Broken Justice - these infuriating cases have it all

[Oleg Bach]

Another judge expresses concern for public safety.

NO GOOD DEED GOES UNPUNISHED IN A NATION THAT PRACTICES MORAL NEUTRALITY. That's the end I have come to after giving the legalist system a good study..The wicked nasties are protected...they join forces and have in effect taken over the nation- the courts and most other institutions now adhere to evil and if you are a good guy you will be very very unpopular and they do all they can to screw you - BUT won't work forever because the good rise to the top and will have authority now and in the end - evil = stupidity and it is temporary power!

[AngusThermopyle]

This case is a prime example of broken justice in my opinion. It certainly does serve to illustrate how effective our justice system is.

Justice In All Its Glory

[Argus]

An excellent example of how completely inept our "justice" system is. A terrorist who was ordered deported twenty years ago is still here, still using taxpayers money to launch one appeal after another after another despite clear cut evidence of his terrorist past and that he lied on his immigration application.

That' just how completely incompetent our legal system is.

Toronto Star

Edited July 17, 2008 by Argus

[Keepitsimple]

Here's an article about a guy who, as a cowardly sniper, shot a truck driver with a rifle - causing him to lose his sight in one eye - and then stalked his former employers. He was arrested with two loaded guns. I thought the Crown would at least be on OUR side. They asked for 6 measly years. The judge has not yet passed sentence but you can bet it won't be more than the recommended 6. That means he could be out in less than 2 years and when "pre-sentence custody" is factored in, he might get an immediate release.......and this is the punishment for a "reign of terror"?

BARRIE -- A psychopathic man who wandered around with loaded guns and randomly shot a truck driver was on a "reign of terror" and needs to be locked up, a Crown attorney insisted yesterday.

Michael Cady, 31, of Waverly, pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing bodily harm, along with several other weapons offences and thefts.

Last December, police shut down Hwy. 400 in the Oro-Medonte area and children in five area schools were rushed to the gym, where they huddled as police searched for a sniper after the truck driver was shot.

The victim, Lazic Ilija, 34, was travelling north on Hwy. 400 when a bullet pierced the windshield and hit him in the face.

Ilija was rushed to hospital with bullet fragments lodged in his eye. He has since lost sight in that eye and gone back to Serbia, his homeland, saying he was afraid to live in Canada.

STALKED RESORT OWNERS

A week after the shooting, on Dec. 19, Cady armed himself with two loaded guns and went to Mount St. Louis ski resort, where he had been fired months earlier.

Court heard that after he was fired, he began stalking the owners.

Cady's former boss, Robert Huter, heard someone breaking into the resort. Suspecting it was his former employer, he escaped through a window and called police, who surrounded the area and arrested Cady and seized the loaded guns -- one that matched the weapon used in the Hwy. 400 shooting.

"These are pretty terrifying circumstances," said Crown attorney Lorne McConnery, who asked for a six-year jail sentence. "This is a man who is psychopathic and homicidal ... He was on a reign of terror and harassment."

Justice James Crawford is to sentence Cady Monday.

[Oleg Bach]

Some times judges can be mean spirited. Some seem to get a kinky kick out of re-releasing a mad dog. And some are just plain stupid overly medicated doinks - then there is policy minus good judgement - few Judges judge - it's a serious problem.

[guyser]

I thought the Crown would at least be on OUR side.

Sigh....

" shot a truck driver was on a "reign of terror" and needs to be locked up, a Crown attorney insisted yesterday. "

I guess he is on the side of the nutbar?

[Oleg Bach]

Sigh....

" shot a truck driver was on a "reign of terror" and needs to be locked up, a Crown attorney insisted yesterday. "

I guess he is on the side of the nutbar?

Crowns are brownie point getters - they insist on convicting innocent people also - I asked a crown once - what is this - you are attempting to convict a man that is innocent - he almost wept and said "it's policy" - So you have judges operating as instructed by those that appoint them - making no real moral judgements and crowns that are like made dogs driven by "policy" - sure they will lock him up - but if they could they would let him go - mayhem is good buisness for the monopoly called the justice system - but it would be a bit to obvious to release this crazy - The black robes are black hearted and they love the "privledge" that they abuse for profit and power.

