The Canadian Courts FAIL again

[msj]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

Well you know that this entire fuss is because the supreme court set 30 months as the maximum time, and that provinces are even failing at that.

Yeah, I saw the reference to the 30 months but I mean real stats showing averages and medians and other things from the real world. 

Without that for Canada, US, UK I do not see any point to this thread - it is just farting in the wind with unsubstantiated opinions using anecdata of single cases here and there which signify nothing more than to justify our otherwise misinformed prejudices.

I know some of you can do that all day but it's not for me.  

So, when there is some real live comparable data between countries then lets have a discussion. 

[Argus]

17 hours ago, msj said:

So, when there is some real live comparable data between countries then lets have a discussion. 

I fail to understand this. I would think any intelligent person would look at a system which requires even a year to schedule a criminal trial as entirely inadequate. In the UK a trial is scheduled within a couple of months of arrest. As a keen follower of the news, particularly criminal cases, that is simply fantasy here. Cases aren't even scheduled the same year the charges are laid. That it would take longer than 30 months often enough the Supreme Court has had to impose a finding of unconstitutionality is even more astonishingly inadequate. 

[msj]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

I fail to understand this. I would think any intelligent person would look at a system which requires even a year to schedule a criminal trial as entirely inadequate. In the UK a trial is scheduled within a couple of months of arrest. As a keen follower of the news, particularly criminal cases, that is simply fantasy here. Cases aren't even scheduled the same year the charges are laid. That it would take longer than 30 months often enough the Supreme Court has had to impose a finding of unconstitutionality is even more astonishingly inadequate. 

Without good data there will be no good discussion so I am not going to waste my time doing your homework for you. 

If you want to prove something then prove it. 

If not, then discuss it, unsubstantiated, as you usually do and I will continue to ignore this "discussion." 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, msj said:

Without good data there will be no good discussion so I am not going to waste my time doing your homework for you.

I'm sorry if the concept of logic offends you. You seem indignant anyone would expect you to think or judge for yourself without someone telling you what you ought to be thinking. Then again, you are a progressive...

[WestCoastRunner]

38 minutes ago, Argus said:

I'm sorry if the concept of logic offends you. You seem indignant anyone would expect you to think or judge for yourself without someone telling you what you ought to be thinking. Then again, you are a progressive...

You have not provided any stats comparing Canadian criminal trial stats to any other country without any underlying information.  I have provided reasons for the lower rate (U.S.  Plea bargaining.)  Can you address that?

[msj]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

I'm sorry if the concept of logic offends you. You seem indignant anyone would expect you to think or judge for yourself without someone telling you what you ought to be thinking. Then again, you are a progressive...

I think better when I have facts before me.  

You are the one starting a discussion with very little facts. 

One would think that comparable statistics between Canada and the US/UK would be a bare minimum to even start an intelligent discussion on such a matter. 

So either put up some facts for the basis of an intelligent discussion or stop this BS about how "progressive" I am because I want facts. 

I mean, HOW DARE I, how dare I ask for facts upon which to have a discussion.... 

[dre]

On 11/21/2016 at 9:43 AM, Argus said:

All of which is a function of the ludicrous complexity of the judicial system and the massive expense of moving even the simplest of cases through its oceans of red tape and arcane processes.

No its a function of years of budget cuts at every level for many years. We used to have public defenders on the payroll here where I live for example. They fired them all, and replaced them with legal aid, and then reduced the rates to the point where defense attorneys don't want the work. And even when they take the work they don't provide a robust defense because they are paid about as much as carpenters for their time.

Also there are less violent offences occurring. Less than 30% of about a 400 thousand cases completed each year are for violent offences (the kind that throw law and order types into an emotional tizzy). Violent crime and crimes like robbery are in decline.

The most common court cases are impaired driving. Groups like MADD have played the emotional victim card to politicians and lobbied them to tighten the laws to the point where you cant even have a glass of wine with dinner and drive home. The courts will complete about 50 thousand cases for impaired driving this year alone.

As for your claim that paper work is slowing down throughput.... I dont see any evidence of that. Trials happen fast in all provinces but Quebec (138 days average). Cases take less than three months in most provinces.

We are over prosecuting and over policing.
In 1985 we had 50 thousand police officers. One for every 44 offences. Crime had been significantly reduced since then, yet we have about 70 thousand police officers today. Only 23 offences for each officer. There are only 57% as many "serious" crimes today as there were in 1985.

