Broken Justice - these infuriating cases have it all

[Keepitsimple]

With regards to sniffer dogs in public schools and the Court decision.......I would be perfectly OK with the following ande I don't really see how it would infringe on anyone's rights:

At the beginning of each school year, all children are brought into the school gym or auditorium and given a lecture on the scourge of drugs and how it attracts unsavoury characters and may lead to criminality, blah, blah. To protect students from being exposed to drugs and the criminal element that comes with it, this school will work with our neighbourhood police force to conduct random searches using sniffer dogs. The principal can go on to explain the procedure that is to be followed when such a search occurs. Parents will also be notified at the start of the year through whatever means is most effective.

Who could be against something like this? I would think that the kids would find it pretty neat to see the dogs going about their chores.

[guyser]

To protect students from being exposed to drugs and the criminal element that comes with it, this school will work with our neighbourhood police force to conduct random searches using sniffer dogs.

Who could be against something like this?

I would be. The SCC has said it is illegal. (but on airport property it is legal)

[Kitchener]

Who could be against something like this?

Someone who thinks the authorities require positive grounds, and not vague, general curiosity, in order to search people for criminal wrongdoing?

[Wilber]

It is a bit over the top I grant you. But a public school is private property.

Students , anymore than you and I , do not have any right to be free of peddlars or gun carrying creeps. As for being on school property it is the teachers who must remain vigilant.

Interesting notion. A public school is public property the same as any other building owned and used by the public.

So, according to you an elementary school child has no right to attend a public school free of drugs and weapons. You have no obligation to try and provide one for them and teachers have sole responsibility for keeping drugs and weapons out of schools, but if they are pro active and find something. you and the Supremes will stick your collective heads up your collective asses and pretend that said drugs and weapons don't exist. Got it. The way you would "protect" rights gives me such a warm and fuzzy feeling.

As for your example for which your provide no link and taking into account that you do not consider the police your friend and are always prepared to put their actions in as negative a light possible, what do I see.

A contractor thought he found evidence of a meth lab and reported it to the police. The police acted on the report, got a search warrant, exercised it and found nothing. So, what's your point? By the way, I've been around a few aquariums and can't recall any that smelled like vinegar but I'm no expert.

A few days ago the residents of a few floors of a Vancouver apartment building wound up on the street while a HASMAT team cleaned up a meth lab found in a suite, on just such a tip provided to the police by a resident. Are you saying that everyone should have ignored it and just kept their fingers crossed that no one got poisoned or blown to pieces?

As for you contention that unlawful searches are on the increase, the proliferation of drugs and weapons has increased at a rate that is out of control, meaning that there are bound to be far more searches conducted by the police, ensuring that a larger number are also going to run afoul of the ever changing legal mine field that the police and prosecutors must pick their way through in order to get a conviction. Your tunnel vision doesn't seem to allow you to make that kind of connection.

I categorically reject your and FTA's assertion that if we just deal with crime where we find it that somehow we will be overrun by Gestapo kicking our doors in at all hours, on any premise. That isn't why people go into policing and departments don't want people who would. But hey, give a carpenter a Swiss Army knife and tell him to build a house with it, you can't expect perfection?

Case in point. Nickleback singer, Chad Kroeger was recently sentenced to a $600 fine and a one year driving ban for driving his Lamborghini with nearly twice the allowable blood alcohol limit in June of 2006. Aside from the obvious conclusion that any system which takes two years to deal with an impaired driving charge is screwed up almost beyond belief, this the main reason police rarely ever charge anyone with impaired any more, unless someone is killed or maimed as a result and limit themselves to 24 hr suspensions, which at least keeps the finger in the dike one more day. To much pain for little or no gain.

After saying that drinking and driving is wrong and that he made a mistake, his lawyer then went on to say that they would appeal, not because he didn't drive with a blood alcohol limit of .14 but because the judge violated his rights by allowing the breathalyzer results as evidence. What a man, how's that for taking ownership of your own actions? Didn't you just mean to say, don't get caught. Seems that a conviction for drunk driving driving is so rare in this province that if it happens, obviously someones rights have been violated. The lawyer also went on to say that the driving ban would be a big inconvenience because his client lives in a rural area. Four words for the lawyer. That's the whole idea!

