We have just had a case in the BC courts where two young men (12 and 13 I believe) were tried for what should have been murder. Their crimes were reduced to manslaughter by the judge and the were give extremely light sentences. The judge reasoned that "they had insufficient life experience to know that beating a man over the head with a ball bat could be fatal." I may be quoting that a little incorrectly, but that's the gist of it.

When the little darlings are parolled in a few months, I suggest that they go live with the judge who sentenced them.

Mike in White Rock

Murder, crimes against children should be a hanging offence. It is further criminal for us tax payers to support these types of criminals in prison. We know rehabilitation doesn't work so we must be able to make hard decisions for the good of society.

I feel so bad for the girls and their families. Young innocent lives ruined because perverts are protected by a judge/court system that rewards failure. The perpetrators know that they have the Bleeding-Heart-Liberals on their side.

Thank you PET and the Criminology Professors.

If anything like this ever happens to my loved ones, I know I will cry-out, "damn you Trudeau !!"

Slap's on the wrist for Horrendous Crimes against Children, These children will be scarred the rest of their lives.

Time & Time again we hear of these terrible crimes & what do we do "Nothing" We need to have some backbone in this country & say to the soft on crime do gooders that it is over, Enough is Enough We have a government that wants to change these laws & it's about time that we back this government before it is too late.

http://www.answers.com/topic/beverley-mclachlin

This pretty much sums up Justice McLachlin.Look at her interpretations and decisions on law.Particularly the rape sheild law and child pornography.Absolutely disgusting.

Of course any judge with views like this would never get elected,which is probably why she is against it.

No surprise that it's "Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin" making those comments about Toews!

As head of the tribe of black robed privilege whores she has made a mockery of Canadian Citizens Rights to justice on numerous occasions.
She is also on record of advocating that judges take activist roles in defining legislation and that judges NOT be held to account in ANY WAY.

http://www.answers.com/topic/beverley-mclachlin

This pretty much sums up Justice McLachlin.Look at her interpretations and decisions on law.Particularly the rape sheild law and child pornography.Absolutely disgusting.

Of course any judge with views like this would never get elected,which is probably why she is against it.

If a criminal, given a lenient sentence by a judge, commits new crimes, the judge should be held directly responsible and as such should serve time as an accomplice. As well, victims should be allowed a civil lawsuit against the judge.

Of course, this could never happen here, because nobody is responsible for their actions.

hear..hear
The flawed justice system and insane schemes coming from parliament, like 3 strikes and your out. Well lets try this one, “one strike and the judge is out”, we have all the laws we need on the books. The problem is; there's no accountability coming from the judges, mainly because they are appointed and don’t care what anyone thinks.
Peter

Just disgusting. Just more proof that the Lib-Left are the party of paedophiles, drug addicts and murders.

I would be interested to see the Fraser Institute do a study on the impact of electing vs. appointing judges and its impact on conviction rates and the severity of sentences. I suspect both are higher in the case of elected judges which would be a good thing and it provides at least some check on lenient sentencing. But unfortunately, it does not prevent stupidity entirely (ie. American banished to Fort Erie house arrest or 3 years in jail).

Sadly, rape cases are often difficult to prove because evidence is often "he said/she said" and victims are understandably too traumatized to testify. This results in a lot of unduly quick plea bargaining (ie. Homolka).

Electing judges is only a first step. Should we adopt reverse-onus, Napoleonic-code style sentencing (ie. guilty until proven innocent - for murder and rape)? While Toews has hinted at this for gun crime, should this idea be more widely applicable?

The bottom line is that jailing people works.

By the way, frequent double posting is occurring because the response to our comment is that "this page cannot be accessed-----" so we post again, sometimes with the same response.

It would be far more credible to have Judges face the electorate. They are making some pretty poor calls and the Liberals have used them more than any other Party in power, rather than risk taking tough decisions.

McLachlin is an example of why we need elected Judges. There would at least have the accountability factor.

"Police say it was one of the worst cases they have ever seen"! But when are PEOPLE going to start saying "this is one of the worst JUDGEMENTS I have ever seen"? And start doing something about it.

I'm well aware of it. According to the site host, we're being slammed by spammers, and it's slowing down page loading, etc. I'm trying to tinker with stuff in the background, but this stuff is not my forte.

It's affecting me worse than it is you.

Just post your comment, give it a moment regardless of what "error message" you receive, and page refresh before hitting it again. I can just about guarantee it will have gone through.

The Star article is right out to fricking lunch. Can anyone tell me why it would be a bad thing to have a police officer on the pannel that selects Justices?

Is the Star on the Liberal payroll yet?

The star is right out to lunch in this article (as in so many others). Can anyone come up with a reasonable answer why it would be a bad thing for a police officer to help selecting our Justices?

Is the Star on the Liberal Payroll yet?

Could we possibly expect anything less from a Toronto Star editorial.
Expect this junk to only increase as the spring approaches and what many believe will be the next federal election.
The only thing the Star is good for is lining my bird cage.

Justice, like water will seek it's own level. If this crap keeps up you may see more occurences of vigilante justice pop up.

The Star is a stellar member of the
Mundane Spin Media.

Start instead with a little Glenn Beck and go from there. = TG

My friend’s garage was broken into a while back and a few thousand dollars worth of his tools were stolen Three weeks latter the guy is back trying to break in again using the tools that he had stolen the first time.
The police were called and when they got there they recognized him immediately “Hey that’s Gary!”
My friend asked how they knew him and they said he was one of their regulars.
So my friend says “I suppose he’ll be back on the street after lunch. “Oh no, probably right after he gets a hot breakfast.”

I don’t understand the disconnect that judges seem to have with the real world. Not many of them may have been victims of a violent crime but I can’t believe that any of them that live in Vancouver, have never experienced a house or car breaking, themselves.

What did your bird do to deserve that?

What did your bird do to deserve that?

Makes me really wonder, why they are doing what they are doing, i.e. setting the criminals free. The only reason I am finding credible is fear. But it's just me. Does it make sense to assume that the judges are afraid of revenge by the criminals? This is terrible then!

