Judge acts very ignorant


JLM
+1 / -2
#1
Federal Court judge under review for berating sex assault complainant - Politics - CBC News

I think he should have his license lifted for six months for being cruel and unsympathetic and for another six months for being stupid!
 
Frankiedoodle
#2
why isn't there a law against being ignorant.
 
JLM
+1
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by FrankiedoodleView Post

why isn't there a law against being ignorant.

Beats me!! Maybe the people making the laws are ignorant!
 
tay
#4
A hearing is to begin Tuesday for a Federal Court judge who asked a sexual assault complainant why she couldn’t just keep her knees together.

The Canadian Judicial Council is to determine whether Justice Robin Camp, who made the comments in 2014 while a provincial court judge in Calgary, should be removed from the bench.

Camp acquitted a man of sexually assaulting a 19-year-old girl after deciding that the man’s version of events was more credible.

Court transcripts show Camp questioned the woman’s morals, suggested her attempts to fight off her attacker were feeble and described her as “the accused” throughout the trial.

He asked her: “Why couldn’t you just keep your knees together?” and said “pain and sex sometimes go together.”

The verdict was overturned on appeal and a new trial was ordered.

Hearing to begin Tuesday for Justice Robin Camp who made ‘knees together’ remark at sex assault trial | Calgary Herald (external - login to view)
 
spaminator
#5
Justice Robin Camp pleads ignorance in 'knees together' rape case
By Michael Platt, Calgary Sun
First posted: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 05:28 PM EDT | Updated: Thursday, September 08, 2016 12:42 AM EDT
Irony, thy name is 19 — specifically, Section 19 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
There, in plain English, you’ll find the law explaining ignorance is not a valid legal defense in this country: “Ignorance of the law by a person who commits an offence is not an excuse for committing the offence,” it reads.
Simple, and very straight forward.
And yet with great irony, the future career of Justice Robin Camp appears to hinge on just that: his ignorance of Canada’s law and its treatment of victims of sexual assault, including their apparently morality and sexual past.
If it were his own courtroom, the Calgary judge would scoff at the excuses so far offered in a case that’s became infamous for Camp’s callous questioning of the alleged rape victim, including “why couldn’t you just keep your knees together?”.
Criminals can’t use it, but apparently, ignorance is a defence that’s good enough for Camp, who stands to lose his job for shaming Canadian justice with his knuckle-dragging commentary during that 2014 trial.
Apparently, Justice Camp just didn’t know any better.
“I realized he was sincerely committed to learning what had gone wrong,” were the words of Justice Deborah McCawley, called to the stand to speak on Camp’s behalf at a Canadian Judicial Council’s inquiry into his conduct.
There, in a downtown Calgary hotel, a panel of three Superior Court judges and two senior lawyers are tasked with deciding if Camp should keep his job, with their recommendation then sent on to Parliament.
On Tuesday, the first day of the inquiry, the complainant in the sexual assault case spoke against Camp, saying his questions made her feel “like I was some kind of ****.”
On Wednesday, it was the Camp team’s turn to defend his sullied reputation.
McCawley, a Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench judge, describes herself as a “mentor” to Camp, after he approached her seeking education and guidance about how he had screwed up so badly in handling the sexual assault trial.
“Justice Camp was brutally honest with himself, he was the hardest critic he could have been,” McCawley told the public inquiry, which continues on Thursday.
“His motivation was very much the pain and embarrassment he’d caused the complainant in this case.”
Some cynics might suggest keeping a lucrative job on the bench would be motivation enough for many, but McCawley says Camp was only keen to learn about where he’d gone wrong.
“He worked extremely hard, I found him to be very amenable to learning,” she said.
Somehow, Camp was unaware that asking an alleged victim why she didn’t bother to scream or just move her lower body out of range isn’t acceptable, nor was repeatedly calling the complainant “the accused”.
His ignorance of the law was apparently so vast, Alberta’s Court of Appeal made mention of it in overturning Camp’s acquittal of the accused in the sexual assault case, forcing the whole matter to be tried again.
“We are satisfied that the trial judge’s comments throughout the proceedings and in his reasons gave rise to doubts about the trial judge’s understanding of the law governing sexual assault,” reads the ruling.
It went on to say, “Sexual stereotypes and stereotypical myths, which have long since been discredited, may have found their way into the trial judge’s judgment.”
Somehow, despite being immersed in 2016 and a society that abandoned victim blaming decades ago, the unlearned judge was totally unaware he was out of line — and of course, he wants forgiveness.
McCawley says she went with Camp to various courses, including “Sexual Assault 101” and “how to conduct a sexual assault trial,” while discussing how he might have handled the botched case better.
“He was sincerely committed to learning what had gone wrong,” she testified.
“He was deeply remorseful and full of regret because he realized his words has wounded a number of people as well as an institution that he loves.” That part, he gets.
mplatt@postmedia.com (external - login to view)
Justice Robin Camp pleads ignorance in 'knees together' rape case | MICHAEL PLAT

