The Argus Party

[Argus]

Actually I would say that the point of the justice system is to make life safer and fair for everyone, as much as such a thing is possible.

I would not say that and what I stated above are mutually exclusive.

Sometimes that means punishment. But sometimes that means rehabilitation. And sometimes, when people read a biased report in a paper they want punishment when what the situation really calls for is rehabilitation. And sometimes, when people read a biased report in a paper they want rehabilitation when what the situation really calls for is punishment

No doubt that is possible, but the overwhelming bias of the Canadian mainstream media is liberal, and there are simply some cases where you cannot imagine how the abscence of bias would let you conclude that letting a murderer walk away with a light punishment is somehow "fair" or just.

I have been saying for some time now, including in discussions with supporters of the current system, that one of our major problems is judges refusing to apply the current laws which allow for severe sentences. It has been my observation that virtually all criminal sentences hover near the low end of any scale of applicable penalties, and I have never been contradicted, including by criminal lawyers. Clearly there has been a deviation here between what the people through their elected representatives have decided should be the scale of punishment, and what the cadre of lawyers on the bench have decided. Why should we allow them to dictate to us what punishments ought to be?

. All I'm saying is that sometimes the right decision will not be the popular decision. Sometimes there will be pressure to appease the masses rather than do what is right for the people involved. It won't always happen, but elections increase the chance that those situations, when they do arise, will not be handled well.

So you think a judge will apply a severe sentence when a more moderate sentence was called for? But that's what appeals courts are for. And who says that it's better for society to have judges applying very moderate sentences for violent crimes instead? Why are there criminals walking the streets who have had dozens of convictions over time? Why aren't they locked up for good?

You claimed it would be a "unique election" with "no platform or particular policy for the candidate to be running on". Is this no longer your position? Because these types of elections would be politicized faster than you could say "go vote".

I think the only question would be whether the values espoused by the candidate would match those of the majority of the votig population.

No, all lawyers are definitely not qualified. And these committees weed out many of them. In many cases the committees will, at the very least, give a short list of only a few names to the government out of many applications.

Really? I'd like to know the names of some candidates the government wanted to appoint judges which the comittee told them were not competent.

Which brings us back to the question, if the government has "final approval" in your system, what is the difference? Does the committee just decide on one name then? Is this the only thing you really want to change?

As I underestand the present system the government chooses who it wants to appoint as a judge and then gets them rubber stamped by this comittee. I think there should be a comittee of the bars which selects potential judges without any input from government, qualifies them numerically, and then the government appoints only from that list, and presumably only from those rated at or near the top.

Well I, and many others, are not OK with police doing whatever they want. I happen to think that if a cop beats "information" out of a suspect then maybe that information isn't that reliable.

Yeah, I'm not surprised you resorted to that. It's really the only argument there is, which is why I specifically used the example of a cop going over the line but producing actual undeniable evidence of guilt. But let's use a real life example. A cop opens the door to a trailer and orders a man out because he's searching for a murderer. The man has blood on his clothes. The cop arrests him. Now in the real world the man was set free because they decided that since he had been sleeping in that trailer (which belonged to a friend) that made it his home and the cop had no right to enter it without a warrant, and thus the blood soaked clothing was inadmisable. Under this rule they would admit the evidence and the man would go to jail.

After enough beatings you would confess to murdering someone just to make the officer stop.

Yeah, yeah, and everyone knows this which is why on one would accept it as reliable evidence.

Well, right there you just showed the hole in your argument. Two people can watch the same movie and one would call it art and the other would call it pornography. So I'm not sure that everyone "knows what it is". Likewise, I and many others think that people have the right to due process and that this right is essential for a fair justice system. But that right involves putting restrictions on what police can and cannot do. Something which you would do away with.

I am neither doing away with due process nor suggesting there be no rules on police. I'm suggesting police officers be held responsible for their wrongdoing rather than gifting the guilty with a get-out-of-jail card to punish society for the cop's mistake. As for justice, while it would be difficult to define in law I think most of us have a pretty good idea of what justice would be in any individual case.

[scribblet]

I find myself bored with many of the topics at hand so decided to throw out policies the Argus Party wants to see implimented in Canada.

Agreed, this whole board has become bored ...same old same old repetition. I'd like to respond but don't have the time, when I'm back from vacation I'll give it a try. Maybe there will be some other topics worth replying to as well.

cheers

[bk59]

I don't have time to go through all three issues, so I'll just write a response to the last one for now.

I would not say that and what I stated above are mutually exclusive.

Well, what you said is more of a subset of what I said. I think the goal of a justice system is as I stated it. One of the mechanisms a society can use to accomplish that goal is punishment. But that is just one mechanism. By focussing your definition of justice on a single mechanism rather than on the overall goal, you risk ignoring crucial elements of any justice system. Rehabilitation efforts are crucial. It is not unheard of for a so-called minor criminal (e.g. a thief) to turn into a hardened criminal while in prison (e.g. comes out and starts assaulting people and/or increased rather than decreased thieving). Your definition/mechanism would be satisfied in those cases - the person would have been punished. My definition/goal would not be satisfied - society would be worse off. This is just one example, and certainly does not apply to every criminal out there, but shows why I think a definition of a justice system should be oriented towards the goal of bettering society overall and not simply the mechanism of punishing people.

Of course your definition also ignores the civil aspect of the justice system. It may be fine to say that criminals should be punished, but what does that mean when two people have a contract dispute? Particularly where no one is guilty of malfeasance. There are areas of the law where the point is not to punish at all, but the point is to just restore the losses that someone may have suffered (as an example). The point is to be fair to people and help them get on with their lives, not to punish someone.

So I am not saying that you are "wrong" with your definition, but you can see why I think that trying to redefine justice and/or change our entire legal system is more difficult than you might think. Our system is based on centuries of history and refinements. We don't need to just throw that away because we can find a few examples of where the system doesn't work. No matter what system you have there will be examples of wrongs that weren't righted, etc. Every system needs refining. But your proposals go a bit far (in my opinion - others are certainly entitled to disagree!).

It has been my observation that virtually all criminal sentences hover near the low end of any scale of applicable penalties, and I have never been contradicted, including by criminal lawyers. Clearly there has been a deviation here between what the people through their elected representatives have decided should be the scale of punishment, and what the cadre of lawyers on the bench have decided. Why should we allow them to dictate to us what punishments ought to be?

