Broken Justice - these infuriating cases have it all

[Wilber]

FTA

I am not taking a pro police side. The police screw up, they admit it. Like any specialized or professional occupation, they are each others biggest critics but when assailed from outside their natural reaction is to circle the wagons. Your profession is no different. You speak of them blatantly ignoring the law, well the courts do the same thing when they blatantly ignore the crime committed and its victims, not because there wasn't evidence to hold them accountable but because as far as they are concerned it is the police who are the issue. I don't see the legal system as some sort of noble entity. I see it much the same way as I see any game. Everyone thinks they know the rules and tries to use them to their advantage, there are good calls, bad calls, good penalties, bad penalties, some that are unavoidable and some that are just plain wrong. The only difference is that there are real victims of these crimes (who you don't talk about) and when the Supremes make a bad call, we all have to live with it forever.

You go on about there not being much more than 6% of cases that take more than a year and that 65% of cases result in convictions. I'm not about to argue whether those are good numbers or not but what is a conviction? One example. In BC at least, it is known that the great majority of grows are gang connected regardless of who is actually operating them, yet the average number of convictions for operating a grow is nine before anyone spends time in jail. So someone got convicted, big deal. It really is a useless statistic when it comes to gauging how the system deals with crime.

I know police officers and when they tell me how many and which businesses are mere money laundering operations for gangs in my town, my heart sinks. If you are thinking of patronizing any business that doesn't have a physical product, such as bars, clubs, health clubs etc. you might want to find out who owns it. Talked to a cop the other day who had just come back from court on his time off. I asked him how it went and he said it didn't, it had been put forward for the third time. Every time he shows up on his own time and gets told to go home, he gets paid for eight hours. 24 hours pay so far for just showing up, turning around and going home. I asked him what the case was. He said it was a Vietnamese family, mom, pop and two boys who had been busted for trafficking heroin, cocaine and a bunch of other nasty stuff. Not just little busts either. They have been busted three times over the past few years but haven't spent more than a weekend in jail. Maybe that is because business is so good their defense council outnumbers the Crown by four to one. The kicker in this case is that these worthies have been subject to a deportation order since 2005. Seems our system has decided that we must spend untold man ours and money in an attempt to put them in a nice Canadian jail for a couple of years instead of firing their asses back where they came from. Could be the career criminal strategy can be just as good as the refugee strategy if you want to remain in the country. Maybe better if you can afford the legal expertise.

What I see is a system that is so outclassed it no longer has a chance and one that has turned into an animal who's greatest aptitude is getting in its own way.

P.S. The CBSA thing is premised on a lowered expectation of privacy when you cross a border...no matter what your citizenship...because sovereign states have heightened interests to protect against the importation of all things bad (including undesirable people themselves) which largely trump individual liberties.

I could find some case law on it, but it may take me a while.

Why are you looking for case law? Should be in the charter no?

Would all things bad mean the odd undeclared bottle of booze or carton of smokes? Is that enough to trump civil liberties? Seems to be.

Drugs and weapons? That must be a reason to search innocent citizens without cause because we sure don't want them entering our country, but when it comes to taking them into our schools, well scumbag rights prevail of course.

As for undesirable people, the same courts who turn a blind eye to CBSA searching without cause have dictated that anyone who destroys their papers en route and makes it to the customs hall trying to enter the country on false pretenses, must be given consideration for a refuge claim. Once a again, creep rights prevail, even foreign creeps with no papers. Canada is the only country I have been to, where I've seen customs people checking deplaning passengers for documents right outside the door of the aircraft, because they know that if someone makes it to the hall without papers, they are now in the system and it is game over.

Interesting sidebar

On the same day as THIS we have THIS

Edited May 16, 2008 by Wilber

[FTA Lawyer]

Here's what all of you critics are missing...

In the Stats Can link I posted earlier, the data for all Criminal Code cases in Canada for year 2005/2006 were as follows:

Total Criminal Code cases: 330,549

Total Guilty: 216,378

Total Acquitted: 13,011

Total Stays of Proceedings: 95,945

Total "Other": 5,215

You can find link after link of media reports to justify your rants against the system, because that's all that gets reported. I'll confidently wager that all of you working together cannot show that of the 216,378 guilty verdicts that even 10% of them qualify as examples of "broken justice".

Bad decisions are out there, no doubt. System broken beyond repair? Only according to the media.

Come sit in a courtroom in Alberta for the day and you'll see what I mean.