In a previous post I made the comment that we have become a FU, I have my rights and nothing else matters society. I don't think I could have dreamed up a better example of that if I tried.

[HisSelf]

I did not read this entire thread, but my response to people who whine about the justice system is to point out the number of people (mostly men) who have been found innocent due to the efforts of the Innocence Project over the past 5 years or so. What are we up to now? A couple of dozen? And these are just the guys who were in for the worst crimes that merit the attention of the Innocence Project - Murder, Rape, Child Rape, Child murder.

How many others are in prison for lesser crimes that they did not commit?

[HisSelf]

And don't get me started on the dumb-@$$ drug busts.

[guyser]

Interesting notion. A public school is public property the same as any other building owned and used by the public.

It is my understanding that schools in TO are private property. I may be wrong.

So, according to you an elementary school child has no right to attend a public school free of drugs and weapons. You have no obligation to try and provide one for them and teachers have sole responsibility for keeping drugs and weapons out of schools, but if they are pro active and find something. you and the Supremes will stick your collective heads up your collective asses and pretend that said drugs and weapons don't exist. Got it. The way you would "protect" rights gives me such a warm and fuzzy feeling.

Be fair in this debate please. Dont attribute to me what I have not said.

No, they do not have an ingrained "right" , as in Charter right to have a drug free/gun free school. We all want that, including me.

It is not the Supremes who have their head up the ass , it is you and the assertions you make by introducing aspects, or misunderstanding other aspects, that were not being debated. They are irrelevant.

Hey, if the principal is proactive, or the teacher is, and either one has direct knowledge of drug dealing or guns on school property then the police will be called and the perpetrator will be arrested and charged. And I have no qualms with that.

But we both know that wasnt the case , so frankly you are introducing irrelevant points to this debate.

As for your example for which your provide no link and taking into account that you do not consider the police your friend and are always prepared to put their actions in as negative a light possible, what do I see.

Nope, cops are not my friend. Not yours either. They have a job to do and should I need them, I will call for them. The plumber I called for a backed up drain isnt my friend either. Relevance?

A contractor thought he found evidence of a meth lab and reported it to the police. The police acted on the report, got a search warrant, exercised it and found nothing. So, what's your point? By the way, I've been around a few aquariums and can't recall any that smelled like vinegar but I'm no expert.

Not surpised you do not see the error of that story. Let me show you your error(s) ...one the contractor did not "find" evidence of anything. He smelled something.

The police, without any due diligence went for a warrant. No attempt to confirm etc etc.

My point is, I think I smell something at your house. After your door is busted off its hijnges at 4AM, you and your wife and everyone in the house is handcuffed , the drawers etc overturned , call me when its all over so you and I can have a laugh. Because you will laugh and be fine with it....right?

No, you would be justly upset and pissed off.

A few days ago the residents of a few floors of a Vancouver apartment building wound up on the street while a HASMAT team cleaned up a meth lab found in a suite, on just such a tip provided to the police by a resident. Are you saying that everyone should have ignored it and just kept their fingers crossed that no one got poisoned or blown to pieces?

Wilber, why are you changing the facts of the discovery of this meth lab? Sure it reads better , but in fact you are not telling the truth.

No it should not have been ignored and it wasn't. It was firefighters who discovered it and the firemen called the cops. Happens, legally, all the time.

Stick to relevance can you?

As for you contention that unlawful searches are on the increase, the proliferation of drugs and weapons has increased at a rate that is out of control, meaning that there are bound to be far more searches conducted by the police, ensuring that a larger number are also going to run afoul of the ever changing legal mine field that the police and prosecutors must pick their way through in order to get a conviction. Your tunnel vision doesn't seem to allow you to make that kind of connection.

Oh I make that connection all the time. As searches climb so do abuses of power.

