Peter Sankoff focuses on the punishment suffered by an individual, looking at the cumulative impact suffered when they incur the punishment of a criminal conviction plus the impact of that conviction on their immigration status or professional designation. The problem is that issues of immigration and professional status can’t be coupled that way. The question for somebody seeking to reside in Canada is whether they’re of good character and should be allowed to be part of Canadian society. A serious criminal conviction says that they aren’t. Is it fair that they face the consequence of having their life disrupted when somebody born in Canada isn’t? Maybe not, but we don’t have the choice of kicking the Canadian-born person out of the country - we’re stuck with them.
Similarly, a professional like a lawyer, engineer, doctor, or teacher is placed in a position of authority. One of the expectations is that people granted that authority are of good character. A serious criminal conviction implies they are not.
Mr Sankoff seems to advocate circumventing measures intended to protect society by instead focusing on the impact to an individual. A serious criminal conviction isn’t just an “oops, I screwed up”, particularly if that person has been convicted. Dangerous driving was cited as an example: that act could’ve resulted in injury or death to others if something had gone wrong. It’s not minor, it’s not benign - it’s reckless, selfish, and unacceptable. If you want to hold a position of authority as a professional, you’re expected to uphold the law. It’s not a question of *higher* expectations or standards than everyone else - we expect EVERYONE to follow the law!! The impact is greater because those people have been asking for something more. It’s the same for non-citizens: they’re asking to live here. They don’t have a *right* to live here until they’re full citizens. And if someone refuses to complete the process of becoming a Canadian citizen for reasons like not wanting to relinquish citizenship elsewhere, they’ve made their choice.
This is well said - coupling the two things this way is the wrong mental model.
Also, Peter's framing about accounting for additional consequences seems to be describing a different situation than what's happening in these cases. It's one thing for judges to lower sentences to *account for* additional consequences, but what seems to be happening in a lot of these cases is judges are giving lower sentences to *avoid* those additional consequences. The net effect is getting off lighter without actually facing the consequences that apparently justified the lighter sentence.
Agreed. I’ve always liked the house guest analogy. The guest is welcome so long as they’re being polite. But the second they start causing a ruckus, they get kicked out onto the porch.
This becomes most glaringly clear when you see police officers convicted of crimes committed while on duty. Losing their job is not automatic, because oh that could be a big impact.
While people do make mistakes, even significant ones, and criminal convictions can be viewed that way and do not necessarily make people ethically unfit for professional positions (including policing, even), more than minimal adjustment for immigration consequences is absolutely unfair.
I AM actually quite OK with 'well he's going to get deported either way, you should give the guy a reduced sentence.' Deportation is a big deal, a big consequence for the person, and certainly makes any other punishment they receive more significant.
Also this requires criminal lawyers and judges to all understand the immigration system, which there's an argument even immigration lawyers and judges don't understand.
I think of this often re the Humboldt driver - my view was and is that the country is improved by the presence of a man who, when he makes a horrible mistake, takes more responsibility than he needs to (there was a VERY real chance he could've beaten that at trial, and looking at his sentence it is also relatively high, but he did not appeal).
The problem is that the criminal justice system is a blunt instrument, and the more automatic consequences it produces the more problems that creates. I can think of vanishingly few defence lawyers who would care if the rule was 'automatic deportation for a penitentiary sentence, everything else is up to a committee.' Instead, the standard is much lower, and so you get people going 'well hang on, kicking him out of the country for THAT is a bit much, we should adjust the criminal consequences so that doesn't happen.'
If I was residing in any other country as a non-citizen and especially as a non-permanent resident, I would completely expect to be deported if I committed any kind of crime beyond jaywalking or a traffic infraction. Shoplift gum? You should be able to expect that would result in you getting deported. Anyone who doesn't have that expectation is behaving in an incredibly entitled fashion. But that's the impression we give - people not from Canada have a right to live in Canada.
It’s a no brainer. You’re here on probation for five years or more to prove you’re a good person worthy of membership in Canadian society . That includes obeying the laws. Break them - especially a criminal one - and you’re gone. Look south to see a country that gets it - and has been getting it for over a century.
