Tories Want More ...

[jdobbin]

Do you have something against judges who paid for their posts or had them paid for by the Liberal Party?

So cops would make a difference or would we just see judges beholden to the police? We have seen cops go after journalists and politicians that they don't like. You have no problem with that?

[Wilber]

I think as soon as you set aside slots for vested interests, there will be no end to it. I don't know that it serves justice.

I don't know that closed shops serve justice either. It's an interesting dilemma.

[jdobbin]

I don't know that closed shops serve justice either. It's an interesting dilemma.

I don't think the solution is attacking and intimidating the judiciary.

Setting laws is a federal and provincial responsibility. If they think there is a legal and social need to battle crime, perhaps they should go about trying to finds solutions rather than blame judges. Somehow placing cops on a panel to select judges seems to be the weakest of solutions.

If the Conservatives would actually appoint judges and other officials, it would help. So far the number of vacancies in departments keeps rising.

[Argus]

What's the term the Left pulls out when they want to interfere in a private decision? Stakeholder? Well, choosing our judges is a public affair and it seems to me that the police are legitimate stakeholders in the choice.

So you are saying that judges are politicized and they need to have cops to keep them from being so?

The right wing in Canada and the U.S. has been trying to intimidate the judiciary for some time. This is a big one.

The Judiciary in Canada are made up of political hacks and party bag men, few of whom are particularly skilled in the application of law. I gather you approve this? Do you actually respect our judiciary? If so could you please give us some reasons why you would? Certainly not from their behaviour.

[Argus]

I don't know that closed shops serve justice either. It's an interesting dilemma.

I don't think the solution is attacking and intimidating the judiciary.

Setting laws is a federal and provincial responsibility. If they think there is a legal and social need to battle crime, perhaps they should go about trying to finds solutions rather than blame judges. Somehow placing cops on a panel to select judges seems to be the weakest of solutions.

Consider any given crime. Whatever it is, from fraud to rape to robbery to murder, you'll find that whenever there is a range of sentences, ie, from 1 - 10, judges will, regardless of the severity of the crime or the length of the suspect's criminal record, largely confine their sentences the lower third of the range. Judges in Canada are very liberal minded, do not like giving out harsh sentences and so very rarely do.

Perhaps adding a cop to the panels will have the result that at least one voice at the table will be arguing in favour of candidates who appear to have the cojones to do their jobs instead of weeping with sympathy for every child rapist and murderer who comes before them.

If the Conservatives would actually appoint judges and other officials, it would help. So far the number of vacancies in departments keeps rising.

At the moment, the only safe thing for them to do is appoint judges who are members of the Liberal Party. Any somewhat conservative judge that is appointed to the bench will draw howls of protest form the media and shrill, if not hysterical cries that the Tories are trying to load the judiciary with nazis.

[jdobbin]

Consider any given crime. Whatever it is, from fraud to rape to robbery to murder, you'll find that whenever there is a range of sentences, ie, from 1 - 10, judges will, regardless of the severity of the crime or the length of the suspect's criminal record, largely confine their sentences the lower third of the range. Judges in Canada are very liberal minded, do not like giving out harsh sentences and so very rarely do.

Perhaps adding a cop to the panels will have the result that at least one voice at the table will be arguing in favour of candidates who appear to have the cojones to do their jobs instead of weeping with sympathy for every child rapist and murderer who comes before them.

At the moment, the only safe thing for them to do is appoint judges who are members of the Liberal Party. Any somewhat conservative judge that is appointed to the bench will draw howls of protest form the media and shrill, if not hysterical cries that the Tories are trying to load the judiciary with nazis.

A cop might also look to judges who go lightly on cops for crimes. It is possible.

There are law and order judges out there. Some are even former Liberals.

I think the problem is that Harper may want judges who are not just tough on law and order but who are social conservatives,

[August1991]

Dobbin, you have a penchant for the red herring.

September 11 was funded by Muslims outside the U.S. By all accounts, very few people in the U.S. even knew these men. They didn't mix with the Muslim crowd in the U.S. The JDL is funded and protected inside the United States. They often attend synagogues along with the rest of the Jewish population and everyone knows them.

Dobbin, why bring in the JDL to a debate about radical Islamic terrorism? And what does either have to do with putting a police representative on a committee that would suggest names for judicial appointees?

The right wing in Canada and the U.S. has been trying to intimidate the judiciary for some time. This is a big one.

