Electing the Judicary

[zipperhead_cop]

(I think this post got pulled from a topic I started along the same line, then got put in here.  I had tried to search for this topic already under way but failed to notice it.  Sorry if it seems out of place, it was written as a starting of a thread).

In my profession (police officer) I have the unique perspective on the legal system, in that I get to be there with the criminal when something happens or shortly thereafter.   It is this hands on environment that makes it the best job in the world (my opinion) and what has spurred many television interpretations of how we maintain the Thin Blue Line.

Where things go to a dump is when it gets to court.   Coast to coast we see things time and again that we (as normal persons who are concerned with the welfare of our country) shake our heads slowly with great sadness and say "what the hell is wrong with the system?".   Well, I'm here to tell you:

DUMP THE JUDGES!!!

Judges are supposed to try cases based on facts and then toss them if there is a "reasonable doubt" that it did not happen.   Reasonable doubt is supposed to be if a normal person was presented with a particular set of facts and circumstances, if after reviewing them they had a reasonable doubt, then they should not find a conviction.   What the legal system had devolved into is if there is a hint, whisper or vague notion of a doubt, that is all that is needed for todays judges to toss a case.  

Many are quick to blame the Police-poor evidence gathering, bad interview, etc.   But in reality, this opinion of the effort put in is generally as a result of that being lobbed out by a defense lawyer.  

Many want to blame the defense lawyers, but that should not be the case either.   It is their job to put up a defense and as a professional they are obliged to do everything in their ability to pull every little trick and stunt to try to throw the case off for their client.   If you are paying a professional to do anything, you expect them to do the best job possible.

That being said, it is up to the Judges to see through the smoke and mirrors and say "nice try, buddy, no dice".   That is where the system falls apart.   Same goes for sentencing.   Many will try to say there are sentencing guidelines and "their hands are tied" but that is crap.   They have no problem ignoring mandatory minimum sentences in favor of the a$$hats, so it can go the other way.   What they don't want is to have one of their godly decisions overturned on an appeal and take a hit in their zeppelin sized ego.

In the United States, you get to vote for what we would call Provincial level criminal court Judges.   That way, when election time comes around, you get commercials like "Judge Bloggins set nine child molesters free and gave a drunk driver who killed a family of five three days in jail".   Then the people go "he did what?   He's out of here".   The next thing you know, when Judge Bloggins the II is handing down some rounder a sentence he has to think "am I serving the public, or am I serving my defense lawyer college who I go to cocktail parties with?".   Presto-poof!   A$$hat is doing some real time.  

The unfortunate part of this is that even if we could get Parliament to pass such a change in the law (and how many MP's are lawyers) it is ultimately up to the Courts to decide if a new law is enforceable, and you know that they aren't going to rule themselves out of a pretty cushy high paying job.

Stand by for Karla's next catastrophe.

 

[R0B]

We should probably elect judges, upper level police officers, senators, allow the public to vote bills rather than just elect politicians who do so, but those in power wouldn't want to change the system and reduce their power.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

ROB--You are quite right.   But if we start with the judges, we at least have a start at making our own futures. Voting in various political parties ddoesn'tseem to change anything.

As for one of Meridian's comments:

"If  you were to ask Canadians to continue on then and elect a justice, you would be asking them to do exactly what the Americans do - elect ssomeonewho represents your views and thus in the end the majority will and held values will be applied"

I cant believe that you stated that as a negative?!  Why sshouldn'tthe majority view be put forward and apply to the administration of law?  How else are we going to get the judges to pay attention to the needs of society unless they have the potential of being punted after a term of useless ssentencing

If there is any concern about election abuse and patronage, that is easily overcome.  Have whatever government that is currently in power aadministratea set amount capped off by a number (I know nothing of economics, so I wont even try) and put restrictions on them.  Limit ccampaigningto personal abilities and records.  Just because the American system has run amok ddoesn'tmean that it is inherently wrong.  If we were starting out with a new system, we could see all of the problems, anticipate them and set up countermeasures to ensure that the judicial elections were run fairly. 

As it is, you all see what a cluster @#$% pParliamentis.  Everyone hooting and banging and finger pointing.  Its downright eembarrassing  There is no way we could ever hope to count on the MMP'sto step up and take out a judge. 

