Broken Justice - these infuriating cases have it all

[guyser]

Street Racing now carries a maximum penalty of Life in Prison. See if you can justify why this criminal got House Arrest for killing an innocent person....oh and he got a fine of $1250 for driving without insurance. Heck - it costs more for insurance than it does for the fine. Read on:

I do have some issue with this sentence. As for time served (11 months) and the already established 3-1 for time, I am ok with .I would have liked more but it does amount to 5 yrs sentence.

Also, He was banned from driving for life, good as I see it.

But the judge should have imposed the max on both the insurance and the fraud, $5000 a piece.Especially in light of the 66 cell calls between the three idiots.

[Keepitsimple]

I do have some issue with this sentence. As for time served (11 months) and the already established 3-1 for time, I am ok with .I would have liked more but it does amount to 5 yrs sentence.

Also, He was banned from driving for life, good as I see it.

But the judge should have imposed the max on both the insurance and the fraud, $5000 a piece.Especially in light of the 66 cell calls between the three idiots.

I wish I could see it that way but house arrest doesn't really count for anything as far as I'm concerned - at least in a case like this. The pre-sentence custody norm is 2-1 - it's only 3-1 if the criminal has endured some sort of egregious hardship while in custody. I guess the point is that this case of strett-racing - as far as I can tell - is an extreme example of the crime....perhaps rating a 9 out of 10 in seriousness. With that in mind, the sentence bears no relation to the max life sentence. I would have thought somewhere around 8 to 10 years would have been acceptable. If it was 10 for example - take off 2 years for pre-sentence credit leaving 8 years to serve. He's out after serving one-third more than likely which means he's in jail for less than 3 years. Even if he doesn't get paroled which is almost impossible, statutory release after two-thirds comes into effect but even so, he serves only about 5 additional years. That would at least send a bit of a message to street racers and a bit of justice to the widow.

[guyser]

I wish I could see it that way but house arrest doesn't really count for anything as far as I'm concerned - at least in a case like this.

It doesnt amount to the same as behind bars, I grant you that , but it does come with severe restrictions and I suspect this kid will be closely watched.

The pre-sentence custody norm is 2-1 - it's only 3-1 if the criminal has endured some sort of egregious hardship while in custody. I guess the point is that this case of strett-racing - as far as I can tell - is an extreme example of the crime....perhaps rating a 9 out of 10 in seriousness. With that in mind, the sentence bears no relation to the max life sentence. I would have thought somewhere around 8 to 10 years would have been acceptable. If it was 10 for example - take off 2 years for pre-sentence credit leaving 8 years to serve. He's out after serving one-third more than likely which means he's in jail for less than 3 years. Even if he doesn't get paroled which is almost impossible, statutory release after two-thirds comes into effect but even so, he serves only about 5 additional years. That would at least send a bit of a message to street racers and a bit of justice to the widow.

I thought it was 3-1 but yours makes more sense, egregiousness of time served in custody.

I dont like this law of street racing at all. We laready have laws on the books, and we have precedents set that could have sent this kid to the pen longer than he is/was. Dangerous driving causing death for one, vehiculr manslaughter for another. I dont know the max for either, but can recall more severe penalties being given based on those charges.

[Oleg Bach]

It doesnt amount to the same as behind bars, I grant you that , but it does come with severe restrictions and I suspect this kid will be closely watched.

I thought it was 3-1 but yours makes more sense, egregiousness of time served in custody.

I dont like this law of street racing at all. We laready have laws on the books, and we have precedents set that could have sent this kid to the pen longer than he is/was. Dangerous driving causing death for one, vehiculr manslaughter for another. I dont know the max for either, but can recall more severe penalties being given based on those charges.

Here is an announcement folks! The judicary does not judge..between right or wrong...all cases are policy evaluations and the out come is carved in stone regarding the policy applied that maintains the status quo - the status quo is not interested in law or justice. Lawyers are lawless and usually renegade legalists prone to great corruption...as Shakespear said..they should all be hung....How in heavens name do we expect our justice system to work when the men and woman are dis-honourable and the so-called judges are refered to as "You Honour" and most have no honour.

