Broken Justice - these infuriating cases have it all

[Argus]

We make a second nurse sign off before one nurse pushes meds through an IV, most business accounts require two signatures to write a cheque, most university students get someone to proof-read their term papers etc.

And a supervisor signs off on drug raids. What's your point? We don't make the nurse go and see a judge to push meds.

Requiring a warrant means putting a second set of eyes on the situation...eyes that are not immersed in the investigation and are likely to stop injustice due to overzealousness or mistakes before it happens.

No, it provides a third set of eyes, or a fourth or fifth, depending on how many cops, supervisors and such agreed to conduct a raid. I'm not saying, note, that civilian oversight of the police is a bad thing. I do believe, however, that translating the judge's role of oversight into a basic human right which is so important that we'll free known criminals whenever there is anything iffy about the warrant seems absurd.

In my opinion that second set of eyes should not be circumvented and should not be lied to. I guess that makes me a lunatic lawyer or something.

Of course police do their best to avoid such scenarios. But you make my point for me...even with warrants [validly obtained without lying or fudging based on cop hunches] mistakes happen. So why are you okay with cops not following the laws when they get warrants? Don't you see such practice drastically increases the risk of mistakes?

As I said above, mistakes happen. I think individual cops ought to be held responsible for their mistakes, though, not society at large. If a cop screws up and doesn't do his job properly, then he ought to be disciplined by his employer, just like everyone else. But that should not allow the criminal to go free.

You may well be right...but it is a dodge of the issue...if the cops become the "perps" because they openly disobey the law then they deserve the same contempt that you would show to my clients. You disagree with this because you presume that every time a police officer breaks the law it will be a stupid law that was just getting in his way and that his breaking the law was just to get a bad guy punished.

What I'm saying is there is a vast difference between the technical violation of a law where your honest intent is to bring a criminal to justice, and a guy who beats someone into a coma for fun.

You are naive if you think the honor and loyalty of police officers will serve to protect society as you want it to once you start telling police it's okay to cheat and deceive as long as they think they are doing it for a just cause.

FTA

I think there are good cops and bad cops. I support civilian oversight and review of police actions. I do not support granting get-out-of-jail-free cards to criminals simply because a cop misstepped on some technical violation of a complex process required to justify their actions to a judge.

[Argus]

The kid who actually paralyzed the victim by whacking him with an axe three times and severing his spinal cord got 10 years in jail. His participation was far different than punching, and so was his sentence.

FTA

Do you actually think this is an appropriate sentence for someone who used an axe to sever someone's spinal column?

I mean, even if you leave aside the fact that with 2 for 1 time served, and parole after 1/3 of a sentence he'll probably serve no more than 2 years, ten years is still far, far too lenient for this cold, vicious crime. Fifty years would be closer to justice.

And btw, when you go to attack someone in concert with a guy carrying an axe - you ought to be held liable for anything that person does with the axe. I mean, how do you not know your pal is carrying an axe? How do you not know what damage an axe does if it hits someone?

Edited June 18, 2008 by Argus

[FTA Lawyer]

That's funny, I've argued for serious jail time for white criminals on this thread, so you fellas automatically think if it was a white guy wielding the axe I'd change my tune? And as far as my "staring at eyelids", comment, why don't you interview 10 who have become quadrapelegics after a normal life and get back to us.

My concern with crimes committed by immigrants has to do with the number of known criminals/gang memebers who are allowed to enter this country, and those immigrants who end up committing crimes here. If they get kicked out, they simply disappear. That's another element of our "justice" system that needs overhaul, but I won't hold my breath expecting you two to see the light on this issue either.

The newscast I linked to on the swarm attack showed how the main reason an appeal was made on the giggling convict was they got his giggling on tape. Again, if he would have kept his mouth shut, he'd still be in house arrest. As for the family of the victim, justice is justice, regardless of what family members think. You yourself believe this and ignore the opinions of family members when they disagree with the court's decisions. So now that you've got an agreeing opinion you play the other side of the street!

