|
|
|
|
|
| Victims of Violence remain victims while Crown Counsel remains
Posted: 6/30/2008 11:43:25 PM |
I have no intention of taking away someones right to freedom. I would never dream of it.
blue, I wasn't accusing, merely discussing both sides of the issue as I was stressing the point
The right to be considered innocent until proven guilty is one of the most valuable parts of the law protecting all, yet as in this case and many others also the greatest curse, certainly frustrating for all working in law enforcement. I would not really want to touch that part of our freedoms and rights. The dangers of abuse are far to great.
I said earlier it may be less harmful to incarcerate (in cases like this) prior to a conviction, but I would be very hesitant to advocate that.
Yes you are right to Blue, the possibilities of what may or may not have been are endless, most likely he would not have turned to the better.
^^^t50 my point wasn't quite clear , sorry, meant to say convicted by a lesser charge being the attempted assault (causing bodily harm) being a slap on the wrist versa a murder conviction which may have given 5 year at least...
A criminal in my opinion forfeits their rights or at least some, that's fair.
I wholeheartedly agree with that and they should not loose just some . I don't think that will be a deterrent but surely save us a lot of grief. | |
|
| Victims of Violence remain victims while Crown Counsel remains
Posted: 7/1/2008 12:23:46 AM | Some of you Believe that is is the crown councils job to protect society... It is not, Their job is to balance the probabilities of a CONVICTION against the evidence in Hand, And if necessary mitigate the costs against the crime and possible punishment.
No... Some of us believe that it's the entire judiciary's job to protect society. Well.. that and the military in times of war... But in these types of cases, it is the police who are on the front lines and it only makes sense that with the amount of tax dollars we pour into training our police departments and the fact that they are the people who are dealing with the "situations", we should be able to expect the Crown to respect their recommendations.
That "job" you speak of is two fold.. One is to evaluate the likelihood of getting a conviction and the other, is to evaluate whether or not the public interest requires a prosecution. It is only when they can answer "yes" to both questions that they can proceed. BUT... within those 2 determinants are many other responsibilities.
Taken directly from the Crown Counsel Policy Manual:
An unendorsed warrant should be sought whenever it is necessary to protect the victim by seeking a detention order or conditions of release, such as those listed below.
Where the accused presents a danger to the victim or a witness, Crown Counsel should consider seeking a detention order and a “no contact” order pursuant to s. 515(12) of the Criminal Code requiring the accused to abstain from communicating, directly or indirectly, with the victim. Relevant risk factors are set out below.
Where an accused has been arrested and then released by the police on a promise to appear or recognizance with conditions, Crown Counsel should review the conditions to ensure that they are adequate to protect the victim and are enforceable, and then, if necessary, request a warrant and an amendment of the conditions under sections 499(4), 503(2.3) or 512 of the Criminal Code.
As you can see, their jobs are far more than just sitting back to say, "hmmm, I wonder if I can get a conviction on this one... Once again, you oversimplify...
Have you ever sat in on a bail hearing? I have... The Crown stands and recites why someone should be held without bail... Then defence gets up and says, "But your Honour, Mr. X has good ties to the community. He's a business owner... a family man and many employees count on him for their own livelihoods." These are not the wrong questions and answers but where someone is facing charges that consist of words like "aggravated assault", not just by his wife but by other individuals who have no connection to the divorce (such as the guy he forced to smash his own toe with a rock or the employee who charged him for slashing her wrist), I'm thinking that THIS type of history might engender a few more questions than just about whether or not the man has money.
Contrary to some beliefs it is not ILLEGAL to be insane, Sad but true our judicial system is based on Guilty until proven innocent. In Canada we do not hold people without charge for something they might do even if they are nuts, And unless you want to adopt a Chinese system or Napoleonic system where you are incarcerated until you can prove your innocence (Like that cook who spent 4 YEARS in a Mexican PRISON because she accepted pay checks from a criminal!)
My Gawd... I can't believe your logic! No, it's not illegal to be insane but it is illegal to run around assaulting people.
By the time a person gets to the point that they are being detained, they have drawn the attention of the police and when they are arrested, the police believe that they have sufficient reasons to lay an information. That means that the police have already conducted an investigation and there may be further investigation to follow but the point is that they are trained investigators. Why do you insist on overlooking this very important aspect of the process?
You keep bringing up the "innocent until proven guilty" argument but with a bit of research on my part, I think I could easily show where the Charter is one of the most hotly contested doctrines that ever came down the pike. I could also show you where people who have done far less than this "respectable businessman" was being charged with, were being held without bail. There's a BIG difference between being "innocent" and "not guilty"....
That brings to mind the question, just how much of a cash cow is the bail system for our government coffers??? Could it be that the civil libertarians who want to ensure we maintain our rights are simply being held in front of the money gods once again?
Celtic lass you are so WRONG, it is thinking like yours that makes the abomonation at Guantanamo bay seem OK.
I am growing more and more tired of reading your flaming of the posters on this thread. If you continue to do so, I will point the moderators of this site to the open flaming you are doing and I am sure that you will be delighted to argue for your right to free speech with them. Kindly stop it! And if you're going to be abusive, at least, learn how to spell!!
| |
|
| Victims of Violence remain victims while Crown Counsel remains
Posted: 7/1/2008 12:48:17 AM |
However even if Mr Lee was convicted of the lesser offense and released after a few month he may still have committed the same crime. There are no guarantees it would not have happened. The hypothesizing of such cases are futile. Even the law cannot change what a person may do, it can only punish and prevent on a temporary bases. That part of human nature and behavior is not changeable, by law or otherwise.
Who is to say he would have been convicted of the lesser charge though? Crown would not have charged him without "substantial likelihood of conviction" so if they believed they could get a conviction, why did they not find him dangerous enough to detain? This was a man facing a number of charges from a number of individuals. He was breaching the conditions of his bail. The only hypothesizing being done here is to speculate that Crown would have decided just before trial that they didn't have a substantial likelihood of conviction after all and would have plea bargained him down. The manual doesn't say that they are to proceed with charges after they've answered "yes" to both of the questions concerning the likelihood of conviction and whether or not the public requires a conviction and then, change their minds later on... The evidence may be weakened by further investigations but I don't think that's generally the case.
