The Criminal Code defines “criminal organization” as any group of three or more people “however organized” whose main purpose or activity is the commission of serious crimes.
The definition excludes a group that just gets together to commit a single office.
Fish wrote that courts should take a flexible approach in defining what constitutes a criminal organization.
“Care must be taken, however, not to transform the shared attributes of one type of criminal organization into a ‘checklist’ that needs to be satisfied in every case.”
Not every gang has to be as structured as the Mafia or the Hell’s Angels.
“Courts must not limit the scope of the provision to the stereotypical model of organized crime — that is, to the highly sophisticated, hierarchical and monopolistic model,” he wrote.
But there should be some structure and some longevity.
“Some criminal entities that do not fit the conventional paradigm of organized crime may nonetheless, on account of their cohesiveness and endurance, posed the type of heightened threat contemplated by the legislative scheme.”
How CONtemptuous! How CONvenient!
Source of illustration: Montreal Simon's blog.
4 comments:
You know that the CPC enacted a citizen's arrest law don't you?
It's like they want to be punished.
"The definition excludes a group that just gets together to commit a single office."
Sheesh, I really wish the media would hire back their copy editing staff.
The nice thing about computer spellchecking is it tends to leave just the funniest mistakes.
I have been saying for a long time that "gang laws" should be used.
It is clear at this point, that there is more than a couple people in their midst who have broken laws. And the organization supports them.
As I read the laws created for organization, this group fits the profile to a tee.
Post a Comment