If you don't believe me, here's a link to one of the first cases I ever did in the Alberta Court of Appeal...where's the bleeding heart liberal judge here? Where's the big media stories touting an "unbroken system" based on the middle-aged woman who got serious jail time? I reiterate, you only get to read about the cases that support a "broken system" argument...they sell more papers.

14 months for first-time marijuana grow-op

FTA

[FTA Lawyer]

FTA

Why are you looking for case law? Should be in the charter no?

It is in the Charter, but as interpreted by cases (that's how a common-law system works). Section 1 of the Charter allows for "such reasonable limits as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" to be placed on Charter rights.

Cases interpret the level of expectation of privacy at the border entering Canada to be far lower than when you are legally in and moving around Canada. The extra limits to a person's Charter rights which CBSA are authorized to impose are seen as reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society (is how the argument would go presumably, I haven't actually done the research to find the cases).

FTA

[sharkman]

Here's what all of you critics are missing...

In the Stats Can link I posted earlier, the data for all Criminal Code cases in Canada for year 2005/2006 were as follows:

Total Criminal Code cases: 330,549

Total Guilty: 216,378

Total Acquitted: 13,011

Total Stays of Proceedings: 95,945

Total "Other": 5,215

You can find link after link of media reports to justify your rants against the system, because that's all that gets reported. I'll confidently wager that all of you working together cannot show that of the 216,378 guilty verdicts that even 10% of them qualify as examples of "broken justice".

Bad decisions are out there, no doubt. System broken beyond repair? Only according to the media.

Have you heard the people whining about the occasional stories of innocent doing jail time and then getting out? That is injustice, and what percentage of all cases would convict innocents, less than 1%? And people freak out over that, and rightly so.

What you are telling us is 1/3 of all cases do not result in conviction, and how many of those are guilty people getting off scott free? Even though the evidence, without a doubt, demonstrated clear guilt, but was thrown out because of some slight only the judge saw. Like the case I cited where the cop asked the perp to open his hand being unlawful search. 15% overall? How about 12%? Let's say it's only 10%, or less than half of the 1/3 that do not end in conviction. If people are freaking out about less than 1% of cases that convict an innocent person, why the hell is 10% of the guilty getting off (Edit) due to some technicality nothing to be concerned about?

I notice, FTA lawyer, that you are in Alberta. What you see there in your court system is certainly not what we have here in BC. You are lucky to still have judges with some common sense. Of the cases being cited on this thread, I bet hardly any of them come from Alberta.

Back to my 10% of the guilty stat, (Edit) what about those who are found guilty, and given probation for drug dealing, 1 or 2 yrs for manslaughter, or some other insult at justice. We see murderers getting 5 yrs with double time for time served during the ridiculously long case(a another form of injustice) meaning the guy does 1 to 2 years before being let out for "good" behaviour.

The system is not working. You may not see it in Aberta from within the system, but when up to 10% of guilty people are getting off scot free, or getting probation for dealing strong drugs or stealing over 20 cars (these are actual cases in BC) something is broken pal.

Edited May 20, 2008 by sharkman

[Kitchener]

Have you heard the people whining about the occasional stories of innocent doing jail time and then getting out? That is injustice, and what percentage of all cases would convict innocents, less than 1%? And people freak out over that, and rightly so.

If "rightly so", why call it "whining"?

In any case: People do get upset about false convictions, and call for those specific injustices to be reversed. What I've never heard is people whining that "the system is broken" on the strength of a few false convictions. At most these cases are taken to illustrate the kind of rare but serious mistakes by police, prosecutors, and judges against which we should be vigilant. Maybe your experience is different, but I don't see "Broken Justice!11!!" threads here premised on false convictions.

[Keepitsimple]

Here's what all of you critics are missing...

In the Stats Can link I posted earlier, the data for all Criminal Code cases in Canada for year 2005/2006 were as follows:

Total Criminal Code cases: 330,549

Total Guilty: 216,378

Total Acquitted: 13,011

Total Stays of Proceedings: 95,945

Total "Other": 5,215

You can find link after link of media reports to justify your rants against the system, because that's all that gets reported. I'll confidently wager that all of you working together cannot show that of the 216,378 guilty verdicts that even 10% of them qualify as examples of "broken justice".

Bad decisions are out there, no doubt. System broken beyond repair? Only according to the media.

Come sit in a courtroom in Alberta for the day and you'll see what I mean.

