Tories Want More ...

[Figleaf]

Today's news sez Steve's crew wants to have cops appointing judges. Maybe they should have judges wear police uniforms too. And these uniformed judges go out on patrol with them. That way they could give rulings on the spot. And they could be paid from police budgets. And courthouses could be converted to condos. ...

[Remiel]

So, we need a cartoonist to draw us a caricature of the offending party in a Judge Dredd costume.

[jdobbin]

Today's news sez Steve's crew wants to have cops appointing judges. Maybe they should have judges wear police uniforms too. And these uniformed judges go out on patrol with them. That way they could give rulings on the spot. And they could be paid from police budgets. And courthouses could be converted to condos. ...

What does the legal community think?

[Figleaf]

Today's news sez Steve's crew wants to have cops appointing judges. Maybe they should have judges wear police uniforms too. And these uniformed judges go out on patrol with them. That way they could give rulings on the spot. And they could be paid from police budgets. And courthouses could be converted to condos. ...

What does the legal community think?

They don't like it.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home

[jdobbin]

They don't like it.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home

I guess probably no more than cops would like it if judges sat in on law enforcement review agencies.

It is an ill conceived plan. I wonder what the Conservatives are thinking with this?

[kimmy]

What were they thinking? The article that Figleaf linked to contains what might be a hint:

The main criticism of the current vetting system has not been the composition of the committees, but how the government chooses from the pools of candidates it has ranked. Successive governments have appointed judges from those who are merely qualified, ignoring some of those ranked as highly qualified.

It is far too easy for marginal candidates to be ranked as qualified, Mr. Russell said. "Right now, they just screen out the utterly incompetent," he said. "If you are in Kingston Penitentiary or something like that, you don't make the list, but that's about it."

Most of those pushing for reform insist that the government should be obliged to choose only from the pool of candidates ranked as very qualified.

We've had situations in the past where, for instance, there was the appearance that helping out the Liberal Party of Quebec might be a handy way to boost your chances of becoming a judge.

Here's the government website about Judicial Advisory Committees:

http://www.fja.gc.ca/jud_app/judAdvComMem_e.html

It appears a committee is made up of a representative from the Canadian Bar Association, the provincial law society, two from the province, and 3 chosen by the federal justice minister.

-k

[Figleaf]

What were they thinking? The article that Figleaf linked to contains what might be a hint:

The main criticism of the current vetting system has not been the composition of the committees, but how the government chooses from the pools of candidates it has ranked. Successive governments have appointed judges from those who are merely qualified, ignoring some of those ranked as highly qualified.

It is far too easy for marginal candidates to be ranked as qualified, Mr. Russell said. "Right now, they just screen out the utterly incompetent," he said. "If you are in Kingston Penitentiary or something like that, you don't make the list, but that's about it."

Most of those pushing for reform insist that the government should be obliged to choose only from the pool of candidates ranked as very qualified.

We've had situations in the past where, for instance, there was the appearance that helping out the Liberal Party of Quebec might be a handy way to boost your chances of becoming a judge.

Here's the government website about Judicial Advisory Committees:

http://www.fja.gc.ca/jud_app/judAdvComMem_e.html

It appears a committee is made up of a representative from the Canadian Bar Association, the provincial law society, two from the province, and 3 chosen by the federal justice minister.

-k

If that's their concern they've picked a rather strange remedy. Too bad they cancelled the Law Reform Commission -- it could have saved them the embarrassment of rolling out malformed legislation.

[Ricki Bobbi]

If that's their concern they've picked a rather strange remedy. Too bad they cancelled the Law Reform Commission -- it could have saved them the embarrassment of rolling out malformed legislation.

malformed legislation? Do provide a Liberal proposal for properly formed legislation on the issue...

[Figleaf]

If that's their concern they've picked a rather strange remedy. Too bad they cancelled the Law Reform Commission -- it could have saved them the embarrassment of rolling out malformed legislation.

malformed legislation? Do provide a Liberal proposal for properly formed legislation on the issue...

What?

[Ricki Bobbi]

What?

Kimmy rightly pointed out that there are past cases where it appeared that helping out the Liberal Party of Quebcec could help somebody become a judge.

You said:

If that's their concern they've picked a rather strange remedy.

and they could have prevented themselves from rolling out a piece of malformed legislation.

I asked if the Liberals ever proposed a "properly formed" policy for dealing with the concern that Kimmy rose.

You said What?

[jbg]

Today's news sez Steve's crew wants to have cops appointing judges. Maybe they should have judges wear police uniforms too. And these uniformed judges go out on patrol with them. That way they could give rulings on the spot. And they could be paid from police budgets. And courthouses could be converted to condos. ...

Details please?

[FTA Lawyer]

Today's news sez Steve's crew wants to have cops appointing judges. Maybe they should have judges wear police uniforms too. And these uniformed judges go out on patrol with them. That way they could give rulings on the spot. And they could be paid from police budgets. And courthouses could be converted to condos. ...

What does the legal community think?

