Broken Justice - these infuriating cases have it all

[Keepitsimple]

......and here's another example of our broken justice system. This guy will serve only 5 years of an 8 year sentence for armed robbery and ordering a hit on a witness.....meaning there is a good chance he'll be out in 2 years and will serve no more than 3. Take a gander at this article:

He had his finger on a hit

8 years for ordering kill

By TRACY MCLAUGHLIN, SPECIAL TO SUN MEDIA

BARRIE -- A Cornwall man who hired a hitman to kill a Crown witness against him and demanded a finger from the dead body as proof before payment was sentenced to eight years in prison yesterday.

A handcuffed Kerry Shayne, 43, stood in the prisoner's box and told the judge he was "sorry" for his crimes after he pleaded guilty to robbery, possession of a weapon and counselling to commit murder.

Court heard the bizarre story of how Shayne and Ryan King of Huntsville wore police tactical outfits and robbed William Trowell while holding a sawed-off shotgun to his head in Barrie on Aug. 2, 2006.

The two bogus cops disappeared and police were unable to find them.

Acting on a tip, police found them in Huntsville two weeks later with a van loaded with numerous items, including a sawed-off 12-gauge shotgun, ammunition, tactical uniforms, a fake police badge with Shayne's photograph, red and blue police roof lights, black balaclavas, and a stash of magic mushrooms.

While locked up at the North Central Correctional Centre in Penetanguishene, Shayne learned that the Crown intended to call Trowell to testify against him.

UNDERCOVER COP

"This caused him some concern," Crown Attorney Kevin Sisk said during sentencing.

Through intercepted telephone calls from the jail, police learned Shayne offered a hitman $5,000 to kill Trowell -- but the hitman was actually an undercover OPP officer.

"Do you want to put your dog down?" the cop said in one of the intercepted calls.

"Yes, do it by the end of the month," answered Shayne.

Shayne offered to pay him half the cash up front and the rest upon receipt of one of Trowell's fingers and a photograph of his corpse.

On Feb. 18, 2007, the cop met an associate of Shayne's in Belleville who gave him $2,500 cash stuffed in a Timbits box, along with the address and description of his intended target.

The meeting ended with a promise to send a finger and a photograph of Trowell's body.

A week later Shayne learned the Crown might work out a deal, so he cancelled the hit and told the hitman to "keep the money to do another job for me in the summer."

Shayne will only serve five of the eight years because three years was deducted from his sentence after he was granted the usual two-for-one deal for the 19 months spent in pre-trial custody.

Link: http://www.torontosun.com/News/Canada/2008...pf-5036871.html

Edited March 18, 2008 by Keepitsimple

[Wilber]

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

One would think so.

[Wilber]

More judges from La La Land

How old were you when you learned hitting someone in the head with a baseball bat could kill them?

[jazzer]

In reality, most people in prison can't be rehabilitated.

Please cite all the rehab programs per prison and the stats to back up what you say. Otherwise just hot air blowing once again.

Edited March 18, 2008 by jazzer

[guyser]

Please cite all the rehab programs per prison and the stats to back up what you say. Otherwise just hot air blowing once again.

See post #25

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

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

68%...sound like the majority

[jazzer]

deleted

Edited March 18, 2008 by jazzer

[Oleg Bach]

Stats are all well and good, but where is the mention of specific rehabilitation during incarceration?

No one seems to get it - we all believe in our judicial system - and wonder why it is slowly failing - well it is not failing - the reality is that it is hugely successful and a thriving enterprise - not for us but for crimminals - and I mean the goofies not in the prisoner box but those sitting on the bench and those that are common members of the bar...in time you do figure it out - the crooks that appoint judges - and that do NOT - curb lawyers who harm society are totally happy with the system - when a horrificly violent person is released on bail it is to continue to do the dirty work of the very system that is NOW a crimminal enterprise ----go figure - you are so delluded that you actually believe that judges are honourable...they have no honour - if you have real honour and goodness and a sense of right and wrong - you are NOT appointed ...so you can stop pretending that our judical system is broken - it is what it is....a private enterprise of great complexity serving a rotten status quo. AND we still believe in it???? - that's like the woman that is beaten by the drunken husband who actually thinks he will change - he is what he is - a vicious drunken animal - and so is our judicary!

