A Judge's revealing Comments

[Jerry J. Fortin]

How is this any worse than judges having to follow precise legalistic formulas, regardless of whether it's right or not?

If the mechanism of legal policy says that the government or one of its agents mistakenly (however honestly) violated some aspect of the complex policies surrounding the acquisition of evidence a judge often has no alternative but to free the person in question, regardless of the certainty of guilt, regardless of the injustice of doing so.

I haven't heard an awful lot of complaints about JoPs going wild and doing crazy things with their power. It seems to me that a few of them can decide on the fate of a mugger or shoplifter or flasher or burbglar or pickpocket or drunk with a long record without need of complex legalistic arguments just as fairly and sensibly - if not more so than a judge with the aid of high priced Crowns and Defence lawyers. I put it to you that you don't need years of legal training to decide such things.

Bingo!

[Smallc]

How is this any worse than judges having to follow precise legalistic formulas, regardless of whether it's right or not?

How is it different? Because we as a society have decided that we want that precise legalistic formula through our representatives. Our system is designed so that our elected representative make the law. Having them interpret the law on top of that would be a very bad idea. It is a politicians job to make law, but most have no idea how to enforce it.....and most are more worried about elections than anything that the law says. We already have a legal system that makes sense, why would we ever throw politicians into the mix?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

How is it different? Because we as a society have decided that we want that precise legalistic formula through our representatives. Our system is designed so that our elected representative make the law. Having them interpret the law on top of that would be a very bad idea. It is a politicians job to make law, but most have no idea how to enforce it.....and most are more worried about elections than anything that the law says. We already have a legal system that makes sense, why would we ever throw politicians into the mix?

Letting out violent offenders after a couple years in the big house makes sense? Letting murders and rapists and child molesters out on the streets to re-offend makes sense?

[Smallc]

I said the system makes sense. You're talking about the law, which we have all the power in the world to change.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I said the system makes sense. You're talking about the law, which we have all the power in the world to change.

Good point, but I still suggest that the part of the system I have problems with is in part a process. From the legal charges down to the penalties. These things have processes which are determined by governments and can in fact be changed. In fact I want them changed. I also want to see accountable public servants, and judges fall under that category.

[Argus]

How is it different? Because we as a society have decided that we want that precise legalistic formula through our representatives. Our system is designed so that our elected representative make the law. Having them interpret the law on top of that would be a very bad idea. It is a politicians job to make law, but most have no idea how to enforce it.....and most are more worried about elections than anything that the law says. We already have a legal system that makes sense, why would we ever throw politicians into the mix?

I don't think anyone has suggested having MPs sitting in on criminal trials and rendering judgements in divorce cases so I'm not real sure what you're talking about here.

[Smallc]

Politicians shouldn't render judgments in any criminal cases. That's the point. There is a reason that our system was set up with an independent judiciary. It protects the legal system from the whims of the mob.

[Argus]

Politicians shouldn't render judgments in any criminal cases. That's the point. There is a reason that our system was set up with an independent judiciary. It protects the legal system from the whims of the mob.

I don't see a lot of lynchings in the US these days. Can't remember the last time I heard about a lynch mob busting a prisoner out of jail. So what on earth are you talking about?

The fact is there are very, very, very few cases which could expect to be politically charged enough that a judge's rulings would be political fodder. What might and probably would be political fodder is the bulk of a Judge's rulings, the attitude, the severity of sentencing, and I see nothing wrong with the public getting to judge judges on that. That is merely the community demonstrating whether or not they want severe sentences for certain classes of offenses or not. And that is how democracy works.

[Smallc]

I don't see a lot of lynchings in the US these days. Can't remember the last time I heard about a lynch mob busting a prisoner out of jail. So what on earth are you talking about?

I don't think you're understanding. I'm not worried about judges doing something unpopular. I'm worried about them doing something simply because it's popular.

And no, that isn't how our democracy works. We can change the laws. We don't get to render judgments as well.

Edited December 26, 2009 by Smallc

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I don't think you're understanding. I'm not worried about judges doing something unpopular. I'm worried about them doing something simply because it's popular.

And no, that isn't how our democracy works. We can change the laws. We don't get to render judgments as well.

In a democracy we can do anything we like as long as what we want is supported by a majority of citizens. That is the damned definition of democracy. The notion of a King having the final say was ended by Cromwell a long time ago. Well what we have now is only different in name. The government does what it wants, the people have no say or recourse between elections, none at all. The government controls election timing to a large degree when in a dominant position, yet another advantage.

The popularity contest you are talking about exists only in your own mind. Nobody is advocating tossing the laws out and having "Fred" render a judgement based on what "Barney" wants. What has been suggested is that the citizen have some input into the operations of government. Citizens being allowed to sit in judgment of another citizen. You have a problem with that?

[Smallc]

In a democracy we can do anything we like as long as what we want is supported by a majority of citizens.

We don't live in a Constitutional Democracy. We live in a Constitutional Monarchy with democratic elements. there are limits on the power of the citizenry here.

[Smallc]

What has been suggested is that the citizen have some input into the operations of government.

We already do. They're called elections.

Citizens being allowed to sit in judgment of another citizen. You have a problem with that?

Last I checked, judges were citizens. I'm fine with them rendering judgments because they're qualified. I'm not, and you're not.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

We already do. They're called elections.