Dobbin, what does the US have to with a discussion about the Canadian judiciary?

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.

I don't want to sound callous but you're supposed to be a lawyer, not a social worker. And the legal system is supposed to render decisions not act as a confiding friend.

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...

FTA, I suppose there are going to be mistakes either way: the innocent goes to jail and the guilty goes free.

You are missing Argus' main point. Many Canadians feel that the judicial system doesn't work well. It is clogged with delays and sentences that are perceived as too light.

[jdobbin]

Dobbin, why bring in the JDL to a debate about radical Islamic terrorism? And what does either have to do with putting a police representative on a committee that would suggest names for judicial appointees?

Dobbin, what does the US have to with a discussion about the Canadian judiciary?

I was responding to jbg's reference to Islamic terrorism within this thread. You did read that, right?

The right wing in Canada and the U.S. have been trying to intimidate the judiciary. You don't believe that is happening?

[Wilber]

I don't know that closed shops serve justice either. It's an interesting dilemma.

I don't think the solution is attacking and intimidating the judiciary.

Setting laws is a federal and provincial responsibility. If they think there is a legal and social need to battle crime, perhaps they should go about trying to finds solutions rather than blame judges. Somehow placing cops on a panel to select judges seems to be the weakest of solutions.

If the Conservatives would actually appoint judges and other officials, it would help. So far the number of vacancies in departments keeps rising.

The Criminal Code is a Federal responsibility, which I think is what most people are concerned about.

I don't know that making the selection process more open is intimidating the judiciary. I don't know what to make of the judiciary. Whenever the selection process is questioned they complain that their independence will be threatened. When criticized for rarely if ever applying sentences that are anywhere the maximum possible under the law, they complain that they must abide by sentencing guidelines. Which is it, are they independent or not? Or do many of them think that handing out sentences much lower than the maximum allowed is exercising their independence. Or do they get together and decide among themselves what an appropriate sentence should be and damn the law.

The people working on Carley's law decided to do a nationwide audit on hit and run convictions. The maximum penalty is 5 years. They could not find one case in Canada where anyone had served as much as two, even after causing a death.

Lets face it, maximum sentences are a cruel joke on victims. They are led to believe that the justice system takes what happened to them seriously but what they receive bears no resemblance to what they thought they should expect.

It's all a mystery to me but I think it is fair to say that public respect for the legal system in general and the judicial system in particular has never been lower in my lifetime.

[Argus]

Consider any given crime. Whatever it is, from fraud to rape to robbery to murder, you'll find that whenever there is a range of sentences, ie, from 1 - 10, judges will, regardless of the severity of the crime or the length of the suspect's criminal record, largely confine their sentences the lower third of the range. Judges in Canada are very liberal minded, do not like giving out harsh sentences and so very rarely do.

Perhaps adding a cop to the panels will have the result that at least one voice at the table will be arguing in favour of candidates who appear to have the cojones to do their jobs instead of weeping with sympathy for every child rapist and murderer who comes before them.

At the moment, the only safe thing for them to do is appoint judges who are members of the Liberal Party. Any somewhat conservative judge that is appointed to the bench will draw howls of protest form the media and shrill, if not hysterical cries that the Tories are trying to load the judiciary with nazis.

A cop might also look to judges who go lightly on cops for crimes. It is possible.

Extremely unlikely. Cops hate crooked cops. For the most part, the axe cops would have to grind would be society's.

There are law and order judges out there. Some are even former Liberals.

Name one.

I think the problem is that Harper may want judges who are not just tough on law and order but who are social conservatives,

There is nothing stopping him from appointing them now. He has the full freedom to appoint any idiot he wants to the bench. God knows the Liberals appointed enough failed Liberal MPs, fund raisers and campaign workers.

[jdobbin]

Extremely unlikely. Cops hate crooked cops. For the most part, the axe cops would have to grind would be society's.

Name one.

There is nothing stopping him from appointing them now. He has the full freedom to appoint any idiot he wants to the bench. God knows the Liberals appointed enough failed Liberal MPs, fund raisers and campaign workers.

Cops also hate stoolies. The blue line often protects cops.

Marshall E. Rothstein, Liberal appointed judge. Tough on crime. Shortlisted by Liberals appointed by a Conservative to the Supreme Court.

There are a whole lot of vacancies. You'd think he could find some judges he likes.