I categorically reject your and FTA's assertion that if we just deal with crime where we find it that somehow we will be overrun by Gestapo kicking our doors in at all hours, on any premise. That isn't why people go into policing and departments don't want people who would.

You cannot categorically reject something that I nor FTA have advocated.

Case in point. Nickleback singer, Chad Kroeger was recently sentenced to a $600 fine and a one year driving ban for driving , this the main reason police rarely ever charge anyone with impaired any more, unless someone is killed or maimed as a result and limit themselves to 24 hr suspensions, which at least keeps the finger in the dike one more day. To much pain for little or no gain.

Almost 7000 charges last year. Hardly "rarely ever" dont you think?

http://thetyee.ca/News/2004/02/02/Liberals...riving_Changes/

Seems that a conviction for drunk driving driving is so rare in this province that if it happens, obviously someones rights have been violated. The lawyer also went on to say that the driving ban would be a big inconvenience because his client lives in a rural area. Four words for the lawyer. That's the whole idea!

Thats Chad Kroegers problem. If he wants to appeal, go ahead.

As for rare, see above.

In a previous post I made the comment that we have become a FU, I have my rights and nothing else matters society. I don't think I could have dreamed up a better example of that if I tried.

Your example is lacking relevance.

Edited May 2, 2008 by guyser

[Wilber]

It is my understanding that schools in TO are private property. I may be wrong.

Wouldn't know. Who owns and operates them then?

Nope, cops are not my friend. Not yours either. They have a job to do and should I need them, I will call for them. The plumber I called for a backed up drain isn't my friend either. Relevance?

Actually they are your friend. They are all that is keeping you from the worst elements of our society whether you have contact with them or not. But if you want to treat them like plumbers perhaps we should put them on piece work as well. You call them up and they would decide whether or not to save your ass and if so they send you a bill. If not. Too bad.

No it should not have been ignored and it wasn't. It was firefighters who discovered it and the firemen called the cops. Happens, legally, all the time.

You're right it took a fire, so is that what it would takes for you to do something about it. A complaint from a neighbour would be no good?

No, they do not have an ingrained "right" , as in Charter right to have a drug free/gun free school. We all want that, including me.

Sgt. Schultz again. According to you and the Supremes the Charter protects the right of students to take guns and drugs to school as long as they are kept of sight and teachers don't have physical knowledge of them, but not the right of a child to not have guns or drugs in their school. That is what I said. You don't see anything f----d up with that logic?

My point is, I think I smell something at your house. After your door is busted off its hijnges at 4AM, you and your wife and everyone in the house is handcuffed , the drawers etc overturned , call me when its all over so you and I can have a laugh. Because you will laugh and be fine with it....right?

This happened in Canada? Did it happen at all? Who says it happened?

Oh I make that connection all the time.

I know you do. Every time.

You cannot categorically reject something that I nor FTA have advocated.

Of course I can, it is your spiel every time this subject comes up.

Almost 7000 charges last year. Hardly "rarely ever" dont you think?

Perhaps you should read the whole article.

Thats Chad Kroegers problem. If he wants to appeal, go ahead.

Oh, he can appeal alright but I'm not surprised that his guilt has no relevance to you should he beat it on some Charter interpretation and that he shouldn't have to take responsibility for his actions as a result. Which makes my final comment very relevant.

[guyser]

Wouldn't know. Who owns and operates them then?

Toronto District School Board + Seperate School Board operates them. The only source I could find was a Sr Property Tax Assessor (he fights for your taxes) and he said in an email to day it was his understanding the property is private.

Actually they are your friend. They are all that is keeping you from the worst elements of our society whether you have contact with them or not. But if you want to treat them like plumbers perhaps we should put them on piece work as well. You call them up and they would decide whether or not to save your ass and if so they send you a bill. If not. Too bad.

I see. Well, you are mistaken since they do not "keep me from the worse elements in society" by any stretch. I make that determination myself.

You're right it took a fire, so is that what it would takes for you to do something about it. A complaint from a neighbour would be no good?

