Guest Peeves Posted March 20, 2012 Report Posted March 20, 2012 http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/19/ontario-judge-reprimanded-for-freeing-defendants-because-prosecutor-was-late/ Judges are pushing us into mandatory sentencing. Don't they realize that when they make 'judgments' like this one it comes back to bite them in the ASS! Sometimes their personal god image has to be resisted. Seems to me that judges have precipitated government into restricting their alternatives and they have themselves to blame? Truncated for brevity, more at link. An Ontario judge who acquitted a group of criminals because the crown attorney was late returning from a break has received a strongly worded reprimand for his actions from the province’s highest court.Newmarket court Judge Howard Chisvin had “no power” to release the criminals with an acquittal simply because prosecutor Brian McCallion was late returning to court after a 20 minute recess, the Ontario Court of Appeal said in their decision released Monday. “It was illegal and an abuse of judicial authority,” three appeal court judges wrote in their decision. “Furthermore, even if the power existed, there was no basis upon which to make the order on the facts of this case. The trial judge’s actions were highhanded and did a real disservice to the proper administration of justice.” Quote
The_Squid Posted March 20, 2012 Report Posted March 20, 2012 http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/19/ontario-judge-reprimanded-for-freeing-defendants-because-prosecutor-was-late/ Judges are pushing us into mandatory sentencing. Don't they realize that when they make 'judgments' like this one it comes back to bite them in the ASS! Sometimes their personal god image has to be resisted. Seems to me that judges have precipitated government into restricting their alternatives and they have themselves to blame? Truncated for brevity, more at link. That is why there is an appeal court. The appeal process worked very well in this case. What this has to do with mandatory minimums is a mystery. Quote
eyeball Posted March 20, 2012 Report Posted March 20, 2012 What this has to do with mandatory minimums is a mystery. It adds to the perception that our justice system coddles criminals. That's why Peeves is gloating. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
The_Squid Posted March 20, 2012 Report Posted March 20, 2012 It adds to the perception that our justice system coddles criminals. That's why Peeves is gloating. It seems to me that we have a judge who is bad at his job. How do we (the royal "we" as the employer) fix that? Mandatory minimum sentences? That is a square peg jammed in to a round hole! That is no fix for this issue at all. Quote
eyeball Posted March 20, 2012 Report Posted March 20, 2012 It seems to me that we have a judge who is bad at his job. How do we (the royal "we" as the employer) fix that? Mandatory minimum sentences? That is a square peg jammed in to a round hole! That is no fix for this issue at all. I half suspect the judges that throw out these silly rulings do so in the hope it will galvanize public outrage against our soft molly-coddling hug-a-thug justice system. It's always easiest to undermine a system's or process' worthiness from within. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
jacee Posted March 20, 2012 Report Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) It seems to me that we have a judge who is bad at his job. How do we (the royal "we" as the employer) fix that? Mandatory minimum sentences? That is a square peg jammed in to a round hole! That is no fix for this issue at all. It's fixed already. That's why we have appeal courts and the Supreme Court too. The system works, though the lower local courts are sometimes a dog and pony show and/or in the pockets of local business/development/government. A new law isn't needed where current ones are sufficient when applied properly, as at the appeal court. Edited March 20, 2012 by jacee Quote
WWWTT Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 Judges are pushingusinto mandatory sentencing. I read the link and this sounds like a judge was ticked off at a crown attorney so he dismissed the case.What was the mandatory sentence for the guy who pleaded guilty for possesion of stolen property and uttering a threat(or something like that)? This sounds like something that some judges are natorious for having,an arrogant attitude. But there must be somekind of disciplinary action towards for the crown attorney for not following directions. WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