As I stated above the crowns position has its hands tied making the decision. I doubt it was laziness or not caring (irresponsible act, lack of accountability) as alleged in some posts before, though I'm guessing here.
I'm sorry but I fail to see how the Crown's hands were tied??? They are, according to Justice Melnick's ruling, a completely independent body given the absolute right to make decisions in the public's best interests.
I don't think it was laziness or not caring either. I think there are policies in our Crown Counsel offices that are affected by community standards, male-dominated offices, traditional thinking and revenue-based decision making. The lack of accountability I was referring to was their using their "total authority" to refuse to explain to the public that pays their salaries, exactly what it was that affected this decision - not that of the individual lawyers who signed their names to the releases.
Even if you want to stand on the presumption of innocence and the provisions of the Bail Act that keep as their goal, the least interference with the life of an accused until they have been dealt with at trial, there are other methods other than incarceration that could also be considered. What about an alert bracelet such as the ones worn by people who are on house arrest where someone is facing charges for harming others? What about having expedited trials where someone is free on these kinds of charges instead of these cases being allowed to drift in a sea of paperwork and process before they get to trial? What about monitored bail conditions? There are a number of options that would be less invasive than detention but would serve to keep the offender aware of the fact that he (or she) is now under scrutiny. Why not, at least, try them?
I know... I know... we don't want our tax dollars going anywhere but into big business and the pockets of the rich... | |
|
| Victims of Violence remain victims while Crown Counsel remains
Posted: 7/1/2008 1:21:58 AM | You keep bringing up the "innocent until proven guilty" argument but with a bit of research on my part....
Silken, you have me a bit at a disadvantage here, I was under the impression it is common knowledge that the law is certainly not perfect but some of the fundamentals of it are being upheld. It is more the lack of code of ethics of defense council whose only goal is to win that perverts justice.
I am slightly more confused with your opening post and we are debating Crown Counsel not your feelings for the victim which I can understand and sympathize with.
And now, with Justice Melnick's decision, Crown Counsel lawyers remain shrouded by the protection of their offices ....
Your topic suggest that you are of the opinion that Crown Counsel in this case committed an offense under the governing laws and is being protected by the decision of Justice Melnick.
Can you elaborate on your allegations, what evidence is there against the conduct of Crown Counsel, where you a witness in the decision process, do you or any person you know have hard evidence of negligence or incompetence?
If so, this forum would hardly be the place to present the matter, but since you did I am curious.
Edit:
knock it off Al, this sis not divorce court and the commentary is off topic,. Nothing wrong with opinions even if obnoxious, but no need for child play.
Thanks!!! | |
|
| Victims of Violence remain victims while Crown Counsel remains
Posted: 7/1/2008 1:41:09 AM | | Big Al...you are so blatantly disrespectful and small minded. Sonny Park's parents were there for her and her child in that tragic situation. I hope that the moderator stops you from your senseless ranting. I am also finding you very offensive. | |
|
| Victims of Violence remain victims while Crown Counsel remains
Posted: 7/1/2008 1:53:31 AM |
Silken, you have me a bit at a disadvantage here, I was under the impression it is common knowledge that the law is certainly not perfect but some of the fundamentals of it are being upheld. It is more the lack of code of ethics of defense council whose only goal is to win that perverts justice.
My point is to accept that the law is not perfect... but is that where we stop and say, "Oh well..."?? The fundamentals and the extranneous details are always under scrutiny not just by the citizenry but also by the courts. A large percentage of criminal cases use the Charter in one way or another so it isn't, in my view, something that simply runs beneath the decisions without changing...
It is more the lack of code of ethics of defense council whose only goal is to win that perverts justice.
Crown counsel's mandate is not to "win cases" but to serve the administration of justice honourably and with integrity. Defence counsel are also "officers of the court" and are also bound not to deceive the court. Where defence counsel has been found to be deceptive or unethical, he faces the prospect of having to deal with the Law Society. He or she has consequences for behaving in a corrupt or unethical fashion. The difference between those who stand on opposite sides of the court room is that one is designated to serve the interests of the public at large while the other is designated to serve individuals on a case by case basis.
I think that defence counsel take it in the throat by the very same people who advocate the Charter being placed above all that a reasonable person would expect in law. Their job is to see to it that the Charter rights (that some are so adamant about here) are being looked after so where in this miasma, do you find it reasonable to conclude that defence counsel are "perverting justice"? I truly don't understand your line of reasoning.
Your topic suggest that you are of the opinion that Crown Counsel in this case committed an offense under the governing laws and is being protected by the decision of Justice Melnick.
No... I am not suggesting that Crown Counsel committed an offence. What I am suggesting is that it is offensive for them to withhold information that could allow the public they serve to understand the policies that may very well have serious repercussions in their own lives or in the lives of someone they care about.
On the same date that Justice Melnick decided that Crown was impervious to having to testify in the Lee inquest, he ruled that immunity didn't apply in the Paul inquiry because the Attorney General's office had essentially opened the door and broken their own seal of immunity.
It simply doesn't add up for me that any government body can be so immune from explanations. Immune from sanctions or repercussions? Absolutely.. I think that's a must... but from explanations.. no...
Can you elaborate on your allegations, what evidence is there against the conduct of Crown Counsel, where you a witness in the decision process, do you or any person you know have hard evidence of negligence or incompetence?
If so, this forum would hardly be the place to present the matter, but since you did I am curious.
I feel safe to assume that you and I both know that you can't prove a negative. But if you want evidence that someone should have been detained and wasn't, I do believe the deaths of these innocent people should be pretty leading... | |
|
| Victims of Violence remain victims while Crown Counsel remains
Posted: 7/1/2008 9:19:00 AM | blue, I wasn't accusing, merely discussing both sides of the issue as I was stressing the point
I didnt take it as an accusation M.L.1 I understood what you were saying.
