# The Judge Superthread- Merged Topics



## zipperhead_cop

I recently picked up on this link from a very frustrated San Francisco Police Association President Gary Delagnes.  Despite the fact that he is clear across the continent, his words echo the feelings of law enforcement officers everywhere.  

http://www.ktvu.com/video/9591734/index.html
(be warned:  the video seems to take a horribly long time to load up, so be patient)

So what is the solution?  My feeling is that voting for judges would make a whole bunch of sense.  The socialist sect will starts howling about "well, if you vote for judges and they get private funding then they get corrupt and then they take care of their buddies and they don't do their job right and they will be mean and blah blah blah..." and so on.  

However, I cannot be more sincere on this point:  *Judges no longer serve the public interest*.  

Bad case law, socialist perversion, arrogance and knowing there is no way to oust them has caused the legal system (police don't call it the "justice" system generally) to become a horror show.  When it was a donkey show, it was at least tolerable.  Time and again we see decisions that only benefit the criminal and embolden them to greater excess.  Crack cocaine and methamphetamine (herein called "meth") corrode the brain and cause people to operate at a sub human level, yet judges think they are capable of making rational decisions and have a sense of consequence.  

And even if we wanted to do something about it, who would forward the cause?  The MP's?  Pretty much a big bunch of lawyers.  "But Zip, if the people really want it, they can get it because we vote for our MP's".  I don't believe the average citizen realizes what is going on in the court rooms.  There would need to be a pretty big bunch of noise from the citizenry, and since we didn't hear a peep after the Toronto terrorists were let out, I don't expect much.  And I think most of us can predict what sort of leadership role the media will take in this matter, given their leftward leanings.  

And suppose we actually got a bill through the third reading.  Who gets to rule on the legality of new legislation and ultimately strike it down?  DING DING DING!  The JUDGES!  And then we are right back to where we started.  

I have every belief that the big brains will be able to crush me with constitutional debate and all kinds of book learnin' that they have plenty of.  But I am not talking about the difficulty of implementation or the challenges of how an electoral system would be introduced (although I would support the funds for a judges bid to be elected come from the pay surplus that would stem from wiping out the House of Lords  Senate, but that would likely be a whole other thread  ;D).
I'm just talking about helping our country get right again.  I feel like we are about ten years away from being a drug and gun ridden mess in our large urban areas just like the USA is in theirs.  We can avoid it, if we take action soon.  

I hope Canadians can get interested in their legal system before it comes to the point where everyone will know someone who is a victim of crime.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> I hope Canadians can get interested in their legal system before



Zip

This IMHO is the problem....too many "sheep" in our society that won't do what I quoted from your post...

Until it is too late, of course...

 :-\


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> Zip
> 
> This IMHO is the problem....too many "sheep" in our society that won't do what I quoted from your post...
> 
> Until it is too late, of course...
> 
> :-\



I don't totally disagree, but I don't blame the average citizen either.  They are insulated from the truth by the media, and even if the media wanted to publish what a bag the criminal was, the criminal can go crying to............*A Judge *  and sue the paper for slander.  So you see things like "was known to the police" and "had previous contacts".  
Also, there is a seditious thing that I have seen in the way pre sentence reports are handled.  PSR's are supposed to take into many factors to present to a judge in order to "help" them make a fair decision.  In reality, all it provides is a creative writing forum for the asshat to spew out tripe like "I'll lose my job if I go to jail" or "my family/mother/wife/cat is so sick and no one else takes care of her".  All that crap gets thrown out to provide the illusion that if Billy Crackerjack goes to jail, he will be so harmed by the fall out of his incarceration that it will be counter productive to his "rehabilitation".  The old "do crime, do time" addage is non existant.  
However, that isn't the seditious part.  Where it gets shadowy, is what happens when they ask for the report.  Remember, it is requested as a result of a conviction, either from a trial or a guilty plea.  On that trial day, you have the police that were involved, plus any civilian witnesses/victims.  What the PSR does is sets the sentencing to a different date.  Guess who is in the room on that new date?  The defence (lawyer), the Prosecutor (lawyer) and the judge (lawyer).  Nobody generally gets to see the pathetic sentences in the more serious cases.  And for the most part, the media don't hang in there that long.  
I would like to think that if Canadians really knew what was going on, they would be outraged.  Once they realized what was going on in Afghanistan, they got behind it.  I have to imagine a bit of harsh light shone on this would go a long way.  However, in the absence of mainstream media cooperation, what are we left with?  
Guys like me spouting off on a blog.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt

ARGH!

OK

Fark me, lets STOP letting every a$$hat off.  My name is "Joe Voter".  I have many friends...

wait I just woke up from my dream.

KK.  Lets do it like where I grew up.

"drink beer.  punish the obvious a$$hats...beat the ones that are rude to females...shite-kick anyone who can't get it from there...yes.  we DO have bats.  Yes.  You DID call your mother a whore.  YES.  this IS her cottage on Mill River.  Yes...you ARE goin' to get an ass-kicking"

next!


----------



## The_Falcon

I think this fits in here

http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/Commentary/2006/08/18/1762498.html

Reproduced Fair Dealing...Copyright etc



> EDITORIAL: Judge goes after the wrong guns
> 
> Great news: We finally have a judge who's willing to get tough on guns in this city! Let's hear it for Justice Melvyn Green!
> 
> Oh, wait a second ... let's check that story again ...
> 
> What's this? You mean, Judge Green didn't read the riot act to some punk gangster who waved his gun around like a toy and fired at innocent people?
> 
> He ordered a cop to take off his gun -- in court?!
> 
> What the heck was he thinking?
> 
> 
> As the Sun's Alan Cairns reported yesterday, the judge ordered a Toronto police officer who was testifying in a routine drunk-driving case to "check (his gun) somewhere."
> 
> Somewhere, indeed. Even though the officer was in uniform, which means he is required to have his (holstered) firearm with him, he was forced to find a storage locker in the courthouse basement, then make his way back to court unarmed.
> 
> And here's the kicker -- the delay caused by this incident might push the impaired driving case back several months, to the point where the accused could go free because of unreasonable backlog! So much for getting tough on crime!
> 
> "It is a question of fairness and the appearance of fairness," Green said -- an argument we've heard before.
> 
> *Green, who's been a judge for just nine months*, *has a long history as a defence lawyer*, and we've heard lots of them argue over the years that the trappings of court -- the uniformed cops and security, the prisoner's box, the shackles that accused people often have to wear if they're being held in custody -- can give observers (especially juries) the impression that an accused might be guilty, even though he/she must be presumed innocent.
> 
> We get that -- and we think our courts take care to be fair. But a police officer wearing a gun? C'mon.
> 
> Everyone knows what police look like, and that they carry guns. And who does Green think would be influenced by the "appearance" of unfairness anyway? Himself? There was no jury in this case.
> 
> If Green is so concerned about guns, we suggest he not only walk the public hallways of his courthouse -- where he's sure to encounter dangerous young thugs up on shooting charges -- but get out more into gang-ridden neighbourhoods where fear rules because the shooters are treated so lightly by our justice system. Where's the "fairness" there?
> 
> Earth to all judges: We have a gun problem. Our cops ain't it.



Its dolts like these that make me question whether or not I should even bother becoming a cop.


----------



## Gunnar

Zip....on voting for judges....

It really would depend on how interested the public is in their legal system.  The appointment system is more resistant to change, as the "old boys" tend to like law and order...however...once the "new boys" who don't like to hear the word "punishment" get into the system, there is no getting them out.  That's t he problem we have today.

Voting in judges has its own problems:  the same people who vote in the liberals, time after time after time would now vote for judges.  There are more poor minorities (as an aggregate) in the country than there are rich majority folks.  What happens when some judge gets painted as "hard on the nnnn community" right around election time?  What happens when people who don't think about consequences to their actions, or punishment for crime are the ones who elect those responsible for dealing out consequences and punishments?

You have the same problem.  The inmates run the prison, or the crooks run the legal system.

I'm hoping that by championing elected judges you believe the silent majority of thinking, reasonable Canadians could get proper judges into the system and clean up some of the crap.  Problem is, that silent majority is usually SILENT.  And until they stand up to be counted, politically, I wouldn't want the justice system opened up to those who DO vote.

As far as I am concerned, booklarnin' has little to say on the selection method for judges...both ideas have merit.  They just have the same pitfalls as would exist in the political system.  A good king (appointment) can get good things done, a bad king can't be gotten rid of, and  usually makes life miserable for the citizens.  A good prime minister can be voted in (I think Harper qualifies, but not necessarily all conservatives), a bad prime minister is more often voted in (Chretien and Martin definitely qualify).


----------



## 1feral1

Remember the good ole days when one was hung for stealing a horse, or sent to Australia for stealing a loaf of bread. If the crims of the 19th century only really knew that in the late 20th century, crime truly pays, and the crims get all the rights, while the victims are treated like the criminal should be.

We have not had a justice system since the 1950s, but a limp wristed legal system since, circumvented by a Corps of pi$$ weakjudges who don't care. The police must be so frustrated with the scum which spills back on the streets hours after an offence is comitted. 

Bring back Division 21 of the NSW Police!


Shakes head,

Wes


----------



## Gunnar

Judge Learned Hand (what a great name for a judge, eh?):  You are hanged not because you have stolen a sheep, but so that others will not steal sheep.


----------



## time expired

Friends judge do not operate in a vacumn , the very same discusion is going on in the UK right now
and its the government that sets the guidelines within which judges operate therefore we are really
the problem . Missguided liberal attitudes left over from the 60s , the indivual is not responsible  , its
societies fault , you have all heard them before Im sure . dont forget most judges are products of
this generation . A wise man once said " the way into the hell is paved with liberal ideas" thats liberal 
with a small L or large take your take pick .
                          Regards


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Gunnar said:
			
		

> It really would depend on how interested the public is in their legal system.  The appointment system is more resistant to change, as the "old boys" tend to like law and order...however...once the "new boys" who don't like to hear the word "punishment" get into the system, there is no getting them out.  That's t he problem we have today.



Agreed.  And I like to think (kid myself?) that the people are interested in their law enforcement.  The currently appointed judges have jumped the rails of common sense (a generality, but a pervasive one).  The Liberals pretty much had a nice 25 year run of installing these clowns, and now we are reaping the benefits of a generation of criminals that know the system is a joke.  



			
				Gunnar said:
			
		

> Voting in judges has its own problems:  the same people who vote in the liberals, time after time after time would now vote for judges.  There are more poor minorities (as an aggregate) in the country than there are rich majority folks.  What happens when some judge gets painted as "hard on the nnnn community" right around election time?  What happens when people who don't think about consequences to their actions, or punishment for crime are the ones who elect those responsible for dealing out consequences and punishments?



If a judge didn't want to come off as "hard on the 'x' community" he could just be hard on every community.  Crime knows no racial boundaries.  I can honestly say that I have no prejudices towards any group anymore as a result of working the street.  Reason?  Every race has people who suck.  And down here in Windsor, the majority of crime is committed by good ole home grown white trash.  On a side note, there is also an high degree of racial harmony in criminals.  I frequently see criminals of all colours associating with each other and getting caught committing crimes together.  It's kind of handy, actually.  When you stop a group of kids on a side street at 4am, more often than not they are racially diverse.  No one can claim they are being picked on for colour.  Visitors from the GTA try it all the time, but the find out how far that flies here.  
As for worrying about the wrong people voting in a bad judge?  Won't happen.  Good, normal people have piss poor voter turn out.  Crack heads can't tell time, and generally don't know what day of the week it is.  They know "it's dark" or "it's light".  Getting to a polling station on a specific date during a set time frame is like asking them to prove a math equation.    
Another thing is many immigrants don't like the idea that our system is so soft.  Many come from countries that have brutal and absolute rules.  So when you go to their house, and tell them that the police cannot do x,y, or z because of the state of the legal system, they shake their heads and many comment "that isn't right".  And invariably, I agree.  I think you would see many of them ranging to the side of law and order.  




			
				Gunnar said:
			
		

> You have the same problem.  The inmates run the prison, or the crooks run the legal system.
> I'm hoping that by championing elected judges you believe the silent majority of thinking, reasonable Canadians could get proper judges into the system and clean up some of the crap.  Problem is, that silent majority is usually SILENT.  And until they stand up to be counted, politically, I wouldn't want the justice system opened up to those who DO vote.



Again, we have started to see Joe and Jane Canada start to perk up and take a bit more ownership of their country recently.  I have said before, the only real outward expression of our culture you generally see is that Canadians fancy themselves a bit better than other countries.  "We're nicer, safer, and darn it, terrorists like us".  If we could get the media to show them what a horror show was going on all around them, they would realize that they are not safe and their country isn't going to be so sh*t hot in a few years.  
For what it is worth, seeing the add campaigns for judges in the US is usually pretty interesting.  They trot out all kinds of ills, and it is a big smear campaign from the get go.  However, if you don't want to be the guy on TV that they are saying "Judge Bloggins allowed seven high risk child molesters into your community, and five of them re offended within two months" then perhaps you won't be so quick to spring a diddler.  




			
				Gunnar said:
			
		

> As far as I am concerned, booklarnin' has little to say on the selection method for judges...both ideas have merit.  They just have the same pitfalls as would exist in the political system.  A good king (appointment) can get good things done, a bad king can't be gotten rid of, and  usually makes life miserable for the citizens.  A good prime minister can be voted in (I think Harper qualifies, but not necessarily all conservatives), a bad prime minister is more often voted in (Chretien and Martin definitely qualify).



Yeah, but eventually the bad gets punted.  Now that the Conservatives are in, Canada can see the "OOOO, scary Tories" BS was just that.  A bias judge that was up for re-election that had a poor track record or had obvious leanings for a particular group could be outed in a public way, and then the voters could decide.  As it stand now, you have judges that say things like "there are only witnesses to a crime.  A so called "victim" is just a witness that has a personal interest in the case".  That is an actual comment from one of ours here.  I also had a judge dismiss a domestic assault case because he believed that the woman got backhanded in a cab and got her nose broken by her abusive boyfriend "as a result of provocation from comments that were made by Ms. XXX".  The judicial equivalent of "the bitch was askin' for it".  Funny thing was, even the counsel for the accused wasn't offering provocation as a defence.  Then I get to ride down in the elevator with the woman who asks me "what was the point of me going through all that?".  What am I supposed to say?
That same judge also routinely sleeps on the bench, but passes it of as "concentrating with my eyes closed".  Thank god he is semi retired and can only screw up cases part time now.


----------



## couchcommander

I am in no way a fan of our current sentencing practices, however I don't think politicising the judicial system is what we need to do.

You think it's a farce now, wait till they are vying to win the popularity conte... er I mean election.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

I'm not talking about every facet of the judiciary.  The Supreme Court of Canada should still be by appointment, as should the SC's of the provinces.  But for the Ontario Court of "Justice", the basic meat and potatoes, and the Superior and Federal courts, why not?  
Why shouldn't the administration of law reflect the will of the people?  We elect members to create and administer law, why not also be able to have a say in the enforcement of the law?
As for their conduct during an election, what does that matter?  It is how they conduct themselves while behind the bench that matters.  If someone is a discreditable jackass, the vote will apply accordingly.


----------



## rz350

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> I'm not talking about every facet of the judiciary.  The Supreme Court of Canada should still be by appointment, as should the SC's of the provinces.  But for the Ontario Court of "Justice", the basic meat and potatoes, and the Superior and Federal courts, why not?
> Why shouldn't the administration of law reflect the will of the people?  We elect members to create and administer law, why not also be able to have a say in the enforcement of the law?
> As for their conduct during an election, what does that matter?  It is how they conduct themselves while behind the bench that matters.  If someone is a discreditable jackass, the vote will apply accordingly.




How about the election of Police chiefs, like in some US areas the Sherrif is elected. Would you support that too?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I don't want to see "elected" judges, but what I want are judges who answer to our elected officials, which is not the case now.


----------



## couchcommander

I want elected officials that provide firm sentencing guidelines and leave a lot less to "interpretation", as well as providing sufficient funding to correctional facilities so that a) there is actually space in the jails to keep the people who I think should be put there and never let out, b) actually provide meaningful rehabilitation to those who will eventually, after a long, long time, be getting out.

I don't mean "work experience," learning how to read, or developing skills, though those are helpful, I mean actually dealing with the sources of their criminality through an intensive, multifaceted process.

Finally, and importantly, c) be able to hold people in this system if one can reasonably conclude they will commit a grievous offence against another human being upon their release, until such time as experts involved in their rehabilitation are satisfied. 

In the end, to me, I don't care if someone has spent 5 years or 30 years in jail, if one could reasonably conclude they are going to get out of jail and go rape another woman, they shouldn't be let out. If they are "cured" after 5 years, then so be it, if they are never "cured" (more likely), then so be it. 

No, you can never be 100%, but with a recidivism rate of 61% over a few decades, you can make some reasonable assumptions. 

But what am i talking about... that would involve revamping our archaic notions of "justice" to something far more realistic.... I should just be quiet.

*edit* I almost forgot the most important part. Spend a whackload of money and put a bunch of trained professionals throughout our school systems to help people deal with their issues before they become career criminals, as well as training teachers to better identify and deal with deviant behaviours (including those that result from shoddy parenting, and shoddy teaching at that - teachers should be on a very tight leash IMO), while at the same time reducing class sizes so they actually have the time to have one on one with their pupils... along with a whole bunch of other stuff in this area, but that is a different thread.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

rz350 said:
			
		

> How about the election of Police chiefs, like in some US areas the Sherrif is elected. Would you support that too?



I don't know that I would care either way.  As long as the requirement to be a candidate was that you were a sworn police officer.  (FYI, "sheriff")



			
				couchcommander said:
			
		

> I want elected officials that provide firm sentencing guidelines and leave a lot less to "interpretation", as well as providing sufficient funding to correctional facilities so that a) there is actually space in the jails to keep the people who I think should be put there and never let out, b) actually provide meaningful rehabilitation to those who will eventually, after a long, long time, be getting out.



But the current judges ignore mandatory sentencing if they want.  And they generally ignore progressive sentencing, whereby when you keep getting caught, your sentence goes up.  That is not the case.  I agree, we need to double, if not triple the jails and make space.  But with anything, that requires money, and money needs peoples support.    



			
				couchcommander said:
			
		

> Finally, and importantly, c) be able to hold people in this system if one can reasonably conclude they will commit a grievous offence against another human being upon their release, until such time as experts involved in their rehabilitation are satisfied.
> In the end, to me, I don't care if someone has spent 5 years or 30 years in jail, if one could reasonably conclude they are going to get out of jail and go rape another woman, they shouldn't be let out. If they are "cured" after 5 years, then so be it, if they are never "cured" (more likely), then so be it.
> No, you can never be 100%, but with a recidivism rate of 61% over a few decades, you can make some reasonable assumptions.



That already exists.  It is the Dangerous Offender designation.  However, it is near impossible to get in place, and the individual would need to have done some horrifying things before they ever got to that point.  And if you are a property/drug criminal, you can pretty much re offend as often as you want, as long as three months of your time isn't a big deal to you.  



			
				couchcommander said:
			
		

> Spend a whackload of money and put a bunch of trained professionals throughout our school systems to help people deal with their issues before they become career criminals, as well as training teachers to better identify and deal with deviant behaviours (including those that result from shoddy parenting, and shoddy teaching at that - teachers should be on a very tight leash IMO), while at the same time reducing class sizes so they actually have the time to have one on one with their pupils... along with a whole bunch of other stuff in this area, but that is a different thread.



You are talking about policing the education system, and policing parenting.  Nothing I would object to, but you would probably take a lot of static from some of the kinder, gentler types. 
Being a career criminal is not an education issue.  In fact, career criminals are quite aware and well educated on how the system works.  That is why they have no incentive to not be criminals.  Keep it simple:  you are as good as your last performance.  As you shall act, so shall ye be sentenced.

If we get hung up trying to do everything at the same time, nothing will get done.  IMO the broadest brush to get the most done would be deal with the judges.  
Bruce, how would you suggest making the judges answerable to the MP's?  At least we can get on them right now if we want to.


----------



## couchcommander

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> I don't know that I would care either way.  As long as the requirement to be a candidate was that you were a sworn police officer.  (FYI, "sheriff")
> 
> But the current judges ignore mandatory sentencing if they want.  And they generally ignore progressive sentencing, whereby when you keep getting caught, your sentence goes up.  That is not the case.  I agree, we need to double, if not triple the jails and make space.  But with anything, that requires money, and money needs peoples support.
> 
> That already exists.  It is the Dangerous Offender designation.  However, it is near impossible to get in place, and the individual would need to have done some horrifying things before they ever got to that point.  And if you are a property/drug criminal, you can pretty much re offend as often as you want, as long as three months of your time isn't a big deal to you.



Aware of both, but I, like you, am saying that needs to change. In the first, it's because there needs to be stricter legislation, as well as more space. 

And re: dangerous offender status... I'm actually talking about changing the nature of criminal justice from "you did this crime, so you have to serve x amount of time", to "you did this crime, so now you're going to be taken out of mainstream society and not let back in until you are no longer a threat". 

So, I mean in the end, I think we agree on many points.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

The only problem in your "out when you are fixed" idea is that if criminals are nothing else, they are cunning.  They have the ability to sniff out systemic weakness and exploit it to the max.  They are also quite good at passing along the info to their fellow degenerates.  The only true test of correction is how they conduct themselves once back in society.  I have a tool in my patrol district who is born in 1983.  He has been charged criminally 84 times, the majority being failing to comply with judicial orders, but the rest all fairly bothersome violent crimes, and serious property crimes ie) robbery, b&e.  Turns out he was breaching the orders intentionally, because the last three times he has a big "crisis of conscience" and turned himself in he had an arse full of crack and Oxycontin's.  He actually made a heap of money while he was in jail.  Like I said, cunning.  (he only got caught because on the third go he must have crammed in the pointy edged crack a little too hard and broke the condome with the oxy's in it.  Once the hospital figured out why he was having convulsions he caught a nice trafficking charge.  Oh, and that got him three whole weeks before a judge sprung him again)  
So who decides if they are "fixed"?  Or are you suggesting they "be taken out of mainstream society and not let back in until you are no longer a threat" by way of physically debilitating beatings, and electro-concussive shock treatment? (facetious)  Otherwise, they are going to be a threat until they choose to stop being criminals.


----------



## couchcommander

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Otherwise, they are going to be a threat until they choose to stop being criminals.



Couldn't agree more. 

Though the beatings and shock treatment DO sound appealing...(sarcasm), I think we do have methods of helping them reach that conclusion through various means that don't involve cruel and unusual punishment; they are just expensive, intensive and no, do not always work.

Ultimately who should decide how long you do spend in "rehabilitation", IMO, would be a group of your peers.

I don't expect them to be all knowing however, so I would have their decision based upon the professional opinion of both that particular criminals psychologist, instructors, etc (whatever we decide to give them access to)., as well as a reviewing psychologist.

On a side note, I would hold these people accountable for their opinions, i.e. if they let out more than their fare share of re-offenders, their job would be on the line. 

And you are right, criminals are generally pretty smart, and there is the definite possibility that they could bullshit their way out of the system. 

Few things to help that, firstly, it's been mentioned, holding the reviewers accountable for their opinions. Secondly though, there would be a mandatory minimum sentence to maintain an aspect of deterrence. Thirdly, I would recommend guidelines be set up for recommended rehab times (in no way mandatory, but to give an idea of what the averages are for that crime) based upon past successful trials.

As well, I'd bring in a three strike rule, though not three charges you're out, but rather if you are in incarcerated, then "rehabilitated" twice, on your third offense, it's bye bye for bonzo. Obviously, there is no hope for you. 

In the end, though there would be the possibility of abuse by a criminal, they would still be forced to stay for a mandatory amount of time. Further, after some time, I'm sure the professionals involved would get pretty good at identifying who is at risk to re-offend, and even if they are not successful in that regard, a person is only really given two chances. 

Of particular importance to me. is that with amazingly grievous offences, say first degree murder and aggravated sexual assault of a minor, etc., that the offenders never be let out. 

To me, given the nature of the crimes, even the slightest possibility of re-offence is too much. IMO if someone committs these, and a select few other crimes, they have forfeited their right to live in mainstream society.

lol, another crazy idea. fire away!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Now here is just something I stumbled on to show exactly why judges are the problem....

Chestermere man receives five-year sentence for repeated assaults on girl

By KEVIN MARTIN, CALGARY SUN

Robbing the childhood of a city woman by repeatedly raping her while she was under his foster care has landed a Chestermere man a five-year prison term. 

But the abuse victim told the Sun no amount of punishment for her abuser will fix the psychological scars she must ensure. 
"Ultimately there's never enough time that you could place on something like this," she said yesterday, moments after her tormenter was taken off to jail. 
"I'm relieved that this is over and he's serving his sentence." 

The now-19-year-old, who can't be identified, said despite her ordeal, which included airing her abuse through the judicial system, victims should not be afraid to come forward. 
"I just want people to know, children should not feel shy about, or guilty about, coming forward," she said. 

Justice Suzanne Bensler agreed with Crown prosecutor Joanne Durant a sentence of at least five years was warranted.  


Durant, who suggested a range of five- to 61/2-years, said a major aggravating factor was the foster dad's minimization of his crime to a psychiatrist. 
The 55-year-old -- who also can't be identified -- told Dr. Cynthia Baxter the victim was to blame for the sexual contact which occurred while she lived under his roof from age nine to 11.  

"He minimized the extent of his sexual abuse and tended to characterize the victim as the instigator," Baxter wrote in a report to the court. 
"(He) indicated that after she moved in, the nine-year-old girl was sexually provocative towards him," Baxter said. 

Durant said the man's conduct, which included having intercourse with the victim the day she left his home to return to her father, ruined her youth. 
"He was the adult, he made the choices," she said. "He took away any hope this complainant had of having a happy childhood." 

Along with the abuse the foster father told the victim not to tell anyone or they could both go to jail. 
Defence lawyer Alain Hepner said despite his client's comments to Baxter, he was truly remorseful for what he did. 

And the offender himself told Bensler while he couldn't explain why he abused the girl, he was sorry for the pain he caused. 
http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Alberta/2006/08/19/1764982-sun.html



So here we go, this slimeball totally destroys a 9 year old girls life and then BLAMES her for it.........and of course NOW THAT HE IS CAUGHT shows plenty of remorse. Where was the remorse for the last 10 years and why not really prove it by jumping off a bridge?


Now back on subject, the judge and the [cough] prosecutor both know this guy is living in a walk-out halfway house in less than one year and back home in less than two years  ...................thats what a life means to them, I guess.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

You have some good ideas, but where they get gummed is when you hold people accountable for their actions.  Surely you realize that no one is accountable for FA anymore.  How many conservative law and order types did you see in your psychology classes?  Typically, bleeding hearts get into those areas just because of that.  They want to help people and "I won't give up on you when everyone else does".  That is the mentality that criminals count on.  So then you have to fire a guy because he loved too much?  Then you get people launching wrongful dismissal suits against the organization, and who gets to decide on that?  JUDGES!! WOO HOO!!  
And again, if a judge chooses to ignore a minimum sentencing guideline, what do we do?  It happens all the time.  You could put minimums on every charge in the entire code, with sliding scale charts and all kinds of micro managed crap, but ultimately the judge does what they want.  And don't expect the Crowns to be launching appeals either.  Most of them are on contracts, and at such time as they displease the wrong people, the don't get to play anymore.  Besides, their case loads are so ridiculous they can't get through the new crap.  Forget about bringing up old stuff.  Plus, the judges punish the Crowns for appeals, so even if they win one, they will lose ten after "just because".  
With the really dangerous types, life sentences do exist, and used to mean just that.  However, when you have 85% of murderers getting parole eligibility on the ironically called "faint hope clause" the whole "life" thing goes into the dumper.  
There is nothing wrong with the Criminal Code.  It doesn't need to be changed.  The way it is used needs to change, and that falls on the judges.



			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Now back on subject, the judge and the [cough] prosecutor both know this guy is living in a walk-out halfway house in less than one year and back home in less than two years  ...................thats what a life means to them, I guess.



Another brutal article in a sea of similar ones.  The Crowns agree to a lot of lame crap.  In this case, it was probably to spare the girl from having to get shredded on the stand.  However, a judge can choose to ignore a joint submission and levy their own penalty.  But like our resident justice-killer here said "a victim is only a witness who has a personal involvement in a case".


----------



## Quag

OK... A couple problems.

First I will just say that my major is in Law & Justice, therefore I am fairly well read on this subject. 

The first problem is the suggestion of the election of judges.  The independence of judges (not elected, but appointed) helps maintain trust in our judicial system and is a cornerstone of our democracy. The principle exists to ensure that citizens know that when they go to court, the judge is not influenced by the government or other forces that might taint the process.

When a person goes before a judge they must know and understand that they are going to receive justice from a fair-minded, open individual who will adjudicate the case honestly and fairly. Judges must be independent, unbiased, impartial and neutral both in appearance and fact. This is the ultimate insurance that citizens will receive justice rendered according to the rule of law and their individual rights under the law.

One of the cornerstones of the Canadian legal system is the rule of law. This is the ideal that all people are equal before the law without discrimination. For example, the rich do not have more power than the poor and women have the same rights as men. The rule of law also means that no one is above the law. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is also very important. This document enshrines the rule of law and protects individual rights and freedoms.

To accomplish the rule of law and protect the rights and freedoms set out in the Charter, we need a legal system in which judges are independent, accountable and impartial. 

The second problem is your understanding of a judges role and what their job is.  A judge's job is to supervise the legal process and to interpret the laws that they are sworn  to uphold.  A judge is like an umpire at a baseball game. He or she is not on either side. The judge represents neither the state nor the defendant in a criminal case. The judge represents neither the plaintiff nor the defendant in a civil case. The judge's job is to remain neutral and let the parties present their cases to the jury, which resolves the ultimate issues (called issues of fact). The parties present their cases according to a fixed set of rules (called issues of law), which the judge enforces.  If the prosecutor does not push for a tougher sentence like in the Chestermere case, nothing can be done, and it is not, per se, the judges fault.  