A complaint from a neighbour would be a good starting place. From there it would go to an investigation, and interview with the property manager/superintendant and then a little more legwork. For instance surveillance, checking hydro usage and so on. When all that is done , the police will likely have just cause to execute a warrant.

See how easy that is. Thats all we ask of our police. Do the legwork, keep above the Charter and all is fine.

Sgt. Schultz again. According to you and the Supremes the Charter protects the right of students to take guns and drugs to school as long as they are kept of sight and teachers don't have physical knowledge of them, but not the right of a child to not have guns or drugs in their school. That is what I said. You don't see anything f----d up with that logic?

Yes Sir I see the f*** up logic in that.

The screwed up logic is how you stated that. I see where you are disconnecting here.

The SCC upheld that the police do not have a right to usher kids into a room for hours while they go on a fishing expedition of kids backpacks without any reasonable cause.

They (SCC) did not protect any kids right to take guns and drugs to school. And frankly you know that but refuse to acknowledge that. Keep tryin all you want, that is the truth.

Had the police, through proper investigative channels found a drug ring was operating in that school then the actions persuant to that would be all fine and legal. And I would have no reservations at all .

This happened in Canada? Did it happen at all? Who says it happened?

It was an example of what can easily happen if we ignore the righst of citizens and allow the police to trample our rights.

Of course I can, it is your spiel every time this subject comes up

See , now you are playing dumb. Show me where I or FTA have ever advocated that. For one, FTA would be disbarred , and 2- I would lose my licence to practice.

Oh, he can appeal alright but I'm not surprised that his guilt has no relevance to you should he beat it on some Charter interpretation and that he shouldn't have to take responsibility for his actions as a result. Which makes my final comment very relevant.

Irrelevant my friend.

Chad has every right to appeal based on CDN Law. If his rights were abused he will get a hearing. If everything was done by the book he will be out of luck and saddled with a proper 1 yr licence suspension, and additional $10,000 to $20,000 in insurance premiums over the next few years and the inconvenience of not being able to drive legally anywhere on this planets public roads.

He did it, and he will have to suffer the consequences. He gets zero sympathy from me.

Edited May 2, 2008 by guyser

[FTA Lawyer]

It seems that in this case the police were responding to an invitation from the school.

FTA, if you think that kids are going to take anything from this other than the knowledge they can take what they want, where they want, as long as the wrong people don't see them, you are out of touch.

Would it be acceptable to you if students were searched for drugs or weapons before they entered school as long as they knew those were conditions of going to school. I would hope so because if not, no child has the right to go to a school free of drugs or weapons.

We have indeed become a society of FU I have rights and everything else is secondary. Why else would courts blatantly ignore criminal activity and it's victims in the name of some creeps rights?

Wilber, you are being obtuse.

So much so that you cannot even see that what you advocate is that police can search who they want, when they want for whatever they want as long as the wrong people don't see / report / catch them.

So much so that you vehemently argue to protect a pupil's right to go to school free of drugs and weapons, but advocate this to be done in a manner that takes away my (and your) right to live in a democratic society free of being subjected to random detention and search by armed agents of the state.

So much so that you call a kid with some dope in his backpack a criminal creep deserving of no legal protection but ignore completely when the police knowingly violate the law and orders of the court.

If I think pot should be legalized, then I should lobby the government to change the law...or suffer the "unfair" consequences if I choose to break the present law.

If the police think searches should be easier to do and should be permitted on no grounds, then they should lobby the government to amend the Criminal Code (and invoke the notwithstanding clause)...or suffer the "unfair" exclusion of evidence if they choose to disregard the present state of the law.

I think that forcing a citizen to give up his or her right to be free from unlawful state searches in order to attend public locations (in the absence of any grounds to believe that any wrongdoing is ocurring at that place) is the antithesis of a "free and democratic" society. I do not support random groundless searches as a condition of going to school.

Those who advocate these searches in the name of "safety" are purchasing a false sense of security with a very valuable currency...their civil liberty. Unfortunately, most people apparently are unable to distinguish between a peso and a pound when they spend their right to be left alone by the government.