Insane...the police should have absolutely no input whatsoever in the appointment of judges...their input would necessarily be 100% partisan and influenced by a desire to obtain convictions.

Think about it this way...if you wanted to balance the self-interested input of the police, you'd have to appoint a few convicts to the panel as well. After all, who has a better familiarity with judges than a persistant recidivist?

FTA

[geoffrey]

Insane...the police should have absolutely no input whatsoever in the appointment of judges...their input would necessarily be 100% partisan and influenced by a desire to obtain convictions.

Think about it this way...if you wanted to balance the self-interested input of the police, you'd have to appoint a few convicts to the panel as well. After all, who has a better familiarity with judges than a persistant recidivist?

FTA

I see a major problem with this as well. Why bother having trials if the judges are all merely buddies with cops? The chances of a fair trial are reduced to about zero.

[Argus]

I see a major problem with this as well. Why bother having trials if the judges are all merely buddies with cops? The chances of a fair trial are reduced to about zero.

Is that what is being proposed? Nope. The Tories are apparently proposing putting one (1) cop or representative of the law enforcement profession - again I say (1) on a comittee which apparently has about 6 other members.

Now, what can be said about the law enforcement profession? They want guilty people to go to jail.

Most of the rest of the members of the committee are lawyers. What can be said about the legal profession?

They don't care if the guilty go free. They don't care if justice is done. They don't care about right or wrong. They care about the process, and they care about money.

My opinion is we should remove the lawyers from the comittees and replace them all with lay people. Okay, maybe put one lawyer, an old one, retired, preferably one with common sense - if you can find one.

Because currently, taken as a whole, our judges are not a particularly impressive lot. And that goes all the way up to the Supreme Court - a bland, dull minded, overly political bunch, to say the least. So it seems to me these commitees as presently constituted - suck. Mind you, they have enormous help in the form of governments which basically use them to rubber stamp political choices. As the article points out, if you have a pulse, these esteemed members of the legal profession believe you're qualifed to be a judge. So the politicians have appointed a lot of losers to the bench.

[Figleaf]

What?

...You said What?

I meant it's a strange remedy if the concern is:

The main criticism of the current vetting system has not been the composition of the committees, but how the government chooses from the pools of candidates it has ranked.

The malformed part is the mingling of police and judiciary the change would involve.

[Figleaf]

...The Tories are apparently proposing putting one (1) cop or representative of the law enforcement profession - again I say (1) on a comittee which apparently has about 6 other members.

The committees include lay people and government appointees. The police have no interests that need to be separately represented f om th public or the state.

What can be said about the legal profession?

They don't care if the guilty go free. They don't care if justice is done. They don't care about right or wrong. They care about the process, and they care about money.

Spare us the bigotry, please.

[kimmy]

Spare us the bigotry, please.

You know what? Our lawyers and judges get their bigotry the good old fashioned way, they earn it.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/20...n-sentence.html

Five pieces of crap show up at a party and beat a 17 year old boy to death with a baseball bat, and the result is a single 4-year sentence, 3 six-month probations, and a trip to juvie hall for the last guy.

Why? Because they have "shown remorse" and they're good kids.

This is pure dog shit. This is unacceptable. Judge John Maher can fuck off and die.

-k

[geoffrey]

Kimmy... that was a little viciously excessive no?

I don't see how adding a cop to the committee would change the outcome of that trial. There is precedent that needs to be followed, if it wasn't 'as bad' as another crime, it can't carry a higher sentence (generally, am I right FTA?).

It's the unfortunate part of common law. But I don't really blame the judges... most of the time.

And having cops select the judges? Don't know. The distinctions in the legal system are there for a reason, to create independance. Having a victims advocate would be acceptable for me... a cop? No.

[FTA Lawyer]

Now, what can be said about the law enforcement profession? They want guilty people to go to jail.

Most of the rest of the members of the committee are lawyers. What can be said about the legal profession?

They don't care if the guilty go free. They don't care if justice is done. They don't care about right or wrong. They care about the process, and they care about money.

This is really quite pathetic and feeble-minded. For all out there who follow your lead Argus and blame all of the ills of society on lawyers...as though we are a single, unified, homogenous group who all think the same, while we roll around in our vaults of money like Scrooge McDuck, give your damn empty head a shake.

I get physically ill every time I see a client of mine get convicted when all of my instincts and the evidence I had to present suggest that they are innocent. I am enraged when I see police officers wilfully lie under oath just because they "want guilty people to go to jail". I am saddened when I appear in court knowing that the family of a deceased victim is sitting right behind me...the most devastating part of their lives is simply part of my daily routine. I felt truly dejected just this afternoon as I refunded part of a retainer to a client who I know to have a crack problem...and I couldn't do anything to stop him from going to get totalled this weekend.

My clients are people. Some far more sympathetic than others, but all people just the same. I work my ass off to all hours of the morning to make sure they are treated fairly by the system...just as many prosecutors work their asses off to make sure that the interests of the public are protected...just as most judges struggle incredibly to try to make the right decision on any given case.

