Broken Justice - these infuriating cases have it all

[Keepitsimple]

I am encouraging all posters to use this thread to vent.....if you read of ill-advised sentencing, post the story and relieve some of that pent-up frustration!

When will it end? Another soft-headed judge has exacerbated an already broken Justice System and this case seems to be representative of all that's wrong. To wit:

1) Plea Bargaining:

Edward Mollon, 29, and Travis Carlson, 30, were initially charged with attempted murder but pleaded guilty to aggravated assault in a plea bargain.

Putting aside the fact that plea bargaining is often done just to keep the courts moving, one would think that when you plead guilty to a lesser charge, then your sentence should be at the "upper end" of that lesser charge.

2) Double and Triple credit for time served:

In an unusual move, the judge gave the convicted men "three-for-one" credit for the "dead time" they have spent in jail the past 22 months for a total of 51/2 years off the eight-year sentence.

This whole business of double and triple credit for time served started with the Don Jail in Toronto. Built around 1850, it was dirty, rat-infested and horrendously over-crowded. So....around 7 or 8 years ago, a judge agreed to give someone who had been held at the Don Jail double credit for time served. This has now become a precedent- apparently in every juristiction in the country - regardless of the pristine conditions under which these criminals might be held. Now this social-engineering Judge gives a 3 for 1 credit.

3) Soft-headed logic: In explaining his reasoning for giving a 3 for 1 credit for time served, the judge had this to say about these criminals: The judge said the men have suffered "extreme" hardship during their jail time because they have not been able to see their loved ones, there are no programs offered to them in jail, and they have endured lockdowns in the North Central Correctional Centre in Penetanguishene.

4) Statutory Release: Well let's see - they've supposedly served 5 and a half years of an 8 year sentence - so one would think that they'd have 2 and a half years left to serve.....but hold on - Statutory Release will automatically grant them freedom after two thirds of their sentence - which for an 8 year sentence is 5 years and 4 months. I guess they won't have to pack a toothbrush.

Here's the whole story:

BARRIE -- Two Angus men were sent to prison for eight years for a brutal home invasion during which they burst into an Angus home armed with baseball bats and viciously attacked four sleeping men.

Edward Mollon, 29, and Travis Carlson, 30, were initially charged with attempted murder but pleaded guilty to aggravated assault in a plea bargain.

Court heard Mollon and Carlson broke into the victims' Angus home in the middle of the night Feb. 17, 2006, and whaled away on the four men with metal and wooden baseball bats.

The victims suffered several broken bones and cuts and one, Aaron McNeil, who was 18 at the time, was airlifted with head injuries to Toronto where he underwent two brain surgeries.

Court heard the incident was a payback attack sparked by a minor skirmish between three women in a bar earlier that night.

"This was a horrendously vicious attack," said Superior Court Justice Alfred Stong. "Acts of vigilantism are appalling and abhorrent."

In an unusual move, the judge gave the convicted men "three-for-one" credit for the "dead time" they have spent in jail the past 22 months for a total of 51/2 years off the eight-year sentence.

The judge said the men have suffered "extreme" hardship during their jail time because they have not been able to see their loved ones, there are no programs offered to them in jail, and they have endured lockdowns in the North Central Correctional Centre in Penetanguishene.

Tiffany Gauthier was in the home at the time of the assault but escaped injury when her fiancee, Ryan McNeil, 25, threw his own body over her to block her from the blows when they were awakened in bed.

Gauthier said she is relieved the men will stay in prison.

"I still wake up at night terrified," she said.

NcNeill ended up with broken fingers, a broken shoulder and multiple contusions in the attack.

Link: http://www.torontosun.com/News/Canada/2008...pf-4760215.html

Edited March 22, 2008 by Keepitsimple

[sharkman]

This is so sad, but typical in our justice system. This type of hand slap happens every day in Canada as drug dealers, car thieves, hoodlums, rapists and murderers get released on an unsuspecting public. The RCMP now warns communities when a dangerous offender has served their 'time' and has been released.

