A Judge's revealing Comments

[Wilber]

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.

Here's an indicator. According to a recent study of 456 offenders by Fraser Valley University, 46 were identified as super offenders with more than 30 convictions. Average number of convictions 47. Average time between convictions 3.2 months. Number who have violated conditions 100%. Number with convictions for violence 91%. Number who served jail time 80%. Of those. Number who served less than two weeks 88%. Number who served one day 38%. If that isn't pointless tinkering I don't know what is and you can't blame it on foreign concepts.

[g_bambino]

According to a recent study of 456 offenders by Fraser Valley University, 46 were identified as super offenders with more than 30 convictions. Average number of convictions 47. Average time between convictions 3.2 months. Number who have violated conditions 100%. Number with convictions for violence 91%. Number who served jail time 80%. Of those. Number who served less than two weeks 88%. Number who served one day 38%.

None of which is an indicator that the basics of the judicial sytem are flawed. What you point to tends to imply a problem with the laws themselves, as well as, perhaps, the penal system.

[Wilber]

None of which is an indicator that the basics of the judicial sytem are flawed. What you point to tends to imply a problem with the laws themselves, as well as, perhaps, the penal system.

And it could also be a group of whiners who insist on blaming everything on someone else in spite of the fact they are the only group in our society who are accountable to no one but their peers.

[Wilber]

None of which is an indicator that the basics of the judicial sytem are flawed. What you point to tends to imply a problem with the laws themselves, as well as, perhaps, the penal system.

The laws are there. The sentences are there. The only thing between them is a judge.

Edited December 18, 2009 by Wilber

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The USA adapted the Briish system to a large degree. You could say that they re-invented the wheel but that isn't the half of it. They wanted checks and balances, they wanted accountability. They fought and died to achieve this end. Our system was handed to us on a silver platter for the most part.

[g_bambino]

The laws are there. The sentences are there. The only thing between them is a judge.

That's just a statement of the obvious; it's not proof, or even an argument.

[eyeball]

I see, you want to have a ruling class.

No, you don't see. Facetiousness completely escapes you doesn't it?

[Mr.Canada]

We need to start holding judges personally responsible for their actions. If a judge lets a high risk offender out on bail or on a short sentence and he kills or hurts someone that judge should be made to answer for his actions. If he hadn't granted bail or a short sentence the person on bail wouldn't have killed or hurt anyone that matters as he/she would have been in jail. The judge would be directly responsible for providing the conditions for him to commit the crime.

If a judge is unfit he/she should be removed from the bench. Endangering the public deems the judge unfit in my eyes. His job is to keep society safe not further his own political goals.

[Wilber]

That's just a statement of the obvious; it's not proof, or even an argument.

That's the problem, our system has degenerated to a point where the obvious no longer constitutes proof or an argument.

[g_bambino]

That's the problem, our system has degenerated to a point where the obvious no longer constitutes proof or an argument.

I don't think you should be blaming the court system for your problem with formulating an argument to support your position.

[Wilber]

I don't think you should be blaming the court system for your problem with formulating an argument to support your position.

I've made arguments and presented examples. All yours has consisted of is don't worry be happy.

[g_bambino]

I've made arguments and presented examples.

No, you presented some information without explanation of how it supported your claim; I already said that your examples were more significant of problems in areas beyond the courts, not with the bench itself.

[wyly]

Damned straight!

it's bad enough we elect uneducated idiots to parliament now you want to do the same with the courts?

[wyly]

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

the end picture of a government over riding my legal rights is not a pretty one...NAZI Germany and American McCarthyism come to mind...I trust the Courts despite any imperfections to protect me more than the government...

[Guest TrueMetis]

We need to start holding judges personally responsible for their actions. If a judge lets a high risk offender out on bail or on a short sentence and he kills or hurts someone that judge should be made to answer for his actions. If he hadn't granted bail or a short sentence the person on bail wouldn't have killed or hurt anyone that matters as he/she would have been in jail. The judge would be directly responsible for providing the conditions for him to commit the crime.

If a judge is unfit he/she should be removed from the bench. Endangering the public deems the judge unfit in my eyes. His job is to keep society safe not further his own political goals.

I'd rather not because that will cause the judges to care more about themselves and their job than the innocence or guilt of a person. Remember innocent until proven guilty.

[ToadBrother]

I'd rather not because that will cause the judges to care more about themselves and their job than the innocence or guilt of a person. Remember innocent until proven guilty.

Mr. Canada has already made it clear that he feels "innocent until proven guilty" is little more than an obstacle to what he considers justice. His attitude can generally be summed up as "if the cops target you, they must have a reason..." I'm surprised he even wants judges at all. Much simpler to have the cops just shoot suspects. After all, they wouldn't suspects if the cops didn't have a reason to suspect they were.

[Wilber]

No, you presented some information without explanation of how it supported your claim; I already said that your examples were more significant of problems in areas beyond the courts, not with the bench itself.