If you don't believe me, here's a link to one of the first cases I ever did in the Alberta Court of Appeal...where's the bleeding heart liberal judge here? Where's the big media stories touting an "unbroken system" based on the middle-aged woman who got serious jail time? I reiterate, you only get to read about the cases that support a "broken system" argument...they sell more papers.

14 months for first-time marijuana grow-op

FTA

Surely you can find a better case than this one. This case is penny-ante and doesn't address releasing violent criminals far in advance of what they should be. However, this case does demonstrate two things. This woman was convicted of two crimes - and her sentences were issued concurrently - so in effect, one of her crimes was a freebie. That's an area that needs serious tightening up. The fact that an appeal judge simply upheld a sentence that amounts to a slap on the wrist is a poor example of an "unbroken" system. Many people may argue for and against marijuana laws but 14 months for growing drugs and distributing over 5 KG of marijuana seems a pretty light sentence - even for a first timer. It's more an example of how our laws against grow-ops serve as little or no deterrent.

[Wilber]

From UCFV study on grow ops in BC.

Overall, some 3008 of the

founded cases led to at least one

offender being convicted. More

specifically, a total of 3364 offenders

were convicted representing 52% of

those charged and 22% of suspects

initially associated with a founded

operation. The majority of convictions,

however, did not result in a custodial

disposition. In fact, approximately 16%

of offenders were sentenced to prison

with an average sentence length of 4.9

months.

In the final analysis, the results

of this study are more disconcerting than

those presented through the Plecas et al.

2002 report. Indeed, as of 2003, the

number of marihuana grow operations is

still high and the overall estimated

production associated to those incidents

is four times higher in 2003 than in

1997. Despite this reality, and despite

the fact that it has become increasingly

apparent that grow operations pose a risk

to public safety (especially through fire),

the criminal justice system has become

increasingly unable to respond.

Specifically:

• police agencies overall are less

likely to fully investigate

incidents coming to their

attention and less likely to move

cases forward with recommended

charges to Crown Counsel;

• prosecutors are less likely to

accept charges recommended by

police and less likely to move

forward with charges; and

• judges are less likely to send an

offender to prison for their

participation in a grow operation,

despite offenders becoming more

prolific and more violent.

A recent announcement by the

Premier of British Columbia (January

2005) to provide monies to law

enforcement agencies to increase their

capacity to respond to the risks posed by

grow operations may assist in increasing

the police’s ability to respond. The

relatively recent establishment of the

R.C.M.P.’s Coordinated Marihuana

Enforcement Team to direct a more

strategic, intelligence driven approach to

the problem also gives reason to be

optimistic about a more effective law

enforcement response in the future.

However, the authors would expect that

any enhancements to the law

enforcement capacity will only translate

into improved effectiveness where there

is a corresponding improvement in the

action taken at the prosecutorial and

judicial level.

Complete document

[Keepitsimple]

From UCFV study on grow ops in BC.

Complete document

In summary, it says that cops don't want to invest a lot of time with investigations that result in few convictions with any jailtime. If the sentencing is nothing more than a hug or a slap on the wrist, why waste limited resources? Again - the justice system is broken - create some laws and sentences with some consequences and the police will do their job. There is absolautely no deterrent factor in Canada's drug laws.

[FTA Lawyer]

In summary, it says that cops don't want to invest a lot of time with investigations that result in few convictions with any jailtime. If the sentencing is nothing more than a hug or a slap on the wrist, why waste limited resources? Again - the justice system is broken - create some laws and sentences with some consequences and the police will do their job. There is absolautely no deterrent factor in Canada's drug laws.

I really can't win any hearts or minds here...because I'm stuck with knowing what actually happens in the vast majority of real life cases and can't make my hyperbolic arguments from a position of blissful ignorance.

In Alberta, the "starting point" or default sentencing outcome for a first offender (no previous record) trafficking cocaine for profit is 3 years in a federal penetentiary. The maximum available sentence for trafficking cocaine is life imprisonment. This is not treating drug offenders with a "slap on the wrist"...and the most likely hug will come from an enamourous cell-mate, not the courts.

This is the prevailing statement of the law in Alberta:

For over twenty years, beginning with the decision in R. v. Maskell, supra, this Court has

offered guidance to sentencing judges in cocaine trafficking cases by establishing a starting point

of three years incarceration in cases of a commercial operation on something more than a

minimal scale.