[Moxie]

I'm not surprised, Judges seem to have compassion for the Criminals but not enough empathy towards the victims. In the future I would not be surprised if Judges condemn homeowners for being home and asleep during home invasions. To far fetched, I don't think so.

[Argus]

Almost all our judges are soft-headed and soft-hearted. They are political suck-ups appointed due to who they know - not what they know. These two guys ought to be paroled into the Judge's home and beat the crap out of him with baseball bat. Maybe he'd learn a little about the need to protect the public, then.

[Justice?]

I can not describe how thrilled I am that there are other people out there who see how ridiculous the system is and what a stupid move this judge made.

My boyfriend is Aaron McNeil, the young boy who was brtually beaten that night. None of the reports on this case do justice to the severity of his injries and the devestating long term effects these men's actions have and will continue to have on him.

3 for 1 credit is not just unusual, in ths case it is apolling. These men spent 20 months in jail professing their innocence, and only a month before the set court date did they decide that oh yeah, they were guilty! they played the system, wasted out tax dollars and the court times, and then we reward them for it.

It is good to hear that myself and the victims and their families are not the only ones who are a bit confused about whether the system is supposed to work for the victims or the criminals.

[FTA Lawyer]

Just to be clear, the primary reason for 2 for 1 credit for pre-trial custody is not the conditions of the facility...rather it is the fact that a sentenced inmate gets earned remission (and typically does 2/3 of his or her sentence).

While in remand awaiting trial, the inmate does not get earned remission. The convention of 2 for 1 credit simply brings fairness by treating all inmates equally in terms of the jail time they actually serve out of a sentence.

Pre-trial credit is discretionary and judges can give reasons to give more than the conventional 2 for 1, or less. An increasingly common example is where an inmate gets sent to a psych facility for a pre-sentence assessment they are often not locked up, living in more of a dorm than a jail (even though the unit / ward itself is secure so they can't just leave). And most such assessments will be a month or so in the making. Where the conditions are considerably "easier" than normal jail, judges may just give "straight time" or 1 for 1 credit.

On the other side, increased credit - up to 3 for 1 - is more commonly being used in cases where the inmate has lived in overcrowded conditions...often in almost full-time lock-up with 3 to a cell instead of 2.

I'm not taking sides on this case one way or another, just thought this might clear things up a bit.

FTA

[Kitchener]

There's plenty of soft-headed soft-logic, all right. I doubt that much of it is demonstrated by the judge.

Nothing quite as depressing as people with no specific knowledge of a case, of the concept of precedence, of a judge's actual reasoning, or of the law in general... taking a few spin points and a few plain untruths, and setting out to whine about all that's wrong with the judiciary.

[White Doors]

There's plenty of soft-headed soft-logic, all right. I doubt that much of it is demonstrated by the judge.

Nothing quite as depressing as people with no specific knowledge of a case, of the concept of precedence, of a judge's actual reasoning, or of the law in general... taking a few spin points and a few plain untruths, and setting out to whine about all that's wrong with the judiciary.

Did you read the thread? One of the posters is the victims' boyfriend for Christ sakes.

If you want to get on your soap box, at least read the friggin thread.

[Keepitsimple]

There's plenty of soft-headed soft-logic, all right. I doubt that much of it is demonstrated by the judge.

Nothing quite as depressing as people with no specific knowledge of a case, of the concept of precedence, of a judge's actual reasoning, or of the law in general... taking a few spin points and a few plain untruths, and setting out to whine about all that's wrong with the judiciary.