Governments are making bad decisions to appease voter outrage over outlier cases.
Even though crime is WAY WAY down, a significant portion the population does not think rationally and they will see one anomalous bad outcome and scream for more laws, more police and more prisons. This causes governments to "crack down and get tough" even in the fact of plummeting crime rates which further exacerbates problems in the system, and drives up the cost. The OP here is a good example of this. All it takes is one "tear jerker" and people are screaming to rip apart a system which has resulted in some of the lowest crime rates in human history and performs extremely well against those of our peers.

Even if crime rates halfed again, they would be calling for more police, more prisons, more prosecutions, and more laws.

And support for mandatory minimum sentencing will make all these problems worse in the future.

 

 

[Argus]

3 hours ago, WestCoastRunner said:

You have not provided any stats comparing Canadian criminal trial stats to any other country without any underlying information.  I have provided reasons for the lower rate (U.S.  Plea bargaining.)  Can you address that?

95% of Canadian criminal charges are also plea bargained.

[Argus]

41 minutes ago, msj said:

I think better when I have facts before me. 

Why don't we start by suggesting that a reasonable person (that would be me) would likely say that when a person is charged with a crime, that charge should be dealt with either by plea or by trial within six months?

[Wilber]

10 minutes ago, dre said:

The most common court cases are impaired driving. Groups like MADD have played the emotional victim card to politicians and lobbied them to tighten the laws to the point where you cant even have a glass of wine with dinner and drive home. The courts will complete about 50 thousand cases for impaired driving this year alone.

Ah, no

 

Police reported Impaired Driving Rates

 

As the university professor pointed out, it takes over four times as long for a police officer to process an impaired driving charge than it did twenty years ago. Does that mean the police should ignore impaired driving?

[Argus]

9 minutes ago, dre said:

No its a function of years of budget cuts at every level for many years. We used to have public defenders on the payroll here where I live for example. They fired them all, and replaced them with legal aid, and then reduced the rates to the point where defense attorneys don't want the work. And even when they take the work they don't provide a robust defense because they are paid about as much as carpenters for their time.

Maybe that is because a trial which should take a couple of hours now takes a week? Maybe because the absurd complexity of modern judicial cases now requires far more time from defense attorneys (and crowns) than used to be the case?

9 minutes ago, dre said:

The most common court cases are impaired driving. Groups like MADD have played the emotional victim card to politicians and lobbied them to tighten the laws to the point where you cant even have a glass of wine with dinner and drive home. The courts will complete about 50 thousand cases for impaired driving this year alone.

Let me suggest that a trial for impaired driving should go like this.

Cop testifies, and gives blood alcohol reading.

Case over.

I mean, seriously, why is this complicated? You were either over the legal limit or you weren't. An ordinary person could decide this in five minutes. Why is the judicial process so preposterously slow on such a basic case where all you really need to know is if they were over the legal limit?

9 minutes ago, dre said:

In 1985 we had 50 thousand police officers. One for every 44 offences. Crime had been significantly reduced since then, yet we have about 70 thousand police officers today. Only 23 offences for each officer. There are only 57% as many "serious" crimes today as there were in 1985.

In part, this is because the police are now used as social service workers. In part it's because of the tremendous amount of time they have to put in on the paperwork on every charge. If we have more cops it's not because they're on the street. They're all busy in the station filling out paperwork.

9 minutes ago, dre said:

Governments are making bad decisions to appease voter outrage over outlier cases.
Even though crime is WAY WAY down,

Crime is NOT 'way way down'. Certain offenses like murder are down due largely to the lower number of young men in the population. However, as we've been over before, Stats. Canada's victims of crime survey shows a steep and continuing decline in the number of victims of crime who report it to the police.

 

[dre]

1 minute ago, Wilber said:

Ah, no

Ah.... yes.

[Wilber]

1 minute ago, dre said:

Ah.... yes.

That says impaired driving is still a big problem. Don't know what it says to you. It says completed. That could mean a majority were plea bargained. Either way, it is the same amount of work for the cop.

[dre]

Media Saturation

This is perhaps the biggest problem when it comes to making good public policy on crime. Even through violent crime rates have plummeted and "serious crimes" are down almost 50% from 1985, and our citizens are by far the safest they ever have been... people "FEEL" like they are in more danger. This is because every single person carries a camera all day long now, and even though violent and serious crimes occur way less, we "SEE" them way more. And there's a multi billion dollar industry scrambling to get ratings by showing you as much of that type of content as possible.

