The Judge Superthread- Merged Topics

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Not that I need any more convincing that the title of this thread says it all but this one is just pathetic.........

http://www.winnipegsun.com/News/Columnists/Brodbeck_Tom/2006/11/17/2390876.html

By TOM BRODBECK

A Winnipeg man got only seven years in prison in an incredibly disturbing case that's been described as a "house of horrors" and which made national headlines this week.
It's a case that earns a local judge the latest Eight-Ball Award.

A 35-year-old man and his 26-year-old common-law wife were convicted of numerous sexual assaults against two young girls. They kidnapped one of them and repeatedly raped the girls in their North End home in a case that's as despicable as they come.
One of the girls was tied down, her hands held by the woman, while the man raped her.
The man was convicted of three counts of sexual assault, two counts each of kidnapping and forcible confinement and one count of uttering threats. The woman was convicted of two counts of sexual assault and one count of forcible confinement.

It's a case that cries out for a lengthy penitentiary term -- at least 18 years for the man as the Crown had asked.
Even the man's lawyer called the offences "heinous crimes against children."
Court had a moral responsibility to denounce these crimes and denounce them loudly.
The victims were children whose lives may have been ruined forever. As a society, we simply cannot stand for this.

Instead, Justice Gerald Jewers sentenced the man to only seven years in prison, after three years of time served in custody. And the woman, incredibly, got time served. Which means she walked away a free woman.
It was a sentencing decision of catastrophic proportions.

And it earns Jewers this column's Eight-Ball Award, given out to highlight some of the worst perversions of justice in our court system.
Jewers made a colossal error in handing out such lenient sentences.
He put such little weight on the sentencing principles of deterrence and denunciation that it's frightening.

Jewers had a responsibility under the Criminal Code to ensure the sentences were proportionate to the severity of the crimes.
He failed miserably to discharge that responsibility.
And spare me the case law argument that his hands were tied and he could only go as far as he did.

Jewers' sentence pales in comparison to one handed out by Manitoba Judge Mary Kate Harvie last year, who sentenced Nicholas Dean Sennie -- the monster who savagely raped a five-year-old girl in 2003 -- to 18 years in prison (three more than the Crown had asked for).
Her decision held up at appeal after Sennie dropped his appeal bid.

This week's case was similar to the Sennie case. Both involved rape, both involved kidnapping and both involved children.
The only difference is Harvie took a stand in the case before her and meted out appropriate justice.
Jewers did not, even though the male offender showed no remorse in the case, calling the charges against him "crap."

This is what we mean when we say the justice system is broken.
This is why judges like Jewers get Eight-Ball Awards.
This is why people are demanding the federal government bring in harsher penalties for violent crimes because some of these judges are so out of touch with the values of Canadians, there is no other option.

We know the bar associations don't like Eight-Ball Awards or the move toward harsher sanctions for violent crimes.
And I'm sure they'll fire off yet another pathetic, illogical letter to us in the wake of this latest Eight-Ball.

But too bad. This has to end.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Brodbeck is the Sun's city columnist. He can be reached by e-mail at: tbrodbeck@wpgsun.com.
Letters to the editor should be sent to letters@wpgsun.com.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Head shaking slowly with great sadness

 

[Cloud Cover]

It's not just Judges- it is very frequently the Crown Attorney's who let these creeps off too easily.  That being said, even though this judge recognizes the danger, he did nothing to prevent this travesty of justice.


Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.


Sex offender moving here

Fri, November 17, 2006

Christopher Broad, 32, was convicted this week of having child porn and forcibly confining a boy, 9.

By PATRICK MALONEY, FREE PRESS REPORTER
   

 
A northern Ontario sex offender who pleaded guilty this week to crimes involving children isn't going to jail -- he's moving to London.

Christopher Broad -- convicted Tuesday in Timmins of child-porn possession and forcible confinement of a nine-year-old boy -- is being monitored by London and Timmins police, who confirmed yesterday he's coming here.

"He is moving to London," said Timmins police Insp. Paul Bonhamme.

London officers are on high-alert, Const. Amanda Pfeffer said.

"We're working very closely with Timmins (police) to monitor this individual's movements," she said.

"If he came here and posed a significant risk, the public would absolutely be made aware of the potential threat."