All I can say is that this was another very violent crime that resulted in a slap on the wrist. Perhaps you should read the post from Justice - two posts up. FTA....as for not "earning remission" being the central issue - I don't believe that to be true - although perhaps in retrospect, it is now being used as some sort of justification. The nexus of 2 for 1 started with a single sentence of an individual who was being held at the Don Jail.....and I do believe the judge was warranted in doing so. The jail was filthy and overcrowded and the Provincial government was forced to clean it up - it's still a dump. That single sentence should not serve as an almost automatic precedent for cases all over the country - including upping it to 3 for 1 in some cases. The "concept" of precedence has been horribly disfigured over the years - it was originally used as points of law in detertmining what could be incfluded and excluded, etc. - more to determine HOW a person could be tried. Over the years, it's morphed to sentencing and over the past 25 years, it's become commonpalce to use it as a lowest common denominator. The defendent's lawyer sites a case where the sentencing was low, the prosecutor tries to put forward something reasonable - and the judge picks something in between - usually favouring towards the defendent....and keep in mind, this is on top of plea bargains, statutory release, usual parole after one-third of the sentence, etc. As far as sentencing, it should be about THIS case - not a case from 15 years ago. Every part of the Justicve System has gone "soft" so that collectively, in so many cases, the punishment comes no where near meeting the crime - and the criminals are out on the street to create havoc again. Justice should be logical - leniency for many first-time offenders and increasingly harsh penalties for repeat offenders.

[Wild Bill]

Just to be clear, the primary reason for 2 for 1 credit for pre-trial custody is not the conditions of the facility...rather it is the fact that a sentenced inmate gets earned remission (and typically does 2/3 of his or her sentence).

While in remand awaiting trial, the inmate does not get earned remission. The convention of 2 for 1 credit simply brings fairness by treating all inmates equally in terms of the jail time they actually serve out of a sentence.

Pre-trial credit is discretionary and judges can give reasons to give more than the conventional 2 for 1, or less. An increasingly common example is where an inmate gets sent to a psych facility for a pre-sentence assessment they are often not locked up, living in more of a dorm than a jail (even though the unit / ward itself is secure so they can't just leave). And most such assessments will be a month or so in the making. Where the conditions are considerably "easier" than normal jail, judges may just give "straight time" or 1 for 1 credit.

On the other side, increased credit - up to 3 for 1 - is more commonly being used in cases where the inmate has lived in overcrowded conditions...often in almost full-time lock-up with 3 to a cell instead of 2.

I'm not taking sides on this case one way or another, just thought this might clear things up a bit.

FTA

No need to clear up anything! Everyone is well aware that such judges act according to law.

The problem is an increasing disconnect between the law and the concept of justice! Sadly, the actions of judges such as the one cited in this thread breed disrespect for the "system". This is a trend that has been growing in Canada for some decades and if not addressed cannot have a positive end. It strikes to the very heart of "consent to be governed", breeding cynicism and undermining deterrence for illegal acts.

[Argus]

The problem is an increasing disconnect between the law and the concept of justice! Sadly, the actions of judges such as the one cited in this thread breed disrespect for the "system". This is a trend that has been growing in Canada for some decades and if not addressed cannot have a positive end. It strikes to the very heart of "consent to be governed", breeding cynicism and undermining deterrence for illegal acts.

I would really like to see a statistical study done on sentencing with respect to the scale of available sentences. I've seen very little in that regard, so all I have is my perception based on decades of following criminal cases in the media. That perception is that in any scale of possible sentencing, say, from 1 to 10, ninety percent of all sentences will fall within the lowest quarter of the range. As for a judge sentencing someone to the maximum possible sentence - for anything - it's so rare I can't even remember a case.

Add on the mandatory early release idiocy, and slack parole, and you get a system rife with injustice that neither punishes nor reforms.

[windyman]

You CONS really need to learn how rehabilitation is much smarter than just sending someone to jail. Unfortunately, I don't expect that many Cons on here will have a high IQ.

