Politics in 2018

[Cloud Cover]

As it was in determining the validity of Omar Khadr’s $20M lawsuit. 

Not a comment about your point specifically, W601, but rather that the Judiciary sometimes doesn’t get the last say where the Executive feels its opinion takes precedence.

Regards
G2G

100%
The Supreme Court limited its decisions to the legal rights of the "child. They made no pronouncement on his guilt or innocence,  only about what the duty of the government is/was with the little turd.

 

[jollyjacktar]

At least someone knows what they're talking about, unlike JT and his Ministers.  I can't wait until the voters make him a Drama Teacher again.

But some question the ministers speaking publicly on a judicial decision.

"Inappropriate" was the word former justice minister Peter MacKay used to describe the posts.

"It undermines the system of justice, quite frankly, to have politicians weigh in," he said, adding the case could still be appealed, so they are technically commenting on a case currently before the courts. 

Unwarranted skepticism of a properly conducted trial will set a dangerous precedent, MacKay concluded.

'Very rare' politicians speak up
This outreach from federal politicians is virtually unprecedented, according to Glen Luther, a criminal law expert from the University of Saskatchewan.

"It's very rare," he said Saturday. "The federal government is actually taking it seriously."

Ministers using a specific trial to point to issues in the justice system could provide a much-needed wake-up call, he added.

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/trudeau-ministers-boushie-verdict-reaction-1.4530093

 

[George Wallace]

At least someone knows what they're talking about, unlike JT and his Ministers.  I can't wait until the voters make him a Drama Teacher again.

Snowboard Instructor......A Drama Teacher may mean that he would be teaching impressionable minds.  That is not a good thing.

 

[jollyjacktar]

That works too.

 

[mariomike]

"Peremptory challenges" seem to be a topic of discussion in this case,
https://www.google.ca/search?rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-CA%3AIE-Address&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&dcr=0&biw=1280&bih=603&ei=StB_WsjbH4GUtQXksr7YDA&q=%22colten+boushie%22+%22peremptory+challenges%22+&oq=%22colten+boushie%22+%22peremptory+challenges%22+&gs_l=psy-ab.12..35i39k1l2.93972.93972.0.98826.1.1.0.0.0.0.193.193.0j1.1.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.1.192....0.gDLyw7xGi9w

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Justin Trudeau chiming in on the verdict:

"Just spoke with @Puglaas. I can't imagine the grief and sorrow the Boushie family is feeling tonight. Sending love to them from the US"



While Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Jody Wilson-Raybould says:
"As a country we can and must do better - I am committed to working everyday to ensure justice for all Canadians"





Being impartial is not a part of the job I guess.

I agree. The PM and justice minister coming out with the assertion that the legal system failed is extremely unprofessional. One can safely assume that the PMs comments were basically clag designed for sympathy. While he shouldn't comment on such things, "sending love" isn't a direct assault on the justice system. The justice ministers comments are more troubling as she is the minister and she directly imply's that she doesn't agree with the verdict of the trial, which casts aspersions on the justice system. This is not a good or proper road for her to be walking down. If there are doubts that the trial was fair based on evidence of bias in the jury there are mechanisms for that, and it certainly needs to be fleshed out. However, barring that, the minister is simply saying that " we need to do better" to ensure that we always get the verdict we want, not necessarily the proper one.

 

[ModlrMike]

The Minister forgets that the application of justice exists in two equally important forms: the punishment of the guilty, and the exoneration of the innocent.

 

[Loachman]

And the latter is the more important of the two.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Not quite, ModlrMike:

It exists for the punishment of the guilty, and to refrain from punishing those the Crown cannot prove beyond a doubt to have been guilty.

Courts never (or very, very, very seldom) pronounce someone "innocent". That' is why the verdict that acquits someone is "not guilty" instead of "innocent".

Nevertheless, in my humble opinion, Trudeau's comments was stupid, but the Minister of justice's comments should cost her her job. She has absolutely no business whatsoever commenting as if an injustice has been committed in a trial where she is not a member of the jury and therefore, has neither seen the full evidence presented, nor been able to observe the witnesses.

To put simply: If the justice system is actually broken, she's had two years to fix it and has done nothing - she should be fired; if it isn't broken, then she is impugning twelve jurors without cause and the judge. There is no evidence whatsoever of this so it is unacceptable and she should resign before getting fired.

