A Judge's revealing Comments

[Wilber]

Who are you to determine if they've done a crappy job? It seems that the judge in the second article was held accountable by those at higher levels. They won't be making the same types of rulings again. That's why we have so many court levels, it's part of keeping lower levels accountable. Thank goodness the court of public opinion isn't among the levels.

He was criticized but his ruling stood so even his superiors felt his conduct was more important than the law. The fact a criminal went free was just not that important. What will they do if he does it again?

[whowhere]

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.

Odd since these judges were appointed by the conservatives or liberals. Perhaps the disrespected legislation was the result of the opposing parties actions. Ie a conservative judge twisting liberal legislation for conservative party motives. This only goes to show how entrenched the corruption is within the ranks of Canada. We need to get the communist conservatives out out out.

[Smallc]

He was criticized but his ruling stood so even his superiors felt his conduct was more important than the law.

So, maybe he wasn't all that off when it came to the law, either.

[Bugs]

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

I wish you'd give us an example of what you're talking about.

Who has done a better job of subverting the Charter than the judiciary?

[Smallc]

When has the judiciary subverted the Charter?

[g_bambino]

As I said before, we have laws and we have sentences and when there is a conviction the only thing between them is a judge who is only accountable to other judges.

And as I've said, the existence of these three things doesn't automatically mean problems always lie squarely with the judge. The problems you complain about are more the result of lax laws and sympathetic parole boards. The judge can only met out what the law permits him to.

[Wilber]

And as I've said, the existence of these three things doesn't automatically mean problems always lie squarely with the judge. The problems you complain about are more the result of lax laws and sympathetic parole boards. The judge can only met out what the law permits him to.

You can't blame sentences on lax laws and parole boards. You first have to imprison someone before they can be paroled.

[Smallc]

Sentences can be blamed on laws. If precedence has been set, then all that can really change things is a change in laws.

[Wilber]

So, maybe he wasn't all that off when it came to the law, either.

Why is it you are so ready to accept partiality from judges that would be unacceptable from a hockey referee?

[Smallc]

I accept partiality from everyone. If someone is too partial in a job that requires they be as un partial as possible, then someone higher up will overrule them. I don't know enough about interpreting law to question a justice.

[Wilber]

I accept partiality from everyone. If someone is too partial in a job that requires they be as un partial as possible, then someone higher up will overrule them. I don't know enough about interpreting law to question a justice.

So you unquestionably accept everything.

[Wilber]

Sentences can be blamed on laws. If precedence has been set, then all that can really change things is a change in laws.

Who sets precedence?

[Smallc]

No, I don't, but I don't consider myself to be in a position to question the way laws are interpreted. I wouldn't want a judge to question me on what I do, being as they probably have no idea what it involves. I have no problem questioning politicians, since that's something that's meant to be accessible to all people.

[Smallc]

Who sets precedence?

Other judges. If the government (and by extension the people) doesn't like the precedence that is set, they should change the law to reflect their dissatisfaction.

[Wilber]

Other judges. If the government (and by extension the people) doesn't like the precedence that is set, they should change the law to reflect their dissatisfaction.

So you are OK with minimum sentences for certain crimes then.

[Smallc]

Yes, I certainly am. If the public believes that the sentences aren't strong enough, then something has to be done, but I don't see blaming the judiciary as being productive, especially since most people rattling on about the problems have no idea what they're talking about.

[g_bambino]

You can't blame sentences on lax laws.

What on earth are you talking about? What do you think criminal law is for if not to define what punnishment criminals receive when found guilty?

[Wilber]

What on earth are you talking about? What do you think criminal law is for if not to define what punnishment criminals receive when found guilty?

Lets get rid of conditional sentences then.

[Wilber]

Yes, I certainly am. If the public believes that the sentences aren't strong enough, then something has to be done, but I don't see blaming the judiciary as being productive, especially since most people rattling on about the problems have no idea what they're talking about.

As said before, the only reason you need to be in favour is because judges use the lower end of the sentencing range available to them. The stiffer sentences are available, judges just don't apply them. Why is that? Who else do you blame?

[Smallc]

That's not true all of the time. The perception is that the judges never give the top sentence, but it's not always true. It depends what precedent has been set for similar circumstances.

[g_bambino]

The perception is that the judges never give the top sentence, but it's not always true.

That's what I was wondering; why do so many people jump to the conclusion that all judges always hand out the most minimal sentence they can?

[Wilber]

That's what I was wondering; why do so many people jump to the conclusion that all judges always hand out the most minimal sentence they can?

Because no one can recall when a maximum sentence has been handed out. Can either of you?

[Smallc]

Does every court case make the press?

[Wilber]

Does every court case make the press?

If someone actually got a maximum sentence you can bet it would.

[DrGreenthumb]

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?

Can we elect airline pilots too?