I have no problem whatsoever in the police and schools and everyone else being proactive to combat crime. I just cannot accept that all citizens must lose their rights to life liberty and security of the person so that police can hopefully stumble across a single citizen committing a crime. Reasonable and probable grounds is an easy standard to meet...searching without such grounds is unlawful and no amount of bullshit rhetoric will make it okay for the police to act in such fashion.

FTA

[Wilber]

So much so that you call a kid with some dope in his backpack a criminal creep deserving of no legal protection but ignore completely when the police knowingly violate the law and orders of the court.

How do you know this kid wasn't offering your son or nephew a freebie in the school yard in order to get a new customer or maybe he already is a customer. Why the hell is he bringing drugs to school in the first place? Perhaps you should be asking yourself that question. I'm not ignoring the actions of the police or the school but obviously we have different priorities. In this case, I'm not about to apologize for mine.

If I think pot should be legalized, then I should lobby the government to change the law...or suffer the "unfair" consequences if I choose to break the present law.

Agreed, however no matter what laws the government makes, it is the courts who interpret them and their precedents then become the law. You can't just blow off your responsibility in this.

I don't have a problem with the police being censured for inappropriate action. But if being obtuse means I have a very big problem with the only means of doing so being the blatant ignorance of criminal activity, I can live with that. Perhaps you should all get together and figure out a better way but yours being an adversarial system, I know that is a forlorn wish.

We seem to have very different opinions of the police and what they are about but what rights do you think you would have without the police? I can tell you one thing, if the bad guys start taking over my neighbourhood, I won't be looking to you or the Supremes to come and beat them back with your gavels, I just hope you don't make it impossible for those who will.

Off to watch the hockey game.

[Wilber]

Anyone want to explain this?

[sharkman]

Hey Wilber, I can't work your link, I hope it's not the same story I'm about to share.

One Larry Crocker had $27500 in counterfeit Canadian cash, baggies of pot, and meth in his apartment. A search warrant allowed police to find this plus $110000 in the apartment locker. He also had $450 in counterfeit cash on him and was found guilty of defrauding the Bank of Montreal $10000 with a forged cheque. Oh, and he was already on probation. The judge threw out most of the evidence, citing the following insane ruling.

The judge ruled the police violated Larry's charter rights since when the police observed Larry dealing drugs from his car in North Van, they approached the car and asked Larry to open his hand, saw a small amount of pot in it and placed him under arrest. He fled, of course. But they got his license plate,(some criminals are SO stupid) and started observing the high rise he lived in, where they saw him using the same vehicle he had been arrested in. They arrested him again, and he had the $27500, pot and Meth in his backpack.

The reason the judge gave for Larry's rights being violated is that he felt the request for Larry to open his hand was, "an unreasonable search". The search of Larry's backpack at his apartment building was deemed unlawful because the judge thought there was not a basis for the police to have concluded he was the same person who had fled previously. What a crock. I don't think this judge could find snow in Alaska, but there's more.

Anyway, upon arresting Larry at his apartment, police entered the guy's penthouse to secure the place before a search warrant could be obtained. This was deemed a Charter breach. I'm not kidding. A search warrant was obtained, at which time the police searched the place and found the rest of what I had listed at the start of the story.

It's quite obvious that in Canada, the best career for those who want to ignore the law is to deal drugs, and make funny money. As long as you tend to be not violent, the judge will let you off easy time and time again.

[Kitchener]

Anyone want to explain this?

What, exactly, is confusing you?

[Wilber]

Sharkman. That's the one. Link should work.

Kitchener. Guess you can't explain it either.

[Kitchener]

Kitchener. Guess you can't explain it either.

I can't explain why you're confused? Yes, so far that's true. Nolo contendere.

Please frame your problem in the most legally precise way you can manage, and we'll see where the discussion goes. Hyperventilating on the basis of axe-grinding, inexpert descriptions of cases is a poor way of understanding them, or the legal system more generally -- as both I and FTALawyer have noted more than once already on this thread.

[Wilber]

I can't explain why you're confused? Yes, so far that's true. Nolo contendere.

