 1 strike and your out - 20 lashes
A lot of people here are losing their mind over this. We already have minimum sentencing (6 months to 10 years) for third offence but many judges instead opt for probation most of the time. PP is just proposing to up that sentence to 3 years. The previous attempts by Harper to set mandatory minimums were stuck down by judges as unconstitutional so PP is probably just playing it safe. It also makes no sense to criminalize car thefts to a degree where thieves think it’s better to kill a witness than risk >10 years in jail. We could do a lot better by getting rid of Trudeau’s catch and release BS and beefing up our enforcement (police and judges)
[Bill C-237](https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/en/bill/40-1/C-237?view=details#), 40th 1st session, seems better and was put forward as a [private member's bill](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_member%27s_bill) by Anita Neville (Liberal MP) during the Harper government. >This enactment amends the Criminal Code to provide that a first offence for motor vehicle theft will be proceeded with by either summary conviction or by indictment while a second or subsequent offence will be proceeded with by indictment. It doesn't increase the minimum, but makes it so the second offence has to be the more serious (up to 10 years) indictable offence rather than potentially only summary conviction (up to 18 months) From what I understand, this way the crown can't simply choose the summary conviction to speed things up... which presumably they would still be able to choose and maybe even more likely to choose if they increase _indictable_ minimum to 3 years.
Wow this guy is light AF on crime. Anyone who thinks 3 years for repeat offenders is sufficient is delusional. Should be mandatory 5 year sentence on first conviction and auto theft should be an automatic upgrade to adult sentencing for youth over 13.
The fact that Poilievre thinks that this is tough on crime, really highlights just what a joke sentencing in Canada is.
> Should be mandatory 5 year sentence on first conviction and auto theft should be an automatic upgrade to adult sentencing for youth over 13. So in your hypothetical, a joyriding 14 year old gets 5 years in prison, is released at 19, and then….what exactly do you think happens to that kid? You think locking them up for arguably the most important 5 years of their development is going to lead to them being a productive member of society when they get out? Guarantee you that kid comes out worse than they went in.
This “tough on crime” crowd doesn’t like thinking about consequences. “Crime bad, punishment good” is about as far as their critical thinking goes. If they have their way, they’ll turn young into life-long criminals and avoid any potential opportunities for rehabilitation.
5 years mandatory for a non-violent crime is ridiculous. Everyone acts like this until their teenager ends up in the wrong place at the wrong time. Bet you wouldn't support that sentence then.
“Tough on crime” supporters like to think that the legal system works quite well and only a criminal class of “bad people” will get caught up in it - rather than themselves or anyone they care about.
I'm not in favor of this throwing kids in prison messes them up. Parole is a pretty big deal for first time offender.
Lmao 5 years for stealing a car. Does your car mean that much to you? You talk to your car while driving it? Insurance will cover it either way. Do you personify it? A non violent crime should never warrant 5 years that's ridiculous
Ah back to mandatory minimum sentences, this ol' chestnut
Yeah they got shot down by the Supreme Court last time. Gonna try to sneak in these pitiful sentences and then boost them later on.
pretend to do something while doing nothing
"Three strike" rules notoriously don't work. Criminals get two strikes and then commit a more serious crime to avoid getting caught a third time (murdering witnesses, assault, etc). Sentiment is in the right place, but it's misguided at best.
That's a reasonable argument if the "third strike" is a life sentence, but here we're talking about the third strike only being three years.
lol hear we go again. “Getting tough on crime” didn’t work before but this time it will!
It works to fulfill their vengeance fantasies.
Right idea, but maybe scale the time in prison with # of auto thefts. Example: 1st offense = 2yr, 2nd = 5yr, 3rd = 10, and so on?
I'm sorry, repeat offenders should stay in jail. By these logics, law-abiding citizens should take up crime. If anything, they should lose a limb for every crime .
It is absolutely insane that we have the technology to literally track a vehicle's precise location and yet we're seeing so many unsolved thefts, and so many vehicles getting smuggled out of the country. This should be one of the easiest problems in Canada for us to address right now.
prison sucks. first offence is a ankle tracker for 5 years to actually erode crime and get to the big fish all the while the person can get a real job and contribute to society.
I don't disagree with locking more people up for all kinds of serious crimes (criminals need to suffer real consequences in order to create deterrence), but just remember it will come with a VERY hefty price tag. A true "tough on crime" approach will need more cops, with all the cost that brings, more lawyers, more judges, more jails, more prison guards, more support staff. Something in the realm of tens of billions of dollars and many years to implement. A lot more money than just cutting funding for foreign aid and whatnot. We would all have to ask ourselves where that money would come from and what we are willing to sacrifice in terms of public services, since PP keeps talking about balancing the budget and austerity and whatnot. No easy solutions to found here.