Oh yes It's all Vic's fault. He and the Conservatives are supposed to wave the magic gavel and undo decades of bad decisions.

Even our local and usually reasoned commenter Bob Layton, (from Global Edmonton and 630 Ched); had an editorial about this today and chided Vic.

From the Liberal's Justice record, to their Kyoto promises and all the rest of THEIR baggage; I say blah, blah, blah. Blah, blah, blah to them all, and most especially to the MSM and John Godfrey in Nairobi.

And the worst of all are the nine elitist, unelected, red-velvet-and-ermined-robed former flower children that constitute the SCC.

Perhaps their finest hour *sarcasm on* was during the Milgaard enquiry, where at least some of the judge's were hearing evidence in a court room for the very first time. On a Friday afternoon, after hearing from a particularly dubious witness, the then-chief justice ordered that he given a polygraph (lie detector) test, with the results to be heard on the following Monday.

Those of us then in the law enforcement commmunity experienced a collective dropping of jaws, realizing that those on the highest court in the land were apparently the only parties in the criminal justice sytem who didn't know that polygraph evidence was not admissable in court in Canada. The obvious embarrassment on the faces of some of the judges on the following Monday was palpable.

Small wonder that one of the most circulated jokes among police and prosecutors after a number of the Charter decisions emanating from the SCC in the late 80s was as follows:

Q: What do you call a lawyer in Canada who knows virtually nothing about criminal law and procedures?

A: A justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

We get the government we deserve and in these cases we get the (In)justice we deserve. When do we, as citizens say enough is enough. In Ontario they have banned pitbulls because they are dangerous and yet they let pedophiles out time and again.
I am fully behind police being on the selection board, and could I suggest we also have victims of criminals AND the Injustice system on them also.
Accountability is the key--and our judges are NOT accountable to anyone. Their God complex is destroying this country for honest people. Not only is the criminal abusing us but so is our Injustice System. I have had it with their coddling of criminals.
Talking about releasing criminals because they do not have a history of criminal acts--says who? This only means they have not been caught before. How many molested and tortured children will it take to make them criminals worthy of being put away for life? The crime they were apprehended for should be more than sufficient you would think. The comment about 'gated communities' hits the nail on the head--the more equal see nothing wrong with sacrificing our children to the scum of the earth. When do we rise up and take control of thissituation? These are our children.

hear..hear
The flawed justice system and insane schemes coming from parliament, like 3 strikes and your out. Well lets try this one, “one strike and the judge is out”, we have all the laws we need on the books. The problem is; there's no accountability coming from the judges, mainly because they are appointed and don’t care what anyone thinks.
Peter

Yes, you do wonder how some judges can sleep at night. I have no idea how the families sleep either--I would be consumed by anger if this were my child. DOes anyone remember the case of Norma Jean Mooswa? I'll never forget it:

Sentence too light: families
By Betty Ann Adam
The Star Phoenix
December 21, 2004

BATTLEFORD, SASKATCHEWAN -- A 10-year prison sentence is not long enough for a woman who killed six people in a drunken auto crash near the resort village of Cochin on Canada Day, the families of the victims said Monday.

Norma Jean Mooswa, 35, pleaded guilty Monday to six counts of impaired driving causing death and four counts of impaired driving causing bodily harm in connection with a chain reaction smash-up. It was triggered when she slammed into the back of a vehicle waiting at a stop sign around noon on July 1.

All four of her passengers, including a pregnant woman, and two women in the vehicle she hit, were killed. Two men in that vehicle were seriously injured.

"We expected her to get life in prison. Ten years for all six lives? What are you talking about?" said Lisa Higginbotham, who took the witness stand to give a victim impact statement about the death of her daughter, 21-year-old Tarrah Higginbotham.

"Tarrah doesn't get to come back when she's 31," Higginbotham said.

Crown prosecutor Dennis Cann recounted evidence from witness statements.

Mooswa began drinking beer the night before the crash and may have stayed awake all night. Around 5:45 a.m. on Thursday, July 1, Amanda Bearsears phoned to the place where Mooswa was and asked for a ride to the Little Pine First Nation.

Mooswa, whose licence was suspended because of previous drinking and driving offences, and who was at that time facing another impaired driving charge from three months earlier, was a passenger on the drive to Little Pine.

At a house there, Mooswa drank beer, vodka and whisky. Bearsears is said to have warned Mooswa not to drink because she was to be the driver. Mooswa laughed and took another drink from her mug, Cann said.

For some reason, Bearsears, who was four months pregnant, Lorenda Assasayo, Elvis Kennedy and Clarence Louis got into a car with Mooswa at the wheel. They stopped at a gas bar, where witnesses saw that she was intoxicated. Kennedy bought 18 beer.

The crash scene was about 110 kilometres away.

Witnesses said the Mooswa car passed at least three vehicles on a solid line.

Three other vehicles were waiting at a stop sign near Cochin when Mooswa slammed into them from behind.

The speed limit on the road was 80 kilometres per hour, slowing to 50 near the stop sign.

A "black box" device from the car she was driving revealed that five seconds before impact, it was travelling 160 kilometres per hour.

__________________________________

As far as I know, Norma Jean is still at a healing center near Swift Current. Six people killed--seven if you include the unborn child. Can someone please explain this to me? I covered over a dozen court cases like this and it is so difficult to watch---the families are devastated. There was one case where a murdering son of a b**** got what was coming to him: 30 year old Barclay Mcfie--25 years-no parole for killing his estranged wife, Carol Meredith in Cold Lake, Alberta.

hear..hear
The flawed justice system and insane schemes coming from parliament, like 3 strikes and your out. Well lets try this one, “one strike and the judge is out”, we have all the laws we need on the books. The problem is; there's no accountability coming from the judges, mainly because they are appointed and don’t care what anyone thinks.
Peter

"The Time Has Come To Elect Judges"

As long as we take the vote away from women then you've got a deal!

Seriously, 98% of federal inmates are men, a number so out of whack with actual crime statistics as to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that women are effectively above the law in Canada. Combined with the fact that over half of all incarcerated individuals in Canada haven't even be convicted of a crime it is difficult to argue that Canada has a judicial-legal system comparable to developed nations such as Iran or China.