That's assuming he's convicted on a lesser charge, There should'nt be a reason he should be unless our courts / laws / judges are weak.
In to many cases the the Crown uses plea bargaining were there is no need. These people show no remorse or willingness to be rehabilitated. What ever happened to the saying " You do the crime, You do the time.
We can argue for ever that *we* could be safer if we *detained*( Restricted access to freedom without trial or conviction) people , but who would decide or how would they decide? But as I mentioned earlier this is not what we want as a *free* society.
Our laws are in place for a reason. There are already provisions in place that allows the authorities to detain a potential violent person if it is shown that said person has a probability to re offend.
I don't think that we need new laws. But the laws need to be enforced. The Crown and justice system needs to take a long, hard look at the plea bargains they agree to and the sentences they hand out.
On another note.
The exact abuse of process that we have been pointing out against your Type. Heaven forbid someone objects with you or your supporters, Go ahead point out my indiscretion of saying what I mean, and meaning what I say (contrary to your wrongheadedness!)
I wouldn't think of reporting you Al.
Your posts clearly show what kind of character possess. And it is very telling of the type of person you are.
You have been insulting and rude to the people that have posted here.
You talk about "abuse of process". What exactly do you think you have been doing with some of your comments to the other posters.
What kind message do you think you are sending to others when you have to resort to insults when people don't agree with you.
And if I were you I would be careful or you may finding yourself loosing the FREEDOM to post here.
If I can't take care of myself,
How can I take care of you?
I have no desire for your help.
Judging form your posts think you would ether overreact or run.
No insult just an observation. | |
|
| Victims of Violence remain victims while Crown Counsel remains
Posted: 7/1/2008 9:50:36 AM | It seems I'm jumping into the fire here in an argument that is already neck deep is mung, but I wouldn't have it any other way.
I've been involved indirectly (meaning I'm not involved in the case) in a number of domestic violence cases among family or friends over the years and as such feel the justice system does not and can not do enough to protect the victim. Someone asked how frequently these types of situations, be it protection or prevention orders, or ignored by the culprit and from my experience it is A LOT. How many of them end up in deaths? Oh so few. That's not really the point. Until you've had someone stalk you who threatened your life and beat you to within an inch of your life only so that they could revive you and he'd get to do it all over again you really can't speak to the fear that someone on the receiving end experiences. I'd love to see a law in place that would hold people until trial. HOWEVER, and this is a big however, I'm against it, and I'll tell you why.
If you lock up every person who's awaiting trial we'd be filling arenas or nearly every major hotel in the cities with criminals as the prison system is already overcrowded. You get DUI these days and end up with 14 days in jail you spend no more than 3 days in the clink, if you are unlucky enough to spend any time there at all. There's just no room and the more we lock people up the more money that has to be pulled from federal coffers for this, which means the more taxes we pay. I don't know about you but I already pay far too much in taxes here in Canada. Not only this, but locking up people who are guilty indefinitely before they've been indicted kind of drives the knife into their side, which in effect makes them want to drive the knife in the victim's side even more. This is where you see courtroom attacks happening all over the continent these days and bailiffs and prison guards getting shivved at alarming rates.
The bigger issue with this dilemma is that if you start locking people up while they await a trial by their peers you set a precedence. First it's locking up people who've allegedly committed crimes, and then comes locking up people who you think are threats to society, the way the U.S. government already does with suspected terrorists. Soon enough your neighbour is worried that the quiet 16-year-old down the street is a school shooter candidate, makes a few calls, and the kid's incarcerated in a mental institution for the next five years while they try and find a problem with him. It is a dangerous precedent to set and unfortunately I'm not sure it's worth the collateral damage that it'd create. | |
|
| Victims of Violence remain victims while Crown Counsel remains
Posted: 7/1/2008 12:03:03 PM | What my argument was is that people need to be detained long enough for a thorough risk assessment to be completed by an independent assessor, separate from the court and given directly to the judge way ahead of a trial, more likely at a bail hearing. This person, or team of people, could gather info about the level of risk that the individual poses to the intended victim of their threats and their family, or to the public. The people who make this assessment of risk would need to be professionals such as psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, or others who pull all of the info together, including the persepectives of the intended victim and their family members and the perpetrator, to present to the judge independently from either the Crown counsel or defense counsel. It shouldn't be about proving guilt or innocence at that time...but about assessing the potential risk to the intended victim, their family and the public.
Deuce Light: When someone is concerned about a youth or other person who may be a threat, if that is reported to the police and there are grounds for an assessment based on what is being reported, then that should also be done. We can't be looking the other way because there aren't the resources to look at whether a person may pose a risk. If the youth or other person is not determined to be someone who is potentially dangerous, but is in need of some kind of help, then that could also be determined by the assessment and resources offered for them.
Maybe if someone intervenes early enough a potential "shooter" can be prevented from becoming a murderer. I think that when something happens, as a society we are very reactive when we could be doing a lot more prevention. A lot of informal prevention too, can also be done long before the professionals are involved. This is as simple as volunteering for things like being a cub or scout leader so that the 16 year old potential shooter has some healthy role modeling, guidance and recreation earlier in life and doesn't get to the point where he/she reaches the point that they lash out violently at others. For everyone who does volunteer in these activities, you can never underestimate the influence that you have on kids who have less than an ideal home life. | |
|
| Victims of Violence remain victims while Crown Counsel remains
Posted: 7/1/2008 12:12:05 PM |
My point is to accept that the law is not perfect..
Crown counsel's mandate is not to "win cases" but to serve the administration of justice honourably and with integrity.
Silken^^^your (that) point is well understood, I think.
Do understand the basics of administration of justice, sorry my thoughts took you out on left field when I mentioned the “defence council whose only goal is to win that perverts justice”. That reference was only to raise the thought of defence attorneys bringing in whatever unbelievable, unrelated evidence exploiting parts of the law in order to win – justice carried too far?
No... I am not suggesting…. To…
I feel safe to assume that you and I both know that you can't prove a negative.