This again causes irrational people to be frightened and outraged, and ignore the fact that our system is working very well to reduce almost every type of crime... especially serious crimes like murder, armed robbery, and major assault. These people might be emotional, stupid, and irrational, but there's lots of them and politicians pander to them by authoring misguided policy that is not based on rational analysis or evidence.

[dre]

46 minutes ago, Argus said:

Maybe that is because a trial which should take a couple of hours now takes a week? Maybe because the absurd complexity of modern judicial cases now requires far more time from defense attorneys (and crowns) than used to be the case?

I mean, seriously, why is this complicated? You were either over the legal limit or you weren't. An ordinary person could decide this in five minutes. Why is the judicial process so preposterously slow on such a basic case where all you really need to know is if they were over the legal limit?

In part, this is because the police are now used as social service workers. In part it's because of the tremendous amount of time they have to put in on the paperwork on every charge. If we have more cops it's not because they're on the street. They're all busy in the station filling out paperwork.

Crime is NOT 'way way down'. Certain offenses like murder are down due largely to the lower number of young men in the population. However, as we've been over before, Stats. Canada's victims of crime survey shows a steep and continuing decline in the number of victims of crime who report it to the police.

 

 

Quote

 

Let me suggest that a trial for impaired driving should go like this.

Cop testifies, and gives blood alcohol reading.

Case over.

I mean, seriously, why is this complicated? You were either over the legal limit or you weren't. An ordinary person could decide this in five minutes. Why is the judicial process so preposterously slow on such a basic case where all you really need to know is if they were over the legal limit?

 

That sounds really good until you do a bit of research. First of all the RSSD you blow into when you get pulled over means jack shit. In order to obtain a conviction the accused (having failed the RSSD) has to be brought to the police station, given a 20 minute video recorded observation period, then tested using a real breathalyzer device. That device has to be carefully calibrated. In order for that machine to be accurate the "standard solutio"n has to be exactly 34 degrees, and a breath-tech has to examine the simulator thermometer during the calibration checks? If all that stuff doesn't happen correctly the machine wont give accurate results. The police are also directed to expedite the test so that they are taken "as soon as practicably possible". Did the cop maybe intentionally waste some time or take a bunch of detours on the way to the police station (perhaps waiting for a breath tech to arrive? If he did, that's illegal. Were you subjected to any liquids, gels, or creams which may effect the results of the test? Are you a diabetic with abnormal acetone levels?

Its not as clear cut as you make it. Often the breath-tech will have to testify, and video of the test and calibration procedures will have to be viewed. Sometimes doctors, and toxicologists are necessary.

Quote

Crime is NOT 'way way down'. Certain offenses like murder are down due largely to the lower number of young men in the population. However, as we've been over before, Stats. Canada's victims of crime survey shows a steep and continuing decline in the number of victims of crime who report it to the police.

The same set of survey data also concludes that crime (using either major categories) is down 20% in the last 10 years.

 

Quote

Certain offenses like murder are down due largely to the lower number of young men in the population.

No, not just murder. Every category besides sexual assault. And especially "severe" crimes (as defined by stats can)

Quote

 

In 2014, one in five Canadians aged 15 years or older reported being the victim of at least one of the eight crimes measured by the General Social Survey(GSS) in the past 12 months. That’s down from one in four people a decade earlier.

Violent victimization — which includes sexual assault, robbery and physical assault — was reported to be down 28 per cent from 2004.

Household victimization — including breaking and entering, theft of household property and vandalism, and theft of motor vehicles or parts — was reported to be down 42 per cent from 2004.

Thefts of personal property showed a decline of 21 per cent compared with 10 years earlier. Rates of motor vehicle theft, vandalism and robbery dropped most significantly since 2004.

 

Let me guess... Motor vehicle theft is down 59% since 2004 because when peoples insured, licensed vehicles are stolen they just saw "nawwwwww. I wont report it, they can just HAVE my car and drive it around with my insurance" 

 

 

Quote

 

Despite significant methodological differences between self-reported victimization data collected through the GSS, and police-reported crime data collected through the Uniform Crime Reporting Survey, both show similar overall trends over this 10-year period.

Victimization rates declined for almost all crimes measured. The largest declines compared with 2004 were for theft of motor vehicles (-59%), vandalism (-49%) and robbery (-39%). Sexual assault, for which the rate remained stable over this period, was the lone crime measured where there was no decline.