Maybe because the entire point of a judge is to decide what the punishment / remedy ought to be in the criminal and civil contexts? I mean... that is their job. If they don't do that, then what is the point of having a judge? If there is a range of remedies available, then any remedy on that range is valid.

As for your observations, is that based on media reports or is that based on actually going through judgments? Without undertaking a huge review of the entire system, I would think that your observations must be limited to only the attention grabbing cases and not the run-of-the-mill stuff that gets churned out every day. But I could be wrong. Maybe you have seen a study of sentencing in the criminal justice system. In that case you have to ask yourself, if an educated person, looking at all of the facts of the case, decides on an appropriate sentence, why should they increase that sentence simply because a politician in Ottawa has made a longer sentence available?

So you think a judge will apply a severe sentence when a more moderate sentence was called for? But that's what appeals courts are for.

Appeals courts are there to correct any huge error made by a judge not to simply modify sentences. It is the judge's job to apply the sentence the judge thinks most appropriate in the circumstances. They should not be handing out sentences expecting an appeals court to reconsider every case for them. In fact, an appeals court is limited in what it can do. Since the judge is the one who hears the evidence, appeals courts are generally bound to follow the judge's opinion on the facts of what actually happened. So if a person thinks a more lenient (or tougher) sentence is required based on the facts of the situation, an appeals court will generally be unable to do anything about it, unless the facts were clearly ignored by the judge (in which case the judge did not do his or her job very well).

I think the only question would be whether the values espoused by the candidate would match those of the majority of the votig population.

I would rather have someone trying to act impartial on the bench. Someone educated in the law. See, this is why we have juries. To act as representatives of society. But in the role of judge? There is a reason we require judges to be lawyers and to have at least ten years experience practicing the law before they can apply to be a judge.

Really? I'd like to know the names of some candidates the government wanted to appoint judges which the comittee told them were not competent.

As I underestand the present system the government chooses who it wants to appoint as a judge and then gets them rubber stamped by this comittee. I think there should be a comittee of the bars which selects potential judges without any input from government, qualifies them numerically, and then the government appoints only from that list, and presumably only from those rated at or near the top.

I have bad news and good news for you. The bad news is that your understanding of the present system is incorrect. I can't give you names that the government wanted and the committee rejected because that's not how it works.

The good news is that the government has already implemented the system you proposed. This is what I tried to say in my earlier posts. I will try to be more clear here.

As an example, for the Ontario Court of Justice, applicants apply to a committee. The committee makes a short list, conducts interviews and then gives a ranked list of recommendations to the Ontario government. Look here under the heading "Process".

Similarly, for the Ontario Superior Court, a committee looks at the candidates and then makes its recommendations to the federal Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice then makes his or her recommendations to the cabinet. See here and see here.

With respect to the appointments for the Superior Court, there was a big issue recently when Harper decided to put more representatives of the law enforcement community on the committees. It was felt that this would compromise the effectiveness of the committees since law enforcement is not exactly impartial in the process (and they are not supposed to be impartial).

So you might want to argue about the composition of some of these committees, but you have the general process backwards. The government does not submit a list to the committees first.

Yeah, I'm not surprised you resorted to that. It's really the only argument there is, which is why I specifically used the example of a cop going over the line but producing actual undeniable evidence of guilt. But let's use a real life example. A cop opens the door to a trailer and orders a man out because he's searching for a murderer. The man has blood on his clothes. The cop arrests him. Now in the real world the man was set free because they decided that since he had been sleeping in that trailer (which belonged to a friend) that made it his home and the cop had no right to enter it without a warrant, and thus the blood soaked clothing was inadmisable. Under this rule they would admit the evidence and the man would go to jail.

Resorted, eh? You mean like how you resorted to an example where a police officer illegally breaks into a house and just happens to find a blood soaked murderer? Who was apparently having a nice little nap? And you consider that a "real life example" that is somehow more common than forced confessions? No offence, but I think there are more examples of forced confessions than police officers finding blood soaked murderers by breaking into a house.

You are essentially advocating a police state, where police can do what they want as long as they "get results". Our justice system long ago did away with the maxim "the ends justify the means".

What happens when the police bust in and the blood happens to be from someone (or something) other than a murder victim? What happens when they illegally break in and find no evidence at all? You say the officer should be punished. Fair enough. Now we have a police officer in jail for a while. Of course now we also have to compensate the victim of the officer's crime.

I am neither doing away with due process nor suggesting there be no rules on police. I'm suggesting police officers be held responsible for their wrongdoing rather than gifting the guilty with a get-out-of-jail card to punish society for the cop's mistake. As for justice, while it would be difficult to define in law I think most of us have a pretty good idea of what justice would be in any individual case.

First, let's be clear. You are doing away with due process. Due process requires, among other things, the police to have a valid search warrant in order to enter a house. Your example above says no search warrant is necessary as long as the police "get results". That is doing away with due process - a concept that has been refined over centuries and continues to be refined.

You have already advocated that police can randomly search people whenever they want. So what rules are there on police in those situations? You want to get rid of what we have, but I can't see what you want to replace it with. Aside from a presumption that alleged criminals do not have the same rights to privacy, security, etc. that everyone else has. Which also nicely does away with the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

[Argus]

I think this is closer to the truth. And is also another reason why putting a user fee on people going to emergency is a bad idea. It won't actually solve the problem.

The big difference between McGuinty and Argus is probably the fact that McGuinty has to pay for his plan. Argus does not. Remember what happened when the healthcare tax was introduced in Ontario? (Hint: people were not happy.)

The difference being, of course, that the anger directed towards McGuinty was not so much because of a health care tax but because the entire focus of his campaign had been that he would not raise taxes without a referendum, and he blithely ignored that to raise them anyway.

BTW, as was later documented, none of the money from the health care tax went into health care.

[Argus]

I don't have time to go through all three issues, so I'll just write a response to the last one for now.

Well, what you said is more of a subset of what I said. I think the goal of a justice system is as I stated it. One of the mechanisms a society can use to accomplish that goal is punishment. But that is just one mechanism. By focussing your definition of justice on a single mechanism rather than on the overall goal, you risk ignoring crucial elements of any justice system.

If there was to be a focus it was to be justice. If justice is served by a softer punishment, if circumstanes warrant diversion away from the prison system then I'm quite happy with that.

My problem with the present system is that most violent crime does not appear to be sufficiently punished, and in many cases the gap between what I would consider a just punishment and that actually handed out is enormous.

Rehabilitation efforts are crucial.