Mr. Monkhouse, you highlighted the exact problem.  It was the prosecutor, Durant, who did the sentencing.  See where I am going here?

A judge does not create cases. He or she only deals with them as they are filed.

Zipperhead Cop, a judge cannot choose to ignore a minimum sentencing guideline. This cannot happen. As you are a police officer, you probably attend court quite frequently.  Pay attention to the crown prosecutor the next time.  There is always someone else suggesting a sentence.  

As I mentioned before, a judge is only an umpire.  

He/She cannot think for themselves, or add facts, sentences, time etc... to any case.  He is only privy to the information that is presented to him by the plaintiff and defendants respectable representatives.  EVEN if the judge knows more or something else.

Hope this can clear up a little bit of our judicial system in Canada. 

*edited for spelling*
~Quag


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Everything you just said works great.....in your classroom.

Please don't even think about telling a cop to pay more attention in the courtroom. How much dead-time you spent sitting around them?


----------



## Quag

In my classroom it works great.

In court it also works great ( I have almost as many hours in court per week as class).

I'm not telling you how to do your job at all.  I was suggesting something for you to look at more carefully the next time you are in court, so that you will have a better understanding.  

No offence, but nowhere in police college do you get a thorough understanding of the mechanics of the judicial system.  I was merely trying to show you another side of the judiciary.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Quag said:
			
		

> Hope this can clear up a little bit of our judicial system in Canada.



You may not have intended it as such, but the above statement comes across as one of the most pretentious, sanctimonious statements I think I've seen on this board (and that's saying a lot) given it is directed at a police officer.


Matthew.


----------



## Quag

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> You may not have intended it as such, but the above statement comes across as one of the most pretentious, sanctimonious statements I think I've seen on this board (and that's saying a lot) given it is directed at a police officer.



You must have read it the wrong way. However, it is written the way it is intended.  I'm not trying to come off as a know it all in any way shape or form.  I was simply trying to correct some of the misguided knowlege in these posts, such as:



			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> but ultimately the judge does what they want.



Please do not think that any of my statements are directed at anyone specific, as you accuse me of.


----------



## Quag

You know, now that I re-read my post, I can see Cdn Blackshirt's point.

This was not my intention at all.  

I see that perhaps I have stirred up a pot that was sensitive for some people, and I apologize.

~Quag


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Quag said:
			
		

> OK... A couple problems.



And that is about the last time in this post we agree.  



			
				Quag said:
			
		

> First I will just say that my major is in Law & Justice, therefore I am fairly well read on this subject.
> The first problem is the suggestion of the election of judges.  The independence of judges (not elected, but appointed) helps maintain trust in our judicial system and is a cornerstone of our democracy. The principle exists to ensure that citizens know that when they go to court, the judge is not influenced by the government or other forces that might taint the process.



Okay, two issues with this statement.  
One.  Most citizens who have contact with the legal system do not have confidence with it.  At best they see it as a waste of time, and at worst a complete donkey show that only serves the criminals.  Countless times I have tried to explain "what just happened" to a victim/witness who knows bloody well what happened, and still saw the bad guy get off.  Before that day, they probably did trust the "system".  
Two.  If you think the Liberals have not tainted the process by appointing their own pocket people you are nuts.  One of our local lawyers, who is widely recognized as being a total hammer head and can't win a case on a dismissal, was up for being nominated to the bench because they were common law married with a local Liberal MP.  When they broke up, the nomination went away (thank God).  No, there isn't any partisan influence going on there.   :



			
				Quag said:
			
		

> When a person goes before a judge they must know and understand that they are going to receive justice from a fair-minded, open individual who will adjudicate the case honestly and fairly. Judges must be independent, unbiased, impartial and neutral both in appearance and fact. This is the ultimate insurance that citizens will receive justice rendered according to the rule of law and their individual rights under the law.



 :rofl:  *OMG!!*  I will exceed my character count if I pull apart each part of that.  What criminals know is that when they get to court, their lawyer will pull all the shifty crap they can to try to trip up the Crowns case.  Which is their job, and I totally agree with that.   However, it is the judges job to filter out the static and bullshit.  The concept of "reasonable doubt" has gone out the window.  I cannot think of one judge right now that thinks like "a reasonable man" would.  



			
				Quag said:
			
		

> One of the cornerstones of the Canadian legal system is the rule of law. This is the ideal that all people are equal before the law without discrimination. For example, the rich do not have more power than the poor and women have the same rights as men. The rule of law also means that no one is above the law. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is also very important. This document enshrines the rule of law and protects individual rights and freedoms.



Oh, you are hitting them out of the ball park!  Rich people most certainly DO have a different system of law, because if you have enough money, you can beat just about anything, short of a murder on video.  Ask anyone who has been charged with drunk driving and they will tell you.  If you want to spend $10 000 on a defence, you will beat the charge.  Not on the merits, but because the defence will bring in all kinds of bogus "experts" and muddy up the case.  Poor people plead guilty.  Career criminals do whatever they want, because they get legal aid because they generally are collecting welfare.  
So far as the Charter, it has gone too far.  The rights of society are being steam rolled and criminals are having a free run.  



			
				Quag said:
			
		

> To accomplish the rule of law and protect the rights and freedoms set out in the Charter, we need a legal system in which judges are independent, accountable and impartial.



Independent--yes.  
Accountable--not in the least.  
Impartial--hardly.  There are at least three judges here that used to be local lawyers.  They now decide cases for the guys they golf with and even previous firm partners.  When we see certain combo's of judge/defence we start letting the witness/victim know so it stings less when it comes.  



			
				Quag said:
			
		

> The second problem is your understanding of a judges role and what their job is.  A judge's job is to supervise the legal process and to interpret the laws that they are sworn  to uphold.  A judge is like an umpire at a baseball game. He or she is not on either side. The judge represents neither the state nor the defendant in a criminal case. The judge represents neither the plaintiff nor the defendant in a civil case. The judge's job is to remain neutral and let the parties present their cases to the jury, which resolves the ultimate issues (called issues of fact). The parties present their cases according to a fixed set of rules (called issues of law), which the judge enforces.  If the prosecutor does not push for a tougher sentence like in the Chestermere case, nothing can be done, and it is not, per se, the judges fault.



See, that is what your text book tells you.  But that is not the case in real life.  Just as the CCC has written laws, but ultimately case law often ends up having them applied very differently than the way they are written. 
The way it works is that the judges are a second defense counsel, and all they really look for are any things that potentially are to the detriment of the accused.  Did you read my previous example of the judge offering a defense of provocation, where none was submitted by the defence counsel?  The defense lawyers don't even really need to make submissions.  The Crown makes their submission, and I see defense counsel saying "I've made my points, I've nothing further" then when the judge tosses the case, he is making reference to the ideas that the defense counsel floated, but never articulated!  Must be nice to have a judge finish your speeches for you.  



			
				Quag said:
			
		

> A judge does not create cases. He or she only deals with them as they are filed.



But the judge creates case LAW.  They set precedence that only ever seems to work in favor of the criminal.  Because god help the Crown that argues against the judge based on precedence, especially at sentencing time.  They can look forward to weeks of dismissals after that.  And don't even argue that.  I talk to heaps of Crowns and they all say without exception that judges will punish them for perceived slights of character.  



			
				Quag said:
			
		

> Zipperhead Cop, a judge cannot choose to ignore a minimum sentencing guideline. This cannot happen. As you are a police officer, you probably attend court quite frequently.  Pay attention to the crown prosecutor the next time.  There is always someone else suggesting a sentence.



Wow, that's a great idea.  And all this time when I am in court I have my iPod plugged in and playing Mah Jongg.  Thanks for the big heads up.  
I have been going to court on average seven times a month for eight years.  So roughly 650 of MY cases have been to court.  But I will try to follow a bit closer.  



			
				Quag said:
			
		

> As I mentioned before, a judge is only an umpire.
> He/She cannot think for themselves, or add facts, sentences, time etc... to any case.  He is only privy to the information that is presented to him by the plaintiff and defendants respectable representatives.  EVEN if the judge knows more or something else.



Again, that is great in theory.  Until you see them agree to absolute discharges because the accused has no criminal record.  Except that information was not presented.  Oops.  Or the dismissal rate for the ex-firm chums is fantastically higher than the other lawyers.  Or any other of misconducts that go unanswered, like show up half hour late, take hour long recess, two hour lunch, 45 minute afternoon recess and shut down early because "we don't have enough time to get to a new case".  Court here is from 10 am to 1pm for the morning, and 2:30 pm until (technically) 5 pm.  Do the math.  Defense are allowed to subpoena every single person whose name even appears passingly in the report, knowing that they won't call them.  So when the judge sees a trial with 8 witnesses that is to start at 3:30 pm, they say "jeez, I'm not sticking around that long, we're done here".  Then the lawyer/buddy gets a new date, pleads institutional delay and the shitrat walks.  The flip side is that when a whole day is blocked for a trial with heaps of witnesses, the shitrat all of a sudden decided to change his plea to guilty.  That doesn't hurt my feelings, because I get paid a heap for court overtime.  But then you have Joe Citizen who had to take an unpaid day off from work, only to be told "we don't need you".  



			
				Quag said:
			
		

> Hope this can clear up a little bit of our judicial system in Canada.



No doubt Quag you will end up being some sort of lawyer eventually.  If you can lower yourself long enough perhaps try a tour as a Crown and see what it is like.  Just remember, the senior defense lawyers around our place think the system is a joke too, and laugh with us about it.  To be sure, it is some dark humour.  But it's the old saying about "I have to laugh or ...."


----------



## couchcommander

> This is the ideal that all people are equal before the law without discrimination



No, as according to the charter this does "not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability".

In other words, unfortunately, we are far from equal before the law. 

This leads to decisions such as:

"The very purpose of sentencing circles seems to be to fashion sentences that will differ in some mix or measure from those which the courts have up to now imposed in order to take into account Aboriginal culture and traditions....This fits very well into and complies with the sentencing principles developed by the courts....This leaves substantial room for the use of sentencing circles as has been shown by their extensive use by the Provincial Court and the very few appeals by the Crown from sentences imposed with their advice..." (R. v. Morin, 1995). 

In other words, if you are Indian, you can expect a lesser setence.

Which translates into the fact that indian offenders "receive shorter sentences on average than non-[Indian] offenders in both federal and provincial institutions" - and despite this, they still occupy some 14% of the prison population, while only accounting for 4% of Canadians. (Criminology: A Canadian Perspective, 2004). 

So no, we are not equal under the law. Nevermind "guilty by reason of an inferior bank balance"... (I think that's Kat Stevens). 

Though, happily, you are right that electing judges is a bad idea. But no, our legal system is dumb.


----------



## Quag

I see your point Zipperhead, and I even had a good laugh at some of your points.

I knew that alot of my points were "textbook" answers and that they did not apply in real life.  The reason for me adding these to my post was to reinforce the rationale behind NOT electing judges.  If you want to see how rich people can have a different system of law, it would be in the election of judges.

I will agree with you that the legal system does have some major flaws.

However, I have seen 3 years of courts (about 20-25 hours per week), and have never seen any of the serious problems that you address.

Chalk it up to inexperience I guess.

Couchcommander,  again I have paid close to attention to, and even did a major study on discrimination in the judicial system, however I failed to notice the trend (in as severe as you describe it) you describe.

Just out of curiosity Zipperhead, what are your opinons of switching to a civil code law like Quebec instead of precedent based law.

This is getting interesting....I love law...


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Quag said:
			
		

> I see your point Zipperhead, and I even had a good laugh at some of your points.
> 
> I knew that alot of my points were "textbook" answers and that they did not apply in real life.  The reason for me adding these to my post was to reinforce the rationale behind NOT electing judges.  If you want to see how rich people can have a different system of law, it would be in the election of judges.
> 
> I will agree with you that the legal system does have some major flaws.
> 
> However, I have seen 3 years of courts (about 20-25 hours per week), and have never seen any of the serious problems that you address.
> 
> Chalk it up to inexperience I guess.
> 
> Couchcommander,  again I have paid close to attention to, and even did a major study on discrimination in the judicial system, however I failed to notice the trend (in as severe as you describe it) you describe.
> 
> Just out of curiosity Zipperhead, what are your opinons of switching to a civil code law like Quebec instead of precedent based law.
> 
> This is getting interesting....I love law...



I don't think I quite get the idea of textbook answers reinforcing a practical problem, but fair enough.  I also fail to see how your income bracket would affect a judge?  I have already indicated that were there to be elected judges there would have to be extremely strict contribution criteria in order to prevent what I think you are alluding to.  However, as a generality rich people don't commit frequent crimes.  And when they do, usually it is something spectacular, like a murder or a major business fraud.  Worst case scenario the rich have "close ties to the community" and "pose no significant risk" and head off to Club Fed in BC.  And since having lots of money for a defence gets you off (generally) now, how could the situation be worse?  At least come election time you could have adds that said "Judge Twaddle allowed fifty drunk drivers off this year, and three of them were his campaign contributors".  As well, when a judges job is not carved in stone as it is now, if impropriety occurred it would be much easier to oust them.  To simply point at the American system which appears to have developed flaws over the decades is pedantic at best.  Presumably, if we were to make such a massive shift in the legal system, it would be hammered out in the best possible frame work.  Hell, have the SSC make the rules, and have them up for review the year before elections every cycle.  
As far as the Quebec system, anything that makes the rest of Canada more Quebec-ish is always going to be a bad idea.  The legal system there is even more lenient than here.  They actually complained that when the YCJA (Youth Criminal Justice Act) was introduced it was too HARSH.  It certainly is one big weird universe a distinct culture over there.


----------



## couchcommander

> Couchcommander,  again I have paid close to attention to, and even did a major study on discrimination in the judicial system, however I failed to notice the trend (in as severe as you describe it) you describe.



Read _Examining Aboriginal Corrections in Canada_, C.P LePrairie, 1996.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

couchcommander said:
			
		

> Read _Examining Aboriginal Corrections in Canada_, C.P LePrairie, 1996.



And then after that came out, someone in the GTA tried to argue that Jamaican females were being unfairly sentenced, because they made up an abnormal percentile of the female prison population based on the same pile of crap criteria.
It just never bloody ends.  Albeit, I never did hear if that got off the ground or not.


----------



## couchcommander

Don't worry zipperhead... I'm arguing against special treatment. I find the idea that someones ethnic origin would play into their sentencing... well...offensive. Unfortunately, it's a stated and recognized policy that indians are supposed to be given special treatment, and this has translated into lesser sentences.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Which we get to see in more native crime.  Yup.  Those judges are really serving the public interest there.


----------



## warspite

I've heard do many stories about our legal system and the unbelievably ridiculous decisions that come out of it. :brickwall:
I'm wondering would it be possible to revive the idea of transportation?  The British shipped their convicts to Australia and America, why can't we ship ours to the arctic and Put them to work digging diamonds or mining copper or something useful rather than putting them back out into the street were they continue committing crime.  Put a bunch of houses in the middle of the tundra and surround them with a twenty foot fence.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

....or put them to work doing 'spellchecks' on your posts.


----------



## warspite

Now there's a fitting punishment... I can see it now, rob a little old Granny and your spellchecking my essay on THE LASTING EFFECTS OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE... mwhahahaha >


----------



## Cloud Cover

Here is a good example:

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO


Sentencing – Nordheimer, J.

Thursday, December 1, 2005



R. v. Brown 
 THURSDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2005

NORDHEIMER, J, Sentencing:

            On October 27, 2005, I found Mr. Brown guilty of eight counts, namely: pointing a firearm, assault using a firearm in a careless manner, possession of a restricted firearm without a license, possession of a firearm without a license, possession of a firearm and possession of ammunition both while prohibited by an order under Section 109 of the Criminal Code, and escaping lawful custody.  

            I found Mr. Brown not guilty of three other charges.  These offences arise out of the events of August 24, 2004.  The basic facts are: on that evening three on-site security guards at a building located at 200 Sherbourne Street went to Apartment 306.  After hearing what appeared to be a cry for help the security guards entered the apartment.  One of the security guards approached Mr. Brown, who was lying on a mattress.  Believing that Mr. Brown was banned from the building another security guard ordered Mr. Brown to get up.  As Mr. Brown started to get up he drew a handgun from his waist area and pointed it at one of the guards.  That guard reacted by punching Mr. Brown a number of times.  Mr. Brown then dropped the gun and two security guards got into a scuffle with him as they tried to handcuff him. 

            Eventually, Mr. Brown was handcuffed and taken out into the hallway.  In the hallway Mr. Brown ran from the guards, but was eventually caught again after he fled down some stairs and outside the building.  

            Mr. Brown admitted that he went to the apartment to smoke crack cocaine as he had done frequently in the past.  A female known to Mr. Brown came to the apartment with the gun in question that she had found in a park, and that she wanted Mr. Brown’s help in selling.  Both Mr. Brown, this female and others in the apartment were smoking crack cocaine when the security guards entered the apartment.  

            I concluded that Mr. Brown pulled the gun on the security guard in an effort not to be detained by them and searched, because Mr. Brown had a quantity of crack cocaine on him at the time.  

            The Crown submits that a total sentence of seven to ten years should be imposed before any credit is allowed for pre-sentence custody.  

            The defence submitted that a suspended sentence and probation was more appropriate in light of the time that Mr. Brown has spent in pre-sentence custody.   

            Mr. Brown is 36 years old.  He has five children, one of whom is a three-year-old daughter that he has with his current fiancée.  Mr. Brown also has a relatively lengthy criminal record dating back to 1984 as a youth.  

            Mr. Brown’s record includes prior convictions for theft and assault, including assault of police officers as well as numerous drug convictions. 

            The maximum penalty imposed on Mr. Brown to date is three and a half years for criminal negligence causing death in 1994.  Mr. Brown was also subject to a weapons prohibition order under Section 109 of the Criminal Code at the time of these offences.  

            I have read the Victim Impact Statement filed by Malek Abdul, the security guard Mr. Brown pointed the firearm at.  It outlines the psychological trauma that Mr. Abdul suffered as a consequence of these events.  It is not difficult to understand and appreciate the emotional impact that would be suffered by a young man working as a security guard, who has a semi-automatic handgun pointed at him in the course of his duties.  

            The fundamental purpose of sentencing as set out in Section 718 of the Criminal Code is to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by the imposition of just sanctions, that have one or more of the sentencing objectives referred to in that section.  Those objectives include denunciation, deterrence and the acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and to the community from the commission of criminal offences.  

            There are a number of aggravating factors in this case:  one aggravating factor is that Mr. Brown was in possession of a prohibited firearm when he had been subject to a prior order prohibiting him from the possession of weapons.  

            Another aggravating factor is that Mr. Brown was in possession of a prohibited firearm while he was on a recognizance or bail that prohibited him from the possession of weapons.  

            Put simply, when Mr. Brown was allowed to be out of custody on certain terms and conditions he not only breached those terms by indulging in illegal drugs, he further breached those terms by becoming involved with a firearm.  I note, however, that Mr. Brown was not charged with breaching his recognizance.

            Another aggravating factor is that the weapon that Mr. Brown possessed was a semi-automatic handgun that contained a clip with at least one bullet in it.

            The further aggravating factor is that Mr. Brown was under the influence of crack cocaine when he pointed the handgun at Mr. Abdul.  

            Lastly, of course, there is the aggravating factor of Mr. Brown’s criminal record.  

           Unfortunately there is not much to be found in terms of mitigating factors.  I would note, however, in terms of mitigating factors, that Mr. Brown did not originally acquire the firearm, nor did he bring it to the apartment.  Rather, he simply took the opportunity that the presence of the firearm provided to use it in an attempt to make his escape.  

            It was therefore more in the nature of a spontaneous act as opposed to one that was planned or thought out.  

            I would also note the obvious fact that Mr. Brown has a problem with an addiction to crack cocaine that underlies both his criminal record and his conduct in this case.  

            The circumstances of this case lead to the inescapable conclusion that the objectives of denunciation and deterrence are of primary importance.  

            I have recently had reason to make observations on the current concern in this community regarding the possession and prevalence of handguns in our community.  

            I refer to my decision in R. v. Grant [2005] O.J. No. 4599.  I do not need to repeat what I said in that case regarding this subject.  The danger that such weapons pose to others is self-evident.  The risk to the security guards in this case from the presence and use of the hand gun by Mr. Brown is also obvious.  

            While the possession by any person of a loaded handgun is a very serious concern, that concern is magnified when the person who is in possession of the handgun is already subject to an order of the court prohibiting him from the possession of weapons.  I repeat that weapons prohibition orders must have meaning if there is any hope of them having any positive effect.  One way to ensure that they have meaning is to make it clear to any person subject to such an order that if they choose to violate such an order, that choice will attract serious consequences.  

            I sentenced Mr. Grant to the equivalent of eight years and four months regarding his various offences including the weapons offences.  

            There are, however, some significant differences between this case and that of Mr. Grant.  First, Mr. Grant was subject to multiple prior weapons prohibition orders; second, Mr. Grant had prior convictions for possession of weapons and prior convictions for breaching those prohibition orders; third, Mr. Grant directly acquired the handgun in question.  

            In the end result I do not consider that Mr. Brown is in the same category of offender as Mr. Grant.  Having said that, the more disturbing factor here is that Mr. Brown actually used the firearm, that is, he pointed the firearm at Mr. Abdul.  The firearm was a loaded semi-automatic handgun with at least one bullet in the clip.  It is not clear whether the gun was immediately capable of being fired, as, fortunately for Mr. Abdul, Mr. Brown did not pull the trigger. The risk, however, was very much present.   

            Parliament has established a five-year maximum penalty for pointing a firearm; whereas, there is a ten year maximum penalty for possession of a firearm.  On the surface that would suggest that Parliament considers pointing a firearm to be a less serious offence than simple possession of a firearm, which would appear to be an odd result to say the least.  

            In this case the act of pointing the firearm was by far the most serious of the acts engaged in by Mr. Brown, when it is contrasted to the relatively brief possession of the gun by Mr. Brown and the fact that the presence of the gun resulted from the act of another. 

            Nonetheless, it is an act that, when coupled with the conclusion that Mr. Brown was under the influence of crack cocaine at the time, was frightening in its potential consequences.

            It is also an act that when coupled with Mr. Brown’s prior record for assaults, warrants a significant penalty.  In my view, Mr. Brown’s possession of the gun in violation of the weapons prohibition order and the terms of his conditions of release at the time also calls for a significant penalty.  

            The Crown asks for consecutive sentences regarding the conviction for pointing a firearm and for escaping lawful custody.  Again, I do not intend to repeat what I said in Grant regarding the confusion of whether consecutive sentences are appropriate in such circumstances.  

            Once again, however, I conclude that the principle of totality precludes the imposition of consecutive sentences for these offences.   [note fromw601- the principle of totality is not act passed into law, but rather it is an invention created by judges]              A final point that must be addressed is the issue of pre-sentence custody.  Mr. Brown has been in custody since he was arrested on August 24th, 2004, a period of approximately fifteen months.  In terms of the sentences I am about to impose I have given Mr. Brown a credit for that period of pre-sentence custody of 30 months.  

             Mr. Brown, would you please stand.  

             On count number one, pointing a firearm, I sentence you to a term of imprisonment of eighteen months.  
            On count number three, assault, I sentence you to time served plus one day.  
            On count four, using a firearm in a careless manner, I sentence you to time served plus one day.  
            On count six, possession of a restricted firearm, I sentence you to a term of imprisonment of six months.  
            On count seven, possession of a firearm, I considered this count should be stayed under the principle against multiple convictions for the same act as set out in R. v. Kienapple [1974] 15 C.C.C. (2d) 524 (S.C.C.).  
            On count eight, possession of a firearm while prohibited by an order under Section 109 of the Criminal Code, I sentence you to a term of imprisonment of 18 months.  
            On count nine, possession of ammunition while prohibited by an order under Section 109 of the Criminal Code, I sentence you to time served plus one day.  
           On count eleven, escaping lawful custody, I sentence you to time served plus one day.  
            All of these sentences are to be served on a concurrent basis, one to the other.  
            On a global basis, that represents a sentence of four years, of which 18 months remain to be served after giving you a credit of 30 months for the pre-sentence custody.  
            I strongly recommend to the correctional officials that Mr. Brown serve his sentence at the Ontario Correctional Institute where he can receive treatment for his drug addiction.  
            The Criminal Code makes a further prohibition order mandatory:  There will therefore be an order under Section 109 prohibiting Mr. Brown from the possession of weapons for life.  

             The offence of assault is a secondary designated offence under the DNA provisions of the Criminal Code.  I consider it to be in the best interests of the administration of justice, given Mr. Brown’s prior record, that he be ordered to provide a DNA sample for the DNA Data Bank.  

            Finally, there will be an order directing the forfeiture of the handgun, the clip and the ammunition to the Toronto Police Service for destruction.   You may be seated, sir.  

--- ADJOURNED.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Quote,
 I strongly recommend to the correctional officials that Mr. Brown serve his sentence at the Ontario Correctional Institute where he can receive treatment for his drug addiction.  


Oh, yay.....


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Thank you, Whisky for that excellent (albeit pathetic) sentencing transcript.  And don't forget, if he is sentenced to 18 months, he is actually out of jail in about six.  
But don't worry, he will have probation conditions.  Surely he would not breach a judicial order?   :
Even when this tool gets out and kills someone, he will still get this kind of consideration.



			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Quote,
> I strongly recommend to the correctional officials that Mr. Brown serve his sentence at the Ontario Correctional Institute where he can receive treatment for his drug addiction.
> Oh, yay.....



And by treatment, he of course means "continue to use smuggled narcotics while you are in".


----------



## Gunnar

You can tell from the way it's worded, that the judge views the whole thing as an intellectual exercise, and isn't terribly concerned about the public or protection thereof.  Lots of strongly worded paragraphs about how he understands what victims may have felt, and he then goes on to propose the lightest possible sentence, citing all the factors taken into consideration.

Drug rehab?  Sure, if the convict wants it.  But let him have plenty of time for recovery...say, 5 years for possession, 10 for pointing a firearm, and whatever is the max for breaching an order of the court in the first place.



> I repeat that weapons prohibition orders must have meaning if there is any hope of them having any positive effect.  One way to ensure that they have meaning is to make it clear to any person subject to such an order that if they choose to violate such an order, that choice will attract serious consequences.



How right he is.  Wonder when he will act on it?  18 mo., 18 mo. plus 6 mo, oh yes, and renewing the useless weapons prohibition order.  So he gets a year off having to work, and gets out just in time to take up his crack lifestyle for Christmas....

No contempt of court charge?  And he wonders why nobody charged him with "breaching recognizance", a piddly damn charge if I ever saw one....One would think that weapons offences would obviate the need to charge for breaching recognizance....


----------



## North Star

Gunnar - Judges aren't selected based on their ability to take the protection of the public into account. They're trained originally as lawyers to look at "legal" logic and not at what it actually takes to protect anyone. They then use this logic to determine sentences, using principles such as detererence, etc. 

So, what we end up with are over-paid technocrats who don't care about society at large unless it fits into a personal political agenda. 

Now, if we paid them just enough to live closer to the consequences of their sentencing...


----------



## Gunnar

> They're trained originally as lawyers to look at "legal" logic and not at what it actually takes to protect anyone. They then use this logic to determine sentences, using principles such as detererence, etc.



I am aware of this...however, "Ignorantia non excusat", to borrow a legal term.

It's like the scientists who use their knowledge of applied biology to create deadly viruses for dictators...sure, it's only an intellectual exercise to them in the short term.  Yet they should still be held accountable for bad decisions.  I was only following orders isn't much of an excuse for any professional, and your ability to divorce your personal feelings from analysis, while laudable for proper performance of a job, doesn't change your responsibilities as a human being.  In other words, limiting yourself to the letter of the law ignores the spirit of the law, that is, the protection of society.  Why is mens rea only relevant to people who commit crimes, and not those who make judgements based on the law?

Militarily, there is a long list of successes attributable to auftstragtaktik, the ability to make decisions in the field that will accomplish the objective laid down by command in the absence of (or in contravention of the letter of) clear orders and/or in a changing situation.  This kind of thinking is applicable to judges as well...they aren't making policy in little rooms somewhere, they are in the field making real-life decisions.  Let them take some responsibility for their actions, and make decisions based not only on the law, but also on justice.  Cops already do this.  It's called a judgement call.  Shouldn't those responsible for *judging*, make more of them?

My disagreements with Zip in the past have been along ideological lines, because I don't see practical alternatives to the problem.  I don't think electing judges will help this situation, when most of the public is uninformed sheep.  Keeping in mind that statistically, half of the population is below average intelligence, and still have the right to vote...and will do so based on their poor understanding of the principles involved (or the colour of the judge's/politician's tie).

I'd like to quote Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureacracy here too...as I ramble.  It is his belief (www.jerrypournelle.com)that in any organization, there are two kinds of people:  those who work to further the goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself.  The second type invariably take over the organization, to the detriment of the first.  Examples would include teachers unions, government departments of any type and large corporations.  The paperwork, or the employee rights, or the work hierarchy all come before the stated objectives of the organization, i.e., education, serving the public, making money.

Solve the Iron Law problem, and apply it to the legal profession....and everywhere else.


----------



## aluc

http://www.torontosun.com/News/TorontoAndGTA/2006/08/31/1788660-sun.html




Thu, August 31, 2006
Victims live in fear while an attacker walks
Here’s how it goes down when the justice system puts victim’s rights last

By MIKE STROBEL


Elsa Ferraro, whose son was stabbed by a neighbour, is grateful to locksmith Carmine Panaro, left, of Reilly Locks, and Door Doctor Jay Robitaille, who boosted the security at her home yesterday. The mentally unstable neighbour was freed by a judge just 16 weeks after her 16-year-old son almost died. (Ernest Doroszuk, Sun)

Let me take you inside a Newmarket court for a lesson in victim's rights.