 

[Argus]

Jo Cox was murdered in the middle of June. Her killer has just been sentenced, after having had his trial completed. Does anyone think this would have happened in Canada?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-38079594

[Argus]

10 hours ago, dre said:

That sounds really good until you do a bit of research. First of all the RSSD you blow into when you get pulled over means jack shit. In order to obtain a conviction the accused (having failed the RSSD) has to be brought to the police station, given a 20 minute video recorded observation period, then tested using a real breathalyzer device. That device has to be carefully calibrated. In order for that machine to be accurate the "standard solutio"n has to be exactly 34 degrees, and a breath-tech has to examine the simulator thermometer during the calibration checks?

It still only takes a few minutes to testify that all this happened. I mean, honestly, what else is going to happen other than the defense attorney desperately trying to drag things out as long as possible and invent every possible manner of excuse as to why his guilty client shouldn't be punished? We had one such case here in Ottawa that dragged on for over two years with the defense attorney questioning everything from the bias of the police officers to the quality of the machines to the constitutional rights of the accused being violated in a dozen different ways. She was found guilty in the end but the damn trial took forever and probably cost the system several million dollars. The ludicrous complexities and red tape the police have to jump through now because of legal requirements is costing a fortune and not resulting in any improvement in justice.

10 hours ago, dre said:

The same set of survey data also concludes that crime (using either major categories) is down 20% in the last 10 years.

That is simply not true. The victim survey showed that up to 80% of crime is not reported, and that the % of crime being reported has dropped steadily with every new survey. Why? The survey doesn't state, but in my opinion it's because people have lost confidence in both the police and legal system to accomplish anything worthwhile, and don't want to go through the extremely unpleasant and lengthy business of filing complaints and giving evidence. They also don't have the incentive of the need to report before claiming insurance because in most cases people don't tell their insurance companies for fear of having their rates jacked up.

10 hours ago, dre said:

Let me guess... Motor vehicle theft is down 59% since 2004 because when peoples insured, licensed vehicles are stolen they just saw "nawwwwww. I wont report it, they can just HAVE my car and drive it around with my insurance" 

Certain crimes are clearly reported for reasons like the above. However, assaults, rapes, thefts, frauds and other crimes are usually NOT reported to police.

[Argus]

The average time for a homicide trial in Ontario is just over a year, although it is closer to two years in Ottawa.

http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/egan-toronto-homicide-charges-clear-in-329-days-ottawa-try-684

[Argus]

Maybe if the system would keep people like this out of it we'd have more court time and more money.

Althea Reyes has used Ontario’s overstretched judicial system to sue everyone from ex-lovers to lawyers to a total stranger. In Toronto alone, she has sued at least 30 people, companies and organizations in the past five years

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/11/26/vexatious-litigant-continues-to-have-her-days-in-court.html

[Michael Hardner]

Argus, what would you do ?  Limit someone's right to sue ?  The cure could be worse than the disease.

[Michael Hardner]

Also how much of a problem are outliers like this person ?  Surely the system had people like this when it was healthier. 

[dre]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Also how much of a problem are outliers like this person ?  Surely the system had people like this when it was healthier. 

The system has never been healthier. And yes almost all the cases that people on here get all outraged over are anomalous.

There's hundreds of thousands of court cases in Canada each year, and the "law and order crowd" manages to find 1/2 a dozen cases a year to get all upset about. There's no such system as one that wont produce the odd, seemingly ridiculous outcome.

You have to look at crime rates, and somehow evaluate the level of "civil order" to judge the legal system. Ours is working very well... crimes of almost every kind are down over the last 35 years significantly. We are safer, our property is safer, we trust the law to enforce contracts between us so we can have an economy.  Streets are pretty much safe, people travel to work and back each day without fear.

You have to realize that the "law and order", and "security" crowds are all not all that rational. Even one single horrendous result will have them screaming for more police, more prisons, longer sentencing, the death penalty, etc etc. That's just how some people think... even if crime rates were cut 75% they would still think the same way. 

[Michael Hardner]

You have given evidence on this thread that the system is not healthy, I think.  Other than that we seem to mostly agree.

What about Argus' point about speed of trials ?  Do you agree with that ?

[dre]

55 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

What about Argus' point about speed of trials ?  Do you agree with that ?

Yup, there's big backlogs in some provinces. But the problem is that too many things are illegal and too much time is wasted. And even with those backlogs our system is still performing very well. 

[Michael Hardner]

Why do you think that when it takes years for cases to be processed ?