Camp didn't know history behind sex assault laws, professor testifies
By Kevin Martin, Postmedia Network
First posted: Thursday, September 08, 2016 07:48 PM EDT | Updated: Thursday, September 08, 2016 08:43 PM EDT
Justice Robin Camp knew the law as it pertained to sexual assault cases, he just didn’t understand the history behind it, a law professor testified Thursday.
Brenda Cossman, a professor in the University of Toronto law faculty, said she was asked to teach Camp where he went wrong when he made insensitive and inappropriate comments during a Calgary sexual assault trial.
Camp, now a justice with the Federal Court, was a provincial court judge when he presided over the trial of Alexander Wagar.
He acquitted Wagar after making comments to the complainant asking her why she didn’t keep her knees together, or sink her bottom into a bathroom basin to prevent him from penetrating her.
Camp’s ruling has been overturned and a new trial is scheduled for November.
Cossman said she met with Camp for five educational sessions to try to give him a better understanding of why his comments in the case were inappropriate.
And she told a Canadian Judicial Council committee presiding over an inquiry into his conduct, Camp seemed immediately receptive to learning gender sensitivity.
“He just seemed very earnest and remorseful,” Cossman told the hearing, which could ultimately see Camp removed from the bench.
“I think that he understood that the language he used was extremely problematic and insensitive,” she said.
“My best assessment ... was that he did understand the law of sexual assault, but he really didn’t understand at all why we had it and the history with respect to that.”
Cossman didn’t think Camp’s conduct at the trial was rooted in rape myths such as women who have previously had sex are likely to want it.
But she agreed his comments could be seen as being so.
“I’m not in any way defending any of these comments, I think these comments are extremely insensitive,” she said.
Cossman said she conveyed to Camp “why these comments seemed so inappropriate given the history of rape myths.”
The evidence didn’t sit well with a sexual assault survivor who showed up at the hearing, protest signs in tow, to show her disdain for Camp’s conduct.
“I do believe that despite the fact Justice Camp has ... expressed some remorse, I don’t believe that ignorance is acceptable — to say that he wasn’t aware of these things,” said Jessica Daigle, during a break in the hearing.
“Judges, lawyers, etcetera should be treating the victims with dignity,” said Daigle, who was convinced not to proceed with charges against her attacker for fear she would be denigrated on the witness stand.
Camp is scheduled to testify Friday morning.
KMartin@postmedia.com (external - login to view) On Twitter: @KMartinCourts
Camp didn't know history behind sex assault laws, professor testifies | Canada |
 
Ludlow
#6
There's azzwipes in every walk of life.
 
Machjo
-1
#7
Even men have been sexually assaulted by presumably weaker women. Many explanations are possible. Emotional vulnerability, fear (especially if the person is armed or appears dangerous), presence of mind (especially if a drink is spiked or just that the person is assaulted while asleep, which could take him a few seconds or longer to climb out of unconsciousness sufficiently to understand what is going on and that he's not dreaming), shock, restraints, etc. etc. etc.