[guyser]

No one seems to get it - we all believe in our judicial system -snip- he is what he is - a vicious drunken animal - and so is our judicary!

Sounds like you lost in court. Nice ax to grind.

I know two judges, and you could not be further from the truth, at least as respects those two.

One is a lady who I would damn well not want to see up on the bench if I was in court, and I grew up with her. The other is almost retired but a very good judge, I just dont like his perks of office.

[Oleg Bach]

Sounds like you lost in court. Nice ax to grind.

I know two judges, and you could not be further from the truth, at least as respects those two.

One is a lady who I would damn well not want to see up on the bench if I was in court, and I grew up with her. The other is almost retired but a very good judge, I just dont like his perks of office.

It was not my case but I did spear head the event - and after the "lost in court" thing had passed...I suddenly found a document that was hidden for 5 years by the defendant..and this document was used like a dagger being pulled out of a cloak at the last moment....this refusal to disclose was illegal and immoral...what is worse...is that after digging up the transcript that came with the "lost" endorcement....upon reading it stated that my brother and I were in a court room on say the 20th of May....and we consented to being screwed....mean while our first appearance was not till the 22nd....in the transcript a governmental lawyer and our own lawyers introduce us to the judge and say...that both brothers are present...and they give over their rights to the opponent...MEAN WHILE AND I REPEAT - WE WERE NOT THERE...and the defendant five years later knew this as did their high priced band of crooked lawyers...

Here is the clincher.....after the silly court of appeal is over we clue into the fraud...we send off the usual stuff to the Supreme Court Of Canada...along with a few sworn affidavits from all the key players showing clearly we were not present for the initial event....it was quite horrific....that we caught the government and members of the bar and a judge committing fraud against the people of Ontario....the Supreme Court basically were stunned and in no few words said "So you caught us so what"....they had their resident Ottawa law firm give the matter a twist and a final contortion setting an evil presidence - that had nothing to do with the original issues...I tried to explain to my dear brother a few years earlier that the system is corrupt top to bottom and run by a few mafia creeps..respectable ones of course...I also said to him that it was a waste of time and all I was doing was educating evil people on how good and creative people think - giving them more power.

I have no axe to grind personally..but if I could go back in time - I would never have assisted the system in the setting of an oppressive presidence that was actually twisted into the exact oppostite of my good social intentions...what a waste of time and energy...all I did after thousands and thousands of hours of work was make evil people more informed...I did not change them..I would never go near a court again - or will I ever respect that paper tiger of elitist that are the Supreme Court Of Canada - we are a lawless society....and the crooks have taken over...I would say about 50 years ago and they are firmly entrenched....hope they all rot in their success.

[Argus]

See post #25

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

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

68%...sound like the majority

Interesting note in this article. Not only is the failure rate for parole high, but it's dishonestly reported. It seems that if you are arrested while on parole but wind up in a provincial facility instead of a federal facility - well, you're not counted as one of those who failed! And, of course, once you're no longer on parole, you're crimes are not counted. You are considered a success for the system even if you are arrested for murder two days after you complete parole.

Cell Doors Open Too Easily

Another notable article

The National Parole Board must tell us why, between 1975 and 1997, it was party to the murders of 367 innocent Canadians who died at the hands of inmates released from prison as sufficiently rehabilitated to walk our streets again.

Another Date with a Murderer

A question. How many people go to federal prison and then once they get out are never in trouble with the law again, even after their parole period is over? All of the data I have found on recidivism rates seem to only take into account criminal behaviour within 3 years of release. And that varies by crime committed. For some crimes it's as high as 75% (within 3 years). And those are the ones caught and convicted, of course.

[Wilber]

Our system has come to exist for its own sake. Here is another example of the stupidity in our prison system.

Baby used as drug mule

Apparently if you are a prison guard and object to such things you are in trouble with your boss.