[guyser]

Crowns are brownie point getters -blah blah bullshit I lost in court blah blah blah- The black robes are black hearted and they love the "privledge" that they abuse for profit and power.

Save it. We know, you lost and are bitter.

(frontal lobotomy or bottle in front of me)

[Oleg Bach]

Save it. We know, you lost and are bitter.

(frontal lobotomy or bottle in front of me)

No No No - it's not that - I don't give a damn..about winning or losing with these peeps - The point you are going to understand and understand it now - is the justice system is NOT broken - it works exactly the way it is designed - it works for them but not for YOU ---- that's the very nature of privledge - and those that run the show - you will never see in a courtroom....I'm not bitter with them - I just don't respect them...I have communicated with an individual who is not a Judge but a buisness person who has friends who appoint them...it's a closed shop....It's a buisness - If they doled out justice the system would be clean and that would never do - so forget about marginalizing me - I understand - and you my friend are in dream land.

[Oleg Bach]

No No No - it's not that - I don't give a damn..about winning or losing with these peeps - The point you are going to understand and understand it now - is the justice system is NOT broken - it works exactly the way it is designed - it works for them but not for YOU ---- that's the very nature of privledge - and those that run the show - you will never see in a courtroom....I'm not bitter with them - I just don't respect them...I have communicated with an individual who is not a Judge but a buisness person who has friends who appoint them...it's a closed shop....It's a buisness - If they doled out justice the system would be clean and that would never do - so forget about marginalizing me - I understand - and you my friend are in dream land.

I just hate it when these posters provoke me and get me to spill the beans Oh well - it's about time Canada matured and looked at the world though adult eyes - childhood is over buddy - time to get to work!

[guyser]

No No No - it's not that - I don't give a damn..

Of course you dont , why would anyone ever think otherwise? I mean every single time a legal question or post appears, you happen to fill us in on some sad state of your court affairs.

Yea, you dont give a damn ...not you.

(how does one -via internet- make that hand jerking motion?

[Mr.Canada]

Thank the Liberal Party of Canada for this. They have set the tone for hug a thug sentencing. The Tories and Mr.Harper want to stiffen sentences and bring in mandatory minimum sentences. Deny bail to violent criminals etc. THe Liberals in the house and in the Senate are blocking all of these initiatives.

[Smallc]

The Liberals in the house and in the Senate are blocking all of these initiatives.

I thought that many crime bills had already passed.

[Argus]

I thought that many crime bills had already passed.

I don't think the problem was ever with the law in Canada. There are more than sufficient sentencing abilities under the law for violent offenders. The problem is judges who refuse to issue severe sentences. The vast majority of sentences for crimes, regardless of the severity of the crime or the history of the accused seem to hover around the lowest quarter of the possible range of sentences. Very rarely do they even reach the midpoint, and I cannot recall, offhand, any judge EVER issuing the maximum possible sentence for a crime; be it manslaughter, rape, armed robbery, attempted murder or whatever.

[kimmy]

Sigh....

" shot a truck driver was on a "reign of terror" and needs to be locked up, a Crown attorney insisted yesterday. "

I guess he is on the side of the nutbar?

Requesting a 6-year sentence for a guy who shot someone in the eye?

You know, it kind of DOES sound like the prosecutor is on the side of the accused.

6 years? For shooting someone in the head? He fired a gun at a man who was driving a truck on a freeway, and hit him in the head. And then he was arrested breaking into the property of people who had terminated his employment, while carrying loaded weapons. 6 years!?

What the ****, gentlemen.

I ask you: What the ****?

-k

[Smallc]

I don't think the problem was ever with the law in Canada. There are more than sufficient sentencing abilities under the law for violent offenders. The problem is judges who refuse to issue severe sentences.

My Business Communications teacher used to be an RCMP officer. He was talking about something related to this. He said often we talk amongst ourselves and we're convinced that we're right. We lose all objectivity. That's why we have judges. We may not always agree with them, and they might not even always be right, but the truth is, usually, neither are we.