It is worth repeating that the guidance given is simply a starting point. It is implicit in that

concept that the sentencing judge may depart from the starting point by increasing or decreasing

the severity of the sentence depending upon the sentencing judge’s assessment of the aggravating

and mitigating circumstances presented by the offender and the offence.

R. v. Rahime

The above quote was in 2001, so the default sentencing outcome has been 3 years in jail for 27 years now.

Can someone finally acknowledge that reality tells us a different story than people spouting off how police should not even bother arresting people for drug-crime because we hug convicted offenders?!?!?

FTA

[Wilber]

Guess BC's reality isn't Alberta's reality. When was the last time a cocaine trafficker got life without murdering someone?

[Kitchener]

I really can't win any hearts or minds here...because I'm stuck with knowing what actually happens in the vast majority of real life cases and can't make my hyperbolic arguments from a position of blissful ignorance.

... I mean,

You are correct. And it's kinda funny, but mostly sad.

[Wild Bill]

I really can't win any hearts or minds here...because I'm stuck with knowing what actually happens in the vast majority of real life cases and can't make my hyperbolic arguments from a position of blissful ignorance.

Can someone finally acknowledge that reality tells us a different story than people spouting off how police should not even bother arresting people for drug-crime because we hug convicted offenders?!?!?

FTA

I appreciate your frustration but I think you are making the old mistake of expecting rational thought from people in what is essentially a political situation.

Make no mistake about it. The public perception of our justice system is totally political, by definition!

The Americans have always understood that it is instinctive to human nature for a community to want their justice system to reflect their own views and values. That's why they elect their judges. You would be better qualified than I would to see parallels in the concept of British Common Law.

In a political arena people notice failures far easier than successes, particularly "routine" ones.

The problem you face as a defender of the system is that there are so many spectacular failures! The media ensures we hear about Karla Homolka much more emphatically than thousands of offenders getting a suitable sentence every day.

Here in Canada for years we have had a disconnect between the values of the common man and many of the sentences in our courts. Concurrent sentences, for example. To many, this seems not only giving multiple murderers a "freebie" but also making the expense and time of trial for the other offences a waste of money and resources.

Of course not all plea bargains and wins by a technicality are a symptom of a failed system. On a percentage basis the system might be working quite well, although that's not MY personal opinion! Still, even a small percent of failures represents a respectable number in the eyes of the public. As I said, we tend to focus on the negatives.

As in any political situation the justice system is rated by political factors. When Supreme Court judges appear to be making law because politicians duck the hard cases the public doesn't blame their cowardly representatives. They blame the judges if the ruling doesn't jive with popular values!

I think Canadians stopped giving their institutions unquestioning respect about the time of Mulroney's fall from grace. I don't agree with everything Bill Gairdner wrote in his book "The Trouble with Canada" but he was bang on in describing our broken faith and rising cynicism.

I don't think you can win this one. You'll only break your heart.

[Wilber]

Can someone finally acknowledge that reality tells us a different story than people spouting off how police should not even bother arresting people for drug-crime because we hug convicted offenders?!?!?

You don't acknowledge the UCFV study as reality? A barn burned down about a mile from us the night before last. Want to guess why? No one pays much attention to this stuff around here anymore because they know there are many others and they are also getting numb to the weekly drug related targeted hits. In these parts there is no longer much confidence in the system to do anything about it and they just wouldn't give much credence to your perception of reality.

[Wilber]

Concurrent sentences, for example. To many, this seems not only giving multiple murderers a "freebie" but also making the expense and time of trial for the other offences a waste of money and resources.

It doesn't seem, it is.

[sharkman]

Wilber, I am somewhat disenchanted with FTA for extrapolating his experience in Alberta to the rest of Canada, and BC in particular. Your UCFV link is damning to our province, but FTA seems to not be able to grasp even the basics of it. Do you think most lawyers are like this, or are his rose coloured glasses made in Alberta? (BTW, I'm from Abbotsford too.)

[guyser]

Can someone finally acknowledge that reality tells us a different story than people spouting off how police should not even bother arresting people for drug-crime because we hug convicted offenders?!?!?

FTA

Dont bet on it. Reality does not seem to be on the agenda of many.

Wild bill, the use of Karla Homolka as a reference does your argument no good. The police in that particular case is the reason she is now out of jail.

The prosecutors had little to go on , and wanted a conviction of Bernardo without any snags , thus supplied with info from the police (the lack of) what could they have done?

[Wild Bill]

Dont bet on it. Reality does not seem to be on the agenda of many.

