Steven Truscott

[gc1765]

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

Actually, geoffrey was arguing that it was as bad or worse. I don't think it is as bad, but what do I know. Maybe we should ask Truscott whether he is glad that he was not executed?

You want state-sanctioned suicide?

I never said I wanted it, I offered it as a solution to someone who thinks that being in jail for 10 years is worse than being executed.

[geoffrey]

Actually, geoffrey was arguing that it was as bad or worse. I don't think it is as bad, but what do I know. Maybe we should ask Truscott whether he is glad that he was not executed?

That's simply not the point. The issue is with wrongful convictions, not the punishment. That's my point. Death penalty is just as bad because it's an equal infringement on life. Sitting in a cell is a big sacrifice and lots of suffering... death is pretty quick and painless.

I'm sure Truscott now is thankful for his release (though his life is destroyed regardless). I'm not convinced he believed that when in jail.

I never said I wanted it, I offered it as a solution to someone who thinks that being in jail for 10 years is worse than being executed.

Equally bad...

It's all about freedom being wrongfully taken away. As a punishment for someone rightly convicted, the argument becomes moot. The other issues one would have with capital punishment are more logical approaches to the issue.

[gc1765]

The issue is with wrongful convictions, not the punishment. That's my point.

I don't think there is any way around wrongful convictions. If there was a way to prevent them from ever happening, I think everyone could agree on that. Unfortunately, people make mistakes.

My point is that spending 10 years in jail (or however long the wait on death row is) is better than being executed. I agree that a life sentence is just as bad as being executed for some people. However, I don't believe that 10 years in jail is as bad as losing your entire life (50+ years). I think if people had to choose between the two, most would choose 10 years. At the very least, I'm certain that some people would choose 10 years in jail and those lives could be spared in the case of wrongful conviction if there is no death penalty.

[margrace]

We will always have wrongful convictions, people can lie so convincingly, remember Mr McKay. But we should not have the death penalty, I think we should have Prisons for child molesters and killers but the rest should be put to work to earn their keep. Why should we keep them.

[August1991]

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.

It seems kind of odd that people who weren't alive or even in Canada at the time all this happened will have to pay the compensation. What kind of incentive is that?

Mr. Truscott told a news conference he has never considered compensation, but a lawyer at his side, James Lockyer, said Mr. Truscott is owed a colossal amount for his ordeal.

"My own view is that Steven should get every penny he can out of the government after what he has been through," Mr. Lockyer said. "Think of the damage done to him: the loss of his childhood, and living under this awful shadow for so many years."

G & M

"Every penny he can get out of the government"? It won't be the "government" who will pay. It will be taxpayers.

Maybe we should get the police pension fund to fork over the money. Or given Higgly's point, why not sue Robert Harris' children. As kids growing up, they benefitted from their father's position. This at least would make cops in the future think twice before they start charging people with crimes.

Having current taxpayers pay the money to Truscott creates no incentive except the invitation for others to sue the "government".

I think we should have Prisons for child molesters and killers but the rest should be put to work to earn their keep.

Uh, I think Truscott was convicted of raping and killing a 12 year old.

----

BTW, it wasn't a judge or even the police who convicted Truscott. It was a jury. On another thread, we debated the merits of the jury system and IIRC, everyone seemed to think that it was the fairest method to obtain justice. So, is it correct for a Court of Appeal to overturn a jury's decision? What kind of precedent does that set?

Edited August 29, 2007 by August1991

[old_bold&cold]

I am very happy for Truscott for having his conviction removed. It seems that it took way too long and yes we the Canadian public will have to pay a very large amount to a man whose life we ruined and took away his childhood not to mention most of his adultlife as well. Yes I think the amount should be in the tens of millions. It was the public who convicted him and the public who the police were supposedly protecting, even though we now know it was more the one cops own preduidices that convicted Steven. It was the public who hired and allowed the cop to be there. If and does seem so , he broke the law in leaving out evidence and selectively prosecuting only one person, then that was up to us and the rest of the force to have spoke up. But if the big blue wall is allowed as it is the same as it is today. Then we the public will pay the price. If you wnat to change that then remove that blue wall.

