# Tories plan to Americanize Canadian courts



## William (Jan 5, 2004)

From this morning's Globe & Mail, the latest attempt of the Harper government to model Canada after the U.S. by ignoring the best Canadian traditions and imposing his imported ideology on this country. Imitating the original Nazi techniques, Justice Minister Toews has announced his intention to implement a plan that, if it goes through, would, in effect, give the government the power to stack the courts with sympathizers of all its crackpot ideas, and to use judicial appointments to reward its cronies. The plan has been criticized by every major legal organization and expert in the country. The head of the Supreme Court of Canada has said the plan would compromise the impartiality of Canadian courts and would politicize the process of appointing. Toews said today that he will go ahead regardless of what his critics may say.

I think that all Canadians should inform themselves well on the subject and ponder the effect that this government is having on this country.

William


================================

A flagging relationship suffers another blow
Judges sent reeling by Toews's plans to plow ahead despite objections

KIRK MAKIN

Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin has never been one to play her cards carelessly or blurt out an indiscretion.

When she chose to lead the country's top judges into a very public battle with Justice Minister Vic Toews over his plan to transform the judicial appointment process, it meant only one thing: that she believed the very independence of the judiciary was at stake.

But the legal establishment was sent reeling anew yesterday when, just hours after she and the Canadian Judicial Council publicly rebuked Mr. Toews for his arbitrariness, he plowed ahead with a plan that many believe will politicize the federal bench. Without a word of apology or concession, Mr. Toews put his official stamp to a scheme that could destroy a judicial vetting process created specifically to reduce patronage and favouritism.

The president of the 37,000-member Canadian Bar Association, J. Parker MacCarthy, called the escalating contretemps "extremely serious." He accused Mr. Toews of flying in the face of his own previous demands to eliminate patronage from the process.

"The credibility of the entire judicial appointment process is at risk from proposed changes to the composition and operation of judicial advisory committees," he said. "The clear message is that the minister wants to make changes. Our views will be examined, but I don't know that I would go as far as saying that they will be welcomed."

The most serious effect of Mr. Toews's plan is a change that could allow the government to block virtually any judicial candidate it does not favour, a dramatic change to the legal landscape that opens the door to the government packing courts with political cronies or candidates who share its ideology.

Mr. MacCarthy said that four federal nominees on the reconfigured advisory committees -- one of whom will be drawn from the police community -- could potentially be swayed by the government to operate as a sort of voting bloc to stack each vote.

The key to this scenario is that Mr. Toews's plan calls for the eighth member -- the sole judicial representative on each committee -- to be a non-voting chair. (The committees are a mélange of government, law society and bar association representatives.)

As a result, the federal bloc would emerge a 4-3 winner in any close vote. "Those people will carry the day, rather than a consensus forming," Mr. MacCarthy said.

The storm over the appointment process underlines a spreading abyss of distrust between the judges and Mr. Toews, a leading critic of the judiciary during his days as an Opposition critic.

Indeed, the controversy is merely the latest blow in a relationship that has spiralled steadily downward.

In what was perceived as a direct slap at the judiciary, the Justice Department recently refused to implement a 10.8-per-cent salary raise for federally appointed judges that had been recommended by an independent salaries commission. The government instead substituted a 7.5-per-cent raise.

Various of Mr. Toews's law-and-order bills have also sought to reduce judges' sentencing discretion, furthering his view that judges cannot be trusted.

University of Toronto law professors Kent Roach and Lorne Sossin said yesterday there is a disturbing connection between the arbitrariness of Mr. Toews's latest plan and the fact that his law-and-order bills have been stymied in the parliamentary process.

They said it suggests a developing pattern in which controversial decisions are being made by administrative fiat. They noted that Mr. Toews went the same route when he swiftly killed off a highly respected advisory group -- the Law Commission of Canada -- and ended the Court Challenges Program, which dispensed funding for key constitutional challenges.

A novel procedure for questioning Supreme Court of Canada nominees was arrived at in the same unilateral way, Prof. Roach said. "Whether these changes are going to be debated in Parliament during a period of minority government is an important question."

Prof. Sossin said that having sounded the alarm about the judicial appointment problem, the senior judges may now have little choice but to fall silent.

"I think they wanted to make sure that by intervening in the way they did, this would get on the front page of The Globe," Prof. Sossin said. "But other groups have to come on now. The judiciary cannot call into question the political agenda of the government and still remain above the fray the way they need to in order to maintain their impartiality."

Added Prof. Roach, "I think the judicial council has done us service, because this was not on the public radar screen before they went public."

The judicial advisory committees are responsible for vetting candidates, checking their background, and ranking them as highly qualified, qualified or not qualified.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

:clap: :clap: :clap: 

Good for them, it's about time someone got rid of judges who won't administer justice.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

William said:


> Imitating the original Nazi techniques


I have never agreed with the Conservative's general approach to social and law and order issues, while some specifics make sense. This aspect of their governance is a central reason why I see voting for them as highly unlikely. However, the statement highlighted above is just plain stupid.

I don't see the benefit from what they're proposing (beyond involving a broader group in the selection process) and see much ideology. That doesn't mean yet another opportunity for "what I don't like = Nazi" foaming-at-the-mouth politics. Politicians may have no standards, but we can.

The Cons are Nazis, the Libs are Nazis, the Dips are Nazis, etc. The issue at hand is a basic mistrust of institutions that the Conservatives aren't satisfied with. Time to push back. While, in an abstract sense, they have a point, in application they are wrong, in my opinion. More idealistic grass-roots logic from them. These institutions have served us well, as much as they could use more careful inspection, and superior forms have not been suggested.


----------



## DEWLine (Sep 24, 2005)

Pass, thanks. I've no interest in seeing judges have to jump through the hoops of the government of the day to get their appointments.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> These institutions have served us well, as much as they could use more careful inspection, and superior forms have not been suggested.


Yeah, right:

VANCOUVER - Distraught relatives of two slain Sikh seniors lashed out at the justice system Friday after two young offenders were convicted of manslaughter, aggravated assault and robbery, but acquitted of second-degree murder in the 2005 beating deaths of Mewa Singh Bains and Shingara Singh Thandi.
Two teens were charged with the robbery of Bains, the aggravated assault of Bains and the second-degree murder of Thandi. B.C. Supreme Court Judge William Grist said he could not convict the teens, aged 13 and 15, of the murder charge because there was no direct evidence that they intended to kill Bains, 82, and Thandi, 76, when they clubbed them with a baseball bat in July 2005.
Thandi, who was attacked July 19, died Aug. 6, while Bains, who was attacked July 18, died Sept. 3. Both assaults took place in in the public bathroom of a Surrey, B.C. park.
Email to a friendPrinter friendly
Font:
The two teens, who cannot be identified, sat expressionless in a packed New Westminster, B.C., courtroom as Grist read his verdict.
Outside court, family members said the youths will soon be out of jail.
"That means they can kill more people," said Jhalman Singh Thandi, son of one of the victims.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> These institutions have served us well, as much as they could use more careful inspection, and superior forms have not been suggested.


Yeah, right:

EDMONTON - Participating in a brutal jailhouse swarming which left a high-ranking gang member in a coma and near death is apparently no big deal.

Nor is being handed three- and four-year prison terms either, based on the fact three gangsters spent most of their sentencing hearing yesterday joking and laughing.

The three career criminals even had big smiles when the judge told them they were getting too old for this kind of criminal behaviour and should "get a grip."

Ronald Adrian Crane, 29, was sentenced to four years in prison while Craig Thomas Drynan, 31, and Lawrence Louis Paquette, 35, were each given three-year sentences.

The trio earlier pleaded guilty to being party to an aggravated assault for a May 31 attack on Dennis Sinclair on a fourth-floor gang unit of the Edmonton Remand Centre. 

As a result of the guilty pleas, aggravated assault charges against six other accuse


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> These institutions have served us well, as much as they could use more careful inspection, and superior forms have not been suggested.


Yeah, right:

EDMONTON - A meth-addicted mother of five who slashed a security guard with a scalpel, hid nearly naked in a senior's home and led cops on a high-speed chase got a break yesterday.

Karen Marie Lucier, 38, was handed an 18-month conditional sentence to be served in the community by provincial court Judge Lloyd Malin.

"This is a chance," said Malin to Lucier, telling the drug addict her crimes would normally have resulted in her being given a sentence to serve behind bars.


----------



## DEWLine (Sep 24, 2005)

Right. One Big Case proves that ideological correctness of the judges will automatically make them all judicially competent At Long Last...


----------



## DEWLine (Sep 24, 2005)

And you're going to find as many Notorious cases as possible to bolster that argument, aren't you?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> These institutions have served us well, as much as they could use more careful inspection, and superior forms have not been suggested.


Yeah, right:

EDMONTON - Three teens sentenced to house arrest for their roles in the death of 18-year-old Shane Rolston should have gone to prison, an Edmonton MP says.
The case shows that Parliament needs to approve legislation, now before the Senate, to eliminate house arrest in many cases, Edmonton-Centre MP Laurie Hawn says.
Bill C-9 would make Rolston's attackers ineligible for conditional sentences.
Email to a friendPrinter friendly
Font:
"To get house arrest ... is a joke," Hawn said Friday, a day after Jonathan Giourmetakis, Josiah Lawson and Justin Bridges were sentenced to two years under house arrest for their roles in the beating death of the Sherwood Park teen at a house party last November. They pleaded guilty to assault with a weapon.
A fourth teen, Christopher Griffiths, was sentenced to four years in prison, after pleading guilty for his role in the attack.
"Here is a perfect example of a system that is soft on serious crime," Hawn said. "It is exactly the kind of thing that we are trying to prevent with (Bill C-9).
"They should have gotten jail time."


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Robin said:


> Holy Quadruple Post, Batman!


If you don't sit through these cases and hear and see the same evidence that the judge and jury see, you have little clue about the reasons for the judgement and little right to agree or disagree beyond the usual kneejerk reaction.

It is more than presumptuous to want to inflict long jail sentences on people because you hear that their alleged crime wasn't punished harshly enough.

Donald Marshall and others are alive as a reminder, fortunately, of this and more.

No doubt the judge gave a lengthy explanation for her or his reasoning. Try to find that quoted somewhere.