Her Majesty the Queen versus Peter Galanos.

Mr. Justice William Gorewich presiding.

The Aug. 14 transcript is 35 pages and full of stops and stutters, so I doubt the matter takes more than an hour.

Then Galanos, 32, is freed to return home, across the street from the boy he knifed nearly to death 16 weeks before.

Galanos believed Nicolas Lastoria was a witch.

Court learns this after the psych report is finally tracked down. Someone checks the cells to see if Galanos has it.

Finally it is scanned by Gorewich, defence lawyer Stephen Labow and Norm Chorney, a summer fill-in Crown.

Galanos is paranoid schizophrenic. How risky is he? The shrinks' report surely says, but there is little mention in court.

Except ...

"Well," pipes up Chorney, "it's a bit of a worry, more than a bit of a worry, in that the report says while he's currently free of his symptoms on medication, his history of compliance is poor ..."

The judge interrupts to discuss how to declare Galanos "not criminally responsible."

Chorney tries again.

"In view of his past history of poor compliance, I would think the public has to be protected to the maximum extent possible from his failure to take his medication ... and from his possible abuse of alcohol and street drugs."

No one says it, but I know from court records that this refers to a road rage incident in 2000.

Galanos was convicted of dangerous driving. A weapons charge was dropped.

I wish someone mentioned this on Aug. 14.

Or how young Nicolas was when he was attacked (two weeks shy of 16), how awful his wounds, how shocked his family.

Chorney is mum on that. The judge can keep Galanos in a psych ward at least until the Ontario Review Board has a look at him. (A hearing has since been set for Sept. 20.)

But the notion doesn't even come up.

Alas, Nicolas and his mom, paramedic Elsa Ferraro, are unaware that a verdict is being rendered. So, even, are the cops.

Much is said on Peter Galanos' behalf, though.

A model patient, his lawyer reports. Loving parents.

Chorney agrees to a "not criminally responsible" verdict and release on conditions.

The judge gives Galanos a month to arrange regular dates with a psychiatrist.

Take your meds. No weapons. Stay away from the victim.

"We might as well go whole hog here," adds the judge, so no booze, no narcotics.

All this is covered by a peace bond until a permanent order can be written. The surety? One hundred bucks.

The deal is done 'til Nadine Prince, from the Victim Witness Office, rushes in.

What's the problem, wonders the judge.

Prince says she is here only because the lead investigator, York Regional Det. Const. Stu Betts, chanced to see the verdict pop up on his screen.

(It is remarkable that Betts was not forewarned. He knows every nuance of the case. What was the Crown thinking?)

Nicolas' family should have been here, Prince tells court.

"Well, that's all very well and good," says Gorewich, "but you know the issue is, and the Criminal Code says, that you have to deal with these cases in the least onerous fashion to the accused ...

"Do we simply keep him in custody indefinitely?"

What about the impact statement? It's a victim's right.

"Well, with great respect ... (it) wouldn't have changed (the decision)...

"It may have helped the victims get something off their chest ..."

"The concern," Prince cuts in, "is that the young man (Nicolas) is still living in that home."

"Well, what do you do?" the judge says, outlining the terms.

But Elsa needs time to move her son, says Prince.

"I feel like I need to go and let them know as soon as possible." And off she dashes for a phone.

And Peter Galanos walks free.

"Good luck to you, Mr. Galanos," says Justice Gorewich.

"Thank you."

"All the best," replies the judge.


----------



## GAP

.:brickwall: :brickwall:


----------



## 17thRecceSgt

If the judges are sooo willing to let these pieces of crap free, I suggest we build half-way houses next to all the judges homes and that of their grandchildren.  It would seem they are too detached as to the reality they are creating for the rest of us.

Heck, why not just have these criminals just live at their judges homes for a week or two until they get themselves on their feet, the fine outstanding citizens that they are!

Agreed Gap   :brickwall: :brickwall:


----------



## warspite

I think that your on to something there


----------



## North Star

Quag - 

Just a question. If judges are accountable, who are they accountable to and how can a judge be removed from the bench? Can regular Joes within a community do it via petition to Parliament, a higher courty, etc? I've often wondered this seeing as lots of them seem to constantly forget the deterrence principle when it comes to sentencing.


----------



## warspite

How about if so many people petition against a judge some sort of inspection takes place into the history of the judges actions and if this investigation finds the judge hasn't been sentencing justly, the judge gets booted out in the street with no comfy severance package and a reduced pension?  OF course there would have to be some pretty major safeguards to prevent abuse of this system.
 Feasibility? Feel free to point out the problems with this plan.


----------



## Gunnar

Who performs the inspection?   What is considered "just"?  How many people need to sign the petition?  A coalition of welfare moms, criminals and other layabouts (keeping in mind that these people have plenty of time to petition, protest and do other things that working people can't) who claim that "the system is out to get us", where "us" is determined by race, poverty, minority, etc., etc?  And how long before the idea of JUSTICE becomes that favourite socialist anti-concept, "social  justice"...?  That's where criminals from a disadvantaged section of society are given special treatment (i.e., are not subject to justice), in order to "equalize" things....

Personally, I favour having only a few simple laws, with  a single statutory punishment:  Death.  Give everyone a two year warning period, then enforce it.  Harsh?  Oh yea....but people would tend to OBEY the law.  Of course, that would have it's problems as well...

Churchill once described democracy as the least worst political system.  It really is.


----------



## Quag

North Star said:
			
		

> Quag -
> 
> Just a question. If judges are accountable, who are they accountable to and how can a judge be removed from the bench? Can regular Joes within a community do it via petition to Parliament, a higher courty, etc? I've often wondered this seeing as lots of them seem to constantly forget the deterrence principle when it comes to sentencing.



Ok again, this is IN THEORY.

(And I say again) In theory, judges may be removed from office if they breach the requirements of good behavior, however, in practice, they would appear to be relatively immune from sanctioning.  Under the Judges Act, the process to assess alleged breaches of conduct by federally appointed judges falls to the Canadian Judicial Council, (est. 1971), by an act of Parliament.  One of the 4 responsibilities of the the CJC is to investigate complaints about the conduct of federally appointed judges.  When notified that a judge has breached the requirements of good behaviour, the CJC then decides whether or not the judge has become "incapacitated or disabled from the due execution of the office of judge by reason of age or infirmity, having been guilty of misconduct, having failed in the due execution of the office etc...".  

The CJC receives anywhere from 150 to 200 complaints annually.  Judges have been reccommended to be removed from the bench, however it is up to the Minister of Justice to actually remove him/her.  So to answer, the question, in theory judges are ultimately accountable to the Minister of Justice.

I'm going to go against what I said earlier, and say that in Canada, judges (from what I have seen/studied etc...) play a greater role in building and deciding a case, they seem to put the evidence together,  and they go beyond the "refereeing role" characteristic of common-law judges.

However, I still do not "put the judges on the chopping board" as much as some have in this thread.  

I agree that there are some serious flaws, but it cannot solely be based on judges.  

In my short experience in courts, every case that has shocked and made me wonder about our legal system, comes from recommendations of external influences (CP's etc..).  

There is no explanation for the cases that have been posted in this thread.  These seem to be (without reading full court transcripts) serious errors by the judges.

However, it is in my opinion that you cannot place blame on an entire group, for the actions of a coupe of the members.  Afterall, I have noticed people tend to that with the military (one guy does something bad, and the whole military is to blame), and it is a shame.


----------



## warspite

That is a fair assessment of the situation, it's the justice system that lets the criminals off easy and the justice system is made up of more than just judges.  Our justice system is in need of an overhaul. There are too many holes in it. But that being said the right to a fair trial is important and must be preserved. The problem is when there is no punishment when someone is convicted, if you are convicted of something you've had your fair trail already and it's time to reap what you've sown. Perhaps mandatory sentencing would help the situation?


----------



## Quag

It is in my opinion that mandatory sentencing should never happen.

The discretion of judges is a very important aspect of the justice system.

Take this case for example.  

Adult A decides to steal a chocolate bar from the corner store.  He/She has no previous record.  He/She is charged with theft under $5000.
Adult B decides to steal 10 cartons of cigarettes from the same store.  He/She has a previous record of assault and DUI.  He/She is charged the same with theft under $5000.
Mandatory sentencing is at 1 year (just for the point I'm making) for theft under $5000.

Maybe this is just my opinion, but do you not think that it is good that the judge has the discretion to give a more lenient sentence to the child, versus the adult whom should have known better/ committed a more serious crime (ok lets not get into the "stealing is stealing" and they are equally bad argument).

This is where I think that mandatory sentencing wouldn't work.  Just my thoughts though.  And I will state that I have no viable alternative at this time to put forth.


----------



## larry Strong

I have to agree we need some kind of mandatory sentencing. Once people find out that there are repercussions for crimes, maybe it might act as some sort of deterrent.

your example really is not realistic as a kid would go thru youth court and an adult would be upstairs, 2 different situations I would think. Not only that, but the little brat would go thru the trial system with complete anonymity, something else that has to stop, start bringing back the humiliation factor......Oh wait, that might be against his Charter rights :


----------



## Quag

Edit: You are right, what I meant was KID A is 18 y/o.


----------



## warspite

I understand your concern but isn't stealing a candy bar shoplifting and wouldn't stealing ten cartons of cigarettes fall under theft under 5000 dollars?
But could there perhaps be mandatory sentences but with a couple factors built in i.e. 
Theft under 5000 dollars-no previous record=1 year

Theft under 5000 dollars-previous criminal record or convictions=2 years
I agree there should be some options should the case warant it but there has to be a solid guaranteed punishment,i.e you reap what you sow


----------



## Quag

Legally, it could be either or _at the discretion of the judge._

I like the mandatory sentences with a couple factors built in, but once again, that would have to incorporate using the discretion of judges, as sometimes the first offence is serious enough to warrant jail time etc...


----------



## warspite

Perhaps a jury could be held to allow a more serious sentence should the situation warrant it?


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Quag said:
			
		

> It is in my opinion that mandatory sentencing should never happen.
> 
> The discretion of judges is a very important aspect of the justice system.
> 
> Take this case for example.
> 
> Adult A decides to steal a chocolate bar from the corner store.  He/She has no previous record.  He/She is charged with theft under $5000.
> Adult B decides to steal 10 cartons of cigarettes from the same store.  He/She has a previous record of assault and DUI.  He/She is charged the same with theft under $5000.
> Mandatory sentencing is at 1 year (just for the point I'm making) for theft under $5000.
> 
> Maybe this is just my opinion, but do you not think that it is good that the judge has the discretion to give a more lenient sentence to the child, versus the adult whom should have known better/ committed a more serious crime (ok lets not get into the "stealing is stealing" and they are equally bad argument).
> 
> This is where I think that mandatory sentencing wouldn't work.  Just my thoughts though.  And I will state that I have no viable alternative at this time to put forth.



See Quag, that is where the problem lays.  People like you trot out hypotheticals.  We live in an unfortunately practical and real world.  Criminals don't worry about niceties so much.
And the whole point so far is the woefully inadequate addressing of violent crime.   Screw the hypotheticals.  The charge that applies for stealing a box of screws at Rona is the same charge that applies for stealing a 1995 Dodge Caravan, or a Spirit, or Acclaim.  The m/v's are not worth more than $5000, so that is what the charge is.  Car theft=shoplifting=not against the law (where sentencing is concerned).  
How does mandatory sentencing not work when a creep gets convicted of child pornography for having 10,000 plus images of child sex torture, then getting a year of house arrest and STILL BEING ABLE TO KEEP HIS COMPUTER?!?!  (Because he "wants to take courses on line")  
*IF* we could trust the judges, then we could probably do away with mandatory sentences.  The fact that they exist speaks to the fact that the judges are not serving the people.  It is a statutory way to get around the judges weak treatment of crime.  And they still ignore the guidelines as they see fit.  Hell, the last three times I went to court for someone who didn't have auto insurance they came up with some lame ass excuse about "I'm poor, I need a car, blah blah blah" and got sentences reduced to $1500 (minimum sentence in Ontario is $5000 and it goes up from there).  JFC!! I pay more than that for my cars.  Maybe I should cancel my insurance, since not only do I know I will get a freebie, I can almost guarantee I won't get a ticket.  But I won't.  
Gunnar, I mentioned before that the higher courts would not be elected.  I agree that there needs to be some senior direction so that there isn't a massive back and forth with the legal system.  But the way it is now, the bunch that makes poor decisions drags down the few good ones that are left, because all of a sudden precedence kicks in and they are compelled to do what some socialist college did out in BC.  But the high courts don't deal with the everyday administration of the legal system.  
Another interesting nuance is now that Canada Customs (CBSA) is now an enforcement agency, they are picking off more and more criminality coming through the border.  There will come a time in the near future where they will likely be laying their own charges (currently, they have to have an RCMP officer do it, and they pretty much only lay charges for huge cases here in Ontario).  So, as the curve comes around, and more out of country criminals see how weak our system is, how do you think that will bode for you big city types?  Me?  I live in a border town that is loosely been designated as a "no mans land" by the various organize crime factions that commute through.  Toronto and GTA?  Not so much.  Vancouver?  Hah.  Good luck.  Montreal?  Half way there now.  
I only stick with this because I care about you people.  I get to bring my firepower home, I get to hunt down and pursue anyone who displeases me, and I get heaps of court overtime from this useless system.  For the police, the legal system is job security.  If the bad guys actually were kept in jail, or actually stopped being bad guys because they knew all hell would rain on them, my job would get boring pretty quick.  Or maybe then we could start freeing up some resources to go after organized crime and making all of Canada a better place.



			
				warspite said:
			
		

> Perhaps a jury could be held to allow a more serious sentence should the situation warrant it?



Warsprite, that is a good idea, but only charges that are proceded with by way of indictment get jury trials.  By and large, unless forced to, the Crown elects to proceed by way of summary charges, due to the massive case load that they are force to reckon with.  When you go by way of indictment, you give the bad guy the opportunity to have a preliminary trial, and create even more delay.  Which gives them a better shot at beating the charge for no better reason than that it has been too long since they got caught.  
Plus, most criminals don't have jury trials anymore.  When you introduce a jury, you have real, normal people watching what is going on, and normal people frequently have the disease that terrifies the legal system called "common sense".  Most criminals elect to be tried "Judge alone" and skip the jury all together, since their lawyers know that gets things back into the comfortable "all lawyers involved" scenario.
Over and above all that, jury selection unto itself is a gong show.  
But you have the right idea.  If average citizens were more involved with the process, things might get better.  Hmmmm, how else could we get people involved in a decision making process...ummmm....everyone would have to have a say.....errrrr....there would have to be some way to count the various opinions that people had....oooo, it is right on the tip of my tongue.....kind of like some sort of tally.....jeez, what do they call that.....oh yeah, 

*A VOTE!!*


----------



## Gunnar

And here's an example of what happens when law enforcement gets out of hand:

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/12/1296.asp

The US HAS elected judges, does it not?


----------



## J.J

What does that prove???  ??? The Nebraska State Trooper did his job. Mr Gonzalez broke the law. Did he declare the currency to US Customs when he landed in Chicago? I doubt he did. If he had followed the law he would have had paperwork justifying the currency. Then there would be no need for the seizure of the currency. I know someone will bring up the point that maybe the money originated in the US. OK....Why did he not have a cashiers check or some other monetary device? Why did he feel the need to hide $124,700 in a cooler? Honest people do not do that. I have yet to encounter an honest, law abiding person who transport currency in that fashion.
So I strongly disagree with your your example that law enforcement was out of hand in this case.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

+1 to WR
Gunnar, I don't quite get what you are saying with your example?  Just because the bad guy got his backers to come up with some half assed excuse about a truck purchase, doesn't mean that it wasn't drug money.  Our country is the one with the shortfall when it comes to seizure of criminal assets.  Besides, even within that example, it appeared that the American judicial system worked the way it was supposed to, despite the fact that they sided with the bad guy.  Decision, appeal.  All that good stuff.


----------



## Gunnar

It wasn't necessarily to excuse drug money...it was basically to point out that in the absense of any evidence whatsoever, a man was convicted.



> Did he declare the currency to US Customs when he landed in Chicago?



I don't know.  And neither did the article.  Suppose he didn't.  Is it the responsibility of Nebraska State Troopers to pursue US Federal Law, again in the absense of anything suggesting that a crime was committed?  Why should possession of large sums of money *necessitate* a criminal act, instead of merely implying one?



> Why did he not have a cashiers check or some other monetary device? Why did he feel the need to hide $124,700 in a cooler?



Maybe he's from a backward country where things are run by drug gangs and a largely purchased police force, and only trusts CASH?  Maybe he's an idiot.  Maybe he's uneducated in financial instruments.  So what?  In a free country, you have a right to be stupid.  I'm not saying that a large sum of cash isn't a reason for an investigation...I'm saying that to decide guilt based on that alone is stupid.



> Honest people do not do that. I have yet to encounter an honest, law abiding person who transport currency in that fashion.



If you come from a country which is somewhat backwards, run by gangs, or which taxes heavily, there are numerous reasons to use cash.  Also, it might be kinda neat to carry around that much cash, just to have the wad in your pocket.  There are hundreds of BAD reasons to do it...but people don't always do the logical, best-case scenario thing....

My problem is not that it was stupid to carry around that much cash.  I don't even have a problem with an investigation being performed because it is an unusual situation.  My problem is that based only on the presence of cash and drug residue on a RENTAL car, he was assumed to be a drug dealer.



> Just because the bad guy got his backers to come up with some half assed excuse about a truck purchase, doesn't mean that it wasn't drug money.



My problem is that it doesn't mean that it WAS either.  Intellectually, I can see the argument you're making, and I might even agree with it.  But the presumption of innocence is something that has to be maintained, regardless of the circumstances.  You can't throw a guy in jail for having a smoke outside a burning building, claiming it was arson...and he had fire, so he must be guilty.  That's the kind of shoddy investigation this site often accuses reporters of doing...

In logic, in order to say "X is true" you have to be able to prove it.  Nobody is required to disprove that "X is not true" in order to make their case.  Your sense of working with the public, and your experience with when people are and are not lying will probably tell you otherwise...but the law is supposed to be blind.

It's very frustrating for me, because while you may not agree with me, I get the feeling you don't even see where I am coming from on this...and I'd like you to *get it*, even if you think I'm wrong...


----------



## paracowboy

he's a crook. Shoot him in the face, and let's get on with our lives.  :


----------



## J.J

> Is it the responsibility of Nebraska State Troopers to pursue US Federal Law


Yes it is. He already committed one criminal act by smuggling the money in. What is the Trooper to think?



> Why should possession of large sums of money *necessitate* a criminal act, instead of merely implying one?


If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck...




> Maybe he's from a backward country where things are run by drug gangs and a largely purchased police force, and only trusts CASH?  Maybe he's an idiot.  Maybe he's uneducated in financial instruments.  .


He had in his possession a Nevada's drivers licence, so he is a resident of the US, probably illegal, but still a resident. So he is not living in "some backward country".



> My problem is that based only on the presence of cash and drug residue on a RENTAL car, he was assumed to be a drug dealer.



I concede the point that K9 indication of the rental vehicle can be discounted, but what about the indication on the currency? 



> My problem is that based only on the presence of cash and drug residue on a RENTAL car, he was assumed to be a drug dealer.



What is the Trooper to do one the side of the road? Release him, then do an investigation? Give the guy a promise to appear and order him to bring the money in, if after the fact, it was discovered to be drug money? Again...If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck...



> It's very frustrating for me, because while you may not agree with me, I get the feeling you don't even see where I am coming from on this...and I'd like you to *get it*, even if you think I'm wrong...



I do understand where you are coming from, but you seem to be looking at the situation with "rose coloured glasses". You seem to want to be the devils advocate or you have a very liberal view towards crime and punishment.


If Mr. Gonzalez had followed the law or even if he had told the truth, the Trooper may have taken another route. Mr Gonzalez had every indicator in the book for a courier and I do not believe the Trooper did anything wrong. I would have done the same thing.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Beyond that, it seems to me that had he been able to put together a reasonable chain of custody for the money, he may have gotten it back.  I wonder how many of the people who "chipped in" came to the court case to say "hey, I put in X amount of that sum".  
Plus, maybe I read the article wrong, but what did the guy get convicted of?  Didn't they just keep the money?  
Gunnar, even if we run with your presumption of innocence, would it not make more sense that if dude was worried about corrupt police he would have something other than cash on his person?  
Yes, in a free country you can be stupid.  However, I don't thing that right extends to law enforcement.  

In any case, we were ripping on judges here in Canada.  If anybody is really interested in drug and cash interdiction stats, I'm sure WR can toss them out ad infinatum.


----------



## Gunnar

Here's the problem:



> I do not believe the Trooper did anything wrong. I would have done the same thing.



To clarify my point...the trooper is fine (previous comments implied he wasn't...but it was the court that I have issue with).  I'm not nuts about the legal decision, but the decision to bring him in was a good one.  And you're right, someone saying "yeah,  I chipped in" to the court goes a long way to establishing innocence.

We are off track here tho...suffice to say that in my rosy world, I can have 10,000 cash in my possession, and while you might understandably wonder why I have so much cash in hand, convicting me of dealing drugs because I can't show where it came from is a bit of a stretch.  Maybe I found it.  Maybe I pulled it outta the basement....but there is reasonable doubt about where it came from, and I expect to get the benefit thereof.  Owning money isn't illegal.  Maybe I don't trust banks.

I'm not saying that any of these puff cases need to be true for this conviction/confiscation to be unjustified.  I'm saying that the law has to allow for this kind of stupidity to be true, and err more on the side of caution.

Anyway, we've had this kind of argument before, and I never felt like it was finished.  I still don't agree with you necessarily, but I feel better.  ;P

As far as the judges here in Canada, I figured that argument was over when the court transcript was pulled out.  They suck.

Paracowboy, whatever happened to the ditch?  Or is it full now?


----------



## mpitts

Got this sent to me, thought it would fit quite nicely into this thread.  The video is about 5 minutes once you click the link.

The attached link is a commentary regarding the media's portrayal of a chase in which an officer was shot and killed.   

San Francisco PD speaks out.

the following media release issued on 8/8/2006 at 
3:22 PM by the San Francisco Police Officers Association President.  

http://mfile.akamai.com/12948/wmv/vod.ibsys.com/2006/0728/9591734.300k.asx


----------



## Quag

All these examples are terribly sad.

However, anyone can pull extreme examples.  All of these examples are bound to happen, as no justice system is perfect.  Extremities happen.

While it is high, Canada's recidivism rates are comparable internationally.  

Yes the justice sytem needs work, yes the judges should have a more careful quality control regulation and yes citizens are p'd off at the judiciary.

We know this.  

But to classify all judges as the thing that is wrong in Canada is terribly ignorant.  It would be a hasty generalization and a fallacy of insufficient statistics
.


----------



## TCBF

A finger in jail cannot pull a trigger on the street.  $76,000* a year for wharehousing, or social costs of $213,000* a year if they are on the lose.  You do the math.

*No cite available. I cannot substantiate, but it makes my point.


----------



## paracowboy

I can always dig another ditch. I got no problem spending all my time diggin' ditches and fillin' 'em with criminals of any stripe, along with their enablers in our wonderful "Legal" system, and the fools who would rather look to the 'Rights' of the criminal than the Rights of their victims.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Quag said:
			
		

> All these examples are terribly sad.
> However, anyone can pull extreme examples.  All of these examples are bound to happen, as no justice system is perfect.  Extremities happen.



Thanks for the lip service remorse.   :
Quag, what you aren't getting is that these are not outstanding examples.  This goes on every day, in every court in Canada.  Some things are just more noticeable.  
And to call it "imperfect" is like calling Hurricane Katrina "crappy weather".  



			
				Quag said:
			
		

> While it is high, Canada's recidivism rates are comparable internationally.



Why do you book types do that?  WTF does anything in Canada have to do with anywhere else?  All that proves is that there are a great many screwed up countries all over.  I would like to compare us and strive towards something like Singapore, or Hong Kong.  "Ewww, but they are police states..."  Yup.  But they are safe as all hell.  



			
				Quag said:
			
		

> Yes the justice system needs work, yes the judges should have a more careful quality control regulation and yes citizens are p'd off at the judiciary.
> We know this.



Really?  I am pretty confident that Joe and Jane Citizen have no idea how bad it is.  Look how ramped up the country got about Holmolka, and in the legal scheme of things that one wasn't even that hard for the judges to come up with.  It fits the socialist agenda in this country to keep people in the dark about how bad it has gotten.  



			
				Quag said:
			
		

> But to classify all judges as the thing that is wrong in Canada is terribly ignorant.  It would be a hasty generalization and a fallacy of insufficient statistics.



Hmm, as opposed to your well thought out "judges are good just cuz" argument.  
Bad guys on the streets--judges fault.
Civil allowances that encourage people to sue for the stupidest things--judges fault.
Welfare and Disability system that lets people suck the State teat ad infinatum--judges fault.
Terrorism law that is potentially being de-fanged and lets killers out on the street--judges fault (potentially)
Immigration laws that allow illegals and criminals to linger here well after they have been rejected and get to stay anyway--judges fault.  
Natives that have an insane sense of entitlement from preferred treatment--judges fault
Organized crime that can operate almost without reproach because of criminal assest seizure restrictions--judges fault.

I guess I could go on, but it is 0500 and I am too tired to keep on.  I think I got my point across.  
You have fun in your rosy little world, Quag.  Some day, if reality slam dunks you into the pavement, you may "get it".  Perhaps all the books will break your fall.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Here ya' go:

Crown appeals sentence in cop assault
Last Updated: Monday, September 11, 2006 | 12:08 PM AT 
CBC News 
The Crown will appeal the suspended sentence given to a man for beating a Halifax police officer unconscious last year.

Charles Marlowe Marsman pleaded guilty in March to a charge of aggravated assault against Const. Sean Martin.

The Halifax Regional Police officer was beaten on Feb. 7, 2005, while trying to arrest Marsman for illegal possession of liquor on Gottingen Street, in central Halifax.

The Crown asked for three years in jail, but last month a Nova Scotia Supreme Court justice handed Marsman a suspended sentence.

Martin Herschorn, director of public prosecutions, said Monday the sentence sends the wrong message.

"The Crown believes the seriousness of the offence warrants a custodial sentence that sends a strong message this conduct will not be tolerated," Herschorn said in a release.

Herschorn said the Crown is appealing the sentence on the grounds that it might not prevent similar incidents and that it's inadequate considering the nature of the attack.

The Municipal Association of Police Personnel had spoken out against the non-custodial sentence, saying it would not curb violent attacks on officers.


----------



## Quag

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Hmm, as opposed to your well thought out "judges are good just cuz" argument.
> Bad guys on the streets--judges fault.
> Civil allowances that encourage people to sue for the stupidest things--judges fault.
> Welfare and Disability system that lets people suck the State teat ad infinatum--judges fault.
> Terrorism law that is potentially being de-fanged and lets killers out on the street--judges fault (potentially)
> Immigration laws that allow illegals and criminals to linger here well after they have been rejected and get to stay anyway--judges fault.
> Natives that have an insane sense of entitlement from preferred treatment--judges fault
> Organized crime that can operate almost without reproach because of criminal assest seizure restrictions--judges fault.
> 
> I guess I could go on, but it is 0500 and I am too tired to keep on.  I think I got my point across.
> You have fun in your rosy little world, Quag.  Some day, if reality slam dunks you into the pavement, you may "get it".  Perhaps all the books will break your fall.


.

Most of your arguments are very wrong.  For the most part, these are shortcomings and flaws in the judiciary as a whole, NOT the judges.

Edit:  I guess we are going to agree to disagree, and leave it at that.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Quag said:
			
		

> Most of your arguments are very wrong.  For the most part, these are shortcomings and flaws in the judiciary as a whole, NOT the judges.
> 
> Edit:  I guess we are going to agree to disagree, and leave it at that.



Okay, first I have yet to see you show anything here as wrong.  How can you argue with real life facts?  As for the shortcomings and flaws they are created, caused, perpetuated and entrenched BY THE JUDGES!!  They answer to NO ONE in any real, meaningful way.  You provide me with one example of a judge being censured for being too hard on a person.  They make all of the decisions in cases.  The make all of the rulings on evidence.  They decide on what sentence to hand out.  How in Gods green earth are the faults of the legal system *NOT* the judges fault?   ???


----------



## Inspir

> *System a joke: Cop*
> 
> http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Alberta/2006/09/13/1833909-sun.html
> 
> A Calgary cop said he has lost faith in the legal system after a justice of the peace released a man with 65 convictions back into the public pending his next court appearance.
> 
> Const. Shaun Horne is now facing internal charges of discreditable conduct after he called justice of the peace Kristine Robidoux's decision to release the man, with conditions, "a mockery and a joke" and swore at the suspect in court last December.
> 
> Although the suspect, Albert Walter Brazill, was only facing a charge of meal fraud, he has 65 convictions for offences ranging from kidnapping, extortion and armed robbery, to forcible confinement, drugs and theft and was wanted on warrants across the country.
> 
> Horne, who has worked as a presenting officer for the arrest processing unit for 4 1/2 years and for the Calgary Police Service for almost 25 years, said the release of Brazill was the final straw in a long list of complaints against several JPs.
> 
> "It's a farce," he said.
> 
> "The justice system for whatever reason doesn't see him as a danger to this community and if that's the case, then no one should be incarcerated.
> 
> "If he shouldn't be locked up, then who should?"
> 
> 
> To emphasize his point, Horne said Brazill failed to show for his next court appearance in January, after Robidoux released him.
> 
> Robidoux said she is not going to defend her decision to the media.
> 
> "It would be inappropriate for me to comment while the matter remains before the courts," she said.
> 
> Horne has since been moved from the APU to another district and is awaiting a disciplinary hearing that's scheduled to begin Oct. 24.
> 
> If found guilty, he could lose his job.
> 
> Horne is planning to retire in January, but said even without his pending retirement, his reaction would have been the same.
> 
> "I shouldn't have said what I said, but do I regret it? No," he said.
> 
> "You can have a professional system if you have all parties doing their job but if you have a missing link, it makes it difficult to maintain composure... What is happening is wrong and it takes away any incentive to do your job."
> 
> _SARAH KENNEDY_



Can you blame the officer? I would probally lose my composure as well.