Ten years actually comes out to, what, under seven? For attempted murder, I know in Canada that's probably considered a lengthly time, but our sentences used to be much longer. What changed? The way we view violent crime, and the way we view criminals. They are now considered more of a victim than the actual victims. Also, in Canada we haven't significantly added more capacity to the prison system while our population, and therefore our criminal element has grown by almost 10 million.

What part of the BCCA decision is "but covering". I gave you the link. Click it, read it (oh, I mean re-read it) and quote the "but covering" part.

I have two friends who are lawyers who are paralyzed. One is quadrapelegic, one parapelegic. Both were young athletic men in their prime when they were injured. One in a car accident, one shot in a drive-by shooting. One is now a provincial MLA, the other I kind of lost track of over the past year.

Kent Hehr

Niether is wasting away looking at eyelids...and by his picture attending the court proceedings, neither is the victim in this case.

I doubt you know the offender's immigration status so, really, your comments were not well-placed.

Fair comment on the family opinion thing...I am often on the other side of that issue saying that the courts should not decide based on what the family wants.

Our sentences used to be much longer and our criminal element has grown by 10 million? Cites?

FTA

[FTA Lawyer]

Do you actually think this is an appropriate sentence for someone who used an axe to sever someone's spinal column?

I mean, even if you leave aside the fact that with 2 for 1 time served, and parole after 1/3 of a sentence he'll probably serve no more than 2 years, ten years is still far, far too lenient for this cold, vicious crime. Fifty years would be closer to justice.

And btw, when you go to attack someone in concert with a guy carrying an axe - you ought to be held liable for anything that person does with the axe. I mean, how do you not know your pal is carrying an axe? How do you not know what damage an axe does if it hits someone?

Violent offenders don't typically get early parole classification.

Read the BCCA decision on the laugher Ngyuen...the courts are saying what you are saying about being part of a really serious crime.

Do I think it's an appropriate sentence? I won't pretend for a minute that if it were me or my family I'd have a tough time with it...but if it's what the law supports, then I accept it as appropriate.

Lobbying for increased sentence lengths is also appropriate if that is your belief...but random slashing at the system without actual facts and refusing to acknowledge things that go right in the system and blaming lawyers and judges for all of the ills of society don't make you look very credible.

FTA

Edited June 19, 2008 by FTA Lawyer

[FTA Lawyer]

If a guilty man is appropriately punished it really does not matter how the cops got the evidence, at least not insofar as whether the punishment is just or not.

If the cops lied to get the warrants to search a serial killer's home, and turned up a dead victim, and a live prisoner, would you still say it was unjust to send that serial killer to prison?

If the cops lied to get the warrants and filled a 92 year old woman with 39 bullets...would you still say punishing the individual cops is "justice"?

Oh what a tangled web we weave...

FTA

[guyser]

Oh what a tangled web we weave...

FTA

Keep preaching it please !

With the advent of video everywhere we are seeing that much of what was discussed in the past concerning police abuse of rights has turned out to be true.

The Atlanta case you provided is particularly bad , but only one of many occuring everywhere. Lets hope our justice system keeps upholding the rights of everyone.

[Argus]

Violent offenders don't typically get early parole classification.

Read the BCCA decision on the laugher Ngyuen...the courts are saying what you are saying about being part of a really serious crime.

Do I think it's an appropriate sentence? I won't pretend for a minute that if it were me or my family I'd have a tough time with it...but if it's what the law supports, then I accept it as appropriate.

But you know very well the law would have supported a tougher sentence. That's even taking into consideration how ludicrously difficult it is to prove intent to murder under Canada's half-assed laws. To the mind of any normal person, a guy who swings an axe at another man's neck is guilty of attempted murder right then and there. But no, not under Canada's law. Which is why this scumbag wasn't charged with attempted murder. Those laws need to be amended. If you shoot or stab anyone in the head or torso, or wield a deadly weapon like an axe at someone's head or torso, you should automatically be considered guilty of attempted murder.

Lobbying for increased sentence lengths is also appropriate if that is your belief.

..