[Argus]

My Business Communications teacher used to be an RCMP officer. He was talking about something related to this. He said often we talk amongst ourselves and we're convinced that we're right. We lose all objectivity. That's why we have judges. We may not always agree with them, and they might not even always be right, but the truth is, usually, neither are we.

If parliament decides a given crime, depending on circumstances, merits from 1-10 years in prison, one would expect the sentences would, collectively, find a median point somewhere around 5 years. If the median point is around 2 years that would suggest judges have decided that the upper levels of sentencing guidelines are too harsh and decided to ignore them.

As I said, I've been a news junkie for decades, and I cannot recall a single instance where a judge handed out the maximum under the law. I'm sure it's happened, but so rarely that I haven't seen it done. I can hardly even remember judges reaching the mid-point in any sentencing table. It seems that judges lead such coddled lives of comfort and safety they are completely out of touch with the realities of life and the need to properly punish violence and criminality.

[Oleg Bach]

My Business Communications teacher used to be an RCMP officer. He was talking about something related to this. He said often we talk amongst ourselves and we're convinced that we're right. We lose all objectivity. That's why we have judges. We may not always agree with them, and they might not even always be right, but the truth is, usually, neither are we.

If a judge can not tell the difference between right and wrong then he should not judge - You sound like an apologist for the profession. Not all people lose the objectivity...some lay persons have basic instincts and they can see clearly. There are judges that will say "Sir you are not a lawyer and you do not understand the law" - The lay person may say "But I know the difference between right and wrong"...usuall after this type of interchange between lay and professional - the professional walks away speechless.

Most so-called judges as I mentioned are all policy driven. Most so-called judges and lawyers will say "It may be immoral but it is legal"....These are not legalist nor are they moralists - they are haughty eyed and arrogant men and woman of privledge who may have degrees in the law - but do not respect the lay person who they are supposed to serve - they are elitists - I don't mind a judge or lawyer from an established family - the ones I have problems with are - say the sons of plumbers - who want to WIN at any cost..the ambitious money and ego driven priates that have infiltrated the profession.

With my own eyes I have seen members of the bar and bench participate cleverly in fraud - crimminal activity among those that are supposed to supress crimminality - I lost all faith and respect for our judical institutions...even the Supreme Court was aware of the bad behavour and did NOT so much as reprimand their own. I would never in a million years ever walk into a court room again...It has become a place not fit for the truely civilized citizen. They dearly need reform - but it will never happen - Biblically speaking it would be like asking satan to kick out satan. I would suggest to any reasonalbe person - boycott the courts when ever that option occurs.

[guyser]

Requesting a 6-year sentence for a guy who shot someone in the eye?

You know, it kind of DOES sound like the prosecutor is on the side of the accused.

To some it may seem that way, but a cursory check around other countries similar to ours I found it is not out of line.

The MMS is 4 years, and IIRC the max is 10.(Canada)

Australia, a look at a range of sentences suggest that this conviction is the same as it is down under.In some cases that I wuld think worse, they gave less than our man recd.

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/pdo/...minalnegligence

In the USA criminal neg = MAX 6 years.

18 U.S.C. § 1112(a).

Section 1112 provides for a maximum penalty of six years and a fine of $250,000. It does not distinguish between "criminally negligent" and "reckless" conduct. The Commentary to § 2A1.4 of the United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines ("U.S.S.G." or "guidelines") applicable to § 1112, however, elaborates as follows:

Also lets not lose sight of the fact that a psychiatric assessment has been done suggesting that there may be more than just prison for this guy down the road.

[Oleg Bach]

Why would you do a cursory check of other nations, to see if there sentencing guide lines are in line with ours? Can we not figure out on our own what would be appropriate for us? If you have to peer into other various legal systems of others, then it could be come a menue to choose from..It might cause one to pick with what suits his tastes. So and so is doing it so it's okay - we should know what to do on our own when it comes to crime and punishment.

[guyser]

Why would you do a cursory check of other nations, to see if there sentencing guide lines are in line with ours? Can we not figure out on our own what would be appropriate for us?