[Keepitsimple]

Here's another one that will get your blood boiling. The whole article itself is outrageous but what is particularly unsettling is that some soft-headed judges are now awarding 2 or 1 credit for pre-sentence House Arrest!!!

Following his re-arrest, he was allowed to plead guilty to manslaughter and, to add insult to injury, he was rewarded with two-for-one credit not only for his time in custody, but also for time he served under house arrest -- all while spewing human feces on his neighbour's property.

Link: http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/...5777616-sun.php

[interiorboy]

A b---- and complain, p--- and moan about the legal system contest, love it. I have a suggestion, maybe we should have an initiation into adulthood like the primitives (maybe a basic understanding of the laws and why they are made) as a prerequisite. Screw it up and it gets taken away then you get spanked . Then ostresized until you behave[just kidding]. Long term jail if you're real bad. Our biggest(root) problem is our attitude [thus behavior] toward each other. We need to teach our children to respect others and that walking over others to get what we want is not acceptable. I have seen guys that I work with teach their boys to show disrespect to another kid while playing hockey. If this gets drilled into a kid's head while playing hockey, would his attitude be any better to others off ice? What if the kid develops that attitude to the extreme. The legal system is only part of the problem. Oh, an attitude that I see is that the legal system should be used as a legal weapon to hurt the criminal. Vengance is an ugly thing. We better not become like them, but hiding behind the legal system to harm them.

[sharkman]

Here's another one that happened in the GVRD this past week, although I can't find a link. Buddy gets a warrant served on him and they find drugs. This past week a judge threw out the evidence because he said the cops did not have cause to get a warrant. What the hell is going on, now judges are eating their own in order to release drug dealers. :angry:

[FTA Lawyer]

Here's another one that happened in the GVRD this past week, although I can't find a link. Buddy gets a warrant served on him and they find drugs. This past week a judge threw out the evidence because he said the cops did not have cause to get a warrant. What the hell is going on, now judges are eating their own in order to release drug dealers. :angry:

NEWSFLASH!!! An example (we assume because no link) of a centuries-old process of judicial review being used!!!

I mean come on, this justice system bashing should be getting too much for even the proponents to take.

When I find out that police had material exculpatory evidence that they kept from the judge when they got a warrant, or they misrepresented the evidence that they did have, then I apply to the trial judge to rule that the warrant was invalid. If the judge agrees and tosses the warrant and the evidence, he or she is chastizing the police who abused the system by misleading the judge, not the judge who was misled by bad cops.

FTA

[Bryan]

NEWSFLASH!!! An example (we assume because no link) of a centuries-old process of judicial review being used!!!

I mean come on, this justice system bashing should be getting too much for even the proponents to take.

When I find out that police had material exculpatory evidence that they kept from the judge when they got a warrant, or they misrepresented the evidence that they did have, then I apply to the trial judge to rule that the warrant was invalid. If the judge agrees and tosses the warrant and the evidence, he or she is chastizing the police who abused the system by misleading the judge, not the judge who was misled by bad cops.

FTA

Your attitude towards this is the reason people get bent out of shape about our justice system: not only are these punks getting away with it, but those in the system are falling all over each other defending the actions under the guise of "that's how it works". We know that's how it works, that's why we're angry.

[FTA Lawyer]

Your attitude towards this is the reason people get bent out of shape about our justice system: not only are these punks getting away with it, but those in the system are falling all over each other defending the actions under the guise of "that's how it works". We know that's how it works, that's why we're angry.

By "these punks" are you referring to police officers who deceive judges to get search warrants?

My attitude is one of frustration when people take unsubstantiated pot shots at the legal profession. Sharkman provides no link, no objectively reviewable facts, no context, no insight and says he has proof that the system is broken.

My response was entirely appropriate.

Hey, I think we should have a thread about the disarray in the plumbing industry. I'll get us started. This one time, I hired a plumber...and he said he snaked out my kitchen drain...but I'm pretty sure he didn't. (Sorry, no link but this one really got my blood boiling) What on earth have plumbers come to!?!?!?!?!? When will the government stop certifying people with no moral fabric to fit pipes and such!?!?!?! I for one think we should elect plumbers because then we'd clean the whole mess up...