----------



## AJFitzpatrick

What is meal fraud? or should it be mail fraud? Since it concerns the appropriateness of the sentence it seems relevant to ask.


----------



## MPIKE

meal fraud= dine 'n dash.. 

Basically, you accept the service with no intent to pay for it, hence the offence of fraud..


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Inspir said:
			
		

> Can you blame the officer? I would probally lose my composure as well.



I would have liked to see what they would do with it if he has not sworn at the "victim".  It was probably the profanity that he got ripped for.  Stand by to see the media forget about this, even after the case is settled.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

_Not that I need any more convincing that the title of this thread says it all but this one is just pathetic........._

http://www.winnipegsun.com/News/Columnists/Brodbeck_Tom/2006/11/17/2390876.html

By TOM BRODBECK

A Winnipeg man got only seven years in prison in an incredibly disturbing case that's been described as a "house of horrors" and which made national headlines this week. 
It's a case that earns a local judge the latest Eight-Ball Award. 

A 35-year-old man and his 26-year-old common-law wife were convicted of numerous sexual assaults against two young girls. They kidnapped one of them and repeatedly raped the girls in their North End home in a case that's as despicable as they come. 
One of the girls was tied down, her hands held by the woman, while the man raped her. 
The man was convicted of three counts of sexual assault, two counts each of kidnapping and forcible confinement and one count of uttering threats. The woman was convicted of two counts of sexual assault and one count of forcible confinement. 

It's a case that cries out for a lengthy penitentiary term -- at least 18 years for the man as the Crown had asked. 
Even the man's lawyer called the offences "heinous crimes against children." 
Court had a moral responsibility to denounce these crimes and denounce them loudly. 
The victims were children whose lives may have been ruined forever. As a society, we simply cannot stand for this. 

Instead, Justice Gerald Jewers sentenced the man to only seven years in prison, after three years of time served in custody. And the woman, incredibly, got time served. Which means she walked away a free woman. 
It was a sentencing decision of catastrophic proportions. 

And it earns Jewers this column's Eight-Ball Award, given out to highlight some of the worst perversions of justice in our court system. 
Jewers made a colossal error in handing out such lenient sentences. 
He put such little weight on the sentencing principles of deterrence and denunciation that it's frightening. 

Jewers had a responsibility under the Criminal Code to ensure the sentences were proportionate to the severity of the crimes. 
He failed miserably to discharge that responsibility. 
And spare me the case law argument that his hands were tied and he could only go as far as he did. 

Jewers' sentence pales in comparison to one handed out by Manitoba Judge Mary Kate Harvie last year, who sentenced Nicholas Dean Sennie -- the monster who savagely raped a five-year-old girl in 2003 -- to 18 years in prison (three more than the Crown had asked for). 
Her decision held up at appeal after Sennie dropped his appeal bid. 

This week's case was similar to the Sennie case. Both involved rape, both involved kidnapping and both involved children. 
The only difference is Harvie took a stand in the case before her and meted out appropriate justice. 
Jewers did not, even though the male offender showed no remorse in the case, calling the charges against him "crap." 

This is what we mean when we say the justice system is broken. 
This is why judges like Jewers get Eight-Ball Awards. 
This is why people are demanding the federal government bring in harsher penalties for violent crimes because some of these judges are so out of touch with the values of Canadians, there is no other option. 

We know the bar associations don't like Eight-Ball Awards or the move toward harsher sanctions for violent crimes. 
And I'm sure they'll fire off yet another pathetic, illogical letter to us in the wake of this latest Eight-Ball. 

But too bad. This has to end. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Brodbeck is the Sun's city columnist. He can be reached by e-mail at: tbrodbeck@wpgsun.com.
Letters to the editor should be sent to letters@wpgsun.com.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

_Head shaking slowly with great sadness_


----------



## Cloud Cover

It's not just Judges- it is very frequently the Crown Attorney's who let these creeps off too easily.  That being said, even though this judge recognizes the danger, he did nothing to prevent this travesty of justice. 


Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.


Sex offender moving here

Fri, November 17, 2006

Christopher Broad, 32, was convicted this week of having child porn and forcibly confining a boy, 9.

By PATRICK MALONEY, FREE PRESS REPORTER
    

  
A northern Ontario sex offender who pleaded guilty this week to crimes involving children isn't going to jail -- he's moving to London. 

Christopher Broad -- convicted Tuesday in Timmins of child-porn possession and forcible confinement of a nine-year-old boy -- is being monitored by London and Timmins police, who confirmed yesterday he's coming here. 

"He is moving to London," said Timmins police Insp. Paul Bonhamme. 

London officers are on high-alert, Const. Amanda Pfeffer said. 

"We're working very closely with Timmins (police) to monitor this individual's movements," she said. 

"If he came here and posed a significant risk, the public would absolutely be made aware of the potential threat." 

In a telephone interview with The Free Press last night, Broad's mother, of London, said she knew little of her son's plans. "I don't know what's happening. We haven't even talked it over as a family," Hilary Broad said, adding she hasn't heard from her son. 

"I don't know. We have lots of thinking to do." 

Police have been in contact with her, she said. She said she was stunned by this week's guilty plea. 

Broad's release concerned Superior Court Justice Robert Riopelle. 

"I'm sure you'll be back before a court judge someday, leaving a wake of tattered and shattered lives," Riopelle said in Timmins court Tuesday. "I hope I'm wrong." 

*According to a Timmins Daily News report, the 32-year-old Broad pleaded guilty in Superior Court Tuesday. It was his second conviction for sex-related crimes involving children. 

Under an agreement between the Crown and the defence, he was sentenced to time served -- the equivalent of 36 months' pre-trial custody -- and released.  * 
Broad's lawyer, Paul Bragagnolo, said he would move to London where he has family, the newspaper reported. Calls to Bragagnolo weren't returned yesterday. 

Several other sex charges were dropped in exchange for the guilty plea, the report said. 

Police arrested Broad in 2005 after parents of pupils at an elementary school in the Schumacher area of Timmins learned their kids were visiting his home at lunch. 

Before the arrest, a nine-year-old who visited the home was tied up by Broad, the judge was told. 

Broad's name has been added to federal and provincial sex-offender registries. 

A "high-risk co-ordinator" with London police will evaluate what risk Broad would pose, Pfeffer said. 


****

Message to Mr. Broad; don't show your face anywhere near a child in London. Fair warning.


----------



## The_Falcon

With incidents like these, people wonder why others resort to vigilantism.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> With incidents like these, people wonder why others resort to vigilantism.



I don't understand why more people don't turn to vigilantism.  Not an endorsement, but derived from a common sense perspective.


----------



## couchcommander

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> I don't understand why more people don't turn to vigilantism.  Not an endorsement, but derived from a common sense perspective.



I'd be lying if I didn't said I didn't get the urge. 

The violence here in edmonton is starting to hit closer (not "close" yet fortunately), but i.e. one of the victims of last weekends mayhem was a "friend of a friend" celebrating his girlfriend getting pregnant, and was killed for trying to keep asian gang f**ks hands of off a female friend no more than 5 blocks from where I sit now. Later discovered via another "friend of friend" where said asian gang f**ks like to reportidly hang out... bad ideas all around. Especially considering "friend of a friend" information should not be trusted, but that's beside the point. 

Even for hippy lefties like me, you get urge to go grab a bunch of buddies, cheap mossbergs, and then set the world a little bit straighter when it seems like the institutions around you are unable to keep you, and more importantly the people you care about, safe.


----------



## North Star

I understand (although I'm not a lawyer) that a defence exists, left over from old Anglo-Saxon law, called "extreme provocation". I know of its rather disgusting use in wife abuse cases (ei "she called my member short") but can it also apply to sex crimes? Has it ever been used in a vigilante case?


----------



## zipperhead_cop

North Star said:
			
		

> I understand (although I'm not a lawyer) that a defence exists, left over from old Anglo-Saxon law, called "extreme provocation". I know of its rather disgusting use in wife abuse cases (ei "she called my member short") but can it also apply to sex crimes? Has it ever been used in a vigilante case?



As far as I know, that only applies in murder cases, and can get a murder bumped down to manslaughter.  As for sex crimes?  Not a chance, but I would imagine some clown will try it.  Vigilante would be hard to say.  The defence only applies in a the "heat of the moment", so if you went and set up on someone, or accosted them at a later date, you are out of luck.


----------



## JesseWZ

I think that if a judge gives a conditional sentence or a reduced sentence, any crime committed by the offender (who is happily enjoying their early release from prison) should also constitute a charge for the judge for "Obstruction of Justice." or maybe just tack on the offenders charges to the judge. 
 I figure it's sound in principle.


----------



## GAP

Two-thirds back electing judges  
Twenty-five years later, poll shows strong support for Charter 
KIRK MAKIN  From Monday's Globe and Mail
Article Link

A strong majority of Canadians supports the idea of elected judges, according to a Globe and Mail/CTV poll.

Sixty-three per cent of 1,000 respondents questioned in the Strategic Counsel survey supported the idea of elected judges, compared to 30 per cent who opposed the notion. The results may come as a surprise to the legal community, where it has long been assumed that Canadians see the election of judges as a major drawback of the U.S. justice system.

In many U.S. jurisdictions, judges embark on the campaign trail regularly, advertising their courtroom track record of convictions to drum up votes.

The poll also found that 53 per cent said the Charter has had a positive, or very positive, impact on Canada over the past 25 years. Twelve per cent said it has had a negative impact, while 25 per cent said its impact has been neutral. 

On the support for an elected judiciary, Ontario Chief Justice Roy McMurtry said in an interview that he couldn't see how impartiality could be maintained in a system of elected judges.

“The potential for abuse is horrific. Money would inevitably become a factor. I can foresee terrible abuses,” he said.

Chief Justice McMurtry said that if Canadian judges felt compelled to impose popular verdicts and sentences to ensure their re-election, “it could really destroy the very best traditions of an independent judiciary. I think it would be a tragic initiative for the 
More on link


----------



## Journeyman

Special interest groups (sometimes referred to as "terrorists") have been buying politicians' votes for years, why would anyone believe judges would be different.

If you have a copy of Stewart Bell's Cold Terror, have a look at how Paul Martin and other Liberal Ministers and backbenchers attend Tamil Tiger fundraisers (you know, those misunderstood folks who pretty much invented suicide bombing), in the hopes of buying the 50,000 Toronto Tamil votes.*

It's no different with Sikh extremism in parts of BC and Ontario, or Hezbollah fundraising in Toronto and Montreal.


-----------------------
* While an obviously biased source, the Liberals' behaviour towards Tamil terrorists is also referred to here, if you don't have the book.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

While the judiciary may be against it, the general population seems to be tired of the catch and release program that these 'learned collegues' have been espousing in recent years. In a democracy (bit of a stretch for us, I know), the people should be making the decision on who they want to represent them. I like the idea of firing a milquetoast, pro criminal judge. 

While they're hammering out the rules for election, they should add recall procedures, for the inevitable case where someone says one thing to get elected and then does another, against the electors wishes, once they have the seat. Once they've applied it to judiciary positions, it should be applied to all elected officials.


----------



## sigpig

To quote myself from a very similar thread more than two years ago:

"How can the average citizen know who would make a good judge? There is no way for the lay person to compare the performance of competing lawyers. What you end up with is which candidate has the best and most slick ad campaign to get name recognition."

That thread is at http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27758.0.html


----------



## brihard

Ugh. Subjecting the judiciary to the whims of the mob isn't a great idea. Yeah, some judges might not go with what we feel is right as individuals, but ultimately their cases are subject to review by higher courts if there's a miscarriage of justice. I strongly believe in the need for an independent judiciary, and one that doesn't have to tread on eggshells out of fear of not getting re-elected.

Recceguy- Our system has a lot of flaws, but sentence length is not one of them. Statistics show that the stiffer a sentence, the more likely one is to eventually re-offend. It's counter intuitive, I know, but the longer someone's locked away the fewer options they have when they get out.

If you just want to punish or segregate the guy, OK, fine- but if your goal is to reintegrate them into society (which the majority do successfully), handing down huge sentences isn't the way to do it. That said, a lot of reform is necessary in many areas to make the system better. Judges are not pro-criminal, though; they're just versed in what works, or at least what does the least net harm. Locking someone in jail is not, in most cases, either necessary or constructive in their reform- at least not the way our jails are run. Turn them all into club Ed and maybe we'll have something.

Sigpig- very well said. Amateurs should not be left to pick the professionals.


----------



## GAP

Rather than elect judges, why not just limit them to renewable terms. If they are consistently screwing up, then they don't get their mandate renewed.

In any event, the quality can be maintained by the government, rather than the most slick ad campaign


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Brihard said:
			
		

> but if your goal is to reintegrate them into society (which the majority do successfully), .



Please, stop.......you're killin' me.  I would like to see those statistics, let me guess, John Howard/ Elizebeth Fry Freaks Societies.......no wait, an even better source...the National Parole Troughfest Board??


----------



## a_majoor

GAP said:
			
		

> Rather than elect judges, why not just limit them to renewable terms. If they are consistently screwing up, then they don't get their mandate renewed.
> 
> In any event, the quality can be maintained by the government, rather than the most slick ad campaign



The problem there is how is the government getting elected in the first place? Directly electing judges may or may not produce a better result, but stacking the bench with judges who reflect the wishes of "the people" certainly can't be worse than stacking the benches with judges who reflect trhe wishes of the Liberal party (or now the Conservative party).

Bowing as always to the wisdom of the Classical Greeks who birthed our civilization, I would say simply establish term limits and stick with that. A constant stream of new blood and the inability to stick to the levers of power are probably the most effective means of preventing the rot from spreading.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Directly electing judges may or may not produce a better result, but stacking the bench with judges who reflect the wishes of "the people" certainly can't be worse than stacking the benches with judges who reflect trhe wishes of the Liberal party (or now the Conservative party).



Not even the party ... just the PMO!


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Please, stop.......you're killin' me.  I would like to see those statistics, let me guess, John Howard/ Elizebeth Fry Freaks Societies.......no wait, an even better source...the National Parole Troughfest Board??



Thank you  Bruce. I'll take the profound word from the coalface, before I believe some skewed statistics from special interest groups. Stats, like polls, can reflect whatever the originators wishes them to reflect.

For all those poor souls that we give short, ineffective sentences to. That, because we didn't effectively rehabilitate them ( our fault according to them and special interests), get out and re-offend, we need a 'three strikes, you're in' rule. Serve time twice, reoffend and get found guilty, you don't get out again.


----------



## brihard

http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/forum/e053/e053h_e.shtml

Here you go. A few of the raw numbers- out of offenders released on full parole, 72% of those subjected to the study were completely successful after at least seven years of observation. Of the remainder who were readmitted, roughly half were readmitted for technical violations, not for new offences.

I apologize for the age of these numbers, but it seems it's been some time since a comprehensive study of this sort has been done and made publicly accessible. I'm not sure why. Later I'll try to remember to hunt through some academic databases and see if there's anything more recent.

Nonetheless, these numbers support my claim that the majority of released offenders reintegrate into society successfully.

Moving on, what in your mind, constitutes an 'effective sentence'? If it's keeping the prisoner segregated for life from the rest of society, so be it- but prepare to fork over many more tax dollars. If it's getting them back into society, sentencing should be focused on subjecting the inmate to programming to help control behavioural patterns, giving them trade or skills training so they have OPTIONS when they exit prison, treating dependencies they may have, etc. Throwing a person in prison merely as punishment is inefficient if it offers no advantage in reducing their rate of reoffence.  A hefty fine or probation can both be effective in many cases to convince a person to get a grip on their behaviour.

People generally have a hard-on for throwing the book at prisoners. Make no mistake, I'm not trying to excuse or to lessen the harm of what criminals do, but one must view them as 'broken' members of society, and many of them can be fixed. There are effective systems for determining an offender's risk of reoffence, and these must be used and studied further so as to make the parole system as valid a predictor of an offenders level of risk as possible.

There will always be some habitual criminals who cannot be reformed. Other studies show that the earlier a person's first encounter with the criminal justice system, the more likely their rate of reoffence is, with numbers as high as 80% for those twelve years of age, and decreasing as the age of first offence increases. Clearly there are a lot of parenting and sociological issues at play in actually preventing a person from adapting a life of crime. But that's neither here nor there; properly conducted research shows that long sentences are NOT the way to fix most offenders; sentences must be commensurate with the crime committed.

As for this 'three strikes' crap? Garbage. How many kids get busted for several stupid things in their 20s, and by the time they're 30 have settled down with a girl, don't act retarded anymore, and have a family and a job to worry about? You're telling me a kid with a DUI and a couple short terms for public order offences should go to jail for life when all he needs to do is grow up a bit and get his shit together? I don't buy it.

You can dislike statistics and academic research all you want, and sources do need to be examined, but most of it is valid.

Rather that demanding more proof from my side, let's see some research you guys can provide that justifies more than the strictly necessary restriction or revocation and liberty for a person who commits an offence. Right in the criminal code it says that sentences should not be any more than is necessary to achieve the aims of sentencing- rehabilitation, denunciation, deterrence general and specific, and punishment. Ours is not a retributive system; it's designed to rehabilitate, and in the majority of cases is successful, even as flawed as it currently is.


----------



## GAP

There is NOTHING in the system for rehabilitation, it is simply warehousing. Ask the criminals themselves, they will be the first to tell you.


----------



## brihard

GAP said:
			
		

> There is NOTHING in the system for rehabilitation, it is simply warehousing. Ask the criminals themselves, they will be the first to tell you.



There isn't nearly enough, but there is some. That said, this is one of the bigger problems facing our criminal justice system.

I'd be curious to see a properly done cost benefit analysis comparing the cost of various programs to assist inmates in squaring themselves away with the economic costs as a result of both further crime and of further incarceration. Call it an investment, if you will- pay some to help inmates now so we don't pay more to feed and house them again later.


----------



## GAP

You are talking a 180 degree turn on the Prison system, the governing bodies, and on the inmates part. To accomplish anything reflective of what you are wanting will cost millions, if it can even be done. I don't see the public, nor government support for that massive an input. Most people just want the convicted "out of sight/out of mind".


----------



## brihard

GAP said:
			
		

> You are talking a 180 degree turn on the Prison system, the governing bodies, and on the inmates part. To accomplish anything reflective of what you are wanting will cost millions, if it can even be done. I don't see the public, nor government support for that massive an input. Most people just want the convicted "out of sight/out of mind".



Of course it will cost millions. Hell, the new federal budget gives Corrections $102m over two years to update infrastructure, equipment and programming (Programming being the institutional term for offender services designed to alter their behavioural patterns or to help educate/train them). The money's there already, and more could be given. Their anticipated spending for 2006-2007 is about $1.6 billion.

Sure, prisoners may be out of sight/out of mind for a third to two thirds of their sentence... Then what?

Sometimes the government has to shoehorn spending that the public as a whole is not prepared to recognize as necessary, either due to philosophy, ignorance, or party affiliation among many reasons... But an essential element of public security is reducing crime, and part of that is reducing recidivism and giving criminals the option to be productive members of society on release. Granted most of that falls on them to decide for themselves, but the corrections system is designed so as to be able to provide help- hence the term 'corrections'.


----------



## Bane

I'd like to see how those that responded answer this one: "How much thought did put into massive judicial reform before you were given this survey?"  
And I might suggest that electing judges is perhaps the very worst way to take care prison system, young offenders, rehabilitation issues.


----------



## Port Hope

Government is supposed to be composed of three evenly balanced sections.  In Canada, the judicial branch has no reasonable counterbalance.  Parliament handed over responsibility to the courts to avoid being held responsible for some tough decisions and the courts took the money and run.

People who are making decisions that affect my everyday life, need to be elected.  The courts in Canada are making law, not just interpreting it.


----------



## brihard

Port Hope said:
			
		

> Government is supposed to be composed of three evenly balanced sections.  In Canada, the judicial branch has no reasonable counterbalance.  Parliament handed over responsibility to the courts to avoid being held responsible for some tough decisions and the courts took the money and run.
> 
> People who are making decisions that affect my everyday life, need to be elected.  The courts in Canada are making law, not just interpreting it.



Care to provide examples?

The courts have the ability to declare laws null and void, generally on constitutional grounds. All they can do is throw it back to the legislature to be reworked. The legislature also has the notwithstanding clause of the Charter at its disposal if they deem something absolutely necessary.

I don't see any instances where judicial discretion has allowed for gross miscarriages of justice of the sort that would justify revamping the entire system...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Later on tonight when I'm REALLY bored I may actually read that 'load of crap' but a quick skim gave me at least one thing that is 'stupid' [ and perjury as far as I'm concerned]
_During the 10-year period, 15,418 offenders were released on full parole. Figure 1 shows their outcomes. Of those released on full parole, almost three quarters (72%) completed their sentence without being returned to federal custody._

However any sentence that only landed two years less a day, [you know minor crimes like rape, child pornagraphy, B&E, some manslaughters, etc], or the offender was still in front of a judge, or he/she died while shooting up/ breaking in/ etc, or the police finally did us all a favour, or the P&P Officer was told not t5o revoke his parole from higher,is still considered a success.

EDIT: took out a line because I posted it too fast before I finished it. I will get back too it Brihard.


----------



## brihard

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Later on tonight when I'm REALLY bored I may actually read that 'load of crap' but a quick skim gave me at least one thing that is 'stupid' [ and perjury as far as I'm concerned]
> _During the 10-year period, 15,418 offenders were released on full parole. Figure 1 shows their outcomes. Of those released on full parole, almost three quarters (72%) completed their sentence without being returned to federal custody._
> 
> However any sentence that only landed two years less a day, [you know minor crimes like rape, child pornagraphy, B&E, some manslaughters, etc], or the offender was still in front of a judge, or he/she died while shooting up/ breaking in/ etc, or the police finally did us all a favour, or the P&P Officer was told not t5o revoke his parole from higher,is still considered a success.
> 
> Now bear in mind the wording also.........."completed their sentence without...", nothing about staying out.



So it's a load of crap without you having even read it? Wow, I'm imrpessed. Great effort at honest debate here. If I'd known I was providing data to people who have already made up their minds without research I'd not have bothered.

When you get really bored and go back to read it in its entirety, make a point of noting the statistics about the number of offenders readmitted to the correctional system on new offences after their sentences are completed. They're in there, but I won't waste any more of my time digging them up for you. There's plenty about staying out in there if the report's read in its entirety. Sorry, but academia is not about pick and choose. Of course, I invite you to provide contradictory _data_ if you so choose- I will always change my views if I'm shown to be wrong. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but there's only one set of facts.

If anyone has an interest in honestly discussing this, I'll be around.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Brihard said:
			
		

> So it's a load of crap without you having even read it? Wow, I'm imrpessed. Great effort at honest debate here. If I'd known I was providing data to people who have already made up their minds without research I'd not have bothered.
> 
> When you get really bored and go back to read it in its entirety, make a point of noting the statistics about the number of offenders readmitted to the correctional system on new offences after their sentences are completed. They're in there, but I won't waste any more of my time digging them up for you. There's plenty about staying out in there if the report's read in its entirety. Sorry, but academia is not about pick and choose. Of course, I invite you to provide contradictory _data_ if you so choose- I will always change my views if I'm shown to be wrong. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but there's only one set of facts.
> 
> If anyone has an interest in honestly discussing this, I'll be around.



I've spent 18 years reading and disecting this crap whilst locking those federal parole offender successes into the system. I think I've earned some leaway.

Now, here is the rub,.....listen up good, this is important.......you say the "correctional system", they say the "federal correctional system".   

..and academia IS about pick and choose, otherwise one teacher would do the whole country on each subject, no?


----------



## brihard

Valid point on the correctional system v. federal correctional system. I'll have to see what more comprehensive data I can dig up once I've got the time. Unfortunately this stuff isn't as easily accessible as one would think... I'll have to dig for it.

What I meant by 'it's not pick and choose' is you can't just pick specific data points and analyze them without making an effort to see what else there is. Data in isolation is useless- you need context. The only sample you've really had to work with is those who reoffend, since you'd obviously have little need to confront offenders who completed their sentences and went on to not do anything wrong..

I'd suggest that if you've been locking up offenders for 18 years, you're probably a bit biased by having been exposed almost exclusively to one side of the equation for that long. That would understandably foster frustration at the system. But hard numbers are hard numbers- you can only make this argument with data; there's a lot of it there. PErsonal experience only deals with individual cases. The whole picture is too big for one person to paint it.


----------



## GAP

Brihard said:
			
		

> Valid point on the correctional system v. federal correctional system. I'll have to see what more comprehensive data I can dig up once I've got the time. Unfortunately this stuff isn't as easily accessible as one would think... I'll have to dig for it.
> 
> What I meant by 'it's not pick and choose' is you can't just pick specific data points and analyze them without making an effort to see what else there is. Data in isolation is useless- you need context. The only sample you've really had to work with is those who reoffend, since you'd obviously have little need to confront offenders who completed their sentences and went on to not do anything wrong..
> 
> I'd suggest that if you've been locking up offenders for 18 years, you're probably a bit biased  by having been exposed almost exclusively to one side of the equation for that long. That would understandably foster frustration at the system. But hard numbers are hard numbers- you can only make this argument with data; there's a lot of it there. PErsonal experience only deals with individual cases. The whole picture is too big for one person to paint it.



You're joking right? You with 0 experience in the system are telling him he has no perspective and is bias.......well, humpty, dumpty doo....


----------



## brihard

GAP said:
			
		

> You're joking right? You with 0 experience in the system are telling him he has no perspective and is bias.......well, humpty, dumpty doo....



I did not say he has no perspective- rather, his closely involved perspective is exactly my point. I said he is probably 'a bit biased', and I know I sound arrogant as hell saying that- but I'll stand by it. Anyone closely involved in any institution is generally biased to some degree. I'm biased in favour of academia, being a university student. I wouldn't presume to call myself objective on military affairs either, as I'm a member of the forces. A police officer will have certain predetermined beliefs about law enforcement and crime. Criminals will have an entirely different take on it.

Everyone - you, me, everyone in this world - is coloured by their biases, the only difference is whether you acknowledge and take your biases into account or not. Very few people can call themselves completely objective on anything with which their connected. However, any academic pursuit - which the study of sociology and criminology necessarily has to be - requires one to be as objective as possible, and pure analysis of statistical data is one of the best ways to do it.

I'll admit my experience in the field is limited- though not completely absent... I'm a criminology and criminal justice major- I've been taught the value of honest analysis. When you're dealing with tens of thousands of offenders, there's really no other way to do it with any measure of justice- letting personal biases slip into the system are how great injustices occur in the first place. I'm not arguing that he doesn't know what he's talking about. The only thing I've committed to is my interpretation of what the research data on this subject shows, and I've provided my sources for that. I'd rather stick to the subject at hand and not turn this personal- that's not at all my intention. I just try to keep people (including myself) honest when I smell a good discussion.


----------



## GAP

Put you on the range with your books and "can do attitude" is going to get you nothing but hurt....do not equate a criminology course with real life.


----------



## brihard

GAP said:
			
		

> Put you on the range with your books and "can do attitude" is going to get you nothing but hurt....do not equate a criminology course with real life.



Academics doesn't deal with individual cases. I challenge you to point out where I've said otherwise. Saying that offender program X vs offender program Y will result in 8% fewer reconvictions post release doesn't mean that in the case of Joe Bloggins offender it will make that specific difference. Demonstrating that probation and fines is more effective in some minor offences than incarceration doesn't mean that joe blow shouldn't be jailed for his particular stunt, or that a fine is all that's necessary in every case. I'd never take the studies to the range- but I'd take them to policy and legislation debates, because that's what they're intended for, and I've never claimed otherwise. Please don't make inferences about what I'm saying, as everything I claim in a discussion like this is meant to be taken at face value and with the limits inherent in what is actually said. Research hits the range only in studies that have positive application to individuals- i.e., psychological research into methods of anger management training, or offender risk profiling, or criminal interrogation methods, etc.

Before you go slamming the value of criminological research, ask yourself why the system is the way it is today: hint, it's not the whims of correction or law enforcement officers; it's the policies laid down by governmental agencies derived from hundreds or thousands of studies into what does and does not work, filtered through the processes of politics and bureaucracy. I'd never presume to tell a corrections officer or official how to do his job; I only bring up data which ought to be considered in debating the matter at hand. Don't kill the messenger here, I'm just presenting another side to the party line, and if I step on a few toes, so be it. The second I am demonstrated to be wrong on anything I say, I will gladly admit it and learn from it.

Academics study real life in broad terms and samples. Understanding the interplay between research data and action or policy is vital to having a grasp of the whole picture of any system or institution, and that's all I'm trying to claim in this particular instance. Just don't dismiss study as useless in all cases- that is an assertion you cannot prove.

Back to the original start of this whole mess, the only thing I've positively claimed is that stiffer sentencing has not been demonstrated to have a positive effect in reducing rates of recidivism. Noone has yet shown me anything to prove me incorrect. I'd rather not drag this thread further off topic with more of an academic tangent though, and I've got a paper to finish, so I'll take this up again sometime tomorrow.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

_Quote from link,
Keeping this in mind, we are now going to look at some recidivism rates and at an overview of how a sample of 1,000 federal offenders did while on release_.

Hmmm, I noticed that this isn't a random survey..............1000 from Beaver Creek or a 1000 from the Kingston Pen?
Well, I guess that would depend on what you want your " hard statistical data" to say, now wouldn't it?


_Quote,
We defined the recidivism rate as the percentage of released offenders readmitted to federal custody during a particular period of study. Readmission was defined as violations of release conditions (i.e., technical violations) and convictions for new offences.

