Broken Justice - these infuriating cases have it all

[Oleg Bach]

FTA, don't take it personally, it wasn't intended that way. By "you" I was referring to the system. I have no problem with accepting that the system is fallible, we see it demonstrated on a regular basis. Since when did criminals deciding what they will plea become the definition of justice? If that isn't expediency, I don't know what it is but it sure as hell isn't justice.

What I am maintaining is when it comes to say, censuring the police because they supposedly searched for something they couldn't see, the system is so rigid that it will blatantly ignore the commission of a crime but when it comes to actually holding someone accountable for a crime and respecting the victims of that crime, it can be flexible as hell. You may not see that as inconsistent but I do and I certainly don't automatically accept out of hand that something is justice just because a legal system says it is.

You have to remember that the value system, if you want to call it that is projected into the judicary by the ones that appoint them. Hate to be cruel but some very successful, powerful and influential people that appoint judges really have no value system of any value. I have found them to be cruel and cold and blame all bad behaviour by people who breach law - on "human nature". So in the minds of these old guys the human race is a right off and not to be respected so it is a no holds barred event when you get into a court room. How can I put it? OK...I will be blunt..they hate the population and take great glee and achieve a sadistic power surge when they allow judical rulings to in effect harrass the hell out of the people. They are misguided fools..who have more money than brains and who get a kick out of watching the people suffer and say to them selves "Looks good on the dumb animals..they deserve to destroy themselves" - so they assist in the destruction of a society they hold in utter foolish contempt.

When a good act is considered illegal and a bad act is considered legal, then we have a serious problem and a reversal of morality and reality for that matter...for instance - the case in Toronto where the 19 year old girl who is about to give birth refuses to testify against what is for all intense and purpose the father of her child and in effect her natural husband...They judge ordered her detained without charge in her delicate condition until the trial...where she is to destroy her husband and the father of the child via her testimony...she swears she will never call the cops again or fall into that socially engineered trapped based in racism and hate for her - her husband and the yet to be born child. What is this action in reality? I would safely say it is an attack against the family not by police - not by government - and not really by the judge..He has been instructed to destroy this family and nip it in the bud. I suppose there is some appointer who's mentality is expressed this way....NO WAY ARE WE GOING TO SUPPORT THIS BIG N**GER AND HIS HOO..AND THAT BASTARD CHILD.

Sure the liberal henchmen and woman will go on and on about how they are protecting the poor abused woman from this mad bull of a husband (boyfriend) - but they really don't give a damn..This is some very poor social engineering that has trickled down from some A-hole that graduated from Upper Canada College and is pushing 70 - who has to much influence over the judicary...also - if you wonder why black gang bangers are released on bail after being caught with a gun...well I deduct there are two reasons..that he go out and kill more potential black leaders...who are poor but are powerful and bright young men afoul of the law...secondly - to harrass and destablize white society so as they become more complaint though fear and will accept more Draconian laws..that will be send down from the wicked men in so-called high places..this all goes back to the white anglo elite..who hate blacks and dispise the population in general because they are to stupid to love.

[Kitchener]

Real cases.

A perfectly sober man picks an unprovoked fight with another, stabs him to death and shouts "I killed you, you bastard! I'm going to watch you die!" under the gaze of video cameras and in front of numerous witnesses. Manslaughter. Couldn't prove, it seems, prior intent.

Well, shouldn't one have to prove prior intent? That's what 1st degree murder requires, after all. Since all the antecedent factors bearing on his intentions when he entered the situation are missing from your one-sentence description, you've given no grounds for the outrage you want to elicit.

A drug dealer shoots a customer. Upon learning he was brought to hospital still alive he goes to the hospital and shoots him again in the emergency room. Not attempted murder (couldn't prove intent to kill) but assault with a deadly weapon.

Got a link to a mainstream news story about this case and ruling? Thanks.

[Argus]

Well, shouldn't one have to prove prior intent? That's what 1st degree murder requires, after all.

But 2nd degree doesn't.