Setting emotions aside, what I was trying to say is precisely what you pointed out now by saying you “feel safe to assume” .
Whatever the truth may be, apparently we do not know it for a fact.The “conspiracy theory is only suspicion. As much as I may like to agree in the possibility of cover-up and protective immunities, it wouldn’t be a matter unheard of, we also must place faith into the legal system we have. That does not imply not to bring to light incidents of wrong doing or attempting to improve matters. When we do, we must be bound by and use the very system we put under scrutiny to prove the point. Therein lays a challenge.
I can certainly appreciate your emotional engagement to seek justice as YOU see it should be. There are may incidents I’m aware of where I would feel the very same. The emphasis here is FEEL and BELIEVE. In that sense I can also appreciate Al’s comments to protect by “S&M law”
Having experienced both our system and military law elsewhere I can assure you however appealing the short process of the latter is, my preference is our somewhat “toothless” system. That being said, I also believe in anyone breaking the law and convicted should loose most of the civil rights that we as a society have and should be incarcerated befitting the rime and committed by paying back to society…but that is another matter entirely.
While I would also prefer the ‘it may be better to ‘lock up’ an alleged dangerous offender’ (when warranted) in order to protect the innocent, it is as Deuce ^^^points out setting a dangerous precedent.
Celtic I sympathize with your thoughts re youth-readjustments, but adults are rarely changed , they are either good or not, or have acted under “special’ influences/circumstances”. Assessments are great, but all that does take a lot of time and resources and more often than not the preventive measures may come too late.
| |
|
| Victims of Violence remain victims while Crown Counsel remains
Posted: 7/1/2008 1:31:46 PM |
If you lock up every person who's awaiting trial we'd be filling arenas or nearly every major hotel in the cities with criminals as the prison system is already overcrowded.
Hi Deuce... Thank you for taking the time to contribute to our "mung"... 
I am not suggesting that we lock up every person who's awaiting trial. Let the b & e guys roam, the pot-smokers be, the theft under & over guys hang loose, the drunks, even the drug sellers... that alone would probably keep about 80% of what the criminal courts deal with from bogging down the system before their trials.
I suggested a few alternatives to detention earlier... Innocuous bracelets that can be covered by long pants but allows the wearer who's facing assault, harassment or stalking charges know that the laws of this country DO in fact apply to him (or her, as the case may be.)
There's just no room and the more we lock people up the more money that has to be pulled from federal coffers for this, which means the more taxes we pay. I don't know about you but I already pay far too much in taxes here in Canada.
I also feel way over-taxed so I know what you mean but hey, if they can come up with a tax to save the environment, aren't women & children a worthy investment of our tax dollars as well?
Not only this, but locking up people who are guilty indefinitely before they've been indicted kind of drives the knife into their side, which in effect makes them want to drive the knife in the victim's side even more.
It doesn't matter what you do to someone who is powerdrunk and firmly convinced that his wife and children are chattels for him to treat as he sees fit (or in some cases, someone who is nutty enough to believe he should have dibs on someone who may not even be in a relationship with him). You're not going to change someone like that so the only thing society can do is take every possible step to try to protect the victim from the attacker's dementia. In these cases, the only device is to find a way to keep them at a distance and the question becomes what mechanism would be more effective than a few verbal warnings.
This is where you see courtroom attacks happening all over the continent these days and bailiffs and prison guards getting shivved at alarming rates.
Yes... such is the mindset of someone who has "no more to lose"... But at least the bailiffs have guns and the guards have big clubs and both have self-defence training... If it distresses us to see the judiciary attacked, why would we not be equally distressed to see women & children attacked?
Soon enough your neighbour is worried that the quiet 16-year-old down the street is a school shooter candidate, makes a few calls, and the kid's incarcerated in a mental institution for the next five years while they try and find a problem with him. It is a dangerous precedent to set and unfortunately I'm not sure it's worth the collateral damage that it'd create.
I don't think that in any case where assaults, harassment and stalking have brought the offender into the court system, it can even be reasonably compared to vengeful accusations. This is a mighty big stretch... And it also says underneath that we don't have a great deal of faith in our police or their ability to distinguish where a crime has been committed and one hasn't.
Again, we're not talking about drunken partiers who use previous episodes of rough sex to slam each other and keep the drama flowing. There will always be those who use the system to maliciously prosecute someone (yet another tool in an abuser's arsenal).
But what about the alternatives I've suggested? Are they worthy of consideration? And perhaps a few of our tax dollars flowing into our mothers, sisters, nieces, aunts, friends and colleagues? | |
|
| Victims of Violence remain victims while Crown Counsel remains
Posted: 7/1/2008 1:53:44 PM |
Setting emotions aside, what I was trying to say is precisely what you pointed out now by saying you “feel safe to assume” .
I find it somewhat galling to find those who think that someone "caring" or "having emotion" about an issue is incapable of logical reasoning and the ability to canvass or brainstorm possible alternatives. I am not sure why anyone should have to appear to be "detached" from an issue in order to discuss it.
I felt "safe to assume" ML because your posts are indicative of intelligence and I meant no insult to mention that we know we can't prove negatives. THAT was my point.
Whatever the truth may be, apparently we do not know it for a fact.The “conspiracy theory is only suspicion. As much as I may like to agree in the possibility of cover-up and protective immunities, it wouldn’t be a matter unheard of, we also must place faith into the legal system we have.
My discussion of this issue does not contain a "conspiracy theory"... anywhere. If you're alleging that I am implying that I think that Mr. Lee and Crown Counsel were somehow in collusion, you are so wrong, you're almost back into "right"... Such a statement from you ML is really quite mind-blowing. I am not asking anyone to "agree in the possibility of cover-up and protective immunities" because that is NOT what I am saying. I am saying that the taxpayers of this country have a right to know what went wrong. Simply that... And if you believe, "we also must place faith into the legal system we have", I will ask you why any of us, as taxpayers, should place faith in a system that can't withstand public scrutiny? Blind faith is for children and spiritual matters... not for the grown-ups who are hoping to create a better world or a safer world.