Guest Peeves Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 It adds to the perception that our justice system coddles criminals. That's why Peeves is gloating. Now that's a leap and a pejorative as to my character by one apparently unable to make an otherwise alternative case. I do not gloat over an irresponsible judge, possibly an incompetent judge, being censured as was the case, rather I grow weary and frustrated. These guys get great money for what they do,,,or don't do. They must be held accountable. If you dispute that then say so rather than attempting to demean me personally. Which by the way is a waste of time since you fail miserably and it gives me opportunity to make further argument. Quote
Guest Peeves Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 Judges are pushingusinto mandatory sentencing. I read the link and this sounds like a judge was ticked off at a crown attorney so he dismissed the case.What was the mandatory sentence for the guy who pleaded guilty for possesion of stolen property and uttering a threat(or something like that)? This sounds like something that some judges are natorious for having,an arrogant attitude. But there must be somekind of disciplinary action towards for the crown attorney for not following directions. WWWTT As usual your ho-hum comment shows you are entirely out of the loop and apparently incapable of an on point response. I suggest that you inform yourself of the issues before wasting our time.* Now, there certainly is yet time to familiarize yourself with the facts before further opining. *A case in point, is that the Crown Attorney did nothing wrong that would in anyway justify the judges actions. So found the legal panel. Quote
Guest Peeves Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 Yet another example of a questionable sentence for a pedophile who committed over hundreds of rape/assaults. I posted months ago on this same subject of judges driving the need for mandatory sentences. I won't chew my cabbage twice, and this case is cited in another excellent thread, but while I might well disagree with certain mandatory sentencing..weed cases in particular, I believe it's the odd judge that has caused the need for addressing sentencing. s Manitoba provincial court Judge Catherine Carlson said Tuesday as she passed sentence on former junior hockey coach Graham James for his prolonged sexual attacks on former National Hockey League star Theo Fleury and his cousin Todd Holt, "There is no sentence this court can impose that will give back to Mr. Holt and Mr. Fleury that which was taken by Mr. James."True that, but wouldn't it be nice if just once in a while, a judge gave it a whirl? Carlson sent James back to jail for a whopping two years, but of course, like all inmates, he'll be eligible for passes and day parole after serving six months and full parole after eight months. That's for hundreds of acts of sexual abuse over many years committed against two trusting young teens, as Fleury and Holt then were. Much the same thing happened in 1997, when James pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting two other boys he was coaching, including former NHLer Sheldon Kennedy: Again, the offences ran into the hundreds, the days ran into years, the abuse was physical but also a grotesque betrayal of trust, and the sentence was 3½ years, of which James served about 18 months. Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Christie+Blatchford+Judge+Graham+James+trial+lenient/6334050/story.html#ixzz1ply94oNY'>http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Christie+Blatchford+Judge+Graham+James+trial+lenient/6334050/story.html#ixzz1ply94oNY http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Christie+Blatchford+Judge+Graham+James+trial+lenient/6334050/story.html Quote
cybercoma Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/19/ontario-judge-reprimanded-for-freeing-defendants-because-prosecutor-was-late/ Judges are pushing us into mandatory sentencing. Don't they realize that when they make 'judgments' like this one it comes back to bite them in the ASS! Sometimes their personal god image has to be resisted. Seems to me that judges have precipitated government into restricting their alternatives and they have themselves to blame? Truncated for brevity, more at link. I don't see how this supports mandatory sentencing. It seems the system is working just fine. Don't let the facts get in the way of you parroting the Conservative talking points though. The CPC sure as hell doesn't let facts get in the way of creating stupid legislation. Furthermore, you don't even seem to realize that your ridiculous notion of mandatory minimums don't exactly work when a case doesn't even go to sentencing. They weren't convicted. The charges were dismissed. Edited March 21, 2012 by cybercoma Quote
Guest Peeves Posted March 22, 2012 Report Posted March 22, 2012 I don't see how this supports mandatory sentencing. It seems the system is working just fine. Don't let the facts get in the way of you parroting the Conservative talking points though. The CPC sure as hell doesn't let facts get in the way of creating stupid legislation. Furthermore, you don't even seem to realize that your ridiculous notion of mandatory minimums don't exactly work when a case doesn't even go to sentencing. They weren't convicted. The charges were dismissed. You are totally disregarding the facts. The judges (Those I have cited), have been unacceptably disregarding reasonable sentences and flouting the law by applying their own partiality or prejudice as in this case where the judge in a tizzy dismissed cases where guilty pleas had been made. The convictions weren't dismissed they were re issued. Quote