They haven't been convicted because savvy criminals know that time served in remand counts double - so they pull out every trick in the book to avoid having their day in court. Then, when it finally comes up, they walk free on "time served" even though it's only half the time they'd have been sentenced to had they gone for a speedy trial.... best yet are those who get the volumne discount and serve sentences "concurrently".

correct me if Im wrong but I dont believe that Karla Homolka was ever even tried for the murder of her own sister. I think she just got a wave through the system after doing her party time.

She was one thing I didnt mind giving to Quebec.

Ctv.ca: 2 Men sentenced on Fatal Motorcycle crash

2 lives were taken in this stupid act of street racing.

Sentence for the 2 that caused this: 6months Home Arrest, 18months probation & 2 yr Driving Ban.

Having problems getting my comments posted again today as yesterday. Dang! Bloody spammers! Anyway, I'll try again. I did a post on the same case this AM before checking out SDA, so, here's what I have to say, besides that I'm all for electing judges, who have become de facto left wing dictators:

Where's the Widespread Outrage?

http://thecanadiansentinel.blogspot.com/2006/11/wheres-widespread-outrage.html

More evidence of two-tierdness: If these people were Muslim instead of Jewish this would be on every blog in Canada:

MONTREAL -- A suggestion that female police officers call in male colleagues when male victims prefer not to deal with women is sparking heated debate in Montreal.

The issue is being raised in an internal publication for Montreal police officers.

The article suggests female officers let their male partners deal with victims and witnesses if they're Hasidic Jewish men whose religion frowns on fraternization with most women.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061115/hasidic_cops_061115/20061115?hub=Canada

More related absurdity, idjtards who think it's 1933 all over again please take note:

MONTREAL -- A suggestion that female police officers call in male colleagues when male victims prefer not to deal with women is sparking heated debate in Montreal.

The issue is being raised in an internal publication for Montreal police officers.

The article suggests female officers let their male partners deal with victims and witnesses if they're Hasidic Jewish men whose religion frowns on fraternization with most women.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061115/hasidic_cops_061115/20061115?hub=Canada

Sorry for my frequent double postings, its occurring because the response to my comment was "this page has timed out" so I posted again, with the same response.
Peter

One of the ballot initiatives in the US Mid Term elections was South Dakota's referendum on stripping judges of their immunity to legal action for their rulings. From what I understand, the proposal was wide-reaching and might have also affected juries but maybe the solution isn't to elect judges but make them accountable in some cases. Not ones where the law legislated their rulings but cases where they had some flexibility in their decisions.

nice to know bob hates women almost as much as he hates jews.

anyway this jew lawyer thinks elected judges is a terrible idea, but the current process is almost as bad. they're virtually unaccountable even in the lower courts since appeals are very easy to dismiss. life appointments without review just doesn't work. on the civil litigation end, most judges will use the bench as a form of insurance to compensate plaintiffs regardless of the merits of their case.

if you think the supreme court is bad, you should spend some time in the ontario superior court.

but if you left it to a vote you'd end up with lefties anyway with voting patterns here.

OT, sorry Kate (delete if you wish).

How will Gidget Taber and her fellow journalists(sic) spin ths one?

On the CTV website, the headline reads "Harper puts Human Rights first"

To Budd, Iberia et al I wait your response on Hidden Agenda Harper and all his code words.

The next time we here about these two, will be over the body's of young children.
In my opinion this is a symptom of the socialist disease, of Government worship. Judges now have become the secular version of infallibility. At least they think they are.
The fact there un-elected but believe they have the right to overrule legislative laws by elected polities. Is just one of the signs of their hubris out of control.
Its never from an individual rights position. Always from the viewpoint of collectivist rights.
That these 'Judges' allow such constructions as the Human rights boards that ignore the basics of any legal precedents. Except tribunals from dictatorships. Is also indicative of there strong collectivist ideals. These Star chambers are the West’s answer to political bulling the jihadist religious police. Only its secular insanities like smoking & other "sins". Or the free action of ones conscience being made to bow before the collective ideology or victim group of the hour. A travesty of law.
Their idea that they can interpret the Charter by some mystic means, underscores there frightening vanity. To have the power to read anything into a Nations constitution is begging trouble. To give them the power without oversight. Psychosis. The liberals wanted it this way for there hug a thug policies.
More money for buddies you know. I read one memo that told Wardens to release half their inmates no matter what. Giving even Clifford Olsen the vote, just capped off there contempt for the safety of citizens, over criminal license.
Most police now call it a legal system. Justice has nothing to do with it anymore.
Since society as a collective causes crime in the leftist mind. Than the real reprobates are the people who have jobs & families. Its the poor delinquent that has been abused by these horrible working people. Them with their bigoted families. Its why they are so forceful about mandatory day care. Telling kids to not listen to parents.
Perhaps its why the Soviets employed only killers, mobsters as guards to the political prisoners. Read Alexander Solzenitzens Gulag archipelago. Heck they still run Russia.
I would elect low end judges , than have the supreme courts in Provinces & the federal system picked by a panel of citizens , police , government. Than hand the list to the Premier or PM. Than parliament can debate there merits publicly. The time of these people with so much power being hidden is over. Let there own deeds be our guide. Not an ideology.
I was until six months ago against the death penalty. Now though because of DNA with new methods of investigation . I think its time to bring back the noose.
Our crime rate is now worse than Americas. Socialism does not work. Cut these freeloaders & abettors from the boat of public policy.
This is not civilization when the rule of law is spit upon by those charged with its protection & administration.
Frankly this whole thing makes me ill. How any human could have made a judgment like this , even a lefty is beyond words.
Keep repeating to yourself. Government is not infallible, Government is not infallible, Government is not infallible. Than maybe we can click our heels back to reality & dispose of this human waste as our forebears once did. Perhaps let the police do there job without seeing the same characters over & over again , only hours latter.
I ask the Lefties or liberal socialists, how can you possibly justify this?