[Oleg Bach]

Judges are appointed by those of dubious morals. They do what they are told. Judges do not judge or are they wise. There is no moral judical system in this nation. There is also no legal system. Those that say we do not have a judical system but only a legal system are liars. There is little that is legal or moral . This is why we have all of these social ills. It is because there is no legal or moral or judical bench mark to go by. There will always be social chaos because those that rule have no leadership qualities, so they take the easy root and devide and conquer. Iraq is a prime example of easy chaotic rulership...and profitable.. so don't be shocked if former slave labour from the Islands shoot each other and bystanders in the street. If for carrying a human killer- a gun..if they got 20 years, there would be no problem .

Jail the judges and those that appoint them - problem solved!

[Kitchener]

Did you read the thread? One of the posters is the victims' boyfriend for Christ sakes.

How, exactly, did you think this applied to my post?

Or were you suggesting that Argus and Keepitsimple, e.g., were also the victim's girlfriend? (Note: girlfriend. Not boyfriend. Reading the thread and all.)

If you want to get on your soap box, at least read the friggin thread.

Um, yes. Because the real soapboxers weren't the hysterical generalizers about how the justice system is broken.

[Kitchener]

All I can say is that this was another very violent crime that resulted in a slap on the wrist.

I agree. That's all you can say.

I, however, can say other things -- like that the rule of law matters, that not every outcome has to fit with everyone's every desires (including mine) in order to be part of a just system, and that a confirmation-biased focus on "outrage examples" would predictably shore up a groundless conviction that the system is broken even if it weren't.

[eyeball]

...in ths case...

This was a heinous crime and the perpetrators should serve a long sentence, longer than the one's given. That said, this case underscores why mandatory sentencing will prove to be a disaster. Discretion in this sad case has been stymied by a rigid adherence to precedent resulting in an injustice, so to will mandatory sentencing result in no discretion and injustices.

Discretion gives justice the means to accommodate redemption. Excersizing it appropriately will always be the real key however.

[Argus]

You CONS really need to learn how rehabilitation is much smarter than just sending someone to jail. Unfortunately, I don't expect that many Cons on here will have a high IQ.

I'm not sure you even know what intelligence is. Certainly there's no evidence of such recognition - or familiarity - in your posts, which lean towards the most simplistic answers to all questions.

Rehabilitation? This is the failed concept the bleeding heart morons came up with by assuming that all bad people are merely misunderstood. We can simply talk with the poor dear who likes to smash heads with baseball bats and make him understand the error of his ways. In reality, most people in prison can't be rehabilitated. And there is no known way to "rehabilitate" a criminal other than by removing the temptation to commit crime, or making the commission of crime too dangerous to engage in.

[Argus]

How, exactly, did you think this applied to my post?

Or were you suggesting that Argus and Keepitsimple, e.g., were also the victim's girlfriend? (Note: girlfriend. Not boyfriend. Reading the thread and all.)

Um, yes. Because the real soapboxers weren't the hysterical generalizers about how the justice system is broken.

As opposed to brainless apologists with no knowledge whatsoever?

[Argus]

I agree. That's all you can say.

I, however, can say other things -- like that the rule of law matters, that not every outcome has to fit with everyone's every desires (including mine) in order to be part of a just system, and that a confirmation-biased focus on "outrage examples" would predictably shore up a groundless conviction that the system is broken even if it weren't.

In other words, you have nothing of value or substance to say.

[Kitchener]

As opposed to brainless apologists with no knowledge whatsoever?

No, let's leave you out of it. The contrast, naturally, was with people who do not greet context-free single data points with hysterical claims about the evils of judges, the legal system, and Canadian politics.

[Kitchener]

the rule of law matters, not every outcome has to fit with everyone's every desires (including mine) in order to be part of a just system, and a confirmation-biased focus on "outrage examples" would predictably shore up a groundless conviction that the system is broken even if it weren't.

In other words, you have nothing of value or substance to say.

I am not surprised that you believe the rule of law is nothing of value, and that pointing out your errors of reasoning is insubstantial. But don't whine just because you didn't get the echo chamber you wanted. Fallacy-ridden outrage-mongering will get a boot between the pockets, whether you like it or not.