I’m assuming this notion of probation is explained to the permanent resident too so they are aware that they need to be especially careful during probation. So if someone can’t even muster the self control, goodness, whatever to not break out criminal laws for 5 ish years, then I think we know the answer as to whether they should be granted citizenship.
He started losing me when he said his wife was “unable to get citizenship”.
No.
She simply prioritized maintaining her German citizenship over getting Canadian citizenship.
And I completely understand—if I emigrated and was in that situation, I would definitely have to think long and hard about it before I would consider giving up my Canadian citizenship. I don’t know if I could make the decision to give it up, either. But the fact is that she had a benefit that the vast majority of Canadian citizens don’t have and, for 13 years, prioritized that benefit over a permanent commitment to Canada.
That he sees that as a legitimate scenario speaks to a sense of entitlement that I think most Canadians would find repellant.
Good job guys for taking it off the X and into dialogue. That’s what should happen.
I tend to disagree with Mr Sankoff that sentencing judges always take into account the non - court imposed consequences of a conviction. I’ve never seen a judge take into account loss of income or even loss of career , unless it had something to do with being able to pay restitution. There’s a whole pile of negative things that come with a criminal conviction that are not and arguably shouldn’t be argued.
And Matt stopped short of saying the obvious, which was that possibly the whole idea is that the threat of deportation as a deterrent to criminal behaviour is actually the point. Not a bug - a feature. Emigrating to Canada ? Great. Don’t break the laws.
But the main takeaway was that, as always, the grey areas and the devilish details are important and solutions aren’t likely as simple as we’d like.
If those judges aren't taking that into account, they're supposed to. You're not supposed to reduce the sentence to avoid consequences, but as an obvious example the Manitoba Court of Appeal once agreed that house arrest for a guy in a small town convicted of a sex crime was a much harsher punishment than it would be in a large center where not everyone knew what he had done.
And if the Manitoba Court of Appeal will do something pro-defense, it's universal.
No. They should not be treated differently than Canadian citizens. A crime is a crime is a crime. I just travelled thru Humboldt Country. Their pain is real. He is appealing his deportation. Enough,send him packing. Why are my tax dollars paying for his court appearances. He was found guilty
He was not found guilty. He PLEAD guilty. On a case that almost every lawyer who commented on it said he had a good chance of beating (dangerous driving usually requires a LOT more than 'I missed a stop sign,' and the layout of the intersection was such that neither the bus nor the transport truck could see each other). And then got a sentence that was arguably too high and then didn't appeal it.
He is not the kind of man who lacks understanding of his crime, or lacks remorse for what he did. He is not a danger to society. He is, if anything prepared to take too much responsibility when he fucks up. Frankly, I think the country is better off with him than without him.
Few people would have any issue deporting a drunk driver or someone going 50km/h over the speed limit or who cheated to get their license and caused that crash. But I never heard a clear argument for what Sidhu did that was so reckless versus a horrible but honest mistake (I'd guess most people have accidentally run a stop-sign or red-light at some point in their lives - it just usually doesn't lead to such terrible outcomes).
The Humboldt tragedy is one of those "bad cases make bad laws" situations we're probably best ignoring in this sort of discussion - the likely reasons behind the guilty plea are just so unique I don't think it's a good test case for this discussion. I guess to Peter's point, I'm not in favour of deporting someone for running a stop sign - but I also can't imagine that's a common reason for 6+ month dangerous driving sentences, and even if it were, there's better ways to address that situation than giving non-citizens lighter sentences.
Dangerous driving requires something along the lines of a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonable driver. It's been a while since I did one. I had a guy who got convicted for passing on a double yellow with oncoming traffic (and managing to hit them) while speeding, and I'm not sure the judge could have convicted him without finding that he pulled out on a double yellow as opposed to pulling out on a dotted line and just not going back when it changed to double yellow. It's a surprisingly high standard.
6 month jail sentences are relatively hard to get, but there are a fair number of edge cases. In almost any case where the consequences of the crime are a hefty component of sentencing (dangerous driving, more serious assaults, etc) it is relatively easy for someone to get a sentence with automatic immigration consequences that is probably disproportionate to their moral culpability. A one-punch manslaughter (punch the guy once, he dies) would be the classic example - and those are far more common than one would like. Balancing unbalanceable interests is a tricky business.