Please frame your problem in the most legally precise way you can manage, and we'll see where the discussion goes. Hyperventilating on the basis of axe-grinding, inexpert descriptions of cases is a poor way of understanding them, or the legal system more generally -- as both I and FTALawyer have noted more than once already on this thread.

Cop's watch guy dealing drugs, ask him to open hand, find drugs. Charter rights breached. WTF. Guy takes off, cops run plate, find car arrest same guy and find drugs, counterfeit money etc. Rights breached because cops had no reason to believe this was the same guy WTF. Couldn't be because they recognized him from before? Jeez. Give you the apartment search but never the less, the stuff was there. Of course the fact the guy is a drug dealing, counterfeiting fraud artist who was out on bail at the time is immaterial. Cops might as well spend their whole shift in Tim's. Waste of time trying to catch crooks.

[sharkman]

Yeah, looks like kitchener must be some kind of bleeding heart to not see anything wrong with that picture Wil. The problem is the justice system in Canada is full of this crap.

[Keepitsimple]

Anyone want to explain this?

Perfect story for this thread. Arrrrrrggggghhhhhhh!!!!!

[Kitchener]

Cop's watch guy dealing drugs, ask him to open hand, find drugs. Charter rights breached. WTF. Guy takes off, cops run plate, find car arrest same guy and find drugs, counterfeit money etc. Rights breached because cops had no reason to believe this was the same guy WTF. Couldn't be because they recognized him from before? Jeez. Give you the apartment search but never the less, the stuff was there. Of course the fact the guy is a drug dealing, counterfeiting fraud artist who was out on bail at the time is immaterial. Cops might as well spend their whole shift in Tim's. Waste of time trying to catch crooks.

That's the most precise description of your confusion? Was "WTF" your considered legal analysis?

You seem surprised that people who appear guilty -- heck, who appear to be real scumbags -- sometimes go free on technicalities when the police don't follow the law very carefully. But that's what the rules are there for. Those technicalities are actually manifestations of the rights that protect all of us from unreasonable and unjust application of the law, and that allow us to be confident that the system has worked when people are convicted.

If you were ever accused of a crime you didn't commit, or prosecuted for a minor crime with a greatly overblown charge, I guarantee you that (1) you would be lobbying hard for the full respect of your Charter rights, even though you had been charged with a crime; and (2) the rest of the Outraged Pants-Wetting Congregation here would be citing news reports about your case as yet more evidence that lousy three-time losers were being coddled by the system.

[sharkman]

Perfect story for this thread. Arrrrrrggggghhhhhhh!!!!!

I know, the drug dealer got most of his charges dropped because the cop ASKED him to open his hand. The cop didn't force him, or grab the hand, he simply asked. And for that, a bleeding heart judge releases a hardened criminal from most of his crimes. Sigh. Then the cops had the audacity to arrest the guy they had seen previously. The judge ruled that they couldn't recognize him from the previous arrest, and therefore had no basis to arrest him the second time. How revolting.

[Wilber]

That's the most precise description of your confusion? Was "WTF" your considered legal analysis?

You seem surprised that people who appear guilty -- heck, who appear to be real scumbags -- sometimes go free on technicalities when the police don't follow the law very carefully. But that's what the rules are there for. Those technicalities are actually manifestations of the rights that protect all of us from unreasonable and unjust application of the law, and that allow us to be confident that the system has worked when people are convicted.

If you were ever accused of a crime you didn't commit, or prosecuted for a minor crime with a greatly overblown charge, I guarantee you that (1) you would be lobbying hard for the full respect of your Charter rights, even though you had been charged with a crime; and (2) the rest of the Outraged Pants-Wetting Congregation here would be citing news reports about your case as yet more evidence that lousy three-time losers were being coddled by the system.

These rulings have nothing to do with their guilt or innocence or the fact they are real scumbags, only a judges interpretation of the Charter, nothing more. As a matter of fact judges will willfully ignore evidence that a person is a real scumbag based solely on the Charter. But hey, we all know the cops are the real scumbags, right.