SINC said:


> Yeah, right:
> 
> EDMONTON - A meth-addicted mother of five who slashed a security guard with a scalpel, hid nearly naked in a senior's home and led cops on a high-speed chase got a break yesterday.
> 
> ...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

DEWLine said:


> And you're going to find as many Notorious cases as possible to bolster that argument, aren't you?


These are NOT notorious cases. They are in fact the result of four routine judge's decisions this past week, one in Vancouver and three in Edmonton.

Need more proof? Go look at any Canadian court results last week. I guarantee they will be similar.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Sinc, you are only looking at one side. A side I am familiar with. The other side is related to things that, while you may not agree with them, enforced our own politicians' words over fleeting public sentiment. 

On balance, we have been served well. There are examples of "WTF?" justice and examples of "About time". I strongly prefer what we have to public polling having significantly more power over yet another branch of government. If that is the end goal, then we don't need multiple branches, just one: direct democracy, and be done with it.

The laws must mean something beyond ever-changing voter intent. If the laws are too soft, change them directly, not by proxy. I've no love for mob-justice or silly socialist dogma, which is why I'm, at best, amused by anger over such things as cellphone listening relative to subdued contentment over laws that actually seek to control our behaviour. C'est la vie.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej, I am looking at the side that most Canadians focus on and believe me, most of them think it is broken.

Pansy judges who side with criminals, or even more often, teens who kill, but "didn't mean to do it".

That is bull$ht, pure and simple and the sooner we can elect judges who will respond to the crime and administer a just sentence, the sooner the average Canadian will regain faith in the justice system. As it stands, they have none and newcomers are finding that out very quickly.

Our judges are a joke, and if it is a result of the laws of the land, then change the #$%^& laws.


----------



## DEWLine (Sep 24, 2005)

You're talking to a past courtroom artist, neighbour. I _have_ seen with my own eyes what passes through our courts so much of the time. Reality has much more in common with what was shown in fiction such as CBC's *This is Wonderland* than with your opinions.

"Revenge and nothin' but" ain't for the country I'm living in and paying taxes to support.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i wouldn't say our judges are a joke, but there is certainly room for improvement in our judicial system
let's not forget that judges have been to law school and were lawyers

there is certainly some need of oversight as is currently the case with our police force


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

> Without a word of apology or concession, Mr. Toews put his official stamp to a scheme that could destroy a judicial vetting process created specifically to reduce patronage and favouritism.
> 
> The most serious effect of Mr. Toews's plan is a change that could allow the government to block virtually any judicial candidate it does not favour, a dramatic change to the legal landscape that opens the door to the government packing courts with political cronies or candidates who share its ideology.


The Globe would have us believe that the process of selecting judges should never be tainted by anything as coarse as the views of the common masses. The problem that this article doesn't address is that the reduction of "patronage and favouritism" in the process has also meant the removal of any form of democratic selection. So much purer, pristine and to quote hyperbolic William, "Nazi", to make these decisions behind closed doors and away from us.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

DEWLine said:


> *This is Wonderland*


Great show. Where can I get season 2 DVDs?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

DEWLine said:


> You're talking to a past courtroom artist, neighbour. I _have_ seen with my own eyes what passes through our courts so much of the time. Reality has much more in common with what was shown in fiction such as CBC's *This is Wonderland* than with your opinions.
> 
> "Revenge and nothin' but" ain't for the country I'm living in and paying taxes to support.


Well "neighbour", you're talking to a guy who just happened to have spent 42 years in the newspaper game, and I can assure you I have probably seen more than you in my time.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sinc's always been a fan of mob rule instead of rule of law. Nothing new there.
Don't like the judge, hang the bugger and elect another more suitable to the mob.

Some pillar and check.

Time to pitch these idiots back into the hinterland they came from.
'Pears desparation is setting in....they would never DARE bring this to parliament to vote on.
They'll try and avoid it and rule by fiat to make the changes.

Transparent democracy???........not .

Cons just digging the hole to bury themselves a little deeper.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Sinc's always been a fan of mob rule instead of rule of law.


Wrong again.

I'm a fan of justice and house arrest for beating a kid to death with a baseball bat ain't my idea of justice.

It is lawyers, and those who approve of the current system who are at the root of the problem since they are the ones who become or support bad judges and perpetuate the rotten system we now live with.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Thanks for being a voice of reason Sinc.

I think most Canadians understand that our Judges are completely removed from reality. ALL 15 year old kids know that hitting somebody in the head with a baseball bat multiple could kill them. 

If judges were victims of crime, I think their mindset would be substantially different.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej: I believe that there are enough horror stories in sentencing to go around that adding a police representative to the committee won't make it worse. 

There are members of this board who wet themselves everytime they hear about longer jail sentences for anything but political incorrectness. Time to give the system a tweak and see if it works a little better another way. This is hardly draconian.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The police rep idea seems like a good one to explore, it's the voting changes that are worrying. I don't know enough about how the process works, but there seems to be more in play than just adding an alternative perspective to it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> The police rep idea seems like a good one to explore, it's the voting changes that are worrying. I don't know enough about how the process works, but there seems to be more in play than just adding an alternative perspective to it.


To add an alternative perspective to the system, one has to change the way judges become a part of the system. Otherwise nothing will change.


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i wouldn't say our judges are a joke, but there is certainly room for improvement in our judicial system
> let's not forget that judges have been to law school and were lawyers
> 
> there is certainly some need of oversight as is currently the case with our police force




Canadas Legel, juducial system is a farce. Canada has the most LAX laws in the world...we have no capital punishment (shame) so lets give nasty criminals a good life in Jail....they will change..they wont reoffend...yeah right!

...they should put a bullet in this jerkoff
.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2006/08/03/whitmore-court.html

Lets not really punish the youngsters as it's not thier fault it was the parents, or some external force....slap on the wrist....they won't do it again

...people are so naive in Canada....like Dr. Phil would say...it's not working is it? No our Judicial system is not working....it's a sham...and I personally welcome change so we as taxpayers don't keep paying for the scum of the earth to keep molesting your kids, raping your wife, killing your friends, robbing your house, drinking and driving...etc etc etc....we let people off WAY to easy....and then keep reading about the above articles....

I believe in an eye for an eye.....if you rape someone...you should be subjected to the same haneous crime as the deed you did otherwise HOW does a person learn? I think the best judge / Jury would be for the victim to decide the outcome the sentence...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> These institutions have served us well, as much as they could use more careful inspection, and superior forms have not been suggested.


Yeah, right:

EDMONTON - It was structured as a celebration of his life, yet many who attended Russell Ross's memorial service Saturday were still seething over the nature of his death.
"It was senseless," said one woman, referring to the fatal beating Ross suffered Oct. 21 northeast of downtown. "Russell was a very gentle spirit."
The woman, who identified herself only as a foster mother to two of Ross's children, said friends and family are outraged that the three teens who allegedly attacked Ross face charges of assault causing bodily harm, rather than murder or manslaughter.

"It sends a message that he wasn't important," she said. "Those children are going to grow up without a father. When they have their first children, they won't have a grandpa there to rejoice with them."


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I can't believe the judges didn't just tear off the convicted's arms and kick them in the head right there and then! Wusses. Pitchfork and torch mob-justice is where it's at! You hold them down, before or after sentencing, it doesn't matter, while I kick.

So, yeah right, let's either really get into exactly what went "wrong" or just swap meaningless posts that completely and intentionally miss the point of one anothers' arguments.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> So, yeah right, let's either really get into exactly what went "wrong" or just swap meaningless posts that completely and intentionally miss the point of one anothers' arguments.


Do you not see the same underlying theme in each example? 

People brutally beaten to death when teens arm themselves with baseball bats or machetes or knives and kill another human? 

Then a judge or prosecutor deems, "they didn't mean it", and introduces or reduces charges to have them released on house arrest so they can go brag about it to their friends?

That's what I see.

And if you find that meaningless, you will understand why I think the justice system itself is meaningless as well.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The theme is pretty simple: headline judgement.

If the "system" is a problem, is it the laws themselves and/or what judges are doing within those laws? Because, if the problem is the laws and, by proxy, "things get done" back stacking the judiciary, the system will be worse than meaningless, it will be in opposition to the laws set by our elected representatives. Thus the level of discussion promoted by judgement-by-headlines is meaningless. 

If the docs are available online, do you want to get into a specific case, or find out which laws may be the culprit, or find research on judge-bias within the laws or...well, toss it, trial-by-public sentiment sounds a lot simpler, especially with communications technology nowadays.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: the posts show examples where there's evidently a miscarriage of justice, but not all of them show that a police member would have made the difference. For example, the last item only shows what the perpetrators were charged with. I'm certainly not saying this happened, but supposing the victim had been viciously attacking the teens? If you want the evidence to have more resonance, they should all show how the selection of judges--and not the circumstances of the case--was the problem.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury, I understand where you are coming from, but I also understand that 99% of people who are outraged at the system will never spend the time to sit through an entire trial to understand how decisions come to be.

I also understand that the relatives of the deceased in these types of cases, who DO sit through the trials come out of the courthouse shaking their heads in anger at the injustice they perceive done to them by too lenient sentences handed down by judges.

That draws me, and too many other Canadians to the conclusion that the system is broken. Deep thinkers and intellectuals may very well understand why the system is so lenient on criminals, but John Q. Public does not, thus anything the government does to force judges to impose much harsher penalties meets with the majority of the public's approval.

It certainly meets with mine, lawyers and Supreme Court judges opinions be damned.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: I think you may be making a better case for a more efficient recall mechanism, more than a selection mechanism. If certain judges consistently rule leniently on such extreme cases, then they are the problem. 

If a broad cross-section of judges consistently rule in such a way, then selecting new judges won't change that. Something about the system itself is causing them to behave in such a way.

From your perspective, how could you test a judge to make sure he/she did not deliver consistently inappropriate verdicts--either too lenient or too severe.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

If we were to elect judges, they could campaign for election clearly stating their views and the types of sentences they would mete out. If they did not conduct themselves in the manner they campainged, we could toss out the bad ones every four years.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sure, electing them would at least allow you to remove judges who were not sentencing in line with community standards--but I don't think that's on the table. Right now we're only talking about the selction committees.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

boring. Crime is way down but you law and order types are willing to second guess judges. I'm glad we don't have a political process for selecting judges and will actively fight against such a move. 
I certainly don't trust ANY of you to second guess judges decisions and I certainly wouldn't vote for any of you on this kind of a platform.
Any fool can read a biased newspaper report and second guess a judges decision but without the rest of the facts it is an exercise in ignorance.
I'll add that the USA has at least as many problems with judges who have unpopular sentences. Politicizing this process will only introduce political bias into the system.