FTA

[Wild Bill]

By "these punks" are you referring to police officers who deceive judges to get search warrants?

My attitude is one of frustration when people take unsubstantiated pot shots at the legal profession. Sharkman provides no link, no objectively reviewable facts, no context, no insight and says he has proof that the system is broken.

My response was entirely appropriate.

Hey, I think we should have a thread about the disarray in the plumbing industry. I'll get us started. This one time, I hired a plumber...and he said he snaked out my kitchen drain...but I'm pretty sure he didn't. (Sorry, no link but this one really got my blood boiling) What on earth have plumbers come to!?!?!?!?!? When will the government stop certifying people with no moral fabric to fit pipes and such!?!?!?! I for one think we should elect plumbers because then we'd clean the whole mess up...

FTA

There's a bit more to the negative response from the public. You're quite right that police may deserve "punishment" but that's a separate issue.

Has not a law-breaker transgressed against society as a whole? To give him a free pass because SOMEONE ELSE broke the rules seems a non sequitur!

Does it serve justice to throw out the wrongfully obtained evidence? Would it not make more sense to let it stand and reprimand the officers as a separate issue?

To us laymen, a fact IS a fact, a crime IS a crime and evidence IS evidence. A subsequent crime doesn't pardon the original, especially when committed by another party!

Where does this concept stop? If an improper search of a vehicle turns up a severed head, should the evidence be thrown out to punish the POLICEMAN for not following the rules?!

Surely there could be a better way to correct erring policemen.

Edited June 10, 2008 by Wild Bill

[charter.rights]

There's a bit more to the negative response from the public. You're quite right that police may deserve "punishment" but that's a separate issue.

Has not a law-breaker transgressed against society as a whole? To give him a free pass because SOMEONE ELSE broke the rules seems a non sequitur!

Does it serve justice to throw out the wrongfully obtained evidence? Would it not make more sense to let it stand and reprimand the officers as a separate issue?

To us laymen, a fact IS a fact, a crime IS a crime and evidence IS evidence. A subsequent crime doesn't pardon the original, especially when committed by another party!

Where does this concept stop? If an improper search of a vehicle turns up a severed head, should the evidence be thrown out to punish the POLICEMAN for not following the rules?!

Surely there could be a better way to correct erring policemen.

To us laymen, a fact IS a fact, a crime IS a crime and evidence IS evidence.

That's simplistic and as a layman I resent your implications that we all have such a simple view of the justice system. Facts and evidence are only opinions and interpretations. Some facts and evidence must be must be weighed out giving some more strength and others less.

Justice must be "clean". It can't be tainted or dirty or it becomes a police state. Just like there are different levels of evidence and fact, there are different levels of law. It isn't black and white AND the highest level of law - the Charter - trumps all lower forms when it is in violation. IMV the cops have become lazy and have on many occasions tried to circumvent the proper collection of evidence by inserting sloppy investigations and calling it evidence. In many cases they abuse the law, in order to try to gain evidence, or to harass the suspects.

Yesterday on CBC Radio news it was announced that the police only get convictions on less than 1/3 of the people charged under Ontario's racing laws where they confiscate vehicles and licenses for 7 days. One of the OPP spokes person's said that it did not matter if they got a conviction or not, and that the effect they wanted was already realized long before they ever got to court. That is an admission that they aren't interested in due process - to which everyone is entitled - but prefer the harassment instead. No doubt this will become a Charter issue when the right person steps up to the plate. The racing law - by putting the power to determine guilt and conviction in the hands of the police - is unconstitutional and a violation of the suspect's Charter Rights.

The RCMP are also using their sweeping "criminal gang" powers to stop anyone one they want anytime they want, without cause to search and seize anything "they" deem to be related to criminal gang activity. This has been used to stop the flow of contraband cigarettes, even though the importers are simple shop owners, not related to gangs. The cases rarely get to court where the charges can be heard in due process and instead the majority of the charges are dropped. The RCMP aren't interested in the crime - if it at all occurred - or justice and are only using their powers to illegally seize the cargo and the vehicles without cause and without warrant.