The next time we here about these two, will be over the body's of young children.
In my opinion this is a symptom of the socialist disease, of Government worship. Judges now have become the secular version of infallibility. At least they think they are.
The fact there un-elected but believe they have the right to overrule legislative laws by elected polities. Is just one of the signs of their hubris out of control.
Its never from an individual rights position. Always from the viewpoint of collectivist rights.
That these 'Judges' allow such constructions as the Human rights boards that ignore the basics of any legal precedents. Except tribunals from dictatorships. Is also indicative of there strong collectivist ideals. These Star chambers are the West’s answer to political bulling the jihadist religious police. Only its secular insanities like smoking & other "sins". Or the free action of ones conscience being made to bow before the collective ideology or victim group of the hour. A travesty of law.
Their idea that they can interpret the Charter by some mystic means, underscores there frightening vanity. To have the power to read anything into a Nations constitution is begging trouble. To give them the power without oversight. Psychosis. The liberals wanted it this way for there hug a thug policies.
More money for buddies you know. I read one memo that told Wardens to release half their inmates no matter what. Giving even Clifford Olsen the vote, just capped off there contempt for the safety of citizens, over criminal license.
Most police now call it a legal system. Justice has nothing to do with it anymore.
Since society as a collective causes crime in the leftist mind. Than the real reprobates are the people who have jobs & families. Its the poor delinquent that has been abused by these horrible working people. Them with their bigoted families. Its why they are so forceful about mandatory day care. Telling kids to not listen to parents.
Perhaps its why the Soviets employed only killers, mobsters as guards to the political prisoners. Read Alexander Solzenitzens Gulag archipelago. Heck they still run Russia.
I would elect low end judges , than have the supreme courts in Provinces & the federal system picked by a panel of citizens , police , government. Than hand the list to the Premier or PM. Than parliament can debate there merits publicly. The time of these people with so much power being hidden is over. Let there own deeds be our guide. Not an ideology.
I was until six months ago against the death penalty. Now though because of DNA with new methods of investigation . I think its time to bring back the noose.
Our crime rate is now worse than Americas. Socialism does not work. Cut these freeloaders & abettors from the boat of public policy.
This is not civilization when the rule of law is spit upon by those charged with its protection & administration.
Frankly this whole thing makes me ill. How any human could have made a judgment like this , even a lefty is beyond words.
Keep repeating to yourself. Government is not infallible, Government is not infallible, Government is not infallible. Than maybe we can click our heels back to reality & dispose of this human waste as our forebears once did. Perhaps let the police do there job without seeing the same characters over & over again , only hours latter.
I ask the Lefties or liberal socialists, how can you possibly justify this?

In the US military if you are on MP duty escorting a prisoner and he excapes you get to do the rest of his sentence. Im sure we can figure out a way to transfer this idea over to judges.

I completely agree - judges should be elected, and for specific limited terms.

How about that sentence in the Toronto Star which berates the Harper gov't and minister, because it removed 'funding that helped women, minorities and the disabled argue in court for equality rights under the constitution". Hey, Toronto Star, they already have these rights, written in the constitution - so why should the taxpayer be funding them to argue for what they have? Or is it a special deal, where women, minorities and the disabled, are able to use tax-funded lawyers, ..just because...?

Beverly McLachlin's activism is a disgrace to the judicial profession. Her claim that it is a 'judicial responsibility' to work out 'truly fundamental rights', and these 'fundamental norms' which are not written are accessible only to the 'wisdom' of the appointed (anointed?) judges and...they TRUMP written laws. That is, according to McLachlin, judges write the laws. Not the people. Not the elected legislature. Appointed unelected unaccountable judges write our laws. That's McLachlin.

Compare Justice Scalia of the US Supreme Court, who said "What distinguishes the rule of law from the dictatorship of a shifting Supreme Court majority..is the absolutely indispensable requirement that judicial opinions be grounded in consistently applied principle- and these principles are found in the constitution.

Judges cannot 'begin acting as superleglislatures" - they cannot make the law.

We need elected judges who are accountable to the people.

Allen said: "anyway this jew lawyer thinks elected judges is a terrible idea"

Big surprise there, lol. Lawyers have a large financial incentive to have a revolving door justice system.

Elected judges.

What a really, really bad idea. Imagine, being elected based on who has the best ads, or on how much dirt (whether tru or not) one can smear on one opponent. Knowledge of the law...eeehhhh optional.

As for Kate's, et al's. concern over the judgement in Winnipeg...rather than complain about the how the sentence was reduced, how about getting more judges into the system, which would move these cases through faster, which would reduce the amount of double time occuring...and so on.

And rehab does work, just not on everyone. And it get's people less likly to re-offend out of prison, leaving more room for those who really deserve to be there.

Unfortunately, this might cost money, and conservatives seem allergic to spending money.

And such things as "three strikes and your out" and elected "get tough" judges are merely panaceas in my opinion. They look good, but really don't address the problem.

And yes, those two cretinous lowlifes should have gotten more than they did, especially the one who walked.

In a public forum on justice here in Kelowna last year, a prominent senior Judge remarked that he didn't care what people thought about his sentencing, that he didn't answer to the public.

The idea of putting more unaccountable people on the bench is an other liberano lie, lets try real sentences, elected judges, bring back hanging for rape and murder. Take all the liberano thug huggers and lock them up with these scum for a while and see if they sing a different tune. And, yes murray, that last part was directed at YOU!!!!

"On a Friday afternoon, after hearing from a particularly dubious witness, the then-chief justice ordered that he given a polygraph (lie detector) test, with the results to be heard on the following Monday."

You've got to be kidding me.

murray: You make a valid point, Knowledge of the law.
However we do need a system in Canada that elects Judges that would have a knowledge of the Law & Would enforce the Laws as set down.
Now Iam no expert but it has seemed to work in the US for 230yrs.
The judge in question stated that there were no prior crimes for 1 & 1 prior for the other, So the horrendous acts that these 2 performed on Children are not serious enough to warrant a stiffer sentence because they had no priors?.