To see how well we have been managing offenders over a certain period of time, we compared the recidivism rates for a number of consecutive short-term (three-month) periods.

We looked at the recidivism rates for each quarter during the last three years, from 1 April 1990 to 31 March 1993. We found that the average recidivism rate for each of the 12 quarters studied has remained fairly constant at 4.8%. This is impressive, given that the number of offenders on conditional release has increased by nearly 10% during the same period, from 8,937 in April 1990 to 9,793 by March 1993_

Like I stated above, anyone who committed a crime that was still before the courts, or got two years less a day or the Parole Board just decided not to revoke are all " parole successes".  Nice statistics.....


_Quote,
Looking at the recidivism rates for offenders on different types of release, we found that offenders on full parole did much better than those on mandatory supervision (now called statutory release). The average quarterly recidivism rate for offenders released on full parole was 1.9%; it was 10.8% for those released on mandatory supervision. In other words, there was approximately one parole failure for every five mandatory supervision failures. This ratio remained fairly stable over the 12 quarters._

Lets see, lets make a comparison of inmates who got parole because of, oh say, good behavior in jail to those who were such arseholes, heinous crimed, and/or such repeat offenders that they wouldn't stand a chance if God himself testified on their behalf.  Nice statistics.......


_Quote,
As shown in Figure 3, the overall readmission rate was 37.1%. The readmission rate for offenders released on mandatory supervision was almost twice the rate for those released on full parole (46.6% versus 25.1%), while the rate for those released on day parole was somewhere in between (41.6%)._

See my argument above, comparing those who get parole to those who must complete their sentence. Nice statistics........

To give you a feel for what they do in these surveys would be like comparing the death rates of admissions at a long-term health care facility to death rates of admissions at the local hospital next door......................damn, you guys run a fine hospital here.


----------



## brihard

OK, I'll concede the point for the time being and see if I can dig up some more comprehensive stats- on second look you're right that the source data is fairly limited. I'll try to find something that incorporates both federal and provincial/territorial data before I re-make any assertions.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Take your time,...my brain hurts.


----------



## brihard

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Take your time,...my brain hurts.



Heh, no worries there...

I've got this paper to finish, due tomorrow at 1300... 0600 I wake up. 0800 I'm due at work on my class B. 1130-1200 I skin out of work to hand in this paper and write an exam. I shouldn't even be writing this post, never mind arguing statistics tonight.  ;D


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

That would mean you get to sleep tonight....... :crybaby:

Now, this IS my bias speaking here, I really don't think that you will find too much in the way of provincial/federal statistics because they SEEM to be a great way to hide each other.

Just from a skim of the Ontario parole stuff,
_If an offender is on probation and receives a federal sentence, the probation continues to run while the offender is under federal supervision. The Probation Officer may apply to the court for a termination._

So, does this mean a "parole success" for the provincial system since that person did not re-enter our jurisdiction?


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Brihard said:
			
		

> Ugh. Subjecting the judiciary to the whims of the mob isn't a great idea. Yeah, some judges might not go with what we feel is right as individuals, but ultimately their cases are subject to review by higher courts if there's a miscarriage of justice. I strongly believe in the need for an independent judiciary, and one that doesn't have to tread on eggshells out of fear of not getting re-elected.



No.  There is no review by the higher court unless a case is appealed by a Crown.  And when that happens, the petty-ass Lords make sure that the Crown that offended them pays dearly and gets no convictions for a long time.  Plus, the time wasting system that we have now does not allow for the Crowns to appeal, since just getting cases to court the first time is a huge enough effort as it is.  



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> Recceguy- Our system has a lot of flaws, but sentence length is not one of them. Statistics show that the stiffer a sentence, the more likely one is to eventually re-offend. It's counter intuitive, I know, but the longer someone's locked away the fewer options they have when they get out.



Bullshit.  Sentence length is a massive problem, and a guy in jail is not going to re-offend in public.  Simple.  



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> If you just want to punish or segregate the guy, OK, fine- but if your goal is to reintegrate them into society (which the majority do successfully), handing down huge sentences isn't the way to do it. That said, a lot of reform is necessary in many areas to make the system better. Judges are not pro-criminal, though; they're just versed in what works, or at least what does the least net harm. Locking someone in jail is not, in most cases, either necessary or constructive in their reform- at least not the way our jails are run. Turn them all into club Ed and maybe we'll have something.



You are smoking friggin' rope.  
Judges have no clue what works.  Reintegration does not work.  Club Ed does not work.  The legal system is so bankrupt of credibility that even the defense lawyers around here have to laugh and acknowledge what a joke it is.  



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/forum/e053/e053h_e.shtml
> 
> Here you go. A few of the raw numbers- out of offenders released on full parole, 72% of those subjected to the study were completely successful after at least seven years of observation. Of the remainder who were readmitted, roughly half were readmitted for technical violations, not for new offences.



Wow.  What an obnoxious and arrogant piece of broadband that was.  Liberal fuzzy logic at its best.  The part I like is how they try to suggest that technical violations are somehow "nit picking" and really not a big deal.  And the criteria for success was simply to not re-offend for the same federal offence.  So, on the rare chance some clown finally got dealt with by way of indictment, if he didn't get it a second time, he was deemed to be "successful"?  Pathetic and ridiculous.  You would have to make a conscious decision to be ignorant to even start to believe in such biased crap.  



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> Nonetheless, these numbers support my claim that the majority of released offenders reintegrate into society successfully.



No, the numbers support somebodies attempt to candy coat the fact that the legal system is a donkey show. 



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> Moving on, what in your mind, constitutes an 'effective sentence'? If it's keeping the prisoner segregated for life from the rest of society, so be it- but prepare to fork over many more tax dollars. If it's getting them back into society, sentencing should be focused on subjecting the inmate to programming to help control behavioural patterns, giving them trade or skills training so they have OPTIONS when they exit prison, treating dependencies they may have, etc. Throwing a person in prison merely as punishment is inefficient if it offers no advantage in reducing their rate of reoffence.



But it takes them out of the game so they can't re-offend.  Rehabilitation is a paper tiger and does not work.  Plus, it only exists at the Federal level, and since no one ever gets dealt with by way of indictment, they won't end up in that system anyway.



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> A hefty fine or probation can both be effective in many cases to convince a person to get a grip on their behaviour.



More arse talking.  All a fine does is encourage a criminal to commit more crime so he can pay the fine off.  Do you want your home to be the one that gets broken in to so Jimmy Asshat can pay off his $7000 Judge-pretending-to-be-a-real-hard-ass fine?  
And probation is a joke.  Almost every rounder I know plans his crack head schedule around pleading out for breaches of probation.  "I got three breaches.  I plead guilty, I'm gonna do two weeks and I'll be out for May two-four".  These dinks know sentencing better than the Crowns do.  



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> People generally have a hard-on for throwing the book at prisoners. Make no mistake, I'm not trying to excuse or to lessen the harm of what criminals do, but one must view them as 'broken' members of society, and many of them can be fixed. There are effective systems for determining an offender's risk of reoffence, and these must be used and studied further so as to make the parole system as valid a predictor of an offenders level of risk as possible.



No, one does not have to view them as being "broken".  One can view them as being useless kit and recommend that they be taken out and dumped in a corn field.  However, if there was a system that created a mindset in the ACTUAL CRIMINAL that suggested to him "Hey Jackass, your next hit is going to be your last" then perhaps things could start to change.  



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> As for this 'three strikes' crap? Garbage. How many kids get busted for several stupid things in their 20s, and by the time they're 30 have settled down with a girl, don't act retarded anymore, and have a family and a job to worry about? You're telling me a kid with a DUI and a couple short terms for public order offences should go to jail for life when all he needs to do is grow up a bit and get his shit together? I don't buy it.
> You can dislike statistics and academic research all you want, and sources do need to be examined, but most of it is valid.



See, now you are showing that you have an agenda and are trying to deliberately skew the discussion.  The "Three Strikes" concept is for violent crime, and I suspect you know that.  Obviously, if a guy gets done for shoplifting, a breach and a fail to attend, he is not going to go to jail for the rest of his life.  



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> Rather that demanding more proof from my side, let's see some research you guys can provide that justifies more than the strictly necessary restriction or revocation and liberty for a person who commits an offence. Right in the criminal code it says that sentences should not be any more than is necessary to achieve the aims of sentencing- rehabilitation, denunciation, deterrence general and specific, and punishment. Ours is not a retributive system; it's designed to rehabilitate, and in the majority of cases is successful, even as flawed as it currently is.



See, I would love to trot out stats for what you are asking for, but sadly the system only provides weakness and uselessness.  At such time as a pilot project is put together and a group is given a free hand to obliterate a bunch of rounders, I will be the first to sign up and will submit whatever statistical reviews are asked of me.  



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> I'd be curious to see a properly done cost benefit analysis comparing the cost of various programs to assist inmates in squaring themselves away with the economic costs as a result of both further crime and of further incarceration. Call it an investment, if you will- pay some to help inmates now so we don't pay more to feed and house them again later.



If you want to make it a money game, then take a look at the cost of cutting these clowns loose and how much harm they cause while they are out.  
Or even better, you make an argument for capital punishment.  But that is a separate subject of other threads. 
Smashing on through the tripe...



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> Academics doesn't deal with individual cases. I challenge you to point out where I've said otherwise. Saying that offender program X vs offender program Y will result in 8% fewer re-convictions post release doesn't mean that in the case of Joe Bloggins offender it will make that specific difference. Demonstrating that probation and fines is more effective in some minor offences than incarceration doesn't mean that joe blow shouldn't be jailed for his particular stunt, or that a fine is all that's necessary in every case. I'd never take the studies to the range- but I'd take them to policy and legislation debates, because that's what they're intended for, and I've never claimed otherwise.



Because you are a candy ass contrarian.  You have the luxury of sitting wherever you are and typing out your crap without ever really needing to worry about how it affects the real world.  But people like you are what is wrong with this county.  Mealy mouthed nay sayers that just sit back and criticize without really knowing what the hell is going on in the real world.  And the killer?  You are so friggin convinced of your convictions because a book tells you something.  Pathetic. 



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> Please don't make inferences about what I'm saying, as everything I claim in a discussion like this is meant to be taken at face value and with the limits inherent in what is actually said. Research hits the range only in studies that have positive application to individuals- i.e., psychological research into methods of anger management training, or offender risk profiling, or criminal interrogation methods, etc.



Then why are you going to the wall for it?  Kind of too late to back pedal now.  



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> Before you go slamming the value of criminological research, ask yourself why the system is the way it is today: hint, it's not the whims of correction or law enforcement officers; it's the policies laid down by governmental agencies derived from hundreds or thousands of studies into what does and does not work, filtered through the processes of politics and bureaucracy. I'd never presume to tell a corrections officer or official how to do his job; I only bring up data which ought to be considered in debating the matter at hand. Don't kill the messenger here, I'm just presenting another side to the party line, and if I step on a few toes, so be it. The second I am demonstrated to be wrong on anything I say, I will gladly admit it and learn from it.



Disingenuous bullshit.  Yes.  Kill the messenger.  Because you have been more than just a messenger.  You have been an advocate of all that is wrong in the legal system.  Why is the system the way is it?  Maybe a quarter decade of Liberal morass and behind-the-scenes wrangling.  Maybe a quarter decade of Liberal judicial appointments of judges that make Jack Layton look like Brian Mulroney.  
You say you will learn from being demonstrated wrong, but you openly blow off people like Bruce who actually live within the system.  You have pretty much said that you will only respect statistics and studies, and those really hold no sway in the real world where some of us live.  



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> Academics study real life in broad terms and samples. Understanding the interplay between research data and action or policy is vital to having a grasp of the whole picture of any system or institution, and that's all I'm trying to claim in this particular instance. Just don't dismiss study as useless in all cases- that is an assertion you cannot prove.



That is just one of the saddest things I have ever read.  Truly, you must have no mirrors in your home. 



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> Back to the original start of this whole mess, the only thing I've positively claimed is that stiffer sentencing has not been demonstrated to have a positive effect in reducing rates of recidivism. No one has yet shown me anything to prove me incorrect. I'd rather not drag this thread further off topic with more of an academic tangent though, and I've got a paper to finish, so I'll take this up again sometime tomorrow.



And that is again the paper tiger.  Screw recidivism.  That rate is high, because there is no real reason to fear being found guilty.  Rehabilitation is a bunch of crap too.  There is no real reason to try to change, because it is easy to be a criminal.  No sentences.  No penalties.  No real bad times when you are in jail.  Where is the down side?
As for proving you incorrect, those of us who "get it" know how way off you are.  You are just another anchor that is dragging down the fabric of our society, and telling anyone who will listen how great and helpful you are.  

I hope your paper was wildly successful and garners you much academic accolades, and you get to bask in the heady glow of intellectual addoration.  
But please know that the people who actually deal with the ones you are so quick to speak up for have summed you up and have seen your true colours.


----------



## Journeyman

I'll just throw in my non-statistically backed two cents....

Let me acknowledge that, on one hand I think I'm pretty familiar with the academic world, on the other my corrections knowledge comes from having lived with a Federal Corrections Officer for several years; she's now a Parole Officer (and I've been to Kingston Pen on recce [a former Airborne task] and escorted a buddy to "Club Ed"; neither relevant, except Edmonton was more intimidating than KP).

I know very well how to legitimately skew academic date; stats are the easiest to manipulate, followed closely by oral history taken out of chronology. For that reason there is no academic study for which I'd fall on a bayonet. Sure, it can be useful to quote shit in a debate (see Matt Damon's character take the grad student down a notch in the _Good Will Hunting_ bar scene). I suspect you may be overly enamoured with your academic work Brihard, making you no less guilty of the being "too close for objectivity" that you accuse Bruce.

In saying that you'd "never take your studies to the range- but .... to policy and legislation debates, because that's what they're intended for," you are effectively stating that its relevance is limited to discussions but invalid at the practical level. I therefore have to question the validity of criminology scholarship that isn't applicable to the real world of criminals.

As for the practical application of these policies, I really haven't studied them, but I have seen their effect on aforementioned PO. She used to be an awesome, caring person. She's since become bitter and cynical about her chosen vocation because of her mandated restrictions (she makes me sound downright cheery when discussing HQ staff officers and other Hesco Hobbits   ). She's obligated to release people who she _knows_ will be back, after people get hurt, because they've served a pre-selected portion of their sentence. They don't have to fake contrition, or indicate any source of income or housing. The "policy and legislative" level has decreed that they be released, and so they are. 

As an equally statistically invalid point, a friend and her little girl are moving to our neighbourhood after living on the fringes of the well-established con net in Kingston's north end. She said that when looking for houses, what sold her was "someone was walking down the sidewalk...whistling. I looked, and he was smiling." I guess in your Ottawa neighbourhood, you don't get the practical results of the "policy and legislative" level moving in next door; if you don't feel fearful for your children's safety, it's just an academic exercise.


----------



## niner domestic

The title of this thread should be changed to, "What's wrong with the criminal justice system" because it certainly is not about converting the judiciary over to an elected function.  

I haven't seen a commentary on how one would accomplish a Constitutional amendment of 50/7 to repeal the section 98 appointment of judges.  So how exactly does the "everything wrong with the criminal justice system" address that again? Then there is the question of how to get around the appointment of judges for the Federal Courts (that is the one that deals with all matters arising from the CF and is also the court of equity etc) and the Taxation Court (they also hear matters of Pensions) ? Now what to do about the section 91/92 division of power that affords the provinces authority to appoint judges to subordinate courts such as the Family, POA, YO, small claims and Probate or the numerous justices that sit in courts of civil law. Then there is the Quebec municipal courts.  How do you propose to circumvent that legislation to have all the judges elected instead of appointed.  

I see there is still a large amount of erroneous information being posted on how a judge is actually appointed.  It is not simply a matter of a politician making nice to a friend for a political gain then voila, his/her buddy is on the bench.  The process is quite intense and has several levels of checks before a judge is sworn in.  It's not perfect but it certainly is more complex than what some posters would have us believe.  

In contrast to some countries, there are no university programs in Canada specifically
designed to train judges. Judges are usually selected from practicing lawyers or jurists.
In order to practice law, all lawyers must have completed a university degree in law and
have passed additional exams to become members of the bar in the province in which
they live and practice. Under section 3 of the Judges Act, no person is eligible to be
appointed a judge of a superior court unless he has been a member of the bar of a
province, and has practiced law for at least ten years or has acted in a judge-like capacity,
whether before an administrative tribunal or a provincial court, for at least ten years. The
requirement of 10 years experience imposes the passage of time during which a candidate
can build his reputation indicating whether he would be suitable candidate for judgeship.

Federal judges are appointed on the advice of the federal Cabinet and on the
recommendation of the Minister of Justice. Recommendations to Cabinet are made from
amongst the names submitted to them by the Office of the Commissioner for Federal
Judicial Affairs. This Office is an independent entity outside the Department of Justice,
created pursuant to section 73 of the Judges Act, in order to recruit new judges and
administer their salaries (among other things). The logic behind creating a separate office
for this purpose was to safeguard the independence of the judiciary. The Commissioner
heads the Office and has the overall responsibility for the administration of the
appointments process.

Qualified candidates, who wish to be considered for appointment, may send an
expression of interest to the Judicial Appointments Secretariat in the Office of the
Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs. Also, members of the legal community and
other interested parties may nominate persons they consider qualified for judicial office.
Candidates are then required to complete and submit a Personal History Form, which
provides basic data on them for assessment, and an Authorization Form, which allows the
Commission to obtain information on their standing with the bar of their province.
Information on candidates is then turned over to independent judicial advisory
committees, who have the responsibility of assessing the qualifications for appointment
of the lawyers who apply. There are currently sixteen committees, namely one for each
province and territory, except that Ontario has three and Quebec has two because of their
larger population. Candidates are assessed by the regional committee established for the
judicial district of their practice. Each committee consists of seven members, selected
from the provincial bar associations, judges, lawyers and the general public. Committee
members may be required to nominate candidates. Committee members are selected by
the Minister of Justice to serve a two-year term, with the possibility of a single renewal.

The primary qualifications for the position of judge are professional competence and
overall merit. Committee members evaluate candidates pursuant to defined assessment
criteria, which relate to professional competence, experience, social awareness, personal
characteristics, and any potential impediments to appointment. After investigation and
careful evaluation of the candidate, the committee is required to assess candidates on the
basis of three categories: “recommended”, “highly recommended” or “unable to
recommend for appointment”.

The committee then submits its assessment to the Minister of Justice. The assessments
are valid for a period of two years from the date of issue, which means that during that
time any recommended or highly recommended candidate remains on the list of those
available for appointment until an opening comes along. Once the two-year period
expires and if the candidate is still interested in appointment, he must renew the
application by presenting a new Personal History Form.

Once the Minister appoints the judge, this appointment is permanent and terminates only
upon attainment of the age for compulsory retirement, which is currently 75, or upon the
resignation or removal of the judge from office. Judges hold office during good
behaviour and are removed only for cause. Complaints against federal judges may be
filed before the Canadian Judicial Council, another body independent from the Ministry
of Justice, which investigates them and if a finding of misconduct is made, a
recommendation for the removal of a judge may be given to the Minister of Justice.
Even then, a judge may only be removed by a joint address of the Senate and the House
of Commons. 

Given the difficulty in removing a judge after appointment, great care must be given to
the process of selecting a judge. This is the reason why committees were created with the
specific task of investigating the background and characters of the candidates. 
The creation of committees within a body (Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs) independent of the work
venue (the Department of Justice), and the work done by these committees in selecting
and screening the candidates, appears to satisfy this requirement.

Now if I were a plaintiff, complainant, respondent in any other court than one that deals with criminal matters, I'd certainly want a judge who had a level of expertise in the area before my rights as a parents were extinguished, or my claims to my spouse's estate were handed over to a distant relative or RevCan got my last penny or my claim for a lost limb in a car accident was reduced to couple of bucks because of a judiciary being elected from having the better campaign rather than having the knowledge and experience.  

In the US where the majority of judges are an elected official, the criteria for them to even be a lawyer is overlooked.  Can you honestly say you'd want that scenario sitting on your case of child custody and support hearings?


----------



## Bane

+1 Niner (excellent post)


----------



## warspite

Okay Brihard I got a few questions....

1- Have you ever been on the receiving end of a crime. I for one know I want the S.O.B. that robbed me to rot in the coldest dankest cell of the local prison  for the longest time the courts can see fit to dish out, remember it's not just getting robbed, but the terror that every sound can make when your alone in the middle of nowhere and you fear the S.O.B's could come back.

2- What do you believe the point of the justice system is, cause it sure sounds to me as if you believe it should be rehabilitation. See that doesn't seem to make sense to me, cause then it would seem to me that we would have rehabilitation clinics, not prisons....oh wait *THE POINT OF OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM IS TO DELIVER JUSTICE AND PUNISH THOSE WHO HAVE WRONGED OTHERS*

3- Do you actually believe that academics ever can truly represent the real world (excluding mathematics and science(which is mostly mathematics))

4- whats your high and mighty opinion on some drug dealer, who lets say for the sake of argument not only sells drugs, but laces them with even more harmful substances that the buyer is unaware of hooking them for life. Now lets say this scum bag gets busted and hauled into court, by your logic this guy is just a misguided fool who will surely straighten his life out if only given the chance. So he receives a light sentence and is back on the street the next day. You can't honestly tell me that this scum deserves to be on the streets, he should be locked up for life as an example to others ( actually he should just be shot and we only have to pay for an executioner and a bullet rather than his internment but that's another argument)



Note: Perhaps a mod could separate this discusion into a separate thread. As niner domestic pointed out it doesn't have much to do with the election of judges.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

MOD POST.....this weekend I am going to clean/combine several threads like this and make a thread on each subject, so for now just go with it.


----------



## Journeyman

So we keep bashing Brihard?   >

(Knowing this post will get tossed in the cleanup    )


----------



## zipperhead_cop

warspite said:
			
		

> Okay Brihard I got a few questions....



Warspite, I agree with the feeling of your post.  However, Brihard and his types see posts like that and it just entrenches their positions.  See, us being the ignorant, unwashed hordes are given to emotion, anger and are easily dazzled by bright shiny objects.  Therefore, it is the duty--nay, the calling of the uber-intellectual to step in and save us from ourselves.  Because once we started to see past the red haze of our berserker fury, we might regret our actions, and how sad that would be for us.  
Thus, a bureaucratic malaise settled in, and all we see now are pathetic sentaces and half measures.  That is the big benefit that the legal system seems to feel that appointed judges brings to the table.  How horrifying to think that a judge would need to consider the feelings and needs of the People before he doles out his milquetoast ruling?  And they will be the first to tell you that the needs of society are not as important as the rights of the individual.  
As for the thesis from Niner Domestic, what is your point?  So the process would be complicated.  Is that a reason to not take up a cause, because it seems like a lot of work?  Plus, it is well known that the criteria that make a candidate attractive are the fact that they intend to promote the Liberal socialist agenda that is firmly entrenched now.  All the rest of that is just static and noise.


----------



## Edward Campbell

We cannot, it seems, ever get rid of our mistrust of too much democracy.

It must be better to use a closed, secretive process to select an important branch of government.  We certainly don't want to trust the people to select their own judges, do we?

Why do we always want to trust appointed people more than the people we elect?  Is it, I wonder, because we instinctively mistrust our own judgement?


----------



## a_majoor

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> We cannot, it seems, ever get rid of our mistrust of too much democracy.



A close reading of the Federalist Papers (or the "History of the Peloponessian Wars" for that matter) suggests that unrestrained democracy really is a bad thing, which is what many of the posters in this thread are worried about. Turning the Justice system over to mob rule by the "Demos", or clever manipulation by demagogues is clearly undesirable. The only problem is the current system is regarded with equal suspicion; who decides the criteria for appointing a judge? What happens when the judge is not applying the law but making it up? How do you remove or limit the ability of appointed judges to dish out bad sentances or faulty law?

I have said this before in other contexts, but term limits are probably the best possible mechanism to maintain branches of government in a healthy condition. Politicians should have very short term limits, and I might accept judges should have relatively long terms for continuity and stability, but after the term it is time to move on.

This isn't even very harsh; a person who has the intelligence, wisdom and character to be a good judge should have fine prospects after their term, and as for a bad judge........


----------



## Edward Campbell

Fortunately, I guess, I've never had much to do with the _justice_ system, anywhere, so my thinking, such as it is, is based on observation.  There is, in Texas anyway, a vigorous debate on the _law and order_ issue.  Texans are by no means united in their ideas about how to manage their legal and justice systems.

They elect judges in Texas and the campaigns (in/around Dallas) seemed, to me, well informed, well focused and carefully followed and reported upon by the media.

It is only county court judges who are elected, as I understand the system in Texas, but this, too, is debated.  While most people who do interact with the _justice_ system do so in county courts the laws are, mainly, _made_ in appellate and federal courts and these judges are appointed by processes which are _secretive_ and, in the minds of many Americans, too open to political abuse.  Given the overtly partisan political manner in which superior and supreme court judges are appointed who is to say that elections would be less partisan?

The true genius of the Scots was to _invent_, for the modern world (_pace Iūdeaus_), universal public education – with the intent, in part, to enable the people to better mange their own affairs.  It is true that we elect demagogues, and worse (_charisma_ is still terribly attractive in a celebrity obsessed culture) but we also appoint the _wrong_ people, too – more often, it appears to me - than we elect bad ones.  Maybe the judgement of an informed, engaged electorate is at least equal to that of partisan politically appointed judicial selection (nomination) committees – but who can say?


----------



## niner domestic

I think most of your concerns were addressed/answered in the 2004 CBA opinion paper.  http://www.cba.org/CBA/submissions/pdf/04-10-03-eng.pdf

I'm not entirely convinced that here in Canada the process for selection our judges is as secretive as you suggest.   http://www.fja.gc.ca/jud_app/index_e.html As the committee to review and reccommend a candidate are open to the general public to participate on.  While we here in Canada, do not mimic the Americans in their judicial appointment hearings I do believe we have, as a country, come up with a mechanism to sift through the rubble and come up with a candidate or two for our benches, our military leaders, our church leaders, our CEOs, policing agencies etc.  If we can find fault with one area of being able to chose our leaders/judges then our ability to chose those leaders from similar processes of merit also are suspect of being secretive.  Where do we draw the line? Do we insist that our judges be elected yet, our military leaders and police chiefs remain appointed positions? Where do we stop mistrusting our own processes and at what level? Will we simply end up electing everyone to their respective positions?


----------



## Edward Campbell

niner domestic said:
			
		

> I think most of your concerns were addressed/answered in the 2004 CBA opinion paper.  http://www.cba.org/CBA/submissions/pdf/04-10-03-eng.pdf
> 
> I'm not entirely convinced that here in Canada the process for selection our judges is as secretive as you suggest.   http://www.fja.gc.ca/jud_app/index_e.html As the committee to review and reccommend a candidate are open to the general public to participate on.  While we here in Canada, do not mimic the Americans in their judicial appointment hearings I do believe we have, as a country, come up with a mechanism to sift through the rubble and come up with a candidate or two for our benches, our military leaders, our church leaders, our CEOs, policing agencies etc.  If we can find fault with one area of being able to chose our leaders/judges then our ability to chose those leaders from similar processes of merit also are suspect of being secretive.  Where do we draw the line? Do we insist that our judges be elected yet, our military leaders and police chiefs remain appointed positions? Where do we stop mistrusting our own processes and at what level? Will we simply end up electing everyone to their respective positions?



Thanks for that CBA paper.  I found Part IV interesting - a bit tentative, perhaps; why not do that for most judicial appointments?

I'm not especially *pro* electing judges but nor do I think it's inherently evil.

I remain convinced that we have a strong mistrust of democracy, based, I think on a well founded mistrust of the quality of our own judgement.


----------



## observor 69

Populist versus peer selection, argumentative topic. 
But I did watch the process and results during my little sojourn to Texas. This individual, Judge Yarbrough, was regarded by all as an intelligent and extremely competent individual. He responded well during a number of crisis situations affecting the county.
http://www.co.galveston.tx.us/County_Judge/default.htm

County Sheriff is also elected but that seemed to have a bit of the bubba element to it. Or is that just because, in Texas, county cops are so poorly paid?

I must admit to a preference for peer selection if it can be kept nonpartisan. Then again for many top offices there is a small number of qualified candidates anyway whether it is peer or populist choice.


----------



## brihard

Sorry guys, I lost track of this thread over the past few days; I didn't realize I was getting dogpiled during my absence.

First off, I'll apologize- I've obviously pissed off a lot of people here, mostly by getting out of my arcs.

Please don't mistake anything I said for intentional disrespect for any of the people here; maybe I've fallen a bit more victim to academic arrogance than I'd thought I have... I have immense respect for those involved directly in the criminal justice system, either in law enforcement or corrections. MY eventual aspiration is to be involved myself. Maybe it's good for me that I'm taking a couple years off school to go on tour. Whatever. Next time I won't wade in so deep. I think that a few of the posts here were unnecessarily harsh, but I brought it on myself, and I'm not stupid enough to expect any apologies- nor is my skin thin enough that I'll get worked up over it.

Anyway, I'd like to salvage some of this discussion if possible... 

Zipperhead_cop- You've shoved some humble pie down my throat; probably what I needed. Thanks. In my defense, I vote conservative and I know I have a lot to learn. I just need to recognize a bit of my own bias a bit more, and fix up the talk/listen ratio. I'm going into law enforcement as a career, so I suspect I'll be learning a lot more the hard way in time. I'm coming at it from a different background, but by the time I'm there I'll have hopefully tempered that with some non-academic experience. In either case, if you're willing to enlighten me a bit, I'm willing to listen and consider- what do you see as possible ways to 'fix the system', or at least parts of it? I am curious how you see it- we've all talked about our views on the problem, but that's useless without solutions.