Again our crime rates are way down so this reactionary hyperbole is just a bunch of twisted hot air. 

There is no shame in not having the death penalty. Almost every Western country has gotten rid of this anachronism and we certainty should not bring it back here. The last person executed in Canada was probably innocent and recently we've seen several Canadians exonerated for murder after spending much time in jail. what if Millgard et al had been hung?
No the shame is in demanding a return to the stone age. The time for reactionary politics is long past RIP.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> If we were to elect judges, they could campaign for election clearly stating their views and the types of sentences they would mete out. If they did not conduct themselves in the manner they campainged, we could toss out the bad ones every four years.


Would they be allowed to sentence outside of the law and practice (harshest sentence within a continuum even when the crime is cleary not at the harshest end of the continuum)? If so, you'll be looking at enormous pressure for appeals and regional/national laws having less meaning with community patterns dominating. 

I prefer more provincial/national standards so that the same crime is roughly faced with the same sentence, at least in a given province. Significant variance between different towns, or towns and cities seems more dysfunctional than our current approach.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Beej said:


> Significant variance between different towns, or towns and cities seems more dysfunctional than our current approach.


And would probably be illegal under the charter.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> Again our crime rates are way down so this reactionary hyperbole is just a bunch of twisted hot air.


Yeah, right:

OTTAWA -- Canada's murder rate has hit its highest level in nearly a decade, with a surge in gang-related shootings and an alarming 48% jump in teenaged killers driving up national numbers.

A new Statistics Canada report also finds handguns have become the weapon of choice for Canadian homicides, and fingers the proliferation of gangs in Ontario and Alberta for escalating deadly violence.



martman said:


> Again our crime rates are way down so this reactionary hyperbole is just a bunch of twisted hot air.


Yeah, right:

Canadians are increasingly killing each other with guns, a trend that is partly driven by a spike in gang-related homicides.
The number of homicides involving firearms climbed for the third year in a row in 2005, according to a new Statistics Canada report. Of the 658 homicides last year, 222 -- or 34 per cent -- were carried out with guns, up from 173 in 2004.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> Yeah, right:
> 
> OTTAWA -- Canada's murder rate has hit its highest level in nearly a decade, with a surge in gang-related shootings and an alarming 48% jump in teenaged killers driving up national numbers.


YEAH RIGHT:
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050721/d050721a.htm


> Thursday, July 21, 2005
> Crime statistics
> 2004
> 
> ...


Cherry picking as usual SINC.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Hey SINC, the drop in pick-pocketing and drunk driving must have really skewed the overall crime statistics....:lmao: 

There is very little doubt that criminal use of firearms is on the increase in this country. I'm not sure of the trend for other crimes involving violence, so I wont comment.

Statistics can be skewed....one way or the other... and that's a no-brainer.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

I always find it interesting that the homicide rate of the entire country of Canada is roughly equal to the homicide rate of Chicago alone--a single city with about the same population as Toronto (not GTA).

I come to this from being in Toronto and hearing from all over the country how crime riddled it is. Hardly. Canada is not going to hell in a crime-filled handbasket.

I don't like the idea of an elected judiciary. Too much gets decided by who is popular, and not who does a good job, who can campaign effectively and not who can do the job effectively. 

A saying of mine: "Sure, I understand that they'll get the kind of government they deserve--but why to I have to get the kind of government they deserve."

There do appear to be problems in the administration of justice, specifically sentencing--at the very least, there is a disconnect in public perception of sentencing and the actual sentencing. But making fundamental change in system due to one single problem is not, IMO, warranted.

I'm curious as to why lighter sentences are handed out, meaning, a reason other than "Well the judges are dumb!" That's the public's reason for why sentencing goes the way it does--what is the other side of it?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Exactly, Sonal. We only see the sentance and the crime in the reports NEVER the mitigating factors that leed judges to hand out leanient sentances.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

kps said:


> Hey SINC, the drop in pick-pocketing and drunk driving must have really skewed the overall crime statistics....:lmao:
> 
> There is very little doubt that criminal use of firearms is on the increase in this country. I'm not sure of the trend for other crimes involving violence, so I wont comment.
> 
> Statistics can be skewed....one way or the other... and that's a no-brainer.


Yep so you didn't like Stats Can's stats? I'm sure yours are WAY BETTER! NOT!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> YEAH RIGHT:
> http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050721/d050721a.htm
> 
> 
> Cherry picking as usual SINC.


Not really, but at least my examples are for the current year for teen gun murders, unlike your TWO YEAR OLD stats. The reality is that murder by handguns are up 48%. But I guess we should just ignore that minor little change, should we?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> Cherry picking as usual SINC.


"The violent crime rate was 10% lower than a decade earlier, but 35% higher than 20 years ago."

It's also about timelines. Pick the metric (homicide, violent crime, etc.), pick a timeline (10, 20, 30, 40 years etc.) and, if desired, other things like method and the victims relationship with the criminal. All important choices. 

If the issue is that there is a problem with judges, then the timeline should begin with the perceived problem or thing that was done to make the perceived problem grow. Otherwise, you can just pick whatever timeline you like.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

My stats were for over all crime and were the most recent I could quickly find. Yes youth murder is up but cime is down. Not all types of crime have to be down for the rate to fall. Do I live in fear of young people ? No! Do I live in faer of violent crime? NO! When the problem was worse in 1991 did I live in fear then? NO! 
I would add that the perception of crime has increased by the style of News reporting but that is the main change. Time to think for ourselves and STOP living in a media created fear. That law and order is an issue at all is simply sad.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> My stats were for over all crime and were the most recent I could quickly find. Yes youth murder is up but cime is down. Not all types of crime have to be down for the rate to fall. Do I live in fear of young people ? No! Do I live in faer of violent crime? NO! When the problem was worse in 1991 did I live in fear then? NO!
> I would add that the perception of crime has increased by the style of News reporting but that is the main change. Time to think for ourselves and STOP living in a media created fear. That law and order is an issue at all is simply sad.


Good for you, but I and many like me live in fear of even driving in Edmonton after dark and especially after midnight. There are so many teens packing so much heat, that even a minor traffic infraction taken the wrong way by a gang member can result in instant death to an innocent on Edmonton's streets.

That is the sad reality that the justice system has fostered. When gang members openly laugh at judges when they hand out their ridiculously lenient sentences, right in the courtroom, it sends chills through our community.

No media created that situation, our courts have.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Slightly OT:

Current headline: 
*Edmonton has highest homicide rate in Canada: report*
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2006/11/08/ed-homicide.html

Not Toronto! 

More, same report:
"But that still made Toronto [meaning GTA] only the 13th most lethal among urban centres with populations of more than 100,000."
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...le&cid=1163026213005&call_pageid=970599119419

Okay, end of my off-topic soapbox. You will not get shot and killed in Toronto.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> Time to think for ourselves and STOP living in a media created fear.


I agree. Of course, I'd also apply it to things that you may choose to be fearful of.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

> But a revision to the survey may account for the increase because the survey included homicides in which gang-related activity was "suspected" by police and not just "determined."


You CAN get shot and killed in Edmonton or Toronto or Sarnia or Moosejaw.

But it's so statistically unlikely that you practically have to do what SINC implies in part: cut off a gun-toting gang member, taunt them and sleep with their "moll."

As if.

It's far, far, far more likely that (far more), if you are killed with a gun or a knife or with someone's hands or in any way at the hands of another human being, that you are going to be female, married and/or estranged, and in your own house.

And it's just as likely that the courts will treat the crime exactly as seriously as the gang member shooting. Whether that's good or bad depends on how you look at things.






Sonal said:


> Slightly OT:
> 
> Current headline:
> *Edmonton has highest homicide rate in Canada: report*
> ...


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Beej said:


> If the issue is that there is a problem with judges, then the timeline should begin with the perceived problem or thing that was done to make the perceived problem grow. Otherwise, you can just pick whatever timeline you like.


But the system hasn't changed only the reporting of it. Crime is down from the 90's and has been falling steadily since. I don't care where you get your stats from, you will not be able to contradict this. The "problem" with the judges is a manufactured one. There will always be someone who doesn't like what a judge does. The whole point of a judge is to be unbiased in the handing down of decisions and sentences. If we politicize the process then the decisions will no longer be unbiased. This creates a whole host of problems (like different sentences for evangelicals who found God vs Atheists or Liberals Vs NDPers). No this is the better system. In the US Justice is bought and judges owe favours to those who helped get them elected and / or appointed. To see where the worst of politicized judiciaries end up we need only look at the 2000 election and the US Supreme Court decision that stopped the vote recount and declared Bush the winner. The vote was strictly across party lines and the majority decision basically said the the recount couldn't proceed because the results might embarrass Bush! The bias was way to prominent and the decision was tainted by the political process. 
This was one of the most embarrassing times to be an American ever in my opinion. If the courts hadn't been set up along political lines maybe a decision that transcended politics could have been reached. This would have been a FAR healthier a solution. 
Again politicizing the selection process for judges is a huge mistake.


edit: hooray for spell check in Firefox!!!!!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> Again politicizing the selection process for judges is a huge mistake.


That is your opinion and you are entitled to it.

There are many of us who disagree and the numbers of the discontented are growing. Change must be seen to be done and only that will appease those who know the system does not work.

If we can't change judges or the process, then we need to change laws to force the lenient judges to stiffen sentences so that they become real deterrents against crime in general, but teens with hand guns in particular. If the first and any subsequent teen killer, no matter what the weapon used, was sent up for life, that would be a start.

It would also allow families whose sons they kill the justice of an eye for an eye, albeit only figuratively so.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> That is your opinion and you are entitled to it.
> 
> There are many of us who disagree and the numbers of the discontented are growing. Change must be seen to be done and only that will appease those who know the system does not work.
> 
> ...