[jbg]

There is nothing stopping him from appointing them now. He has the full freedom to appoint any idiot he wants to the bench. God knows the Liberals appointed enough failed Liberal MPs, fund raisers and campaign workers.

Failed MP's probably make excellent judges. In fact, I would just love to adjudicate my client's rights before the Honorable Carolyn Parrish.

[jdobbin]

Failed MP's probably make excellent judges. In fact, I would just love to adjudicate my client's rights before the Honorable Carolyn Parrish.

She was a former teacher. Hard to be a judge when you were never a lawyer. She was also never Honourable because that distinction only goes to the cabinet.

And now she is running for city councilor in Mississauga.

[jbg]

Failed MP's probably make excellent judges. In fact, I would just love to adjudicate my client's rights before the Honorable Carolyn Parrish.

She was a former teacher. Hard to be a judge when you were never a lawyer. She was also never Honourable because that distinction only goes to the cabinet.

And now she is running for city councilor in Mississauga.

I think non-lawyers can have common sense and make excellent judges.

All kidding aside, I wanted Parrish to become ambassador to the US, so we could get the benefit of her deep, profound thoughts on US-Canadian relations.

[Argus]

There is nothing stopping him from appointing them now. He has the full freedom to appoint any idiot he wants to the bench. God knows the Liberals appointed enough failed Liberal MPs, fund raisers and campaign workers.

Failed MP's probably make excellent judges. In fact, I would just love to adjudicate my client's rights before the Honorable Carolyn Parrish.

Try Paul Cosgrove instead. A former Liberal cabinet minister appointed to the bench after being turfed by voters. He was censured by an appeals court for ordering the Ontario government to negotiate special hunting rights with a native group. The appeals court used unusually blunt language in reminding him "he was not god".

Later, he found the police had made 150 violations of a murder victim's charter rights, called them liars and accused the Crown of conspiring against the suspect. The Crown appealed and called him an idiot, and even the defence admitted he hadn't expected the judge to buy it, and he had no evidence whatever to support anything. The appeals court agreed he was an idiot and, said nothing Cosgrove had said had any basis and overturned the ruling, using some of the least respectful language I can recall.

A bizarre homicide saga took a rare turn yesterday when the council that polices the judiciary said it will conduct an inquiry into the judge in the case after receiving a complaint from Ontario's attorney general.

The Canadian Judicial Council probe into Superior Court Justice Paul Cosgrove is being launched after the Ontario Court of Appeal accused him of making numerous legal errors and misunderstanding the Charter of Rights when he freed a woman from Barbados accused of murdering and dismembering her former lover while vacationing in Canada.

However, the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned the stay in December 2003, saying "there was no factual basis" for Judge Cosgrove's findings and that he had "misused his power."

.

[jdobbin]

Try Paul Cosgrove instead. A former Liberal cabinet minister appointed to the bench after being turfed by voters. He was censured by an appeals court for ordering the Ontario government to negotiate special hunting rights with a native group. The appeals court used unusually blunt language in reminding him "he was not god".

Vic Toews always complains about the judiciary but when he was Attorney General in Manitoba, he did a shoddy job of running the department.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vic_Toews

"Both Toews and his ministry were frequent targets of opposition criticism between 1997 and 1999. The New Democrats alleged that Crown offices were underfunded, and suggested that the Crown's ability to perform its prosecutorial duties was compromised. These concerns became especially prevalent after June 1997, when the Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed a man who admitted to having sexual intercourse with a twelve-year old girl serve his sentence in the community rather than in prison. In making its decision, the court argued that the girl was a willing participant and possessed enough sophistication to consent. Toews expressed serious concerns about the trial's outcome, and filed leave to appeal the case to the Supreme Court of Canada.[29]

Toews's decision to appeal was not controversial, but the Crown's handling of the original case soon became a source of debate. NDP Justice Critic Gord Mackintosh observed that the Crown never challenged defence claims that the girl consented to the act.[30] The New Democrats argued that departmental underfunding had led to a lax prosecution, and suggested that Toews should take ministerial responsibility for the failure. Four years later, an internal review found that the Crown's performance in the case had been substandard.[31]"

He has a longstanding reputation of bullying the judiciary. Perhaps if he was a better minister, he wouldn't have had so many cases tossed.