Guest Peeves Posted March 22, 2012 Report Posted March 22, 2012 (edited) That is why there is an appeal court. The appeal process worked very well in this case. What this has to do with mandatory minimums is a mystery. Only in respect to the judges having necessitated mandatory sentences by their deviation from the law in sentencing. They rather sentenced according to their personal partiality and prejudice. While appeals may well work, a judge determined to push his prejudice causes society to push back.. IF the judge can't work with a system that allows reasonable range of sentence,then apparently the parameters have to be replaced with more rigid requirements that a judge Must follow. My point is that some judges have brought us to this situation. It didn't simply need fixing out of the clear blue sky. Too many sentences were objectionable requiring appeal. Edited March 22, 2012 by Peeves Quote
eyeball Posted March 22, 2012 Report Posted March 22, 2012 (edited) Only in respect to the judges having necessitated mandatory sentences by their deviation from the law in sentencing. They rather sentenced according to their personal partiality and prejudice. While appeals may well work, a judge determined to push his prejudice causes society to push back.. IF the judge can't work with a system that allows reasonable range of sentence,then apparently the parameters have to be replaced with more rigid requirements that a judge Must follow. My point is that some judges have brought us to this situation. It didn't simply need fixing out of the clear blue sky. Too many sentences were objectionable requiring appeal. Mandatory sentencing is the result of a combination of factors but mostly right-wing ideology and the electoral politics of pandering to a base of support and the greater public that's being conditioned to react with outrage and never ending calls for greater punishment and vengeance with each and every revelation of a screwy judgement. My point is that some judges have brought us to this situation. It didn't simply need fixing out of the clear blue sky. Too many sentences were objectionable requiring appeal. Sentences will be always be objectionable to right-wingers and only more crackin' down and gettin' tough will ever fix it. You people are not heading towards a place you are moving in a direction on a journey that has no end. You've heard the politicians, no cost is too high and we're just getting started. Soon you'll be saying there are too many appeals...one day there'll be too many judges for your liking. Edited March 22, 2012 by eyeball Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Guest Peeves Posted March 25, 2012 Report Posted March 25, 2012 Mandatory sentencing is the result of a combination of factors but mostly right-wing ideology and the electoral politics of pandering to a base of support and the greater public that's being conditioned to react with outrage and never ending calls for greater punishment and vengeance with each and every revelation of a screwy judgement. Sentences will be always be objectionable to right-wingers and only more crackin' down and gettin' tough will ever fix it. You people are not heading towards a place you are moving in a direction on a journey that has no end. You've heard the politicians, no cost is too high and we're just getting started. Soon you'll be saying there are too many appeals...one day there'll be too many judges for your liking. Man you really do go off the deep end with your irrational speculation and accusations. You obviously think only left wingers have a brain or a conscience. Silly nonsensical comments.. Quote
eyeball Posted March 26, 2012 Report Posted March 26, 2012 (edited) You obviously think only left wingers have a brain or a conscience. No, I just think they're far likelier to have these is all. You've heard the old truism, 'not all conservatives are stupid but most stupid people are conservative'. Edited March 26, 2012 by eyeball Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Guest Peeves Posted March 26, 2012 Report Posted March 26, 2012 No, I just think they're far likelier to have these is all. You've heard the old truism, 'not all conservatives are stupid but most stupid people are conservative'. Funny, I regard you assessments to prove the contrary conclusions. Quote
eyeball Posted March 26, 2012 Report Posted March 26, 2012 Funny, I regard you assessments to prove the contrary conclusions. Okay, we'll leave it at that. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.