Is our justice system a hypocrisy?


JLM
#1
Our justice system is based on the assumption that an accused is innocent until proven guilty. If that is really the case why do accuseds have to post bail or remain in jail awaiting trial? I say you can't have it both ways. As it's not reasonable or safe to allow the likes of Pickton, Bernardo etc. to remain on the street while awaiting trial, I think this "innocent until proven guilty" bullsh*t should be removed.
 
petros
#2
Quote:

Our justice system is based on the assumption that an accused is innocent until proven guilty.

Yeah, that is definetly an assumption because your own words prove the reality of the system.

Wait until you figure out that that it is based on caste or class then you'll be really confused.
 
Cannuck
+1
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

....I think this "innocent until proven guilty" bullsh*t should be removed.

I'm not really surprised. On a number of other threads you've wanted to hang people before their day in court. All I can say is hopefully people like you never get any real power in this country.
 
DurkaDurka
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Our justice system is based on the assumption that an accused is innocent until proven guilty. If that is really the case why do accuseds have to post bail or remain in jail awaiting trial? I say you can't have it both ways. As it's not reasonable or safe to allow the likes of Pickton, Bernardo etc. to remain on the street while awaiting trial, I think this "innocent until proven guilty" bullsh*t should be removed.

So we should just hang people from cranes like they do in Iran? F*ck the judicial process, I want blood justice!
 
JLM
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

I'm not really surprised. On a number of other threads you've wanted to hang people before their day in court. All I can say is hopefully people like you never get any real power in this country.

If you are going to post you should post responsibly. Which accused did I suggest hanging before trial?

Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurkaView Post

So we should just hang people from cranes like they do in Iran? F*ck the judicial process, I want blood justice!

"Innocent" people, should not be forced to raise bail or be locked up.
 
taxslave
#6
We don't have a real justice system in Canada. We have Just-Us for the rich, criminal or otherwise and the poor get law.
 
Cannuck
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

If you are going to post you should post responsibly. Which accused did I suggest hanging before trial?

I seem to recall one about a cop caught on video. That you claimed was guilty and argued with me when i suggested that we need to courts to decide that, not you.

There's a murderer in your town Mister there were seven unsolved last year
There's a murderer in your town Mister how long has he been living here
If they hang 'em all they get the guilty if they hang 'em all they cannot miss
If they hang 'em all they get the guilty been a lot of problem solved like this

There's a thief in your town Mister this morning my milk was gone
There's a thief in your town Mister how long has this been going on
If they hang 'em all they get the guilty...

There's a cheater in your town Mister last night I saw him in a bar
There's a cheater in your town Mister is that the kind of people you are
If they hang 'em all they get the guilty...

There's a hypocrite in your town Mister I think I caught him in a lie
There's a hypocrite in your town Mister are you gonna let that go by
If they hang 'em all they get the guilty that's what you say we ought to do
If they hang 'em all they get the guilty but remember they're gonna hang you too
If they hang 'em all they get the guilty...


Tom T Hall
 
DurkaDurka
+1
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

If you are going to post you should post responsibly. Which accused did I suggest hanging before trial?



"Innocent" people, should not be forced to raise bail or be locked up.

I think you need to note the difference between detention & conviction.

Been Charged? | Criminal Lawyers in Toronto - Rusonik, O'Connor, Robbins, Ross, Gorham & Angelini LLP (external - login to view)
"In Canada, the presumption of innocence is a fundamental right that is guaranteed under our section 11(d) of our constitution - The Charter of Rights and Freedoms. When a person is charged with a crime, a person is presumed not to have committed that crime until they are convicted of it in a court of law. Relying on this principle of justice, the courts will release an individual who is charged with a crime if the court is satisfied that they will come to court as directed, that there is not a risk to the community, and that the community would not be offended by the person's release."
 
JLM
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

I seem to recall one about a cop caught on video. That you claimed was guilty and argued with me when i suggested that we need to courts to decide that, not you.

There's a murderer in your town Mister there were seven unsolved last year
There's a murderer in your town Mister how long has he been living here
If they hang 'em all they get the guilty if they hang 'em all they cannot miss
If they hang 'em all they get the guilty been a lot of problem solved like this

There's a thief in your town Mister this morning my milk was gone
There's a thief in your town Mister how long has this been going on
If they hang 'em all they get the guilty...