I can say that as a person who has had no other run ins with the police other than a few speeding tickets, only one of which was in the last 25 years, that should I become a victim of one of these scumbags, my faith in this system to look after my interests is next to non existent. I don't think I am alone.

[Kitchener]

These rulings have nothing to do with their guilt or innocence or the fact they are real scumbags, only a judges interpretation of the Charter, nothing more. As a matter of fact judges will willfully ignore evidence that a person is a real scumbag based solely on the Charter. But hey, we all know the cops are the real scumbags, right.

Well, making things up isn't going to advance the discussion.

A far less wild conjecture is this: A commitment to the rule of law is probably the most fundamental thing differentiating us from societies like Afghanistan, where tribalism and corruption are the order of the day. Why is it so hard to inculcate in a society? Because it requires one to recognize the broader necessity of locally unpleasant outcomes -- to get past small-minded outrage over the occasional problematic result. If you think that we -- cops, judges, politicians, citizens -- should follow (overall reasonable) laws except in the handful of cases where following the rules creates outcomes we don't like... then you don't believe in the rule of law. If you think that your gut feelings (or that other word for them, "common sense") should trump an adherence to the law and legal procedures, then you don't believe in the rule of law.

That doesn't make you particularly unusual. It's a fair bet that most people on this planet don't. Also, most people on this planet do not live in relatively just, relatively low-crime, relatively safe societies like ours. You want a broken justice system? Just keep ranting and campaigning to have the rule of law overturned in favour of common sense, gut feelings, and whatever the police can dig up, irrespective of the methods. You too can have an Afghanistan! Right here in Canada, if you work at it.

[Argus]

That doesn't make you particularly unusual. It's a fair bet that most people on this planet don't. Also, most people on this planet do not live in relatively just, relatively low-crime, relatively safe societies like ours. You want a broken justice system? Just keep ranting and campaigning to have the rule of law overturned in favour of common sense, gut feelings, and whatever the police can dig up, irrespective of the methods. You too can have an Afghanistan! Right here in Canada, if you work at it.

Drivel. The situation in Afghanistan has nothing to do with "rule of law". Or are you suggesting things in Iran are all peachy and wonderful because they follow Sharia law?

The real problem which the supporters of the legal system refuse to acknowledge is that the system is already broken. It should not take a year to hold a trial for a common crime with mountains of evidence. Most simple crimes should be disposed of within days of arrest. Justice should be swift and certain. In our case it is neither. When "the rule of law" perpetrates injustice then there is something wrong and needs addressing. It isn't mere emotionalism or thirst for vengeance. The law should, at its core, address the fundamental justice of a case. Instead it addresses often ideologically based interpretations of the language in laws without regard to the justice of a finding.

Let me give you an example. I forget the case number but that's beside the point. A policeman investigating a murder followed a trail to a nearby trailer - not a trailer home mind - and opened it to find a man with blood on his clothes - the guilty party. Now this policeman was following the law precisely, for the courts had previously ruled that he was perfectly within his rights to open that door and check out that trailer. The courts now decided, however, that times had changed, and that a stricter interpretation of the law was required, and so set the murderer - unquestioned murderer - free because the policeman had violated his rights - the newly defined rights the court had just changed. There was little concern in the court's ruling about the fundamental justice of the thing, about the dead man or the killer going free. This is the kind of thing that angers people and throws the administration of justice into disrepute. Ivory tower judges making decisions disconnected from reality and from any care about justice. Mind you, idiotic parole laws administered by fools helps with the contempt factor for the "justice" system.

[sharkman]

Argus, it's funny how some people will not presume to know enough about the law to be concerned about murderers and drug dealers getting off on ridiculous technicalities(the cop ASKING the dealer to open his hand was ruled unlawful search). Yet these same people can instantly come up with all kinds of legal opinions where liberal pet causes are concerned, such as gay issues.

Meanwhile, serious criminals get off daily, basically because we don't have the space to put them anywhere. That's what someone working in the system told me. I didn't believe him at first, but it seems to be ringing true these days. Our prison system has added little capacity while our population has grown from around 22 million to almost 30 million.