[FTA Lawyer]

FTA, I recognize that within any group there are good people who try to do their best. But lawyers, as a group, have a lot to answer for. Don't forget that judges are lawyers, and most politicians are lawyers. All our rotten, crappy laws are written by lawyers at the behest of lawyers. Or they're changed and altered beyond recognition by judges (lawyers) because some other lawyer came up with a clever argument, or just because the judge felt like it.

The ethics of the legal profession, and I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, is that they must ignore justice in order to do the absolute best for their clients, no matter how evil or cruel or destructive that would be to society. If that means cheating an old widow out of her house (legally) on behalf of the moustachioed, cigar chomping, top-hatted villain, then that is precisely what they'll do.

And while "protecting the innocent" from being railroaded is noble, in theory, it has so surrounded our judicial system with ridiculous "checks and balances" that the rights of the accused far outweigh the well being of the public, or justice for their victims. No matter how absolutely obvious is their guilt, how cruel their crime, the law, as designed and administered by lawyers will protect them and try to cushion any punishment.

The law sucks in so very, very many ways. Whether it's letting murderers go with a slap on the wrist because, well, "you can't prove he wanted to kill someone just because he shot him fourteen times in the head, after all", whether it's old people being booted out of their own homes because some fraudster forged their names on a document and the mighty "LAW" says they no now longer own their homes, or whether it's the legions of soulless lawyers employed by insurance companies to get them out of paying off on valid claims to the sick and homeless, there is little admirable in your profession as a whole.

The presence of lawyers is like an infection in that it breeds the need for more lawyers. The United States has, they say, 2/3rds of all the lawyers in the world, and no one in their right mind would say that has contributed anything good to their society.

One final thing. When the Tories announced they were going to put in place laws to punish those who drive while under the influence of drugs most people thought that was a pretty damned overdue and sensible thing to do. You, on the other hand, ranted about how this would lead to unfairness to your clients, and big pay cheques for lawyers.

I'm not even quite sure where to begin with this post and I apologize that this is going to get long...

Crown Prosecutors are lawyers...or did you forget that? So basically, following your logic, every time a guy gets convicted because a Crown lawyer did a great job, lawyers should be blamed for...well, everything?!?!

Can you show me a case where a guy who shot someone in the head 14 times was acquitted of murder because the defence argued and the judge found that intent was not proven?...or is this just more pathetic feeble-minded drivel trying to support your extreme position?

Does the law really "suck" or are you and most of the general public just so misinformed and willingly eating up every criticism lobbed out in main-stream media? Let me show you why the latter part of this question is true:

1. The current impaired driving law makes it illegal (and always has made it illegal) to drive while impaired by alcohol or drug...be it illicit, over the counter or prescription. Any officer able to observe and record signs of impairment has always been able to catch drug-impaired drivers and set them up for the exact same punishment as a drunk driver. This whole hullabaloo is over making it easier for police to seize bodily samples and I for one would prefer to minimize the number of reasons that the state can compel me to give it my blood. My comment about the government giving me business was clearly meant to be facetious...I assure you, I'd rather not have unconstitutional laws passed at all than to have the business of striking them down.

2. As to this often spouted but almost never substantively backed notion of "rights of the accused far outweighing the well being of the public" take a gander at what the actual state of the law in Canada is in a situation where police unlawfully seized blood from a hospital using an invalid warrant to get evidence of an accused's blood alcohol level (written by Alberta Court of Appeal, adopted by SCC):

There are three factors to weigh when the exclusion of evidence pursuant to s. 24(2) [Charter] is contemplated...1) The effect the admission of the impugned evidence would have on the fairness of trial, 2) The seriousness of the Charter violation, 3) The effect upon the repute of the administration of justice

if the evidence is admitted or excluded

...

The test is whether disrepute would be produced in the eyes of a reasonable person fully apprised of the circumstances...the balance of the Charter rights of the accused must be weighed with societal's [sic] need for law enforcement.

This case, known as Erickson, is a prime example of the Court finding a s. 8 Charter breach...finding the police seriously violated the privacy rights of the accused...AND finding that the evidence will nevertheless be admissible against the accused because of the rights of the public as a whole to be protected from impaired driving.

Paraphrased, the legal test for exclusion of evidence in the US is "fruit from the poisonous tree"...everything after a violation (or arising out of a violation) of an accused's rights is GONE...In Canada, we decide between what would cause the bigger disrepute to the system...allowing it in or excluding it?

Obviously you are so accurate about the rights of the accused being paramount to those of the public...oh, wait a minute, maybe you're completely wrong...