There's a cheater in your town Mister last night I saw him in a bar
There's a cheater in your town Mister is that the kind of people you are
If they hang 'em all they get the guilty...

There's a hypocrite in your town Mister I think I caught him in a lie
There's a hypocrite in your town Mister are you gonna let that go by
If they hang 'em all they get the guilty that's what you say we ought to do
If they hang 'em all they get the guilty but remember they're gonna hang you too
If they hang 'em all they get the guilty...

Tom T Hall

You should answer my question.
 
Cannuck
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

You should answer my question.

I did. Try reading the post.
 
JLM
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

I did. Try reading the post.

I did, who did I suggest hanging without a trial?
 
petros
+2
#12  Top Rated Post
You've made comments many times about locking someone up and throwing away the key without all the facts being known. You aren't unique, we all do it.
 
mentalfloss
+1
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Our justice system is based on the assumption that an accused is innocent until proven guilty. If that is really the case why do accuseds have to post bail or remain in jail awaiting trial? I say you can't have it both ways. As it's not reasonable or safe to allow the likes of Pickton, Bernardo etc. to remain on the street while awaiting trial, I think this "innocent until proven guilty" bullsh*t should be removed.

YouTube - G20 TORONTO QUEEN amp SPADINA PROTESTS amp DETENTION - Decide for yourself

 
Cannuck
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

I did, who did I suggest hanging without a trial?

Read the post
 
petros
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Read the post

Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck
I seem to recall one about a cop caught on video. That you claimed was guilty and argued with me when i suggested that we need to courts to decide that, not you.


 
JLM
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

You've made comments many times about locking someone up and throwing away the key without all the facts being known. You aren't unique, we all do it.

Yep, I guess when a child is dead and we know who did it, I'm not too particular about getting ALL the facts- me bad.

Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Read the post

So as you often do, you are talking through your hat!
 
DurkaDurka
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Yep, I guess when a child is dead and we know who did it, I'm not too particular about getting ALL the facts- me bad.



So as you often do, you are talking through your hat!

You have a fuzzy notion of justice. How can you be sure who did it without the facts?
 
Cannuck
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurkaView Post

You have a fuzzy notion of justice. How can you be sure who did it without the facts?

JLM doesn't care about facts. He just wants to see somebody punished. If we get the right guy, I guess that's just a bonus.
 
petros
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Yep, I guess when a child is dead and we know who did it, I'm not too particular about getting ALL the facts- me bad.

Yup is bad when we've had how many "we know who did it"s that have been overturned?
 
JLM
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurkaView Post

You have a fuzzy notion of justice. How can you be sure who did it without the facts?

Lots of ways, D.N.A. eye witnesses, video. I'll admit I probably do get a little emotional on these type of cases, but that not the point of this thread. I just don't like the term "innocent until proven guilty" - innocent people shouldn't have to spend their life savings to defend themselves or lacking the funds remain in jail for months, often a year or more. That is the ONLY point I'm trying to make, but as usual one poster on here has to derail the thread.

Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

JLM doesn't care about facts. He just wants to see somebody punished. If we get the right guy, I guess that's just a bonus.

If you read the thread, you would know I was advocating the exact opposite.............................MORON.
 
Avro
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Our justice system is based on the assumption that an accused is innocent until proven guilty. If that is really the case why do accuseds have to post bail or remain in jail awaiting trial? I say you can't have it both ways. As it's not reasonable or safe to allow the likes of Pickton, Bernardo etc. to remain on the street while awaiting trial, I think this "innocent until proven guilty" bullsh*t should be removed.

Funny.

Reading some of your posts is like watching a snake trying to eat itself.
 
DurkaDurka
+1
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Lots of ways, D.N.A. eye witnesses, video. I'll admit I probably do get a little emotional on these type of cases, but that not the point of this thread. I just don't like the term "innocent until proven guilty" - innocent people shouldn't have to spend their life savings to defend themselves or lacking the funds remain in jail for months, often a year or more. That is the ONLY point I'm trying to make, but as usual one poster on here has to derail the thread.

I agree innocent people ideally shouldn't have to spend their funds or time defending them selves against wrongful prosecution, in cases like that, you hope it doesn't make it court in the first place.
 
Cannuck
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

That is the ONLY point I'm trying to make, but as usual one poster on here has to derail the thread.

Nice try but in the other thread about the cop, if I recall, you were pretty upset that the cop was still getting paid. Perhaps if you didn't flip flop so much your positions wouldn't be so confusing.