Now as for the presumption of innocence or proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, I respect that. But the judge could chose his words wisely. For example, failing to prove the accused's guilt does not prove that the alleged victim lied. It just shows lack of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. So the judge could find the accused not guilty without accusing anyone of anything.

That's where making fornication a fineable offence with the guilty paying well over a thousand dollars for a first offence with the fine doubling for each repetition of the offence could come in handy. Should the prosecution fail to prove sexual assault but privé Williams ng participation in a sex act, then it could at least fine him. Besides, even if he is innocent of sexual assault, what was he doing sleeping with a woman whose character he doesn't know? That would serve him right. Lesson learnt for costing the taxpayer so much for his stupidity. It could come in handy in prostitution cases too since fornication is easier to prove (no need to prove money was exchanged). Again, even if the man is innocent of paying for sex, why sleep with a woman who would have been advertising her services for the police to see?

Again, it would serve him right. Lesson learnt.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post


That's where making fornication a fineable offence with the guilty paying well over a thousand dollars for a first offence with the fine doubling for each repetition of the offence could come in handy. Should the prosecution fail to prove sexual assault but privé Williams ng participation in a sex act, then it could at least fine him. Besides, even if he is innocent of sexual assault, what was he doing sleeping with a woman whose character he doesn't know? That would serve him right. Lesson learnt for costing the taxpayer so much for his stupidity. It could come in handy in prostitution cases too since fornication is easier to prove (no need to prove money was exchanged). Again, even if the man is innocent of paying for sex, why sleep with a woman who would have been advertising her services for the police to see?

You want to make having sex a crime?

Sounds good to me.
 
Danbones
+1
#9
Well, when you get fikked over by someone
I guess doing a crime could be construed as having sex
 
Machjo
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

You want to make having sex a crime?

Sounds good to me.

Fornication is an offence in some US states, and tends to function as a semi-miribund law. It's not usually enforced but in some cases in which sexual assault or prostitution are suspected but can't be sufficiently proven, the prosecutor has used the fornication law.

The advantage with such a law is that it would discourage a person from sleeping with someone he doesn't know, a person who could falsely accuse him of sexual assault or who might be advertising sexual services where the police can see the ad.

I'm all for the presumption of innocence, but people who sleep with others they don't know cost the taxpayer in court costs.

Isn't it reasonable to expect that before you sleep with someone, you first try to get to know the person at least well enough to know he won't falsely accuse you of rape later and that he's not advertising sexual services online, etc.?

Quote: Originally Posted by DanbonesView Post

Well, when you get fikked over by someone
I guess doing a crime could be construed as having sex

Again, if you're gonna sleep with the type of person who could falsely accused you of sexually assaulting him or who advertises sexual services online, etc. then your stupidity costs the taxpayer in court costs. Making it a fineable offence (well above 1,000.00 for a first offence, and to be doubled for each repetition of the offence) would help to cover the cost if your stupidity to the taxpayer.

It"s your responsibility to not hop into bed with someone you don't know.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+2
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Fornication is an offence in some US states, and tends to function as a semi-miribund law. It's not usually enforced but in some cases in which sexual assault or prostitution are suspected but can't be sufficiently proven, the prosecutor has used the fornication law.

The advantage with such a law is that it would discourage a person from sleeping with someone he doesn't know, a person who could falsely accuse him of sexual assault or who might be advertising sexual services where the police can see the ad.

I'm all for the presumption of innocence, but people who sleep with others they don't know cost the taxpayer in court costs.

Isn't it reasonable to expect that before you sleep with someone, you first try to get to know the person at least well enough to know he won't falsely accuse you of rape later and that he's not advertising sexual services online, etc.?

Great idea. I can see NO POSSIBILITY WHATSOEVER that cops and prosecutors might abuse that one.