That has been the credo of Corrections Canada for decades now and has largely resulted in massive injustice. I'm not saying, again, that first-time offenders who have not caused terrible damage to others should not be treated more leniently. I am not an advocate of crushing people the first time they step out of line. However, this approach by CC seems to be infinitely patient, and their success rate is rather sad. There is certainly a time when leniency might help reform someone, but that time has long passed after their fifth or sixth or seventh conviction. And frankly, when someone goes to a party with an axe and chops someone's neck I'm not really interested in reforming them so much as putting them away for a very, very long time.

It is not unheard of for a so-called minor criminal (e.g. a thief) to turn into a hardened criminal while in prison

True. It's also not unheard of for a young person, running afoul of the law for the first time, to be given a very light punishment and to take from this that he can just go out and do it again without worrying about the law.

Of course your definition also ignores the civil aspect of the justice system.

How does a requirement for justice ignore the civil aspect of the legal system?

It may be fine to say that criminals should be punished, but what does that mean when two people have a contract dispute?

Well, nothing actually.

Particularly where no one is guilty of malfeasance. There are areas of the law where the point is not to punish at all, but the point is to just restore the losses that someone may have suffered (as an example). The point is to be fair to people and help them get on with their lives, not to punish someone.

Which I certainly have no problem with.

So I am not saying that you are "wrong" with your definition,

What do you believe my definition to be?

but you can see why I think that trying to redefine justice and/or change our entire legal system is more difficult than you might think. Our system is based on centuries of history and refinements

Not really. Our system has been remade in the last forty to fifty years to be unrecognizable from what it was previous to that. Fifty years ago the punishments handed out for violent offenses, particularly to repeat offenders, was far more severe, and parole far more difficult to obtain.

Maybe because the entire point of a judge is to decide what the punishment / remedy ought to be in the criminal and civil contexts? I mean... that is their job. If they don't do that, then what is the point of having a judge? If there is a range of remedies available, then any remedy on that range is valid.

Utter nonsense. A range of penalties is there to address a range of circumstances and severity in the same crime. Example: A young person who has little experience with alcohol has a few to celebrate graduating from high school and is arrested for DUI. He would likely get the minimal punishment. Then you have a man in his forties with multiple convictions for DUI, including several accidents. Same crime. But the range is there to allow the judge to administer a more severe punishment to him.

Now suppose the judge gives that repeat offender the minimum. Is that valid? Well, legally, yes. He can do that. But it's not just and it's not what the community would want to see.

As for your observations, is that based on media reports or is that based on actually going through judgments? Without undertaking a huge review of the entire system, I would think that your observations must be limited to only the attention grabbing cases and not the run-of-the-mill stuff that gets churned out every day.

Every murder and manslaughter case gets covered by the media, as does every other severe assault case. A lifetime of reading multiple newspapers every day exposes one to an awfully large body of information regarding what punishments the legal system has handed out for violent crime - not just the "attention grabbing cases".

In that case you have to ask yourself, if an educated person, looking at all of the facts of the case, decides on an appropriate sentence, why should they increase that sentence simply because a politician in Ottawa has made a longer sentence available?

I think you need to decide just where the case falls along that scale, including the criminal's background, and the severity of the harm done. Justice requires that a person who harms another severely be harmed severely in return - in some way. This also helps deter others who might be similiarly inclined in their violent ways.

What I wonder is why NO cases are found to be up towards the top of the scale in their severity. Why, in my reading of sentencing over the past thirty odd years, do I virtually NEVER see a criminal hammered with the maximum sentence, or anything near the maximum, for vicious, brutal violence perpetrated against helpless people? And to add insult to injury, of course, even when one is given a severe sentence, you can usually cut that by from 2/3 to 1/2 because they will almost certainly be paroled as fast as the system can arrange to do so.

So I realize I have forgoten one aspect of my reform package for the legal system - an end to automatic parole. Parole must be earned, and earned only through serious efforts at reform, including education and skills training and participation in drug and alcohol treatment programs.

Appeals courts are there to correct any huge error made by a judge not to simply modify sentences. It is the judge's job to apply the sentence the judge thinks most appropriate in the circumstances.

I don't doubt it. My problem is that judges seem to be from a distant planet, planet ivory tower, I believe, where they remain divorced from the real concerns of us mere mortals who have to exist on this world and live alongside the vermin those judges impose lax sentences to.

I would rather have someone trying to act impartial on the bench. Someone educated in the law. See, this is why we have juries. To act as representatives of society. But in the role of judge?

Uhm, is it not the primary role of the jury to judge the defendant's innocence or guilt?

And who is to say a three judge panel, made up of laymen and one legal expert would be less impartial?

I have bad news and good news for you. The bad news is that your understanding of the present system is incorrect. I can't give you names that the government wanted and the committee rejected because that's not how it works.

The good news is that the government has already implemented the system you proposed. This is what I tried to say in my earlier posts. I will try to be more clear here.

Similarly, for the Ontario Superior Court, a committee looks at the candidates and then makes its recommendations to the federal Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice then makes his or her recommendations to the cabinet.

The problem I have with this is that because the government controls who sits on the committes, and because it's not required to take people from the top of the "vetted" list, it still entirely controls who gets to be judge and so the judge can still be a patronage appointee - and usually is. You simply tell your failed candidate or party bag man to submit his application to the commitee, then, unless the commitee finds him unacceptable (and they rarely do) presto, he's a judge.

Also, while I'm unsure as to the practicality of such an approach, I would rather have would-be judges approached by a committee rather than the reverse. Somehow, I feel that the mere act of deciding "I'm not doing so well in my law business, maybe I'd make more as a judge. I think I'll apply for the job" makes me suspicious of the character and abilities of the people applying.

With respect to the appointments for the Superior Court, there was a big issue recently when Harper decided to put more representatives of the law enforcement community on the committees. It was felt that this would compromise the effectiveness of the committees since law enforcement is not exactly impartial in the process (and they are not supposed to be impartial).

Impartial towards whom? I would say they are impartial except that one would suspect they do not feel well-inclined towards criminals.

Resorted, eh? You mean like how you resorted to an example where a police officer illegally breaks into a house and just happens to find a blood soaked murderer? Who was apparently having a nice little nap? And you consider that a "real life example"

Actually it is a real life example, discussed on this forum fairly recently. That's why I used it.

that is somehow more common than forced confessions?

My point was that there was NO doubt of his guilt. A forced confession - unless it also includes something like the confessor taking police to where he buried the body or where he hid the murder weapon, generally has very little value and would likely be dismissed as such.

