Steven Truscott

[jdobbin]

It has taken about 50 years but the court has acquitted Steven Truscott.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

After nearly 50 years of fighting to clear his name, Steven Truscott says his acquittal in the 1959 murder of Lynne Harper is "a dream come true."

"For 48 years I was considered guilty. I knew myself, and my family knows, that I never was... I never in my wildest dreams expected in my lifetime for this to come true," Truscott told reporters at a news conference Tuesday.

"It's a dream come true."

Earlier Tuesday, five senior judges of the Ontario Court of Appeal deemed his conviction a "miscarriage of justice" in a unanimous decision.

Truscott has always maintained his innocence, while Crown prosecutors had asked that his guilty verdict be upheld.

The Crown and some locals to this day believe he is guilty.

It is sad that it has taken to this day to get an acquittal. And an acquittal is not the same as being exonerated.

One of the reasons I have been opposed to the death penalty is because of the various wrongful convictions that have marked the Canadian criminal justice system over the years.

[geoffrey]

One of the reasons I have been opposed to the death penalty is because of the various wrongful convictions that have marked the Canadian criminal justice system over the years.

Then you should be against all incarceration as well. For most it's not far from death, and for many it's much worse.

[Black Dog]

Then you should be against all incarceration as well. For most it's not far from death, and for many it's much worse.

That's dumb. Incarceration is not "not far from death." It is not worse. I have no doubt folks like Truscott or David Milgaard would not want to repeat their jail experiences, but I'm equally sure they are glad they lived to see their name's cleared. That, to me, makes all the difference. Put another way, there's no way to avoid wrongful convictions, but wrongful incarcerations are easier to corect and compensate for than wrongful executions.

[jdobbin]

Then you should be against all incarceration as well. For most it's not far from death, and for many it's much worse.

I can't recall saying that I opposed incarceration.

Are you saying that the death penalty should remain in place even if innocent people are executed? I don't know what you arguing here. Do you think Steven Trustcott should have been executed?

[geoffrey]

Are you saying that the death penalty should remain in place even if innocent people are executed? I don't know what you arguing here. Do you think Steven Trustcott should have been executed?

No, I don't support the death penalty either. I'm just saying using what you used for a reason is flawed.

[gc1765]

Then you should be against all incarceration as well. For most it's not far from death, and for many it's much worse.

If someone in prison turns out to be innocent, at least you can release them from prison. Sure, they wasted time, but at least they have the rest of their lives. On the other hand, it's pretty hard to undo an execution.

[jdobbin]

No, I don't support the death penalty either. I'm just saying using what you used for a reason is flawed.

My reason of not wanting a wrongfully convicted man executed is flawed?

[Higgly]

Justice delayed is justice denied. This is vindication for Truscott, but one has to wonder how the Harper family feels. The Attorney General has said the case is closed, unless re-opened by the police. Given that the guy who railroaded Truscott - Robert Harris - went on to become head of the Ontario Provincial Police and that the real culprit is probably long dead, there is little chance that the murder of Lynne Harper will ever be solved.

I am happy for Mr. Truscott. This guy was convicted when I was little kid and even then people had a hard time swallowing it. I hope he gets a major settlement.

[guyser]

I'd love for him to see some "Arar" money . Morin got million(s) , Millegard got it.....pony up boys , this one will be expensive.

[geoffrey]

My reason of not wanting a wrongfully convicted man executed is flawed?

Yup. Your problem should be with the conviction, not the punishment. Locking someone up for life is as large an infringement on freedom as putting them to death, if not larger.

I'd love for him to see some "Arar" money . Morin got million(s) , Millegard got it.....pony up boys , this one will be expensive.

As it should be. This guy was robbed of many years of his life and will likely live under a cloud of suspicion forever. I'd like to see settlement for wrongful convictions (even wrongful accusations) much higher, it would promote some responsibility when prosecuting criminals.

[Higgly]

I'd love for him to see some "Arar" money . Morin got million(s) , Millegard got it.....pony up boys , this one will be expensive.

Is also like to see legislation introducing personal liability for these kinds of screw-ups on the part of police. Let them buy malpractice insurance like doctors and lawyers. There are far too many of these screw-ups and the only ones we find out about are the murder cases. I'd love to know how many men are rotting in prison for other crimes they didn't commit because of police malfeasance and/or incompetence. The Truscott case was plain and simplke a case of a kid being railroaded by a dirty cop.

[geoffrey]

The Truscott case was plain and simplke a case of a kid being railroaded by a dirty cop.

Agreed. The bar should be extremely high and the personal liability massive when dealing with those that have the ability to take away all of your freedom.

[jdobbin]

Yup. Your problem should be with the conviction, not the punishment. Locking someone up for life is as large an infringement on freedom as putting them to death, if not larger.

Death is irreversible. Incarceration is not.

[geoffrey]

Death is irreversible. Incarceration is not.

Wrong. Truscott will never get that time back. Ever. His suffering at the hands of a reckless government is irreversible.

[Michael Bluth]

Death is irreversible. Incarceration is not.

Really? Is there a magic wand that can give Truscott back the 10 years he spent in jail? Or the 15 years he spent on parole afterwards?