And you are entitled to yours but if you think stiff sentences are going to stop crime you are wrong. Especially with young people, criminals don't expect to get caught. That is why death penalty is NOT a DETERANT!!!! SAME WITH HARSHER PENALTIES! 

CRIMINALS DO NOT THINK THEY WILL BE CAUGHT! If they did most wouldn't commit crimes. 
You think Ken Lay would have ripped off America if he thought he'd be caught?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> And you are entitled to yours but if you think stiff sentences are going to stop crime you are wrong. Especially with young people, criminals don't expect to get caught. That is why death penalty is NOT a DETERANT!!!! SAME WITH HARSHER PENALTIES!


You see, that is where you are so wrong. When a teen murders another teen after being ejected from a house party and returns with his buddies carrying baseball bats, he intended to do some serious harm. Any teen does know that comes with the risk of death. You just don't swing a bat at another human without that risk.

But then he gets "house arrest" because "he didn't mean it", according to the judge, he then brags to his peers on how he got away with murder and they can too, so carrying a bat is just fine. It's OK. The judge said so.

If he was cooling his heels for the rest of his life, my bet is his friends would think twice before putting themselves in the same situation.

And please, stop bringing the death penalty into play in this discussion. I never once advocated it and it is well known on this board that I oppose the death penalty.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Macfury, I understand where you are coming from, but I also understand that 99% of people who are outraged at the system will never spend the time to sit through an entire trial to understand how decisions come to be.
> 
> I also understand that the relatives of the deceased in these types of cases, who DO sit through the trials come out of the courthouse shaking their heads in anger at the injustice they perceive done to them by too lenient sentences handed down by judges.
> 
> ...


This post bothered me the first time, so perhaps SINC, you can tell me if I have understood your position correctly, because to me, this is not strong reasoning.

The system is clearly broken because
1) The majority of people are outraged though they do not fully understand why the decisions are made as they are and will probably never make an attempt to understand it.

2) The victim's families--who are, to my mind, about the last people I would expect to be able to be impartial in this type of situation--do not like the outcome.

So the system must change because most people think it should change, even though most people probably do not understand why it is the way it is?

I would have to say that personally, I am not a fan of change without understanding what needs to be changed and why. I am personally not moving for a change to the system at this time--I would, however, move for an explanation of why particular controversially light sentences are handed out so that there can be a better understanding of _what_ needs to be changed.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> But then he gets "house arrest" because "he didn't mean it", according to the judge, he then brags to his peers on how he got away with murder and they can too, so carrying a bat is just fine. It's OK. The judge said so.
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> And please, stop bringing the death penalty into play in this discussion. I never once advocated it and it is well known on this board that I oppose the death penalty.


1) I don't buy that argument. It is bassed on speculation and that is all.


2) imactheknife brought up the death penalty which is why my original comment on it. As well the most recent posting above where I mention the death penalty is to use it to illustrate the point that sentence is not a deterrent. I have not accused you of advocating the death penalty.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> 1) I don't buy that argument. It is bassed on speculation and that is all.


Then I suspect that you have never heard of senior gang drug dealers, using teens to do their dirty work because they know they are outside the law. If a teen does take a hit for manslaughter or aggravated assault, and does a year in a group home, he emerges a gang hero and is protected by the gang for life.

Teens in the suburbs are well aware of this practice and conduct themselves accordingly, thus returning to the party to kill with a bat.

It is not speculation, it is a well known ploy on the streets of Canada by teens who know how to work the system.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Sonal said:


> This post bothered me the first time, so perhaps SINC, you can tell me if I have understood your position correctly, because to me, this is not strong reasoning.
> 
> The system is clearly broken because
> 1) The majority of people are outraged though they do not fully understand why the decisions are made as they are and will probably never make an attempt to understand it.
> ...


Well put.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Sonal said:


> The system is clearly broken because
> 1) The majority of people are outraged though they do not fully understand why the decisions are made as they are and will probably never make an attempt to understand it.
> 
> 2) The victim's families--who are, to my mind, about the last people I would expect to be able to be impartial in this type of situation--do not like the outcome.


The system is so complicated for the average person to understand, that reading the income tax act is a treat. Thus no one can reasonably expect the public will take the time to try. They expect law makers to crack down on murderers.

Of course victim's families are not impartial, but I can tell you from the response of my readers, they are as outraged as those families at the lenient sentences. That alone cries out for reform to the system to end the injustice, be it real or perceived by the average citizen.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

You're right about the income tax act.

Remember Al Capone?

The income tax laws are how many American and Canadian gang members eventually get punished.




SINC said:


> The system is so complicated for the average person to understand, that reading the income tax act is a treat. Thus no one can reasonably expect the public will take the time to try. They expect law makers to crack down on murderers.
> 
> Of course victim's families are not impartial, but I can tell you from the response of my readers, they are as outraged as those families at the lenient sentences. That alone cries out for reform to the system to end the injustice, be it real or perceived by the average citizen.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

What I find interesting is there is little chat about the desired outcome of the court system.

If you think the 2 million imprisoned in the US system......the most on the planet ...is a desirable outcome for this society then by all means push for adoption of their model.

If on the other hand the low prison population and low recidivism rate of some Scandanavian systems are a desirable outcome then this initiative by the Cons should be tossed ...deservedly...in the trash.

A judiciary independent of political pressures and guardians, through education and self regulation, of the rule of law is in my mind a fundamental pillar of a modern state that features checks and balances amongst the institutions of state.

Any attempt by politicians to tamper with that is criminal in my mind.


----------



## duosonic (Jan 7, 2004)

Yea, MacDoc! - thank you for injecting some sanity into this thread. I feel the same, although was having some trouble articulating my thoughts.

The rule of law requires separation from political pressures. This is what separates us from regimes where the legal system is run by the politicians.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

duosonic said:


> The rule of law requires separation from political pressures. This is what separates us from regimes where the legal system is run by the politicians.


The rule of law requires only that people obey the law or face penalties for breaching those laws. If politics entered into the appointment of judges, the rule of law remains intact.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> The rule of law requires only that people obey the law or face penalties for breaching those laws. If politics entered into the appointment of judges, the rule of law remains intact.


No it doesn't. If the system becomes so politicized that politics becomes the standard for decisions rather than law. This is precisely what happened in 2000 in the US after the presidential elections when the Supreme Court made its party line decision to end the recount of votes. 
Even the appearance of this kind of political bias needs to be avoided if the people are to have any belief and faith in the impartiality of the courts in Canada.


MacDoc is correct. We do not need to increase the amount of people incarcerated in this country. We need to look at the more successful systems in Scandinavia. Our system doesn't work but people keep trying to force a fit like a desperate shoe lover trying to wear a cool shoe three sizes too small.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Of course victim's families are not impartial, but I can tell you from the response of my readers, they are as outraged as those families at the lenient sentences. That alone cries out for reform to the system to end the injustice, be it real or perceived by the average citizen.


No it doesn't. You are completely over generalizing. Your readers do not represent the constituency which IS Canada. Your readers are an isolated snapshot which represent only one small portion of this country.

Using a small sampling of high profile cases as an example of perceived systemic injustices is not a reasonable means by which to establish public policy.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> Using a small sampling of high profile cases as an example of perceived systemic injustices is not a reasonable means by which to establish public policy.


Every revolution has its starting point and is seldom considered reasonable by the blind who control the current system.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

SINC, trust me. Some of the views expressed here in NO way reflect what ordinary people are thinking. ie: those that don't spend time on Mac forums.

Whenever the subject has come up regarding sentencing I can absolutely say that EVERY person I've spoken with in meatspace is disgusted with our current crop of judges and the whole judicial system in general. I've spoken with every walk of life about it from stinking rich to very poor. There have been elderly people and young folks. Gays and straight people. Some have been white, some black. Some Christian and some Muslim. Some are from the GTA and some live up north.

I read some of the opinions and wonder where they live.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Thanks Marg. I was beginning to feel like a voice in the wilderness there for a while.

I too know how many people want change. Too bad the do-gooders here don't get out much.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

So ordinary people don't include Mac users?

Man, I can't get behind your thinking, Marg - too anecdotal! Zero statistical evidences or other reasonably scientific form of qualification. Just a broad statement of your observations. Loosey-goosey!

Unfortunately, a topic like this one tends to draw in the polarities.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

adagio said:


> SINC, trust me. Some of the views expressed here in NO way reflect what ordinary people are thinking. ie: those that don't spend time on Mac forums.


This is a load.
I have heard these opinions from many folks including my MPP and MP. My MP phoned me on Thanksgiving and personally told me she was glad to get my letter about not letting Harper go ahead with three strikes your out. I have discussed this with many people and the majority I spoke to agree with me. But like your survey of those you know this is not a scientific poll.
In fact ordinary people are thinking like me or MacDoc and they are also thinking like SINC. 
Try again. Ordinary people indeed....
 tptptptp


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

That's precisely the problem. Your MPP and MP think like you.

Since you included me in this statement:

"Infact ordinary people are thinking like me or MacDoc and they are also thinking like SINC. "

you had best rethink that line as I don't think anything like you do-gooders.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Every revolution has its starting point and is seldom considered reasonable by the blind who control the current system.


I certainly don't control the system and don't want to see the system become politicized like in the US.
Like most of your thinking, you are dreaming of a nostalgia you never knew. Harper and his merry buffoons have found a problem that does not exist, packaged it up for the addle minded to clamor for and will of course make the problem worse in the long run.

Far from being an evolution, this is devolution, but coming from a party whose members do not believe in Darwin or the science of global warming, not surprising.

Need I remind you SINC, that you have benefited from the largesse of the system in the past, which if applied the way you’d like today, would have surely created an irredeemable citizen. 

No the system is not perfect, but every single “law and order” reform introduced by the Cons are based on “feeling” and rarely on fact.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> That's precisely the problem. Your MPP and MP think like you.
> 
> Since you included me in this statement:
> 
> ...


The point I am making is that law and order types (like you SINC) and let's reform them types (like me or MacDoc) are all ordinary. Is this so difficult to understand?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> No the system is not perfect, but every single “law and order” reform introduced by the Cons are based on “feeling” and rarely on fact.


Exactly!
:clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## William (Jan 5, 2004)

William said:


> Imitating the original Nazi techniques . . .