What is it you want? Do you want the government (or somebody) to cover legal expenses for people up and until they are found guilty or do you just want to eliminate trials altogether. I think, given your past history, you favour the latter. If it's the former, just say so and ell us how much you think it will cost us.
 
TenPenny
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

. I just don't like the term "innocent until proven guilty" - innocent people shouldn't have to spend their life savings to defend themselves or lacking the funds remain in jail for months, often a year or more. That is the ONLY point I'm trying to make, but as usual one poster on here has to derail the thread.

People who are considered no threat to the community, or no threat to not appear in court, usually aren't detained. However, people charged with serious / violent crimes are usually detained awaiting trial, because they either are a flight risk, or pose a further danger to society if left on their own until trial. They are still innocent until proven guilty, but are considered to pose a significant risk to society if allowed free before the trial.
 
JLM
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurkaView Post

I agree innocent people ideally shouldn't have to spend their funds or time defending them selves against wrongful prosecution, in cases like that, you hope it doesn't make it court in the first place.

FINALLY a sensible response to the thread.

Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Nice try but in the other thread about the cop, if I recall, you were pretty upset that the cop was still getting paid. Perhaps if you didn't flip flop so much your positions wouldn't be so confusing.

Oh f*** do we have to go through that again? I was merely upset because of all the evidence he was still on the payroll. He should have been taken off the payroll until the trial AND THEN if found not guilty be reimbursed his back pay.
 
Avro
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

FINALLY a sensible response to the thread.



Oh f*** do we have to go through that again? I was merely upset because of all the evidence he was still on the payroll. He should have been taken off the payroll until the trial AND THEN if found not guilty be reimbursed his back pay.

Meanwhile he lost his home becasue he couldn't make his morgage payments.
 
JLM
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

People who are considered no threat to the community, or no threat to not appear in court, usually aren't detained. However, people charged with serious / violent crimes are usually detained awaiting trial, because they either are a flight risk, or pose a further danger to society if left on their own until trial. They are still innocent until proven guilty, but are considered to pose a significant risk to society if allowed free before the trial.

OK, on that premise I have to agree with you and possibly admit that my thread wasn't 100% valid. I congratulate you on making your point and getting me to rethink my position without jumping all over me. BUT "innocent until proven guilty" still rubs me the wrong way. I view forums as a process, we throw thoughts out there, without having to worry about being 100% accurate and then through a process of fine tuning by participants we hopefully finally arrive at something that is close to the truth.

Quote: Originally Posted by AvroView Post

Meanwhile he lost his home becasue he couldn't make his morgage payments.

He should have thought of that before he kicked Buddy in the head and committed two other assaults on citizens.
 
petros
#28
Even if some is proven innocent there are many who will always believe that person was guilty regardless of the precision of the facts.

Human nature is that way.
 
Cannuck
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

innocent people shouldn't have to spend their life savings to defend themselves or lacking the funds remain in jail for months, often a year or more. That is the ONLY point I'm trying to make, but as usual one poster on here has to derail the thread.

Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Oh f*** do we have to go through that again? I was merely upset because of all the evidence he was still on the payroll. He should have been taken off the payroll until the trial AND THEN if found not guilty be reimbursed his back pay.

...and as as pointed out, in that thread, people need to pay bills and put food on the table while they are awaiting trial. Removing somebody's source of income before they've had a chance to defend themselves is treating them as guilty before they are found guilty. I really see no reason that we need to change the legal system because it "upsets" you. Maybe you should just harden the**** up!

YouTube - Chopper Reid - Harden the up Australia

 
Avro
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

OK, on that premise I have to agree with you and possibly admit that my thread wasn't 100% valid. I congratulate you on making your point and getting me to rethink my position without jumping all over me. BUT "innocent until proven guilty" still rubs me the wrong way. I view forums as a process, we throw thoughts out there, without having to worry about being 100% accurate and then through a process of fine tuning by participants we hopefully finally arrive at something that is close to the truth.

That's funny and untrue. You see it as a way to call other members names or swear and stomp your feet if they don't agree with you


Quote:

He should have thought of that before he kicked Buddy in the head and committed two other assaults on citizens.

Funny again.....why would you make that other comment about getting money back then if found not guilty?

See, like a snake trying to consume itself or a spider getting tangled in it's own web.

You amuse me.
 
no new posts