The government does what it wants, the people have no say or recourse between elections, none at all.

Do you have issues with reading comprehension? What part about "between elections" did you not understand? An election called when the government thinks it can win, and not called if it thinks it could lose puts the concept of democracy in question off the line, your little play with words may work for some but not for me.

Last I checked, judges were citizens. I'm fine with them rendering judgments because they're qualified. I'm not, and you're not.

Again more with the word play. Judges are creatures of the system, as are politicians. Different systems, same problems. Our form of government is hundreds of years old and is in need of immense democratic reforms. Judges are indeed citizens, otherwise they would be ineligible for their positions. As to qualified, well that deserves some explanation I guess. In this nation, you have many methods of trial. Not all involve juries, so being judged by your peers doesn't always play into the game at all. In addition judges are appointments for life, subject to the requirements of judicial review. Which in any case only renders decisions based on the application of existing law. That same panel could be convened to question the ruling made by an independent citizen. Whats good for the goose ought to be good for the gander, so why not just have one election and choose all of your public servants and be done with it? The next election should be held when somebody dies. Or is the horse a different color?

[Smallc]

I don't agree with your vision for society. It's that simple. I don't see it as any tyep of improvement over the very good system that we have.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I don't agree with your vision for society. It's that simple. I don't see it as any tyep of improvement over the very good system that we have.

I do not agree with your views on the current state of affairs either. I see the government as a corrupt ineffective bureaucracy that costs the tax paying citizens far more than it returns in value. I seek accountability of public servants, the obedience of those servants, and value for the expense of those servants. I see that as a positive vision for the nation. I think we need to embark on a quest of nation building that is far more than the mere industrial development and environmental rape that passed for our last attempt. I seek the means to help this nation evolve beyond its current state into the enlightened society I know it could be. Both the left and right wingnuts of partisan ilk fail to understand that the population is desirous of less taxation, less government, more democracy, more freedom, and most of all less debt.

[Smallc]

What we desire is reflected in how we vote. We don't vote with your vision...we don't seem to want it.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

What we desire is reflected in how we vote. We don't vote with your vision...we don't seem to want it.

My vision is not subject to any vote, I am a private citizen. What we hold our noses and vote for seems to me to be less of what we desire and more of what is available. Speaking of which, available choices are far more important than imposed government dictates.

[Argus]

I don't think you're understanding. I'm not worried about judges doing something unpopular. I'm worried about them doing something simply because it's popular.

And no, that isn't how our democracy works. We can change the laws. We don't get to render judgments as well.

Are you saying the severity of a punishment should not reflect a society's discomfort or revulsion with that crime? Or even that something ought to be a crime?

Edited December 27, 2009 by Argus

[Argus]

What we desire is reflected in how we vote. We don't vote with your vision...we don't seem to want it.

Not neccesarily true. I think virtually every poll taken of the citizenry shows a desire for more severe sentencing, particularly for violent offenders, and a dislike of the easy availability of parole.

The problem has been the elites in charge, who do not share or reflect that concern.

One of the reasons behind the rise of the Reform Party was that all three federal political parties were in lockstep on a number of issus and did not reflect the vast amount of disagreement in the general population. All federal parties were against he death penalty, for example, even when polls showed anywhere from 70%-90% of the public in favour. All federal parties were in favour of official bilingualism even when large numbers of the population were opposed to how it was being implimented. All three federal parties were in favour of abortion on demand even though substantial numbers of Canadians had varying degrees of disagreement with that concept. All federal parties were in favour of multiculturalism and open immigration even though the majority of the country was not.

[Argus]

Last I checked, judges were citizens. I'm fine with them rendering judgments because they're qualified. I'm not, and you're not.

Unfortunately, they also make laws, and yet are not subject to any restrictions or oversight. Some of us are not comfortable with that. If judges are going to have the power to create laws there needs to be more oversight of them.

[Smallc]

Are you saying the severity of a punishment should not reflect a society's discomfort or revulsion with that crime? Or even that something ought to be a crime?

Yes, but we determine that at the lawmaking end. We can't be judge, jury, and executioner. There has to be a point somewhere that is a check on the will of the people. The people can't simply do whatever they want.

[Smallc]

Unfortunately, they also make laws, and yet are not subject to any restrictions or oversight. Some of us are not comfortable with that. If judges are going to have the power to create laws there needs to be more oversight of them.

Parliament can change laws if they don't like what judges say. Judges cannot simply make new laws....there has to be something wrong with the law if they decide that it needs to be changed.

[Smallc]

The problem has been the elites in charge, who do not share or reflect that concern.

One of the reasons behind the rise of the Reform Party was that all three federal political parties were in lockstep on a number of issus and did not reflect the vast amount of disagreement in the general population.

Yes, that's why Reform was what amounts to an utter failure. If people were really so dissatisfied, there would have been a Reform government. There wasn't - not even close.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Yes, that's why Reform was what amounts to an utter failure. If people were really so dissatisfied, there would have been a Reform government. There wasn't - not even close.

Reform became the official opposition, that is pretty damned close I would say.

[Smallc]

They became the official opposition, but they weren't anywhere near close to forming government, and they probably never would have. There's a reason that the CPC was able to form the government. It's because most Canadians exist in the centre, and so the CPC was able to gain traction across the country that Reform never could have.