Beej said:


> I have never agreed with the Conservative's general approach , , ,. However, the statement highlighted above is just plain stupid.
> 
> I don't see the benefit from what they're proposing (beyond involving a broader group in the selection process) and see much ideology. That doesn't mean yet another opportunity for "what I don't like = Nazi" foaming-at-the-mouth politics. . . .
> The Cons are Nazis, the Libs are Nazis, the Dips are Nazis, etc. .


Beej:

You quote me accurately, but then proceed to misrepresent what I said. I did not say that "the Cons are Nazis." I said that Toews's plan is an "imitation" of what the Nazis did when they first came into power, because by packing the courts with sympathizers they forestalled court challenges of the laws they intended to pass.

I said so believing that my statement was factual. Nothing of what I said, or the way in which I expressed it, entitles you to say that I was "foaming at the mouth." If you think that I made a mistake of fact about what the Nazis did, or that there is no similarity between what the Nazis did and what Toews wants to do, please say so, providing a reasonable argument for your position. Calling it "stupid" is an inappropriate category, as well as unnecessarily offensive. It does not actually amount to "foaming at the mouth" on your part, but it is in the neighbourhood. I suggest your debating skills could stand a little honing.

William


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

"Anecdotal" isn't worthwhile in an argument. A large number of people I speak to are appalled with the justice system. A disproportionate number of them seem to believe that vaccines cause autism. I agree that I want harsher penalties assessed for harsh crimes. I can't cherry pick just the judicial stuff and claim that they're right about the justice system and wrong about the vaccines.

Martman: Even the Supreme Court of the U.S. is the rule of law.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Martman: Even the Supreme Court of the U.S. is the rule of law.


Not if it is basing its decisions on politics. If it is basing its decisions on politics then it is rule of policy.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

SINC said:


> Every revolution has its starting point and is seldom considered reasonable by the blind who control the current system.


You're not being ironic, are you?!

Hah.

Justice is *supposed* to be blind. Just not in the way you mean, unfortunately.

Themis:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

martman said:


> Not if it is basing its decisions on politics. If it is basing its decisions on politics then it is rule of policy.


I suppose your interpretation depends on what you had hoped the Supreme Court would decide.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I suppose your interpretation depends on what you had hoped the Supreme Court would decide.


No I had hoped that a unanimous or near unanimous decision would have been the result. My problem is not with the decision per say. The problem is that it was divided along party lines. If the result was not along party lines and / or it was held by a clear majority (not just one) it would have been far more palatable and the reputation of the court would have been far better.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

Read these decisions and tell me they are not political.


----------



## William (Jan 5, 2004)

Macfury said:


> The rule of law requires only that people obey the law or face penalties for breaching those laws. If politics entered into the appointment of judges, the rule of law remains intact.


MacFury:

So, if what you say is true, then the rule of law demands no procedural fairness, no impartial inquiry into whether the law has been broken. Right?

Care to run your idea of the rule of law by me once again? But this time giving the matter a liitle more thought than the first time?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sinc vs the do-gooders.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> The system is so complicated for the average person to understand, that reading the income tax act is a treat. Thus no one can reasonably expect the public will take the time to try. They expect law makers to crack down on murderers.
> 
> Of course victim's families are not impartial, but I can tell you from the response of my readers, they are as outraged as those families at the lenient sentences. That alone cries out for reform to the system to end the injustice, be it real or perceived by the average citizen.


Okay, I think I understand your position.

This is mine.

I'm going to accept your premise that the public cannot be expected to understand the entire issue, though I am not sure yet that I agree with it. 

To me, the system is complex because the administration law and order--which includes justice, ethics, crime prevention, the reform vs. retribution debate, the individual rights vs. group rights debate, changing social factors, etc.--is complex. If in fact, John Q, Public cannot be expected to try and understand it, that does not make John Q. Public's desired method of administration the best one. If you cannot be expected to understand an issue, then you also cannot be expected to solve it either.

(As an aside, this to me is an argument *against* an elected judiciary. If the general public cannot understand the issues, then I would not expect the general public to be able to vote intelligently on the issues either.)

That said, I do agree with you that there seems to be a problem with the administration of justice, specifically sentencing.

However, my position is that until the problem is well understood, we should not go around implementing solutions. Is it the law? Is it the judges? Is it the lawyers? Is it the penal system? Or is it simply public perception? It is not yet clear *why* the problem occurs. 

I think that rather than a call for changes and reforms, this indicates a call for investigations and reports. What are the goals of a working judicial system? Is the system meeting those goals or not? Where is the breakdown? What causes that breakdown? These are large and complex questions. The opinion of the public, IMO, belongs in the first one--what does it realistically mean to have a working system?

In short, change is premature. The public has indicated that a problem exists--this is the time to investigate the problem, and then make change intelligently.

Another aside, a lot of the arguments for locking them all away feel like there is a strong element of fear in them. i.e., if we lock up all the baddies, we will be safe and have nothing to fear. Generally speaking, I have found that solutions that are born in fear--or really, any strongly emotional response--are not usually good ones in the long run.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

William said:


> MacFury:
> 
> So, if what you say is true, then the rule of law demands no procedural fairness, no impartial inquiry into whether the law has been broken. Right?


Rule of law says that the government is also subject to the law, that parties are considered equal before the law, and that there is a formal and predictable manner in which the law is exercised. 

The impartial inquiry may be desireable, but not necessarily something required to fullfil the definition.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> The impartial inquiry may be desireable, but not necessarily something required to fullfil the definition.


YIKES!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sonal - good post especially on complexity - there are many aspects to which we as ordinary citizens must defer to "experts". Should we elect doctors?? Firemen? Electing judiciary is ridiculous and dangerous.

The argument put forth is about the RESULTS of the judicial process. "It's not working".

Until there is a "desired end state" that has consensus there will be inherent conflicts no matter how well run the entire system is.

Breaking it down simply.

Revenge/punishment versus rehabilitation/prevention of re-occurence.

The balance between these I believe is the key to the issue.

The key to it is I believe inherent in the word "judge".

You cannot codify judgement..you can only provide a set of guidelines which which a trained person, assesses the balance of factors amongst 

the victim's AND society's desire for revenge/punishment

the danger to society and this is double edged

the rehabilitation/re-integration of the offender

Clearly the balance of these are very different in the range between Clifford Olsen and a convicted marijuana smoker.
Also between Clifford Olsen and Robert Latimer.

If the end state is purely revenge the system risks greater harm down the road by long incarcerations without rehabilitation/re-integration. Prison too often is a training ground for more serious or sophisticated crimes later.

In the case of a crime - the deed is already done......what is the balance between punishment and deterrence and addressing the roots of the criminal behaviour.

The public tends to howl about the crime then forget about it entirely.
The judiciary has to deal with public and victim indignation and desire for revenge AND the long term consequences for society and for the offender.
It's the latter we, the public, rarely see.

So until there is a better consensus on what the desired end state of the the judiciary process is.....it seems of little point to argue about detail of the process.

If one wants butter and the other skim milk you're never going to agree on the process.

Electing the dairy processor is more likely to end up with spoiled milk and we all know how much that stinks.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

too true


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

William said:


> Calling it "stupid" is an inappropriate category, as well as unnecessarily offensive.


Stupid is offensive but likening the actions to Nazi techniques isn't? Ok, I should have been more polite to you, despite your tactics. 

Using the Nazi comparison is done specifically for impact and shows weak debating skills in these terms. It doesn't warrant a thoughtful response in that it isn't generally thoughtful to begin with, and I believe this is the case for your comparison. Thus my response. Let's see some other quick and weak comparisons:

The Nazis were a political party that used propaganda! Other parties use these Nazie tactics. The Nazis were a party for the "workers". Uh oh, Layton and his speeches about policies for working Canadians had better stop...not to mention the socialism. Comparisons, like yours and the above, just pick a specific and attach the best smear at hand.

In short, Godwin's law exist to point out how weak quick Nazi comparisons. Comparisons that are based on personal politics and grabbing any smear at hand instead of using well-founded argument, as well as cheapening the historical meaning. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

So, I apologise for my rude choice of words. I should have just said, "Godwin" and posted the links.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

martman said:


> YIKES!


MArtman: You can't bandy about terms like "Rule of Law" and expect it to fit a specific desirable definition. I'm telling you that the definition of the term is a starting point that doesn't include all of the niceties of our legal system--not that oversight is unnecessary or undesirable.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Sonal said:


> To me, the system is complex because the administration law and order--which includes justice, ethics, crime prevention, the reform vs. retribution debate, the individual rights vs. group rights debate, changing social factors, etc.--is complex. If in fact, John Q, Public cannot be expected to try and understand it, that does not make John Q. Public's desired method of administration the best one. If you cannot be expected to understand an issue, then you also cannot be expected to solve it either.


When a 15 year old gets off for killing an old man by repeatedly hitting him in the head with a baseball bat on the premise that he didn't know the consequences of his actions, you know the system is broken. You don't need to have a law degree to understand this.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

How cute VD....
I guess you would prefer unjust miscarriages of justice just to appease the public blood lust….
Too many cases to site but here's one
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/12/1415250

and cases like Rubin Carter...


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> MArtman: You can't bandy about terms like "Rule of Law" and expect it to fit a specific desirable definition. I'm telling you that the definition of the term is a starting point that doesn't include all of the niceties of our legal system--not that oversight is unnecessary or undesirable.


_"The rule of law is a political principle the classic exposition of which is in Dicey Law of the Constitution (10th Edn, 1959) p 187 et seq. Dicey identified three principles which together establish the rule of law: (1) the absolute supremacy or predominance of regular law as opposed to the influence of arbitrary power; (2) equality before the law or the equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary law of the land administered by the ordinary courts; and (3) the law of the constitution is a consequence of the rights of individuals as defined and enforced by the courts."
-- Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol: Constitutional Law and Human Rights, paragraph 6, footnote 1 _

So has anyone looked up what the Constitution has to say about the appointment of the judiciary?

Many of you here are oversimplifying this thinking that it is solely an issue of punitive law and order. What happens when conservative minded (or liberally minded ones) judges are appointed in specific areas of the country and have to rule on policy issues such as say Bill 101 in Quebec?

