"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
news:006ee551$0$1494$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> Canman wrote:
>> "Sylvia Else" wrote in message
>> news:005462d5$0$8044$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>>> Canman wrote:
>>>> "Sylvia Else" wrote in message
>>>> news:013be3fe$0$24634$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>>>>> The section makes a number of references to rehabilitation, none of
>>>>> which
>>>>> relate to the court itself rehabilitating the offender. If it had been
>>>>> intended that the court should rehabilitate the offender, then given
>>>>> the
>>>>> other paragraphs, one would expect that to have been stated expressly.
>>>>>
>>>>> I conclude that rehabilitation of the offender is not a function of
>>>>> the
>>>>> court. Indeed, it should not be, because the court has to decide
>>>>> whether
>>>>> the offender has been rehabilitated, and there would be a conflict of
>>>>> interest if the court had to assess its own performance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Accordingly, I do not believe that the power granted by (c) can be
>>>>> used to
>>>>> rehabilitate an offender, and if the magistrate believes that's what
>>>>> she's
>>>>> doing, then she's exceeding her power.
>>>>>
>>>> Subsection 1(c) aside, why couldn't the ruling be justified by
>>>> subsection
>>>> 1(b)? Isn't this what the magistrate is doing in this case?
>>> As I commented in my original posting, I don't see that the magistrate
>>> can prejudge the means by which rehabilitation might be demonstrated.
>>>
>>
>> Why can't the court decide how rehabilitation might be demonstrated or
>> assessed? There is nothing in the section indicating a clear intention
>> that the court should not have this role.
>
> It would imply that if the offender fronts up later and presents strong
> evidence of rehabilation, but in a way that differs from what the court
> envisaged, then the court would refuse to accept it
>
> Yet if the evidence is strong, then the court should act accoridngly,
> whatever form the evidence might take. If the court did otherwise, it
> would be acting like some sort of prima-donna, rather than a court of law.
>
The magistrate in this case is asking for an essay in order to assess
rehabiliation. If, as in your scenario, the defendant submits some other
statement attempting to demonstrate rehabilitation, then the magistrate will
make a decision as to whether rehabilitation is demonstrated on the basis of
the submission and any factors deemed appropriate. What is wrong with that?
|