On a recent radio talk show a guard called in regarding this. He said he is so discouraged by the system that he has serious doubts he will make it the five years he has to retirement. He said guards who talk to the media face discipline and that prison walls serve not only to keep prisoners in but these kinds of nasty little secrets as well. Make one of those secrets public and you are in doo doo. The fact you are a piece officer doing their job upholding the law is no excuse. As far as keeping drugs out of prison goes, in his opinion it would be easy but no one is willing to do what it takes for fear of the reaction from the prisoners themselves. Any warden who does so would be putting his career in danger by taking such action so they take the line of least resistance for the two years or so that they are in that position and move along to the next rung. Riots don't look good on the record so the tail wags the dog and nothing changes.

[Oleg Bach]

Our system has come to exist for its own sake. Here is another example of the stupidity in our prison system.

Baby used as drug mule

Apparently if you are a prison guard and object to such things you are in trouble with your boss.

On a recent radio talk show a guard called in regarding this. He said he is so discouraged by the system that he has serious doubts he will make it the five years he has to retirement. He said guards who talk to the media face discipline and that prison walls serve not only to keep prisoners in but these kinds of nasty little secrets as well. Make one of those secrets public and you are in doo doo. The fact you are a piece officer doing their job upholding the law is no excuse. As far as keeping drugs out of prison goes, in his opinion it would be easy but no one is willing to do what it takes for fear of the reaction from the prisoners themselves. Any warden who does so would be putting his career in danger by taking such action so they take the line of least resistance for the two years or so that they are in that position and move along to the next rung. Riots don't look good on the record so the tail wags the dog and nothing changes.

Come on guys - the justice system is not interested in justice...some Native brothers got stabbed by a black interloper on my street..actually - two big natives got poked with a knife in the gut and head by some black dope supplier that came into the core from the west end....there was a tail of blood that stretched for half a block...sad cos' it's a nice street..lots of professionals and one former crack house at the end .....seems like rough justice has taken place...I heard as I walked by the Indians (natives) bikering and yelling at each other..

One that I was friendly of yelled out..."no I do not want to go to the hospital" - a couple of hours later..the street was cordoned off with a forensic unit in place... I spoke to a uniform female cop and mentioned what I saw..she was not interested in the least...which reminds me - a year and a half ago I came across few pics in a cell phone...it showed a couple of Arabic looking guys holding double pistols - pointing into the lense...the other shots were a table with about 20 high end hand guns displayed - I took the camera phone to the cops in the east end of Toronto - the blonde blue eyed smiling prick at the counter was NOT interested in the removal of these (what I found out later were American gun runners) from the street.

Here is what I surmise - that the system is running on auto - and the powers that be like it and want as much devide and conquer chaos going on as possible - what else could it be..what I have just told you is true - we are lawless and the respectable mafia that runs the system loves it this way - it's easy to rule those that are at each others throats - THEY HAVE IT ALL WORKED OUT.

[guyser]

Here are some people who get it....

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/...rches_for_guns/

Basically, Boston Police wanted permission to search bedrooms of teens. They were surprised by the resistance.

Glad to see the residents know their rights.

[Argus]

Here are some people who get it....

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/...rches_for_guns/

Basically, Boston Police wanted permission to search bedrooms of teens. They were surprised by the resistance.

Glad to see the residents know their rights.

Nice straw man. People are talking about rapists and killers walking out of jail to do it again and you bring up random searches of teenagers' bedrooms for guns.

We're not talking about policing here. We're talking about a lack of justice from the courts.

[Oleg Bach]

Nice straw man. People are talking about rapists and killers walking out of jail to do it again and you bring up random searches of teenagers' bedrooms for guns.

We're not talking about policing here. We're talking about a lack of justice from the courts.

Hate to break it to you but the common crimminal is in effect an employee of the so-called justice system..systemic harrassment of the populace through these surrogate henchmen is now standard fair...I know one young man with a flat boxers nose that deals cocaine - stocks woman - threatens via the net and in person - who's mother called the cops on the little bastard...he fistfights with the cops on their arrival and who is already on bail makes bail again...now he sits in the parking lot in his car stalking his old girlfriend and really bothering me in the fact that this young woman that he is fixated on who is dating one of my sons wants nothing to do with old flat nose coke head...YET - he feels immune to being corrected or detained or locked up - BECAUSE...he has figured out that the judicary is corrupt and he is in league with them -----don't get me going on the black jerks that shoot up the subway system - stab 16 year olds during swarmings..YET always make bail and walk free...there is only one answer to this mystery of why the bad are allowed to harrass and harm - simply put - the system is so rotten it is evil and they protect evil.