You are essentially advocating a police state, where police can do what they want as long as they "get results". Our justice system long ago did away with the maxim "the ends justify the means".

Hardly. A police state is one where the police can get away with whatever they want. I don't call it a police state when police are deterred from breaking the law by firing and imprisonment. As for our justice system long ago doing away with "the ends justify the means" I presume you mean back in the days when people could walk the streets at night without fear, and leave their doors unlocked because the criminals were all in jail?

What happens when the police bust in and the blood happens to be from someone (or something) other than a murder victim?

Then a laboratory would find that out.

What happens when they illegally break in and find no evidence at all? You say the officer should be punished. Fair enough. Now we have a police officer in jail for a while. Of course now we also have to compensate the victim of the officer's crime.

We do? Why? If a criminal breaks into my home do I get compensated? If a cop breaks the law he shoudl be punished apropriately. If you don't think fear of being demoted, fired or imprisoned will stop cops from arbitrarily breaking into houses then I'm not sure where you're coming from.

First, let's be clear. You are doing away with due process. Due process requires, among other things, the police to have a valid search warrant in order to enter a house. Your example above says no search warrant is necessary as long as the police "get results".

That's simply not true. The only change would be that evidence gathered would be used against the suspect. The police involved would still be punished for violating the law.

You have already advocated that police can randomly search people whenever they want.

This again is nonsense.

[DrGreenthumb]

Gee a conservative party supporter advocating for a police state, what a surprise!(not)

So after the police officer beats a false confession out of someone, who will be responsible to collect evidence against the officer? Another officer? What a joke. Google Harvey Zenk, or crystal tamand to see how well police collect eveidence against one of "their own".

You conservatives like to scare monger about the old communist regimes and their lack of freedom, but at the same time you want to take away our freedoms and give the police sweeping powers to use against citizens. It sounds like you would be happy replacing the RCMP with the KGB.

I would really like to wish an unwarranted body cavity search on every scared little weakling that votes conservative in an effort to give more powers to the police state. When your innocent ass is bent over the hood of a car and someone is shoving a hand up your ass to search for something they think you may be hiding(even though you are not) try to picture harper's face as you are the ones that invited him to screw you out of your right not to be searched and detained without due process.

[M.Dancer]

When your innocent ass is bent over the hood of a car and someone is shoving a hand up your ass to search for something they think you may be hiding(even though you are not) try to picture harper's face as you are the ones that invited him to screw you out of your right not to be searched and detained without due process.

Does that hapen to you a lot? Do you have a satistfying cigarette afterards?

[HisSelf]

I'm amazed. I agree with two out of three!

Healthcare. Yes private care, but let's study what happened with Dental Insurance. We ended up with a lot of dentists milking private dental plans for all they were worth.

Immigration. Bang on. Let's absorb the unemployed first. Immigration is too much of an easy fix.

But....

Three judges versus a jury. Two words for those of you who believe in entirely instutionalized justice: Steven Truscott. OK. Maybe four words. Robert Balkovitch. Oh wait. Six words... Communist China. O wait, eight words....

Justice is too important to seal off to a bureaucracy.

I'd like to add another: The Supreme Court. If it comes to a choice between having a Supreme Court and Steven Harper, I say so long Mr. Harper. Don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out.

[AngusThermopyle]

"Massive numbers " and Extreme dissatisfaction"

Oh yeah! Well how about "a bunch" and "quite peeved" then.

[bk59]

Let's start with our ideas of the justice system. You said:

Isn't the ultimate job of the judicial system to punish malfeance according to the will of the people, by the standards the people believe are proper and just?

So when you ask what I believe your definition of a justice system is, well... so far I have to believe that it is the definition you gave me (and everyone else on this forum).

How does a requirement for justice ignore the civil aspect of the legal system?

Well, nothing actually.

Which I certainly have no problem with.

YOUR previous definition of the justice system ignored the civil aspect of the legal system. It only focused on punishment.

I'm glad to see that you recognize the other aspects of a justice system when you say that you can agree with lesser punishment or diversion where the circumstances warrant it. And where you can agree that there are areas of law where punishment has no place at all. When you previously wrote about the justice system it came across as a "only punishment will do" type of justice system.

My problem with the present system is that most violent crime does not appear to be sufficiently punished, and in many cases the gap between what I would consider a just punishment and that actually handed out is enormous.

Perhaps. And maybe there is even a case that more severe sentencing should be used in general. I'm not going to debate that here (I might even agree with you a little bit). But even if that were so, it does not warrant changing our legal system in the way you envision. Nothing you are proposing prevents judges or lay people from handing down the sentences that they think are appropriate within the law. Which is more or less the exact same as what we have when judges issue sentences today.

That has been the credo of Corrections Canada for decades now and has largely resulted in massive injustice.

"Massive injustice"... you do like to use hyperbole don't you?

Not really. Our system has been remade in the last forty to fifty years to be unrecognizable from what it was previous to that. Fifty years ago the punishments handed out for violent offenses, particularly to repeat offenders, was far more severe, and parole far more difficult to obtain.

Hardly unrecognizable. Besides, I was talking about your attempts to remake the entire justice system. You have now taken the post only in reference to sentencing. And even then, there are principles used in sentencing that are used today that would not be foreign to a judge fifty years ago. The fact is, you want to replace the judge & jury system that has existed for centuries. And based on what? Well... it appears based on not much.

Utter nonsense. A range of penalties is there to address a range of circumstances and severity in the same crime.

Exactly. The range is there for a reason. That applies to both ends of the range. And when a judge looks at all of the facts before them, they will make a determination. What makes you think that people are going to be any different under your system? The judges will still look at all of the facts of the case and make a determination.

Now suppose the judge gives that repeat offender the minimum. Is that valid? Well, legally, yes. He can do that. But it's not just and it's not what the community would want to see.

What the community would want to see is not always just either. We can circle these examples all day. At the end of the day all we are going to agree on is that there are some cases where punishment should be emphasized and some cases where punishment should not be emphasized. That discussion has almost nothing to do with the drastic reforms you want to make. Those in a position to judge, after being educated on what the law is and looking at all of the specific facts, will probably give similar sentences in many circumstances. There will still be cases that have what you would consider inappropriate sentences.

Every murder and manslaughter case gets covered by the media, as does every other severe assault case. A lifetime of reading multiple newspapers every day exposes one to an awfully large body of information regarding what punishments the legal system has handed out for violent crime - not just the "attention grabbing cases".