Too bad if you were not born when this occurred, you were here when it finally took 48 years to correct this travesty of injustice. Where were you when this was first pushed for in the 1960' later in the 70's and 80's not until 2007 did it actually get the justice it deserved. Since you were quiet during all the early times, now is not the time to be yapping about the costs.

[Fortunata]

It seems kind of odd that people who weren't alive or even in Canada at the time all this happened will have to pay the compensation. What kind of incentive is that?

The incentive is for the public to keep demanding and acting for justice; not letting the police get away with manipulating evidence or manipulating situations such as at Montebello and the Mahar Arar case. It's the public that has to keep ourofficials honest and accountable.

"Every penny he can get out of the government"? It won't be the "government" who will pay. It will be taxpayers.

It's our justice system even though we seem to have no control over it.

Maybe we should get the police pension fund to fork over the money. Or given Higgly's point, why not sue Robert Harris' children. As kids growing up, they benefitted from their father's position. This at least would make cops in the future think twice before they start charging people with crimes.

The miscarriage of justice by Harris was nothing to do with his children. They had no say and therefore, should have no penalty. To penalize them would be another miscarriage of justice.

Having current taxpayers pay the money to Truscott creates no incentive except the invitation for others to sue the "government".

The public should let all elected officials know that we find this unacceptable and we want accountability from them, from the police, from the justice department. If they are bombarded by enough outraged voters and find their seats in danger, they'll do something. Otherwise --- not.

BTW, it wasn't a judge or even the police who convicted Truscott. It was a jury. On another thread, we debated the merits of the jury system and IIRC, everyone seemed to think that it was the fairest method to obtain justice. So, is it correct for a Court of Appeal to overturn a jury's decision? What kind of precedent does that set?

When a jury doesn't get all the information it cannot make an informed verdict.

[Higgly]

BTW, it wasn't a judge or even the police who convicted Truscott. It was a jury. On another thread, we debated the merits of the jury system and IIRC, everyone seemed to think that it was the fairest method to obtain justice. So, is it correct for a Court of Appeal to overturn a jury's decision? What kind of precedent does that set?

True, but it was a jury who never got to see all of the evidence, was presented with manipulated evidence, and did not hear from all of the witnesses. There was a witness who could have cast doubt on the prosecution theory and was not called. I think the jury was a pawn in this whole thing. As for the taxpayers, maybe it's time they rose up on their hind legs and clamoured for more police accountability. If I were Truscott, I'd be looking for 8 figures, if not for myself, then for my kids, and to provide incentive for this thing not to happen again. Maybe the government could take it out of the operating budgets of the OPP and the Attorney General LOL.

[guyser]

True, but it was a jury who never got to see all of the evidence, was presented with manipulated evidence, and did not hear from all of the witnesses.

From what I have either read or heard, the "manipulation" was minor but had more the do with "discovery" rules and how lax they were. We are talking about the the very early 60 's

There was a witness who could have cast doubt on the prosecution theory and was not called. I think the jury was a pawn in this whole thing

Did you know her (Harper) uncle was on the jury? As if that could happen now.

. As for the taxpayers, maybe it's time they rose up on their hind legs and clamoured for more police accountability. If I were Truscott, I'd be looking for 8 figures, if not for myself, then for my kids, and to provide incentive for this thing not to happen again. Maybe the government could take it out of the operating budgets of the OPP and the Attorney General LOL.

He will get 8 figures easily. Millegard got 10mil, and his case was less than half as long winded.

Thegovt employs these people, therefor the gov needs to pony up the cash. I have no problem with this.

[geoffrey]

Did you know her (Harper) uncle was on the jury?

Your kidding, right?

[guyser]

Your kidding, right?

Sadly Geoffrey, I am not. (actually it would not be something to joke about anyway) And almost as bad, her doctor examined Truscott and made medical decisions that led to his conviction.

