A Judge's revealing Comments

[Argus]

A judge David Cole discusses how judges deliberately thrwart the will of parliament and work to get around the law in sentencing criminals.

National Post

And then there's this - an even more obvious case of a judge substituting his own beliefs in sentencing and beratting the government for having different ones.

Globe and Mail

Whenever anyone talks about how judges ignore law and use their own ideological beliefs in sentencing, certain people rush to defend them as if shocked anyone would question the neutrality of these learned black robes, but there's really no secret that judges despise strict laws of any kind for any crime and will always do their best to minimize sentencing.

Of cours,the result is more and more laws passed with minimum sentencing rules.

[Oleg Bach]

If you appoint a judge, that judge owes you! If for example I liked to maintain total power...it would not serve me well to have a focused and fearless population. So they use the age old idea of emotional destablization of the population - The crimminals they release are part of the team. Once during a conversation with an important man...he stated that being head of the CIA was more attractive than being the President of the United States, as far as a plum position. I have seen it over and over again right up to the Supreme Court level, constant and brash breaching of moral and legal law...done all by the legalists - Once I sent a few affidavits and a long hidden transcript to the Justice Minister...She viewed them I am sure..what it showed was that a couple of judges and a few lawyers basically defrauded the public that they are supposed to serve of their rights..to state in a court room that three people are present when they are not..and to then say that these ghosts gave their consent..when they were not present in body or mind ----then to hide this fraud..and have it revealed eventually to the SCC...and that high and heavenly body simply hire a slick firm to spin a story - made me lose all faith and care in the so called justic system ........They love to fu*k up the public while they amuze themselves with international law ignoring their own all the while.

[Wilber]

Unfortunately we have allowed our legal community to build a system that is no longer capable of getting out of its own way and is only accountable to itself.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Another reason to elect citizens to sit in the court system.

[eyeball]

A judge David Cole discusses how judges deliberately thrwart the will of parliament and work to get around the law in sentencing criminals.

Thank god someone is still able to stop Parliament from thwarting Canadians Charter rights.

[eyeball]

Another reason to elect citizens to sit in the court system.

Citizens should be elected to sit and oversee just about every institution in this country.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Citizens should be elected to sit and oversee just about every institution in this country.

Damned straight!

[eyeball]

Damned straight!

Even if they were damned stoned it would be better than nothing.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Even if they were damned stoned it would be better than nothing.

Now that rates as a ten point response!

[ToadBrother]

Another reason to elect citizens to sit in the court system.

Because we know just how well non-professionals can work in a complex system.

I fail to see the problem here. For centuries our system has been based upon the notion that Parliament makes the laws, but the judges interpret them. If a law can be interpreted in such a way that it defies the will of Parliament, the problem isn't with the judge, the problem is with the law. In short, Parliament is to blame for bad laws.

Destroying judicial independence or putting untrained people in the system with the bizarre assumption that "common sense will prevail" is just crazy talk. Would you put an ordinary person in charge of building a bridge?

[eyeball]

Because we know just how well non-professionals can work in a complex system.

I fail to see the problem here. For centuries our system has been based upon the notion that Parliament makes the laws, but the judges interpret them. If a law can be interpreted in such a way that it defies the will of Parliament, the problem isn't with the judge, the problem is with the law. In short, Parliament is to blame for bad laws.

Destroying judicial independence or putting untrained people in the system with the bizarre assumption that "common sense will prevail" is just crazy talk. Would you put an ordinary person in charge of building a bridge?

I agree the problem is with the law. It figures given we put so-called ordinary people in charge of passing them.

[M.Dancer]

Citizens should be elected to sit and oversee just about every institution in this country.

They already are. In fact, in just about every jurisdiction, only citizens can be elected.

[capricorn]

If a law can be interpreted in such a way that it defies the will of Parliament, the problem isn't with the judge, the problem is with the law. In short, Parliament is to blame for bad laws.

With a little help from the high priced lawyers we pay for at Justice Canada.

The Legislative Drafter Should Address The Norm's Content, As Well As Its Form

It is generally thought that legislative drafting should be concerned only with matters of writing in the strict sense: grammar, style, vocabulary, correctness of language and textual structure.

Certainly, the legislative drafter must be concerned with these matters and ensure that enactments are flawless with regard to form. But to my mind, drafters should also attend to the content of the rule. By "content of the rule," I mean the components of what is commonly referred to as "the legislative intent" - the conduct permitted, imposed or prohibited by the rule; the institution created by the statute; the contract organised by the norm; the procedure put in place for the holding of a proceeding; and so on, together with, of course, the sanction prescribed for a breach of the rule. In other words, the legislative drafter should be responsible for not only the norm's form but also its substance.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/icg-gci/norm/index.html

[Wilber]

Double Post

Edited December 17, 2009 by Wilber

[Wilber]

I agree the problem is with the law. It figures given we put so-called ordinary people in charge of passing them.

