Yep, I have a bad habit of favouring the underdog/victim over the thug, I'll see if I can get some counsilling for that.
Is our justice system a hypocrisy?
- Thread starter JLM
- Start date
Yep, I have a bad habit of favouring the underdog/victim over the thug, I'll see if I can get some counsilling for that.
Arraignment is where the prosecution gives probable cause that a crime has occurred. The judge doesn't lock someone up until trial just because they're accused. If the judge hears probable cause, then the defendant can enter a plea. If you are a flight risk, or if you were accused of a violent crime, then you will probably have to pay a steep amount to post bail. Now the person may very well be innocent-if that's the case, you better have a good lawyer, and those don't come cheap.That is a bigger concern, in my opinion.
I suggest that once you start down the road to changing something like this it usually ends
up worse than what we have. If for example Harper got his way we will have the prisons
privatized and we will end up the mess they have in the USA. In other words, we will have
a system that needs inmates and build it and fill it will be the order of the day. Yes we will
build the prison and the private sector will profit from our state owned institution and that
is usually a recipe for abuse, not only of prisoners but of budgets as well. I have a friend
who went through the Texas system because the plane landed in America. He didn't commit
a crime its just that he had been deported, as a musician years before something about a
work visa or something. He spent ten weeks in a private prison, so they could charge the
government. In the end the judge agreed with my friend and they had him out and on a plane
within a few hours. It turns out he was not even charged with a crime, but no bail, they said
he was trying to stay to appeal being allowed into the USA, when in fact there was a paper
record stating the opposite. Tell me about guilt or innocents or even charges not being filed.
In America no less the new police state, patriot act and all. In short the presumption of
innocence is all there is left, the rest is crooked as hell, justice system is an oxymoron
up worse than what we have. If for example Harper got his way we will have the prisons
privatized and we will end up the mess they have in the USA. In other words, we will have
a system that needs inmates and build it and fill it will be the order of the day. Yes we will
build the prison and the private sector will profit from our state owned institution and that
is usually a recipe for abuse, not only of prisoners but of budgets as well. I have a friend
who went through the Texas system because the plane landed in America. He didn't commit
a crime its just that he had been deported, as a musician years before something about a
work visa or something. He spent ten weeks in a private prison, so they could charge the
government. In the end the judge agreed with my friend and they had him out and on a plane
within a few hours. It turns out he was not even charged with a crime, but no bail, they said
he was trying to stay to appeal being allowed into the USA, when in fact there was a paper
record stating the opposite. Tell me about guilt or innocents or even charges not being filed.
In America no less the new police state, patriot act and all. In short the presumption of
innocence is all there is left, the rest is crooked as hell, justice system is an oxymoron
Yep, I do, one cop who assaulted three citizens and four cops who tasered a guy to death and lied about it. I guess that would be a habit......................................................tough............ oh, yeah there was that other cop, if I remember right his name is Mike Ferguson and he killed drunk in the Pincher Creek jail. Me very bad.
I put my house up as surety for my buddies son, since they live on res, and way outside the jurisdiction. The lad is living with us, as it is my house, and I'm the surety holder, until the end of the court case. Unless we can have the conditions of his bail changed.
Tell me about it. The case I'm involved in right now, will last over a year, when done with. At almost $600/hr. The lawyer stands to make a fair penny. Although he became kind of despondent when he found out he won't be writing new law. The band is picking up the tab, and under Gladue, he'll likely walk, with no criminal record.
They will. Between the people on his side, the band and the Gladue and healing programs, he's going to be fine. The hardest part, getting him out on surety, has long since been jumped. Being from a northern community, far from the jurisdiction, parents with no real property for surety. That was the biggest challenge.
The more I became involved, the more I realized how out of whack the system can be. Non Native kids, with charges for more serious crimes, going home, released to their parents. No surety. While i had to put up a house and my self to secure a Native kids release. Now i could easily brush it all off, because of where he's from. But since I became involved, and volunteered with one of the programs. I've heard many a story of similar circumstances. For local native, kids and adults.
I do realize, that most criminals claim innocence, but I work closely with CAS workers, social workers and other legal guardians/advocates, like myself, so I can be made aware of any issues that I may have to deal with or be prepared for. I can't see them making it up. I don't think the issue is as big as it has been made out to be by some, but where there is smoke, there's at least some smoldering coals.
Gonna have to disagree with you here, and this is why.
As I understand it, the entire premise behind the presumption of innocence is to place the burden of proof upon the prosecution which, in principle, means that the judge and/or jury must begin with the basic assumption that the crown cannot prove it's case. In other words to remove bias from tainting the judgement before the evidence is presented. It is important to have, as a guiding principle, something that gives everyone a fair and equal chance especially since we human beings are flawed and typically overflowing with bias. Hopefully, hopefully, there are enough level headed, reasonable individuals within the system itself that believe in the importance of this guiding principle.
Because a principle is an ideal, and we happen to live in reality, we also have to consider the fact the many, if not most, of the people who are charged with crimes are maybe, probably guilty. So what can we do? We have to reasonably allow that, in cases where the crime is particularly severe/violent in nature or there is a risk of flight, we probably should not simply release an accused or release only with some type of guarantee that he or she will turn up for the trial. But the guiding principle itself should always be taken into account and given fair consideration when debating whether to release an accused pending trial.
The system itself is not perfect, not by a long shot. But it's important, in my opinion, to recognize the value in the principles that make up the system. I have to think of the possibility that for every Pickton and Bernardo out there, we could possibly also have a Milgaard and Guy Paul Morin.
My O.P. stated the exact opposite..............no one should be thrown in jail until they are proven guilty. However a wiser person than I did point out some exceptions like people with a violent history and flight risks.
Absolutely, 95% from all three professions are probably honest and honourable people.
Most aren't. What's your point?
95% of lawyers honest and honourable? On what planet?