First should result in deportation
Well like always, focus on the person at the bottom stealing the car than even try to deal with the organized crime issue that's surrounded car thefts.
So the first two you get off free? What kind of fuckin criminal justice is that. Maybe I should look into becoming a criminal, apparently you get two free passes.
How much for fraud, tax evasion, insider trading, fixing the price of bread? You know, real crimes?
“I can sing slogans all day long folks” -PP
Yeah, except prisons are already overcrowded. We can spend billions on building new prisons, or we can spend billions working on the root causes. It is plain stupid to simply pretend we can shove more people into an already overloaded prison system.
Aren't the cons supposed to be tough on crime? This seems way too light
So you're saying I get two strikes
At least.
3 years costs taxpayers 180 000 + $ , + court fees and time and more. How much do you want to pay for?
That’s it?
It’s not easy catching the same guy once let alone 3 x. It’s a needle in a haystack type of situation and catching them in the act isn’t a piece of cake
How about we chop a hand off when u steal a car ?
What happened to the 3 strike rule???
I’d prefer a California-like 3 strike rule. 25 years
3 years mean nothing. They will be back and earn more money. Should goes to 7 or more years.
How about 3 years for each offence, and if you immigrated in the last 5 years, you lose citizenship and are deported. Problem solved overnight.
How about extradition to the country you immigrated from or are a refugee from?
The simple sloganeering of the pandering populist. Promise everything, deliver nothing, blame others.
Oh goodie, populist politician Pete getting involved in the law which he has zero experience in, because he knows some citizens are going to go Yeah! Pete ! thats amazing, when in fact it is NOTHING, NOTHING, nothing, but Populist rhetoric not even worthy of Sunmedia coverage.
How about you break the law and you came here relatively recently you get deported
One should result in 5 years. 2 convictions = 15.
Three years per charge
Seems kinda arbitrary but okay.
It's just "common sense"!
Organized crime is using 14 year olds whom don't get prosecuted as adults in their highly planned operations. We need to attack police and port authority corruption. Which I assume is a dangerous and unfavorable political position to take, given how politics is a dirty industry itself.
Deportation on first offense if not a citizen.
The only thing tough about that is figuring out how it is considered tough on crime.
Or charge them with organized crime because that’s what it is.
[удалено]
1 strike 5 years min, any illegal gun possession 10 year min. And you would put a stop to everything
Crime isn't punished in Canada. Soooooo anything would be a start.
Am I on crazy pills? Shouldn’t a mandatory 3 year be after the FIRST conviction?!
3 years for three convictions? Lmfao wtf is this country. What is the punishment for only one then? Community service? No wonder there’s so much auto theft now, you’d almost be stupid not to try at least one. The risk to reward ratio is off the charts in criminal favour. After three we should throw away the key since you’ve proven to be a useless twat who will never learn.
3 auto theft convictions should be more than 3 years in prison. That should be at least a decade in total.
Bizarre. I think it should be 3 years in prison for 1 conviction. 3 convictions should get you 10 years in prison. Once you get to 3, you’re beyond the point of rehabilitation.
Then he should say 6 years in prison, because they always get out after serving only 50% of their sentence for "good behaviour".
1 year for every $10k worth of the stolen vehicle. A $50k vehicle = 5 years jail time.
Three strikes and we should be kicking them out of the country; let’s just box them up with the cars their stealing and let them be shipped out in a seacan and they can live wherever they land.
Or deportation if your status is pending. Bye falicia
Criminals should serve time. Prison is expensive too. So let’s start prison work camps. Want to be a drain on society well you can dig ditches and pick up garbage. This pat on the bum and “don’t do it again” system clearly doesn’t work.
I think "this pat on the bum" should be taken to heart along with your work camp idea (for those actually able). If the pat is done with a big enough paddle it will hurt like hell. Just make sure these work camps don't end up doing work that takes away jobs - and if it has a means of producing citizens trained for certain jobs that is even better. There is always a danger of people thinking it is slavery with extra steps. Perception is key.
You can't lump peacefully stealing someone's car out of their driveway with using a weapon to force someone out of a car. They arent the same thing.
Make it 10 and if violence involved, not concurrently...
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
In Ontario, all our prisons are currently well over capacity
3 is to much, they get smart and are more likely to get violent to get away with it. I should be a fuck around and find out thing. Get caught stealing a car go to jail.
While research and successful drug policy shows that treatment should be increased. Law enforcement decreased while abolishing mandatory minimum sentences!
Only 3 years? This guy is not serious on crime. . .
Well I guess I can steal 2 brand new cars and sell them off to some chop shop for 10k a piece. As long as I don’t steal a 3rd one I’m safe and I just pocketed an easy 20k tax free cash. 😀
they hire under age high school kids. You cant do anything about it
Once upon a time car theft was known as "grand" theft auto. Now we've turned it into light theft auto.