By the way, Machjo, those laws are "moribund" (note spelling) because they've been struck down as unConstitutional.
 
Machjo
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

Great idea. I can see NO POSSIBILITY WHATSOEVER that cops and prosecutors might abuse that one.

By the way, Machjo, those laws are "moribund" (note spelling) because they've been struck down as unConstitutional.

Not on all cases. It seems they're not abused either. In all cases within our lifetime, they have been used against a person suspected of sexual assault or prostitution when that could not be proved but the person admitted to being a willing participant.

Sex Offenses: Consensual - Adultery And Fornication - Statutes, Divorce, Ground, and Crime - JRank Articles (external - login to view)

Used to strengthen a position in a divorce case too.

I would remove prison though. The whole point would be to recoup costs to the taxpayer, si just a significant fine to be doubled for each repetition of the offence.

We could also prohibit police espionage for the purpose of catching an act of fornication. So the police could catch such an act only incidentally while investigating a separate crime (like sexual assault for example). Maybe we could even decriminalised prostitution in exchange since that would be redundant anyway.

That said, a prostitute advertising her services online would not require police espionage since she's be advertising openly.

Then they just wai t for a John to enter, wait a few minutes, then enter to lay the fines. No need to prove an exchange of money. Take the bin full of condoms to the lab and their is your proof.

We might also limit the fine to the completion if the act of fornication, so intent to fornicate would not be a crime. That way a person could still back out St the last minute.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Not on all cases. It seems they're not abused either. In all cases within our lifetime, they have been used against a person suspected of sexual assault or prostitution when that could not be proved but the person admitted to being a willing participant.

Sex Offenses: Consensual - Adultery And Fornication - Statutes, Divorce, Ground, and Crime - JRank Articles (external - login to view)

Used to strengthen a position in a divorce case too.

I would remove prison though. The whole point would be to recoup costs to the taxpayer, si just a significant fine to be doubled for each repetition of the offence.

We could also prohibit police espionage for the purpose of catching an act of fornication. So the police could catch such an act only incidentally while investigating a separate crime (like sexual assault for example). Maybe we could even decriminalised prostitution in exchange since that would be redundant anyway.

That said, a prostitute advertising her services online would not require police espionage since she's be advertising openly.

Then they just wai t for a John to enter, wait a few minutes, then enter to lay the fines. No need to prove an exchange of money. Take the bin full of condoms to the lab and their is your proof.

We might also limit the fine to the completion if the act of fornication, so intent to fornicate would not be a crime. That way a person could still back out St the last minute.

Interesting. We'll have to take it up to the Supreme Court. Again.
 
Machjo
#14
And as for the police? I don't trust them with the balance of probabilities. Too easy to just fabricate a police statement.

I do tend to trust them with the presumption of innocence though since that requires them to actually collect evidence.

Foreign nationals should be protected by the presumption of innocence too of course, since cops can lie about them just as easily too.

However, making fornication a fineable offence could compensate for this by allowing the police to fine foreign sex workers for fornication again and again until they decide to leave Canada voluntarily. Right now a foreign national is not protected by the presumption of innocence so the police can claim whatever they want in their police statements. Even if they lose the case, the process itself can serve to harass the accused.

But if you're going to extend the presumption of innocence to immigration violations, then how do we prevent the proliferation if prostitution among foreign nationals in Cabana? How do we protect them from police corruption while still enduring the police can do their job?

Hypothetical here:

An international student is sharing a house with another international student she doesn't know well. Now imagine the other person is selling sex.

Under the present system, the innocent party faces a high risk of deportation if the police arrive at the house one day and a client happens to be in the house. Maybe she thought the other student was just very promiscuous. This could also apply to a person invited to an acquaintance's place for lunch not knowing the place is a bawdy house.

Now if we extend the presumption of innocence to immigration violations, then unless the police can prove an exchange if money, they are powerless to stop the person from working illegally in Canada.

In the first and present scenario, the innocent are at a high risk of being deported, and in the second, the police is almost powerless to stop the guilty.