Wild bill, the use of Karla Homolka as a reference does your argument no good. The police in that particular case is the reason she is now out of jail.

The prosecutors had little to go on , and wanted a conviction of Bernardo without any snags , thus supplied with info from the police (the lack of) what could they have done?

Doesn't matter! Again, you're being rational. I'm talking about perception. With politics, perception is often reality!

The common man doesn't listen to the reasons why the prosecutors may or may not have been forced to take a specific approach. They simply see a horrific murderess being given a light sentence. Worse yet, after the infamous deal was made new evidence in the form of a videotape of killings is produced by her lawyer, a tape that the police failed to find when they searched the house. The tape would have made her conviction a slam dunk. In the eyes of the public, BOTH the courts and the police were found wanting!

We can pick at my model all you want and I don't think it will change the validity of my point in any way. People lose faith in the "system" because of conflicts with their "gut" feelings and will not change their opinion with arguments to their "head".

[Wilber]

Doesn't matter! Again, you're being rational. I'm talking about perception. With politics, perception is often reality!

The common man doesn't listen to the reasons why the prosecutors may or may not have been forced to take a specific approach. They simply see a horrific murderess being given a light sentence. Worse yet, after the infamous deal was made new evidence in the form of a videotape of killings is produced by her lawyer, a tape that the police failed to find when they searched the house. The tape would have made her conviction a slam dunk. In the eyes of the public, BOTH the courts and the police were found wanting!

We can pick at my model all you want and I don't think it will change the validity of my point in any way. People lose faith in the "system" because of conflicts with their "gut" feelings and will not change their opinion with arguments to their "head".

It is much more than just perception. Reality is the system can be working quite well in certain parts of the country and in certain situations but be clearly overwhelmed in others. While there is more than one reason for that, some are definitely self inflicted.

[Kitchener]

Wilber, I am somewhat disenchanted with FTA for extrapolating his experience in Alberta to the rest of Canada, and BC in particular.

Yeah, working from a sample to draw defeasible but confident conclusions about a population? It's almost like, you know, statistics!

Math bad! Justice broken!

But wait. Actual alleged examples cited on this thread occurred in Alberta. Is FTA's data and expertise on the Alberta context at least relevant to them, or would you like to insist on yet some further way of dodging the evidence in those cases as well?

Your UCFV link is damning to our province, but FTA seems to not be able to grasp even the basics of it. Do you think most lawyers are like this, or are his rose coloured glasses made in Alberta? (BTW, I'm from Abbotsford too.)

Riiiight. The problem is FTA's inability to grasp basic facts. If only he were bright enough to cherry-pick a handful of (misdescribed) cases, wet his pants in outrage, and do a hysterical Chicken Little impression. Then he'd be one of the s-m-r-t kids too!

[Wilber]

Riiiight. The problem is FTA's inability to grasp basic facts. If only he were bright enough to cherry-pick a handful of (misdescribed) cases, wet his pants in outrage, and do a hysterical Chicken Little impression. Then he'd be one of the s-m-r-t kids too!

Why don't you take a few minutes to read it.

[guyser]

The common man doesn't listen to the reasons why the prosecutors may or may not have been forced to take a specific approach. They simply see a horrific murderess being given a light sentence. Worse yet, after the infamous deal was made new evidence in the form of a videotape of killings is produced by her lawyer, a tape that the police failed to find when they searched the house. The tape would have made her conviction a slam dunk. In the eyes of the public, BOTH the courts and the police were found wanting!

We can pick at my model all you want and I don't think it will change the validity of my point in any way. People lose faith in the "system" because of conflicts with their "gut" feelings and will not change their opinion with arguments to their "head".

Cant argue your point. But it is plenty sad that people want to rail against the justice system for things the justice system had practically nothing to do with.

Ignorance=perception. sad but true.

[Kitchener]

Why don't you take a few minutes to read it.

To read what? FTA was not specifically responding to the grow-op report, which has suddenly become the focus of the thread (apparently since it's an example that hasn't been debunked). He seemed rather to be just evincing frustration that no matter how thorough his debunkings and careful his refutations, the Chicken Littlers would always just leap to a new cherry-picked case as bearing out all their preconceptions.