This isn't as cut and dry and simple as you think it is.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The "Rule of Law" predates 1959.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

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

Like much in our system, it's pretty much up to finding the best way to do it. Not a system of specific checks and balances that, in my opinion, just create more problems, but a superficially riskier system that leaves tremendous power in the hands of few, if others let them.

[Edit: ROL, is that from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law ?]


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> The "Rule of Law" predates 1959.


Obviously, that quote is referencing a citation and stating the date of the publication... not when "Rule of Law" is or was established.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> [Edit: ROL, is that from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law ?]


Yes, was the quickest source.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sadly, the wikipedia is almost always the quickest source. I fight the urge to use it first.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Sadly, the wikipedia is almost always the quickest source. I fight the urge to use it first.


Regardless of the source being wikipedia... Some people here are not addressing the real issues this raises. If it were a simple law and order issue it would have happened long ago.

People have been the victims of violence since the dawn of time. using isolated high profile cases as examples upon which to build long term public policy is a foolhardy course of action.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

If we Americanize our courts, does that mean we can have the guys from Law and Order working here?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Sonal said:


> That said, I do agree with you that there seems to be a problem with the administration of justice, specifically sentencing.
> 
> However, my position is that until the problem is well understood, we should not go around implementing solutions. Is it the law? Is it the judges? Is it the lawyers? Is it the penal system? Or is it simply public perception? It is not yet clear *why* the problem occurs.
> 
> ...


Thank you Sonal for an excellently thought out and reasoned post. It was a joy to read it and it stood out like a gem in the middle of all the slurry heaped onto this thread.

I also think that we as a society need to look carefully at what might be causing crime to happen and think of what we can do to mitigate it. If simply locking them up for longer and making punishment harsher actually worked then the USA would be the safest country in the world, but we all know that isn't true.

The problem is that when people have looked carefully at what causes more crime to occur the answers are not so clear cut and are open to much interpretation. I think there are many conflicting opinions about this and I think in many cases we will never know what creates some of the real monsters. They even have horrifying serial killers in Scandinavia.

Panderers to the lowest common denominator, like the Cons, probably think they have a winner with this issue, since they know that so many people have an exaggerated fear of becoming victims of crime themselves.

The most dangerous thing people do is to get in their car and drive every day - or walk or cycle on those same roads. In comparison a walk though Vancouver's Downtown Eastside in the middle of the night or similar areas in other cities is a relatively safe activity. When I look at it rationally I would really like to see the police and our lawmakers do everything possible to make the carnage on our roads less likely, and deal with the less important issue later. I would much sooner see billions go to solving a clear cut problem like road safety, that has clear cut solutions, as well as a much greater effect on the my own personal safety, than see us build more prisons in which to stack the crooks up in like cordwood.

But we naturally feel outraged when we hear about some violent criminal assaulting an innocent person so this is where our attention goes. We want revenge and the Cons are there to tap into this, really only for their own personal gain. I don't think good public policy can be based on satiating our desire for revenge.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

However, it's not the job of the justice system to deter crime or find out why it occurs. That needs to be left to social engineers.


----------



## William (Jan 5, 2004)

Beej:

I looked up the Godwin article. Did not read all of it, but agree with what I gather is its central idea, namely, that "the Hitler/Nazi comparison should be avoided, as it robs the valid comparisons of their impact'

This implies, of course, that there is no need to avoid the comparison if it is valid, and that therefore the issue dividing us is whether in this case the comparison is valid. Before I argue that in my opinion it is, I want to make a couple of comments.

I do not remember ever having compared any government to the Nazi rule, for that very reason. For all my opposition to the current US government, I have never made it, because the comparison would would be false. I would sooner compare it to the government of Costa Rica in one or two respects, though comparing it to the uncivilized government of Borat's idea of Kazakstan (however it may be spelled) would have to be considered first.

Having said that, I would add that on second thought, if I were writing my post anew, I would not make the comparison, even if I think it is valid. The reason is that to Godwin's observations I would add that invalid use of the comparison has made it highly advisable by anyone who tries to be a careful thinker to avoid it even in valid cases. The comparison is now thoroughly hackneyed and discredited, and one risks being misunderstood as if one had used it improperly. Something of the sort may have happened here.

In itself the comparison is valid, I think, because there is some reason to wonder whether Harper is not conducting the equivalent of a putsch. An ideology that is all-embracing and foreign to the Canadian traditions is being imposed in basically authoritarian ways. The proposed move to change the procedure for appointing judges would have the effect of given the government the power to do so by first appointing the majority of the members of the selection board. This is contrary to what normally is called conservatism, which traditionally prefers small and relatively weak governments. What they want is to control the courts, and this plan would do it. The measure is tyrannical. And it is strikingly like what the Nazis did soon after they got a foothold on power.

I don't think one can exaggerate the degree to which this government is attempting to re-orient Canada away from its traditions. I think this govenrment is dangerous. What Harper wrote long before he entered politics admits that he would like to give to this country, which according to him lacks identity, with an American-style identity. And he seems prepared to do this regardless of what the rest of the country may wish. Toews defiance of all the criticism that his plan has received is a good index of this. He says he will go ahead regardless of what anybody says. The situation is grave. There are unfortunately many people in this country who are thoughtless enough to say, for instance, that:

"The impartial inquiry may be desireable, but not necessarily something required to fullfil the definition [of rule of law]."
(Message No. 85, above)

Think of it. This was actually said by someone who was probably trying to be provocative for the sake of admiring himself, but who did not hesitate to say it just the same. When supposedly mature and supposedly well-educated people defend the Harper governments with statements of that ilk, even if they are only playing games, we should begin to worry. We could make the same mistake as the Germans did, who thought that the Nazis were "crazies" who would eventually fade away.

William


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> However, it's not the job of the justice system to deter crime or find out why it occurs. That needs to be left to social engineers.


Deterring crime is one of the major reasons cited by the lock-'em-up-and-throw-away-the-key crowd. Maybe you should be telling them ...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The justice *system* runs from the beat cop to the supreme court and every officer in between including prosecution and defence lawyers and one the MAJOR mandates is to deter crime but not the only mandate.

Parliament also has a role in passing laws that act as deterrents while still being within the Charter. Parliament is not the executive arm of the justice system - only the law makers.

Equitable even handed laws and execution of them is ONE aspect of social engineering for a society - making law abiding more rewarding than law breaking.
Equitable, well thought out laws and even handed application.- BOTH are social engineering components in building a safe peaceable society.
Programs addressing the amelioration of poverty and racial/religious/ethnic/sexual hatred another amongst many aspects to apply communal resources to.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I would separate justice from enforcement. The whole shebang might better be called the legal system.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

What no one seems to get is, that it is "justice" itself that is missing from the legal system.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

"Justice" is an extremely subjective concept. I don't think you will ever reach a consensus on what "justice" is SINC. I certainly disagree with your definition of justice and you disagree with mine. Who's version of "justice" do you propose we fall back on? The most draconian? You said you don't support death penalty but many do what about their version of "justice"?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah - you could start with what outcome is desired.

I hear a lot of whining and not a single reasoned statement of what the end result should be let alone how best to achive that goalstate.

Easy to carp......harder to actually think it through.
Might actually take a few years of post secondary legal training and experience.....fancy that.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

William said:


> There are unfortunately many people in this country who are thoughtless enough to say, for instance, that:
> 
> "The impartial inquiry may be desireable, but not necessarily something required to fullfil the definition [of rule of law]."
> (Message No. 85, above)
> ...


Thoughtless? Hardly. Look into the definition. It is about a definition and accuracy in conversation instead of trying to use a common term that has, built into it, our personal desires. Think of it.

Here's some help in the form of a link from the wiki page:
http://www.uiowa.edu/ifdebook/faq/Rule_of_Law.shtml

There is no common definition. That someone would say, in relation to another clearing up a definition, 

"When supposedly mature and supposedly well-educated people defend the Harper governments with statements of that ilk, even if they are only playing games, we should begin to worry" 

is worrying/amusing. It suggests that persons' personal politics, and anger therein, is overriding their thinking. For that same person to further dig themselves in with, "We could make the same mistake as the Germans did, who thought that the Nazis were "crazies" who would eventually fade away." as an extension on the previous thought clears up some of the claims in my initial post.
.........................

Thanks for clearing up your thinking on using the Nazi reference. I disagree on its relevance, not its basic correlation (meaningless without context), and the unnecessary "Godwinning" (word?) of one's work. The comparison adds nothing except an emotional appeal to instill fear in the reader by proxy. Nazi tactics!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I think we're have a 2500 year old debate. I seem to remember one of the Socratic dialogues being about Socrates talking with a person who uses the term "justice" as an objective occurrence. Socratic method ensues. The rest, as they say, is history.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

William said:


> The proposed move to change the procedure for appointing judges would have the effect of given the government the power to do so by first appointing the majority of the members of the selection board. This is contrary to what normally is called conservatism, which traditionally prefers small and relatively weak governments.


Just pointing out the error here. The change is fully inline with conservatism, in that the current system is seen as completely out of the control of the people. 

The ideal to such conservative thinking is directly electing the judges, but gaining some voting power (through representatives) is seen as an improvement over a ruling elite outside of the voters' control. This is the problem I have with the ideology -- some things warrant expert control with minimal voter-representative intervention. Representatives should operate at the level of approving larger policy like laws or targets without micro-managing methods. Medical care, monetary policy, judiciary, etc. To me. 

But to read this change as anti-small government misses the point that the current state is considered outside the realm of "the people's" control and therefore in need of "democratising".


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

> I think we're have a 2500 year old debate. I seem to remember one of the Socratic dialogues being about Socrates talking with a person who uses the term "justice" as an objective occurrence. Socratic method ensues. The rest, as they say, is history.


:clap: 

It is interesting to observe individual definitions of 'justice'. Is it revenge? Is it created by fear? Is it bullying and agression? Is it our way of imposing order on chaos? 

I think the question: 'What is your definition of justice' would make an interesting pyschological testing tool. Maybe it is already...

Dr. Phil!!!!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> I think the question: 'What is your definition of justice' would make an interesting pyschological testing tool.