And here is where some of our problems lie. The bottom line here is that:

1) You think every single murder, manslaughter and severe assault case gets reported in the media.

2) You think that reading newspapers over a lifetime is equivalent to looking at actual statistics.

3) You actually believe that the media are reporting 100% accurately and 100% of the information.

While I'm sure that most serious crimes are reported, I'm sure that many are only reported in the local area where it is of interest. You better be reading a lot of newspapers every day. And maybe you do. Who am I to say? You might also want to consider the fact that newspapers print articles that they think people want to read. By printing a story it has to have at least some "attention grabbing" aspects. The newspapers will not print stories that they don't think will attract attention. So if all you are reading is newspapers, how do you know there aren't cases out there that they aren't reporting?

Reading a newspaper is not the same as actually looking and comparing the real numbers. Memory plays tricks on us over time. And everyone always remembers the past being better than it was.

And finally, the media don't report all the details of a case. A judge will look at all of the facts regarding the situation and the people. Newspapers just print "X was convicted of Y". It will give some details, but not nearly the information that (for example) a judge will get from a pre-sentence report. It is very easy to get a distorted view of a specific case just by reading a newspaper article. And let's face it, a lot of times the media just plain gets it wrong. Have you ever been on the inside of a story and then read an article in a paper about it? Or seen a news report? It happens more often than you think that someone actually involved in the story will be able to pick out mistakes and misstatements. The media doesn't do it on purpose (I think), but these things happen.

It appears that most of your opinions are based on media reports. I would be hesitant to suggestion a massive overhaul of the justice system just because I've been reading the newspaper for years and don't like what I see.

I think you need to decide just where the case falls along that scale, including the criminal's background, and the severity of the harm done. Justice requires that a person who harms another severely be harmed severely in return - in some way. This also helps deter others who might be similiarly inclined in their violent ways.

I can agree with that, right up until you suggest harming people severely solely on the basis that someone else has been harmed severely. I don't buy into the eye for an eye garbage. You have made a general statement. I can easily think of examples that poke holes in that statement (think severe harm caused by someone who mistakenly thinks they need to defend themselves). You seem like a reasonable enough person that could agree that would require a lesser sentence. So why not just rid of that one sentence about people who harm need to be harmed? Then we can get back to deciding on each case individually. Which (again) is what judges right now do. So you can argue that you think they need to be a bit harsher without saying let's destroy the Canadian justice system.

I don't doubt it. My problem is that judges seem to be from a distant planet, planet ivory tower, I believe, where they remain divorced from the real concerns of us mere mortals who have to exist on this world and live alongside the vermin those judges impose lax sentences to.

Yes yes... you don't agree with "them" therefore they must be totally crazy and from another planet. Judges are not an evil "them". Nor does this help your position in any way.

Uhm, is it not the primary role of the jury to judge the defendant's innocence or guilt?

Where there are jury trials, yes. But you want to get rid of them. Although truthfully I'm still not sure why that is. Why do you want to get rid of juries?

And who is to say a three judge panel, made up of laymen and one legal expert would be less impartial?

I happen to think that when you elect people to the bench there is the temptation to be less impartial. Nothing you have said has convinced me otherwise. In fact, it is quite curious that you have so little faith in judges who are experienced in the law and who take the time to look at all of the facts of a case, but you have complete faith in someone who would have to pander to voters in order to get elected, has less experience in the law and who also would take the time to look at all of the facts of a case. To me you just come across as anti-establishment and are looking for any alternative even if it won't actually fix the problems you see in the current system.

The problem I have with this is that because the government controls who sits on the committes, and because it's not required to take people from the top of the "vetted" list, it still entirely controls who gets to be judge and so the judge can still be a patronage appointee - and usually is. You simply tell your failed candidate or party bag man to submit his application to the commitee, then, unless the commitee finds him unacceptable (and they rarely do) presto, he's a judge.

So, when a law society gives the Attorney General a list of nominees for positions on the committee you think this is the government stacking the committee? You think the government "entirely controls" the committee? And the law society? At some point you are going to have to take off the tin foil hat. The government does not control everything. In fact, I think you'd have a greater risk of having political people run for your elected judge positions than you do of having political people end up on the bench today. Why? Because political people love to run for things. And judges today are vetted (not 100% by the government as you would like to believe).

Also, while I'm unsure as to the practicality of such an approach, I would rather have would-be judges approached by a committee rather than the reverse. Somehow, I feel that the mere act of deciding "I'm not doing so well in my law business, maybe I'd make more as a judge. I think I'll apply for the job" makes me suspicious of the character and abilities of the people applying.

Let's be honest here, that doesn't sound practical at all. And would make the process even more open to political abuse. All of a sudden the evil government is only approaching the people it wants to see as judges. Besides, it doesn't even account for the number of people who take pay cuts when they become a judge. All this shows is your bias against judges. You appear to think they are just people who couldn't make it as lawyers.

Impartial towards whom? I would say they are impartial except that one would suspect they do not feel well-inclined towards criminals.

The job of the police is to build a case against a suspect and do what they can, within the law, to put them in jail. The role of a judge is to objectively weigh evidence, hear the legal arguments, and issue fair sentences. These are not the same purposes. It is not that far fetched to think that a police representative would be more favourable towards judges that are less impartial and more pro-police.

Actually it is a real life example, discussed on this forum fairly recently. That's why I used it.

It might have helped had you not cut my sentence in half. Then you would have realized that I was taking issue not with the fact that your example could be real, but with the fact that it is an uncommon situation as compared to examples of police breaking the rules to get information from a suspect.

I presume you mean back in the days when people could walk the streets at night without fear, and leave their doors unlocked because the criminals were all in jail?

Assuming we do not count wishful thinking, day dreams or "Leave it to Beaver", there was never a time like that in the entire history of humanity.

As for all this stuff about a police state...

We have long accepted the principle that no one should benefit from their wrongful behaviour. No one. Not even the police. If the police break the law then they don't get to reap the rewards of that breach of trust. It doesn't matter if you put the individual officer away or not. Why? Because it was not just the individual, but also the institution that broke the law.

We do? Why? If a criminal breaks into my home do I get compensated?

If the criminal breaks something then yes, you can sue him. If he steals something then yes, you can sue him. If the police were to break down my front door with no cause, you're darn right it will be the police who pay to fix it. If the police detain you for no reason at all so that they can go on a fishing expedition then you bet you can sue them for wrongful imprisonment.

If a cop breaks the law he shoudl be punished apropriately. If you don't think fear of being demoted, fired or imprisoned will stop cops from arbitrarily breaking into houses then I'm not sure where you're coming from.