[Keepitsimple]

AARGGHH!!

Here's another one. A guy fires 11 shots at someone, killing him with a gunshot to the head......a jury finds him guilty of second degree murder but a judge overturns the verdict because he said the original judge erred by not allowing the jury to consider an acquittal!!! Then somehow, he is allowed to plead guilty to manslaughter! He's sentenced to 17 years but gets 12.5 years "credit for time served"......so he's got 4.5 years to spend in jail and of course, all of the parole provisions kick in.

TheStar.com - GTA - Man gets 17-year term for 2001 shooting death

March 29, 2008

Peter Small

Courts Bureau

A man who fired 11 shots at another to chase him out of an east Toronto housing complex he believed he controlled, killing the victim with a bullet to the head, has pleaded guilty to manslaughter and been sentenced to the equivalent of 17 years in prison.

Benjamin Allen, now 28, chose to treat the Chester Le Blvd. community "as his personal fiefdom," allowing only those he approved of to live there, Crown prosecutor Sean Hickey told Superior Court yesterday.

On the evening of July 17, 2001, Allen enlisted friends to beat Damien Barnaby, 20, and chase him from the complex, near Victoria Park Ave. and Finch Ave. E., after Barnaby ignored his warning to leave, according to an agreed statement of facts.

Allen fired with "reckless abandon," emptying his Glock semi-automatic 40-calibre pistol in Barnaby's direction as he ran south on Victoria Park Ave., Hickey said.

Allen's friend, Gebre Barnes, fired at least four shots with his 45-calibre handgun. One of Allen's bullets hit Barnaby in the back of the head, killing him instantly.

Justice David McCombs condemned thugs who "take public areas of the city and make them their own with handguns they are so ready to use."

In June 2004, a jury took only two hours to convict Allen of second-degree murder, but last autumn the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned his conviction and ordered a new trial, ruling that trial judge Harry LaForme erred by not allowing the jury to even consider an acquittal. He had called the group attack a "military-like search-and-destroy mission."

Defence lawyer Greg Lafontaine said Allen was a young man when he committed the crime and has matured behind bars.

Allen apologized to the court. "I am remorseful for what happened. Mr. Barnaby didn't deserve this," he said. "I just want to have a chance to raise my daughter."

After Allen is credited 12 1/2 years for pre-trial custody, he will have to serve 4 1/2 more years.

Co-accused Barnes and Tyrone Crooks pleaded guilty to manslaughter several years ago. Crooks was sentenced to four years and 10 months and Barnes got nine years.

Link: http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/407020

Edited March 30, 2008 by Keepitsimple

[Wilber]

Here's another one. A guy fires 11 shots at someone, killing him with a gunshot to the head......a jury finds him guilty of second degree murder but a judge overturns the verdict because he said the original judge erred by not allowing the jury to consider an acquittal!!! Then somehow, he is allowed to plead guilty to manslaughter! He's sentenced to 17 years but gets 12.5 years "credit for time served"......so he's got 4.5 years to spend in jail and of course, all of the parole provisions kick in.

Makes you wonder if juries aren't really just there for show and are only tolerated by the judicial system because they have no choice.

[guyser]

Nice straw man. People are talking about rapists and killers walking out of jail to do it again and you bring up random searches of teenagers' bedrooms for guns.

We're not talking about policing here. We're talking about a lack of justice from the courts.

It wasnt a straw man.

I did however place it in the wrong thread. It should have gone in the "violate rights " thread .

[FTA Lawyer]

Makes you wonder if juries aren't really just there for show and are only tolerated by the judicial system because they have no choice.

If a judge doesn't give the proper legal options to the jury, then he is usurping their function. If a jury is wrongly instructed by a judge to convict no matter what, then it's not really their decision is it?

Then, for the Crown to make a deal to get 17 years for manslaughter rather than run the trial over again and risk an outright acquittal is called making the best of a bad situation.

Plea bargains have their place in ensuring justice...a bird in the hand...

FTA

[Wilber]

If a judge doesn't give the proper legal options to the jury, then he is usurping their function. If a jury is wrongly instructed by a judge to convict no matter what, then it's not really their decision is it?

