The Judge Superthread- Merged Topics

[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]

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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".....

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]

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]

ZC's long post

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]

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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? 

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? 

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. 

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.   :

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]

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]

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

op:

 

[zipperhead_cop]

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.