The sentence lengths parliament has created in law are quite generally good enough. What we need to do is get rid of most of these judges and put people in place who will punish crime, particularly violent crime, appropriately.

Edited June 19, 2008 by Argus

[Argus]

If the cops lied to get the warrants and filled a 92 year old woman with 39 bullets...would you still say punishing the individual cops is "justice"?

Oh what a tangled web we weave...

FTA

Yeah and that happens, like, every day. Why, if it weren't for you and the judges cops probably be randomly shooting old ladies in the streets just for laughs.

Thank GOD we have you to protect us from that.

[Wilber]

While I acknowledge that there are maximum sentences that the judiciary can apply, I have long since given up on the idea that FTA could acknowledge that his profession or the judiciary could be at least part of the problem but what the hell. Link

[FTA Lawyer]

Yeah and that happens, like, every day. Why, if it weren't for you and the judges cops probably be randomly shooting old ladies in the streets just for laughs.

Thank GOD we have you to protect us from that.

I'm sure the 92 year old dead lady and her family take great comfort in knowing that cops lying to get warrants which then lead to unlawful raids which then lead to old ladies getting killed by lying cops only happens once in a while.

You're right, I really should stop advocating that police follow the law...what was I thinking?

FTA

[FTA Lawyer]

While I acknowledge that there are maximum sentences that the judiciary can apply, I have long since given up on the idea that FTA could acknowledge that his profession or the judiciary could be at least part of the problem but what the hell. Link

I will readily concede that lawyers could do better to improve the system, judges, clerks, and "joe public" too (eg. make it a priority to use tax $$ to hire good prosecutors and judges).

Hell, I'm one of the first to openly criticize improper judicial conduct in real life:

Judge Loses Composure

Judge Falls Asleep

Judge Decides Case Before All Witnesses Heard

Judge Decides Case Before All Witnesses Heard

I am appearing in this thread to be always defending the system because no one else is...and a whole pile of people pulling up unfair anecdotal evidence of a broken justice system makes it look like it is so.

Now, the critics will likely read the cases I have cited above and blame me more for the ills of society. After all, I have successfully appealed convictions for some pretty serious stuff. But it all fits in with my desire to adhere to the rule of law.

I have no problem with criminals being convicted and sent to jail...but only if it is done fairly.

As for the article you posted, I saw it earlier and it certainly does make one wonder what to do. People with hundreds of convictions are hardly upstanding citizens. Should judges and lawyers bear responsibility for such situations? In some cases I'm sure they should. Should mental health professionals take their share of the blame? Likely for some cases also. Teachers? Maybe. Parents? More than a few times. And the list goes on and on...

I certainly don't have all of the answers, but I will likely continue to argue strongly against justice-system bashing that is misleading or unfairly inflammatory.

I guess I just can't help myself.

FTA

[Wilber]

As for the article you posted, I saw it earlier and it certainly does make one wonder what to do. People with hundreds of convictions are hardly upstanding citizens. Should judges and lawyers bear responsibility for such situations? In some cases I'm sure they should. Should mental health professionals take their share of the blame? Likely for some cases also. Teachers? Maybe. Parents? More than a few times. And the list goes on and on...

I certainly don't have all of the answers, but I will likely continue to argue strongly against justice-system bashing that is misleading or unfairly inflammatory.

It is obvious what judges should be doing in these cases. The police have been conscientious enough to get thirty convictions against these people, should they waste even more time getting thirty more for a quarter of the return. And you wonder why they sometimes get sloppy (your words). When the judiciary feels the police are guilty of sloppy work that shows a lack of respect for the law they hold them accountable. Who is holding the judiciary responsible for their sloppy work, lack of respect for the law and the victims of these criminals other than public opinion and please don't tell me it is other judges.

[sharkman]

It really seems they are being held "accountable" only by themselves. The public is suspicious of police internal investigations, since they seem to protect themselves. Yet there is no independent watchdog at all on these brutal cases we've all linked to in this thread, save for the media, which has no power to convict bad judges, and can have an agenda of its own.