We have a duty as law abiding canadians to protect our children from these sick individuals the courts obviously won't do it, How do we do this? we pressure our elected officials & demand change in the laws & Judges that will enforce them in the courts.
We finaly have a Justice Minister that realizes all of this & look what is happening the Soft on Crime in Canada are out to linch the guy.
We must prevent this from happening & support the Minister or these injustices will never stop.

I don't think election of judges is right. It makes judges have to think about the political consequences of finding someone guilty or innocent. Justice isn't about trying to make the public happy. Justice is supposed to be about finding people guilty if their presupposed innocent is found to be lacking.

What needs to happen is minimum sentences to be toughened up so that if a person is found guilty that judges have less leeway as to what sentence to hand out. I especially would agree with this on murder or sexual crimes.

I don't think election of judges is right. It makes judges have to think about the political consequences of finding someone guilty or innocent. Justice isn't about trying to make the public happy. Justice is supposed to be about finding people guilty if their presupposed innocent is found to be lacking.

What needs to happen is minimum sentences to be toughened up so that if a person is found guilty that judges have less leeway as to what sentence to hand out. I especially would agree with this on murder or sexual crimes.

"What a really, really bad idea. Imagine, being elected based on who has the best ads, or on how much dirt (whether tru or not) one can smear on one opponent. Knowledge of the law...eeehhhh optional."

Murray, that's a crock. Maybe in lib-left land do the ads work without any thought, but conservatives actually look into what the ads are saying and how much the truth is being distorted. On our streets. In Canada.

"As for Kate's, et al's. concern over the judgement in Winnipeg...rather than complain about the how the sentence was reduced, how about getting more judges into the system, which would move these cases through faster, which would reduce the amount of double time occuring...and so on."

How about getting judges into the system that have a clue? How do you do that? Not by appointing those who have brown-nosed the best, but by electing the ones people want. And yes, more judges wouldn't be a bad idea to give an enema to a bunged-up justice system.

"And rehab does work, just not on everyone. And it get's people less likly [sic] to re-offend out of prison, leaving more room for those who really deserve to be there."

It's the "likely" that concerns me. Would you want a convicted pedophile or murderer let loose in your neighbourhood, because he/she is supposedly "rehabilitated"? I personally wouldn't take the chance.

"And such things as "three strikes and your out" and elected "get tough" judges are merely panaceas in my opinion. They look good, but really don't address the problem."

Of course they do. If you're in jail, you can't be out on the street to commit crimes. I know it sounds simple, but that's because it really is. Nobody seems to want to accept responsibility for his/her own actions, and that's wrong. If you do something wrong, you should face the music. And admittedly there'll be different volumes to the music.

Murray with all due respect don't you think playing both sides of the fence, in some cases only leads to confusion and lack of change?
I always cringe when I hear someone use " root of the problem", like its so hard to find!
Why do we turn so many negative things that affect our society into make work projects for bureaucrats, and the people that love having lunch with them.

Oh and one more thing, Murray:

"Unfortunately, this might cost money, and conservatives seem allergic to spending money."

This is slightly off topic (sorry, Kate), but you're dead wrong.

Conservatives are allergic to WASTING money. For examples, see:

Gagliano, Alfonso
Stewart, Jane
Brault, Jean
Coffin, Paul
Chretien, Paul
Accord, Kyoto
For a generation, health care (FPMPM)
Layton, Jack (pretty much anything he ever says)

And according to a recent study commissioned by the RCMP in BC, the average length of sentences imposed on grow-op operators actually DECREASES as the number of convictions against a particular individual increases...strange reasoning.

Those rashly calling for judicial elections as a way to increase accountability in the bench would do well to consider the fundamental importance of judicial independence as a precondition for democracy. I'm not advocating the status quo. The current system is far from perfect, but options are available to increase accountability without fundamentally reforming the judicial selection process.

Those who oppose the current appointment process, however, should give sober consideration as to whether their proposed alternative--first-term judicial elections--offers any better solution. Empirical evidence--rather than ideology or common sense assumptions--suggests that it does not.

Take the experience in the US, where elections for first-term judgeships has not actually increased public accountability, and in fact may have undermined both judicial independence and public confidence in the process. There, jurisdictions that favour judicial elections have observed an increase in partisan politics; a worrisome level of campaign financing contributions from business and corporate interest groups; a wider but not necessarily better qualified candidate pool; electioneering soundbites, mudslinging, and broken campaign promises from candidates; and a subsequent decline in public confidence in the impartiality of the courts. Virtually all states are now pursuing judicial selection reforms in an attempt to depoliticize the process and restore public confidence in the system.

Is this really where we in Canada want to go? A system where judicial candidates make campaign trail-style promises (e.g., "I promise to crack down on drug offenses!") that may effectively restrict their options when making court rulings once in office (and open the door to countless s.11(d) Charter appeals by convicted offenders)? Where court rulings are based as much upon public appeasement (recalling Mill's fear of the 'tyranny of the majority') as on the impartial application of statutory and case law? Where judges, faced with re-election ambitions, may opt to do what's popular (and easy) rather than what's right (and difficult)?

A middle path, balancing judicial independence with judicial accountability, must be sought.

Zip writes: Can anyone come up with a reasonable answer why it would be a bad thing for a police officer to help selecting our Justices?

You should reread the editorial a little more closely, which notes that "if Ottawa wants police represented, the minister can use one of the three at-large appointments."

The real reason for Minister Toews' proposed amendments is to create a fourth at-large position, and discourage the chair from voting on appointment recommendations. On a panel of seven voting members (plus the non-voting chair), the Government could--via the four at-large appointees--effectively take full control over the recommendation process. This would, of course, be in violation of the traditional separation of powers, and should rightly be opposed by both the legal community and the public. Indeed, conservatives (as distinct from Conservatives) who support restrictions on government powers should be among the most vocal critics of this proposed change.

Why is it a good idea to elect law makers and not judges? Why do I get the feeling that if the main stream media and academia werent socialist then the idea of elected judges would be pushed by these same people. As it is they know that the only way their agenda can be advanced is by non elected judges.