In a telephone interview with The Free Press last night, Broad's mother, of London, said she knew little of her son's plans. "I don't know what's happening. We haven't even talked it over as a family," Hilary Broad said, adding she hasn't heard from her son.

"I don't know. We have lots of thinking to do."

Police have been in contact with her, she said. She said she was stunned by this week's guilty plea.

Broad's release concerned Superior Court Justice Robert Riopelle.

"I'm sure you'll be back before a court judge someday, leaving a wake of tattered and shattered lives," Riopelle said in Timmins court Tuesday. "I hope I'm wrong."

According to a Timmins Daily News report, the 32-year-old Broad pleaded guilty in Superior Court Tuesday. It was his second conviction for sex-related crimes involving children.

Under an agreement between the Crown and the defence, he was sentenced to time served -- the equivalent of 36 months' pre-trial custody -- and released.
Broad's lawyer, Paul Bragagnolo, said he would move to London where he has family, the newspaper reported. Calls to Bragagnolo weren't returned yesterday.

Several other sex charges were dropped in exchange for the guilty plea, the report said.

Police arrested Broad in 2005 after parents of pupils at an elementary school in the Schumacher area of Timmins learned their kids were visiting his home at lunch.

Before the arrest, a nine-year-old who visited the home was tied up by Broad, the judge was told.

Broad's name has been added to federal and provincial sex-offender registries.

A "high-risk co-ordinator" with London police will evaluate what risk Broad would pose, Pfeffer said.


****

Message to Mr. Broad; don't show your face anywhere near a child in London. Fair warning.

 

[The_Falcon]

With incidents like these, people wonder why others resort to vigilantism.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

With incidents like these, people wonder why others resort to vigilantism.

I don't understand why more people don't turn to vigilantism.  Not an endorsement, but derived from a common sense perspective.

 

[couchcommander]

I don't understand why more people don't turn to vigilantism.  Not an endorsement, but derived from a common sense perspective.

I'd be lying if I didn't said I didn't get the urge.

The violence here in edmonton is starting to hit closer (not "close" yet fortunately), but i.e. one of the victims of last weekends mayhem was a "friend of a friend" celebrating his girlfriend getting pregnant, and was killed for trying to keep asian gang f**ks hands of off a female friend no more than 5 blocks from where I sit now. Later discovered via another "friend of friend" where said asian gang f**ks like to reportidly hang out... bad ideas all around. Especially considering "friend of a friend" information should not be trusted, but that's beside the point.

Even for hippy lefties like me, you get urge to go grab a bunch of buddies, cheap mossbergs, and then set the world a little bit straighter when it seems like the institutions around you are unable to keep you, and more importantly the people you care about, safe.

 

[North Star]

I understand (although I'm not a lawyer) that a defence exists, left over from old Anglo-Saxon law, called "extreme provocation". I know of its rather disgusting use in wife abuse cases (ei "she called my member short") but can it also apply to sex crimes? Has it ever been used in a vigilante case?

 

[zipperhead_cop]

I understand (although I'm not a lawyer) that a defence exists, left over from old Anglo-Saxon law, called "extreme provocation". I know of its rather disgusting use in wife abuse cases (ei "she called my member short") but can it also apply to sex crimes? Has it ever been used in a vigilante case?

As far as I know, that only applies in murder cases, and can get a murder bumped down to manslaughter.  As for sex crimes?  Not a chance, but I would imagine some clown will try it.  Vigilante would be hard to say.  The defence only applies in a the "heat of the moment", so if you went and set up on someone, or accosted them at a later date, you are out of luck. 

 

[JesseWZ]

I think that if a judge gives a conditional sentence or a reduced sentence, any crime committed by the offender (who is happily enjoying their early release from prison) should also constitute a charge for the judge for "Obstruction of Justice." or maybe just tack on the offenders charges to the judge.
I figure it's sound in principle.

 

[GAP]

Two-thirds back electing judges
Twenty-five years later, poll shows strong support for Charter
KIRK MAKIN  From Monday's Globe and Mail
Article Link

A strong majority of Canadians supports the idea of elected judges, according to a Globe and Mail/CTV poll.