You specifically asked me at one point about forming an argument for capital punishment- I'm probably going against the grain here (again), but as a point of note I don't support it... Not because I don't think some crimes deserve death (several... in fact many do), but I just don't trust our system to make sure that it's right in every single case... I think the possibility of executing an innocent citizen automatically necessitates reducing capital crimes to life without parole; I'd prefer to see a hundred guilty scum in jail for life without parole than one innocent person executed. Anyway, that's in case you were curious, and weren't just throwing that out as more to shove in my face.

Warspite- Vengence isn't something I personally believe should have any role in the justice system; I believe in deterrence, denunciation and rehabilitation. No, I've not been a victim of a serious crime. Maybe my views would be different if I were. But I wouldn't trust my own angry feelings to be a valid basis for major aspects of our system. Remember that a major part of our justice system is also to reform people who have screwed up. Not all can be reformed, but those who can be oughtn't just be discarded if they can be turned around. Yes, I think academics is an important part of all larger systems; every improvement we make is due to learning in one way or another. A couple posters on the judges topic have mentioned the need for an informed populace for democracy to be truly effective, and education is an important part of this. As for your example, no, I don't think the guy should just be let off easy, not for something like drug trafficking; there's a vast amount of harm to all kinds of people that comes with the hard drug trade, and they need to be treated rather harshly. Stick him in Kingston Pen and let him deal there for all the other people who've consciously decided to flush themselves down the bowl.

On the very original subject, I think part of my dislike of the idea of electing judges is because I've seen plenty of antics by elected politicians... "The worst system except for all the rest" is bad enough for politics, but I'm definitely not convinced that's how it should be for a criminal justice system. Maybe checks and balances in judicial selection need to be reworked (and I have no solution to offer here), but I'm inherently mistrustful of a judge who's working for votes. Baden guy is probably on to something with his mention of peer selection, if in fact I understand what he's saying correctly.


----------



## Blackadder1916

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It is only county court judges who are elected, as I understand the system in Texas, but this, too, is debated.



The Court of Criminal Appeals
http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/
The Court of Criminal Appeals is Texas' highest court for criminal cases. The Court consists of a Presiding Judge and eight Judges. They are *elected by the voters of the entire state*, and they hold their offices for terms of six years. 

Supreme Court of Texas
http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/
Composed of the Chief Justice and eight Justices, the Supreme Court of Texas is the court of last resort for civil matters in the State of Texas.  The Justices of the Supreme Court *are elected to staggered six-year terms in state-wide elections*. When a vacancy arises the Governor may appoint a Justice, subject to Senate confirmation, to serve out the remainder of an unexpired term until the next general election. All members of the Court must be at least 35 years of age, a citizen of Texas, licensed to practice law in Texas, and must have practiced law (or have been a lawyer and a judge of a court of record together) for at least ten years.

Plus the senior law enforcement officials of each county, the Sheriff and the District Attorney (prosecutor), and the state's highest legal officer, the Attorney General, are elected.  However not every judge in Texas is elected, e.g. Justices of the Courts of Appeal are appointed by the Governor.

However, using Texas as an example of a judiciary may not be the best idea because as they advertise - "Texas is a whole other country".  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_judicial_system


----------



## niner domestic

Brihard said:
			
		

> I'd suggest that if you've been locking up offenders for 18 years, you're probably a bit biased by having been exposed almost exclusively to one side of the equation for that long. That would understandably foster frustration at the system.



This was an interesting comment made by our young student.  He actually did pick up on a notion studied by Michel Larivière and David Robinson from the Research Division of
Correctional Service of Canada in February 1996:  http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/reports/r44/r44e_e.shtml

This particular study did make one of numerours findings that correctional staff depending on their tenure, position and institutional security level either had little empathy for offenders in 10-20 years period of employment.  Remarkably however, the level of staff empathy towards offenders goes up during the 20-30 period of employment and as they found the first 10 years of employment usually sees an offender in a shade more positve light.  

I recall when this study came out that John Edwards, was perplexed at the clear delineation of service time in to the relationship between offender and staff.  Recall if you will, that during this period, CSC was rife with inquiries, commissions and litigation surrounding offenders and treatment by staff.  Edwards unfortunately was never able to take this study further as he was forced to throw himself on his sword over the debacle at P4W.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Brihard said:
			
		

> In either case, if you're willing to enlighten me a bit, I'm willing to listen and consider- what do you see as possible ways to 'fix the system', or at least parts of it? I am curious how you see it- we've all talked about our views on the problem, but that's useless without solutions.



I think I was pretty clear about what I think is the solution:  election of judges.  I don't know if you got a chance to go back now that this is a merged thread with the old Judges Are Everything That is Wrong In Canada.  Things will get pretty cyclical if I have to get back into some of that stuff.  
What I see as the core issue here is academics vs. real life.  There are no limit to the eggheads that can weigh in and fire off stats, studies and theories.  In the mean time, some of us have to live with the musings of the intellectual elite, and watch our country go to pieces.  Almost every single facet of anything that maintains social order eventually comes back to the decision of a judge.  Interpretation of criminal law, civil remedies, family law, workers compensation, application of Federal statutes.  And as time marches on, we see that societies rights are getting drop kicked, and individual rights are becoming unreasonably powerful.  There are many threads that this site touches on to that effect.  Quebec and its spoiled crap.  Native abuse of privileges.  Multiculturalism run rampant causing divisiveness all across the country.  I am not a history major (or a minor for that matter) but I know that this country is still young in the global sense and that many of the ideas that it was founded on are being convoluted and warped.  If we need an example of how the founding ideals of our country are not working, just look at England and how badly things are going over there.  I believe that will be us in about twenty-odd years.  
It was suggested that anger shouldn't play a part in a decision process?  I don't agree.  Not raging-out-of-control-torch-wielding angry, but just pissed off enough to want to do something about things and know that dramatic change is needed.  
The ghettos have enough money.  The health care is fine for the masses.  There is plenty of school for everyone.  And that is not an invitation to created a myriad of hijacks on any of those topics.  My point is that these are often trotted out as roots of poverty and criminality.  Enough.  We have given enough.  It is time to bring back the concept of personal accountability to every single Canadian.  Until this happens, all of the groups that care more about screwing the system for every possible thing they can will continue to push and things will only get worse.  
And how would that come about?  
Judges. 
We need them to be the ones that drop the hammer and say "No.  That is your fault and you have to make amends for that".  Or they need to be the ones to say "you have shown that you are useless in our society, and will no longer get free domain in our streets" and lock them away.  
By and large, nobody will make hard changes and improve themselves unless they are forced to.  Look at most people who have heart attacks.  They knew bloody well that McDonalds three times a day, smoking and boozing would hurt them, and holding an extra 60 lbs would tax their system.  But until they got that elephant standing on their chest and woke up with a stem-to-stern scar and a doctor saying "you need to change your lifestyle, or you're going to die" they would have been happy to continue with the fun lifestyle.  Criminals are the same way.  They could care less about getting caught, because the sentences are such a joke.  Then, if they claim drug addiction they get LIGHTER sentences! (because they have a _medical condition _ and _need help_)  I know of at least ten crack heads in Windsor alone that have over 70 convictions for Theft Under $5000.  They spend their whole day walking around, smashing out car windows and stealing the change out of the ashtrays.  For every time they get caught, they probably do it twenty times.  If ever I loose my job, I will certainly open an auto glass shop (or get into white collar crime   )
Now, you might be inclined to blame the Crowns for that, but if you go back to the beginning of the thread you will see where I outlined the time wasting tactics of the defence lawyers, and how the judges support them.  And since a JUDGE made the arbitrary decision in Ascott that 8 months is the most a case can go and not be  considered unreasonable delay, we now have this pathetic revolving door system and it is only getting worse.  
Sum up?  Since the sub-par elements of society are not going to change or take any accountability for themselves, then the simple solution is to go after the ones who are enabling their malfeasance.  Election of judges would instill an element of "how does my decision affect others, and how would the common person view my decision if they were sitting here".  Will that make things worse for criminals, agitators, special interest groups and terrorists?  Absolutely.  And why would anyone be thinking that is a bad thing?  
Brihard, if you are actually considering a career in Law Enforcement if nothing else you will want to keep your ideas to yourself in an interview.  If you get the chance to see how devolved many of the human animals that are around us are, you may re-think your views on how nice we should be to them.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Where's the darn 'applause' smilely......................


----------



## zipperhead_cop

So how much time do you have on the job, Bruce?  I bet you can't wait until you make the 20 year mark and start caring about all of your precious inmates again.   >


----------



## niner domestic

Just a point of clarification on your citation of _R. v. Askov_ case, [1990]2 S.C.R. 1199 not Ascott. Since its ruling there has been subsequent decisions in all courts that will allow the 8 months to tick away *IF* it is the fault of the Crown causing the delays, *IF* the defence are the ones causing the delays it's too bad, so sad, see you in court.  It's been that way since 1992.  The 8 months has been deemed to be a reasonable time frame _for Courts in which the day to day operation can be expected to set a matter down for trial in an 8 month time period_  It does not include courts in jurisdictions that have such a heavy volume that it cannot be reasonable to expect scheduling to come in under the 8 months. 

It's easy to blame judges for the ills of our society, and they make for an easy target as they are legislatively restricted to be able to defend themselves or their decisions in public (same rules apply for jurors that they are restricted at being able to discuss their findings in public- which make the study of Canadian juries difficult since no one can answer the questions as to how they arrived at their finding).  Ever wondered why you have never heard from either a judge or juror as to their reasons when they have been subject to public criticism? They can't.  And we will never know if they agreed with the decision, or all the whys so any discussion about a judicial decision is and always be a purely academic venture.  Because of the absence of information, it is far too easy to blame the judge instead.  I never ceased to be amazed at the shear lack of public understanding of our laws and the function of the courts.  Without trying to understand the reasoning in the more infamous cases, the first knee-jerk reaction of the public is to a) blame the judge; b) blame the lawyers.  Very seldom are the police blamed and heavens, we won't hold the accused responsible and we never look further to our elected representative who make the laws and provide the sentencing structures and hold them accountable in our votes for messing up our society.  We simply use threads like this that has provided an easy way to make us all feel good at the ranting and blame those who can not respond to the criticism.   

Then we forget that those same judges who we want to bring the hammer down on our citizens are the same ones that are the *ssholes when they rule that your child support payment is to be X instead of the paltry A you thought you'd get away with or the same Crown lawyer that you asked at a party how to get off on a speeding ticket, but you want that same lawyer to nail the next speeder in court or the same defence that one hires because one left the bar a little too drunk and needs to get the fine/penalty reduced - you expect them to do their job in defending you.  It's the same Crowns that cringe that the chain of evidence is messed up and half the evidence is going to excluded because some young, eager rookie cop blew it but the Crown takes it on the chin because they lost.  Or the same accused that walks because the officer forgot to read him his Charter rights.  Or the 46 page statement that has to get thrown out of court because the officer kept talking after the accused said, "I have nothing to say before I speak to my lawyer".  But you expect the judiciary to fix those errors by skipping over the basic tenets of our laws.  If they don't because the law does afford them the opportunity then you blame them and sling the ills of our society at their feet.  

We have an adversarial legal system, that means someone is going to win, someone is going to lose and until such a time that our politicians take us into a different type of system, no amount of whinging about and criticizing those who can not respond to your charges will change it.  You want change? Use your vote and vote in politicians that will drop the hammer by making amendments to the necessary laws.  If you want a society where criminals don't have rights then be prepared to have those same denied rights applied to you and acquaintances if that is ever the case and then one should not expect a means to reduce the penalties.  

Personally, I'd rather hold the actual criminal accountable than blaming anyone else.  But then, that isn't a very exciting or interesting thread is it?


----------



## zipperhead_cop

niner domestic said:
			
		

> Just a point of clarification on your citation of _R. v. Askov_ case, [1990]2 S.C.R. 1199 not Ascott. Since its ruling there has been subsequent decisions in all courts that will allow the 8 months to tick away *IF* it is the fault of the Crown causing the delays, *IF* the defence are the ones causing the delays it's too bad, so sad, see you in court.  It's been that way since 1992.  The 8 months has been deemed to be a reasonable time frame _for Courts in which the day to day operation can be expected to set a matter down for trial in an 8 month time period_  It does not include courts in jurisdictions that have such a heavy volume that it cannot be reasonable to expect scheduling to come in under the 8 months.



So when the defence order that every single officer, every single witness, every person who may have even _seen_ his client be required to attend court, and because where it was a simple case which should take about two hours to try, and entire day needs to be set aside for a huge trial.  Then one of two things happens:
1.  Everyone shows up, incurs a few thousand dollars of overtime to their Department, the lawyer changes the plea to "guilty" and it is a wasted day in court.  But the judge gets a full days pay for sitting behind his bench for all of twenty minutes.
2.  Because there is no room in the calender for everyone to get their own full day in court, multiple cases have to be put in one room.  It is not unusual for there to be twenty police to be lingering outside the same room, knowing bloody well that not everyone is going to get in.  So the judge puts in their horribly hard day of sitting and listening (which is 4.5 hours in the courtroom in a best case scenario) and then blows off the other ones to a later date.  Oh, gee.  But now there is a Charter argument because of delay.  Total crap.  
Lots of things get "deemed" by judges, and lots of things have been wrong for a long time.  That doesn't make it right.  



			
				niner domestic said:
			
		

> Ever wondered why you have never heard from either a judge or juror as to their reasons when they have been subject to public criticism?



Because they are arrogant and don't give a fig about public opinion.  That is clearly evident in the comments that came out of the SCC during the review of the safety certificates.  



			
				niner domestic said:
			
		

> Without trying to understand the reasoning in the more infamous cases, the first knee-jerk reaction of the public is to a) blame the judge; b) blame the lawyers.  Very seldom are the police blamed.



Because very seldom it is our fault.  And BTW, I'm not the public, and my reactions are not "knee jerk".  I have a decade of watching this donkey show, and it has only gotten worse over time.  



			
				niner domestic said:
			
		

> and heavens, we won't hold the accused responsible and we never look further to our elected representative who make the laws and provide the sentencing structures and hold them accountable in our votes for messing up our society.  We simply use threads like this that has provided an easy way to make us all feel good at the ranting and blame those who can not respond to the criticism.



YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING?!?!?  Who other than the judges would hold the asshats to an accounting?   ???  There is nothing wrong with the laws.  There is nothing wrong with the sentences provided withing the laws.  The bloody judges could make a difference, but they choose not to.  
And give me a break with the "you elected them" crap.  Politicians are mostly lawyers, and they aren't going to do anything to wreck their "good thing" for their practicing buddies.  And given the general malaise that grips most of the sheeple of Canada, this would be an easy topic to blow off.  But as the 2/3 in the poll suggests, it is coming around.  Eventually, everyone in Canada will be a victim of crime, and then wait and see what they will approve of.  



			
				niner domestic said:
			
		

> Then we forget that those same judges who we want to bring the hammer down on our citizens are the same ones that are the *ssholes when they rule that your child support payment is to be X instead of the paltry A you thought you'd get away with or the same Crown lawyer that you asked at a party how to get off on a speeding ticket, but you want that same lawyer to nail the next speeder in court or the same defence that one hires because one left the bar a little too drunk and needs to get the fine/penalty reduced - you expect them to do their job in defending you.  It's the same Crowns that cringe that the chain of evidence is messed up and half the evidence is going to excluded because some young, eager rookie cop blew it but the Crown takes it on the chin because they lost.  Or the same accused that walks because the officer forgot to read him his Charter rights.  Or the 46 page statement that has to get thrown out of court because the officer kept talking after the accused said, "I have nothing to say before I speak to my lawyer".  But you expect the judiciary to fix those errors by skipping over the basic tenets of our laws.  If they don't because the law does afford them the opportunity then you blame them and sling the ills of our society at their feet.



If someone can explain that mess, please feel free.  I have a TV test pattern beep ringing in my ears and can't focus now.   



			
				niner domestic said:
			
		

> We have an adversarial legal system, that means someone is going to win, someone is going to lose and until such a time that our politicians take us into a different type of system, no amount of whinging about and criticizing those who can not respond to your charges will change it.  You want change? Use your vote and vote in politicians that will drop the hammer by making amendments to the necessary laws.  If you want a society where criminals don't have rights then be prepared to have those same denied rights applied to you and acquaintances if that is ever the case and then one should not expect a means to reduce the penalties.



Spoken like a true socialist that has run out of ideas.  As ever, in the absence of intellect we see the old extreme and ridiculous suggestions get trotted out. _ "Obviously you want to round up criminals and put them into extermination camps if you got your way"_.  Nobody is suggesting that criminals should not have rights.  But the rights that they enjoy now are unreasonable, and if the pendulum was swung back a few degrees I don't think anyone in Canada would get too terribly upset.  
And who could swing said pendulum if they wanted to?   Gimme a "J".....  Gimme a "U".....



			
				niner domestic said:
			
		

> Personally, I'd rather hold the actual criminal accountable than blaming anyone else.  But then, that isn't a very exciting or interesting thread is it?



I wouldn't accuse us of being exiting or interesting.  

And once again I have to ask:  WHO is going to hold criminals accountable if not the judges?


----------



## niner domestic

ZC: Let's start with the names of these spectacular cases you keep claiming are an affront to the tenets of our legal system.  How about some names of the offending counsels so that I can look up their case histories? How about the names of the Judges you find are not doing their jobs? I see a fair bit of anecdotal materials in your posts but not much that has been backed up with the actual cases.  

As much as I'd like to admit that it is pure arrogance that dissuades judges from discussing their decisions as you would have us believe, I'm afraid you have been told the reason why they cannot respond.  No matter how many times you jump up and down and stomp your feet, claiming it's just arrogance, it's not going to change that judges and jurors are barred from discussing their decisions.  Electing or appointing a judge isn't going to change that either.

Your comment on the court scheduling and witness attendance has nothing to do with the Askov ruling. Court scheduling is left entirely in the hands of the Province to administer.  Why would you consider a guilty plea a waste of a day in court? It is appearing your priorities are a bit muddled. I guess it never occurred to you that in  the anecdotal case you presented that the accused plead guilty *because* all the officers appeared.  Oldest trick in the defence book, hope for the one witness to fail to show and motion to dismiss.  You as a police officer, have a duty to attend court.  End of that discussion.  Contrary to your off the cuff comment on judicial wages, judges get paid a salary.  You are so far out of your lane on this one that you are about to be hit by on coming traffic.

As for inferring that I am a socialist, do please tell me more, I'd like to get to know this alledged socialist side of me.  But please do not bore the rest of the thread's readers on that subject, keep it to PM.  

Finally, I would like to extend an invitation to you to visit my Court so that you might be to see what goes on behind the bench.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

niner domestic said:
			
		

> Your comment on the court scheduling and witness attendance has nothing to do with the Askov ruling. Court scheduling is left entirely in the hands of the Province to administer.  Why would you consider a guilty plea a waste of a day in court? It is appearing your priorities are a bit muddled. I guess it never occurred to you that in  the anecdotal case you presented that the accused plead guilty *because* all the officers appeared.  Oldest trick in the defence book, hope for the one witness to fail to show and motion to dismiss.  You as a police officer, have a duty to attend court.  End of that discussion.



He may consider that a waste because they could be on the street doing their job and/or not costing a fortune in taxes to John Q Public to satisfy "the oldest trick".   You make ZC's case with that line.......old Judgey Boy can be sick but heavens forbid any of the Crown witnesses don't show up or the case COULD be dismissed. 

My wife just got off a fairly substantial speeding ticket because the Judge in the downtown Hamilton court couldn't make out Jan 23 or Jan 28 on the initial ticket.   Just plain stupid......although I did let my wife buy me lunch when she got back.

ZC,....about Niner, she's not a socialist, ................yet.    hehe.


----------



## niner domestic

Bruce: In most jurisdictions, the clerk of the court and the Crown's office when scheduling a court date whether it be a FA, or set down for trial attempt to schedule it when the Police witnesses are either a) off duty b) available for court.  If off duty, then most police forces pay the good officer's OT wages.  I have yet to met an officer with the exception of ZC) that balks at being paid OT for having to sit around court waiting to be called as a witness.   If the officer has to return to court for any other testimony you can bet your butt that the court clerk is moving heaven and earth to schedule the date to not pull that officer a duty day.  What ZC has failed to mention in his tirade is that the majority of trials go off the rails in delays because of the police witnesses and scheduling.  The judge in these cases can either force the hand of the party who is causing the delay and deny an adjournment thus giving the other party the advantage or delay the case until the Crown is ready.  

As for a judge being sick, there is a roving judge that is called in to prevent a back log of cases and motions (same principle as a substitute teacher) If it is during a trial. then the trial is adjourned.  It causes delays but unfortunately, people of all walks of life get sick and until we can figure out how to give everyone a magic bullet to prevent illness in the workplace, we'll have to deal with it.  That kind of delay does not start the ticker on an Askov.  

Your wife's speeding ticket is just an example of how an entire justice system is interdependent on each player doing his/her job correctly.  If one fails, then it backs right up to the end result and sadly, the John Q Public see it as a failure of a judge.  Now according to ZC's argument, your wife getting off on her ticket would be the fault of the judge not lowering the hammer on a nasty speeder.  I believe she got off on what most people look for, a technicality.  Good on her, the fault in my opinion, lies solely with the person who didn't write the ticket clearly.  However, I would be remiss if I didn't add, your wife should slow down in future.   

Anyway, this topic is a marked departure from the notion of electing the judiciary so perhaps we need to get back on track (or is it still along the lines of Judge Judy you did me wrong, my dog left and my truck is broke and my paycheque is all your fault thread?)


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Naw, its now the Big Box store of Judges threads..........................swerves welcome.


I disagree, I could read the date on my wife's copy just fine. She [the judge] also dismissed the person ahead of my wife also, now obviously I couldn't see that ticket but my _nagging suspicion_ is that too many showed up that day to either fight or plead,[ I told my wife to beg for mercy, speeding is a Quebec tradition ] and she wished to just hurry up and clear the plate fast.


----------



## brihard

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> ZC's long post





			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> ZC's long post



Thanks for the input- It's definitely a perspective I'd not looked at the subject from, and you've swayed me a bit towards the electing jduges side- if for reasons of accountability, if nothing else. I still am not sure if it's the best way- but I'm no so convinced other ways are the best either. Certainly the way the first couple convictions geenrally go barely punished is a valid concern... I still think the actual sentences are less useful, but more because of the lack of offender programming and such. That said, some people are simply scum- I'll definitely admit that. Also, the first encounter with the criminal justice system should not be 'soft' in nature. While I still beleive the better proportion of offenders can be 'helped', tough love certainly has it's place before we go writing people off. Rehabilitation is (in my opinion) better served when the offender realizes that their previous pattern of behaviour will _not_ fly, no ifs ands or buts.

I'm still nervous of the 'power of the mob' in electing judges; I don't think I view individual rights as pessimistically as you do- although yes, they have at times been stretched to the point of being problematic. I take issue with the R v. Gladue verdict, for instance, stipulating that natives must get more consideration for leniency, even in cases such as murder or the like... I see R v. Askov as legit though- the onus for that one is on the government for not allocating enough resources to get more judges and courtrooms. I think justice needs to be handled promptly. 

i'm quite serious about a career in law enforcement- the degree is my 'paper on the wall', to help overcome my white-anglophone-maleness, and to give me a fallback if after ten or fifteen years I either want out or want up due to blown knees or just feeling old. As much as the idea of a desk job sickens me now, I know it won't forever. I think I'll be able to keep my 'academic' attitude separate from my professional attitudes until I have enough legit experience in both to consolidate them; that's one of the things the military has helped me with- but I'll figure that all out in time and cross that bridge as I get to it.

I've gotta agree with you on the appropriateness of the basic function of our system. I think the adversarial approach gives the fairest shake to everyone. 'beyond a reasonable doubt', based on solid evidence strikes the ebst balancebetween individual rights and burden of proof. Lacking the death sentence, any miscarraige of justice in Canada has the potential to be reversed and compensated if it is discovered at a later date. I can't think of a basic trial system that would better suit our needs...


----------



## a_majoor

One thing I find quite interesting about the defenders of an appointed judiciary (not confined to the posters on this thread) is they never seem to comment on why such a large portion of the population believes electing judges would be a good thing. 

While there are potential pitfalls to electing judges (just looking at our elected politicians should be enough to convince us of that!), it seems very obvious that there is a large measure of dissatisfaction with the current system. Our "punditry" and defenders of the status quo should be working to discover what is dissatisfying the public rather than dismissing these concerns out of hand.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

niner domestic said:
			
		

> ZC: Let's start with the names of these spectacular cases you keep claiming are an affront to the tenets of our legal system.  How about some names of the offending counsels so that I can look up their case histories? How about the names of the Judges you find are not doing their jobs? I see a fair bit of anecdotal materials in your posts but not much that has been backed up with the actual cases.



Nice paper tiger.  You know as well as I do that unlike most everyone else, I am bound by the Police Services Act and if I start to name names I would get my ass handed to me in a heart beat.  If you are really interested (and I suspect you aren't) you can feel free to contact any number of the Crowns here and they could bring you up to speed if you have any sort of credentials that would incline them to speak to you.  



			
				niner domestic said:
			
		

> As much as I'd like to admit that it is pure arrogance that dissuades judges from discussing their decisions as you would have us believe, I'm afraid you have been told the reason why they cannot respond.  No matter how many times you jump up and down and stomp your feet, claiming it's just arrogance, it's not going to change that judges and jurors are barred from discussing their decisions.  Electing or appointing a judge isn't going to change that either.



I could care less whether or not they discuss their decisions.  The point is they are making BAD decisions and are accountable to NOBODY in any real way.  That needs to be addressed.  And if the judges are elected, if they make enough bad decisions, then whenever they are up for reelection, the people can make sure that they don't get to linger and make more bad decisions.  



			
				niner domestic said:
			
		

> Why would you consider a guilty plea a waste of a day in court?



Because if they were going to plead guilty, they could do so and then nobody needs to show up to court.  The case gets routed to sentencing court, and frees up trial time for the ones that are going to be fought.  I also think it is crap that the civilians have to repeatedly attend these donkey shows at their own personal expense.  At least I'm getting over time.  They get SFA.  



			
				niner domestic said:
			
		

> It is appearing your priorities are a bit muddled. I guess it never occurred to you that in  the anecdotal case you presented that the accused plead guilty *because* all the officers appeared.  Oldest trick in the defence book, hope for the one witness to fail to show and motion to dismiss.  You as a police officer, have a duty to attend court.  End of that discussion.  Contrary to your off the cuff comment on judicial wages, judges get paid a salary.  You are so far out of your lane on this one that you are about to be hit by on coming traffic.



For someone with an empty profile, you seem a bit quick to call lane straying.  



			
				niner domestic said:
			
		

> As for inferring that I am a socialist, do please tell me more, I'd like to get to know this alledged socialist side of me.



Perhaps there is a better term for it.  What does one get called when they go to the mat to protect and comfort the most vile elements of our society?  



			
				niner domestic said:
			
		

> Finally, I would like to extend an invitation to you to visit my Court so that you might be to see what goes on behind the bench.



Again, your empty profile does not offer up much in the way of useful direction.  Would you be trying to suggest that you are, in fact, a judge or justice?  



			
				niner domestic said:
			
		

> I have yet to met an officer with the exception of ZC) that balks at being paid OT for having to sit around court waiting to be called as a witness.



No.  I love my overtime.  My point is that if I am the arresting officer, generally I am the only one needed along with whatever civilian witnesses may be involved.  There is no purpose for the officer who took the statement to be there, nor is there for the wagon driver or detention unit members.  The defense has absolutely no intention of calling them, yet if they aren't there then it is a big friggin' deal.  That is the time wasting I'm talking about.  
And sometimes we don't need the OT.  Many of my colleagues and myself have had personal plans ruined by unnecessary court time, only to sit around and never speak a syllable.  The OT isn't worth it at that point.  



			
				niner domestic said:
			
		

> Now according to ZC's argument, your wife getting off on her ticket would be the fault of the judge not lowering the hammer on a nasty speeder.  I believe she got off on what most people look for, a technicality.  Good on her, the fault in my opinion, lies solely with the person who didn't write the ticket clearly.  However, I would be remiss if I didn't add, your wife should slow down in future.



I agree.  But it is the fault of the judge being a myopic tool, and tossing the ticket for the sake of getting out quickly.  However, since the person who got off was someone who was a decent person, I have no issue (I don't enforce speeding).  But I am again left wondering how it is that someone like yourself thinks that something so petty would be a good reason to toss a charge.  For a traffic offence, it is not the end of the world.  But these things happen with actual criminal charges, with real effects on victims.  I guess because the judges don't have to ride back down on the elevator with the victims, who always have the same look on their face:  "I knew the system was screwed up, but I didn't think it would let me down so badly.  Why did I even bother in the first place".  But then, according to one of our judges here in Windsor "I don't concern myself with the title 'victim'.  A 'victim' is only a witness that has a personal interest in a case".  This being said to a woman that had been brutalized by her boyfriend.  
Yeah, I guess I'm way off base with the arrogance comments.   :



			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> Our "punditry" and defenders of the status quo should be working to discover what is dissatisfying the public rather than dismissing these concerns out of hand.



Now that is a solid point.


----------



## niner domestic

I have to admit ZC that you are quite amusing.  For an officer that has done a decade's work and spent all that time sitting around the Courts it appears that you didn't pick up much court lingo or criminal procedures.  Since our judicial system relies on the basic tenets that it is a *public* event and *all* matters coming before the courts are public record and are open to anyone who wishes to attend such a court (with the exception of those cases that have through the CEA, have had a publication ban) and duly made public via Court Reporting series or ordering a transcript.  

Since all of your alledged examples of the cases you have cited have been (I presume - because heavens you wouldn't want to derail a Crown's case by discussing the details of an ongoing trial in an open source as an officer involved)  appropriately dealt with by the Courts, then they are public record.   So until you are prepared to give a citation of these cases that you repeatedly refer to in order to buttress your arguments, then we'll simply have to regard all of them as anecdotal and vague examples with no substance. 