The reason why judges are appointed, is because the 'law' is an ass- so it is better served by appointed assholes.
"One question, Yer Honour: Have you ever had a REAL JOB? Or- have you always been a pimp for the attorney general department?"

on of the biggest loopholes in this country as far as justice goes is that sentences are concurrent. i.e. murder X number of people but it only counts for one. i wish mr. toews would have charges made consecutive. that would surely put the brakes on a great deal of criminal activity if the perpetrator knew he was going to get nailed for each charge he is up against. plea bargining is another area that should be curtailed, at least in the way it is presently being mis-used. time for change.

A little background for those attempting to contrast Canada with the US, from an American lawyer with a longstanding interest in comparative law: I'd point out that elected vs. appointed is not a dichotomy, but a spectrum with points all between. The US is not a monolith: the way each state's operate differs more than between provinces in Canada. Some states do NOT have judicial elections. Some have elections for every judicial position; some have some elected, some appointed, and the methods of appointment vary.

In my own Florida, to pick an example, trial judges are elected, but appellate judges are appointed by the Governor from lists drawn up by a Judicial Nominating Commission. Judicial elections are non-partisan and judicial candidates' "campaigning" is highly curtailed by the rules of judicial ethics. Some counties have lots of contested races, and in others, judges tend to run unopposed for reelection practically all the time. Appellate judges here are subject to something else you might want to think about: retention elections, in which there is no opponent on the ballot, but simply the question, "Shall Judge X be retained in office?" No Florida appellate judge has ever been "un-retained", but it's come close, and there have been other judges in other states voted out in similar systems (most famously Rose Byrd, who was Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court).

And, of course, that's just talking about the state courts: in the federal courts, all judges are appointed by the President for life, subject to confirmation by the Senate.

Please read a newly released Canadian book, Against Judicial Activism (Queen's-McGill University Press) by Rory Leishman. This fine book meticulously documents the damage the Charter and its minions--our non-elected, elitist judges--have exacted on this country.

Please read a newly released Canadian book, Against Judicial Activism (Queen's-McGill University Press) by Rory Leishman. This fine book meticulously documents the damage the Charter and its minions--our non-elected, elitist judges--have exacted on this country.

Elect judges that will uphold the U.S. Constitution and send these dangerous crinimals to life or death and would not be influnced by the UN

With respect, Kate, I disagree with the suggestion that Judges should be elected. Unfortunately very few people pay attention to politics. There is no guarantee that elections would produce better Judges than appointments.

Judges should be faithful to the law, common sense and the interests of the community, not the demands of those who elected them.

I have been a lawyer for 32 years. In my opinion we are far too harsh on people who are struggling through life (because of a poor choice of parents) and too easy on people who are truly evil. And I think a lot of Judges don't understand the difference.

We need to elect more people who would never appoint soft headed Judges or people like Louise Arbour.

Member: Justice Gerald Jewers

The Manitoba Law Reform Commission is an independent agency of the Government of Manitoba established by The Law Reform Commission Act, C.C.S.M. c. L95. The Commission's duties are to inquire into and consider any matter relating to law in Manitoba with a view to making recommendations for the improvement, modernization and reform of law including: the removal of provisions of the law which are outdated or inconsistent; the maintenance and improvement of the administration of justice; the review of judicial and quasi-judicial procedures under any Act; and the development of new approaches to and new concepts of law in keeping with and responsive to the changing needs of society and of individual members of society...

gov.mb.ca/justice/mlrc/members

Here's a solution: anyone ever heard of an appeal?

OK Terry, the un-informed public that shouldn't elect judges, should elect politicians that should elect them instead?

You may be right about the parenting thing. That's why I think early intervention would be a good thing. So many people are opposed to curfews, one of the arguments being that parents aren't there to care anyways. Would that not be an opportunity to introduce that family to FCSS programs? Maybe if we were to put more into early identification and intervention? Would that would not ease the pressure on the correction end?

I don't know the answers but it seems to me nothing's working and things are getting worse by the minute. How much longer are we to stand by and blame everything on 'bad parenting'?

If a criminal serving his "sentence in the community" meant that the criminal lived at some a-hole judge's house, there'd be a whole lot less of these dished out. If the parole board were put into a cell to serve the sentence of a criminal charged while out on parole, there'd be less of that idiocy too.

What we need is stronger laws. You have to eliminate the discretion of judges to do this type of idiocy. We need to make sure that the laws stipulate that the sentences are X except for special circumstances listed specifically under list Y.

Judges need to be held accountable after they're appointed.

The selection must be more open, have more representation from groups aside from criminal lawyers and the law societies which have obvious bias and agendas (especially the criminal lawyers.) We have to have prosecutors, victim's groups, and police on the system as well as the advocates for criminals (lawyers - and our current judges.)

The hubris of this band of arrogant pricks is stomach-turning. They may be the only group to make surgeons look humble by comparison.

Cities are just too big now, with the judges happy to let monsters go free and walk among the commoners.

"What a really, really bad idea. Imagine, being elected based on who has the best ads, or on how much dirt (whether tru or not) one can smear on one opponent. Knowledge of the law...eeehhhh optional."

Murray, that's a crock. Maybe in lib-left land do the ads work without any thought, but conservatives actually look into what the ads are saying and how much the truth is being distorted. On our streets. In Canada.

-----------------------
Well Dave...I must thank you for the addition to by Conservative buzzword bingo card..."Lib-left". And having suffered through the conservative ads from the last Federal Election and from the US election, it seems obvious that Conservatives think the public are mushrooms.

The so-called "lib-left" has no mononply on distortions.

------------------------------
"As for Kate's, et al's. concern over the judgement in Winnipeg...rather than complain about the how the sentence was reduced, how about getting more judges into the system, which would move these cases through faster, which would reduce the amount of double time occuring...and so on."

How about getting judges into the system that have a clue? How do you do that? Not by appointing those who have brown-nosed the best, but by electing the ones people want. And yes, more judges wouldn't be a bad idea to give an enema to a bunged-up justice system.

--------------------------------
Does "have a clue" a secret code for seeing things thru a right wing filter?