I can certainly appreciate your emotional engagement to seek justice as YOU see it should be. There are may incidents I’m aware of where I would feel the very same. The emphasis here is FEEL and BELIEVE. In that sense I can also appreciate Al’s comments to protect by “S&M law”
My "emotional engagement to seek justice"? As Edmund Burke once said, "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing." Do we, as a society, have to actually BE the victim before we give a damn? I don't think so...
In re-reading my own posts here, I see my own questioning, posing alternatives and doing whatever research I feel is necessary to feed the process of logic and precaution in an area that is admittedly saddening to me. I am a mother and a grandmother... I care about the world my children and grandchildren get to live in. I make no apologies for that and I DO NOT accept the statement that I am only willing to consider "justice as I think it should be"... I am not NEARLY as closed-minded as I see those who think we should just sit down, shut up and say nothing when there ARE alternatives that are worthy of our financial investments.
GRRR...  | |
|
| Victims of Violence remain victims while Crown Counsel remains
Posted: 7/1/2008 6:14:09 PM |
I find it somewhat galling to find those who think that someone "caring" or "having emotion" about an issue is incapable of logical reasoning….
Silken, I gather you are more involved in this matter than I am and even if you hold this against me now (though no prejudice intended here) you debate with emotion. My comments were and are not judgmental of you, merely pointing at what I interpret flaws in your arguments. The mention of your obvious engagement in this matter is not derogative at all (it was intended as a positive), just normal observation as I’m too subjected to my own biases whatever their origins and my understanding of the meaning of your words. I just don’t take offense nor do I assume intelligence or the lack thereof on your part. So let’s just play nice, if you please.
I think we both are on the same side trying to seek truth in this matter. Though as I stated earlier, I am debating this without any prior information pertaining to this matter whatsoever. And please, it does not matter what you, I or others have done in the past. What matters here and with regard to the topic is very simple.
Was there or was there not conduct of impropriety?
My inquiry was quite to the point, I through, but allow me to rephrase.
What hard evidence do you have or do you know exists to prove improprieties on part of Crown Councel?
I re-quote msg 67
Can you elaborate on your allegations, what evidence is there against the conduct of Crown Counsel, where you a witness in the decision process, do you or any person you know have hard evidence of negligence or incompetence?
If so, this forum would hardly be the place to present the matter, but since you did I am curious.
In the event you do have such information I do understand this is not the place to publicize it, so a concise yes will suffice.
You were asking
I will ask you why any of us, as taxpayers, should place faith in a system that can't withstand public scrutiny?
Certainly not. However, we also need to be prudent and not let out own frustrations with the system allow for unsubstantiated allegations. (not accusing you, speaking general).
So I hope the has abated and my  is understood in the spirit of a discussion. | |
|
| Victims of Violence remain victims while Crown Counsel remains
Posted: 7/1/2008 10:06:40 PM | Silken, I gather you are more involved in this matter than I am and even if you hold this against me now (though no prejudice intended here) you debate with emotion.
Okay ML... I debate with emotion. It may be that I tend to be quite expressive but fear not.. My head is right here on top of my heart and both are being used about equally... I also debate with facts and I research my topics.
My comments were and are not judgmental of you, merely pointing at what I interpret flaws in your arguments.
With all due respect M.L., I don't think you are pointing out "flaws in my argument" because numerous times, I have had to correct what you think my "argument" is...
Your argument, as I see it (feel free to correct me if I am wrong) is that Crown Counsel's "hands are tied" (< direct quote), that to find ways to detain those facing charges of this nature who have not yet been found guilty is to put our Charter rights at risk and that the behavior of such an offender is so unpredictable that we are better off to keep the faith in the system than to take steps to deter the possibility of someone being seriously hurt or murdered.
My argument on the other hand, is not to accuse Crown Counsel of impropriety but to insist that they have an obligation as public servants, to assist the public in understanding why they did not hold Mr. Lee without bail, expedite his trial or immediately arrest him and hold him when he breached his bail conditions. I am NOT accusing Crown Counsel of "committing an offence under the law" for heaven's sakes.
Your answer to my question "I will ask you why any of us, as taxpayers, should place faith in a system that can't withstand public scrutiny?" of "certainly not" but qualifying it by once again advocating our own "prudence and control of our frustrations" does not touch the core of my question. If your answer is that we should place faith in a system that we should have faith in a system that can't withstand public scrutiny, then tell me why. If your answer is no, we shouldn't, then you are essentially agreeing with my point of view.
I have not made "unsubstantiated allegations" nor have I said that having to operate with blind faith is satisfactory. That my friend... is my position in this regard. | |
|
| Victims of Violence remain victims while Crown Counsel remains
Posted: 7/1/2008 11:23:02 PM |
I have not made "unsubstantiated allegations”
Well that’s not exactly true now is it?
just how much of a cash cow is the bail system for our government coffers
How exactly does the government make any money off the bail system?
A large percentage of criminal cases use the Charter in one way or another
The charter can only be invoked at trial. Wouldn’t you think that most criminal cases plead out and don’t go to trial?
Both seem unsubstantiated and alleged. These are these two and there are other incidents where you’ve misquoted posters to make your point. You’re not exactly posting with clean hands here.
For me I think the debate boils down to what risks as a society do we want to assume. I think a point we all can agree on is that we all enjoy the freedoms that are associated with being Canadian. The difference is that I am not willing to see the erosion of these freedoms unless there is a clear and just cause to do so. Benjamin Franklin is to have said “The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. “
Also let’s not lose sight of the fact that great strides have been taken in respect to recognizing and prosecuting domestic violence cases; right from the police to the judges. All that done under a system that is being criticized right now. The question here is not “the system”. I’m sure that you can ask any crown counsel about the process that they use to determine whether an individual is a threat or not. What I’m guessing crown counsel is objecting to here is the getting into an individual crown counsel’s head and determining what they were thinking in this specific case. To think that no repercussion could flow from that is naïve. | |
|
| Victims of Violence remain victims while Crown Counsel remains
Posted: 7/1/2008 11:42:04 PM |
I'd love to hear some commentary and particularly, from those who wonder "why she doesn't JUST leave"...