I just hope that whenever you or your family is getting railroaded by someone in some system whether it be criminal, corporate, family, estates, whatever that you don't get stuck with the quality of lawyer that your comments suggest you deserve.

Oh, and before you spout off about my position that criminal defence lawyers protect us from bad cops and wrongful convictions is fanciful or at best theoretical (because as you have so intelligently pointed out, law enforcement officials just want guilty people in jail and nothing more), try this recent one on for size:

Corrupt Cops

Some choice bits...

An internal Calgary police investigation into a drug raid on the home of an

innocent

local family has extended to the

senior ranks of the department

...

The expansion of the new internal probe to include those up the chain of command, comes as the

internal police memo suggests the grounds used to obtain the search warrant were based on notes altered by one of the officers

...

"I have a situation where I believe an officer's notebook has been modified improperly that may bring the service into disrepute,"...

"If the defence recognizes the change and learns a warrant was obtained in this manner, it could have serious repercussions on any testimony Const. Vernon may give, now or in the future,"...

It would appear that the CPS knew, right up to the Deputy Chief, that an officer falsified notes, lied under oath to get a warrant and they gave him a minor internal reprimand becuase obviously if it was made too big of an issue the poor cop might have trouble testifying against accused people in future trials.

God forbid these white knights in shining armour would fire a cop they know has no problem lying under oath...after all, in the last five years he's probably been responsible for putting a number of "guilty" people behind bars...which as Argus well knows is all that law enforcement ever wants to do...

If only I could bring myself to quit placing so much importance on the process and stop counting my money for a minute or so, I guess I'd just see that the police have a monopoly on caring that justice is done.

FTA

P.S. Check out my website sometime if you want to see examples of a few cases where my actions as defence counsel have quite likely thwarted unlawful convictions.

Ruttan Bates

[Argus]

...The Tories are apparently proposing putting one (1) cop or representative of the law enforcement profession - again I say (1) on a comittee which apparently has about 6 other members.

The committees include lay people and government appointees. The police have no interests that need to be separately represented f om th public or the state.

Who else sees the way courts operate up front and personal, day after day, week after week, month after month? Aside from the lawyers, that is?

What can be said about the legal profession?

They don't care if the guilty go free. They don't care if justice is done. They don't care about right or wrong. They care about the process, and they care about money.

Spare us the bigotry, please.

That's analyses not bigotry. A lawyer is required to worship the process to the exclusion of justice, right or wrong, or the better welfare of the people. Any lawyer who does not do this is considered unethical. If Paul Bernardo's lawyer had managed to get him off on a technicality he'd have been worshipped by the rest of his colleagues.

[jdobbin]

Now, what can be said about the law enforcement profession? They want guilty people to go to jail.

The Conservatives have been attacking the judiciary in Canada and the U.S. for the last few years.

In the States, they want to be able to sue judges and throw them in jail.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009019

This is just another form of judicial intimidation.

[Argus]

Spare us the bigotry, please.

You know what? Our lawyers and judges get their bigotry the good old fashioned way, they earn it.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/20...n-sentence.html

Five pieces of crap show up at a party and beat a 17 year old boy to death with a baseball bat, and the result is a single 4-year sentence, 3 six-month probations, and a trip to juvie hall for the last guy.

Why? Because they have "shown remorse" and they're good kids.

This is pure dog shit. This is unacceptable. Judge John Maher can fuck off and die.

-k

No doubt encouraged by this, another judge found another pair of darlings innocent of murder yesterday. They had beaten an old man with a baseball bats They figured the bat hadn't done enough damage, however (though the man later died), so they got bigger bats for the next evening and beat another elderly man to death. Tut-tut said the judge. We don't know these darling boys meant to kill anyone. They're just young lads who were in high spirits. How could they guess that slamming a baseball bat into the head of an 84 year old man - repeatedly - might cause his death?

Manslaughter conviction in beating deaths

[jdobbin]

Spare us the bigotry, please.

You know what? Our lawyers and judges get their bigotry the good old fashioned way, they earn it.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/20...n-sentence.html

Five pieces of crap show up at a party and beat a 17 year old boy to death with a baseball bat, and the result is a single 4-year sentence, 3 six-month probations, and a trip to juvie hall for the last guy.

Why? Because they have "shown remorse" and they're good kids.

This is pure dog shit. This is unacceptable. Judge John Maher can fuck off and die.

I guess they could do what Saskatoon cops do and drive them to the edge of town to die.

I wonder whom those cops would appoint to the bench?

[Wilber]

Seems to me that the pool is made up by people from the judicial system who are under no scrutiny when it comes to picking candidates, have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and a closed shop when it comes to who may become a judge. What's the matter with having one representative from law enforcement? They are effected by what this group does as much as anyone.

[Figleaf]

Who else sees the way courts operate up front and personal, day after day, week after week, month after month? Aside from the lawyers, that is?

Court clerks, stenographers, journalists, expert witnesses ...

Who has more of an axe to grind or personal incentives involved? Police.

That's analyses not bigotry....

I wonder what may lie underneath your vicious anti-lawyerism.