And in any case, your mind seems to be in the box on this. I'm not suggesting we should be outraged because the prosecutor didn't follow the law (although I suspect that was true too) but because the law should not be defining "murder" so finely that an obvious case of murder does not qualify.

Got a link to a mainstream news story about this case and ruling? Thanks.

Oh I could probably find an earlier post I made about it, if I tried hard, but it was several years ago locally and it wasn't exactly a big news story.

[Wilber]

Well, shouldn't one have to prove prior intent? That's what 1st degree murder requires, after all. Since all the antecedent factors bearing on his intentions when he entered the situation are missing from your one-sentence description, you've given no grounds for the outrage you want to elicit.

Second degree murder does not need to prove prior intent, that is supposedly why the law exists. For murders committed in the heat of the moment. If the examples Argus has provided don't at least fit that description, I don't know what would.

[FTA Lawyer]

FTA, don't take it personally, it wasn't intended that way. By "you" I was referring to the system. I have no problem with accepting that the system is fallible, we see it demonstrated on a regular basis. Since when did criminals deciding what they will plea become the definition of justice? If that isn't expediency, I don't know what it is but it sure as hell isn't justice.

What I am maintaining is when it comes to say, censuring the police because they supposedly searched for something they couldn't see, the system is so rigid that it will blatantly ignore the commission of a crime but when it comes to actually holding someone accountable for a crime and respecting the victims of that crime, it can be flexible as hell. You may not see that as inconsistent but I do and I certainly don't automatically accept out of hand that something is justice just because a legal system says it is.

I didn't really think you were going personal, so no offense taken...frankly, I appreciate the way that we have both been respectfully arguing this issue.

Also, I can accept the point you make above about searching for more consistency between rigid and flexible approaches to justice, depending on the context. I personally don't think the system is as far out of whack as you do, but your argument above is the most sensible way I've seen the issue described from your point of view.

That said, here's a current example of why I don't have blind faith in police and why I will always argue against the law excusing their unlawful conduct:

Police Brutality?

It really matters not to me if the individuals being detained in this video were dealing drugs or committing some other type of crime...watching a police officer gratuitously propel a human being down a flight of stairs makes me sick to my stomach.

If the guy tossed down the stairs gets a free pass on criminal charges he may have been facing out of this incident, it is not the judge's fault for being "liberal", nor the defence lawyer's fault for being "sneaky" nor the Crown's fault for being "soft".

FTA

[Wilber]

I don't have blind faith in the police either but have even less in the legal system in general. By all means take the police to task for such actions but don't ignore everything else as you do it. I obey the law because I want to live in a civil society not because I fear what it may do to me. In fact, more and more I fear it because of what it is not prepared to do.

Vancouver and the rest of BC has become a mecca for chronic offenders on non returnable warrants (a modern Canadian equivalent of the old west, "don't show your face in town again") from other provinces, in large part because our panty waisted judicial system (particularly at the appeals level) refuses to deal with them. In addition to multiple, often serious offenses in other provinces, some have well over 30 convictions in BC and are still on the street.

In frustration the Vancouver City Police initiated what they call a CON AIR program where people were asked to donate their frequent flier points to send these people back where they belong. The program has proved popular enough that the Provincial Government is now providing a grant to support it from proceeds of crime money. In short, the police, the public and now the government no longer have faith in the legal system living up to its responsibilities in these situations and are now looking for other methods to deal with the problem.

Link

[FTA Lawyer]

I don't have blind faith in the police either but have even less in the legal system in general. By all means take the police to task for such actions but don't ignore everything else as you do it. I obey the law because I want to live in a civil society not because I fear what it may do to me. In fact, more and more I fear it because of what it is not prepared to do.

Vancouver and the rest of BC has become a mecca for chronic offenders on non returnable warrants (a modern Canadian equivalent of the old west, "don't show your face in town again") from other provinces, in large part because our panty waisted judicial system (particularly at the appeals level) refuses to deal with them. In addition to multiple, often serious offenses in other provinces, some have well over 30 convictions in BC and are still on the street.