The problem is not so much the law but judges who refuse to enforce it or put their own personal bias in their decisions. The only reason there is an outcry for minimum sentences is because of the courts refusal to enforce the ones we have. Our system is a joke and now we have judges saying they will demand quicker trials when it is their rulings which have made quick trials all but impossible.

The Americans managed to do THIS in a mere nineteen months since this guys arrest. Our system made it impossible even to charge him and if it had, we would still be in the disclosure stage with maybe a trial in a couple of years followed by appeals, Charter challenges etc and if it stuck, three times credit for time served and maybe five years actual jail time. We don't give maximum sentences for anything except for murder and even then, including the word "life" is so often a joke.

If our judges are feeling the heat it is about time, they have it coming and in this province, so does the crown. Crown prosecutors are the only ones who can press charges in BC and if they decide not to, they are under no obligation to explain why, in fact they downright refuse on many occasions. They are accountable to no one except each other and I am tired of their BS excuses. According to the BC Govt's own statistics only 46.7% of British Columbians have confidence in their justice system. That's pretty sad.

[g_bambino]

Another reason to elect citizens to sit in the court system.

Right; because that would stamp out partisanship on the bench for sure!

[Smallc]

Common sense would be fine...if it even existed. Our system has been this way for hundreds of years and it has worked very well. I don't think we should get to believing that we're so smart as to be able to design a better system. This is like shouting at a tree for being a tree.

Edited December 18, 2009 by Smallc

[cybercoma]

You should read Ronald Dworkin's take on this. Rules are not always cut and dry, so judges have to take into consideration principles when making their decisions. Look up a case like Riggs v Palmer where a grandson, suspecting he was going to be written out of his grandfather's will, murdered his grandfather to receive his inheritance. If the law regarding wills at that time were to be followed to the letter, he would have been given the family farm. Needless to say, he lost because of the role principles play in judicial decision making. However, judges are not free to just decide however they want. They all, according to Dworking, strive to make the correct decision.

I'm with the legal realists, like Frank, on this one. Law doesn't exist until the court makes a decision. There are too many biases at play in the court. One cannot know beforehand how a judge will weigh those principles when reaching his/her decision. Furthermore, lawyers, clients, and witnesses all have biases which make the outcome entirely without certainty before the judicial decision is passed down.

So, in my opinion, this judge is right, in a sense. The law doesn't exist until they make a decision and pass judgment. Sure they have particular guidelines, but ultimately you can't know the outcome until it happens. OJ's living proof. Not guilty in the criminal trial, but guilty in the civil trial.

[Wilber]

Common sense would be fine...if it even existed. Our system has been this way for hundreds of years and it has worked very well. I don't think we should get to believing that we're so smart as to be able to design a better system. This is like shouting at a tree for being a tree.

Our system hasn't been like this for hundreds of years. It has changed a great deal over time, not always for the better.

[g_bambino]

Our system has been this way for hundreds of years and it has worked very well.

There are people on this forum who seem to believe that the American system is flawless and the grafting of elements of it onto ours will somehow solve the deficiencies of our governmental structure. It's a naïve fantasy, of course; no human construct is perfect, and careless tinkering with one that has been refined over centuries will actually achieve only the exact opposite of the intended improvement.

[Alta4ever]

I agree the problem is with the law. It figures given we put so-called ordinary people in charge of passing them.

I see, you want to have a ruling class.

[g_bambino]

Our system hasn't been like this for hundreds of years. It has changed a great deal over time, not always for the better.

The principals have changed far less than they have remained the same; we're talking about the core tenets of the judicial system, not incidentals like its scope.

[Alta4ever]

There are people on this forum who seem to believe that the socialist system is flawless and the grafting of elements of it onto ours will somehow solve the deficiencies of our governmental structure. It's a naïve fantasy, of course; no human construct is perfect, and careless tinkering with one that has been refined over centuries will actually achieve only the exact opposite of the intended improvement.

Edited December 18, 2009 by Alta4ever

[Wilber]

The principals have changed far less than they have remained the same; we're talking about the core tenets of the judicial system, not incidentals like its scope.

You mean incidentals like gridlock? The principals may have remained the same but a fat lot of good it does us if it evolves into a state where it can no longer function effectively.

[g_bambino]

[A] fat lot of good it does us if it evolves into a state where it can no longer function effectively.

You first have to prove that it doesn't function effectively. And, if so, that the disfunction hasn't been caused by pointless tinkering or the intrusion of foreign concepts.