To clarify, he was her great-uncle .

From todays TO Sun....

The same doctor who concluded that lesions on Truscott's penis were signs of rape was her childhood doctor. Her great-uncle was on the jury that convicted Truscott

Talk about mind boggling legal system in the day. I would think that from now on, anyone serving a really long sentence from the 60's will get the benefit of my doubt.

[jdobbin]

No compensation for Truscott?

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070829/...uscott_decision

teven Truscott's right to compensation, and how much he will ultimately receive, turns on the fact Ontario's top court failed to find him factually innocent of Lynne Harper's murder, the judge reviewing the issue said Wednesday.

Ontario's top court has declared Truscott the victim of a miscarriage of justice and acquitted him of Harper's 1959 rape and murder. Still, the Ontario Court of Appeal said it could not declare him innocent based on the evidence.

Former Appeal Court Justice Sydney Robins, tasked by the Ontario government with reviewing the compensation issue, said he must first decide whether Truscott is entitled to an award before recommending how much, if any.

"The issue turns on the fact that there was no explicit finding of factual innocence in the case," Robins said in a telephone interview.

I was thinking that an acquittal might not end with a compensation agreement.

[August1991]

The miscarriage of justice by Harris was nothing to do with his children. They had no say and therefore, should have no penalty. To penalize them would be another miscarriage of justice.

You have a curious sense of ethics whereby you feel it perfectly acceptable to take money from me or someone else who had absolutely nothing to do with this - and yet you feel that it would be a "miscarriage of justice" to take it from Harris' children since, as you note, it has "nothing to do" with them.

Well according to Higgly, this case does have something to do with them. Harris was promoted and became chief of Ontario's police in part because of his wrongful prosecution of this case. It's certain that his children benefitted from their father's position and income. If the Supreme Court had overturned the initial decision in the 1960s, would Harris have enjoyed the same career or his children have enjoyed the same lifestyle?

More broadly, I'm thinking about the incentives in this case. We want to discourage police and judges from making the same kinds of mistakes in the future. Taking money from random general taxpayers and giving it to Truscott doesn't achieve this in any way whatsoever.

Conrad Black may well go to jail for far less and corporate officers have taken note. Equally, the judges and police will take note of what has happened in this Truscott case, just as the government bureaucrats took note note of what happened in Arar case. They are immune because they supposedly act in the "public interest".

The public should let all elected officials know that we find this unacceptable and we want accountability from them, from the police, from the justice department. If they are bombarded by enough outraged voters and find their seats in danger, they'll do something. Otherwise --- not.

Oh, if life were so simple. (IOW, are you truly so naive?)

Thegovt employs these people, therefor the gov needs to pony up the cash. I have no problem with this.

You make it sound as if the "govt" is some guy down the street. Edited August 30, 2007 by August1991

[gc1765]

Well according to Higgly, this case does have something to do with them. Harris was promoted and became chief of Ontario's police in part because of his wrongful prosecution of this case. It's certain that his children benefitted from their father's position and income. If the Supreme Court had overturned the initial decision in the 1960s, would Harris have enjoyed the same career or his children have enjoyed the same lifestyle?

Good point. It makes sense that if the children inherited money from their father then they are liable (assuming that the father should pay), although the amount paid by the children should be no more than the amount of inheritance they receive. If the father had been sued before his death, the plaintiff would be entitled to some money and the kids would get less inheritance. Why should that change upon the death of the father?

Then again, I must bring up a point that I made in the Arar thread:

If I can play devil's advocate here...

If you own a car, everytime someone else crashes, you pay money through insurance. Doctors have malpractice insurance to protect them financially from mistakes, and we all pay for it. One could argue that the people responsible were in a position (much like doctors) where the potential for mistakes can happen. Would you feel better if the government paid for some sort of malpractice insurance for government employees, which would cover a situation like this?