Again, your apparent lack of understanding simple criminal procedures applied in every jurisdiction of our country on who can say and do what is evident in you not knowing that judges and jurors can not speak publically about their decisions.  You might want to review the CEA and read the Crim Pro book by Ronald Delisle, J so that any future discussions are at least based on a modicum of knowledge on your part. 

I believe the word you are looking for in your example of a defence demanding a witness attend court is subpoena.   Again, another example of your lack of apparent understanding of simple court processes and crim procedure.  

As for your information that civilian witnesses are not paid, you are incorrect.  If you knew your CEA, you would know that in section 19, there are provisions to pay witnesses to attend court.  Now what many lawyers and jurists have submitted to the provincial politicians who hold the purse strings for the administrations of courts
is that the fees paid to a witness are simply not enough to cover any loss of wages during their attendance in court.  So far the politicians haven't moved to increase the fees.  

As for your profile comments, I introduced myself to the owner of the site.  

Again, your lack of basic understanding of how a court is scheduled for trials is apparent.  Your inability to grasp that only a very small percentage of matters be it criminal or civil end up at trial.  Again, an understanding of crim pro would have you understand that even submitting a guilty plea requires the court to be sitting and the plea to be accepted by a judge.  Once any matter goes up before the court, the meter is ticking.  It's been budgeted for by the bean counters at Queen's Park.  

Again, your inability to understand how a Crown must prove their case and must do so by direct evidence or testimony.  In a decade of service, I'm surprised you haven't picked up on the requirement not to run afoul of the rules of hearsay in order to prove your case.  Surely you must have testified enough to know that.  If the Crown under R. v. Stinchcomb, provides their full disclosure and files their witness will say statements to the defence, then those witnesses are required to be in court as the CEA sets out that all testimony must be offered to be cross examined by opposing counsel.  Since you are a police officer, and I assume your jurisdiction just didn't throw you out on the streets without adequate training on governing legislation, you would know that preserving, establishing and proving the chains of evidence is a burden that falls to the Crown to make in every case unless the defence stipulates the facts.  A rookie cop I would expect not to know all of this but not coming from a decade in service officer (but to be fair to the rookies, I know if you took a police foundations course you were taught the CEA and Crim Pro.)

So according to you, any person who is transparently decent on the surface is excused from being answerable to offences they committed? (sorry Mrs B, no offence intended).  So you as a police officer, can make that moral call to let someone off but when a judge does it they are myopic and making bad decisions? Do you not find that logic a little skewed? So let me get this straight, if you as a police officer were called in to investigate a white collar offence of say, embezzlement and you personally found the suspect/accused to be a decent person, you'd have no issue if they got off? 

Once again, your lack of understanding is showing of how the courts operate and how something (as you referred to as petty) that erroneously sets out the particulars of the offence such as a questionable date - because even the most inexperienced police rookie has to know what constitutes an offence and all the elements.  Last time I had a discussion with my Crown, the time, place and location of the offence was kind of still important to be able to prove in order to proceed with finding someone guilty at the end of the Crown's case whether it be a parking ticket or bank robbery.  

Well as for your comment on the Windsor judge, if you can't give a citation to the case, then your comment is anecdotal.  However, I'm also very surprised that your Victim/Witness worker hadn't better prepared the victim/witness with what to expect in court.  I know the workers I work with are very good at preparing a victim/witness for court and the Crown is also very good at preparing his/her witness for trial especially encouraging them to use the victim impact statements for sentencing.  Our Crown's take it on the chin if they lose a matter, and take great lengths to go over the case with the victim/witness.  And again, you should know that in court there are only witnesses so the judge's alledged comment is in fact, quite correct.  But if you understood crim pro you'd know that.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

You know, I'm about done with this.  You trot out a bunch of crap from a first year law text book and it has nothing to do with anything we have been discussing.  Clearly, you have some law training, because in the absence of substance, you provide volume.  
I have nothing to prove here.  I don't need to prove you wrong.  I truly don't care what you think.  The people who know and "get it" understand what is going on.  Eventually, the reality will come to the fore and by that point people will be so angry and frustrated with the inept system that the backlash will be massive, and "justice" will be changed.  
In any case, this thread is degenerating into a me vs. you thread, so I'm done.  You win.  Clearly there is nothing wrong with the legal system and the judges are beyond reproach.  Please use the next post to claim the ultra-satisfying last word, and make your decisive victory complete.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Don't make me bring out the whip and chair you two........


----------



## GAP

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Don't make me bring out the whip and chair you two........



If you do, can you get them to crouch on stools and snarl at you when you point your chair at them.


----------



## a_majoor

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Don't make me bring out the whip and chair you two........



op:


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Don't make me bring out the whip and chair you two........



Nah, I'm good.  Seems we have seen this sort of petty semantics before.  Silver...something?


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Well, you know things are bad when even the judges are getting sick of the judges:

The Saturday Evening Popkum News - Judges Failing The Judiciary
QUOTE:
North Shore News.

It's the judges who are failing the judiciary OTTAWA - Wednesday, March 28, 2007: 

I am one of four persons waiting to speak to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights concerning the judicial appointment process.

The others are Edward Ratushny, professor of law at the University of Ottawa; Tony Cannavino and David Griffin of the Canadian Police Association; and William Trudell of the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers. Each of us will have 10 minutes to make a case for or against the inclusion of police representatives on Judicial Advisory Committees.

The following is an abridgement of my extemporaneous testimony.

What makes me uncomfortable about being here is that judges generally never speak at all after they leave the bench. They close ranks, and they don't admit that there are problems in the criminal justice system.

I worked for 26 years in the provincial court of British Columbia at 222 Main St. It is a criminal court with 20 judges and it deals exclusively with criminal cases. What I experienced in 26 years was a steady diet of people appearing before me, an endless conveyor belt bringing criminals of every kind and lawyers of every kind. As far as I'm concerned, there are and always will be criminals among us. There are and always will be violent people who are either sociopathic or psychopathic, and some who are simply swindlers.

In my time as a judge I encountered police officers, both as witnesses and informally in our public coffee shop, at retirement functions and the occasional funeral.

In the first two years I was a judge, an RCMP officer was gunned down at the detachment in Richmond, leaving a pregnant wife and two small children. I understood then and forever after that police are an absolute in the criminal justice system. I say right out front that they are more important than judges and they are more important than prosecutors. Nobody dials up 9-1-1 and asks to speak to a prosecutor or a judge.

Upon retiring, I wrote a letter expressing my respect for the police force of Vancouver, particularly constables on patrol and officers having special street duties. They are the real police. To use the vernacular, they do the grunt work. I said: At times they are foot soldiers in a dirty and dangerous war against violence, property crime and predatory drug trafficking. These men and women working in a world of harsh reality, are the backbone of the criminal justice system. And more than that, they are the only ones who risk injury and even death each time they go to work.

I'm mindful of Sir Robert Peel's maxim when he created the first civilian police: The police are the public, and the public are the police. That bond ought to be kept firmly established in our communities.

To deny police officers the right to be represented on judicial advisory committees is an absolute denial of Peel's admonition. It's an absolute denial of the fact that we want them, and that we want them to protect us. I really do believe police officers can be functional and advantageous members on judicial advisory committees. In British Columbia there are at least five judges who are former police officers. It may surprise you, or it may not, that the judge in the Pickton case is a former police officer. So if police officers can rise to become judges, why can't they become members of judicial advisory committees?

On March 6, I went to Eric Hamber secondary in Vancouver. The students were in a course planning their future. I explained to them what peace, order and good government is all about. I explained my opinion, which was that of a black sheep among judges, that sentencing was not adequate. They understood what peace, order and good government meant when I discussed the concept with them in simple terms; that it is a constitutional issue that reflects on the judiciary, the judiciary being recognized as an institution and branch of government. And that as a branch of government, the judiciary has to recognize, sooner or later, that when we have rampant crime, as we do in the city I come from, it's time for judges to do something to deal with the fact that we are losing peace and order in our communities.

How does that bear on what you're going to do? When I go back to Vancouver, I'm going to tell them I was at this session, and I'm going to explain to them what took place. I'm going to tell them that I left with you copies of their essays that are reflections on commentaries that I've written that deal with law and order, and with the importance of police.

I suggest to you that the function of the judiciary in criminal justice is very important, and these young men and women recognize it. I said to them that my generation dropped the ball, and things aren't in very good shape when they go out and about in public in terms of whether they are going to be safe.

When you take the time and examine what this next generation has to say, I think you'll realize that they are out there and they expect parliamentarians to do something.

During the subsequent questioning by committee members, one of them said "I think we may be wasting our time discussing the judicial appointment process, because the very presumption, by the government's enunciated policy of change, is that there's something wrong with the judiciary. But I'm not hearing that from the retired judge."

In response I said: There has been a generational shift in judges. It has nothing to do with the appointment process; it's a matter of attitude. Judges who endured the Depression and who fought the war, they knew what to do when they were dealing with vicious criminals. They would sentence on a global basis to 35, 37 or 40 years. Now, courts of appeal across this country will limit global sentences to probably 20 years at the most; and when you take into account early parole and double credit for time spent in custody awaiting trial and sentencing, it means that the price of crime is pretty low. Criminals continue to become serial criminals in property matters because there is no punishment. Crime pays.

Today's boomer judges just don't get it. They will not protect the public through the sentencing process, and many of them will openly say that anything but jail comes first. Look at the use of conditional sentences, judge-shopping, manipulation of the process, and rubber-stamping of plea bargaining. And with sentencing guidelines, appellate courts have literally told Parliament that maximum sentences will not be imposed.

That's what's wrong with the judiciary.

wallace-gilby-craig@shaw.ca

published on 05/02/2007


That pretty much hits it out of the ball park.  If all judges were like His Honour, then we wouldn't have this problem.  
Here is a link to a bio page for Judge Craig:
http://www.canadianjusticereviewboard.ca/CJRB_director_Wallace_Craig.htm

In fact, in quickly reviewing that website, there is all kinds of good information from people who are sick of watching this countries safety and security get tanked by the judges.  Included is this classic quote from a law professor who is fed up:
"...I cannot avoid seeing the [SCC] Court as a collection of arrogant and unprincipled poseurs, largely out of control"--Robert Martin  

So even academics are recognizing there are critical problems with the judges.  But will it be enough to move the leviathan?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

..and the beat goes on.....



http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/245196

Canadian judge grants refugee status to U.S. gang member

Aug 10, 2007 06:43 PM 
Associated Press

NASHVILLE, Tenn. – A teenage gang member wanted in the slaying of a Nashville market owner has been granted refugee status by a Canadian judge, delaying efforts to have him returned to Tennessee to face charges.
Nasser Muhsin, 16, who is being held in Edmonton, claimed he needed refugee status because he might be hurt or killed by rival gangs if sent back to the United States.

Nashville police suspect Muhsin fired the shot that killed Ebadolla Ghorbani during a November robbery at the Omid Market. Two other suspects are in custody.
A juvenile court arrest warrant charges Muhsin with criminal homicide, especially aggravated robbery and unlawful gun possession.

Nashville police erected "wanted" billboards with Muhsin's photo around the city to try to produce tips on locating him.
Authorities aren't sure how Muhsin crossed into Canada while he was wanted in a homicide. Nashville police spokesman Don Aaron told WSMV-TV that Canadian border authorities are trying to make sure Muhsin stays in custody while officials continue to try to get him returned to the United States.

The refugee status decision has been appealed but won't be heard in a Canadian court until late September, Nashville officials said.
"I've never been to Canada, but if they're going to let some murderer be free, that's messed up," Meysam Ghorbani, the victim's son, told WTVF-TV.

"This one especially because he's the one who shot my father," said the younger Ghorbani, who was at the store during the shooting. ``He's the guy who just looked at my father and pulled the trigger for no reason."
Ebadolla Ghorbani was shot after he struggled to hold the market door closed against two masked males. A security camera recorded the shooting.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

That's what makes Canada so great.  We protect those who can't protect themselves.  
Bravo, learned judges! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Truly, our country is better today with the addition of Nasser Muhsin.    

[/sarcasm]


----------



## George Wallace

Am I missing something here?  I didn't think that the US of A qualified as a 'State" that one could claim Refugee Status from.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

We were supposed to do away with first world refugee claims a while ago, and I don't know what happened with that.  Essentially, people go to the USA and claim refugee.  When the claim is proven to be fraudulent or unfounded, they are "invited" to attend a deportation hearing (yes, one of the ways the US is just as lame as Canada).  Once that happens they pack up all their stuff, drive to the border in their Cadillacs and BMW's and claim "refugee" here in Canada.  They get to keep all their stuff, and we still pay them welfare and all the fixin's.  Once in Canada they can endlessly appeal their refugee rejection and then go about finding other ways to entrench themselves ie) get some chick pregnant.  
Not exactly the case with this shatpump, but that is how people can get away with it.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Doubtless, there have been bad decisions-o-plenty since this thread last came to the fore, but this one is particularly appalling:

http://www.northernnews.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=926616&auth=Peter+Worthington
Justice is wrong on criminals' rights
Posted By Peter Worthington

For people uneasy that our legal system often seems more concerned about the rights of criminals than the welfare of their victims, how about the case of Allan MacDonald? 

The OPP Association currently has an online petition (www.oppa.ca:80) for people to protest what's happening in the above case. Its protest has been joined by the 31,000-member Police Association of Ontario (PAO). 

Why are the police so angry and frustrated about Allan MacDonald? 

MacDonald was not just anybody. A former firefighter and former chairman of the Penetang Police Services Board, in May, 1997, MacDonald, then 51, walked into a bar where OPP Const. Tom Coffin was having a drink, put a loaded gun to the back of Coffin's head and pulled the trigger. 

MacDonald was upset because a year earlier, Coffin had charged him with drunk driving. That's it. A psychiatric evaluation determined that although McDonald's parents had a history of mental instability, he did not qualify under the legal definition of "insane," and was sentenced to 25 years without parole. 

In January, the Federal Court of Canada ruled that Coffin should be moved from the maximum security prison at Joyceville, near Kingston, to an institution closer to his home, relatives and friends. 

Coffin's family (widow, kids and other relatives) don't want MacDonald anywhere near them, and oppose the move, which the courts didn't take into account. 

Karl Walsh, president of the OPP Association, launched the petition on behalf of the Coffin family, whose "rights" he feels should outweigh MacDonald's. 

"Ours is a legal system, not a justice system," he says. "It's wrong that someone like MacDonald should get preference over his victims, but this is happening all the time." 

If that weren't sufficient cause to wonder about our system the federal court also ordered that MacDonald be reimbursed $4,000 for court costs. 

It's this latter decision that I and others find so appalling.

Yep.  Nothing is more precious than our criminals rights.


----------



## Yrys

hijack for an American judgment

Judge orders men to learn English

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7317794.stm


----------



## PMedMoe

Article Link

WILKES-BARRE, Pa. - A Pennsylvania judge known for creative sentencing has ordered three Spanish-speaking men to learn English or go to jail. 

Judge Peter Paul Olszewski says the men, who faced prison for criminal conspiracy to commit robbery, can remain on parole if they learn to read and write English. 

They must also earn their high school equivalency degrees and get full-time jobs. 

In the past, Olszewski has ordered young defendants who are school dropouts to finish school. He often orders defendants to get full-time employment. But he also has his staff coordinate with an employment agency to help them find the jobs.

More on article link.

We need more judges like this!!!


----------



## NL_engineer

I don't he would fit to well in our justice system  : as he is too creative and is trying to make criminals more productive.  Let alone the human rights crowed screaming that he is forcing them to work  :


----------



## MED_BCMC

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> We need more judges like this!!!



Why? 

While having these three guys learn english, and get full time jobs would make them effective members of society, you'd almost expect them to have these goals already (if they were interested in becoming effective members of society, that is). While a "conspiracy to commit robbery" isn't a very serious change (in my opinion, at least), it is still a criminal charge and shouldn't be taken so lightly. 

To me, this simply reads as sentence of "Do what you should have been doing already".


----------



## PMedMoe

Yes but making people get a diploma/job/language training is certainly much more productive than sending them to jail.


----------



## Sham

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Yes but making people get a diploma/job/language training is certainly much more productive than sending them to jail.


You can have them sit in jail and earn their credentials instead of using their downtime to go out and
commit more crimes.


----------



## midgetcop

Meh. If they're not doing it on their own accord, I wouldn't necessarily consider them "productive" members of society. ::shrug::


----------



## medaid

R. Warren* said:
			
		

> You can have them sit in jail and earn their credentials instead of using their downtime to go out and
> commit more crimes.



Ah! I love the way you think! Because the tax payers in the States needs to have MORE of their money go towards housing people like this, AND give them a free education  :. Im sure many people would rather have these people on the streets being watched, instead of in prison, learning how to be more cholo, and how to actually rob someone next time. 

Yes, we ALL know how much good prison time does for everyone... give me a break.


----------



## PMedMoe

R. Warren* said:
			
		

> You can have them sit in jail and earn their credentials instead of using their downtime to go out and *commit more crimes.*



I'm thinking that would violate their parole.


----------



## Greymatters

MED_BCMC said:
			
		

> While having these three guys learn english, and get full time jobs would make them effective members of society...



Either that or they'll become smarter bi-lingual criminals...


----------



## Yrys

Judicial power, size of juries could be system cures , KIRK MAKIN, From Saturday's Globe and Mail, March 29, 2008 at 8:17 AM EDT



> OTTAWA — High-level discussions are under way to increase the size of juries, provide financial incentives to lawyers who use legal aid funds efficiently,
> and give judges more power to ride herd over lawyers prior to trial, a University of Ottawa legal conference was told yesterday.
> 
> The moves would help repair a criminal justice system that has been crippled by irresponsible legal tactics and interminable trials, said University of Toronto law
> professor Michael Code, a criminal law specialist. Prof. Code is preparing a report on the problem of megatrials for Ontario Attorney-General Chris Bentley. He said
> that strict deadlines are likely to be imposed on defence lawyers who seek disclosure of evidence, as well as for the prosecutors who respond to those disclosure requests.
> 
> The reforms - which Prof. Code said are under active discussion at a "very high" political and judicial level - are prompted by an intense perception that the court system
> is out of control. He did not specifically identify which authorities are considering the reforms, and could not be reached for further comment. He urged lawyers and
> their associations to stop resisting change on the basis that a few "bad apples" are causing all the problems.
> 
> It only takes a handful of bad lawyers to destroy public faith in the courts, Prof. Code said. "We cannot afford to allow even a few lawyers to warp the system in
> this way," he said. "I do not think the train of law reform that is coming down the tracks will be turned back simply by saying there are a few bad apples." Prof. Code
> said that the move to enhance judicial power would permit more aggressive management of cases, allowing judges to force lawyers on both sides to drop unnecessarily
> time-consuming legal motions. He said that expanding juries would respond to a growing fear that jurors caught up in lengthy trials may start to "revolt," creating
> an instant mistrial if there are no alternate jurors on hand to fill their places.
> 
> Prof. Code was joined by another panelist - Mr. Justice Michael Moldaver of the Ontario Court of Appeal - in warning that endless legal motions and the squandering
> of legal-aid funds have created an unsustainable crisis within the justice system. They said that unseasoned defence counsel who lack mentoring and sound judgment
> have caused great damage by marring serious cases with unnecessary and ill-conceived legal motions.
> 
> Prof. Code also urged legal regulators to punish lawyers who are "abrasive, abusive" toward their opponents or court processes. He said the phenomenon is steadily
> growing and leads to time-wasting courtroom warfare.
> 
> "All of this unethical conduct is flatly contrary to the rules of professional conduct," he said. "It's right in there - and it should be enforced. Law societies have got to get
> serious about enforcing these ethics. The counsel ought to be reprimanded." Prof. Code noted that appellate courts have frequently gone out of their way to admonish
> lawyers who engage in this type of "shocking" misconduct, yet their rulings are blithely ignored by the law societies who regulate the profession.
> 
> Meanwhile, he said, trial judges have grown passive and afraid to rein in lawyers, for fear that they will not be backed up.
> 
> Prof. Code placed part of the blame for the erosion of professionalism on law schools failing to teach ethics and professional responsibility. He said that many lawyers
> enter the profession believing that their only duty is to the client.
> 
> Judge Moldaver told the conference that a major reason the criminal courts are on the verge of collapse is that criminal trials, "have become interminable games
> in which the trial of the accused is regularly overshadowed by the trial of the investigation." Murder trials plod on for many months, draining police resources and
> consuming legal aid funds that might otherwise go toward litigants who have needs in family law and civil cases, he said.
> 
> Judge Moldaver cited an Ottawa murder trial that was recently thrown out on the basis of unreasonable delays - 17 years after an endless series of preliminary hearings,
> trials and retrials first commenced. "Without ascribing blame to anyone, I consider it a disgrace," he said.
> 
> "Shame on our justice system. ... Cases like the one I just described give the Canadian justice system a black eye and bring the Canadian justice system into utter
> disrepute. "I tell you the whole thing is insidious and it feeds upon itself," Judge Moldaver said. "The public is becoming disenchanted. Some are beginning to lose faith
> and confidence in our justice system."
> 
> He faulted appellate courts such as his own for writing incomprehensible judgments. He also blamed them for spouting "philosophy" instead of providing clear instructions to lawyers and trial judges.



Link


----------



## zipperhead_cop

I guess it's time to bump this thread again.  Another pathetic ruling:

*Quebec con who weighs 430 pounds gets reduced sentence because of weight *  
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/080522/national/crime_obese_con

MONTREAL - A former chef who goes by the nickname "Big Mike" has had his sentence for drug trafficking reduced because the provincial jail where he's incarcerated isn't dealing with his 430-pound weight. 


Michel Lapointe has already served 20 months behind bars awaiting sentencing in what his lawyer described in court as hellish conditions. "For the first eight months he didn't have a bed adjusted to his size," defence lawyer Clemente Monterosso said in an interview Thursday. 


"He never got a chair adjusted to his size. The chair and the tables were too tight and he could not sit down. In jail, the chairs are bolted to the ground and you cannot adjust them." 


Monterosso said jail officials refused to provide a chair with a back to accommodate Lapointe's tattooed bulk - jail chairs are more like stools - saying they feared it could be broken and used as a weapon. 


The poor prison diet has added more than 50 lbs to the Lapointe's pre-arrest weight of 375 pounds. 


Where the shaven-headed convict consumed six pills of medication upon arrival in jail, he now must take 23. It was also hard for Lapointe to take a shower. 


"He's only 37 years old but now his health situation has deteriorated to the point that now he has to walk with a cane," Monterosso said. "He's been asking for a better diet but of course they refused that to him, telling him he's in jail, he's not in a hotel and there's only one menu." 


Lapointe was arrested during police raids on Sept. 20, 2006, that netted 24 others. He pleaded guilty in February to charges of conspiracy, drug trafficking and gangsterism. 


He was sentenced to five years in jail Wednesday but under the formula used to calculate actual time behind bars, Lapointe will be out in about 14 months. Quebec court Judge Marc Bisson also showed clemency in his case because of Lapointe's weight problems. 


He also ordered the prison to get Lapointe a proper bed and chair. 


Claire Lapointe, Big Mike's mother, says her son has always had weight problems but they were exacerbated by his time behind bars and his health suffered. 


"I think it's a terrible situation," she said in an interview. "Happily, the judge's decision yesterday was good, thanks for that, and I hope it will bear fruit. 


"I hope it will serve to help other people who have the same health problems who unfortunately have to spend time behind walls." 


The mother said earlier attempts to better her son's situation in detention were ignored by officials. 


Monterosso said the problem accommodating special-needs convicts is particular to Quebec provincial jails and Lapointe would get better treatment in a federal prison. 


Monterosso cited several other cases in seeking compassion for Lapointe before the court. 


They included the case of an anglophone biker from Ontario who was locked up in a majority francophone environment, far from his family. 

Other cases involved a convicted police officer in Alberta who faced potential harm by being in close contact with people he had helped put in jail. 

Clemency has also been granted in the past because of overcrowding in Toronto-area jails and the lack of a vegan diet for a British Columbia convict.  

 :threat:


----------



## PMedMoe

If the stupid, fat f**ker hadn't committed a crime, he wouldn't have to worry about the prison having a chair, bed or shower to fit his over sized a**!


----------



## TCBF

MedTech said:
			
		

> Ah! I love the way you think! Because the tax payers in the States needs to have MORE of their money go towards housing people like this, AND give them a free education  :. Im sure many people would rather have these people on the streets being watched, instead of in prison, learning how to be more cholo, and how to actually rob someone next time.
> 
> Yes, we ALL know how much good prison time does for everyone... give me a break.



- Prison isn't for them - it's for us.  It's keeps one per cent of the scum off our streets for brief periods of time.  You should be thankful for that tiny gift.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Prison isn't for them - it's for us.  It's keeps one per cent of the scum off our streets for brief periods of time.  You should be thankful for that tiny gift.



I'd be more thankful if the brief period wasn't so brief, and if the prisons were a little less comfy for our precious offenders.  Justice shouldn't be a "gift".  It should be a "given".


----------



## TCBF

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> I'd be more thankful if the brief period wasn't so brief, and if the prisons were a little less comfy for our precious offenders.  Justice shouldn't be a "gift".  It should be a "given".



- "Natural justice" is a given.  "Bureaucratic justice" is a gift.


----------



## Greymatters

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> I guess it's time to bump this thread again.  Another pathetic ruling:
> 
> The poor prison diet has added more than 50 lbs to the Lapointe's pre-arrest weight of 375 pounds.



Which is why every other prisoner has also gained 50 pounds since they were interned... so it couldnt possibly be his lazy ass never finding time to exercise or diet...   :


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Which is why every other prisoner has also gained 50 pounds since they were interned... so it couldnt possibly be his lazy ass never finding time to exercise or diet...   :



Or his access to a steady stream of cocaine was _somewhat_ stemmed.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Just another day in "Judgeuntouchable Land". Its no wonder Police just pull thier hair out......

http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/joe_warmington/2008/10/17/7113941-sun.html

Where's a sense of outrage?
We need to know why 2 women died

By JOE WARMINGTON

Last Updated: 17th October 2008, 4:15am

The rest of us can't let anybody try to bury the apparent junk justice that resulted in two innocent women allegedly falling victim to an alleged serial predator under house arrest next door. 
If we let them, that is exactly what they will try to do. 

For example, look at this quote: "All of our thoughts are with the families, the relatives and the community," Attorney General Chris Bentley says in a story by Jonathan Jenkins, one of Sun Media's Queen's Park reporters. "We're all part of a community that was affected by these terrible tragedies." 

WHERE'S THE ANGER 

It's not strong enough for me. I want to hear some anger there. Like the rest of us are spewing. 
All I know is he, and Premier Dalton McGuinty, had better be at that funeral Monday at 10:30 a.m. at Highland Funeral Home (Markham Chapel), 10 Cachet Woods Ct., near Hwy. 404 and 16th Ave. or at the visitation Sunday, from 4 p.m.-8 p.m. 
It was, after all, allegedly the system they administer that failed these women. 

But I get the feeling the brass think this story is running out of steam and that it will soon to be replaced by the next outrage. But for Susan John and Saramma Varghese, or any future victim, waiting for the next news cycle is just not good enough. 
Keep in mind Nathaniel O'Brien, 31, was charged with first-degree-murder in the killings which happened while he was on house arrest awaiting trial on charges stemming from two previous violent sexual assaults. 

The horror of it all is not lost on neighbour Kevin Hurford, whose family heard the whole attack through the adjoining wall. He described the slain as "wonderful people" but also wonders if his wife or daughter could have been in danger, too. "Had I known there was someone under house arrest next door I would have taken precautions," he said. "I know people before the courts have rights. But we do, too." 

It's not really fair that he didn't know the suspect was released on a $10,000 surety, with no deposit, which means if he breaches any of the conditions, his parents could lose that cash. 

$10GS SURETY 

I'll bet the previous victims would have been curious to know, too. 
Is $10,000 the appropriate amount in this case? The police didn't think so. The province can't even take the suspect's family's house for breaching the conditions on that amount! 
"We can only hope someone in power will consider our very flawed judicial system and make some drastic improvements," said relative Philip Varghese, who says their "infectious smiles" from Thanksgiving dinner Sunday are imprinted in his memory. 

Tory opposition leader Bob Runciman wants to find what went wrong at every level. "The victims' families, and the public at large, have the right to know what went wrong here." 
He wants an inquiry to determine how the judge came to the conclusion to place this suspect back into the community, was the surety enough, was a psychiatric assessment completed and was there appropriate supervision? 
He also wants an examination of the role the backlog in the courts played, the overcrowding in penal institutions and "did the Crown appeal the bail decision to Superior Court? If not, why not?" 

FAIR QUESTIONS 

All fair questions and the kind of reaction I think should have come from the minister! 
Meanwhile, as they throw dirt on the latest victims, we must dig to find what happened and to prevent travesties of justice from ever happening. 

For now, there will be a funeral. But we need a public inquiry to try to prevent any more.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Don't worry, the judges will make sure they somehow override the ELECTED lawmakers of our country on this one.
"How dare you tell us we aren't God" :


http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/03/25/prison-credit.html#socialcomments
Convicts to lose double-time credit for pre-trial custody

The federal government will introduce legislation Friday to end the practice of giving convicted felons double-time credit for time spent in pre-trial custody, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said Wednesday.
The "two-for-one" credit — whereby each day spent in custody was counted as two — was meant to compensate inmates for so-called "dead time" before their cases were dealt with in court.

"The policy has developed over the years where a person gets double credit for the time they served — or in some instances, they get triple credit — and I think there are many people across this country, myself included, who would like to see more truth in sentencing, in the sense that the sentence you get is the sentence that you will serve," Nicholson told reporters in Ottawa.

Doing away with the practice will help unclog the court system, he added.
"I think that individuals will not find it to their advantage, or their solicitors will not find it their advantage, to have continuous delays or adjournments. So I think this will help move the process forward."