Take your pick. I submit that definition 5 is what is lacking in our legal system, ie: "deserved" punishment:


Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source
jus?tice? [juhs-tis] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation 
–noun
1.	the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause.
2.	rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: to complain with justice.
3.	the moral principle determining just conduct.
4.	conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just conduct, dealing, or treatment.
5.	the administering of deserved punishment or reward.
6.	the maintenance or administration of what is just by law, as by judicial or other proceedings: a court of justice.
7.	judgment of persons or causes by judicial process: to administer justice in a community.
8.	a judicial officer; a judge or magistrate.
9.	(initial capital letter) Also called Justice Department. the Department of Justice.
—Idioms
10.	bring to justice, to cause to come before a court for trial or to receive punishment for one's misdeeds: The murderer was brought to justice.
11.	do justice,
a.	to act or treat justly or fairly.
b.	to appreciate properly: We must see this play again to do it justice.
c.	to acquit in accordance with one's abilities or potentialities: He finally got a role in which he could do himself justice as an actor.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

> I submit that definition 5 is what is lacking in our legal system, ie: "deserved" punishment:


Considering then that 'justice' is subjective, what is your definition of number 5?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Considering then that 'justice' is subjective, what is your definition of number 5?



Perhaps this will assist in understanding how people in our area are convinced that justice is not being done in a string of similar attacks.

Today’s Edmonton Journal lead editorial:

“The sentences given last week to the attackers of a Sherwood Park boy killed at a house party prompted legitimate concerns about the severity of the punishments, or lack thereof.
What's also troubling is the seeming escalation in our community of retaliatory violence among young men.
Though it's painful to admit, once-unthinkable behaviour has become increasingly normalized in Edmonton, to the point where an argument over something trivial -- like a cellphone -- can deteriorate into a homicidal brawl capped by a 17-year-old struck dead with a baseball bat.
Because the Crown offered plea bargains to Shane Rolston's attackers -- Christopher Griffiths, Jonathan Giourmetakis, Josiah Lawson and Justin Bridges -- we may never be able to fully evaluate whether their sentences were appropriate.
Griffiths, who swung a baseball bat during the attack but didn't confess to dealing Rolston's fatal blow, received four years for manslaughter.
Giourmetakis, Lawson and Bridges, who didn't enter the house during the fight, got conditional sentences.
Their plea bargain also makes it impossible to understand why four young men -- a fifth youth involved in the attack has yet to be tried on manslaughter charges -- would bring a baseball bat, pool cue, pipe, hockey stick and pepper spray to a house party where they'd left a cellphone.”

Full editorial here:

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjourn....html?id=46e5e039-9f70-4e48-9815-878a289d790a


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Yet another viewpoint on the same case:

Blame for the next murder carried out by youths will rest on the backs of judges, says a city criminologist in the wake of sentences handed to four teens in the slaying of Shane Rolston.
"The next juvenile homicide that occurs in this country - you can point a finger at the judiciary," said University of Alberta criminologist Bill Pitt yesterday.
"I mean, my goodness, has the bench totally abandoned us to these murderers?"

Full story here:

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Edmonton/2006/11/14/2351490-sun.html


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

That's nice. More reactionary bias courtesy of the Edmonton Sun. 

It doesn't matter what jurisdiction you go to, there will be cases where people don't like the courts decisions.
In this case little is said of why the prosecutor chose to make a deal but I would hazard a guess that fewer people would have been prosecuted if the plea bargains had not been made. Even if the judgment is wrong (something I would not admit to unless I had A LOT MORE BACKGROUND INFO ON THIS CASE) that doesn't speak to the need to politicize the selection of Judges. We see similar events happen where the selection IS politicized (US) so selecting biased judges is no solution it is just a smoke screen.
http://www.contactmusic.com/news.ns...ms relatives protest lenient sentence_1009809


> GREAT WHITE VICTIMS' RELATIVES PROTEST 'LENIENT' SENTENCE
> 
> GREAT WHITE
> Also see:
> ...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> That's nice. More reactionary bias courtesy of the Edmonton Sun.


WRONG.

Best you read it again. It is not the Sun's opinion or bias, rather it is the quote of a criminologist at the U of A:

"The next juvenile homicide that occurs in this country - you can point a finger at the judiciary," said University of Alberta criminologist Bill Pitt yesterday.
"I mean, my goodness, has the bench totally abandoned us to these murderers?"


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Like 2/3 of the province, though, he's probably from Ontario.




SINC said:


> WRONG.
> 
> Best you read it again. It is not the Sun's opinion or bias, rather it is the quote of a criminologist at the U of A:
> 
> ...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> Perhaps this will assist in understanding how people in our area are convinced that justice is not being done in a string of similar attacks.
> 
> Today’s Edmonton Journal lead editorial:
> 
> ...


SINC, you may not believe this but I completely understand the feelings of anger around these issues. Whenever I hear about some violent person going free after doing something horrible to an innocent person, especially a child, I feel those same emotions.

I have been in a situation as a child where I witnessed a family member violently assaulted, but the perpetrator was never charged nor went to jail, probably if this happened today they would have. I experienced many revenge fantasies as I grew up, where I wanted to do something violent to the person to get even. And now, if I was ever in the situation where a family member, relative or good friend was assaulted I know I would have those same feelings of wanting revenge. I think it's very normal for people to react that way when some horrible wrong is done to them.

But I don't think it's correct or advisable for our justice system to base itself on the emotional appeal of "an eye for an eye". This retaliatory violence is exactly what these young men thought they were engaging in, - "you do something to me, I'll hurt you worse." It is the same thing that our society engages in when we call punishment and revenge, justice. 

Revenge can never, ever satisfy or correct the initial harm, believe me I know this very, very well. What revenge does do is make the person administering it no better than the person receiving it. It poisons the soul of the vengeful, when they realize, even subconsciously, that the perpetrator who committed the violence now has caused them on some level to carry on that person's violent spirit as they direct violence and punishment back to them. Vengeance is never justice, nor can it ever be ultimately cathartic or satisfying for the aggrieved. The aggreived will always be aggreived and will have to somehow come to terms with their grief, no matter what happens to the perpetrotor. Vengeance is only vengeance.

I don't want to see our society acting on vengeance. Our justice system needs to recognize the harm that has been done and should always take care of the victims and attempt to compensate them, if it is at all possible, for what they have lost. Our justice system needs to participate in restorative justice if there is any possibility of that happening in a case. Our justice system needs to enact sentences that protects society from violent people and I am not against locking up people who commit multiple violent offences for as long as it takes to ascertain that they won't go on to do it again, even if that means they are in jail until they become old and feeble. But not out of vengeance, but out of doing what is necessary for public safety.

Our society needs to try and understand what causes violent people to become that way and do everything possible to prevent that, but there are no simple black and white solutions.

The Conservatives are advocates of some kind of easy simple solution, as if locking up all perpetrators and throwing away the key will make our society safe - it will not, just look south of the border. We could never enact enough vengeance on the behalf of families who have had someone taken in a senseless, violent act, but we make ourselves accomplices in perpetrating the spirit of the original violence when we do. We ultimately only teach everyone in our society that "an eye for eye" is a good thing.


----------



## William (Jan 5, 2004)

Beej said:


> Just pointing out the error here. The change is fully inline with conservatism, in that the current system is seen as completely out of the control of the people. .... But to read this change as anti-small government misses the point that the current state is considered outside the realm of "the people's" control and therefore in need of "democratising".


Beej:

The kind of government that wants the people to be in control is more appropriately called "populism", I think, rather than "conservatism." The Harper government is both conservative and populist, a combination that tends to be a little unstable. I would say that Toews proposed plan is in line with Harper 's populism, though it would increase the role of government well beyond what it now is, in respect of the administration justice. Above all, it would increase the government's power to act tyrannically

Actually, I think that the driving force behind Harper is only in part conservatism mixed with large amounts of populism. There is a large element which at bottom is not ideological, but rather a personal characteristic. Harper exhibits all the signs of a resentful, rigid, authoritarian personality as defined by Erich Fromm. For example, he is far more interested in Law & Order than in economics. Even his readiness to emulate the US is not driven, I think, by any profound ideological agreement with US foreign or domestic policy, but by a typical authoritarian desire to stamp on the neck of people you do not respect or whom you resent (which in his case would be "the east") while having your neck stamped upon by those whom you deem superior to you.

Consider the possibility that this is the key to understanding his behaviour in both small and large matters.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Agreed on populist conservatism as an appropriate attachment, although I tend to use "grassroots" as it differentiates more readily from the value statement of popular being a necessity to get votes. It is quite common and connects closely with grassroots socialists. Left meets right. Very rigid ideologues. 

I wouldn't put Harper at the "very" end, just as I wouldn't for Layton. They are both relatively centred or moderate within their group of extreme and rigid ideological sycophants, making the Conservatives a counter balance to the NDP, instead of the Liberals as they usually were.

Harper's behaviour is fairly easy to understand in most instances, as is the behaviour of many of his most vocal opponents.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

People are not going to let this one go away:

"The bleeding hearts of this world might think that putting a bunch of 19 year olds away for a long time will only turn them into hardened criminals.
But what message is being sent by these lax sentences? Far too many teenagers today don’t fear authority. They know that our youth justice laws are a joke. They know that the justice system is going to give them a slap on the wrist."

http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/Commentary/2006/11/15/2364607.html


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

GA - excellent post :clap:

••••

Populism is correct for that outline but not small c conservatism as Ontario views it. ( Think Hazel McCallion )

Harper has an aspect of social conservatism that is odius to most Canadians and like the NeoCons in the US not a clue about "effective" use of government funds - just the bit with the $1200 versus childcare was clear evidence of that, as well as the GST cut which benefited the wealthy.

Government funds applied at the point of highest leverage, early childhood education, long view infrastructure development with solid oversight ( think the original electricity planning for Ontario, HWY 401 etc - Mississauga for that matter ), Singapore's approach to champion building, the MARs centre in Toronto.
These are all small c efforts that pay off big time and require both oversight AND longview. The Harris gov crew now migrated to Ottawa are idiots in this regard.

The fact that Harper ignores Toronto in this "long view" regard shows how shortsighted, slash and burn this gov is. The idiotic cutting of literacy is more evidence.
There is no question oversight is critical - the Liberals were horrid at it tho the vision was there - Martin did many things right - correcting the fundamentals for starters but too little oversight leading to far too many ineffective or outright mismanaged use of public funds.
Small c needs both rock solid oversight AND long view program initiation. Build for the long term and do it effectively - hte way Calgary did with the Olympics.