This is an abuse the following:

Legal Rights

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. ....

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right

(a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence;

( to be tried within a reasonable time;

© not to be compelled to be a witness in a proceedings against that person in respect of the offence;

(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;

(e) not to be denied reasonable bail without cause;

(f) except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment;

(g) not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or International law or was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations;

(h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again; and

(i) if found guilty of the offence and if punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser punishment.

12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel or unusual treatment or punishment.

13. A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.

It doesn't matter if the suspect goes free so long as justice is first served clean.

[sharkman]

NEWSFLASH!!! An example (we assume because no link) of a centuries-old process of judicial review being used!!!

I mean come on, this justice system bashing should be getting too much for even the proponents to take.

When I find out that police had material exculpatory evidence that they kept from the judge when they got a warrant, or they misrepresented the evidence that they did have, then I apply to the trial judge to rule that the warrant was invalid. If the judge agrees and tosses the warrant and the evidence, he or she is chastizing the police who abused the system by misleading the judge, not the judge who was misled by bad cops.

FTA

I'm sure not going to provide a link for you, what's the point? In all of the cases I've read here with links, you have always sided with the justice system. Why look, you have even bothered to defend the judge in the case I cited, even though you have no evidence of anything since I didn't provide a link. Beyond hilarious. Any linked case we bring up, you defend the judge and lawyers and attack the police work.

Your opinions are not trustworthy for this reason, you are biased beyond belief. Good thing for your clients, bad for justice.

Edited June 10, 2008 by sharkman

[Argus]

Your attitude towards this is the reason people get bent out of shape about our justice system: not only are these punks getting away with it, but those in the system are falling all over each other defending the actions under the guise of "that's how it works". We know that's how it works, that's why we're angry.

That's exactly right. To members of the system, the process is what's important, not the results. That's why people like FTA don't understand why people are complaining. The process is all that matters. The system must be protected. Cops who in some way or other don't follow the system are the real problems, not the fact the system allows for the innocent to go to jail and the guilty to be set free.

[Argus]

It doesn't matter if the suspect goes free so long as justice is first served clean.

How do you suppose justice is served when the guilty go free? Oh wait, that doesn't matter, right? All that matters is the process is followed.

There is no justice unless the guilty are punished to the proper degree their crime deserves.

[charter.rights]

How do you suppose justice is served when the guilty go free? Oh wait, that doesn't matter, right? All that matters is the process is followed.

There is no justice unless the guilty are punished to the proper degree their crime deserves.

Those who are guilty of a crime should not be set free. But on the other hand those who are not guilty should never be imprisoned because of sloppy and illegal police work. In balancing one's right to fair and equal justice, occasionally some who are guilty of a crime do get set free. The judges are not to blame in these instances and the cops should be taking full responsibility for violating someone's Charter Rights by improperly searching or seizing their property.

Justice is not served if the defendant has not been afforded clean and proper due process. If evidence is contaminated or invented it cannot be relied upon. If the police have a duty to follow a process in gathering evidence and making an arrest then it cannot be relied upon. Since guilt must be proven, anything that interferes with defendant's rights to be protected against unnecessary and illegal search and seizure, the evidence collected, or the statements taken cannot be used against them. Without clean evidence the defendant must be assumed to be not guilty, or must be given the benefit of the doubt when insufficient evidence is not available.

You must be careful not to convict someone in the press. It is a poor communicator of the facts. Rather the Judge weighs out ALL the evidence, ALL the process and ALL the facts and then makes a determination of guilt. If one of those things is missing then he or she cannot make a proper determination.

Frankly, the entire process sucks. However, it is the only thing we have that is working and the kinds of lynch mob mentality you would like to implement was outlawed hundreds of years ago. I personally believe that the process is broken beyond repair, but we haven't anything to date that can replace it fully and fairly. As a suggestion, we need to get rid of lawyers out of the process since they are incapable of looking out for anyone but themselves, in most situations. The law should be simple and fair enough for people to take the punishment on themselves, and where there are those who refuse, then their families or community should hold that right, but only after a fair and clean process has determined their guilt.