And just what do you think an election is, hm? Brown-nosing to the public. And I wager this idea, especially on this board, would rapidly head South if a Plethora of "lib-left" judges were elected.

-----------------------------
"And rehab does work, just not on everyone. And it get's people less likly [sic] to re-offend out of prison, leaving more room for those who really deserve to be there."

It's the "likely" that concerns me. Would you want a convicted pedophile or murderer let loose in your neighbourhood, because he/she is supposedly "rehabilitated"? I personally wouldn't take the chance.

------------------------------------------------
Is the murderer a serial killer, someone convicted of 1st degree, 2nd degree, or manslaughter? If serial or 1st degree, I would not be comfortable, and would want them locked up. 2nd degree I'm iffy on. Manslaughter I don't think I'd mind too much.

As for a pedophile, I'd be worried for the kids. I'd like him/her kept away.

Aside from that, why are we filling up the jails with people with petty crimes (this of course is a loaded term. What constitutes petty?) or first time offenders of relatively minor crimes. Rehab or other sentences for them, and the freed up space can be used for murderers and other such criminals.

--------------------------------------
"And such things as "three strikes and your out" and elected "get tough" judges are merely panaceas in my opinion. They look good, but really don't address the problem."

Of course they do. If you're in jail, you can't be out on the street to commit crimes. I know it sounds simple, but that's because it really is.
-----------------------------------
Is 3 pickups for minor shoplifting equal to 3 murder ones? To armed robbery? Armed robbery where someone is killed?

While our minor shoplifter is in prison, he/she could be learning more interesting ways to cause trouble. What you've done is trained a more serious criminal. Hope you can afford that.

------------------------
Nobody seems to want to accept responsibility for his/her own actions, and that's wrong. If you do something wrong, you should face the music. And admittedly there'll be different volumes to the music.
-----------------------------------
Nobody want's to accept responsibility for their [criminal/bad] actions?

Welcome to humanity. Where have you been?

I agree. Pay your dues if you do a crime? But is it one size fits all? Fit the punishment to the seriousness of the crime?

And how will "say anything to get elected" judges help?

mugs

Murray with all due respect don't you think playing both sides of the fence, in some cases only leads to confusion and lack of change?
I always cringe when I hear someone use " root of the problem", like its so hard to find!
Why do we turn so many negative things that affect our society into make work projects for bureaucrats, and the people that love having lunch with them.

----------------------------------

Playing both sides of the fence? I suggest more judges to cut down on wait times, thus cutting down on double time banking, thus giving more jail time to serious criminals...and I'm playing both sides of the fence??

yeeesh.

I cringe as well when I hear "root of the problem". Fortunately, I never said that.

As for you last bit...I never understood the appeal of having lunch with "3 strikes and your out" advocates. Talk about you make work project. More people in prison=more prisons=more employees=more bureaucrats administering them=more lunchs.

It's a vicious cycle.

here in goofyland the biggest hick town in canada the local judge let a black dude out free and clear on bail after taking pot shots at FOUR people.

the chief of police was understandably most fumed.

as were many others.

they cant find the gunman now, he's disappeared.

"Here's a solution: anyone ever heard of an appeal?"

Ever heard of "abuse of discretion?" An educated guess is that's the standard by which Canadian appellate courts review sentences imposed by trial courts: it's an exceedingly high standard, giving great deference to the trial court. It's not like reviewing questions of law. If you have a vast number of bad trial judges, you can't expect the appeals process to save you.

Canada-wide warrant issued for notorious sex offender John Robin Sharpe

...Sharpe came to prominence in 1999 when he won two lower court rulings in British Columbia arguing Canada's laws against possessing child pornography violated his Charter rights...

Sharpe came to prominence in 1999 when he won two lower court rulings in British Columbia arguing Canada's laws against possessing child pornography violated his Charter rights.

canada.com

More fuel for the fire.
Pedophile on his second conviction (also convicted of forcile confinement of a boy aged 9 who was tied up with a rope) gets TIME SERVED.
The judge's concern is evident in the coverage of his comments ,(ones that will rank right up there with- 'the cheque is in the mail').
"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."
GRRR.
http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/CityandRegion/2006/11/17/2391161-sun.html

I'm not sure if electing judges is the right way to go, but what we have now is not working.
Perhaps all judges, including the supremes should
be appointed for set periods of time. Right now they are on the gravy train forever. If they faced the propect of returning to chasing ambulances for a living they might remember that they are suppose to protect the citizens from the criminals not the reverse.

A related story; why didn't this judge toss this charge out?
Man rescues woman from rape, thumps the perv in the process and rescuer ends up charged as well! Jury has more of a 'clue' than the police or idiot judge. This is worth the time to read; it raises the question: will bystanders now get involved in a similar situation given what is in this report?
http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/Local/2006/11/17/2391109-sun.html
IMHO the situation in our courts is hopeless, these perps have rights don't you know.

"Well Dave...I must thank you for the addition to by Conservative buzzword bingo card..."Lib-left". And having suffered through the conservative ads from the last Federal Election and from the US election, it seems obvious that Conservatives think the public are mushrooms.

The so-called "lib-left" has no mononply [sic] on distortions."

And having suffered through Liberal ads from the last federal election, it's obvious (doesn't even seem) that the Liberals only care about power--not what's good for Canada.
------------------------------
"Does "have a clue" a secret code for seeing things thru a right wing filter?

And just what do you think an election is, hm? Brown-nosing to the public. And I wager this idea, especially on this board, would rapidly head South if a Plethora of "lib-left" judges were elected."

Nope, "having a clue" is not setting people free after 3 years served for raping children. As for your last comment, I would wager that the people on this board are all in favour of representative democracy. Thus, we KNOW that, while not by all judges (because of the diversity of opinions in this country), our values (remember that word?!) would be represented, and not just the anything goes-he screwed kids, well he must be a good guy inside so let's let him free and tell him not to do it again-liberal judges.
-----------------------------
"Is the murderer a serial killer, someone convicted of 1st degree, 2nd degree, or manslaughter? If serial or 1st degree, I would not be comfortable, and would want them locked up. 2nd degree I'm iffy on. Manslaughter I don't think I'd mind too much.