Even more damning to Harper he ignores the environment and that means in my mind there is no small c component at all.

Conservatism originates in care of the land over the long term - Preston Manning to his credit recognised how critical this long view is and the Brit Conservative leader has made green the central plank of his policy platform.

William - I think your view on Harper being "authoritarian" is bang on. It shows all over the place, distain for the press, handcuffing caucus - secrecy - the list goes on and on.

The whole idea of having the judiciary "jump to the gov bidding' is both evidence of that Divine King Harper streak and a horrid attack on checks and balances of a modern secular democracy.

If the Cons want to grow from this point - instead of the retreat they are on the verge of they need an Ontario or Quebec or East Coast champion to step up, start applying small c principles in a variety of areas and stop attacking institutions like the independent judiciary.

I suspect a leader like McCallion on the national stage would be extremely well received by the central body politic.

She warned the Ontario Conservatives to stop talking cuts and deliver cost effective services....they didn't listen and they got turfed.

Harper was elected because the Libs were being ineffective stewards and needed a "time out" from power, not to alter the basic fundamentals of Canada which are very sound.

Harper's not done a good job on any front.

Next........


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I don't want to see our society acting on vengeance. Our justice system needs to recognize the harm that has been done and should always take care of the victims and attempt to compensate them, if it is at all possible, for what they have lost.


Shane's family lost a son. He was beaten to death intentionally. They brought the weapons to do so with them when they returned to the party they were ejected from, thus showing intent to do bodily harm.

And how is the family compensated:

"Nineteen-year-old Christopher Griffiths pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced to four years in prison. That’s bad enough, considering that the maximum sentence for manslaughter is life imprisonment, and the Crown had asked for five to eight years in prison for Griffiths.
But three other teens pleaded to assault with a weapon and effectively walked away scot-free.
They got conditional sentences to be served in the community, with several conditions attached."

If you call that justice for a life taken, then you are severely mistaken.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

And so it continues, right across the country:

“WINNIPEG (CP) - Family members of two young sex assault victims cursed and sobbed in court Tuesday after a judge handed down what they considered light sentences for a husband and wife who lured the girls to their home and raped them.
Winnipeg police and justice officials have called the case one of the worst they've ever seen, and it has drawn comparisons to the shocking sex murders of two Ontario schoolgirls by Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka.
The 25-year-old woman, who was convicted of three counts of sexual assault and forcible confinement, was to be released Tuesday after Justice Gerald Jewers gave her a sentence equal to the two years she spent in pretrial custody.
Her common-law husband, who was convicted of eight charges including kidnapping and sexual assault, was sentenced to seven additional years in prison. Jewers said he was given less credit for time served because of his "continuous and appalling bad behaviour" in custody.”

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjourn...=7d62365d-df02-4070-be79-6596128fe5cc&k=51711


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

I believe our justice system is seriously broken when I see stories like this.
http://www.winnipegsun.com/News/Winnipeg/2006/11/15/2364336-sun.html

When a person gets convicted of something like hit and run causing death and gets no jail time while a person who disrupts traffic by climbing a billboard beside a bridge gets what, 20 months in jail, calls into question judicial judgment. 

Also the sentences given to youths are, at times, a farce in the face of the magnitude of their crimes. A juvenile can be convicted of murder and, unless they are tried and sentences as adults, get relatively little jail time before being given a chance to continue with their lives, something their victims will never get a chance to do. And do not tell me that a 15, 16, or 17 year old does not understand what he/she is doing.

What the Conservatives are proposing may not be the way to go, what is occurring all too frequently in courts these days is only giving critics ammunition for their opinions that drastic changes need to be made to the way judges are chosen. 

Or do we go the route of minimum sentences that judges *have to impose *based on the severity and circumstances of a crime?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> And how is the family compensated:


I think this is what is at heart in this issue... the need for punitive "compensation". 

Unfortunately that doesn't bring back the dead son in this case. Nor does it deter others from committing similar acts (as we can see in the US regarding those states which practice capital punishment).


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think that those who ignore the need to "punish" the guilty parties do so at their own peril. When a parent holds back at beating the living XXXX out of someone who assaulted/molested/kidnapped their child, they do so often because they trust the courts and prisons to do this for them. If that aspect of justice is ignored, you will see a hard swing to mandatory sentencing or vigilante-ism.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Something along those lines happened in, I think, NB recently. A town got fed up with drug dealers and burned their house down. Not acceptable behaviour, and charges are being brought forward but, as with all crimes, root causality is an important consideration. The town got fed up with "The System" and acted.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

When the system doesn't act in the best interests of the community, sometimes it's up to the community to take action.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061102/arson_trial_061102/20061102?hub=Canada

In that situation where the community burned down the drug house, good on them.

In a perfect world, people are innocent until proven guilty, the courts act in the best interests of the community, and police act reasonably quickly. Unfortunately we don't live a perfect world.

If there was a crack house in my neighbourhood, and the cops didn't shut it down that day, the house wouldn't be standing the next day.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> In that situation where the community burned down the drug house, good on them.





> "They *acted out of fears* for their lives and their community. ... They acted out of necessity.''
> 
> *Three face weapons-related offences*, while two are charged with arson.
> 
> ...


Sound perfectly fine  

My neighbour down the street looks funny, I'm sure he downloads kiddy porn, let me take a baseball bat to the side of his head just to warn him that I'm onto him...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

> ST. ANDREWS, New Brunswick --A New Brunswick man on trial in connection with a gunfight that ended in the torching of a house on Grand Manan told police he climbed to his rooftop and fired his rifle during the incident.
> 
> Carter Foster, 25, said he fired his gun at a truck parked in Ronald Ross's driveway.


http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...admits_he_fired_shots_in_riot_on_grand_manan/



> As the night wore on, Ross was beaten with a baseball bat by rioters while an RCMP officer stood helplessly by. Ross's house was completely consumed by flames.
> 
> "Maybe he was scared for his own safety," Ross said of the RCMP officer who was unable to stop his beating.
> 
> ...


http://www.cbc.ca/cp/Atlantic/061107/t110716.html


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

The difficulty is that I don't think there is one way to rehabilitate/deter all people, and yet, we are trying to create a fair system where there is one response.

A tough punishment might "scare straight" some people, but it might simply make others angry and in that angry, decide to exact their own "punishment".

A lighter punishment might make some people grateful that they are given a second chance to do better, and make others just laugh it off as being a slap on the wrist and then do it again.

I have no answers.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Sonal said:


> A lighter punishment might make some people grateful that they are given a second chance to do better, and make others just laugh it off as being a slap on the wrist and then do it again.
> 
> I have no answers.


It might, but house arrest for killing a 17 year old with a baseball bat? These bastards deserve nothing but time, and a long time at that.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Sonal said:


> The difficulty is that I don't think there is one way to rehabilitate/deter all people, and yet, we are trying to create a fair system where there is one response.
> 
> A tough punishment might "scare straight" some people, but it might simply make others angry and in that angry, decide to exact their own "punishment".
> 
> ...


I don't have any answers either, but I know that the simplistic response of punishment/vengeance is not an answer that will serve in the long run. Whatever answers that exist aren't simple ones, but there are no shortage of politicians who will sell simple answers to complex problems and no shortage of people who will gladly buy what they are selling.

As someone said, (Gandhi?), "An eye for an eye, makes the whole world blind."


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> Shane's family lost a son. He was beaten to death intentionally. They brought the weapons to do so with them when they returned to the party they were ejected from, thus showing intent to do bodily harm.
> 
> And how is the family compensated:
> 
> ...


So what would be justice, SINC? Life imprisonment? Capital punishment? Drawing and quartering in the town square? Is there anything that could be done that would give the family back their son? Would the execution or harsh punishment of the killer really dispel their grief?

I don't know enough about the particulars in the case to comment on the sentence. Maybe the cops screwed up and weren't able to present a strong case for murder, it certainly wouldn't be the first time that's happened. Maybe the victim had done something provocative which escalated into a violent confrontation. Or maybe, as you assume, the judge just liked to let criminals walk because he just doesn't give a damn about the public or the victims - although I highly doubt that is the reason somehow.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> So what would be justice, SINC? Life imprisonment? Capital punishment? Drawing and quartering in the town square? Is there anything that could be done that would give the family back their son? Would the execution or harsh punishment of the killer really dispel their grief?


No, life would suffice just fine.

We could be sure the little pr*** wouldn't do it again. 

His friends and accomplices that abetted him should get 20 years each, minimum.

The family and all of society could then take a collective sigh of relief that these deranged persons will harm no one ever again.

That is what needs to happen to curb this kind of crap.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> No, life would suffice just fine.
> 
> We could be sure the little pr*** wouldn't do it again.
> 
> His friends and accomplices that abetted him should get 20 years each, minimum.


Thank you Mr. Crown Justice SINC.

I found out a bit more about this case and found out that there is very little information available about what happened, since it never went to trial. It was a negotiated plea bargain. In other words the police and prosecutors thought they couldn't convict the kid of murder, because they didn't have the evidence to do so. There is no evidence whether the accomplices even entered the home. I'm sure if they had even a bit of solid evidence they would have gladly gone to trial.

Is this really an example of a soft justice system or simply a case where the police couldn't or didn't collect the necessary evidence to make a case? As I said earlier, I don't have enough info about the case to jump to any conclusions. Maybe SINC has more info on this, that is, some actual info besides inflammatory editorial opinion.

If we want to have a fair justice system we can only convict people for things that can actually be proven in court. There was no way the kid was going to get life in this case, hard as that is for many to accept. But the alternative if we want that, is lynch mob justice.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Well, the plot thickens in this one. One of the 17 years old accused formerly denied bail, was granted bail by another judge yesterday.

In response, the father of the 17 year old boy they killed has hired a private investigation firm to shadow the accused 24/7 and to report any breach of bail terms immediately.

That demonstrates the fathers and many Edmontonians faith in the judge and the system who have endorsed his commitment to ensure public safety by this action.

This is a breaking story and full details will be available later today or in the morning.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> But the alternative if we want that, is lynch mob justice.


SINC is quite ready for that - as long as you don't attack him or his family for anything they may have done. Do as he says, but not as he does...


----------