Peter's concern about complexity is at the core, imho, of the vast majority of problems and the difficulty to fix them not only in the justice system but in government writ large.
A look at the core purpose of each government program, to determine whether it continues to provide the value or result initially intended, almost never happens because those programs have people and budget attached to them. The number of people and dollars determine the title, compensation and influence of the executive level managers (ADMs, EDs, DGs) and no one wants to lose "numbers" underneath them.
The questions about:
-what do we do?
-who do we do it for?
- what does success look like?, and
- does it still need to be done (or done this way)?
Are never asked in government because there is no ongoing evaluation of worth or value within the system.
As well governments regularly spend $10,000 to ensure an employee isn't spending an extra $5 on a cab ride or meal because the oversight costs are never factored into the costs of the doing of the work.
Thanks for the discussion. I see both your points and the only conclusion I can draw is that there's much to fix and no imperative or incentive for politicians to focus on the repairs.
The reputation of the legal system has fallen in parallel with that of the academy, health care, teaching, and possibly other professional services. Common to all is the introduction of social engineering into their practices. The public didn't ask for this and, by and large, doesn't want it. No more agenda driven judges, lawyers, doctors, nurses, professors or teachers, please.
Lady Justice is best when blindfolded. That is why have a legal system, rather than a justice system.
Social engineering has been part of the legal system since its inception. For starters, the very concept of a crime is 'a thing society is going to punish you for doing.' How is that NOT social engineering? On top of that, the legal system bending over backward to avoid what it sees as excessive consequence is centuries old - look up the history of 'benefit of clergy' sometime.
The reputation of the legal system has never been sterling in any era where people have paid the slightest bit of attention.
It was a really good discussion. It did not persuade me that some should get a "Get out of jail early" card because they would be unpopular with Immigration Services. Quite the opposite. And is a Judge required to look those victimized in the eye while explaining that they don't deserve as much justice because of (insert reason).
Peter Sankoff focuses on the punishment suffered by an individual, looking at the cumulative impact suffered when they incur the punishment of a criminal conviction plus the impact of that conviction on their immigration status or professional designation. The problem is that issues of immigration and professional status can’t be coupled that way. The question for somebody seeking to reside in Canada is whether they’re of good character and should be allowed to be part of Canadian society. A serious criminal conviction says that they aren’t. Is it fair that they face the consequence of having their life disrupted when somebody born in Canada isn’t? Maybe not, but we don’t have the choice of kicking the Canadian-born person out of the country - we’re stuck with them.
Similarly, a professional like a lawyer, engineer, doctor, or teacher is placed in a position of authority. One of the expectations is that people granted that authority are of good character. A serious criminal conviction implies they are not.
Mr Sankoff seems to advocate circumventing measures intended to protect society by instead focusing on the impact to an individual. A serious criminal conviction isn’t just an “oops, I screwed up”, particularly if that person has been convicted. Dangerous driving was cited as an example: that act could’ve resulted in injury or death to others if something had gone wrong. It’s not minor, it’s not benign - it’s reckless, selfish, and unacceptable. If you want to hold a position of authority as a professional, you’re expected to uphold the law. It’s not a question of *higher* expectations or standards than everyone else - we expect EVERYONE to follow the law!! The impact is greater because those people have been asking for something more. It’s the same for non-citizens: they’re asking to live here. They don’t have a *right* to live here until they’re full citizens. And if someone refuses to complete the process of becoming a Canadian citizen for reasons like not wanting to relinquish citizenship elsewhere, they’ve made their choice.
This is well said - coupling the two things this way is the wrong mental model.
Also, Peter's framing about accounting for additional consequences seems to be describing a different situation than what's happening in these cases. It's one thing for judges to lower sentences to *account for* additional consequences, but what seems to be happening in a lot of these cases is judges are giving lower sentences to *avoid* those additional consequences. The net effect is getting off lighter without actually facing the consequences that apparently justified the lighter sentence.
Agreed. I’ve always liked the house guest analogy. The guest is welcome so long as they’re being polite. But the second they start causing a ruckus, they get kicked out onto the porch.