Community Justice Forums serve in that capacity and , although they are limited in scope they have some successes in dealing with minor personal crimes. Perhaps something can blossom from that....

[FTA Lawyer]

That's exactly right. To members of the system, the process is what's important, not the results. That's why people like FTA don't understand why people are complaining. The process is all that matters. The system must be protected. Cops who in some way or other don't follow the system are the real problems, not the fact the system allows for the innocent to go to jail and the guilty to be set free.

How can you be so feeble minded as to not see that the adherence to "process" (i.e. the law) is what increases the likelihood that justice will prevail? Otherwise, as citizens we are subject to what any police officer might decide to do on any given day.

You say "cops who don't follow the system" like I'm basing my stance on officers making typos on parking tickets. An officer who knowingly contravenes the established common law and the Charter and illegally searches a citizen's person or home is no better than the criminal who behaves for his own reasons like the law does not apply to him.

If you are ever wrongfully accused of committing a crime, all of a sudden you will worship the "process" and will care a little bit more about the fact that the police broke the law to get the "evidence" they are using against you. Dare I say, you will even hire a defence lawyer and be thankful for his or her knowledge and skill.

If you want a recent example of what I'm talking about, maybe read this story and imagine being this family who did absolutely nothing and found themselves handcuffed on the floor with guns pointed at their heads. I especially like the part how the police vicitims assistance line would not give the family access to counselling because they were "not victims of crime".

Oops, we thought you were horrible criminals...sorry!

Patty Cushing can still see the gun pointed at her face.

...

Cushing, her husband Mark and their daughter Jean were all in the house the afternoon of the raid. Patty was cooking in the kitchen while Jean watched Canada play at the world hockey championships.

Suddenly, the front and back doors burst open and more than a dozen SWAT and police members poured in, Patty said.

The family didn't know how to react. Patty assumed police had the wrong house. Jean didn't recognize the black uniforms of the Greater Victoria Emergency Response Team and assumed the house was being robbed.

"She thought they were going to rape her," said her sister Robin, 19, who was not in the house during the raid. "I can't even imagine what that would feel like."

Since when did we become a society that is so out to get criminals that we are willing to accept innocent citizens being victimized in state-sanctioned home invasions? When we let police get away with it by refusing to exclude illegal evidence because it looks like the guy might be guilty, we invite this.

If I am the demon for demanding that police follow the constitution and the law and the "process", then I am proud to fill that role.

FTA

[FTA Lawyer]

I'm sure not going to provide a link for you, what's the point? In all of the cases I've read here with links, you have always sided with the justice system. Why look, you have even bothered to defend the judge in the case I cited, even though you have no evidence of anything since I didn't provide a link. Beyond hilarious. Any linked case we bring up, you defend the judge and lawyers and attack the police work.

Your opinions are not trustworthy for this reason, you are biased beyond belief. Good thing for your clients, bad for justice.

Okay, don't provide the link for me. Provide it for everyone else on the board.

How did I defend the judge in the case you cited when you didn't cite a case or even attempt to provide any facts about what the judge is supposed to have done that made you so upset? Your post was blatant justice system bashing without foundation whatsoever...and even the posters who have been arguing against me will have to completely agree with me on that.

As for me "always siding with the justice system" because I am "biased beyond belief" take a look at post #74...and then quickly erase it from your mind...so you don't have to let things like truth and fact get in your way in your next post:

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.

Post #48 has another good example of my outrageous inability to consider the other side of the argument:

Where you and others have the real issue is if a bad dude seemingly gets a break for no damn good reason. "Soft" judge or incompetent Crown or devious defence counsel or whatever the issue. I can accept that there are such cases and as such, some complaints of this nature are well-founded.

That said, I don't accept that the system is in the state of disarray that the media likes to suggest by focusing only on the outcomes and cases that incite public contempt...and rarely ever mentioning others.

FTA

[Bryan]

By "these punks" are you referring to police officers who deceive judges to get search warrants?