A third possibility is to extend the presumption of innocence to immigration violations but make fornication a fineable offence. That way, if in doubt, an innocent person could choose to abstain from sex at least in that house. However, the police could then at least fine a guilty party for fornication. With the fine doubling for each repetition of the offence, if the police visit the house each time they spot an ad, it won't take long before that person stops selling sex. Then we have a situation where the innocent are better protected from just being at the wrong place at the wrong time while the police can still fine the guilty party and do combat prostitution.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

And as for the police? I don't trust them with the balance of probabilities. Too easy to just fabricate a police statement.

I do tend to trust them with the presumption of innocence though since that requires them to actually collect evidence.

You also apparently trust them not to selectively enforce against people they've decided they don't like.

That's so cute!
 
Machjo
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

You also apparently trust them not to selectively enforce against people they've decided they don't like.

That's so cute!

We could legislate that in addition to proving fornication beyond a reasonable doubt (which by implication requires willing participation for it to be fornication), we could require the police to give the judge reason to believe that they did not spy on the person for the purpose. For example, they'd gone to address that they'd obtained directly or indirectly from an online ad for sexual services, or they'd learnt about it from a person who had reported a sexual assault, etc.

Usually the presumption of innocence applies anyway. The most vulnerable group to police corruption are foreign nationals since an immigration violation presently requires only the balance of probabilities, which opens the police to all friggin kinds of corruption!
 
Tecumsehsbones
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

We could legislate that in addition to proving fornication beyond a reasonable doubt (which by implication requires willing participation for it to be fornication), we could require the police to give the judge reason to believe that they did not spy on the person for the purpose. For example, they'd gone to address that they'd obtained directly or indirectly from an online ad for sexual services, or they'd learnt about it from a person who had reported a sexual assault, etc.

Usually the presumption of innocence applies anyway. The most vulnerable group to police corruption are foreign nationals since an immigration violation presently requires only the balance of probabilities, which opens the police to all friggin kinds of corruption!

Well, the good news is that if your idea flies, they'll have another tool for their corruption.

Yay.
 
Machjo
#18
Also, fornication is not that easy to prove.

A man and a woman could share an apartmen, live in separate rooms, and never even see one another naked even after years of staying in the same house. To prove fornication beyond a reasonable doubt would require them to be cought on CCTV in a park or by multiple witnesses or a condom sent to the lab, etc.

Si it's not like the police could just go around accusing people.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#19
Grow up. Two people have sex. One gets mad at the other. Calls cops. Cops decide whether to tell complainant to piss off, or if they have a beef with accused, or are just bored, or have been instructed to increase revenue from fines, or work with a prosecutor who has a hard-on for extramarital sex.

Yeah, no chance of corruption there.

Why don't you just outlaw breathing and leave it to the cops' and prosecutors' discretion whom to go after?
 
Machjo
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

Well, the good news is that if your idea flies, they'll have another tool for their corruption.

Yay.

How so? As it stands now, the police could accuse a foreign national if selling sex on a mere balance if probabilities. This allows for massive corruption to deport a person motivated by racism for example.

What I'd propose is extend the presumption if innocence to foreign nationals but make fornication a fineable offence.

Since it would require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it would reduce, not increase, police corruption. We can rant about police corruption, and rightfully so. However, we still need to give the police the tools to do their job while protecting the public from the police, no?

Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

Grow up. Two people have sex. One gets mad at the other. Calls cops. Cops decide whether to tell complainant to piss off, or if they have a beef with accused, or are just bored, or have been instructed to increase revenue from fines, or work with a prosecutor who has a hard-on for extramarital sex.

Yeah, no chance of corruption there.

Why don't you just outlaw breathing and leave it to the cops' and prosecutors' discretion whom to go after?

Well if he chooses to sleep with a person with such a shirt fuse, why sleep with something like that? Serves him right.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

How so? As it stands now, the police could accuse a foreign national if selling sex on a mere balance if probabilities. This allows for massive corruption to deport a person motivated by racism for example.