Sixty-three per cent of 1,000 respondents questioned in the Strategic Counsel survey supported the idea of elected judges, compared to 30 per cent who opposed the notion. The results may come as a surprise to the legal community, where it has long been assumed that Canadians see the election of judges as a major drawback of the U.S. justice system.

In many U.S. jurisdictions, judges embark on the campaign trail regularly, advertising their courtroom track record of convictions to drum up votes.

The poll also found that 53 per cent said the Charter has had a positive, or very positive, impact on Canada over the past 25 years. Twelve per cent said it has had a negative impact, while 25 per cent said its impact has been neutral.

On the support for an elected judiciary, Ontario Chief Justice Roy McMurtry said in an interview that he couldn't see how impartiality could be maintained in a system of elected judges.

“The potential for abuse is horrific. Money would inevitably become a factor. I can foresee terrible abuses,” he said.

Chief Justice McMurtry said that if Canadian judges felt compelled to impose popular verdicts and sentences to ensure their re-election, “it could really destroy the very best traditions of an independent judiciary. I think it would be a tragic initiative for the
More on link

 

[Journeyman]

Special interest groups (sometimes referred to as "terrorists") have been buying politicians' votes for years, why would anyone believe judges would be different.

If you have a copy of Stewart Bell's Cold Terror, have a look at how Paul Martin and other Liberal Ministers and backbenchers attend Tamil Tiger fundraisers (you know, those misunderstood folks who pretty much invented suicide bombing), in the hopes of buying the 50,000 Toronto Tamil votes.*

It's no different with Sikh extremism in parts of BC and Ontario, or Hezbollah fundraising in Toronto and Montreal.


-----------------------
* While an obviously biased source, the Liberals' behaviour towards Tamil terrorists is also referred to here, if you don't have the book.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

While the judiciary may be against it, the general population seems to be tired of the catch and release program that these 'learned collegues' have been espousing in recent years. In a democracy (bit of a stretch for us, I know), the people should be making the decision on who they want to represent them. I like the idea of firing a milquetoast, pro criminal judge.

While they're hammering out the rules for election, they should add recall procedures, for the inevitable case where someone says one thing to get elected and then does another, against the electors wishes, once they have the seat. Once they've applied it to judiciary positions, it should be applied to all elected officials.

 

[sigpig]

To quote myself from a very similar thread more than two years ago:

"How can the average citizen know who would make a good judge? There is no way for the lay person to compare the performance of competing lawyers. What you end up with is which candidate has the best and most slick ad campaign to get name recognition."

That thread is at http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27758.0.html

 

[brihard]

Ugh. Subjecting the judiciary to the whims of the mob isn't a great idea. Yeah, some judges might not go with what we feel is right as individuals, but ultimately their cases are subject to review by higher courts if there's a miscarriage of justice. I strongly believe in the need for an independent judiciary, and one that doesn't have to tread on eggshells out of fear of not getting re-elected.

Recceguy- Our system has a lot of flaws, but sentence length is not one of them. Statistics show that the stiffer a sentence, the more likely one is to eventually re-offend. It's counter intuitive, I know, but the longer someone's locked away the fewer options they have when they get out.

If you just want to punish or segregate the guy, OK, fine- but if your goal is to reintegrate them into society (which the majority do successfully), handing down huge sentences isn't the way to do it. That said, a lot of reform is necessary in many areas to make the system better. Judges are not pro-criminal, though; they're just versed in what works, or at least what does the least net harm. Locking someone in jail is not, in most cases, either necessary or constructive in their reform- at least not the way our jails are run. Turn them all into club Ed and maybe we'll have something.

Sigpig- very well said. Amateurs should not be left to pick the professionals.

 

[GAP]

Rather than elect judges, why not just limit them to renewable terms. If they are consistently screwing up, then they don't get their mandate renewed.

In any event, the quality can be maintained by the government, rather than the most slick ad campaign

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

  but if your goal is to reintegrate them into society (which the majority do successfully), .

Please, stop.......you're killin' me.  I would like to see those statistics, let me guess, John Howard/ Elizebeth Fry Freaks Societies.......no wait, an even better source...the National Parole Troughfest Board??

 

[a_majoor]

Rather than elect judges, why not just limit them to renewable terms. If they are consistently screwing up, then they don't get their mandate renewed.