The reason was simple. To see if we were in line with what others were doing. I hear plenty that we should be "like other countries" in our sentencing so I went and looked.

Not to mention the fact that it was in reply to kimmy, who would, in a matter of moments, shred my thoughts if I hadnt done the homework, and I am not convinced I got it all anyhow.

Sure we can figure it ourt for oursleves. Never said we couldnt.

I thought you posted a tearful goodbye? What happedned, elsie closed today?

[Keepitsimple]

If parliament decides a given crime, depending on circumstances, merits from 1-10 years in prison, one would expect the sentences would, collectively, find a median point somewhere around 5 years. If the median point is around 2 years that would suggest judges have decided that the upper levels of sentencing guidelines are too harsh and decided to ignore them.

As I said, I've been a news junkie for decades, and I cannot recall a single instance where a judge handed out the maximum under the law. I'm sure it's happened, but so rarely that I haven't seen it done. I can hardly even remember judges reaching the mid-point in any sentencing table. It seems that judges lead such coddled lives of comfort and safety they are completely out of touch with the realities of life and the need to properly punish violence and criminality.

The problem often lies in the use of "precedent" cases. It seems all a defence lawyer has to do is find a similar case where a judge has given a lenient sentence and the chances are that the criminal will not get any more than that......and slowly but surely, precedent sentencing erodes the original intent and spirit of the guidelines. It's really quite sickening but is made worse by our outrageous parole and pre-sentence 2 for 1 and 3 for 1 "credit for time served". It's broken.....badly broken.

Edited December 20, 2008 by Keepitsimple

[Argus]

To some it may seem that way, but a cursory check around other countries similar to ours I found it is not out of line.

The MMS is 4 years, and IIRC the max is 10.(Canada)

Section 1112 provides for a maximum penalty of six years and a fine of $250,000. It does not distinguish between "criminally negligent" and "reckless" conduct. The Commentary to § 2A1.4 of the United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines ("U.S.S.G." or "guidelines") applicable to § 1112, however, elaborates as follows:

The error you make is in presuming that someone who deliberately shoots someone in the head in the US or other jurisdictions would be charged with criminal negligence. In all likelihood, in most areas, he would be charged with attempted murder.

In Canada, however, judges have interpreted the law so narrowly that, in effect, unless a defendant confesses that he fully intended to commit murder when he shot, stabbed or fed someone into a trash compactor it is virtually impossible to convict of attempted murder. Therefore people get charged with things like negligent use of a firearm, or assault with a deadly weapon or something similar.

[Guest tiffyp0p]

i just want to say thank you to all the people that realize these creeps didnt get the time they deserved for what they did to us.. they will be released soon and free to do what ever they please, one thing we're scared of is they will come back to finish the job they didnt get to finish completely. my brother in law will live the rest of his life with constant migraines, mood swings and depression because of this tragedy. while these cowards continue on with their lives like nothing ever happened. :angry:

[Keepitsimple]

Hot off the press from The Star.....the Toronto 18 terrorist leader has been sentenced to "Life" in prision.....but will be eligible for parole in 6 years. This for the planned attempted murder of scores of innocent people by blowing up various buildings.

The architect of an Al Qaeda-inspired terror plot to cripple Canada's economy and unleash mass carnage by blowing up buildings in downtown Toronto has been sentenced to life in prison.

"The potential for loss of life existed on a scale never before seen in Canada," said Justice Bruce Durno, while sentencing Zakaria Amara, one of the linchpins of the Toronto 18 terror cell and mastermind of a "spine-chilling" plot.

"Had the plan been implemented, it would've changed the lives of many, if not all Canadians, forever," Durno told the Brampton court, saying this is one of those "rarest of cases" where the maximum sentence is appropriate, even for a young first offender.

The sentence is the stiffest ever given under the Anti-Terrorism Act, which was introduced after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S. The 24-year-old Mississauga man will be eligible for parole in six years and three months.

Link: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/crime/article/752507--life-term-for-terror-ringleader

Edited January 19, 2010 by Keepitsimple