This becomes most glaringly clear when you see police officers convicted of crimes committed while on duty. Losing their job is not automatic, because oh that could be a big impact.
While people do make mistakes, even significant ones, and criminal convictions can be viewed that way and do not necessarily make people ethically unfit for professional positions (including policing, even), more than minimal adjustment for immigration consequences is absolutely unfair.
I AM actually quite OK with 'well he's going to get deported either way, you should give the guy a reduced sentence.' Deportation is a big deal, a big consequence for the person, and certainly makes any other punishment they receive more significant.
Also this requires criminal lawyers and judges to all understand the immigration system, which there's an argument even immigration lawyers and judges don't understand.
I think the driver should be forgiven given the context and circumstances. Granted, it's easy for me to say that as I didn't lose a child. JG
I think of this often re the Humboldt driver - my view was and is that the country is improved by the presence of a man who, when he makes a horrible mistake, takes more responsibility than he needs to (there was a VERY real chance he could've beaten that at trial, and looking at his sentence it is also relatively high, but he did not appeal).
The problem is that the criminal justice system is a blunt instrument, and the more automatic consequences it produces the more problems that creates. I can think of vanishingly few defence lawyers who would care if the rule was 'automatic deportation for a penitentiary sentence, everything else is up to a committee.' Instead, the standard is much lower, and so you get people going 'well hang on, kicking him out of the country for THAT is a bit much, we should adjust the criminal consequences so that doesn't happen.'
If I was residing in any other country as a non-citizen and especially as a non-permanent resident, I would completely expect to be deported if I committed any kind of crime beyond jaywalking or a traffic infraction. Shoplift gum? You should be able to expect that would result in you getting deported. Anyone who doesn't have that expectation is behaving in an incredibly entitled fashion. But that's the impression we give - people not from Canada have a right to live in Canada.
It’s a no brainer. You’re here on probation for five years or more to prove you’re a good person worthy of membership in Canadian society . That includes obeying the laws. Break them - especially a criminal one - and you’re gone. Look south to see a country that gets it - and has been getting it for over a century.
I’m assuming this notion of probation is explained to the permanent resident too so they are aware that they need to be especially careful during probation. So if someone can’t even muster the self control, goodness, whatever to not break out criminal laws for 5 ish years, then I think we know the answer as to whether they should be granted citizenship.
He started losing me when he said his wife was “unable to get citizenship”.
No.
She simply prioritized maintaining her German citizenship over getting Canadian citizenship.
And I completely understand—if I emigrated and was in that situation, I would definitely have to think long and hard about it before I would consider giving up my Canadian citizenship. I don’t know if I could make the decision to give it up, either. But the fact is that she had a benefit that the vast majority of Canadian citizens don’t have and, for 13 years, prioritized that benefit over a permanent commitment to Canada.
That he sees that as a legitimate scenario speaks to a sense of entitlement that I think most Canadians would find repellant.
Yes, that whole bit about his wife struck me as very entitled too.
Good job guys for taking it off the X and into dialogue. That’s what should happen.
I tend to disagree with Mr Sankoff that sentencing judges always take into account the non - court imposed consequences of a conviction. I’ve never seen a judge take into account loss of income or even loss of career , unless it had something to do with being able to pay restitution. There’s a whole pile of negative things that come with a criminal conviction that are not and arguably shouldn’t be argued.
And Matt stopped short of saying the obvious, which was that possibly the whole idea is that the threat of deportation as a deterrent to criminal behaviour is actually the point. Not a bug - a feature. Emigrating to Canada ? Great. Don’t break the laws.
But the main takeaway was that, as always, the grey areas and the devilish details are important and solutions aren’t likely as simple as we’d like.
If those judges aren't taking that into account, they're supposed to. You're not supposed to reduce the sentence to avoid consequences, but as an obvious example the Manitoba Court of Appeal once agreed that house arrest for a guy in a small town convicted of a sex crime was a much harsher punishment than it would be in a large center where not everyone knew what he had done.
And if the Manitoba Court of Appeal will do something pro-defense, it's universal.