3. As to your comments on the ethics of the legal profession, I really wish I could understand where this B.S. about lawyers "must ignore justice in order to do the absolute best for their clients, no matter how evil or cruel or destructive that would be to society" keeps coming from. I have dispelled this crap before on this board and yet, posters like yourself continue to profess that we take some kind of oath of injustice and deception.

Here's a few of the on-point selections of rules from the Law Society of Alberta Code of Professional Conduct (various chapters):

"A lawyer must respect and uphold the law in personal conduct and in rendering advice and assistance to others."

"A lawyer should seek to improve the justice system."

"A lawyer must not act in a manner that might weaken public respect for the law or justice system or interfere with its fair administration."

"A lawyer should support and contribute to the profession's efforts to make legal services available to all who require them, regardless of ability to pay."

"A lawyer's position must not be used to take unfair advantage of any person or situation."

"A lawyer must refrain from personal or professional conduct that brings discredit to the profession."

"A lawyer must not take advantage of a mistake on the part of another lawyer if to do so would obtain for the lawyer's client a benefit to which the client has no bona fide claim or entitlement."

"When acting as advocate, a lawyer has a duty to advance the client's cause resolutely and to the best of the lawyer's ability,

subject to limitations imposed by law or professional ethics.

"

"A lawyer must not take any step in the representation of a client that is clearly without merit."

"A lawyer must not misrepresent to the court the identity of the lawyer's client or witness, the client's position in the litigation, nor the issues to be determined in the litigation."

"A lawyer must not mislead the court nor assist a client or witness to do so."

And, really, the list goes on and on to include things like we have to withdraw as counsel if a client insists on instructing us to do anything contrary to these rules, we have to tell the court about cases that go against us if the other lawyer has missed such cases, we can't attempt to introduce evidence or facts that we know are inadmissible (the old Law and Order ask an improper question and then just say "withdrawn").

Now, I'm not so naive as to think that all lawyers follow these rules all the time, but your suggestion that somehow part of our ethics as lawyers is to subvert justice as long as it benefits our clients is simply absurd. A lawyer who does that is, as you can see, breaking more than 10 different ethical rules.

I really have no confidence I'll change your mind Argus, but hopefully others on the board become a little better informed before they decide to brand lawyers as the cause of everything wrong in the world.

FTA

[FTA Lawyer]

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.

I don't want to sound callous but you're supposed to be a lawyer, not a social worker. And the legal system is supposed to render decisions not act as a confiding friend.

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...

FTA, I suppose there are going to be mistakes either way: the innocent goes to jail and the guilty goes free.

You are missing Argus' main point. Many Canadians feel that the judicial system doesn't work well. It is clogged with delays and sentences that are perceived as too light.

Your first point is very intruiging, because the exact phrase could be repeated to any victim or their family members who are complaining that they feel cheated by the system..."the legal system is supposed to render decisions, not act as a confiding friend."

I'm not professing to be a social worker either...I specifically don't attempt to be one. But it is basically being suggested that lawyers are just evil money-grubbers who sell their souls and try their best to harm society's interests...I'm just trying to show that I am, in fact, still a human being.

As to what you have called "Argus' main point" I think you are the one making that point. Argus may have been trying, but what he did was a rant of lawyer-bashing.

I won't disagree that generally the public support for the judicial system is not high right now...I will disagree, however, when my profession is summarily tarred and feathered for its lack of ethics, humanity, and any care for anything but money.

FTA

[jbg]

This case, known as Erickson, is a prime example of the Court finding a s. 8 Charter breach...finding the police seriously violated the privacy rights of the accused...AND finding that the evidence will nevertheless be admissible against the accused because of the rights of the public as a whole to be protected from impaired driving.

In the US, driving is considered a privilege, not a right, and significant invasions of privacy are allowed in enforcement of driving while intoxicated laws. If a Defendant refuses an alchohol test, his being in violation of the law is presumed, and correctly so.

Paraphrased, the legal test for exclusion of evidence in the US is "fruit from the poisonous tree"...everything after a violation (or arising out of a violation) of an accused's rights is GONE...In Canada, we decide between what would cause the bigger disrepute to the system...allowing it in or excluding it?

Obviously you are so accurate about the rights of the accused being paramount to those of the public...oh, wait a minute, maybe you're completely wrong...

