Jesse Kline: Another judge comes to the rescue of heartless murderers

Crime has become a major issue in this country, but the courts seem determined to ensure our criminal justice system is nothing more than a revolving door that constantly throws potentially dangerous offenders back onto the streets.

Sign In or Create an Account

On Monday, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Brenda Brown found that the rule preventing people convicted of multiple murders from requesting parole for 25 years infringes their Charter right not to be subjected to “cruel and unusual” punishment, which is a very broad interpretation of that specific right.

The court proceedings are still ongoing meaning that the judge hasn’t issued a written justification for her ruling and could still find the ban on multiple murderers utilizing the “faint hope” clause to be justified under Sec. 1 of the Charter — i.e., that it’s “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

Columnist Jesse Kline keeps you up to date with what’s happening in Israel and the effects of antisemitism on life here in Canada. Friday mornings.

By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of Channel Israel will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Even if it stands, the ruling could be overturned by a higher court. But absolutely no one will be surprised if the Supreme Court of Canada ultimately claims there is little distinction between spending 25 years in a Canadian prison and getting waterboarded in a CIA black site.

After all, in 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that sending Alexandre Bissonnette to prison without parole for 150 years after killing six worshippers and seriously injured five others at a mosque counted us cruel and unusual punishment and was therefore unconstitutional.

That same year, three men — Abhijeet Singh, Gurkaran Singh and Khushveer Toor — broke into a home in Abbotsford, B.C., and brutally murdered an elderly couple, Arnold and Joanne De Jong. The three men worked for a cleaning service that the De Jongs had hired and hatched a plan to rob the house.

They knew “that if the De Jongs saw them during the home invasion, they may be identified.… Because of this, they could not leave the De Jong’s alive at the conclusion of the home invasion,” wrote Justice Brown in her decision finding them guilty in May.

“I find as the only reasonable inference from the evidence that in order for the home invasion to succeed, the plan required the murders of the De Jongs.”

The result was especially gruesome: Arnold De Jong was found asphyxiated in his bed, his head wrapped in duct tape; his wife had her throat slit and was bludgeoned to death. This, according to the court, was both “planned and deliberate” — in other words, it was entirely premeditated.

And yet, when lawyers for the convicted murderers challenged their ineligibility for early parole, Justice Brown thought it entirely reasonable not only to entertain the notion, but to redefine the constitutional protection against “cruel and unusual treatment or punishment” to include sentences that are completely within international norms.

Indeed, the U.S. Bill of Rights also prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments,” but this does not stop the state from delivering multiple lethal injections to the same inmate, musing about live-streaming a firing squad or handing out life sentences that actually last a lifetime.

The B.C. Supreme Court ruling, which further delays sentencing in a legal process that has already taken four years, came as a “gut punch” to the De Jongs’ daughters. But its ramifications could extend far beyond the victims.

Canadian “life sentences” are already a joke given that those convicted of the most serious of crimes are eligible for parole after a mere 25 years, 30 per cent of the average Canadian’s lifespan. But it’s even worse that a murderer could be released after just 15. In 2011, the Harper government attempted to strengthen the law by ensuring that anyone convicted of multiple murders must be kept behind bars for at least a quarter century.

This was part of the former Conservative government’s tough-on-crime agenda, which sought to strengthen penalties for numerous crimes and prioritize the rights of victims over felons. While I can’t say that I was a huge fan of all those policies, I have no qualms about throwing someone who has killed numerous people in cold blood behind bars and throwing away the key.

Nor is this a controversial subject among Canadians: a June poll conducted by Research Co. found that a majority (60 per cent) are in favour of bringing back the death penalty for murder. And if Canadians think the guillotine is a suitable punishment, there is surely broad support for longer sentences.

Yet the nice thing about being a judge is you don’t have to cater to the whims of the public. Unlike legislators, who are accountable to the people, judges don’t have to care if the policies they create from the bench end up causing chaos and disorder in the streets. Which is exactly what has happened over the past decade.

Crime in this country had been falling for decades until 2015, when it began to rise once again. It is no coincidence that this coincided with the Liberals coming to power, but it also corresponds with the courts’ systematic dismantling of Harper-era crime policies, such as mandatory minimum sentences for everything from firearm offences to child pornography.

Lighter sentences for those who distribute pictures of abused children was apparently too far, even for the Liberals. In June, the federal government passed legislation restoring minimum sentences for child predators, showing that Parliament can attempt to push back against activist courts when it feels inclined to do so. Unfortunately, in too many instances, Ottawa has simply rolled over and acquiesced to the courts’ dictates.

In properly functioning democracies, courts provide a much-needed check on government over-reach, ensuring the rights of all citizens, including those convicted of serious criminal offences, are protected. But all too often in this country, the courts take those protections to the extreme and end up inventing rights that were never written into the Constitution and effectively setting policy that is the proper domain of elected officials.

The result of activist judges coupled with a soft-on-crime government in Ottawa has been growing lawlessness and disarray, and a small number of criminals who commit a vast majority of the crime and always end up back on the streets to continue their rein of terror.

While the B.C. Supreme Court has yet to set a precedent on early parole, it has taken one more step in a process that has prioritized the fictional rights of criminals and prevented our legislators and criminal justice system from keeping Canadians safe.

National Post
jkline@postmedia.com
Twitter.com/accessd

This website uses cookies to personalize your content (including ads), and allows us to analyze our traffic. Read more about cookies here. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.