Is our justice system a hypocrisy?
- Thread starter JLM
- Start date
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.
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.
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.
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. :smile:
He should have thought of that before he kicked Buddy in the head and committed two other assaults on citizens.
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.
Human nature is that way.
...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 fuck up, Australia
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
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.;-)
And what was Buddy Tavares guilty of?
You're grasping at straws - I leave it up to the other person to set the tone and if he/she wants to be an a$$hole, I can be a bigger one. :lol:
Yup, that is tyranny, plain and simple, which would make Harper a tyrant. Nobody below him would have had the authority to order such a blatant violation of our human rights. If the order did not come from Harper, then there must be someone or group with more authority than the PM. If that is the case, then there really is no democracy in Canada.
Harper doesn't run the Toronto police service. Sorry to throw a monkey wrench into your propaganda machine.
It was an international event, which comes under the jurisdiction of the feds. Harper chose Toronto for his show of force. Toronto doesn't have that many cops. They were flown in from all over the country. Do you think the TO police have a billion bucks to blow on that kind of fiasco? Who do you think has the authority to blow a billion bucks? Even the Chief of Police takes his orders from someone. I'm sure Harper did not put the mayor of TO in charge of security for such an event.
If you are so smart, who did give the orders to treat peaceful protesters with such a show of force?
Innocent until proven guilty is a relative term. Presumption of innocence must also be
balanced in accordance with public safety. The reason it is done this way is because
we do not want to lose the presumption of innocence or we end up with people in the
prisons for other reasons, like political reasons, or because they are a pain in the a**
without a reasonable expectation that they were actually guilty of the crime they were
supposed to have committed.
As for bail, in most cases bail is granted due to the fact the courts take a long time to
go through the system and people waiting for trial for relatively small offences should
not have to be in prison in cases like that. It is called reasonable compromise and is a
useful tool. You are right though people like Pickton and others, do not get bail because
the offence is serious, and they are very likely to re-offend should they be on the street.
Innocent until proven guilty is a safeguard that protects the majority and as I said its a
reasonable compromise in the evolution of the system of justice. Besides this is Canada
it doesn't have to make sense.
balanced in accordance with public safety. The reason it is done this way is because
we do not want to lose the presumption of innocence or we end up with people in the
prisons for other reasons, like political reasons, or because they are a pain in the a**
without a reasonable expectation that they were actually guilty of the crime they were
supposed to have committed.
As for bail, in most cases bail is granted due to the fact the courts take a long time to
go through the system and people waiting for trial for relatively small offences should
not have to be in prison in cases like that. It is called reasonable compromise and is a
useful tool. You are right though people like Pickton and others, do not get bail because
the offence is serious, and they are very likely to re-offend should they be on the street.
Innocent until proven guilty is a safeguard that protects the majority and as I said its a
reasonable compromise in the evolution of the system of justice. Besides this is Canada
it doesn't have to make sense.
To be fair, the RCMP was in the mix and the location was ultimately a decision that was made federally. So responsibility should be assumed both on a federal and local scale.
Anyway, 'innocent until proven guilty'. Why change what ain't broke?
Anyway, 'innocent until proven guilty'. Why change what ain't broke?