Is Crime Really Down?

[Bonam]

I'm not talking about an appeal. If citizens feel a judge consistently is too lenient in his sentencing what WORKABLE recourse do they have?

Moving to the US where they can elect their judges (after they become citizens in about a decade) can be considered workable...

[Smallc]

I'm not talking about an appeal. If citizens feel a judge consistently is too lenient in his sentencing what WORKABLE recourse do they have?

None, and with good reason. They (the people) collectively know pretty much nothing about the law or justice. You asked when judges were corrected. I said that it happens all of the time. That's the reality. You're looking for something a bit difference.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Smallc

[Wilber]

None, and with good reason. They (the people) collectively know pretty much nothing about the law or justice. You asked when judges were corrected. I said that it happens all of the time. That's the reality. You're looking for something a bit difference.

Either these folks are gods or I am wanting in examples of all the other institutions that are self correcting without outside pressure.

[Bonam]

None, and with good reason. They (the people) collectively know pretty much nothing about the law or justice. You asked when judges were corrected. I said that it happens all of the time. That's the reality. You're looking for something a bit difference.

People may know relatively little about the details of the law but that is not what matters. The justice system is ultimately there not simply to provide employment for scholars of ancient and cryptic writings on the subject of law, but to protect the public from criminals. The public may not know the law, but it can certainly tell when it is not being adequately protected from criminals.

[Smallc]

Either these folks are gods or I am wanting in examples of all the other institutions that are self correcting without outside pressure.

Who said they don't have outside pressure? But ok, what about doctors? What about nurses? They're self regulating.

[Smallc]

The public may not know the law, but it can certainly tell when it is not being adequately protected from criminals.

I'm not so sure they can, quite frankly. People far too easily fall prey to sensationalized headlines....and it's often the case that people have no idea what they want.

[Bonam]

Who said they don't have outside pressure? But ok, what about doctors? What about nurses? They're self regulating.

They are self-regulating only to an extent. A doctor that does something sufficiently wrong can face investigation and even criminal charges.

[Smallc]

A doctor that does something sufficiently wrong can face investigation and even criminal charges.

Only if they do something outside of the norm for their profession, or if they break the law. Judges are held to no lower a standard (or do you believe that judges can't face criminal investigations?).

[Bonam]

I'm not so sure they can, quite frankly. People far too easily fall prey to sensationalized headlines....and it's often the case that people have no idea what they want.

There are plenty of people who lean the other way. You know, those the right refers to as "liberals", "bleeding hearts", etc. Such people could (and do) certainly push for even softer justice. The point is that the public should have some input on the process. We already do to some extent, when there is sufficient outrage over a certain judicial precedent, it can become a political issue, and then legislation can be passed to change the law (for example the Conservatives canceling the 2 for 1 credit thing). My opinion is that such participation should be allowed to be somewhat more direct, so that such precedents can be amended by the public will before they become giant nation-wide political issues.

[Smallc]

so that such precedents can be amended by the public will before they become giant nation-wide political issues.

Such a thing, again, cannot exist within the common law.

[Bonam]

Only if they do something outside of the norm for their profession, or if they break the law. Judges are held to no lower a standard (or do you believe that judges can't face criminal investigations?).

Judges can face criminal investigation if they commit a crime. But to my knowledge judges don't risk going to jail for things like gross incompetence, negligence, etc.

[Smallc]

Judges can face criminal investigation if they commit a crime. But to my knowledge judges don't risk going to jail for things like gross incompetence, negligence, etc.

Well, they may in such a case, I'm not sure. They could also be disbarred, which does happen.

[Bonam]

Such a thing, again, cannot exist within the common law.

So what? Is the way the system works carven in stone, never to be changed for all the ages of the Earth?

My opinion is that the system could work better, and that making it work better might involve some changes.

[Smallc]

So what? Is the way the system works carven in stone, never to be changed for all the ages of the Earth?

My opinion is that the system could work better, and that making it work better might involve some changes.

The basis of common law is precedence by legal decision. If you take that, away, you change the entire system of law and make pretty much useless every decision up until that point. I'm not sure what you would have to do in order to do that, and I know I don't want it done. This is like (and may be part of) the Constitution. Such things should never be changed lightly.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Smallc

[Bonam]

The basis of common law is precedence by legal decision. If you take that, away, you change the entire system of law and make pretty much useless every decision up until that point. I'm not sure what you would have to do in order to do that, and I know I don't want it done.

Precedence by legal decision is fine, so long as that precedence makes sense. But a precedent can be set by just a single individual (the judge) for just one specific case, and often then gets applied in the future in quite different circumstances, and perhaps the precedent itself was not quite correct, but was not at the time appealed or overturned.

What I would like to see is some way of reviewing court decisions that set new precedents prior to them entering an "official database" of legal precedents.

For example, when a judge makes a decision in a given case, that decision stands for the case, but whether it enters the legal precedent should be reviewed by a committee of other, highly qualified and perhaps elected judicial officials. If yes, then it becomes precedent as it does now, if not, then it cannot be referred to as legal precedent by other judges. Also, if not, perhaps the system would automatically check to see whether the original decision should be appealed, even if an appeal was not requested by either party in the original case. I think this would work as a type of check in our legal system that would prevent "activist judges" from changing the nature of justice by cleverly setting precedents of a certain type (for example trending towards lenience).