Silken
You got a debate of different peoples commentaries, agree or not it raises thought and awareness.
Your argument, as I see it (feel free to correct me if I am wrong) is that Crown Counsel's "hands are tied" (< direct quote), that to find ways to detain those facing charges of this nature who have not yet been found guilty is to put our Charter rights at risk and that the behavior of such an offender is so unpredictable that we are better off to keep the faith in the system than to take steps to deter the possibility of someone being seriously hurt or murdered.
you misinterpreted. I did not say that. I suggested words to the effect, according to my private thoughts it is better to incarcerate than not. However, if or when we do we must be aware that we are on a slippery slope of out fundamental rights. Alas, that leaves trusting our current system.
I re-read your previous posts to see where I may have misread “flaws” and what I see is ‘not to accuse and allegations. Obviously I’m somewhat confused.
My argument on the other hand, is not to accuse Crown Counsel of impropriety but to insist that they have an obligation as public servants, to assist the public in understanding why they did not hold Mr. Lee without bail, expedite his trial or immediately arrest him and hold him when he breached his bail conditions. I am NOT accusing Crown Counsel of "committing an offence under the law" for heaven's sakes
Then what are you saying?
No... I am not suggesting that Crown Counsel committed an offence. What I am suggesting is that it is offensive for them to withhold information that could allow the public they serve to understand the policies that may very well have serious repercussions in their own lives or in the lives of someone they care about.
Many of these cases that are presented to the Crown Counsel's offices by the police are given very little shrift and in the Peter Lee case, the Crown Counsel who made the decision to let Peter Lee roam about, were said to have been "carrying large caseloads".
msg 19
So.. I think it involves revenues and community attitudes more than the humanitarianism that gives offenders the right to be free... And of course, lack of accountability...
Msg 21 What Pandora's Box would it have opened about the policies of our Crown Counsel's office for them to testify? THAT is what is so suspect about their not even having to give testimony.
And
As far as I am concerned, anyone who fails to appreciate the horror and gravity of this situation isn't playing with a full deck anyway...
Msg 45 But again, what does any of the above have to do with Crown Counsel not having to simply explain their processes and the decisions that were made? What purpose can be served by skirting the issue in this way? (Pun fully intended...)
Msg 62 As you can see, their jobs are far more than just sitting back to say, "hmmm, I wonder if I can get a conviction on this one... Once again, you oversimplify.
Msg 63
'm sorry but I fail to see how the Crown's hands were tied??? They are, according to Justice Melnick's ruling, a completely independent body given the absolute right to make decisions in the public's best interests.
I don't think it was laziness or not caring either. I think there are policies in our Crown Counsel offices that are affected by community standards, male-dominated offices, traditional thinking and revenue-based decision making. The lack of accountability I was referring to was their using their "total authority" to refuse to explain to the public that pays their salaries, exactly what it was that affected this decision - not that of the individual lawyers who signed their names to the releases.
Msg77
My argument on the other hand, is not to accuse Crown Counsel of impropriety but to insist that they have an obligation as public servants,
IDo I get this right, you are requesting the records be made be public to give evidence either way to prove or not that what you expressed as feelings is right or wrong.
I am NOT accusing Crown Counsel of "committing an offence under the law" for heaven's sakes.
Well if you are not then what were you saying all along?
Your answer to my question "I will ask you why any of us, as taxpayers, should place faith in a system that can't withstand public scrutiny?" of "certainly not" but qualifying it by once again advocating our own "prudence and control of our frustrations" does not touch the core of my question. If your answer is that we should place faith in a system that we should have faith in a system that can't withstand public scrutiny, then tell me why. If your answer is no, we shouldn't, then you are essentially agreeing with my point of view.
I stated clearly in my previous post that our system must be able to withstand public scrutiny. So we are essentially agreeing on that point. My only concern with that point speaking from personal experience is that such scrutiny may open doors we may not wish open. So yes I do place faith in the laws we have, no I don’t fully trust the implementations or enforcements.
Thank you Silken, for raising the topic and the stimulus. Honestly, I think to further debate we both will end up splitting frustrating hair. Suffice we agree more or less and I can respect the differences we may have.
| |
|
| Victims of Violence remain victims while Crown Counsel remains
Posted: 7/1/2008 11:52:22 PM |
What I’m guessing crown counsel is objecting to here is the getting into an individual crown counsel’s head and determining what they were thinking in this specific case.
Man pretty
I agree, in order to convict crown counsel one needs to prove the "mis-calling" and be prepared to prove the state of mind, meaning intentions. Think I mentioned that before somewhere. | |
|
| Victims of Violence remain victims while Crown Counsel remains
Posted: 7/2/2008 12:34:30 AM | I worked directly with offenders of the law and sat in court 3 days a week from 1991 to 2003. I can tell you (with experience) that what you think SHOULD be happening and what you read WAS happening and what you THINK the charter says is not what is happening in court rooms.
Judges and crown counsel are not accountable for their decisions, as long as that stays the same we need to have strict manditory minimum sentinces for all violent crimes. The only one that can do that is the Gov't in power,
Ask any one who is a victim of violent crime if they think our justice system is in fact justice and you will find their answer to be interesting.
I totally agree with the original author of this subject. | |
|
| Victims of Violence remain victims while Crown Counsel remains
Posted: 7/2/2008 1:03:25 AM | Well that’s not exactly true now is it?
Well... yah it is exactly true. Asking questions and considering possibilities does not equal making "unsubstantiated allegations" any more than investigating a crime equals an arrest.
How exactly does the government make any money off the bail system?
That, I believe, is my question. Where does the money go when someone on bail skips and forfeits the bail monies? Does the bail bondsman end up paying the money into the coffers?
The charter can only be invoked at trial.