Now, if someone did something intentionally to cause Arar to be tortured (which from the little I know about this case, I believe that is what happened) they should certainly be disciplined. But that doesn't mean compensation shouldn't be paid.

[geoffrey]

You have a curious sense of ethics whereby you feel it perfectly acceptable to take money from me or someone else who had absolutely nothing to do with this - and yet you feel that it would be a "miscarriage of justice" to take it from Harris' children since, as you note, it has "nothing to do" with them.

But you do have something to do with this. 'We' elected a government that had policies that allowed this to happen.

More broadly, I'm thinking about the incentives in this case. We want to discourage police and judges from making the same kinds of mistakes in the future. Taking money from random general taxpayers and giving it to Truscott doesn't achieve this in any way whatsoever.

Truscott needs to be compensated for the reckless negligence of the state in his prosecution. He was harmed by the Crown. The Crown needs to compensate him.

If the Crown feels they were wronged by an out of control prosecutor or police officer, then they should take that up with them directly and have them foot the bill. Regardless, the Crown must be held accountable for such behavoir.

You make it sound as if the "govt" is some guy down the street.

Not really. If a government aircraft crashed through your living room, you'd expect the Crown to foot the bill (or their insurance or what not). You certainly shouldn't be expected to cover the cost of the negligence of the government agent. I think the same applies to the damage done to Mr. Truscott.

I understand your complaint about being charged for other's wrongs, and I've reflected a similar position in other threads. There is a tinge of immorality to it. Idealistically, we could launch a class action against the officer (or whoever was negligent or willfully aggressive in their prosecution) to recoup the cost to the Canadian taxpayer.

Unfortunately, our payout would be so small it would be worthless. However, I think it's the most moral route to go. Truscott needs to be compensated for the State's wrong.

[Fortunata]

You have a curious sense of ethics whereby you feel it perfectly acceptable to take money from me or someone else who had absolutely nothing to do with this - and yet you feel that it would be a "miscarriage of justice" to take it from Harris' children since, as you note, it has "nothing to do" with them.

They had a hand in their father's actions?

Oh, if life were so simple. (IOW, are you truly so naive?)

Only if it's naive to think that elected officials from any level of government act upon issues important to the public and demanded by the public without their jobs (i.e. getting re-elected) being on the line. The best way to get people to act is letting them know if they don't they will be unemployed.

[FTA Lawyer]

No compensation for Truscott?

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070829/...uscott_decision

I was thinking that an acquittal might not end with a compensation agreement.

For a judge to now get cute about an acquittal versus "factual innocence" in what would appear to be an attempt to rationalize short-changing Mr. Truscott on compensation is enough to make a buzzard puke...

In our justice system, you benefit from a presumption of innocence...that is, if you are acquitted the presumption has not been displaced and in law you are innocent.

In any event, such semantics are completely offensive...the conviction has been deemed a "miscarriage of justice" that means it was bad...Truscott had the best years of his life taken from him...wrongfully...no amount of money is enough in my view.

FTA

[August1991]

For a judge to now get cute about an acquittal versus "factual innocence" in what would appear to be an attempt to rationalize short-changing Mr. Truscott on compensation is enough to make a buzzard puke...

An appeal court overturning a jury decision should perhaps give you greater concern.

I take the view that justice is best served when it places the incentive where it will do the most good. By that standard, taking money from random people and giving it to Truscott would not be just.

In any event, such semantics are completely offensive...the conviction has been deemed a "miscarriage of justice" that means it was bad...Truscott had the best years of his life taken from him...wrongfully...no amount of money is enough in my view.

FTA, it is true that the Crown has imposed a tremendous cost on Truscott (assuming of course his innocence). But is it right to impose now another cost on innocent taxpayers? Two wrongs don't make a right.

IMV, the case of compensation to Arar is even less justified. His arrest and detention was not as random as Truscott's apparently was. Somebody must bear the cost of the State's errors and absent the chance of setting the correct incentives, I see only harm in shifting the cost randomly to others. A society where people randomly impose costs on others is a society that is moribund.