If a criminal breaks the law he should be punished appropriately. If you don't think fear of being arrested, fined or imprisoned will stop criminals from arbitrarily breaking into houses then I'm not sure where you're coming from.

Oh... wait... that logic doesn't quite work does it? I mean, if it did, we wouldn't have to have a debate about how to deal with criminals.

Never mind the fact that another poster here has also brought up the issue of how much they trust the police to prosecute the police.

That's simply not true. The only change would be that evidence gathered would be used against the suspect.

And that is violating the person's due process rights. It really is that simple. Due process means that you cannot gather evidence against a person without following the law. You want to use evidence that was illegally obtained. That means you are doing away with due process. I'm not sure how to make that more clear.

[Argus]

Gee a conservative party supporter advocating for a police state, what a surprise!(not)

Gee, a pothead with a shrill, poorly thought out diatribe which has nothing to do with reality. What a surprise!(not)

Edited July 12, 2008 by Argus

[Argus]

Let's start with our ideas of the justice system. You said:

So when you ask what I believe your definition of a justice system is, well... so far I have to believe that it is the definition you gave me (and everyone else on this forum).

YOUR previous definition of the justice system ignored the civil aspect of the legal system. It only focused on punishment.

No, it focused on justice. You focused on punishment, and the above was a response to you.

Nothing you are proposing prevents judges or lay people from handing down the sentences that they think are appropriate within the law.

You can't actually PREVENT judges or lay people from handing down improper sentences unless you create absolute unwavering sentences for every crime - as in life without parole for 1st degree murder, for example. Or have you forgotten why those rigid sentences were created for murder - because people were so fed up with weak-kneed judges even the Liberals had to do something.

However, that being said, we can try to do something to see to it that punishments fit the crime.

Hardly unrecognizable. Besides, I was talking about your attempts to remake the entire justice system. You have now taken the post only in reference to sentencing. And even then, there are principles used in sentencing that are used today that would not be foreign to a judge fifty years ago.

I think one of the major differences today is the expansion of the term "human rights". That term used to be fairly basic: the right to not be beaten or imprisoned without trial, the right not to have your property confiscated, not to be starved, that sort of thing. Now it means so many things it's almost impossible to keep track of ones "human rights".

Exactly. The range is there for a reason. That applies to both ends of the range. And when a judge looks at all of the facts before them, they will make a determination. What makes you think that people are going to be any different under your system? The judges will still look at all of the facts of the case and make a determination

.

Perhaps three of them together are less likely to make a dumb decision. Perhaps the fact two of them have to be elected, and are thus accountable to the people for dumb decisions will also be a factor. You find the idea that judges might be influenced by things like that abhorrent, but in a democracy why should the people not be freed to judge those who judge on their behalf?

1) You think every single murder, manslaughter and severe assault case gets reported in the media.

Perhaps in Toronto they don't, but they do here. And I would think that in Toronto they do as well.

2) You think that reading newspapers over a lifetime is equivalent to looking at actual statistics.

First of all, you haven't produced any statistics. Second, statistics can easily be used to twist reality. They are not necessarily any more reliable than a newspaper report.

3) You actually believe that the media are reporting 100% accurately and 100% of the information.

Hardly.

And finally, the media don't report all the details of a case. A judge will look at all of the facts regarding the situation and the people.

I'm quite certain that's true. However, in most of these cases I find it hard to imagine just what was omitted which would change my perspective of a sentence being fundamentally unjust. When someone commits a cruel act of violence I really don't see how, barring self defense, any argument could be made that they should not be severely punished. A man carries a large knife into a shopping mall, picks a fight with a man he never met, and shouts "I killed you, you bastard! I'm going to watch you die!"

What do you imagine the news media omitted in reporting his two year sentence for manslaughter?

It appears that most of your opinions are based on media reports. I would be hesitant to suggestion a massive overhaul of the justice system just because I've been reading the newspaper for years and don't like what I see.

Reading newspapers is part of being in society. My opinions are formed from the latter, and the former is only one aspect of that.

I can agree with that, right up until you suggest harming people severely solely on the basis that someone else has been harmed severely. I don't buy into the eye for an eye garbage. You have made a general statement. I can easily think of examples that poke holes in that statement (think severe harm caused by someone who mistakenly thinks they need to defend themselves).

That's a pretty tiny hole if you're referring to a thug who robs a flower shop and shoots the female clerk in the back of the head.

You seem like a reasonable enough person that could agree that would require a lesser sentence. So why not just rid of that one sentence about people who harm need to be harmed?

If it will make you happier I will rephrase it as "Those who harm others need to be shown justice".

And justice has to include that the severity of any punishment takes into account the damage the person caused.

Then we can get back to deciding on each case individually. Which (again) is what judges right now do. So you can argue that you think they need to be a bit harsher without saying let's destroy the Canadian justice system.

You keep calling it a Justice System, but there is no requirement in any case that justice be served. It is a legal system. And there is far more wrong with it than just the fact that bleeding heart judges divorced from everyday life give limp-wristed punishments to vicious criminals.

Where there are jury trials, yes. But you want to get rid of them. Although truthfully I'm still not sure why that is. Why do you want to get rid of juries?

One aspect of the present legal system which bothers me is the time and expense of even the simplest cases - criminal or civil. I think removing juries would simplify things and there would be less arguing over minor points of what might "unduly influence" the jury - who judges and lawyers seem to agree are easily swayed by almost anything.

To me you just come across as anti-establishment and are looking for any alternative even if it won't actually fix the problems you see in the current system.

You're correct in that I am anti-establishment when it comes to the legal system, and am willing to experiment with things to try and reform it. I can't think of one single thing the legal system does right.

So, when a law society gives the Attorney General a list of nominees for positions on the committee you think this is the government stacking the committee?

The committee is appointed by government, is it not? And the law society simply gives the government a list of those who have applied who are not alcoholic shoplifters.

You think the government "entirely controls" the committee? And the law society? At some point you are going to have to take off the tin foil hat.

I did not say the government controls the law society.

Let's be honest here, that doesn't sound practical at all. And would make the process even more open to political abuse. All of a sudden the evil government is only approaching the people it wants to see as judges.

I am suggesting a panel of lawyers not appointed by government approach those it finds to be outstanding in their field. Perhaps in that eventuality being approached will seem such an honor that people will be willing to become judges, perhaps for a ten year period.