In frustration the Vancouver City Police initiated what they call a CON AIR program where people were asked to donate their frequent flier points to send these people back where they belong. The program has proved popular enough that the Provincial Government is now providing a grant to support it from proceeds of crime money. In short, the police, the public and now the government no longer have faith in the legal system living up to its responsibilities in these situations and are now looking for other methods to deal with the problem.

Link

Look, I can completely accept your views as being different from mine and I can even adopt some things you advocate, but your last example is completely unfair as a criticism of a "panty waisted judicial system".

In fact, your example highlights the fact that there is often a disconnect in people espousing strong law and order views but not being willing to pay for what they seek.

The "non-returnable" warrant situation boils down to one single simple thing...MONEY. Many who would blame the "system" for allowing criminals to skip out on charges to another place far enough away don't realize that lack of taxpayer funding is the only reason a person doesn't get sent back to the jurisdiction where they are wanted.

As for the CONAIR idea...seems like an innovative way to put seized funds to good use.

FTA

[Wilber]

Look, I can completely accept your views as being different from mine and I can even adopt some things you advocate, but your last example is completely unfair as a criticism of a "panty waisted judicial system".

I think a review of recent BC appeals court decisions would indicate otherwise to many. Not fair to all judges certainly, but for the system in general as it is here, I make no apologies. One of the first people they sent back had 66 encounters with the VPD during his stay here.

The "non-returnable" warrant situation boils down to one single simple thing...MONEY. Many who would blame the "system" for allowing criminals to skip out on charges to another place far enough away don't realize that lack of taxpayer funding is the only reason a person doesn't get sent back to the jurisdiction where they are wanted.

Who is putting a gun to the head of our so called "independent" judiciary to make them issue non returnable warrants? These people aren't skipping out, they are being handed an easy means of avoiding prosecution so the state can avoid its responsibility. Why bother charging them at all? I wonder if they won't just be released again so they can jump on the next bus back to BC with another non returnable warrant issued in their name when they don't show.

[Kitchener]

But 2nd degree doesn't.

Then why your focus on the problem of proving "prior intent" as the key point?

The real issue, in any event, is the attachment to giving one- or two-sentence summaries of half-remembered complex cases, and using this as grist for outrage. The problem is twofold: (1) You may very well be getting it wrong or overlooking the nuances that made the decision the best real-world outcome, all things considered. (2) Even the cases that you rightly depict as badly flawed -- and we have no way of knowing how many that is -- are always going to be overrepresented in media coverage, and hence will confirm the biases of those already convinced that the justice system is "broken".

Think of it this way: The headline "Criminal case resolved today; system works pretty much as it should" is about as interesting to the media as the headline "Man loses eight bucks on the lottery". The media disproportionately eports lottery winners, but it sure doesn't mean that the overwhelming majority of players don't lose. They disproportionately report when justice goes wrong, too, but that also doesn't mean that the overwhelming majority of cases don't work out as well as their inherently tragic backgrounds permit.

And in any case, your mind seems to be in the box on this.

I can't speak to the question of how things seem to you, but I assure you I'm open to any actual evidence and argument. I don't work in the justice system; I have no dog in the fight; I just prefer to point out problematic reasoning based on cherry-picked and anecdotal data. I understand that there may be good reason to believe the "broken justice" rhetoric as applied to the laws, the system, or the judiciary. But none's been given yet on the thread.

[Argus]

Then why your focus on the problem of proving "prior intent" as the key point?

As far as most Canadians are concerned, if you shoot someone in the torso with a gun, or stab them, you are trying to kill them and should be judged accordingly. The law is idiotic in thinking otherwise.

"Yes, I did stab him forty seven times in the chest, but I was just angry. I wasn't trying to kill him!"

"Not guilty!"

Think of it this way: The headline "Criminal case resolved today; system works pretty much as it should" is about as interesting to the media as the headline "Man loses eight bucks on the lottery". The media disproportionately eports lottery winners, but it sure doesn't mean that the overwhelming majority of players don't lose. They disproportionately report when justice goes wrong, too, but that also doesn't mean that the overwhelming majority of cases don't work out as well as their inherently tragic backgrounds permit.

