Topic: Judge Throws Book At Curbsider During Appeal In Ontario

[Autos_Editor]

If you break the law and are given an easy sentence, you might not want to push your luck

Read More...

[Brig]

"Curbsiding laws, stating nobody can’t sell vehicles without a licence (...)"

This needs a bit of work.   

[aquadorhj]

he was convicted twice prior AND never paid fines against him but ALL he gets is 32 days?

i think it should be 6 months...

[ArticSteve]

i think it should be 6 months...


and who pays for that in a Province that owes 1/4 TRILLION USD. 

PPL who buy from "curbsiders" are seeking a killer deal.  If they get burned so be it.  The "state" cannot and should not hold everyone's hand throughout their pointless lives. 

[MarkStevenson]

"Curbsiding laws, stating nobody can’t sell vehicles without a licence (...)"

This needs a bit of work.   

Yeah, I wrote that pre-coffee. One moment.

[MarkStevenson]

"Curbsiding laws, stating nobody can’t sell vehicles without a licence (...)"

This needs a bit of work.   

Yeah, I wrote that pre-coffee. One moment.

"Curbsiding laws, aimed at unlicensed vehicle dealers who misrepresent themselves as private sellers, exist to protect buyers."

Thanks for keeping my toes to the fire, Brigette

[Noto]

he was convicted twice prior AND never paid fines against him but ALL he gets is 32 days?

i think it should be 6 months...

I don't really like the idea of locking everyone up until we force those to-be-incarcerated to pay for, or at least contribute significantly, to the cost of their own detention.  That's my own separate opinion on imprisonment; however, as far as this story is concerned I object to giving lenient sentences in the first instance.

The purpose of a penalty (be it a fine, criminal record, or imprisonment) is to dissuade actions that are contrary to the law.  Where a person, or group of persons, contravenes a particular law, lessening the severity of the sentence (or where no mandatory minimum sentence is legislated) does nothing to dissuade.  There are those out there who know they will 'eventually' get caught and will 'eventually' go to jail, but that's their job.  There are literally people "for hire" to smuggle drugs, etc. knowing that they'll go to jail, but the risk is worth the reward, in part because they know they won't be locked up forever, nor financially penalized (directly, at least) for their incarceration.

Very, very flawed system.

I do, however, like when judges realize that certain people are d!cks and deserve no leniency. 

[Fobroader]

he was convicted twice prior AND never paid fines against him but ALL he gets is 32 days?

i think it should be 6 months...

I don't really like the idea of locking everyone up until we force those to-be-incarcerated to pay for, or at least contribute significantly, to the cost of their own detention.  That's my own separate opinion on imprisonment; however, as far as this story is concerned I object to giving lenient sentences in the first instance.

The purpose of a penalty (be it a fine, criminal record, or imprisonment) is to dissuade actions that are contrary to the law.  Where a person, or group of persons, contravenes a particular law, lessening the severity of the sentence (or where no mandatory minimum sentence is legislated) does nothing to dissuade.  There are those out there who know they will 'eventually' get caught and will 'eventually' go to jail, but that's their job.  There are literally people "for hire" to smuggle drugs, etc. knowing that they'll go to jail, but the risk is worth the reward, in part because they know they won't be locked up forever, nor financially penalized (directly, at least) for their incarceration.

Very, very flawed system.

I do, however, like when judges realize that certain people are d!cks and deserve no leniency.

I think in this case, ruining the person financially and publicly shaming them would work much better.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Sentence severity doesn't do much to deter crime. Lots of studies done on the death penalty, the ultimate sentence severity, show the same thing. It's the likelihood of being caught that deters crime.

For non violent crime, it would be better to impose financial penalties for the most part.

[Noto]

Sentence severity doesn't do much to deter crime. Lots of studies done on the death penalty, the ultimate sentence severity, show the same thing. It's the likelihood of being caught that deters crime.

For non violent crime, it would be better to impose financial penalties for the most part.

Correct re: death sentence, and long periods of incarceration - many would-be convicts simply don't care about their lives or have sh!tty lives, so being in jail would be a relative 'walk-in-the-park'.

Financial penalties work far better, and would be better retribution for society, but an IOU does not equate to actual cash flow, unfortunately.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Sentence severity doesn't do much to deter crime. Lots of studies done on the death penalty, the ultimate sentence severity, show the same thing. It's the likelihood of being caught that deters crime.

For non violent crime, it would be better to impose financial penalties for the most part.

Correct re: death sentence, and long periods of incarceration - many would-be convicts simply don't care about their lives or have sh!tty lives, so being in jail would be a relative 'walk-in-the-park'.

Financial penalties work far better, and would be better retribution for society, but an IOU does not equate to actual cash flow, unfortunately.

Yup. That's where things get tough. Throwing a non-violent criminal into what we currently use for prisons will only make them better criminals, but having no assets, there's not much for alternatives.

[Firm]

Strange, but I know this guy. When I used to work as an Emissions inspector him and his "associates" used to visit our facility almost daily.

[Brig]

"Curbsiding laws, aimed at unlicensed vehicle dealers who misrepresent themselves as private sellers, exist to protect buyers."

Thanks for keeping my toes to the fire, Brigette

You misspelled my name.  More demerit points.   

[Fobroader]

Strange, but I know this guy. When I used to work as an Emissions inspector him and his "associates" used to visit our facility almost daily.

I dont like the term "associates" when someone is referring to someone, makes me think of something like this:

[Noto]

Thanks for keeping my toes to the fire, Brigette

You misspelled my name.  More demerit points.   

Depends on how you pronounce Brigitte...is it Bridge-Eat, or Bridge-Ette?

[Brig]

Depends on how you pronounce Brigitte...is it Bridge-Eat, or Bridge-Ette?

Bridge-It.    The point is that my name is RIGHT THERE above my avatar.   

[HeliDriver]

Depends on how you pronounce Brigitte...is it Bridge-Eat, or Bridge-Ette?

Bridge-It.    The point is that my name is RIGHT THERE above my avatar.   

I thought he did it on purpose, what with the winky face and all.

[Bubba]

Depends on how you pronounce Brigitte...is it Bridge-Eat, or Bridge-Ette?

Bridge-It.    The point is that my name is RIGHT THERE above my avatar.   

I thought he did it on purpose, what with the winky face and all.

Hey!  Leave me out of this!   

[MarkStevenson]

"Curbsiding laws, aimed at unlicensed vehicle dealers who misrepresent themselves as private sellers, exist to protect buyers."

Thanks for keeping my toes to the fire, Brigette

You misspelled my name.  More demerit points.   

Holy, yesterday was not a good day. I'm sorry

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Depends on how you pronounce Brigitte...is it Bridge-Eat, or Bridge-Ette?

Bridge-It.    The point is that my name is RIGHT THERE above my avatar.   

I thought he did it on purpose, what with the winky face and all.

Hey!  Leave me out of this!   

STOP IT WITH THE WINKY FACE!