[Argus]

I am not surprised that you believe the rule of law is nothing of value, and that pointing out your errors of reasoning is insubstantial. But don't whine just because you didn't get the echo chamber you wanted. Fallacy-ridden outrage-mongering will get a boot between the pockets, whether you like it or not.

I'd give your posts a boot between the legs but there's no balls there to feel anything, just timid submission to whatever the lawyers tell you is right.

Those of us who think for ourselves can see injustice and protest. Sheep just accept whatever they're told, turn grass into excrement, and post it on the internet.

[Kitchener]

I'd give your posts a boot between the legs but

Indeed. But... but...!

I'm so fortunate to have been spared your incisive critique. Man, you were so close to giving one, there, eh?

Those of us who think for ourselves can see injustice and protest. Sheep just accept whatever they're told, turn grass into excrement, and post it on the internet.

Who said you shouldn't protest injustice? Few things are more important, in my books.

But hysterical, evidence-free, over-generalized panic is not an intelligible protest. It's just the recitation of spin points from the moral panic industry.

[Moxie]

A local reporter, Peter Duffy, did a segment on Min and Max sentences and why our courts were sentencing hardcore criminals to the min. He interviewed an experienced Judge and the Judge stated that Parliment under the Liberals sent a scathing memo to all Judges to start enforcing the min because it was costing the Liberal Government to much money to incarcerate criminals. Yes it's about money, under the Liberal Regime criminals received sentences of "House Arrest" for manslaughter instead of the usual five years of Federal Time. By sentencing them to House Arrest they passed the cost of incarceration to the municiple level, we get to pay for two years of welfare whilst they watch Pay TV and this stratagy is saving the Feds millions. Now our Provincial Governments are noticing the cash savings and criminals are getting house arrest instead of two years less a day for summary offenses. It's about money, our safety isn't important anymore. We the people have no value, including the victims. The criminal element is flourishing under this type of system, we don't have a penal system anymore unless the public gets outraged and then our Politicians pay lip service. How long before someone convicted of first degree murder is sentenced to house arrest??? Things aren't improving under the Con's leadership because they don't want to bare the cost of incarcerating criminals either. The conservative PM seems to be nothing more than Liberal Light.

Google Peter Duffy and the article should be somewhere within his profile.

[guyser]

Those of us who think for ourselves can see injustice and protest. Sheep just accept whatever they're told, turn grass into excrement, and post it on the internet.

Which breed are you,Hair sheep or Merino?

All jokes aside the justice system is , or rather has been in for a rough ride by many people over the last 10 years. The refrain that we are soft is most often heard.

But what of it?

The courts can do only as well as the evidence is presented to them. The Police, the Crown and the lawyers all have a hand in this. The police, should their investigations be shoddy, and we know plenty of them are, pass up inot the chain of command, wrong, errored filled or against our Charter information. Certainly not all , nor most, but any info that is should be thrown out and case either dismissed or retried.

To say that all judges are soft, wont or cant give out the max, is simple, yet wrong.

The info in this link is interesting. Of the more than 1Million cases heard in court, DUI is most prevalent,followed by common assault and theft.

http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/St...485-002-XIE.pdf

The info also tells us 58% were convicted , those incarcerated and subsequently released on parole were 68% faithful to the release programme.

With a million cases heard every year , and relatively few causing alarm among the populace, I think I see a system that works pretty good, albeit slowly.

At least I know traffic court, as witnessed by me last week, works wondefully. I had to sit through many cases, and I can tell you that the Judge should be named the hanging judge. Max on all counts in his court room. The case I was there for, assisiting the Police, the man had 3 charges, drive w suspended licence, drive w/o insurance, and offer false eveidence.

Max on all three counts, $1000 + $5000 + $5000 = $11,000 . Thats justice.

Edited January 20, 2008 by guyser