That doctrine was weakened almost from the start by such exceptions as "inevitable discovery" and "remoteness" (paraphrased in 1981 by my Criminal Procedure professor as "dissipating taint"). Very few are intellectually honest to face the fact that allowing every single Charter or Constitutional violation to cause exclusion of evidence to protect a defendants' rights in prosecution would result in most if not all prosecutions be stymied. It would be similar to calling every single foul or offsides in a hockey or soccer game.

Thus, rather than admit that these protections basically don't exist, there are exceptions from them. In the view of this lawyer, that is how it must be, unless, perhaps, we replace the exclusionary rule with some kind of arbitral system for monetary remedies against police (lawsuits are unrealistic since few juries will side with a guilty criminal over a police officer).

[FTA Lawyer]

That doctrine was weakened almost from the start by such exceptions as "inevitable discovery" and "remoteness" (paraphrased in 1981 by my Criminal Procedure professor as "dissipating taint"). Very few are intellectually honest to face the fact that allowing every single Charter or Constitutional violation to cause exclusion of evidence to protect a defendants' rights in prosecution would result in most if not all prosecutions be stymied. It would be similar to calling every single foul or offsides in a hockey or soccer game.

Thus, rather than admit that these protections basically don't exist, there are exceptions from them. In the view of this lawyer, that is how it must be, unless, perhaps, we replace the exclusionary rule with some kind of arbitral system for monetary remedies against police (lawsuits are unrealistic since few juries will side with a guilty criminal over a police officer).

jbg,

I was admittedly too bold in suggesting that the exclusionary doctrine in the US was absolute...as with most "rules" there are exceptions.

To be more accurate, the difference with Canada's rule under the Charter is that there is no presumption of exclusion due to a breach, with various applicable exceptions to the presumption. Instead, our test is one where we balance from the outset the rights of the individual accused with those of society as a whole in determining what would be more fair...admissibility or exclusion.

I am, however, a bit confused about your comments regarding intellectual honesty and admitting that these protections basically don't exist...have I simply misunderstood?

FTA

[jefferiah]

Well I dont think it is so outrageous. Someone said one sixth of the panel would be cops. So its not really a bunch of cops picking judges. Its one cop, and some other folks. And I think the law enforcement maybe needs some representation on this board. OK, so we've had one side saying "Lawyers are all crooks." Then the other side calls this anti-lawyer bigotry while in the same breath they say "Cops are all crooks." My friend JBG on here is a lawyer, and I dont take too kindly to people lumping him in with crooks. And my brother is a police officer. Sure cops are going to be more about getting convictions. And sure lawyers are going to be about protecting the accused. These are their respective functions. But I dont see why a member of law enforcement should not have a position on that board as well as lawyers. As a lot of people pointed out, there are a lot of cases of these slap-on-the-wrist sentences. And cops would like to see something done about this. The views of law enforcement are very valuable since they are the hands-on people in the justice system. They are out there everyday. They see the crime scenes. They deal with it. The lawyers are more removed and abstract. Their view is important. But the police have an important aspect to bring as well.

[jbg]

jbg,

I was admittedly too bold in suggesting that the exclusionary doctrine in the US was absolute...as with most "rules" there are exceptions.

To be more accurate, the difference with Canada's rule under the Charter is that there is no presumption of exclusion due to a breach, with various applicable exceptions to the presumption. Instead, our test is one where we balance from the outset the rights of the individual accused with those of society as a whole in determining what would be more fair...admissibility or exclusion.

I am, however, a bit confused about your comments regarding intellectual honesty and admitting that these protections basically don't exist...have I simply misunderstood?

FTA

The US exclusionary rule is not in our constitution, but in case law, out of the case U.S. v. Weeks. established the "rule" for the first time, in Federal prosecutions. This was expanded to the states in Mapp v. Ohio during the late 1950's or early 1960's.

The problem with applying it literally is that the cost, in terms of obviously guilty people going free, is too high. Thus, the jurisprudence under the exclusionary rule is "hit or miss" where the Courts struggle for ways to find that it doesn't apply, or sets procedural roadblocks to its invocation.

[Figleaf]

I think non-lawyers can have common sense and make excellent judges.

You've got to be kidding!

All kidding aside...

Oh, okay. Phew!

[jbg]

I think non-lawyers can have common sense and make excellent judges.

You've got to be kidding!

All kidding aside...

Oh, okay. Phew!

Parrish the thought.