The premise of the credit was to take into account conditions in pre-trial custody — prisoners being held in overcrowded jails with no access to rehabilitation or other amenities of long-term prison housing.

Public safety ministers from Canada's four western provinces who gathered in Calgary last week to discuss potential reforms to the Criminal Code called the practice outdated and recommended it be abolished.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

More judicial jackassery:

*Court orders Canadian spy agency to reveal secret source  * 

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/090527/canada/canada_justice_attacks

OTTAWA (AFP) - A federal court ordered Canada's spy service on Wednesday to disclose evidence that calls into question the reliability of a key source in the case of an alleged Al-Qaeda sleeper agent.

Judge Simon Noel ruled that information on the informant must be provided to lawyers of Mohamed Harkat who is accused of being a terrorist, even though this would reveal to them the identity of the source.

The existence of the new information came in a top secret letter from government lawyers to Noel earlier this week, court documents indicated.

Disclosures in the letter "raise questions as to the compliance of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) with orders of this court," the judge said in his decision.

He also expressed concern about "possible prevarication by CSIS witnesses called to testify concerning the reliability of the information provided by the human source, and CSIS's compliance with the obligation of utmost good faith" in the case.

The ruling delayed a hearing set to start on Monday to determine the soundness of security concerns that lead to Harkat's arrest. The hearing would be "temporarily adjourned," the judge said.

The CSIS suspects Algerian-born Harkat of having trained in a terrorist camp in Afghanistan and of belonging to an Al-Qaeda sleeper cell. Harkat has denied the allegations.

After he was granted refugee status when he arrived in Canada in 1997, he was arrested in December 2002 at his Ottawa apartment under a legal measure authorizing the expulsion or imprisonment of Canadian residents or immigrants suspected of posing a threat to national security.

He was released in June 2006 under strict bail conditions, which include electronic monitoring.

Thank you "your honour".  Thank you for trying to make life easier for someone known to be trying to destroy our country.  Thank you for undermining the entire confidential informant process which will have repercussions throughout every level and area of any type of enforcement that uses CI's.  Thank you for feeling you are so very more important that the entire enforcement community that you think you can get a guy killed for cooperating with the authorities.  
Thank you, Judge Simon Noel, for bringing Canada one step closer to its own 9/11.


----------



## a_majoor

And now for the highest profile judicial nomination at the present time:

http://strongconservative.blogspot.com/2009/06/equality-before-law.html



> *Equality Before the Law*
> 
> US Constitution - *14th Amendment: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.*
> 
> Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's statement regarding her "Latina" heritage and the law: "I...accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that--it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. ... Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that wise old men and wise old--and a wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am...not so sure that I agree with the statement. ... I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who wasn't lived that life. ... Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what the difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage."
> 
> Sotomayor's statement is revealing. Impartiality under the law is not an "aspiration", it is a Constitutional requirement according to the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Slavery and segregation are the most egregious sins of the United States. Their existence was completely inconsistent with the very words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence which recognized that "all men are created equal". The framers saw this truth as self evident, a truly powerful recognition. But America fell short of it's values. All nations and all individuals do. We live in an imperfect world and are imperfect creations.
> 
> Yet despite this, heroes like Martin Luther King had faith that America would one day live up to its values and her true self, that a future lay ahead where his children would not be judged by the colour of their sin, but by the content of their character.
> 
> It seems undeniable that if Samuel Alito or John Roberts had said "I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a black/Latino/Italian/Chinese woman who wasn't lived that life." And rightly so. Why then is Ms. Sotomayor being held to a different standard than a white man would be? Is this equality under the law? Is this the future that King dreamed of?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I really don't have any commentary to go with this except maybe it might show the folks on this site how hard it really is to keep someone in jail. We complain all the time about things like  Cpl. Wilcox being free while his appeal is heard but look at the repeatrepeatrepeat offenders they let go KNOWING they are going back to do the same thing over again.

Just for your info.......

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2009/12/15/12158456-sun.html
62 convictions, but crack dealer is free on bail
Cops grit their teeth as dealers getting out next day on no-deposit surety
By MARK BONOKOSKI

TORONTO -- If I were a justice of the peace, he'd be in jail.

But I'm not, and he isn't.

With 62 convictions already on his rap sheet, many of them drug-related, this 32-year-old man recently appeared in bail court at Old City Hall and was released on a $1,000 surety -- no deposit, and therefore no financial pain -- and given the liberty of house arrest after being charged, yet again, for trafficking in crack cocaine.
And he was given this break by a JP despite also being on bail on other charges, as well as being on probation for one of those previous 62 convictions.

No wonder the cops get frustrated.
Tracked down through public court documents, this alleged drug dealer was found at his apartment above a strip-mall dollar store in the Dupont-Lansdowne area of the city's west end, but was unwilling to talk about how -- or why -- the JP decided he was worthy of even limited freedom.

Sixty-two convictions, yet no denial of bail?
It would take some explaining.
Some two weeks ago, the Toronto Police issued a press release on Project Sunshine, a joint effort by the drug squad and 14 Division undercover officers, which zeroed in on drug dealers working the hot-spot corners in the city's west end.

'OPPORTUNITY' BUYS

During the five-week project, undercover cops made 80 "opportunity" buys, purchasing a total of $100,000 in drugs that were being sold as openly as scalpers flogging Leaf tickets outside the ACC, and came up with 60 accused who, once their rap sheets were tallied, had already racked up 955 previous convictions.
Yet more than half are already back on the streets.

The cops had obviously done their job.
But the courts?
During the bail process, a 23-year-old man, not an "addict dealer" and with no criminal record, and who was charged with three counts of trafficking in crack cocaine, was granted bail -- on a $500 surety, but with no deposit.

This, perhaps, is understandable considering the fact he is relatively young and had no priors.
But how does one explain a JP giving an even better deal -- bail with no surety whatsoever -- to a 38-year-old woman with 13 prior criminal convictions who was charged with three counts of trafficking in crack cocaine, and three counts of being in possession of the proceeds of crime, namely her stash of drug cash?

STILL ON BAIL

Or giving bail -- on a $1,000 surety, but again with no deposit -- to a 43-year-old male with 12 previous criminal convictions, and who was still on bail on other charges when he was arrested during Project Sunshine for once again trafficking in crack cocaine ?
How does his failure to comply with one bail translate into being given bail yet again?

Insp. Joanna Beaven heads up the detective units at 14 Division, and Det. Sgt. Brian Kelly its vice squad.
"What's most frustrating is dealing with members of the community who know a drug dealer has been arrested, and then see him out on the street the next day," says Beaven.
"All we can tell them is that we are doing our jobs, and that there is nothing we can do when it comes to the court doing its job."

"Frustrating from an enforcement perspective, yes, but you cannot give up. You have to keep the pressure on," says Kelly, noting that intelligence gathered during Project Sunshine enabled the force's drug squad to take down a number of mid-level suppliers and dealers.

As reported here, some of those mid-level operatives included an 63-year-old man living and working out of a Dufferin St. retirement home, an Augusta Ave. record shop used as a front for drug dealing, and an appliance store that was selling more than dishwashers.
But most of those arrested are out on bail, too -- even those who had already given the finger to the courts.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

They aren't just useless at street level either:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/federal-court-quashes-a-second-security-certificate/article1400563/

Federal Court quashes a second security certificate  
Ruling another blow to controversial certificate system

New disclosure obligations set out by the Supreme Court of Canada have played a key part in the collapse of a federal security certificate case against a second terrorism suspect.

In quashing the certificate against the Syrian-born Toronto resident Hassan Almrei, a Federal Court judge said yesterday that the material the Canadian Security Intelligence Service disclosed to the court under the new rules contradicted information from its informants.

In his ruling, Mr. Justice Richard Mosley also said CSIS filed outdated, unreliable information about how al-Qaeda operates.

The ruling is the latest blow to the controversial certificate system, which relies on evidence heard in secret to detain and deport foreign residents.

"This decision proves this process is a flawed process," said Mr. Almrei's lawyer, Lorne Waldman. The new rules have helped, he said, but "I still don't believe it is a fair process."

Mr. Almrei is a former mujahed who went to Afghanistan in the 1990s. His arrest in 2001 was justified, but he's no longer a security threat, Judge Mosley wrote.
In September, Moroccan-born Montreal resident Adil Charkaoui was cleared after the government withdrew its certificate evidence against him rather than subject it to scrutiny.

Mr. Charkaoui was the plaintiff in the 2008 top court ruling known as Charkaoui II, which requires that CSIS retain and disclose all relevant information to the judge in a security certificate case.

That case is expected to be pivotal in the three remaining certificate cases against men suspected of being Islamic terrorists.

Norman Boxall, a lawyer for another certificate suspect, Mohamed Harkat, called the Charkaoui II decision important.

"Like Almrei, there has also been disclosure in Harkat raising serious issues with confidential informants," he said.

Barbara Jackman, who represents certificate suspects Mohamed Mahjoub and Mahmoud Jaballah, said Charkaoui II resulted in greater disclosure than 10 years of previous legal wrangling did.

In an interview with The Canadian Press this weekend, Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan said he would review the embattled certificate system.

"I'm taking a serious look at it, trying to work our way through what the implications of the court decisions are and how we can balance that with our ... national security," he said.

In his ruling, Judge Mosley said there were grounds to be suspicious of Mr. Almrei because he had been to Afghanistan, had arrived in Canada on a bogus passport and gave a forged passport to an Arab Afghan.

"Almrei was at the very least an opportunist willing, for a suitable fee, to violate Canada's laws," the judge said.

But as CSIS was compelled to release more evidence, "surveillance and intercept reports ... contradicted human source reports," Judge Mosley wrote.

Also, CSIS had to tell the court that one informant failed a polygraph test while a second one didn't undergo the lie detector that the agency said he had.

CSIS's credibility was further hurt by closed-door cross-examinations by court-appointed advocates, a role created after another Supreme Court ruling that Mr. Charkaoui, Mr. Almrei and Mr. Harkat won in 2007.

Mr. Waldman said the government made a mistake in using a security certificate rather than charging Mr. Almrei with lesser criminal offences in 2001. He is unlikely to be deported to Syria because of the likelihood that he would be tortured there.

Yeah, we all know that terrorists usually just get bored and give up on the whole jihad thing.  I don't suppose that when a major terrorist strike finally does happen we could be so lucky that it happens at the Supreme Court in Ottawa?  (with no innocent casualties) 
I truly believe that is what the judiciary wants.  A body count.  
And now we are stuck with this arsehole because he _MIGHT_ be tortured if we send him back.


----------



## George Wallace

> In his ruling, Mr. Justice Richard Mosley also said CSIS filed outdated, unreliable information about how al-Qaeda operates.




I wonder, just how does the Judge know this?

Did he have the latest al-Qaeda SOPs in his possession?

Perhaps he is a mole?  >


----------



## zipperhead_cop

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I wonder, just how does the Judge know this?
> 
> Did he have the latest al-Qaeda SOPs in his possession?
> 
> Perhaps he is a mole?  >



Because certainly the word of other terrorists is more believable than actual wire taps and surveillance  :


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

A couple of articles from Joe Warmington to show the mockery some Judges make of our society.
http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/joe_warmington/2010/01/25/12610601.html
Justice is blind indeed
By JOE WARMINGTON, TORONTO SUN

You don’t have to squint to see the scars on Ryan Watson’s throat.

The nasty remnants of the knife is on display for all to see. What you don’t see are the scars inside. 
Meanwhile, the guy responsible could be home in time to enjoy the NHL playoffs. It’s Ontario justice where a man, for a reason not known to anyone, smashed a completely innocent neighbour over the head, stabbed the 32-year-old airline pilot in the neck and all he gets is two-years-less-a-day in jail.
And to think all of this over a simple glass of water!

It started on a hot day last August with the request for the most basic human need.
“I was thirsty too,” said Watson Monday, who “recognized” fellow Port Hope resident Thomas Tollett from a wedding and “invited him in.”
Being neighbourly, Watson retrieved two cold bottles from his fridge. There was no thank you.

“When I turned, all I felt was something being smashed over my head,” said Watson. “It was a piece of ceramic, maybe a candle holder, which shattered into a million pieces.”
He fell and his guest dove on top of him. 
“I just remember him stabbing me in the throat — twice,” said Watson, who said he was in a state of shock and writhing in pain.

He started calling out for help but his spouse Courtney was out. Fearing for his life, Watson managed to bite Tollett on the finger and elude his attacker. Yelling “I don’t want to die” — while bleeding profusely — he went to neighbours’ Beverly and Stanley Kostoff, 71 and 79-years-old.
“It was like a horror movie,” said Watson.

And the nightmare was not over. “I shut the door but he broke it down,” he said. “Telling me he is going to kill me he jumped on me and started punching me.”
Tollett also hit his two elderly neighbours over the head with a wooden paddle, before stabbing the woman in the abdomen with a piece that had splintered off, he said.
Thankfully, help arrived in the nick of time. The man was arrested and Watson was rapidly airlifted to St. Michael’s Hospital where he underwent six hours of surgery to save his life.

If you are not already sufficiently outraged, stay tuned. How much time did Tollett get? You figure 25 years? 20? 15? 10? Five?
No, 60-year-old retired teacher and local theatre actor, after pleading guilty to attempted murder, was sentenced Friday in Cobourg Court to serve two-years-less-a-day on top of the six months he has already served. He was also handed three years probation and an order to not come any closer than 300 metres from his victims.

“Unbelievable,” said Tory house leader Bob Runciman, a former solicitor general. “If anyone wonders about the need for limiting judicial discretion, this case should dispel all doubt. At very least, the judge should have required electronic monitoring. Simply giving him a 300 metre prohibition is meaningless.”

“What it really means is three months,” adds Joe Wamback, founder of the Canadian Crime Victim Foundation. “He will have dealt with the repercussions of this faster than Mr. Watson will.”
As QMI Agency reporter Cecilia Nasmith reported “the knife punctured (Watson’s) trachea through the front and out the back, cutting into his esophagus” and he was “hospitalized for 14 days where he could not speak, eat or drink” and “went from a healthy, active man who enjoyed life to a skinny, fearful one who has still not been able to return to work.”

Watson gave an emotional impact statement but the poor elderly couple were too afraid — knowing our lame justice system, a weak crown attorney and seemingly gutless judge would not be there to protect them when this violent piece of scum is let back into their neighbourhood by the Stanley Cup finals or sooner.

Said Justice Rhys Morgan: “We can’t leave this without noting that Mrs. Tollett, in her letter, addresses her concern for Mr. Watson.”
Who the hell cares what she says? Did he not hear what the victim said? Disgraceful.

Hockey players giving an elbow on the ice seem to get tougher sentences. Sickeningly, the judge talked of Tollett as a “loving husband and father, a good provider to his family” and “someone who enjoyed the respect of colleagues, his standing in the community as a teacher who holds two degrees and was enjoying retirement.”

But would Judge Morgan invite Thomas Tollett into his chambers for a glass of water without court security? Tollett will be free to roam as he pleases in no time and we don’t even know what he looks like.
As for why this happened, unproven theories included narcissism, possible early dementia and anger management. The best excuse came from defence lawyer Gary McNeely who suggested his client suffered with held- over frustration from being called Mr. Toilet while in high school.

He also pointed out how his client missed out on his birthday party and on getting to do a part in a play.
Who cares what the guy they once called Toilet missed out on? It’s our justice system that is in the toilet while Watson and the Kostoff’s came pretty close to missing out on the rest of their lives.

“I was lucky,” said Watson, who is determined to move on.
He gets back in the cockpit next month and can’t wait. “Air Canada has been unbelievably supportive and I am so fortunate to have a dream job to go back to.”

If ever asked for water again, the kind and generous Ryan says he would do exactly what he did on Aug. 20, 2009: Offer the person some.

joe.warmington@sunmedia.ca


and,


http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/joe_warmington/2010/01/26/12624886.html
News Columnists / Joe Warmington
This system is crazy

 For those of you upset in your emails, keep in mind this was the same judge who sentenced a guy to not have a girlfriend for three years.

So, perhaps in Mr. Justice Rhys Morgan’s mind, handing out a two-years-less a day for a dastardly sneak knife attack on an Air Canada pilot, and an elderly couple, in Port Hope is his idea of tough justice.
Truth is no one has any idea what he was thinking in either case. We are not allowed to know and just have to trust this judge is capable. My question, since people’s lives are at stake, is how are we sure? And who checks on that? 

Thomas Tollett, 60, was convicted of attempted murder for the ruthless, sneaky ambush of 32-year-old Ryan Watson, who had simply obliged his request for a glass of cold water on a hot day.
Watson was stabbed twice in the throat and came so close to dying that paramedics and doctors are still stunned he is going back to work next month.
And yet Tollett could be out of the slammer as early as this spring because of this weak sentence.

But Morgan has rendered some crazy sentences before — the most famous being the one in June of 2007 in which the Peterborough Examiner’s headline “Man banned from having a girlfriend” told the whole story.

As reporter Galen Eagle wrote: “Mr. Justice Rhys Morgan told a 24-year-old, characterized as having a dependent personality disorder, yesterday he could not have a girlfriend for the next three years.” 
The evidence showed Cranley “entered his girlfriend’s room, cut her phone cord with wire cutters and began slapping and punching her” before picking up a “butcher knife, stabbed himself in the chest and punctured his aorta.”

He had served 146 days in pre-trail custody, which upon conviction for six charges the judge said was enough. “You cannot form a romantic relationship of an intimate nature with a female person,” Morgan told the stunned court when explaining his goofy girlfriend-prohibition order. “That is the only way I can see the protection of the public is in place until you get the counselling you need.” 

The judge got that one wrong and 18 months later Cranley shockingly didn’t abide by the stern no-girlfriend order and was charged again in a similar attack on a female where he screamed: “If you call the cops, I will kill every person you care about!”
Morgan gave him 21 months this time but with pre-trial time served, it was considerably less. There was still one year left on his girlfriend ban.

Was Justice Morgan right? Was Justice Bruce Durno right last week to let a Toronto 18 terrorist just serve one more day despite being part of a plot to blow up Parliament and behead the prime minister?
Who gets to decide? The system watches that we don’t talk and drive while on the cellphone. Who watches the judges?

Somebody has to say it since it seems that in many major crimes, a suspect is either out on bail and breaching those conditions or out on probation or parole from a previous conviction. This means somebody made a mistake in letting them free!
Any consequences for that? Any accountability?

On sentencing there seems to be routine two-for-one time granted for time served in a provincial jail as if this is a rewards program. There are no reward points for the victims.
Tory MP Brent Rathgeber, who sits on the House of Commons Standing Committees on Justice and Public Safety, said once the government gets a majority of Conservative senators in the Red Chamber they will be able to pass strong laws which include mandatory minimum sentences.

Hopefully, they will raise the girlfriend ban to five years instead of three.
Of course, even though the case made a Jay Leno monologue it’s not really funny. In my view, Morgan’s two rulings are a joke in a justice system which is supposed to protect real-life victims. I pray no one else gets hurt because of his bad decisions of the past or any potential ones in the future.

Anyone concerned?
Anybody in the Attorney General’s office concerned about any of this — ensuring a judge is doing his or her job properly? 

It’s time to take this justice system back from the lawyers who in many cases have clearly made a mess of it. It’s not their system. It’s ours.
Maybe it’s also time for a conversation about having elected judges, and even Crowns, or perhaps we should consider having more than just lawyers sitting on the bench. Why can’t a former chief of police or beat cop, parole officer, correctional officer, warden or social worker learn legal procedure and be a good judge?

Is it any crazier than ordering someone not to have a girlfriend for three years?


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Wow.  Two years less for attempt murder and aggravated assault (and probably a few more things).  That is starting to scrape the bottom of pathetic sentences.  

I didn't see in the article, did the guy plead guilty?  If so, that sentence might have been as a result of a plea deal.  The onus is still on the judge to reject such deals, but more and more I'm seeing a lot more of culpability in the crowns for these things.  The prosecutorial apathy down here is fairly flagrant at the best of times.  I don't imagine it's much better in the GTA.


----------



## Silverfire

This is ridiculous.  Like Zipperhead said, Attempted murder is "Imprisonment for life, with a minimum term of 4 years where a firearm was used in the commission of the offence" and Aggravated Assault is "Imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years."  His sentence is a joke.  Canada should follow the States and use consecutive sentencing instead of concurrent; and they should have the Boondock Saints.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Here's an awesome one, for under the heading of "not allowing the administration of _justice_ to fall into disrepute":


Windsor judge frees likely pedophile

Man may have been under 18 at time of alleged crimes
 By Sarah Sacheli, The Windsor StarApril 30, 2010  WINDSOR, Ont. 
— A Windsor judge depicted him as the neighbourhood monster, laying in wait for the younger boys, devising ways to get them alone to sexually assault them.

The judge said Thursday he is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the man, now 50, committed each and every pedophilic act of which he is accused. But the judge was not convinced the man was an adult when he committed his crimes in rural Sandwich West Township in the 1970s, meaning he should properly be tried in youth court rather than before a Superior Court judge.

"This proceeding is a nullity," said Justice Bruce Thomas, concluding after six days of trial he did not have jurisdiction to hear the case.

"I find no joy in the balance of this judgment," Thomas said, after expressing in the strongest of terms that he believed all of the testimony of the victims and none of what the accused man said.

The trial ended just as unusually as it began. On the opening day April 20, the Crown withdrew 10 of the 12 charges against the man believing he was under the age of 18 when the alleged incidents occurred. The Crown still called all the alleged victims to testify, to bolster the testimony of the sole remaining complainant and establish a pattern of criminal behaviour by the accused man.

But while the victims' testimony was replete with details of how they were violated, the men could not be certain of the year, much less the month, in which they were assaulted.

"While I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the incidents took place ... I do not come to the same conclusion as to when it occurred," the judge said.

Assistant Crown attorney Bruce Coates said his office will discuss whether to charge the man again under young offender legislation. "Technically, he can be charged again, but whether it is in the public interest to do so has to be weighed," Coates said.

"I don't know at this point what the best course will be."

One complainant, who believes he was about 11 years old when he was held face down and raped by the accused, said he would "definitely" testify again. He urged the Crown to pursue the charges in youth court, to at least get the man listed on the national sex offender registry.

He wrote LaSalle police an anonymous letter in 2006, sparking an investigation that led to charges a year later. He came forward with his name in 2007 and offered up the names of the other boys in the rural neighbourhood where he grew up. The accused man had abused them all.

In an interview after Thursday's ruling, the man described his childhood as "a nightmare." It should have been idyllic for a young boy -- being allowed outside all day to roam the fields and woods, spearfishing in ditches swollen with spring run-off. A farmer nearby would let the boys feed and water his horses and they could play hide and seek in the bales of hay.

But the teenager in the neighbourhood was always lurking. At first he'd suck them in by offering to show them the best hiding spots or better fishing holes. Once they were wise to his ways, he'd ambush them when they were alone, forcing himself on them. One time he brought along a pink skipping rope and tied his victim's wrists before raping him.

"I will be blunt," the judge said as he described the accused man's denials as "a flag flapping in a shifting wind."

First, the man said he could have never committed the crimes because he was so badly burned in a fire at the age of six that he couldn't lift his arms. But in contradictory testimony he said he fished with spears and rods as a teenager, and trained in high school to become a welder.

The man also denied ever seeing any of his accusers playing outside as children.

Defence lawyer Dan Scott's submissions to the court focused on the man's age at the time of the alleged crimes rather than whether the crimes were actually committed. "The court had to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender was an adult ... It's a unique case."


Read more: http://www.windsorstar.com/news/Judge+frees+likely+pedophile/2969213/story.html#ixzz0meYHLfeY


----------



## mariomike

I think this is relevant to the topic.
"Man. judge in nude photo scandal steps aside":
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2010/09/01/man-judge-steps-aside.html

National Post:
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/09/02/alice-woolley-the-problem-with-judges-and-kinky-sex/

The story has gone international:
( Mature content warning )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qccPcFpUf00&feature=player_embedded


----------



## The Bread Guy

Justice Joseph W. Quinn seems unimpressed with parties in divorce case - from his judgement (45 pg. PDF):


> Paging Dr. Freud.  Paging Dr. Freud.  This is yet another case that reveals the ineffectiveness of Family Court in a bitter custody/access dispute, where the parties require therapeutic intervention rather than legal attention.  Here, a husband and wife have been marinating in a mutual hatred so intense as to surely amount to a personality disorder requiring treatment .... Catherine and Larry were married on October 7, 1995.  If only the wedding guests, who tinkled their wine glasses as encouragement for the traditional bussing of the bride and groom, could see the couple now (I am prepared to certify a class action for the return of all wedding gifts) .... Larry gave evidence that, less than one month later, Catherine, "Tried to run me over with her van" (This is always a telltale sign that a husband and wife are drifting apart)....


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Is it any wonder those in law enforcement think MOST judges need a good  boot to the head?

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/article/1028781--newmarket-judge-sets-a-dozen-accused-free-after-crown-is-late?bn=1

Newmarket judge sets a dozen accused free after Crown is late
Peter EdwardsStaff Reporter

The Attorney General’s office is scrambling to file appeals after a Newmarket judge abruptly freed a dozen accused criminals because he felt a Crown attorney was tardy.

“The Ministry is taking steps to have a court review the dismissals as soon as possible in order to have these matters back before the court quickly,” the Attorney General’s spokesperson Brendan Crawley said on Friday.
“We’re looking at each individual case to determine the quickest route to get the matters back before the court,” Crawley said.

His comments came after Superior Court Judge Howard Chisvin told a dozen accused criminals — including some who had already plead guilty to crimes — that they could walk free from court because an assistant Crown attorney was late returning from a break.
The judge waited just 1 minute and 27 seconds before jettisoning the dozen cases.
The accused included a man deemed to be a violent schizophrenic, a spouse charged in a domestic abuse case, a disbarred lawyer charged with fraud and a robbery suspect. Some of the dozen prisoners set free included accused who had already plead guilty and who were awaiting sentencing.

Chisvin made the startling move in a morning sitting of his court on Thursday. Transcripts show that court recessed at 11.23 a.m. and when the judge returned at 11.46 a.m., the Crown wasn’t in court and he was paged on the courthouse intercom.
“Tell them they have 30 seconds,” Chisvin instructed his clerk.
However, less than a minute later, Chisvin told court that it wasn’t his clerk’s job to phone the Crown office.
“It’s not her function . . . to call the Crown’s office,” he announced. 

At 11:47.48 — 1 minute and 27 seconds after court resumed — the judge announced: “All right, all provincial matters are dismissed for want of prosecution.”
At 11:53.44, Crown attorney Brian McCallion appeared in court, only to be told that it was too late.
“Mr. McCallion, all provincial matters have been dealt with by want of prosecution,” the judge told him. “There was no Crown in here for some 10 minutes and you were paged and paged and paged.”

McCallion apologized and began to talk about the prisoner’s psychiatric report he had been studying.
“That might be,” the judge replied. “Court comes when court is back. You were paged. You were paged in the hallway, the Crown’s office was called, no Crown. They’re dismissed for want of prosecution.”

Chisvin was then late himself for the afternoon sitting of his courtroom, according to a courthouse source.
“There’s a certain irony there,” a courthouse source said.

Another courthouse source said that McCallion was late returning from the recess because he was studying a psychiatric report on a violent offender in the Crown attorney’s office, where the courthouse intercom system cannot be heard.

It’s not the first time Chisvin has raised eyebrows with his decisions.
In October 2007, he threw out domestic assault charges against a man who was facing four charges of assault, three threatening charges and two mischief charges.

Chisvin said it wasn’t acceptable that Davood Zarinchang wasn’t given a bail hearing until 24 days after his arrest.
“Individuals have been allowed to languish in custody awaiting show-cause hearings,” Chisvin said at the time. “The serious nature of this matter can only be remedied by the most significant remedy available — that being a stay of the charges.”

Chisvin then ordered the Crown to pay his legal costs as a punishment for its “lackadaisical attitude.” 
Chisvin said that the Ministry of the Attorney General bears sole responsibility for the “serious and flagrant . . . disaster that was afoot” in the Zarinchang case.

Within three months, Zarinchang was back in court in a separate case, facing two counts of attempted murder for a shooting. He was sentenced to a seven-year prison term.
In 2007, Chisvin made was referred to in Newmarket court as the “Monica Lewinsky ruling.” It referred to the White House intern who performed a sexual act on then-president Bill Clinton.

Chisvin dismissed two bawdy house charges against Valeri Ponomarev, the manager of Studio 176 in Vaughan, ruling that: “The payment of money was for a full-body massage. The act of masturbation was optional, at no additional fee. I wonder, and am left in doubt as to whether or not the community might consider the act of masturbation in all situations to be sexual.”

Then Chisvin noted the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal as he continued: “One only needs to look to the conduct of a certain president of the United States and . . . the activity that he participated in to wonder whether or not the act of masturbation is indeed, in all circumstances, a sexual act.”


----------



## aesop081

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Justice Joseph W. Quinn seems unimpressed with parties in divorce case - from his judgement (45 pg. PDF):



The footnotes alone are making this worth reading.


----------



## The Bread Guy

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> The footnotes alone are making this worth reading.


Ohhhh yeah - that's where I got my latest tag line.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

WE need to start electing judges. This function can no longer be the pervue of the sitting government's wants & wishes. They are, obviously, not capable of superior thought, when it comes to appointing those that are supposed to, or what they daily cost to heart, home and hearth.


----------



## the 48th regulator

recceguy said:
			
		

> WE need to start electing judges. This function can no longer be the pervue of the sitting government's wants & wishes. They are, obviously, not capable of superior thought, when it comes to appointing those that are supposed to, or what they daily cost to heart, home and hearth.




Bang on.

Why is it that the Jury is made up of "Peers" however, our judges are promoted lawyers......Lawyers....Might as well get Elvis impersonators as the the exclusive prerequisite (No apologetic feelings to Collingwood residence) .

dileas

tess


----------