Would something like that be so catastrophic for our system? I don't think so.

[Wilber]

Who said they don't have outside pressure? But ok, what about doctors? What about nurses? They're self regulating.

They are self regulating but they don't make their own regulations and if there is a dispute over their jurisdiction they are subject to the rulings of the courts. There is no higher authority for the judiciary, the only curb on their activities is public outrage and so far, they don't seem to have any problem ignoring that.

They don't have outside pressure, their own precedents come first according to your own words. The only outside pressure they might respond to is the realization the public has lost confidence in them. They can sit around and tell each other how great they are all they want but it doesn't really mean anything if they are the only ones who believe it. There are times when even they should start listening instead of dictating.

That is the point we are rapidly approaching if we are not already there.

[Smallc]

But a precedent can be set by just a single individual (the judge) for just one specific case, and often then gets applied in the future in quite different circumstances,

If the circumstances were quite different, the precedent wouldn't apply.

Would something like that be so catastrophic for our system? I don't think so.

I'm not so sure about that. It would alter the very basis of our system.

[Wilber]

Judges can face criminal investigation if they commit a crime. But to my knowledge judges don't risk going to jail for things like gross incompetence, negligence, etc.

It is very unusual for them to even get fired, let alone go to jail.

[Smallc]

It is very unusual for them to even get fired, let alone go to jail.

To get to the point where you become a judge, you have to have been pretty good with the law and personal integrity. That might have something to do with it.

[Bonam]

To get to the point where you become a judge, you have to have been pretty good with the law and personal integrity. That might have something to do with it.

Umm there are plenty of examples of judges that have no personal integrity whatsoever. Consider this example:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/07/29/steve-ellis-sentencing974.html

A judge tried to get sexual favors in exchange for letting a South Korean refugee applicant stay in Canada.

Certainly, few judges are stupid and corrupt enough to be that blatant with what they do, but to assume that all or even most judges are individuals of outstanding moral integrity simply because of their profession is unjustified (much like the same assumption is also false when applied to priests, for example). Judges are human beings like the rest of us and can make mistakes, hold biases, etc. This is why their decisions, especially when they set a precedent that will affect our society and our legal system for years/decades/centuries to come, need to be reviewed by others.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Bonam

[Wilber]

To get to the point where you become a judge, you have to have been pretty good with the law and personal integrity. That might have something to do with it.

I would agree with that in general but I am amazed that you are so awe struck by what is little more than a closed shop. Lawyers looking after lawyers. What is a judge? A lawyer. Who is responsible for appointing them? Other lawyers.

Link

The exception rather than the rule to be sure (at least I would like to think so) but this guy certainly slipped through and it wasn't his fellow judges who exposed him or brought him to trial. The were however responsible for him getting his job in the first place.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Wilber

[Keepitsimple]

Stockwell Day took some heat from theshark-infested Ottawa media yesterday for saying that a lot of crime went unreported. The sarcastic reporters claimed to be baffled. Looks like old Stock was right all along:

Like sharks sniffing blood, reporters circled, claiming to be “baffled”. “There’s a statistic about unreported crimes? I mean, if they’re not reported, by definition we have no idea about these crimes,” said David Akin of Sun Media.

Mr. Day babbled nonsense like a man with a concussion, leaving the distinct impression that Liberal critic Mark Holland was correct when he said later that the minister was making it up as he went along.

But he wasn’t. It turns out that every five years Statistics Canada asks Canadians about their experience of crime. The Crime Victimization study, part of the broader General Social Survey, found that in 2004 only about 34% of criminal incidents came to the attention of the police, down from 37% in 1999 and 42% in 1993.

Beyond being inconvenient for Mr. Holland, who insisted “we [the Liberal party] trust facts that come from Statistics Canada,” it is a staggering number. It suggests that nearly two-thirds of the offences in the eight major crime categories included in the Crime Victimization study were not reported to police, either because it was not deemed important enough, because the victim did not want the police involved or because of fear of reprisal.

Many of these incidents involve the theft of personal property but more than half of all violent incidents, including nearly 90% of all sexual assaults, went unreported.

This is clearly a contributory reason why nearly one-third of Canadians think the level of crime increased in the five years prior to 2004, despite official statistics that show most categories of crime (including violent crime) have been falling since 1991

Link: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/08/03/john-ivison-nothing-baffling-about-days-crime-comments/#more-8325

[Smallc]

Umm there are plenty of examples of judges that have no personal integrity whatsoever. Consider this example:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/07/29/steve-ellis-sentencing974.html

A judge tried to get sexual favors in exchange for letting a South Korean refugee applicant stay in Canada.

And what happened to him?

[Smallc]

Stockwell Day took some heat from theshark-infested Ottawa media yesterday for saying that a lot of crime went unreported. The sarcastic reporters claimed to be baffled.

Those surveys aren't reliable...because they're voluntary. They are more likely to get responses from people who have been victims of crime and not the population at large.

[Bonam]

And what happened to him?

The article says what happened to him. Did you purposefully ignore the point of the post?