[jdobbin]

Wrong. Truscott will never get that time back. Ever. His suffering at the hands of a reckless government is irreversible.

He won't get the time back but he did get his freedom back. You don't get that chance with the death penalty.

Why are you against it?

[Michael Bluth]

He won't get the time back but he did get his freedom back. You don't get that chance with the death penalty.

That time adds up to huge chunk of his life.

Does anyone question the abuse he must have gone through as a teenager in an adult prison facility?

[geoffrey]

He won't get the time back but he did get his freedom back. You don't get that chance with the death penalty.

I say the "wrongness" of the State would have been equal if they had just killed him.

Why are you against it?

There is no logic in pretending to have the moral authority to kill someone because they killed someone. Revenge is purely emotional. I'd make the criminal work off the sentance though, benefiting society while protecting it. The crime did 'harm' to individuals so they should be compensated for the loss. A criminal that works harder should be set free faster... this puts the choice of freedom in the hands of the individual (even if a criminal) instead of that of the State. Those that are so mentally deficient they can't be released won't be able to earn it.

Military prisions often use a system of earned days. I like this. Like I said, it puts freedom in the hands of the individual.

Though at the end of the day, the judge (agent of the State) still sets that timeline. This is a problem I haven't been able to reconcile.

[jdobbin]

That's dumb. Incarceration is not "not far from death." It is not worse. I have no doubt folks like Truscott or David Milgaard would not want to repeat their jail experiences, but I'm equally sure they are glad they lived to see their name's cleared. That, to me, makes all the difference. Put another way, there's no way to avoid wrongful convictions, but wrongful incarcerations are easier to corect and compensate for than wrongful executions.

It seems some people don't get that.

Unfortunately, wrongful convictions are a fact of life. Some times they take a long time to be revealed as such because the technology didn't exist to refute evidence used to convict. Hair evidence was used many times and it has proven to be totally unreliable as has been proven by DNA testing.

In some cases, it takes a while to refute expert testimony such as the case where women were prosecuted for killing their children based on poor pathology reports.

There are several reasons why I oppose the death penalty. The one I mentioned is that it is possible an innocent person is executed.

[jdobbin]

I say the "wrongness" of the State would have been equal if they had just killed him.

There is no logic in pretending to have the moral authority to kill someone because they killed someone. Revenge is purely emotional. I'd make the criminal work off the sentance though, benefiting society while protecting it. The crime did 'harm' to individuals so they should be compensated for the loss. A criminal that works harder should be set free faster... this puts the choice of freedom in the hands of the individual (even if a criminal) instead of that of the State. Those that are so mentally deficient they can't be released won't be able to earn it.

Military prisions often use a system of earned days. I like this. Like I said, it puts freedom in the hands of the individual.

Though at the end of the day, the judge (agent of the State) still sets that timeline. This is a problem I haven't been able to reconcile.

I don't disagree on the wrongness of the state. However, ask Truscott whether he would have liked 10 years in jail and nearly 50 years to clear his name or whether he would have rather been executed and later found to be innocent.

I agree on first part of your statement. The rest I don't know about. Prisons are pretty inefficient ways to work off sentences.

[Higgly]

It seems some people don't get that.

Unfortunately, wrongful convictions are a fact of life. Some times they take a long time to be revealed as such because the technology didn't exist to refute evidence used to convict. Hair evidence was used many times and it has proven to be totally unreliable as has been proven by DNA testing.

In some cases, it takes a while to refute expert testimony such as the case where women were prosecuted for killing their children based on poor pathology reports.

There are several reasons why I oppose the death penalty. The one I mentioned is that it is possible an innocent person is executed.

And then there are cases like the Truscott case where the guy was railroaded by a cop who finessed the system by hiding and manipulating evidence. I don't know why more of a spotlight has not been shone on Robert Harris, the cop who was the major factor in Truscott's conviction and who stood for so long against re-opening the case. This guy was poison and he has gotten off far too lightly.

[geoffrey]

I don't know enough about the case to comment in that regard, but if the cop was truly that negligent or even worse with Mr. Truscott's freedom, the cheque should come out of his account.

More personal responsibility is needed.

[Higgly]

I don't know enough about the case to comment in that regard, but if the cop was truly that negligent or even worse with Mr. Truscott's freedom, the cheque should come out of his account.

More personal responsibility is needed.

This is what I'm saying. Harris is no longer with us, though, although he did end up becoming head of the Ontario Provincial Police - his rise from humble country cop started with the Truscott case, and Harris fought throughout his career to stop the case from being re-opened.

[gc1765]

Locking someone up for life is as large an infringement on freedom as putting them to death, if not larger.

He lost 10 years of his life in prison. He could have lost 50+ years had he been executed. But I'll tell you what, if you think locking someone up for life is worse than putting them to death, then how about we give them the option to choose prison vs. death penalty?

[Michael Bluth]

He lost 10 years of his life in prison. He could have lost 50+ years had he been executed. But I'll tell you what, if you think locking someone up for life is worse than putting them to death, then how about we give them the option to choose prison vs. death penalty?

Nobody was arguing it is worse. Just equally as bad, or damned near close.

You want state-sanctioned suicide?