 

[FSTO]

Not quite, ModlrMike:

It exists for the punishment of the guilty, and to refrain from punishing those the Crown cannot prove beyond a doubt to have been guilty.

Courts never (or very, very, very seldom) pronounce someone "innocent". That' is why the verdict that acquits someone is "not guilty" instead of "innocent".

Nevertheless, in my humble opinion, Trudeau's comments was stupid, but the Minister of justice's comments should cost her her job. She has absolutely no business whatsoever commenting as if an injustice has been committed in a trial where she is not a member of the jury and therefore, has neither seen the full evidence presented, nor been able to observe the witnesses.

To put simply: If the justice system is actually broken, she's had two years to fix it and has done nothing - she should be fired; if it isn't broken, then she is impugning twelve jurors without cause and the judge. There is no evidence whatsoever of this so it is unacceptable and she should resign before getting fired.

That isn't going to happen OGBD. The narrative is that a white farmer murdered an innocent aboriginal boy and a racist jury let him off scott free. No federal cabinet minister is going to resign or apologize.

 

[jollyjacktar]

That would go against the dialectic of today's Liberals to do so.  Which is starting to feel like, "if you're white, you're not right".

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Not quite, ModlrMike:

It exists for the punishment of the guilty, and to refrain from punishing those the Crown cannot prove beyond a doubt to have been guilty.

Courts never (or very, very, very seldom) pronounce someone "innocent". That' is why the verdict that acquits someone is "not guilty" instead of "innocent".

Nevertheless, in my humble opinion, Trudeau's comments was stupid, but the Minister of justice's comments should cost her her job. She has absolutely no business whatsoever commenting as if an injustice has been committed in a trial where she is not a member of the jury and therefore, has neither seen the full evidence presented, nor been able to observe the witnesses.

To put simply: If the justice system is actually broken, she's had two years to fix it and has done nothing - she should be fired; if it isn't broken, then she is impugning twelve jurors without cause and the judge. There is no evidence whatsoever of this so it is unacceptable and she should resign before getting fired.

Agree. It's a dangerous path to walk, particularly in light of the same thing happening in the Ghomeshi trial. Governments have the right to challenge the supreme court on matters of constitutional importance, such as was the challenge of same sex marriage and 2 x governments challenging veterans. Attempting to vote gather through saying that a trial was rigged is below board.

And the latter is the more important of the two.

Disagree. The court system isn't there to exonerate the innocent, it is there to find justice for the victims of a crime through sentencing of a guilty party. That the system works to protect the innocent from false allegations is a critical benefit.

 

[FJAG]

Not quite, ModlrMike:

It exists for the punishment of the guilty, and to refrain from punishing those the Crown cannot prove beyond a doubt to have been guilty.

Courts never (or very, very, very seldom) pronounce someone "innocent". That' is why the verdict that acquits someone is "not guilty" instead of "innocent".

Nevertheless, in my humble opinion, Trudeau's comments was stupid, but the Minister of justice's comments should cost her her job. She has absolutely no business whatsoever commenting as if an injustice has been committed in a trial where she is not a member of the jury and therefore, has neither seen the full evidence presented, nor been able to observe the witnesses.

To put simply: If the justice system is actually broken, she's had two years to fix it and has done nothing - she should be fired; if it isn't broken, then she is impugning twelve jurors without cause and the judge. There is no evidence whatsoever of this so it is unacceptable and she should resign before getting fired.

Agree 100%.

I've been concerned for years now about an accelerating trend which started long before the Liberals. Vic Toews, I mean you. DoJ has been tweaking the laws for years so that it becomes easier to charge and convict, and to more harshly punish "popular" crimes. By "popular" I mean those offences which seem to be the fashion of the day; ones where the government has been taking heat from vocal special interest groups. There is less discretion available for judges to use common sense when dealing with the case before them because of such things as mandatory minimum sentences. The problem is particularly notable in the field of sexual offences where the presumption of innocence is almost completely undermined.

I find it particularly distressing that government comments about our jury system is that it needs to be "fixed" because there was an acquittal. There is an old adage in the legal profession that "hard cases make bad law" which means that changing a system just because one case didn't go the way one hoped or expected will undoubtedly lead to a whole lot of new problems.

I can only see two ways that the government could use to "fix" the perceived "injustice": eliminate or reduce peremptory challenges or mandate that there shall be racial representation on the jury every time that an accused or victim has a particular racial background. Both of those, IMHO, are stupid solutions.