Sorry.. I forgot to add "at trial" but since the Arraignment Report is filed at the First Appearance and refers to any Charter issues... they aren't just brought up at trial but in the first stages of the judicial process, possibly long before the actual trial.
Wouldn’t you think that most criminal cases plead out and don’t go to trial
How would I or anybody know? Nobody wants to answer any questions. (Where's a shrug emoticon when you need one on this thing?)
oth seem unsubstantiated and alleged.
Huh???? What is "unsubstantiated and alleged"? If YOU don't know the answer to these questions and are asking me, then you're doing some unsubstantiated alleging as well.. Can we try to make sense here now?
These are these two and there are other incidents where you’ve misquoted posters to make your point. You’re not exactly posting with clean hands here.
Oh spare me PrettyMan... We're not in court here and you're not the damn judge... I already "stood corrected" for getting one or two words different from yours but if I've misquoted or fought to understand something that doesn't make sense.. oh well... sue me! I wasn't aware that the "clean hands doctrine" applied to posting on a POF forum.
Puh-leese!!!
For me I think the debate boils down to what risks as a society do we want to assume. I think a point we all can agree on is that we all enjoy the freedoms that are associated with being Canadian. The difference is that I am not willing to see the erosion of these freedoms unless there is a clear and just cause to do so. Benjamin Franklin is to have said “The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."
Ben Franklin wasn't being stalked, harassed or assaulted. He also lived in a time where by the time anyone loaded the muskets, a man could be deep in the forest. As one of the founding fathers and a great proponent of independence, I think he would also consider that true independence comes only with the right to seek answers for questions that relate to public security. He certainly didn't pretend that he had no right to question or seek answers and I'm not going to either.
There doesn't NEED to be an erosion of our basic freedoms. At least twice now, I've suggested alternate methods that would lessen the need to detain an accused. For the third time, what about expediting the trials (fast-tracking them) for those accused of domestic violence. Lee breached his bail conditions (that we know of) on July 31st. His bail review hearing wasn't until September 7. There are several possible variations to this idea but it's a start. What about using the same monitoring program for someone who has breached his bail conditions or is facing a number of charges that are of a personal injury nature with an innocuous bracelet around the ankle? As CelticLass mentioned, why not have on-staff psychiatrists who can do preliminary assessments to advise Crown Counsel when there is a question about accepting the arresting officer's recommendations that the accused be held without bail? What about automatic detention the minute someone breaches their bail.. not 5 weeks later after a bail review...?
If you want to get stuck on a person's Charter rights, it doesn't have to completely eliminate alternative options, does it?
Also let’s not lose sight of the fact that great strides have been taken in respect to recognizing and prosecuting domestic violence cases; right from the police to the judges. All that done under a system that is being criticized right now. The question here is not “the system”. I’m sure that you can ask any crown counsel about the process that they use to determine whether an individual is a threat or not. What I’m guessing crown counsel is objecting to here is the getting into an individual crown counsel’s head and determining what they were thinking in this specific case. To think that no repercussion could flow from that is naïve.
Kindly stop inferring that I am naive. I guess if I am naive, then so is the whole coroner's jury who also wanted to be able to question the Crown and found out they weren't allowed to. The system is being questioned.... not nearly so much criticized as you appear to want to suggest but yes, questioned and for good reason. For someone who advocates the Charter as being the hallmark of our democracy, you sure don't have a great deal of respect for freedom of speech. | |
|
| Victims of Violence remain victims while Crown Counsel remains
Posted: 7/2/2008 1:26:29 AM | M.L. I could spend another half hour going back over what I've already said and the responses I've given to you and the other posters on this thread but I do not write in gobbledy-gook and I both trust and rely on my own writing skills as an effective method of communication. I've worked hard within this thread to clarify anything I might have said but you continue to state that I am accusing Crown of breaking the law. Which law any of the references you've highlighted as the things I've said across this thread allude to being broken, I haven't a foggy notion because it is your own insistence that I am saying Crown is breaking the law when that is NOT what I am saying. I don't think I could explain it to you any better than I already have.
I do note, however, that in your choice of highlighted phrases, you have not directly responded to anything I've said. I've quoted directly from Crown Counsel's Procedural Handbook. I've discussed possible stressors in the Crown Counsels' offices across this province. I've brought up alternatives to detention. I've stressed my own right to free speech and what you've responded with has left me with your thinly-veiled suggestion that we should continue to be silent so as not to disturb any sleeping rattlesnakes or potentially open the Pandora's Box you are implying is what lies behind Door #3.
I cannot and will not agree that we have progressed much past the point where women were named persons under the Persons Act if to this day, we are going to have to live in fear that revenue-based decisions, short-staffing or people's right to live in apathy, may cost us our lives.
If that sounds emotional to you... well... it is... | |
|
| Victims of Violence remain victims while Crown Counsel remains
Posted: 7/2/2008 1:35:39 AM | The system is broken and when it comes down to it dangerous offenders prone to reoffending are often let free for reasons that seem completely against common sense. There's both men and women that fit this bill, Kelly Ellard managing to get out on parole only to assault some old lady in a park baffles my mind every bit as much as this case.
The fact is yes I'd like to see some accountability, but we're in a society that thinks infringement on freedoms real or imagined is a worse crime than murder or rape.
It's a system that prosecutes on what has happened and not what will happen however likely it is.
I've never liked that particular aspect of the justice system because A) In Canada is worries more about the rights of criminals than victims and B) it doesn't do enough to keep people out of danger in the first place, nor does it adequately punish people for crimes once commited.
It's a lose/lose situation, you're gonna get public outcry if the justice system reacts swiftely and strongly and just as much if it sits on it's hands. | |
|
| Victims of Violence remain victims while Crown Counsel remains
Posted: 7/2/2008 7:16:08 AM |
or is facing a number of charges that are of a personal injury nature with an innocuous bracelet around the ankle
Do you really believe that an innocuous bracelet would have stopped Mr Lee?