Plus, the judges are not doing anything that is technically or legally wrong.  But it doesn'tchange the fact that in the last ten years, when it comes to sentencing it is not against the law to:shoplift, write fraud cheques or use a stolen credit card, steal cars and get into high speed pursuits, break into homes and businesses, use any type of drugs, threaten or assault someone (as long as the other person isn't too hurt) including your spouse and children, drive drunk and maybe wreck some stuff and hurt a few people, and trafficdrugs (but don'tget caught more than four times).  Its even to the point where if you go and rob a store at knife point, as long as you don't have any prior violent offences, you are looking at a couple of years probation, time served. 

Canada could be the safest place in the world if it really wanted to be.  As it stands now, things are spiralling downwards in a left-wise direction, with no 'chute deployed.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

And the people are starting to get on board with judicial dissatisfaciton:

http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/story.html?id=a8a137db-2176-4d7c-8ba1-539d74c1fe17&k=98866

Dump the socialist dead weight and start fixing things!!

 

[xFusilier]

The fundemental role of judges in society is to administer justice.  Justice by its nature concerns itself with the question of what is right?  The election of judges, would first require potential judges to frame their ideas within the scope of what is popular, allowing questions on the nature of justice to fall by the wayside.  One of the problems with current sentencing laws is to balance, demands of justice, retribution, public safety and rehabilitation.  The ability to do this often requires the wisdom of Solomon, and the fact that judges do get it wrong speaks more to thier falability as human beings more than any over arching political dogma.  At the end of the day the Courts take their marching orders from the Law, which in a democratic society is a popular institution.  If we are not content with the present administration then it is the Law that needs to be changed, not our manner of selecting those that adjucate it.  The election of judges would move the administration of law, away from a rational process to one that attempt to a irrational process (which is the anetheama of the modern state) which attempts to slake the desire of the masses for retribution when a heinous crime is commited.  The appointment of judges serves as a firewall to ensure that other, less intuitive factors, compose the notion of justice.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

The fundemental role of judges in society is to administer justice.  Justice by its nature concerns itself with the question of what is right?  The election of judges, would first require potential judges to frame their ideas within the scope of what is popular, allowing questions on the nature of justice to fall by the wayside.  One of the problems with current sentencing laws is to balance, demands of justice, retribution, public safety and rehabilitation.  The ability to do this often requires the wisdom of Solomon, and the fact that judges do get it wrong speaks more to their falability as human beings more than any over arching political dogma.  At the end of the day the Courts take their marching orders from the Law, which in a democratic society is a popular institution.  If we are not content with the present administration then it is the Law that needs to be changed, not our manner of selecting those that adjucate it.  The election of judges would move the administration of law, away from a rational process to one that attempt to a irrational process (which is the anetheama of the modern state) which attempts to slake the desire of the masses for retribution when a heinous crime is commited.  The appointment of judges serves as a firewall to ensure that other, less intuitive factors, compose the notion of justice.

Which would be nice if it worked.  As far as those factors that you mention; justice, retribution, public safety are not even on the radar any more.  And if anyone is kidding themselves that there is any genuine rehabilitation in jail, they are living in a world of make believe.  Currently, jails provide criminals with no more punishment than inconvenience and perhaps boredom.  Judges have become so arrogant and self aggrandized that this "firewall" concept makes them think they are better somehow than the pathetic unter-mench that they lord over. 
Why should the determination of "what is right" not be controlled by the people to a degree?  "What is right" sure as Christ is not what we have now.  What is the big downside?  Judges that want to be re-elected so some tool who comes up for his fiftieth theft conviction actually does a few years so it looks good on tv?  How does that hurt the fabric of society?
And you are dead wrong when you say the judges take their "marching orders from the law".  I have seen time and again judges ignore mandatory sentencing guidelines on firearm convictions.  I have seen a judge in his ruling determine that a man deliberately struck his girlfriend in the face and broke her nose but was not guilty as the judge volunteered the defence of provocation (the accused claimed on the stand that because he was Italian he talked with his hands and she had walked into his animated conversation) because of "SOMETHING SHE MAY HAVE SAID".  The judicial equivalent of "the bitch was asking for it".  That was Judge Saul Nosanchuk, BTW.  I have had career criminal sh_trats go free of resisting arrest charges, and assault PC charges because "fighting is a job hazard for the police".  How does encouraging criminals to fight with the police part of your "rational process". 
I'm not suggesting that any dink with a placard be able to be elected.  There would have to be a stringent system of even being qualified to run, and suitable overview rules concerning election contribution income to avoid conflict of interest concerns.  But right now, the system is broken.  A BC judge dismissed a possesion for the purpose of trafficking charge against a man because the police who were executing the search warrant didn't give him enough time to get to the door before they kicked it in.  There is not enough band width for all of the donkey show decisions that are out there.  The only thing that will shake some sense into these clowns is maybe a thought in the back of their heads that says "hmmm, the four years is coming up.  What have I done for my city/town/county/province lately?".