Like FSTO, I don't see any Liberal falling on their sword over their stupid comments. In my opinion, they are going to double down on this one and do something stupid. Hopefully it will bite them in the ass in the next election.

:cheers:

 

[ModlrMike]

The Minister forgets that the application of justice exists in two equally important forms: the punishment of the guilty, and the exoneration of the innocent.

I agree, I was being overly simplistic. Perhaps I should have said to punish the guilty, and to protect the innocent. I use the word innocent in the context of the presumption of innocence. That the court does not pronounce one innocent is immaterial. Every defendant enters the court as innocent, whether or not they leave that way is what the process is there to determine.

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=ModlrMike] Every defendant enters the court as innocent, whether they leave that way is what the process is there to determine.
[/quote]

Not according to our Minister of Justice and lesser extent PM.

The only reason the PM chimed in is to virtue signal because race is involved and, I'd guess, to make up for kicking the FN campaign promise can down the road.

 

[Old Sweat]

I, for one, would appreciate it very much if one of the lawyers in our group could comment on what form an appeal would take, and how its results are determined. Second, could the ex-defendant be charged with another offence such as careless use of a firearm, that is, is there a way for the Crown to skirt double jeopardy?

 

[Jarnhamar]

I think his firearm storage charges are still pending.

 

[FJAG]

I, for one, would appreciate it very much if one of the lawyers in our group could comment on what form an appeal would take, and how its results are determined. Second, could the ex-defendant be charged with another offence such as careless use of a firearm, that is, is there away for the Crown to skirt double jeopardy?

An appeal is available under the CCC as follows:

676 (1) The Attorney General . . . may appeal to the court of appeal

(a) against a judgment or verdict of acquittal . . . on any ground of appeal that involves a question of law alone;
. . .

Effectively under a jury verdict (which are the finders of fact as opposed to law) it would be necessary to prove that the judge made an error in law (such as in the jury selection process or in his instructions to the jury) which are substantial enough to invalidate the jury's finding.

Effectively the matter would be argued before three judges of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal based on transcripts of the evidence and legal arguments by counsel.

If successful the Court of Appeal would order a retrial and, in very rare circumstance, could substitute a conviction for the acquittal.

The crown would not be able to lay new charges under s 11(h) of the Charter which states:

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right ...
(h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again;

Double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same (or similar) charges and on the same facts, following a valid acquittal or conviction.

With the charges having been murder, I would think that the crown has put all of the facts into play and blown it's chances of trying this again on a lesser charge.

:cheers:

 

[Infanteer]

Disagree. The court system isn't there to exonerate the innocent, it is there to find justice for the victims of a crime through sentencing of a guilty party. That the system works to protect the innocent from false allegations is a critical benefit.

Nope.

It isn't Bouschie vs Clayton, or estate of Bouschie vs Clayton, or family of Bouschie vs Clayton, its Regina vs Clayton.  The criminal justice system isn't designed to solve anything for victims, families of victims, or anyone else.  It resolves matters between accused and the state.

 

[Cloud Cover]

To some extent, the CCJ system does involve some measure of victim and community justice, from victim impact statements during sentencing submissions, and taking into account any aggravating or mitigating circumstances. But you're 100% right in the sense that neither of those issues has anything to do with finding of guilt or not guilty. The Crown still has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element of an offence, and the accused has every right to make arguments raising reasonable doubt by leveraging every single legal tool available, from the rules of criminal procedure, rules of evidence and the Charter.  Don't misread that as a statement supporting all of the accused that appear before a court, it just seems to me in this case the adage of letting guilty people go free is better than sending innocent  people to jail. In this case, the Crown did not succeed in proving every element of the offence to a proper jury. Hence, that means the accused did not commit the offence for which he was prosecuted and that simply means not guilty. To be found guilty he must have committed all of the required elements set out in the Criminal Code, and only the Criminal Code. 

Now, the politicians may force the Crown to go looking for an error in law, even if the error has nothing to do with the finding of a guilty verdict, and they just may get their appeal. That will not change the elements of the offence, the facts of the events in question, or explain any better the actions of the accused. Once charged, these are fixed and not dynamic. Certainly, in applying the logic required by law from the jury, they do not take into account the racial or social status of victims or the accused. Nor should they, otherwise we really would have an apartheid justice system.