Then, for the Crown to make a deal to get 17 years for manslaughter rather than run the trial over again and risk an outright acquittal is called making the best of a bad situation.

Plea bargains have their place in ensuring justice...a bird in the hand...

FTA

The Crown had no idea what the judge was going to do during the first trial yet the charge was murder. They risked acquittal then, why the plea bargain? Where is the bad situation that didn't exist the first time? I don't see it as justice served at all. Calling a crime something it isn't, is not justice served and a bird in the hand is often just another term for expediency.

Edited April 7, 2008 by Wilber

[FTA Lawyer]

The Crown had no idea what the judge was going to do during the first trial yet the charge was murder. They risked acquittal then, why the plea bargain? Where is the bad situation that didn't exist the first time? I don't see it as justice served at all. Calling a crime something it isn't, is not justice served and a bird in the hand is often just another term for expediency.

There is no doubt that these types of decisions will be unpopular ones at the best of times. I do not purport to know what was taken into account by the Crown who did this deal, but at some point, getting a guaranteed 17 years for manslaughter with an additional investment of resources of a few thousand dollars of public money is far better than taking a chance at 25 years with an additional half-million or more down the drain.

Call it expediency if you want, but the victim's family would not likely be more pleased at an acquittal after a second trial than they would be with 17 years now. Like it or not, acting in the public interest for the Crown means considering the best allocation of scarce resources.

FTA

[Wilber]

There is no doubt that these types of decisions will be unpopular ones at the best of times. I do not purport to know what was taken into account by the Crown who did this deal, but at some point, getting a guaranteed 17 years for manslaughter with an additional investment of resources of a few thousand dollars of public money is far better than taking a chance at 25 years with an additional half-million or more down the drain.

Call it expediency if you want, but the victim's family would not likely be more pleased at an acquittal after a second trial than they would be with 17 years now. Like it or not, acting in the public interest for the Crown means considering the best allocation of scarce resources.

FTA

It's interesting how the same people who will go to any lengths and expense to protect the "rights" of someone who is in the process of committing a crime, are the same ones who will plea bargain and otherwise wheel and deal when administering justice to those same criminals and with the rights of victims because the system can't get it right. In such cases making it up as you go along and a bird in the hand is good enough. It amuses me just how flexible your principles are.

[FTA Lawyer]

It's interesting how the same people who will go to any lengths and expense to protect the "rights" of someone who is in the process of committing a crime, are the same ones who will plea bargain and otherwise wheel and deal when administering justice to those same criminals and with the rights of victims because the system can't get it right. In such cases making it up as you go along and a bird in the hand is good enough. It amuses me just how flexible your principles are.

Well, I don't think that you can fairly comment on what my principles are...I am arguing an issue with you here, not committing myself to personal positions at a judicial confirmation hearing or anything.

Even you must accept Wilber that any system run by humans is inherently fallible. In any given case, the state may just not have what it needs to prove its "top count" on an indictment...isn't necessarily someone's fault, it's just the way things are.

If a guy fully admits to being guilty of manslaughter...but denies having intended to kill, then a plea to the lesser count is often the very definition of justice.

If a really bad murderer gets manslaughter as a deal when the Crown has serious concerns about its ability to prove it's case, it's making lemonade out of lemons as far as the state is concerned. Maybe not much sugar in the mix, but lemonade nonetheless.

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.

I can tell you many stories about harsh justice being meted out in Alberta that simply never made a blip on the media radar screen. As such, the window into the "system" that the public gets is stained with editorial excrement...which makes things look far worse than they actually are.

FTA

[Argus]

Even you must accept Wilber that any system run by humans is inherently fallible. In any given case, the state may just not have what it needs to prove its "top count" on an indictment...isn't necessarily someone's fault, it's just the way things are.

If a guy fully admits to being guilty of manslaughter...but denies having intended to kill, then a plea to the lesser count is often the very definition of justice.

Nonsense. Bad law is bad law, and my understanding is our law on homicide is about as bad as law gets anywhere in the western world. It is ludicrously difficulty, it seems, to prove murder. A man can shoot another seventeen times and kill him, then claim he didn't really intend to kill him and the judge nods wisely and says "Manslaughter then".

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.

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.

[Wilber]

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.