Close Menu
    Politik

    Doug Ford sagt, er wolle die Anhörungen gegen Kaution per Livestream übertragen, während er eine neue Gefängnisstrafe ankündigt


    Doug Ford sagt, er wolle die Anhörungen gegen Kaution per Livestream übertragen, während er eine neue Gefängnisstrafe ankündigt

    https://www.cp24.com/politics/queens-park/2026/03/16/doug-ford-says-he-wants-to-livestream-bail-hearings-as-he-announces-new-jail/

    View 9 Comments

    9 Kommentare

    1. NZafe on

      There could be an argument that live streaming bail hearings violates at least two areas of the Charter:
      * a right to fair punishment – the internet loves to jump to conclusions, anyone who is posting bail before a formal sentence could face additional hardship due to the increased exposure of a live stream.
      * a right to a fair trial – similar to above, if the “court of the public” has already “rule” someone as guilty before a trail has taken place, it could jeopardize the integrity of the trial

    2. JohnGoodmanFan420 on

      Good. I think if these judges are comfortable releasing repeat violent criminals, they should stand by it, in a transparent and public way.

    3. StevenMcStevensen on

      Honestly, the general public would lose their minds if they actually saw what a joke those hearings are. Som I’ve personally been on:

      – Woman charged with armed robbery, literally on her way out of the province when arrested and openly planning to not come back for court? Release.

      – Extremely prolific local criminal already bound by conditions from several orders, charged with yet another break in this month? Well he says he has kids, though he doesn’t know where they are, so “his family needs him”. Release.

      – Guy who has been arrested and released twice already in the last 48 hours for stealing cars and assaulting police? Release again.

    4. Temporary_Shirt_6236 on

      Wants to hide all his communications but livestream bail hearings.

      Don’t fall for the distractions from this corrupt sack of shit. Everything he does harms regular Ontarians.

    5. king_bungholio on

      Perhaps if Douglas properly funded our court system well would be hearing less about the revolving door of criminals.

      Instead we get a spa nobody asked for.

    7. Throwawayhair66392 on

      Judiciary doesn’t want this because then the public will have easy access to their ridiculous rulings without the media needing to report on it or going in person.

    8. Le1bn1z on

      One of three of these things are very good news, one is a good idea that I doubt he will fund, and one is a real bad idea.

      Ontario *desperately* needs more correctional space just to tread water with current levels of incarceration. Charges are getting thrown and people are getting hurt – including correctional officers, because numbers in prisons exceed the capacity of safety features, and bunking 3 to what should be a 1 person cell inevitably leads to a heightened aggression. You can kiss and rehabilitative effects aside. People going in with mental illnesses are likely going to come out more aggressive and unhinged than when they went in.

      And if we are serious about tougher sentences, we need the cells to house the increased inmate population we want.

      The idea of clear bail reasons is great. More consistency and full reviewability is just a good idea all around.

      Problem is we do not have the resources to pull this off at present. Something like, what, 5% of cases brought to trial are getting tossed on s.11, and way more are being quietly withdrawn because we don’t have anything near sufficient judicial and support staff for current volumes?

      To pull this off without making things worse, we need to invest a lot of cash into expanding the Court.

      The last part about public bail broadcasts is a terrible idea. Bail involves much looser evidentiary rules, because the need for speed outweighs the need to carefully consider admissibility, credibility, and even plausible reality of evidence in the way we would at trial. That means a *lot* of highly prejudicial stuff gets talked about during bail hearings. This means a broadcast – that like it or not will get recorded – has a high potential to prejudice a jury pool or be devastating to reputations when we aren’t really so clear if any of this will hold up to scrutiny. In a province where about half of charges do not end in conviction, that is something to take really seriously.

    9. StickmansamV on

      This is entire proposal is DOA given that the accused can apply for a publication ban for any evidence presented at a bail hearing. That means nonpublic broadcast can be made if such a ban is imposed, and it is mandatory if the accused asks for it, primarily to preserve their right to a fair trial by not impacting witnesses and potential jurors. 

    Leave A Reply