Hey, time traveler! This article is published at 15/2/12 (2711 days ago) Therefore, the information in it may no longer be up to date. The Harper government has been warned in advance that enforcing a minimum sentence would unfairly punish some criminals. That\'s how it happened. A 30-year- The old man in Toronto was found guilty of playing with an illegal loaded pistol stupidly and was automatically imprisoned for at least three years. But the judge ruled that he should not be punished and held that the provisions of the criminal code were not constitutional. In her ruling, Judge Anne Moloy stressed that, as a judge of the Toronto High Court, she was aware of the social damage caused by illegal firearms. But putting Leroy Smickle in prison is not for the purposes of the law. Punishing and stopping those who pose a danger to society This is equivalent to the cruel and unusual punishment protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. She knocked the Sec down. 95(2) A mandatory sentence of at least three years for possession of a loaded prohibited firearm. Mr. Smickle may feel guilty about a lot of things, mostly stupid, but he is not in danger of society. A full father. Time worked, he slept in his cousin\'s apartment and refused an invitation to go to the club because he had to get up to work the next day. The boxer lying on the sofa at two in the morning. m. He posed with a gun, took pictures with his computer, and uploaded some \"cool\" photos on Facebook. Just then, the police broke the door and arrested his cousin, who thought he had illegal guns and shocked him. Smickle. He had no criminal record before. According to any reasonable explanation of the crime, the person should not be in prison for three years. But according to the increasingly severe punishment being passed by the Harper government, the law removes all the discretion of the judge. Other jurisdictions that pass a similar mandatory judgment have written the judge\'s power to make an exception under special circumstances into the law -- In other words, it was argued that, in a particular case, the law recognizing that there were no exceptions was a law that might prove injustice. The charter\'s protection of cruel and unusual punishment retains the jurisprudence in support of the principle of punishment, which must be appropriate for crime. Judge Malloy\'s ruling is a precedent for consideration by other judges and may enter the Supreme Court of Canada, whose ruling will have state effect. The Harper administration should not attempt to defend such an indefensible behavior. It should amend this law to provide for discretion in special circumstances.