HomeMy WebLinkAboutThe Brussels Post, 1976-03-24, Page 3TOP SPEAKERS -- It's a safe bet that Greg lichti, R.R.2, Brussels, second from
left, and Heather Brent, Wroxeter, next to h im didn't speak with their eyes closed,
but the Post's photographer caught them that way. Greg and Heather, top winners
in Thursday night's Optimist public speaking contest are congratulated by Don
McDonald, chairman of the contest and 'Optimist president Danny Pearson.
(Photo by Langlois)
Why are people on bail ? Federal riding i boundaries change
The justice system
HURON
ley
The former Federal riding of
Huron-Middlesex has been
changed to the riding of Huron.
Along with the n ante, the
boundarieS of the riding have also
been changed. The change will
take place April 1st.
Under the new boundaries, the
townships of Huron, Kinloss, and
Culross and the villages of Ripley,
Lucknow, Teeswater and
Mildmay,' all in Bruce county,
43ecome part -of Huron Riding,
now represented by Bob
McKinley, ConservatiVe, of
Zurich. , •
Also, the townships of
Biddulph, east of highway 4 and
McGillivray, west of highway 4,'
including the towns of Ailsa
Craig, Lucan and Granton
formerly of the Huron-Middlesex
riding, have been redi stributed
'to the Lambton-Middlesex riding.
The reason for the redistribu-
tion of the boundaries is due to
larger population near London.
In general, an urban riding has
20,000 more people than a rural
riding. Due to the rise of
population moving towards ti
London, the rural ridings had to
be moved farther out from the city
Bob McKinley has been the MP
of the riding since 1965 and 'the
Federal boundaries have been
changed once , in' 1968. At that
time, the townships of Howick
and Turnberry and the town of
Wingham were brought in as
were parts of Middlesex, now
taken away again.
* 24 HOUR TOWING *
CARL'S AUTO BODY
BRUSSELS
Complete Collision and Frame
Service
Day 887-9269 Nite 887-9231
Summer
Begins Now!
At Your
CANADA MANPOWPI.
CENTRE
FOR STUDENTS
fall BOb.Mitler.
Litfowel 29j-2922
242 iiikemititiSteeef i Listowel,
David Kennedy, a native of Brussels,.. is
executive sscreary of the John. Howard Society
in Hamilton. He's the son of Roy and Evelyn
Kennedy, and attended elementary school in
brussels and high schoOl in wingham. He has
a BA from Ottawa University and master's
degree in social work from the. University of
Toronto.
David is married and has two sons, Michael.
and Mark. He will be writing occasional
columns on justice and social issues for the
Brussels Post and the HutIon 'Expositor. Some
of his upcoming articles will be on 'gun control
legislation 'and bail.
David is hoping for reactions and comments
from readers. He will be glad to answer any
questions about Canada's just ice and prison
systems. Write your questions and comments
to David Kennedy, care of this newspaper.
(By David Kennedy)
Why are all these criminag roaming the
streets? Once the police catch them, keep
them locked u pl
There is no doubt that over the last few
years a great many reports have been
reaching us about the number of crimes
committed by people who have been released
on bail, sometimes of ter being released more
than once. We might ask, "Once the police
catch a crook; shouldn't the courts keep them
caught?"
Well, let's look at the purpose of bail. In our
system of justice, a person is presumed
innocent until proven guilty. As a result, we
must treat individuals as innocent people until
the courts declare them guilty. Since a
substantial number of "not guilty" findings
are rendered and since a substantial number
of charges are eventually dropped or
withdrawn, the wisdom of the abdve philoso-
phy is clear.
Logically, we must then conclude that a
person facing a criminal charge (but still
presumed innocent) should not suffer loss of
freedom or other rights of a citizen. Now,
obviously, some people are just too dangerous
to take a chance on them.
Then how do we balance this conflict
between the principals of innocence and the
danger to the community. The answer
accepted by our judicial system has been to
give the courts the power Ito hold someone
charged with an offence if the court feels that
the Crown can "show sufficient season to
believe that this person may have committed
the offence and would pose a serious threat to
the li fe or property of the community if he
were to be released. The onus is on the Crown
to prove why this man should not be released.
Prior to the introduction Of the Bail Reform
Act a couple of years ago, the onus was on the
defence to prove why the individual should be
released. However that system saw` many
individuals remaining in prison simply
because they had been charged with an
offence (not convicted) and the Judge did net
want to believe their claims of innocence,
The courts wer also faced with the dilemma
presented by the destitute individual or others
who had a bad track record with the law. They
had repeatedly been convicted of criminal
offences but under the general principle of
innocence they argued that they should be
released until proven. guilty of this particular
charge. The courts knew full well that further
offences would prObably be committed
because the individual had no visible means of
support, apparently no change in behaviour
pattern, and an established record of criminal
offerides. Thus, the courts were given the
power to' hold an individual in prison pending,
his court. case if it appeared that further
offences were likelytooccur. Again under the
recent Bail Reform Act, the onus 'was on the
Crown to prove that such a further offence was
' likely to occur.
Because of the irresponsible behaviour of
some and because of the obvious clinger that
individuals would refuse to appear in court for
the court case, if released, the court was also
given the power to hold someone in jail if they
had reason to believe that the individual
would not return to court on the date specified
for further court action. This required ,a very
difficult judgment decision on the part of the
courts. How could they possibly determine if
an individual's promise to appear in court
could be trusted? Obviously, an individual
who wanted to avoid prosecution for his
offence might say anything in order to be
released and provide him with the opportunity
to run away.
So, the courts were given the powers to
• require individuals to place the .deed to real
property in the hands of the courts or to leave
money in the hands of the court in an attempt
to •assure their re-appearance for trial. The
courts also were 'empowered to require the
charged individual to find other community
citizens who were willing to risk their property
or money as a sign of faith and stability that
the individual charged would re-appear.
Thus the courts can deny bail for three
reasons. First if it is felt that a serious danger
to the community would exist if fife charged
individual was released. second, if it appears
that a farther offence is likely to be
committed. Third, if it appears that the
individual will not return to court as required.
All of these reasons, seem valid and can
generally be supported. Unfortunately some
very. serious side effects have occurred. The
very poor, have been unable to raise the
amount of the bail required even though they
are unlikely to violate any of the above three
reasons., The courts have, as a matter of
routine; been placing a momentary value on
the release on bail. In our local detention
centres, the largest single group of indiViduals
being held are there on remand, awaiting
their court case. In our larger cities in
particular, this wait regularly amounts to
several months. The majority of persons held
have been charged with property offences, the
value of *Melt is less than $200.
Is the cost justified? I'd like to hear your •
opinion,
KINLOSS
Locknow
ASHFIELD
THE BRUSSELS' 'POST- MARd4 :24,. 106