I have present arguments. You have presented? Ah, nothing.

Lets take those 46 super offenders. Only 37 have ever served jail time. 32 have served less than two weeks. 14 have served only one day.

Lets try and put a cost on it. Say it takes an average of 5 police man hours per conviction. Let's assume it costs the taxpayer an average of $80 per man hour, not unrealistic considering wages, benefits, equipment, support staff and overtime costs due to court appearances on days off, time spent having to continually deal with the same people, over and over again even when no charges were laid. These 46 have a combined total of 2162 convictions which adds up to 10810 man hours or $8,648,000 in police costs alone. Add to that all the other costs of bringing a case to trial including defense costs (most of these idiots will get legal aid paid for by the taxpayer) the costs to victims, higher prices and insurance costs to pay for these crimes for the rest of us. For what? Precious little as far as I can see.

In spite of that we still have idiots (in some cases highly educated idiots who have managed to completely avoid the Peter Principle) parroting that it is too expensive to put these people in jail. A question they should be required to answer is at what point does it become too expensive not to? I suspect their ideology will prevent many of them from giving a straight answer.

I have a lot of respect for many judges as individuals but not for their creation. I don't know why people insist on putting them on pedestals. When you get right down to it, they are lawyers who owe their appointments to lawyers, accountable to no one but lawyers. Yes, they have a difficult job but so do many others in society. The difference is the rest are accountable to those they serve or at least those who are signing their paychecks. You can't fire a lousy judge, only reverse their decisions and the higher a lousy judge rises, the worse the problem and we are stuck with the result.

We all know the old adage about power corrupting and even the law can be perverted when there is no accountability, despite the best of intentions. The problem is, what do you do when a group that is not accountable heads in the wrong direction?

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. If judges refuse to use the full range of sentences available to them, the problem is indeed on the bench.

[Smallc]

That's the problem, our system has degenerated to a point where the obvious no longer constitutes proof or an argument.

Something being obvious doesn't constitute evidence unless it can be proven...and it never has.

Edited December 19, 2009 by Smallc

[Wilber]

Something being obvious doesn't constitute evidence unless it can be proven...and it never has.

Depends on what it is. It does however constitute an argument. The topic of this thread had nothing to do with proving anything but the issue of judges applying their own personal social views to the law. If they are going to do so, they should be accountable for their actions just like any other citizen involved in social engineering.

[Smallc]

And who should judges be accountable to besides the people in the legal world that they're already accountable to?

[Wilber]

And who should judges be accountable to besides the people in the legal world that they're already accountable to?

Good question, what would you suggest? Do you think the legal world should be accountable to no one? Perhaps there is a case to be made for at least some of our judges to be elected. If they are going to conduct themselves like politicians by making it up as they go along according to their own prejudices, they should be treated accordingly. At the very least it should be possible to fire them if they do so consistently.

[Smallc]

Electing judges is a terrible idea. Instead of fact and evidence and personal opinion (which it's impossible to completely separate from fact), political opinion become an important deciding factor in trials. We get to decide what laws are made. If we (the public) also get to interpret them, we've suddenly got a tyranny of the majority.

Oh, and justices can be fired. It simply isn't for the reasons that you want.

I would suggest that we stop trying to 'improve' things all of the time. We can change laws if need be. We can't be interpreting them too. What you're suggesting would be a devastating blow to the concept of judicial independence which is so important to our legal system.

Edited December 19, 2009 by Smallc

[Wilber]

Electing judges is a terrible idea. Instead of fact and evidence and personal opinion (which it's impossible to completely separate from fact), political opinion become an important deciding factor in trials. We get to decide what laws are made. If we (the public) also get to interpret them, we've suddenly got a tyranny of the majority.

Oh, and justices can be fired. It simply isn't for the reasons that you want.

I would suggest that we stop trying to 'improve' things all of the time. We can change laws if need be. We can't be interpreting them too. What you're suggesting would be a devastating blow to the concept of judicial independence which is so important to our legal system.

In case you haven't noticed this topic is about judges who choose to ignore the law and impose their own personal will in their court. Do you think that is acceptable? Judicial Independence is all very well but their job is to apply the law as it is written, not pick and choose which ones they will enforce. That independence is there so they can apply the law as it is written without interference, not so they can do whatever they want. What is the point of changing laws if your judges just ignore them anyway?

What can judges be fired for other than personal misconduct? It sure doesn't happen for doing a crappy job.

Edited December 19, 2009 by Wilber

[Smallc]

In case you haven't noticed this topic is about judges who choose to ignore the law and impose their own personal will in their court. Do you think that is acceptable? Judicial Independence is all very well but their job is to apply the law as it is written, not pick and choose which ones they will enforce.

That's not completely true. Our system does not only deal with written codes but also intent and non written conventions. It isn't nearly as simple or cut and dry as you want to make it out to be.

[Smallc]

It sure doesn't happen for doing a crappy job.

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.

Edited December 19, 2009 by Smallc