My attitude is one of frustration when people take unsubstantiated pot shots at the legal profession. Sharkman provides no link, no objectively reviewable facts, no context, no insight and says he has proof that the system is broken.

Fine, lets assume the example given was hypothetical. An exercise in a textbook perhaps:

Police know who the perp is, but their hard proof is sketchy. They know the guy has the evidence in the house right now, and are afraid he'll dispose of it before they get a chance to gather concrete enough evidence. So, they decide to take a chance with a judge and see if they can get a warrant anyway, even though they know they probably don't have enough.

Dumb luck, they get the warrant anyway. In the process of carrying out the warrant, they find exactly what it was they said they were looking for.

If it is determined that the warrant itself should not have been granted given the evidence used for it, then we most certainly have a case to discipline both the police AND the judge for that. Make it severe enough that they'll be more carefull next time.

However, the evidence that was collected still matches what they were searching for. Shady tactics aside, the ends still justified the means, and the fact that they found what they were looking for is the proof of that.

You say the method of collection alone should exclude the evidence and exonerate the accused. That makes people angry, because no matter how it was collected, it still exists. This bullshit about pretending the evidence doesn't exist is simply not acceptable to a lot of people. Evidence collected, and method of collection are two separate issues, and should be treated as such.

[charter.rights]

Fine, lets assume the example given was hypothetical. An exercise in a textbook perhaps:

Police know who the perp is, but their hard proof is sketchy. They know the guy has the evidence in the house right now, and are afraid he'll dispose of it before they get a chance to gather concrete enough evidence. So, they decide to take a chance with a judge and see if they can get a warrant anyway, even though they know they probably don't have enough.

Dumb luck, they get the warrant anyway. In the process of carrying out the warrant, they find exactly what it was they said they were looking for.

If it is determined that the warrant itself should not have been granted given the evidence used for it, then we most certainly have a case to discipline both the police AND the judge for that. Make it severe enough that they'll be more carefull next time.

However, the evidence that was collected still matches what they were searching for. Shady tactics aside, the ends still justified the means, and the fact that they found what they were looking for is the proof of that.

You say the method of collection alone should exclude the evidence and exonerate the accused. That makes people angry, because no matter how it was collected, it still exists. This bullshit about pretending the evidence doesn't exist is simply not acceptable to a lot of people. Evidence collected, and method of collection are two separate issues, and should be treated as such.

Lying and fudging the facts do not ever justify the end. If a cop is willing t lie to a judge to get a warrant, then he is just as likely to lie about the evidence collected, or plant incriminating evidence in order to achieve his own end. That no way resembles justice any more than the dirty cops are judge and jury.

[sharkman]

Read again, charter, Brian did not say lying. He used the example that the cops simply took a chance with the evidence they had asked for a warrant and the judge went for it. It's a hypothetical.

[Argus]

How can you be so feeble minded as to not see that the adherence to "process" (i.e. the law) is what increases the likelihood that justice will prevail?

If the process is a wise one then I'd agree. It isn't. It's fatally flawed. The process long ago abandoned any adherence to the concept of justice. It simply does not care if a punishment is just or not. Nor do many of the people who work in it, most particularly judges. Defense attorneys most assuredly do not care if there is justice. In fact, they're not supposed to want justice. They're supposed to work for injustice - presuming their client is guilty. It is the job of the defense attornie to get the likes of Paul Bernardo off scott free, and if they can do it, they will. And judges appear to be siding with them in their concern for the well-being of offenders, with scant consideration for the well-being of society.

You say "cops who don't follow the system" like I'm basing my stance on officers making typos on parking tickets. An officer who knowingly contravenes the established common law and the Charter and illegally searches a citizen's person or home is no better than the criminal who behaves for his own reasons like the law does not apply to him.

Again we disagree. A cop who violates some technical aspect of law to get a guilty person punished - and remember, these cases do not involve innocents framed by evil cops but unquestionably guilty offenders - is wrong, but not nearly so as a person who rapes women and children, robs banks, beats people and commits murder. You know, the people you work for.