The media might headline outrageous sentences, but they generally report all major crime results, and I can't remember the last time I saw a sentence in line with the crime save for mandatory life sentences for murder. I'd really like to see a statistical study done of sentence scales and where most sentences fall on those scales. Reading and watching sentencing for the last few decades my impression is that 90% of sentences are in the lower half of any sentencing scale (ie, if you can get from 1-10 years for a crime the judge will very, very rarely give more than 5 years).

[Qwerty]

The people you see protesting for the "poor", these so called anti-poverty groups. These are the ones who are against stiffer sentences for criminals. Take it up with them. Hug-a-thug is the motto.

[guyser]

In another case that shows why the death penalty would be bad for this country , Robert Baltovich has been freed and is no longer on re-trial for the killing of Elizabeth Bain.

18 years of hell for the guy. Guess a couple of million dollars will find its way into his account. Perhaps the focus will now go on Bernardo. Id rather they offer Bernardo an incentive for coming clean...but I doubt he would.

[Argus]

In another case that shows why the death penalty would be bad for this country , Robert Baltovich has been freed and is no longer on re-trial for the killing of Elizabeth Bain.

And is anyone here arguing for the death penalty? Or are you suggesting that the fallibility of law argues against giving severe prison sentences to child rapists?

[guyser]

And is anyone here arguing for the death penalty? Or are you suggesting that the fallibility of law argues against giving severe prison sentences to child rapists?

Not sure where the child rapists fit in this?

Bain was not a child.

[sharkman]

It's a fair question that you sidestepped. We still need stiff sentences even if the justice system isn't perfect. Also, in today's courtroom with modern evidence gathering techniques, there is much less chance of the innocent being imprisoned than there is of a murderer getting off on a technicality.

[guyser]

It's a fair question that you sidestepped.

Ok which question.

We still need stiff sentences even if the justice system isn't perfect.

We need fair sentences , since that includes stiff when needed. Robt Latimer got a somewhat fair sentence, but not a stiff one.

Also, in today's courtroom with modern evidence gathering techniques, there is much less chance of the innocent being imprisoned than there is of a murderer getting off on a technicality.

Not so sure I would agree with that.

Technicality? If the law is not applied right, or the rights of the accused are violated , then the law is violated. To put it down to technicality does not in my mind seem valid.

[sharkman]

Ok which question.

Are you forgetting the questions you ask as you ask them?

[guyser]

Are you forgetting the questions you ask as you ask them?

I hope not.

I refer to your last post..."It's a fair question that you sidestepped"

Im asking what question did I sidestep.I will answer it.

[sharkman]

Or are you suggesting that the fallibility of law argues against giving severe prison sentences to child rapists?

Guyser, this is the question that you didn't answer in post 61. We need tougher sentences and more prison space so violent criminals of all stripes get more than slaps on the wrist.

[Wilber]

Here we go again

How the F*** does a designated dangerous offender wind up in minimum security?

[Keepitsimple]

Here we go again

How the F*** does a designated dangerous offender wind up in minimum security?

Mind-boggling.

[Wilber]

Mind-boggling.

It's either a system that completely lost touch with reality or these people are really, really stupid.

[WarBicycle]

Should they ever bring back the death penalty they had better provide the accused with equal access to funds for defense as the prosecution has to prove guilt. Far too many individuals are being found guilty of crimes they did not commit because the crown has unlimited resources to get a guilty verdict, while the defendant can barely afford to hire a lawyer. They also start holding individuals accountable for withholding evidence.

Edited April 24, 2008 by WarBicycle

[FTA Lawyer]

It's either a system that completely lost touch with reality or these people are really, really stupid.

Ironically, what angers me is that I have clients who are getting pre-sentence reports that recommend no community release options for "run of the mill" robberies. I just can't comprehend how this guy manages to "hide" anything about his deviant motivations...he rapes and pillages at every opportunity he gets it would seem!

If you tell a parole officer that you are getting control of your improper urges whilst simultaneously raping someone, do they just take you at your word?

I really am at a loss on this one.

FTA

[Wilber]

It gets even more interesting.

More dangerous offenders in minimum security.