What I'd propose is extend the presumption if innocence to foreign nationals but make fornication a fineable offence.

You think foreign nationals are the only people the cops go after?

Quote:

Since it would require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it would reduce, not increase, police corruption. We can rant about police corruption, and rightfully so. However, we still need to give the police the tools to do their job while protecting the public from the police, no?

Yeah, the ol' requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That's why there are no innocent people in prison.
 
Machjo
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

You think foreign nationals are the only people the cops go after?


Yeah, the ol' requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That's why there are no innocent people in prison.

No, presumption of innocence isn't perfect, but it sure beats balance of probabilities by a long shot!

I don't know about in the US, but in Canada immigration violations require the mere balance of probabilities.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+2
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

No, presumption of innocence isn't perfect, but it sure beats balance of probabilities by a long shot!

I can't think of a better thing than to give police another tool to harass, arrest, handcuff, beat, jail, charge, and fine those least able to defend themselves.

"When I approached the door of the apartment, Your Honor, I heard sounds from within that gave me probably cause to believe sex was occurring within. With probable cause that a crime was underway at the time, I did not need a warrant to kick the door, pepper-spray and Tase Mr. Smith, and haul him out naked in handcuffs."

Yeah, that's the kind of country I want to live in.
 
Machjo
#24
Another possibility would be to require proof of fornication beyond a reasonable doubt combined with proof of sexual assault or prostitution on a balance of probabilities before a person could be found guilty of fineable fornication.

In the case of a foreign national, it would protect the person from police corruption while still keeping the bar low enough to discourage foreign nationals from working in Canada illegally. That would actually raise the standard of proof compared to now for immigration violations at least. Right now, the police need to prove nothing beyond a reasonable doubt for an immigration violation.
 
taxslave
+1
#25
It"s your responsibility to not hop into bed with someone you don't know.



Way to take the fun out of life.
 
Machjo
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

It"s your responsibility to not hop into bed with someone you don't know.



Way to take the fun out of life.

Exactly.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#27
Apparently, Machjo doesn't believe that there is any sphere of privacy, and place that the government cannot go.
 
Machjo
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

Apparently, Machjo doesn't believe that there is any sphere of privacy, and place that the government cannot go.

Sexual assault and paying for sex are already criminal acts in Canada, and selling sex without the authorization to work in Canada is already an immigrant violation.

As for making fornication a fineable offence under the presumption if innocence for all and extending the presumption of innocence to foreign nationals would actually RAISE the burden of proof for foreign nationals.

As for Canadians, if we should make fineable fornication conditional on proof on a balance of probabilities that sexual assault or paying for sex occurred, then it's not like the police could charge anyone randomly.

Again, even if he is innocent of sexual assault or prostitution, then he shouldn't have been sleeping with someone he didn't know anyway.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Sexual assault and paying for sex are already criminal acts in Canada, and selling sex without the authorization to work in Canada is already an immigrant violation.

As for making fornication a fineable offence under the presumption if innocence for all and extending the presumption of innocence to foreign nationals would actually RAISE the burden of proof for foreign nationals.

As for Canadians, if we should make fineable fornication conditional on proof on a balance of probabilities that sexual assault or paying for sex occurred, then it's not like the police could charge anyone randomly.

Again, even if he is innocent of sexual assault or prostitution, then he shouldn't have been sleeping with someone he didn't know anyway.

The Canada of your dreams is one giant kindergarten where people are imprisoned for doing what you think they shouldn't.
 
TenPenny
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Sexual assault and paying for sex are already criminal acts in Canada, and selling sex without the authorization to work in Canada is already an immigrant violation.



Under what laws is paying for sex a criminal act in Canada?
 

Similar Threads

117
Lefties are ignorant
by Walter | Jan 24th, 2014
26
Random acts of kindness
by Kreskin | Dec 25th, 2008
no new posts