To illustrate my point, this Truscott case may still be open to debate:

"You never want to see someone who was innocent convicted of something," the elder Mr. Harper said yesterday. "But this is about money."

The Harpers have long felt that part of Mr. Truscott's motive in continuing the efforts to clear his name has been to win a hefty compensation package from the government.

On Tuesday, Mr. Truscott's lawyer, James Lockyer, said his client should "get every penny he can out of the government after what he has been through." Former Appeal Court judge Sydney Robins has been appointed by the provincial government to review the issue. However, he said he must first decide whether Mr. Truscott, who has not been deemed innocent, is entitled to an award.

"The issue turns on the fact that there was no explicit finding of factual innocence in the case," Mr. Robins told The Canadian Press yesterday.

Both Harpers said they will try to block any payout to Mr. Truscott. Barry said he has spoken with provincial officials to notify them that he and his father both plan to make written submissions to Mr. Robins on why they think compensation should be denied.

G & M

----

But you do have something to do with this. 'We' elected a government that had policies that allowed this to happen.

Truscott needs to be compensated for the reckless negligence of the state in his prosecution. He was harmed by the Crown. The Crown needs to compensate him.

In the sentences Geoffrey, you use the words 'Crown', 'state', 'government' and 'we' interchangeably. It's almost terrifying.

Above in this thread, Fortunata tried to make the argument that I (for example) am responsible for the actions of government bureaucrats because I didn't complain enough. WTF?

Why the confusion and euphemisms? When you use the word 'Crown', do you mean Queen Elisabeth II?

They had a hand in their father's actions?

The children of Robert Harris, the prosecuting police officer, benefitted from his promotions. As the children of the Chief of the Ontario police, they enjoy a life that is very different from the life they would have known if the Crown's case had failed.

I think this is a fair comparison since I'm sure Truscott and the Harper family often think of alternative paths life could have taken.

Only if it's naive to think that elected officials from any level of government act upon issues important to the public and demanded by the public without their jobs (i.e. getting re-elected) being on the line. The best way to get people to act is letting them know if they don't they will be unemployed.

I have no dispute with the need for an institution called government. I just wish that someone would devise a better scheme to create incentives for government officials.

Like Geoffrey, you have used another bland word - "public". How can a 'government' act upon issues important to the 'public'?

Nebvertheless Fortunata, I'll agree with you that "The best way to get people to act is letting them know if they don't they will be unemployed." Despite the "public's" complaints, when was the last time you saw a civil servant fired? How many incompetent crown prosecutors, police officers, tax inspectors or mere schoolteachers have bungled their way through - and yet year after year, they keep their jobs?

Edited August 31, 2007 by August1991

[Posit]

Not only should the Crown be responsible for Truscott for the rest of his life but he should be outfitted with the house of his choice, a new vehicle every year and any food, luxury and assistance that he desires all paid for by the government of Canada. Further every Crown attorney, police and judge or their estates should be charged the annual cost of Truscott's upkeep. Certainly it would provide some deterrence for lying, fudging and hiding evidence in trial.

While I would sympathize with the children who are cut out of the inheritance in such a case, no one should be entitled to profit or gain from a miscarriage of justice.

Edited August 31, 2007 by Posit

[Fortunata]

An appeal court overturning a jury decision should perhaps give you greater concern.

Above in this thread, Fortunata tried to make the argument that I (for example) am responsible for the actions of government bureaucrats because I didn't complain enough. WTF?

That isn't the argument that I was making. We can do nothing about government bureaucrats, we must do through elected officials, that's the only place we have power. Those elected officials can do to bureaucrats. The police, crown prosecutors and all others in the justice system should be given notice that there can and will be consequences to cover-ups, manipulations and lies.

I feel bad for the Harpers. Once, when the system found Truscott guilty, they bought into that system; now when Truscott has been found otherwise they cannot buy in. The Harpers seem to want to direct their anger at Truscott instead of that system that deliberately went after an innocent boy letting a killer walk around free.