In yet another brutal case, a teacher who also happens to be a child molester just got 25 months after pleading guilty to sexually assaulting An 8 yr old boy. Sigh. Prior to this, he was found guilty last summer of assaulting a seven yr old girl, and was sentenced to time already served. In that lovely 2 for 1 time served deal, his 8 months in custody turned into 16 months, and the judge thought he had paid his debt to society with that. Hah. It gets better. In 2002, the pervert had pled guilty to sexually assaulting 5 of his own students, it is unclear what time he got for that.

I'm sure you can all see the judges points of views on this. He went from assaulting his own students to single victims that are getting progressively older, so the pervert is at least moving in the right direction. He must therefore be given the freedom to commit several more assaults so he can work his way into legal territory with 16 yr olds.

In reality, previous to these crimes, he was accused of touching students while teaching in Nova Scotia's Annapolis Valley, in the mid 90s. He left town and came to BC, where he has since built up a nice long record that anyone with common sense could see makes him a danger to the public. The Crown applied to have him declared a dangerous offender, but it was denied.

[Bryan]

It really seems they are being held "accountable" only by themselves. The public is suspicious of police internal investigations, since they seem to protect themselves. Yet there is no independent watchdog at all on these brutal cases we've all linked to in this thread, save for the media, which has no power to convict bad judges, and can have an agenda of its own.

In yet another brutal case, a teacher who also happens to be a child molester just got 25 months after pleading guilty to sexually assaulting An 8 yr old boy. Sigh. Prior to this, he was found guilty last summer of assaulting a seven yr old girl, and was sentenced to time already served. In that lovely 2 for 1 time served deal, his 8 months in custody turned into 16 months, and the judge thought he had paid his debt to society with that. Hah. It gets better. In 2002, the pervert had pled guilty to sexually assaulting 5 of his own students, it is unclear what time he got for that.

I'm sure you can all see the judges points of views on this. He went from assaulting his own students to single victims that are getting progressively older, so the pervert is at least moving in the right direction. He must therefore be given the freedom to commit several more assaults so he can work his way into legal territory with 16 yr olds.

In reality, previous to these crimes, he was accused of touching students while teaching in Nova Scotia's Annapolis Valley, in the mid 90s. He left town and came to BC, where he has since built up a nice long record that anyone with common sense could see makes him a danger to the public. The Crown applied to have him declared a dangerous offender, but it was denied.

Repeat offender. Serious threat to the public. There is no way he should ever see the outside of a prison again on what now amounts to his seventh conviction for child molestation. And the judge gives him 25 months. Insane, and inexcusable.

[sharkman]

What's this, no one rushes to defend the judges on this one? Perhaps I have finally found a case whose outcome is not defensible.

[guyser]

What's this, no one rushes to defend the judges on this one? Perhaps I have finally found a case whose outcome is not defensible.

Yes finally you found one.

How many hundreds of thousands of cases are there each year? Dont forget, monkeys can write war and peace given enough time.

By the way, congratulations.

[Keepitsimple]

The Vancouver Police Department is launching a public awareness campaign. They are fed up with "chronic offenders" who are getting lighter and lighter sentences as in many cases, they rack up over 100 convictions. Here's some excerpts from an article from today's National Post:

VANCOUVER -- William Edward Marshall is no ordinary criminal. The 46-year-old has been breaking and entering, thieving and assaulting for the past 27 years, often unsuccessfully. He has been arrested on hundreds of occasions and convicted an astonishing 148 times since 1979.

Ridiculous? Try "ludicrous," says Vancouver police chief Jim Chu. That's how he describes habitual offenders such as Marshall, now an unwitting poster boy for an aggressive new police program exposing the ugly truth about this beautiful place: Canada's laid-back crime capital is easy on crooks. Last week, the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) and Chief Constable Chu fired the first in a series of salvos aimed at the province's judiciary, declaring that a "plague of career criminals who infect our city" would "never be allowed to stand at any other time in our history in any other place in the world."