As for a pedophile, I'd be worried for the kids. I'd like him/her kept away.

Aside from that, why are we filling up the jails with people with petty crimes (this of course is a loaded term. What constitutes petty?) or first time offenders of relatively minor crimes. Rehab or other sentences for them, and the freed up space can be used for murderers and other such criminals."

Well, if you want a 2nd degree murderer living with you, be my guest. Invite him/her into your home for tea and crumpets. Not mine.
You're right, the use of the term "petty crime" is loaded. Ask the clerk who's just been robbed or the bank teller who's had a gun pointed at her. I'm not saying stick 'em all in jail and let God sort 'em out, but for heaven's sake, let's have some real consequences for bad actions.
--------------------------------------
"Is 3 pickups for minor shoplifting equal to 3 murder ones? To armed robbery? Armed robbery where someone is killed?

While our minor shoplifter is in prison, he/she could be learning more interesting ways to cause trouble. What you've done is trained a more serious criminal. Hope you can afford that."

If you're a repeat offender, be it shoplifting or murdering, then that's a sign that you're once again likely to reoffend. In that case, they're not equal to murderers, but I don't think they should be let out post haste.

And while our minor shoplifter is out free, he/she realizes that he (going to the single pronoun) can get away with it, and then rips the wallet out of your pocket while you're waiting at the bus stop; you don't want him to take your wallet, so you resist. He pops you one in the jaw. You fall to the ground, and buddy takes your wallet anyhow. So instead of learning that he can't get away with it, he learned that he **can**. And this time, you're the victim. Hope you can stomach that.
------------------------
"Nobody want's [sic] to accept responsibility for their [criminal/bad] actions?

Welcome to humanity. Where have you been?

I agree. Pay your dues if you do a crime? But is it one size fits all? Fit the punishment to the seriousness of the crime?

And how will "say anything to get elected" judges help?"

I should have been more clear. Nobody on the left wants to think they're responsible for their own actions. And the judges on the left perpetuate this by making people **not** responsible for their own actions. (Otherwise we'd see about 2/3 of the higher-ups in the Liberal party in jail by now.)

About the "say anything to get elected judges", well, that's infinitely better than the "who the hell is he/she" judge selection system we have now. We're bound to make a few mistakes, but in the end, it'll turn out to be that much better a system because we'll tend toward reasonable, sane, ACCOUNTABLE judges. And I think that's the crux of this matter--what recourse do we have w.r.t. this judge, now that the pedophiles have gotten a slap on the wrist?

**Sigh** my heart hurts for those poor kids.

I should have been more clear. Nobody on the left wants to think they're responsible for their own actions. And the judges on the left perpetuate this by making people **not** responsible for their own actions. (Otherwise we'd see about 2/3 of the higher-ups in the Liberal party in jail by now.)
-----------------------

Ah...the fallacy the the left believes no one has responsbility.

And the right is all for taking responsibilty when they do somethign wrong?

-----------------------

About the "say anything to get elected judges", well, that's infinitely better than the "who the hell is he/she" judge selection system we have now. We're bound to make a few mistakes, but in the end, it'll turn out to be that much better a system because we'll tend toward reasonable, sane, ACCOUNTABLE judges.
--------------------------

We will tend towards political judges. ..judges who will base descisions on their chances at the ballot box...not on justice. To pretend otherwise is a conservative-land pipe dream.

If this is your idea of a "reasonable, sane, ACCOUNTABLE" system...your welcome to it.

Democracy -- the worst system except for all of the other systems. Electing judges would allow us to at least keep the very worst of them off the bench.

BTW, is that story about the Supreme Court judge ordering a lie detector test actually true? I could believe it, but I've never heard that one before.

"Ah...the fallacy the the left believes no one has responsbility.

And the right is all for taking responsibilty when they do somethign wrong?"

In a word, yes.

-----------------------
"We will tend towards political judges. ..judges who will base descisions on their chances at the ballot box...not on justice. To pretend otherwise is a conservative-land pipe dream.

If this is your idea of a "reasonable, sane, ACCOUNTABLE" system...your welcome to it."

As opposed to now, where we have judges basing decisions on ... well, I tried to think of something but I couldn't come up with it, as we've shown judges to have, at times, asinine rulings. And when I think about it more, what's wrong, exactly, with judges basing decisions on their chances at the ballot box? I mean, it means they'll have to a) actually pay attention to what the general public (aka the great unwashed) feels is correct, all the while b) sticking to the law. The best of both worlds, IMO. But please, if you have a better idea, I'm all for hearing it.

As opposed to now, where we have judges basing decisions on ... well, I tried to think of something but I couldn't come up with it, as we've shown judges to have, at times, asinine rulings. And when I think about it more, what's wrong, exactly, with judges basing decisions on their chances at the ballot box? I mean, it means they'll have to a) actually pay attention to what the general public (aka the great unwashed) feels is correct, all the while b) sticking to the law. The best of both worlds, IMO. But please, if you have a better idea, I'm all for hearing it.

------------------------------
Well, based on how current elections work...these judges, if they want to keep their jobs, would skew their descisions away from the idea of Justice towards what will get them elected...and this includes those who fund their elections. Imagine, being beholden to lobbyists who apply big bucks to a judges campaign.

If the "public" want's to execute shoplifters, and they elect a hanging judge who promply starts executing shoplifters, is this Justice? Or mob rule?

If this same judge lets a CEO, who bilked millions from his company's shareholders, off with a light sentence because said CEO and his lobby supported the judges candidacy...is this Justice?

If someone complains about this inconsistency (one theft gets you hung, another theft gets a slap on the wrist), the lobbyists just give the judge more money to fund ads to a) spin and b) attack other candidates.

Politicising justice in this way a stupid solution to the problem.

I already offered one solution. You apparently don't want to hear it.

CJ posted:

"BTW, is that story about the Supreme Court judge ordering a lie detector test actually true? I could believe it, but I've never heard that one before."

Regrettably, it happened just the way I described.