 

[xFusilier]

Why should the determination of "what is right" not be controlled by the people to a degree?

It is, through called Parliament

What is right" sure as Christ is not what we have now.  What is the big downside?  Judges that want to be re-elected so some tool who comes up for his fiftieth theft conviction actually does a few years so it looks good on tv?

Let me ask you what happens when someone who, is accused of a high profile crime for which their is great indignation is wrongly convicted and goes down for 25 years simply so a judge can look good in an election year?

And you are dead wrong when you say the judges take their "marching orders from the law".  I have seen time and again judges ignore mandatory sentencing guidelines on firearm convictions.

As have I in terms of s.109 CC orders, and you know what, every one of those sentences was varied by the Court of Appeal, to include the missing order.  The minimum sentences under Part III of the code, most likely fall under the purview of R. v. Brown, and that is why they are not imposed.

The fact that often the crown makes descisions not to appeal cases where the sentence was either not in the best interests of public safety or downright unlawful is not an arguement for election of judges.

You rail against assinine judicial judgements, yet you make no arguement, as to how the election of judges will prevent this.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

It is, through called Parliament

Great, but as in the child pornography legislation that was forwarded, all it took was a socialist judge (from BC of course ) to decide that it was far to unpleasant a law (God knows how precious our kiddie diddlers are) and now it is toothless.  The judges get to make decisions on the laws, so we can write them out the ass, but if these clowns always decide to go on the limp noodle side of it, we can hope for no progress.

Let me ask you what happens when someone who, is accused of a high profile crime for which their is great indignation is wrongly convicted and goes down for 25 years simply so a judge can look good in an election year?

Okay, that is speaking to competence, not how they got their job.  And don't forget the appeals process, since no one should ever be held accountable for their deeds.  With the case laws now, along with advanced investigative techniques, I would seriously doubt that could happen now.  The police don't want the wrong person in jail, because that means the one who did it is still out there.  I would love to see a serious wrongful conviction in the last ten years.  Not a "not guilty" verdict, an actual case where evidence was so skewed and contorted that some innocent stupe got railroaded.  As I have said before,  if GUILTY people aren't getting  convicted for their crimes, the innocent ones should fear nothing.  Innocent people can be cleared in a heart beat if they submit to a polygraph examination.  It isn't admissible in court if they are found to be lying, but if you have done nothing the case will swing off you immediately.  Any time you hear of someone refusing to take a poly "on advice of my lawyer", there is a reason they are advising it.  Not guilty peoples lawyers show up in the lobby of HQ with their client and demand a poly exam on the spot.

As have I in terms of s.109 CC orders, and you know what, every one of those sentences was varied by the Court of Appeal, to include the missing order.  The minimum sentences under Part III of the code, most likely fall under the purview of R. v. Brown, and that is why they are not imposed.

But why should they have to be appealed?  They are MANDATORY sentences.  Who are these people who think they are so damn grand that they can IGNORE the law and pass out their enlightened sentences instead?

The fact that often the crown makes decisions not to appeal cases where the sentence was either not in the best interests of public safety or downright unlawful is not an argument for election of judges.

Yes it is, because if you saw the work load that these Crowns get saddled with you would be blown away.  Those guys earn every cent that they get, and are probably owed more.  The judges keep putting these tools on the street, so they do more crime, and create more work.  When are they going to find time for an appeal?  And again, the god-complex arrogance kicks in for the judges.  One of our Crowns cannot get convictions no matter what the facts state with one of the judges here, because he had the galling nerve to appeal an impaired causing bodily harm case.  Now, out of petty spite, the judge crushes him every time he can.  This kind of crap is the "firewall" that you are counting on?

You rail against asinine judicial judgements, yet you make no argument, as to how the election of judges will prevent this.

A) I don't rail.  I argue passionately.
B) The point is personal accountability.  They don't have to answer to anyone, and short of killing someone themselves, they won't have to step down until they are 80 years old. The institutionalized pious attitude of the judges that we have now is crushing our legal system.  Since they aren't doing anything technically legally wrong, there is no way to oust them. 
Any system of anything that uses people to get things done is capable of mistakes.  You can't avoid that.  But if a proper frame work was created and thought out before the election system was implimented, then you could take all reasonable precautions against abuse of the process. 
I'm open to suggestions.  How do we bring victims rights and genuine punishment back to the legal system with the existing judiciary?