In any event, the quality can be maintained by the government, rather than the most slick ad campaign

The problem there is how is the government getting elected in the first place? Directly electing judges may or may not produce a better result, but stacking the bench with judges who reflect the wishes of "the people" certainly can't be worse than stacking the benches with judges who reflect trhe wishes of the Liberal party (or now the Conservative party).

Bowing as always to the wisdom of the Classical Greeks who birthed our civilization, I would say simply establish term limits and stick with that. A constant stream of new blood and the inability to stick to the levers of power are probably the most effective means of preventing the rot from spreading.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Directly electing judges may or may not produce a better result, but stacking the bench with judges who reflect the wishes of "the people" certainly can't be worse than stacking the benches with judges who reflect trhe wishes of the Liberal party (or now the Conservative party).

Not even the party ... just the PMO!

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Please, stop.......you're killin' me.  I would like to see those statistics, let me guess, John Howard/ Elizebeth Fry Freaks Societies.......no wait, an even better source...the National Parole Troughfest Board??

Thank you  Bruce. I'll take the profound word from the coalface, before I believe some skewed statistics from special interest groups. Stats, like polls, can reflect whatever the originators wishes them to reflect.

For all those poor souls that we give short, ineffective sentences to. That, because we didn't effectively rehabilitate them ( our fault according to them and special interests), get out and re-offend, we need a 'three strikes, you're in' rule. Serve time twice, reoffend and get found guilty, you don't get out again.

 

[brihard]

http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/forum/e053/e053h_e.shtml

Here you go. A few of the raw numbers- out of offenders released on full parole, 72% of those subjected to the study were completely successful after at least seven years of observation. Of the remainder who were readmitted, roughly half were readmitted for technical violations, not for new offences.

I apologize for the age of these numbers, but it seems it's been some time since a comprehensive study of this sort has been done and made publicly accessible. I'm not sure why. Later I'll try to remember to hunt through some academic databases and see if there's anything more recent.

Nonetheless, these numbers support my claim that the majority of released offenders reintegrate into society successfully.

Moving on, what in your mind, constitutes an 'effective sentence'? If it's keeping the prisoner segregated for life from the rest of society, so be it- but prepare to fork over many more tax dollars. If it's getting them back into society, sentencing should be focused on subjecting the inmate to programming to help control behavioural patterns, giving them trade or skills training so they have OPTIONS when they exit prison, treating dependencies they may have, etc. Throwing a person in prison merely as punishment is inefficient if it offers no advantage in reducing their rate of reoffence.  A hefty fine or probation can both be effective in many cases to convince a person to get a grip on their behaviour.

People generally have a hard-on for throwing the book at prisoners. Make no mistake, I'm not trying to excuse or to lessen the harm of what criminals do, but one must view them as 'broken' members of society, and many of them can be fixed. There are effective systems for determining an offender's risk of reoffence, and these must be used and studied further so as to make the parole system as valid a predictor of an offenders level of risk as possible.

There will always be some habitual criminals who cannot be reformed. Other studies show that the earlier a person's first encounter with the criminal justice system, the more likely their rate of reoffence is, with numbers as high as 80% for those twelve years of age, and decreasing as the age of first offence increases. Clearly there are a lot of parenting and sociological issues at play in actually preventing a person from adapting a life of crime. But that's neither here nor there; properly conducted research shows that long sentences are NOT the way to fix most offenders; sentences must be commensurate with the crime committed.

As for this 'three strikes' crap? Garbage. How many kids get busted for several stupid things in their 20s, and by the time they're 30 have settled down with a girl, don't act retarded anymore, and have a family and a job to worry about? You're telling me a kid with a DUI and a couple short terms for public order offences should go to jail for life when all he needs to do is grow up a bit and get his shit together? I don't buy it.

You can dislike statistics and academic research all you want, and sources do need to be examined, but most of it is valid.

Rather that demanding more proof from my side, let's see some research you guys can provide that justifies more than the strictly necessary restriction or revocation and liberty for a person who commits an offence. Right in the criminal code it says that sentences should not be any more than is necessary to achieve the aims of sentencing- rehabilitation, denunciation, deterrence general and specific, and punishment. Ours is not a retributive system; it's designed to rehabilitate, and in the majority of cases is successful, even as flawed as it currently is.