"Super chronics" have a minimum of 77 convictions on their rap sheets; there are 27 such individuals in the VPD's monitoring system, and six with more than 100 criminal convictions, a fact that astonishes police in other jurisdictions across North America, Insp. Rothwell says. "It's unheard of," he says. Except here, in easygoing, crime infested Vancouver.

Link: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=613496

[FTA Lawyer]

What's this, no one rushes to defend the judges on this one? Perhaps I have finally found a case whose outcome is not defensible.

I've got nothing to refute your reliance on this one as evidence of justice gone wrong...I would come unglued if my kids were the victims after several previous convictions.

I'll still look to see if I can find the actual judgment to see if there is any legitimate explanation for the latest sentence, but I won't be surprised if I can't find one.

FTA

[Argus]

It's not like these rarely come up, now is it. A murderer who goes into a house, comes back with a knife, and stabs a 16 year old girl in the heart gets 2 years - it's not really murder you see, just manslaughter. And it's not like we should take that seriously.

Girl stabbed to death

I have to say that these kinds of cases are the kind which encourage vigilante justice.

Edited July 7, 2008 by Argus

[guyser]

I have to say that these kinds of cases are the kind which encourage vigilante justice.

You couldnt have picked a dumber example.

Manslaughter , not murder

1) She attacks him w a knife

2) She goes after him w a knife as he walks away

3) She has some physical confrontations w the police

4) She fell unconscious from hitting the stairs

5) Mom agreed to the manslaughter charge.

6) Mom believes the boy is sorry.

Wow.....just wow !

[Argus]

You couldnt have picked a dumber example.

Manslaughter , not murder

1) She attacks him w a knife

2) She goes after him w a knife as he walks away

3) She has some physical confrontations w the police

4) She fell unconscious from hitting the stairs

5) Mom agreed to the manslaughter charge.

6) Mom believes the boy is sorry.

Wow.....just wow !

Uhm, perhaps you missed the part where, though she waved a knife at him several times (women, esp small ones tend to grab weapons but often don't really use them) he knocked her easily to the ground both times without getting a scratch, punching her in the head and kicking her in the stomach to boot, then he walked away. He went into his house, came out with a knife, and plunged it into her chest, stabbing her in the heart - the fact she hit her fucking head when she fell is pretty much irrelevent, wouldn't you say, Einstein? Tell me, do you need help from a home care worker to tie your shoes?

Mom is disgusted with the sentence. Mom says she was told it was either this or nothing.

This guy should spend at least the next twenty years in prison. It's people like you who are responsible for the mass of dangerous vermin like him walking the streets.

Edited July 7, 2008 by Argus

[guyser]

Nah, I read the entire article, twice in fact. I managed to keep my finger moving ahead of the words too!

Wonderful ad hominems today....but then again, you do that when trapped.

Keep on using this as your benchmark case since it is quite funny to read the rants.

Of course this girl would be exactly the type you would want to throw out of this country if she had an ounce of "immigration blood" in her. But thats beside the point.

Yes, I am responsible for the "mass of dangerous vermin" roaming our streets. Too funny Argus, too funny.

Thanks for the laugh

[Argus]

Nah, I read the entire article, twice in fact. I managed to keep my finger moving ahead of the words too!

Too bad you couldn't get your brain moving.

Wonderful ad hominems today....but then again, you do that when trapped.

Keep on using this as your benchmark case since it is quite funny to read the rants

.

You find the murder of a 16 year old girl amusing, do you.

Of course this girl would be exactly the type you would want to throw out of this country if she had an ounce of "immigration blood" in her. But thats beside the point.

Brainless and full of shit too, but that describes most of what you write is.

[guyser]

Too bad you couldn't get your brain moving.

.

You find the murder of a 16 year old girl amusing, do you.

Brainless and full of shit too, but that describes most of what you write is.

Case in point. Thank you.

My brain is working quite well, at least well enough not to be so stupid as to use this case as proof of a bad justice system. So by all mean, embarass yourself and spout this as your shining beacon.

You have been schooled in this subject by FTA. One would think enough is enough........

[Wilber]

Another judge expresses concern for public safety.