Besides, it doesn't even account for the number of people who take pay cuts when they become a judge. All this shows is your bias against judges. You appear to think they are just people who couldn't make it as lawyers.

I do.

The job of the police is to build a case against a suspect and do what they can, within the law, to put them in jail

.

Perhaps so, but that requires the ability to consider all alternatives and not ignore evidence in order to focus entirely on one particular person.

The role of a judge is to objectively weigh evidence, hear the legal arguments, and issue fair sentences.

Yes. Unfortunately, they appear to be failing in that role.

Assuming we do not count wishful thinking, day dreams or "Leave it to Beaver", there was never a time like that in the entire history of humanity.

I think you're being a tad dishonest there. Are you really going to deny that the streets and schools and parks were safer fifty years ago than they are today?

We have long accepted the principle that no one should benefit from their wrongful behaviour. No one. Not even the police. If the police break the law then they don't get to reap the rewards of that breach of trust. It doesn't matter if you put the individual officer away or not. Why? Because it was not just the individual, but also the institution that broke the law.

Uh, why? So if one cop violates a suspect's "rights" mistakenly or on purpose, then every cop, the entire organization, is to blame, and they must be "punished". Except, of course, that they aren't punished. Society is punished. Tell me, if one member of the Hell's Angels breaks the law can we punish the entire organization? No, of course not! That would be violating their rights!

If the criminal breaks something then yes, you can sue him.

Oh don't be silly. Quite aside from the fact he almost certainly has no assets the legal system is not open to the general public. It's open to the rich, and to those who can get their legal fees subsidized by government. Go ahead and take out a mortgage on your house to sue the criminal. The government will provide him with a lawyer, and even if you win your chances of collecting are nill.

If he steals something then yes, you can sue him. If the police were to break down my front door with no cause, you're darn right it will be the police who pay to fix it. If the police detain you for no reason at all so that they can go on a fishing expedition then you bet you can sue them for wrongful imprisonment.

If a criminal breaks the law he should be punished appropriately. If you don't think fear of being arrested, fined or imprisoned will stop criminals from arbitrarily breaking into houses then I'm not sure where you're coming from.

Except, of course, that police officers are an entirely different kind of person, one who does not want to be fired from his or her job, who is not likely to be willing to risk jail simply to get a conviction - which does him not personal good anyway. The motivation for police is entirely different from that of criminals, and your equating them is disingenuous at best.

And that is violating the person's due process rights. It really is that simple. Due process means that you cannot gather evidence against a person without following the law. You want to use evidence that was illegally obtained. That means you are doing away with due process. I'm not sure how to make that more clear.

So... due process is holy, and due process means the system as it is now - is holy. And the fact the system has changed many times before means what - that we didn't used to have due process? And if we change the process again it won't be due process now, because.... uh, why?

Due process is simply following whatever the process is. If we change the process and follow the new process it's still due process. Don't ascribe some kind of magical meaning to a word which essentially means "following the present rules, whatever they happen to be."

[bk59]

No, it focused on justice. You focused on punishment, and the above was a response to you.

OK... if you say so. It was you who said the ultimate job of the judicial system was to punish. No one had been talking about punishment before that. But I suppose you can believe whatever you want.

You can't actually PREVENT judges or lay people from handing down improper sentences unless you create absolute unwavering sentences for every crime - as in life without parole for 1st degree murder, for example. Or have you forgotten why those rigid sentences were created for murder - because people were so fed up with weak-kneed judges even the Liberals had to do something.

However, that being said, we can try to do something to see to it that punishments fit the crime.

Absolute unwavering sentences will never give you justice. You can't tailor any punishments to fit a crime with inflexible rules. As for why we had rigid sentences... well... that's a nice theory you have there. Unfortunately that's all it is.

I think one of the major differences today is the expansion of the term "human rights". That term used to be fairly basic: the right to not be beaten or imprisoned without trial, the right not to have your property confiscated, not to be starved, that sort of thing. Now it means so many things it's almost impossible to keep track of ones "human rights".

The term also used to include the right to not have your property searched without valid authority. But you don't seem to have a problem with changing the term when it suits your views.

You find the idea that judges might be influenced by things like that abhorrent, but in a democracy why should the people not be freed to judge those who judge on their behalf?

Here's an idea. Why not, in a democracy, we have a system where the people themselves can participate in the justice system and judge for themselves if someone accused of a crime is guilty or innocent? That seems democratic.

First of all, you haven't produced any statistics. Second, statistics can easily be used to twist reality. They are not necessarily any more reliable than a newspaper report.

Wait, you want me to waste my time finding statistics that prove your point? Of course I haven't produced any statistics. I was pointing out that you haven't produced any!

Yes, statistics can be manipulated. But they are still more reliable than your anecdotal evidence about how you read the newspaper and therefore know all about the justice system.

Hardly.

And yet you want to change the entire justice system because you read the newspaper and based on that information feel that the whole system is beyond hope.

What do you imagine the news media omitted in reporting his two year sentence for manslaughter?

I don't know. Is this a rhetorical question? Is this something you made up? Or did you want to add some more information so that the rest of us can figure out what you are talking about?

Reading newspapers is part of being in society. My opinions are formed from the latter, and the former is only one aspect of that.

OK, you're a part of society. But drastically changing our justice system in the way you propose needs a bit more support than "I'm a member of society and I think the justice system is broken therefore we need to change everything."

That's a pretty tiny hole if you're referring to a thug who robs a flower shop and shoots the female clerk in the back of the head.

Lucky for me that is not what I was referring to.

You keep calling it a Justice System, but there is no requirement in any case that justice be served. It is a legal system. And there is far more wrong with it than just the fact that bleeding heart judges divorced from everyday life give limp-wristed punishments to vicious criminals.

Call me crazy, but I do happen to think that the justice system should have justice as its goal. I'd even go so far as to say that I think the legal system should have justice as its goal.

Although we should all thank you for that last line. It was pretty funny.

Look, I can see that some sentences should be more severe in some cases. But that doesn't mean the whole system is totally broken.

One aspect of the present legal system which bothers me is the time and expense of even the simplest cases - criminal or civil. I think removing juries would simplify things and there would be less arguing over minor points of what might "unduly influence" the jury - who judges and lawyers seem to agree are easily swayed by almost anything.

First, having a jury determine your guilt or innocence at a criminal trial is one of those human rights you were talking about above. So getting rid of it just because you think it is inconvenient isn't a persuasive argument.