You're also bringing up revenue based decisions without backing them up. First off, look in the yellow pages for bail bondsmen. We don't have them here. Second, if you can find out how much the government gets from the estreetment of bail then you will know how much of a "cash cow" it really is. As for the comment with regard to the Charter being invoked in the majority of criminal cases; you said it, you prove it.
This is a debate fraught with emotion but don't let it cloud the facts. I never accused you or anyone else of being naive; rather it's the position that there could be no repercussions flowing from this inquiry that is naive thinking. Also, I'm reading and understanding what you are saying and I respond back. You haven't pointed out a misquote yet so your comment on free speech is baffling. And to be perfectly clear; it's the issue I'm debating, not you. | |
|
| Victims of Violence remain victims while Crown Counsel remains
Posted: 7/2/2008 9:03:03 AM |
It's a system that prosecutes on what has happened and not what will happen however likely it is.
I've never liked that particular aspect of the justice system because A) In Canada is worries more about the rights of criminals than victims and B) it doesn't do enough to keep people out of danger in the first place, nor does it adequately punish people for crimes once commited.
explosivesheep
The Canadian law as most other countries laws have their roots in the British law which origin from the Roman laws. One aspect (the punishment) of the law was to act as deterrent the other was to seek justice in the event of a wrong.
There is no fair law as of yet that I'm aware of that can prosecute and sentence someone for a crime not yet committed. Though it has been tried by religious fanaticism and paranoid dictators, but in both instances trials were based on some minor misconduct, race or belief or whatever else may have been construed. anyone who ever opened a history book knows what the consequences were. lol
Yes, in my opinion our laws do not punish the convicted criminal adequately, but that is not the topic here.
Silken
Your quotes from the handbook of Crown Council are nice, though redundant known facts. lol
Your topic was Crown Council and the Lee case, a specific acting (or rather the lack there of of Crown Council.
You did mention preventive alternatives and we generally agree there is need for that.
Your rights to freedom of speech was never in question, nor that of any one else.
You were not left with a thinly-veiled suggestion that we should continue to be silent.
I did suggest in words to the effect that when we question the law and those who enforce it we must follow the rules of the very laws that govern us and if or when we wish to change pre-conviction treatment of an offender we must do so with due care and knowing that we open possibilities of abuse (see comment to explosivesheep above) That was my answer to your questions.
You have consistently repeated and defended your personal bias and emotional response. No one denied that you have the rights to think, feel and reason accordingly. It was merely pointed out that such reasoning may be misleading in the facts of the matter, but it was not judged as a negative in the general pursuit of a wrong. | |
|
| Victims of Violence remain victims while Crown Counsel remains
Posted: 7/2/2008 10:03:13 AM |
Your quotes from the handbook of Crown Council are nice, though redundant known facts. lol
Your topic was Crown Council and the Lee case, a specific acting (or rather the lack there of of Crown Council.
At the time that I quoted from the handbook, someone was posting that Crown Counsel only had one job. While it may have been "redundant" for me to point out that their duties are many, it is apparently necessary if people think they are only to carry out one mission in their duties.
My topic was the Melnick decision and the public's right to understand what is happening what is going on when someone who is charged with a number of serious charges involving assaults, is left free on bail. THAT was my topic and still is. What Crown Counsel did or failed to do is a corollary issue to the topic I was presenting.
You were not left with a thinly-veiled suggestion that we should continue to be silent.
I did suggest in words to the effect that when we question the law and those who enforce it we must follow the rules of the very laws that govern us and if or when we wish to change pre-conviction treatment of an offender we must do so with due care and knowing that we open possibilities of abuse (see comment to explosivesheep above) That was my answer to your questions.
I am not sure what advantage you might perceive in splitting hairs but okay...
You have consistently repeated and defended your personal bias and emotional response. No one denied that you have the rights to think, feel and reason accordingly. It was merely pointed out that such reasoning may be misleading in the facts of the matter, but it was not judged as a negative in the general pursuit of a wrong.
I have consistently repeated the topic because you can't seem to sort out what it is. I could have chosen to be far less responsive but I didn't.
You have repeatedly accused me of being emotional and I have repeatedly stated to you that my emotions are not governing my logic. It's unfortunate that you seem to feel the need to use this very old and tired ploy that through the ages, has been a not-so subtle putdown of women's opinions as being "emotional" and of little merit. Moreover, I have no personal biases ML... but I do have thoughts and opinions, just as you do. Do you consider the Coroner's jury as being emotional and personally biased as well?
I have not altered the facts of this matter and I challenge you to show where any one of the "facts" I've mentioned have been inaccurate. My reasoning does not alter the facts... It knows some of them are missing... that's all. | |
|
| Victims of Violence remain victims while Crown Counsel remains
Posted: 7/2/2008 10:18:12 AM |
Do you really believe that an innocuous bracelet would have stopped Mr Lee?
The bracelet itself would not have unless of course, we tied it to a rather large and stationary object. Knowing that his location was being monitored might have kept him from going around her. We can't be sure that it would have worked but we also know the lack of one didn't help.
You're also bringing up revenue based decisions without backing them up.
I proposed that this is possibly lending itself to the situation where Crown Counsel are "
"carrying large caseloads" as was reported. Understaffing is budgetary. The unwillingness to detain someone is also budgetary ( I have read that it costs $135 per day to detain an accused). If you want back up for every statement I make, then turn about is fairplay. People have responded on this thread that revamping the current process would be heavy on our tax dollars and expensive. I responded that women and children are as worthwhile as the environment. Just ask your Mom what she thinks about that...
First off, look in the yellow pages for bail bondsmen. We don't have them here.
That's right, we have sureties. Excuse meeeee for calling them by the wrong name but I felt more people would understand what I was referring to... Shame on me... my bad!
As for the comment with regard to the Charter being invoked in the majority of criminal cases; you said it, you prove it.
Nope... I have immunity too... What's good enough for the government is good enough for me... And if you don't have to support what you're saying any more than what you do, don't ask it of me.
I have no more time left for response at this point but I will say that I find it interesting that even you are talking about 'not letting emotion cloud the facts'. Ho hum... same old, same old... | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