If you are ever wrongfully accused of committing a crime, all of a sudden you will worship the "process"

No, I will still curse the process as unwieldy and incompetent, overburdened by paperwork and lacking human involvement. But you and others like you trot out that old nugget all the time in defending an incompetent system - as if the innocent don't get found guilty all the time anyway! A system as complex and prone to failure as yours is bound to not only free the guilty but imprison the innocent.

Since when did we become a society that is so out to get criminals that we are willing to accept innocent citizens being victimized in state-sanctioned home invasions?

Nobody here is defending inappropriate actions taken against the innocent. What we are decrying is inappropriate actions taken on behalf of the guilty. What you fail to understand is that the basic flaws of the system lead to both. For every "innocent" you are proud to have gotten off there are no doubt three or four convicted because of how insanely complicated, unwieldy and overburdened by rules and procedures your system is. And while you can easily see the need to free the obviously innocent you seem completely bewildered why anyone would want to jail the obviously guilty.

No doubt you will make a fine judge some day.

[Argus]

Lying and fudging the facts do not ever justify the end. If a cop is willing t lie to a judge to get a warrant, then he is just as likely to lie about the evidence collected, or plant incriminating evidence in order to achieve his own end. That no way resembles justice any more than the dirty cops are judge and jury.

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?

[sharkman]

Okay, don't provide the link for me. Provide it for everyone else on the board.

How did I defend the judge in the case you cited when you didn't cite a case or even attempt to provide any facts about what the judge is supposed to have done that made you so upset? Your post was blatant justice system bashing without foundation whatsoever...and even the posters who have been arguing against me will have to completely agree with me on that.

Here is how you earlier defended the judge in my example, instead of just pointing out I had no link:

When I find out that police had material exculpatory evidence that they kept from the judge when they got a warrant, or they misrepresented the evidence that they did have, then I apply to the trial judge to rule that the warrant was invalid. If the judge agrees and tosses the warrant and the evidence, he or she is chastizing the police who abused the system by misleading the judge, not the judge who was misled by bad cops.

FTA

You cited bad police who "abuse the system by misleading" the poor hoodwinked judge.

As for me "always siding with the justice system" because I am "biased beyond belief" take a look at post #74...and then quickly erase it from your mind...so you don't have to let things like truth and fact get in your way in your next post:

Post #48 has another good example of my outrageous inability to consider the other side of the argument:

FTA

Yes, I know you occasionally have comments like these. But think like a lawyer for a moment. The vast weight of the evidence, namely your comments, are siding with the justice system and abusive towards cops. Anyone can look over your comments and see this.

For some reason you seem to hate cops and love judges. Personally, I rate each individual by their actions and decisions. Since we have a lot of bad decisions in BC on top of having laws that coddle offenders, I rate the justice system poorly when it produces bone head judgements.

In the interests of other interested posters, here is the case I was referring to. It is disheartening to see hardened criminals have all of their crimes rewarded with this kind of justice.

Judge Donald Gardiner dismissed evidence against Jonathan Bacon and two others Friday morning, saying that the Abbotsford Police did not have the grounds for the search warrant that led them to a cache of guns and drugs.

In effect he was saying the previous judge who granted the warrant was wrong by granting it.

[Argus]

Those who are guilty of a crime should not be set free. But on the other hand those who are not guilty should never be imprisoned because of sloppy and illegal police work. In balancing one's right to fair and equal justice, occasionally some who are guilty of a crime do get set free. The judges are not to blame in these instances and the cops should be taking full responsibility for violating someone's Charter Rights by improperly searching or seizing their property.

It was judges who narrowed the rules of evidence, judges who decided the guilty should go free to punish the cops - thereby punishing society. And it is judges who routinely hand out inappropriately short sentences. I've said it before and never been contradicted - where there is a scale of punishment, say from 1 to 10 years available to a judge, 90% of all sentences will fall below the median, and most will be in the lower quarter of the available range. Judges rarely, rarely, rarely hand out sentences which even begin to approach the maximum available. No matter what the crime, no matter how vicious, no matter how long the criminal record of the defendant.