Second, in Canada, most civil trials do not use juries. Partially because the cases were quite complicated. Also, doing away with civil jury trials was more acceptable to most people because what is at stake in a civil trial generally isn't as important as what is at stake in a criminal trial. So the human rights factor is lessened in civil trials when it comes to being judged by your peers.

You're correct in that I am anti-establishment when it comes to the legal system, and am willing to experiment with things to try and reform it. I can't think of one single thing the legal system does right.

Willing to experiment and reform is one thing. Wanting to change things without valid reasons or even understanding how they might affect the system is quite another thing.

The committee is appointed by government, is it not? And the law society simply gives the government a list of those who have applied who are not alcoholic shoplifters.

I did not say the government controls the law society.

No. The committee is not just appointed by the government. Please take another look at my post or the links I provided. Using the positions filled by the law society as an example, the law society nominates a list of people who it wants on the committee. The government chooses from that list. But they are required to choose someone that the law society has already approved of. By saying that the government controls who is on the committee you are implying that the government controls the law society and who they put on their list.

Your disdain for lawyers is quite apparent. And your bias is not worth debating. Why don't you throw other stereotypes in there? Do you think all police officers are fat, doughnut-eating incompetents who just joined up for the power trip? Or maybe you'd like to call all people who believe in a religion fanatic nutjobs?

I am suggesting a panel of lawyers not appointed by government approach those it finds to be outstanding in their field. Perhaps in that eventuality being approached will seem such an honor that people will be willing to become judges, perhaps for a ten year period.

Having people self select means that some will apply just because they want the authority. But the application process can, and does, weed many of those out. When a committee or government goes about selecting people where are the checks and balances that they just won't stack the bench for their own political goals? And where do the elections fit in there? Don't people running for an office have to self select?

Perhaps so, but that requires the ability to consider all alternatives and not ignore evidence in order to focus entirely on one particular person.

I'm sure that is a comfort to those who have been wrongfully accused or imprisoned.

Not to mention the fact that once a person has gone to trial the police have made those decisions. That does not mean that an impartial judge is no longer required. Particularly when that judge also has to judge the police methods.

Uh, why? So if one cop violates a suspect's "rights" mistakenly or on purpose, then every cop, the entire organization, is to blame, and they must be "punished". Except, of course, that they aren't punished. Society is punished. Tell me, if one member of the Hell's Angels breaks the law can we punish the entire organization? No, of course not! That would be violating their rights!

When one member of the Hell's Angels steals $100 the individual member is punished by the legal system. But the group does not get to keep the $100. It is taken away because the group does not get to benefit from one member's wrongdoing.

Same with the police. Once evidence is collected through illegal methods that evidence is just like the $100. The Hell's Angels don't get to keep their illegally gotten goods. Neither do the police.

Oh don't be silly. Quite aside from the fact he almost certainly has no assets the legal system is not open to the general public. It's open to the rich, and to those who can get their legal fees subsidized by government. Go ahead and take out a mortgage on your house to sue the criminal. The government will provide him with a lawyer, and even if you win your chances of collecting are nill.

Finally. Access to justice is definitely worth talking about here. Because yes, the legal system is hard to access. There is small claims court, which is fairly accessible, but for anything more than that, the price certainly does jump. Improving access to justice will take money to improve legal aid services. More money than current governments seem wiling to spend. Even the federal government cancelled an excellent access to justice program about a year ago.

So... due process is holy, and due process means the system as it is now - is holy. And the fact the system has changed many times before means what - that we didn't used to have due process? And if we change the process again it won't be due process now, because.... uh, why?

Due process is simply following whatever the process is. If we change the process and follow the new process it's still due process. Don't ascribe some kind of magical meaning to a word which essentially means "following the present rules, whatever they happen to be."

Back to basics. First, due process does not mean "following the present rules, whatever they happen to be." Far from it. Due process means that there are certain minimum standards that must be met. If the rules don't meet those minimum standards then you still don't have due process. Just look up the word "due" if you don't believe me. As an adjective it means "adequate" or "of the proper quality". Therefore due process is "adequate process" not "follow the rules whatever they are".

Which makes most of your last point about due process off base.

But it is interesting the positions that you take. You don't like how human rights have changed, but you have no problem changing the human right of due process. Particularly the aspect of it that requires evidence be collected legally, with search warrants.

[DrGreenthumb]

Does that hapen to you a lot? Do you have a satistfying cigarette afterards?

Nope never happened to me, and I don't smoke tobacco, it causes cancer.

Hopefully someday it WILL happen to every one of you cowards who feels they need stormtroopers to protect them from all the scary young people. I often supervise people doing community service and fine options, and have found 90% of them to be really nice people who would certainly have become far less "nice" if they had been subjected to imprisonment and abuse from the violent offenders and bully prison guards instead of serving their "sentence" in the community. The other 10% maybe wouldn't qualify as "nice" but they certainly weren't scary or violent types.

I would really enjoy it if some of you conservative supporters got to see the inside of the "justice" system and see how your opinion of it changes when you are the one being subjected to illegal searches, lying police officers, and prosecuter intent on seeing a few years of your life stolen from you.

Maybe that old shotgun tucked in the attic that you refuse to register gets found when a cop kicks in your door because some asshole called in a false tip to crimestoppers saying you were growing a pot plant in your basement. Maybe some dumb "tough on crime" politician has passed a law requiring a 10 year mandaTORY minimum for possessing an unregistered firearm? Doesn't matter that the shotgun doesn't work and was handed down as a family heirloom, you broke the law you must go to jail. Don't complain that the law is unfair and stupid, it is the law. Maybe those cops (you people advocate they should be able to do anything they want) decide that since they couldn't find the plant they should do a more thorough search of your person, bend over Dancer.

As for cops having to abide by the law, why don't you ask the Taman family how thoroughly cops investigate other cops?

[DrGreenthumb]

Gee, a pothead with a shrill, poorly thought out diatribe which has nothing to do with reality. What a surprise!(not)

Its not reality I was commenting on it was your alternate reality where the police are allowed to do whatever they want. That thankfully is not reality it is just your wet dream.

I find the word "pothead" offensive and discriminatory, no different than if you were black man and I insisted on calling you Nigger in every post. Call me a pothead again and I'll start using "racist asshole bigot" to reply to every one of your posts.

eg: So in the Racist asshole Bigot party, the leader racist asshole bigot thinks we should have less minorities and immigrants, no rules for police, and the majority should be able to elect judges who will impose their will on everyone else regardless of how it violates their right?

[White Doors]

^

l

l

l

l

l

l

He said the N word.