Nevertheless, I have looked at the study, and for more than the "few minutes" one might take to skim the Exec Summary without thinking about the actual data and what it means. For example: one might wring one's hands about the fact that these dangerous grow-op houses are also functioning as residences (the exec summary mentions children living in them), and also about the fact that charges are stayed in many cases. But how about putting 2 and 2 together: if these houses are residential, there are likely to be people living in them who are not directly responsible for growing pot -- girlfriends, family, children, etc. Prima facie most adults in residence are likely to be charged; subsequent investigation and testimony will then pare down the numbers to those who can be proved to have run the operations. This seems to be borne out by Table 5.7, for instance, suggesting that women "in residence" are initially overcharged. But paring down the charges to focus on those who are actually running the grow ops is not "broken justice". It's "justice".

If you think the UCFV report somehow proves the various hysterical claims that have been made in this thread, though, why don't you attempt to actually argue this in detail?

[Wilber]

If you think the UCFV report somehow proves the various hysterical claims that have been made in this thread, though, why don't you attempt to actually argue this in detail?

It proves the problem is out of control in BC and that the justice system is doing little to deal with it. Yes people are being convicted, it's what happens to them after they are convicted that is the problem. In BC it is a very small cost of doing business for these folks. In BC only 29% of people with more than seven convictions of operating grows with over 100 plants go to jail for an average of 5.8 months. Only 16% go to jail period. 93% of jail terms are less than 3 month's, the remaing seven percent, less than 5 years. 82% of sentences are either conditional, probation or neglible fines. Like I said before, so someone got convicted. Big deal. If I am being hysterical, you have your head up your ass.

The comparison between Washington State where grows are next to non existant and BC where the number approaches 20,000 couldn't be more stark. Last year we had a judge throw out a case because the RCMP supposedly didn't allow enough time for someone to open a door when excercising a warrant on a grow, yet more and more the police are finding restricted weapons and body armour on the premises during such busts. If that isn't a detatchment from reality, I don't know what is.

Edited May 21, 2008 by Wilber

[Kitchener]

If I am being hysterical, you have your head up your ass.

No, if you're being hysterical, you're just being hysterical.

Of course I might have my head up my ass as well. But the sustained failure of Chicken Littlers to make a coherent case on this thread certainly wouldn't show it.

But I didn't say that you were hysterical in any event. I didn't recall, and can't be bothered to check, whether you in particular have been raving about lib'rul judges and bleeding hearts. Yet it is to that general approach that FTA's remarks were addressed, hence mine remarks about his as well, hence (whether you had thought this through or not) yours about mine. If you think this latest focus is the Holy Grail that finally proves some general ZOMG Brokin Ju8stice!11!! thesis, you should feel free to argue it.

The comparison between Washington State where grows are next to non existant and BC where the number approaches 20,000 couldn't be more stark.

Reckon that's somehow linked to the massive difference in per capita incarceration rates? There's more than one measure of a dysfunctional justice system.

Last year we had a judge throw out a case because the RCMP supposedly didn't allow enough time for someone to open a door when excercising a warrant on a grow, yet more and more the police are finding restricted weapons and body armour on the premises during such busts. If that isn't a detatchment from reality, I don't know what is.

Then you don't know what is.

Warrants and due process are integral to the rule of law. Not only should this thread have taught you the danger of citing these half-remembered one-off anecdotes as if they were evidence; even if you somehow have all the details and subtleties right, it's just a ghastly mistake to think that insisting on due process is a problem with a justice system.

[Wilber]

Reckon that's somehow linked to the massive difference in per capita incarceration rates? There's more than one measure of a dysfunctional justice system.

Yup, we're Canadian, we'd rather have the crime, and the victims of that crime. Whoops, you, FTA and guyser never discuss victims, I forgot.

There's an old guy in this area who catches moles for people to supplement his small pension. The guy worked hard all his life, is honest and as such trusted other people. Old school. One of the things he did for his retirement was buy a small place as an investment rental property. He rented it to what he thought was a nice couple, trouble was they weren't. Eventually they got busted for operating a grow, the house was uninhabitable, he lost the equity he had in it, they got a conditional sentence and a fine. He got no compensation.

Not only should this thread have taught you the danger of citing these half-remembered one-off anecdotes as if they were evidence; even if you somehow have all the details and subtleties right, it's just a ghastly mistake to think that insisting on due process is a problem with a justice system.

It's not a half remembered anecdote, it happened in the municipality next door and was a big deal in the news for some time. The local cops were disgusted by it and they aren't RCMP. Their reaction, now they have to be given two minutes to get their vests on and arm themselves. Good to know if you are a sleezebag.