No. They should not be treated differently than Canadian citizens. A crime is a crime is a crime. I just travelled thru Humboldt Country. Their pain is real. He is appealing his deportation. Enough,send him packing. Why are my tax dollars paying for his court appearances. He was found guilty
He was not found guilty. He PLEAD guilty. On a case that almost every lawyer who commented on it said he had a good chance of beating (dangerous driving usually requires a LOT more than 'I missed a stop sign,' and the layout of the intersection was such that neither the bus nor the transport truck could see each other). And then got a sentence that was arguably too high and then didn't appeal it.
He is not the kind of man who lacks understanding of his crime, or lacks remorse for what he did. He is not a danger to society. He is, if anything prepared to take too much responsibility when he fucks up. Frankly, I think the country is better off with him than without him.
Few people would have any issue deporting a drunk driver or someone going 50km/h over the speed limit or who cheated to get their license and caused that crash. But I never heard a clear argument for what Sidhu did that was so reckless versus a horrible but honest mistake (I'd guess most people have accidentally run a stop-sign or red-light at some point in their lives - it just usually doesn't lead to such terrible outcomes).
The Humboldt tragedy is one of those "bad cases make bad laws" situations we're probably best ignoring in this sort of discussion - the likely reasons behind the guilty plea are just so unique I don't think it's a good test case for this discussion. I guess to Peter's point, I'm not in favour of deporting someone for running a stop sign - but I also can't imagine that's a common reason for 6+ month dangerous driving sentences, and even if it were, there's better ways to address that situation than giving non-citizens lighter sentences.
Dangerous driving requires something along the lines of a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonable driver. It's been a while since I did one. I had a guy who got convicted for passing on a double yellow with oncoming traffic (and managing to hit them) while speeding, and I'm not sure the judge could have convicted him without finding that he pulled out on a double yellow as opposed to pulling out on a dotted line and just not going back when it changed to double yellow. It's a surprisingly high standard.
6 month jail sentences are relatively hard to get, but there are a fair number of edge cases. In almost any case where the consequences of the crime are a hefty component of sentencing (dangerous driving, more serious assaults, etc) it is relatively easy for someone to get a sentence with automatic immigration consequences that is probably disproportionate to their moral culpability. A one-punch manslaughter (punch the guy once, he dies) would be the classic example - and those are far more common than one would like. Balancing unbalanceable interests is a tricky business.
Peter's concern about complexity is at the core, imho, of the vast majority of problems and the difficulty to fix them not only in the justice system but in government writ large.
A look at the core purpose of each government program, to determine whether it continues to provide the value or result initially intended, almost never happens because those programs have people and budget attached to them. The number of people and dollars determine the title, compensation and influence of the executive level managers (ADMs, EDs, DGs) and no one wants to lose "numbers" underneath them.
The questions about:
-what do we do?
-who do we do it for?
- what does success look like?, and
- does it still need to be done (or done this way)?
Are never asked in government because there is no ongoing evaluation of worth or value within the system.
As well governments regularly spend $10,000 to ensure an employee isn't spending an extra $5 on a cab ride or meal because the oversight costs are never factored into the costs of the doing of the work.
Thanks for the discussion. I see both your points and the only conclusion I can draw is that there's much to fix and no imperative or incentive for politicians to focus on the repairs.
The reputation of the legal system has fallen in parallel with that of the academy, health care, teaching, and possibly other professional services. Common to all is the introduction of social engineering into their practices. The public didn't ask for this and, by and large, doesn't want it. No more agenda driven judges, lawyers, doctors, nurses, professors or teachers, please.
Lady Justice is best when blindfolded. That is why have a legal system, rather than a justice system.
Very much so.
Social engineering has been part of the legal system since its inception. For starters, the very concept of a crime is 'a thing society is going to punish you for doing.' How is that NOT social engineering? On top of that, the legal system bending over backward to avoid what it sees as excessive consequence is centuries old - look up the history of 'benefit of clergy' sometime.
The reputation of the legal system has never been sterling in any era where people have paid the slightest bit of attention.
It was a really good discussion. It did not persuade me that some should get a "Get out of jail early" card because they would be unpopular with Immigration Services. Quite the opposite. And is a Judge required to look those victimized in the eye while explaining that they don't deserve as much justice because of (insert reason).