Saskatchewan trial spurs calls for change with jury selection
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
That what you are asking for.
There is no hidden evidence. Both sides present
evidence and have disclosure in pretrial hearings.
From there they decide what evidence is used in trial.
Go sit in someday. Anyone can.
There is no hidden evidence. Both sides present
evidence and have disclosure in pretrial hearings.
From there they decide what evidence is used in trial.
Go sit in someday. Anyone can.
But an inquisitorial trial does give the judge more inquisitorial powers than the adversarial system does to dig deeper when necessary.
I remember one case (an immigration case and not a criminal one mind you, but still adversarial), where the Minister's counsel tried to hide evidence by telling the accused's counsel that if she wanted to know the names of the other people involved, she'd have to go through the Access to Information Act. IN an inquisitorial hearing, that wouldn't be a problem since the judge himself could then make that decision and not the Minister's counsel. Never should the prosecution or a Minister's counsel hold the key to the available evidence. The judge should hold that key.
GUNTER: After Boushie case, are we headed for Gladue 2.0? | Toronto Sun
In the spring of 2016, when the sexual assault trial of former CBC host Jian Ghomeshi failed to produce the verdict the Trudeau government wanted, the government decided to change the law to make it even harder for men to defend themselves against rape allegations.
Canada at the time already had one of the toughest “rape shields” in the world – a set of laws and judicial precedents that made it difficult to raise a woman’s past sexual behaviour in court, thereby making it harder for a defendant to establish the alleged victim had given consent.
I wouldn’t trust Ghomeshi around my wife or daughter, but that’s not the point.
Because his defence lawyers had used his accusers’ emails and texts to expose serious inconsistencies between the accusers’ post-attack behaviour towards Ghomeshi and the claims they were making to police and prosecutors, the Trudeau Liberals changed Canadian law to make it very difficult to introduce an alleged victim’s electronic communications “of a sexual nature” or “for a sexual purpose.” This made it even harder than it had been for an accused to establish he had reasonable grounds to believe the alleged victim had consented.
The underlying message of the amendments was: Due process and reasonable doubt are unimportant next to social justice for women. Therefore, it’s justifiable to stack the deck to make sure that when men are accused, they are found guilty.
Now in the wake of the Gerald Stanley verdict in Saskatchewan, are we headed for a similar Liberal deck-stacking against those accused of crimes against Indigenous people?
Since Stanley’s acquittal in the tragic shooting death of a young Cree man named Colten Boushie, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau can’t stop talking and tweeting about how Indigenous Canadians deserve better from our justice system.
Trudeau insists he is not commenting specifically about the Stanley case, but he has met with Boushie’s family and promised them reforms. That sounds like a political threat for the justice system: Give us the verdicts we want or we’ll change the law so cases must come to the conclusions we want.
So, then, are we headed for Gladue 2.0?
Ever since a 1999 Supreme Court decision known as R v Gladue, judges sentencing convicted Indigenous criminals are required to take the defendant’s Indigenous heritage into account – not just his or her specific life events, but the general experience of Indigenous people in Canada.
Indigenous convicts are to receive as little prison time as possible. And, whenever possible, they are to be sentenced to alternatives, such as healing lodges.
Are we now going to see this same principle extended beyond the sentencing of Indigenous criminals to the prosecution of non-Indigenous people accused of committing crimes against Indigenous Canadians? Are non-Indigenous Canadians now to be denied a full defence in court – the way men accused of sexual assault are?
Let’s be very clear about one thing: The biggest danger to young Indigenous men is other young Indigenous men, not middle-aged Saskatchewan farmers.
Indigenous people are more than three times as likely as non-Indigenous people to be victims of violent crime. However, in at least 70% of those cases (and possibly more), their attackers are other Indigenous people.
And as for the claim that the Stanley jury was biased because it contained no Indigenous jurors, so, therefore, the Criminal Code should be amended to eliminate the defence’s right to automatically exclude jurors, remember that can cut both ways.
Just as defence lawyers can use peremptory rules to exclude jurors they believe might be sympathetic to victims – such as Indigenous jurors may have been in this case – so too can prosecutors and defence lawyers use the rules to keep out bigots and hardline jurors who might be biased the other way when the defendant is Indigenous.
Bigger fences and serious gates will be needed in the future for all, even the rural people.
And guard dogs, lots of guards dogs.
In the spring of 2016, when the sexual assault trial of former CBC host Jian Ghomeshi failed to produce the verdict the Trudeau government wanted, the government decided to change the law to make it even harder for men to defend themselves against rape allegations.
Canada at the time already had one of the toughest “rape shields” in the world – a set of laws and judicial precedents that made it difficult to raise a woman’s past sexual behaviour in court, thereby making it harder for a defendant to establish the alleged victim had given consent.
I wouldn’t trust Ghomeshi around my wife or daughter, but that’s not the point.
Because his defence lawyers had used his accusers’ emails and texts to expose serious inconsistencies between the accusers’ post-attack behaviour towards Ghomeshi and the claims they were making to police and prosecutors, the Trudeau Liberals changed Canadian law to make it very difficult to introduce an alleged victim’s electronic communications “of a sexual nature” or “for a sexual purpose.” This made it even harder than it had been for an accused to establish he had reasonable grounds to believe the alleged victim had consented.
The underlying message of the amendments was: Due process and reasonable doubt are unimportant next to social justice for women. Therefore, it’s justifiable to stack the deck to make sure that when men are accused, they are found guilty.
Now in the wake of the Gerald Stanley verdict in Saskatchewan, are we headed for a similar Liberal deck-stacking against those accused of crimes against Indigenous people?
Since Stanley’s acquittal in the tragic shooting death of a young Cree man named Colten Boushie, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau can’t stop talking and tweeting about how Indigenous Canadians deserve better from our justice system.
Trudeau insists he is not commenting specifically about the Stanley case, but he has met with Boushie’s family and promised them reforms. That sounds like a political threat for the justice system: Give us the verdicts we want or we’ll change the law so cases must come to the conclusions we want.
So, then, are we headed for Gladue 2.0?
Ever since a 1999 Supreme Court decision known as R v Gladue, judges sentencing convicted Indigenous criminals are required to take the defendant’s Indigenous heritage into account – not just his or her specific life events, but the general experience of Indigenous people in Canada.
Indigenous convicts are to receive as little prison time as possible. And, whenever possible, they are to be sentenced to alternatives, such as healing lodges.
Are we now going to see this same principle extended beyond the sentencing of Indigenous criminals to the prosecution of non-Indigenous people accused of committing crimes against Indigenous Canadians? Are non-Indigenous Canadians now to be denied a full defence in court – the way men accused of sexual assault are?
Let’s be very clear about one thing: The biggest danger to young Indigenous men is other young Indigenous men, not middle-aged Saskatchewan farmers.
Indigenous people are more than three times as likely as non-Indigenous people to be victims of violent crime. However, in at least 70% of those cases (and possibly more), their attackers are other Indigenous people.
And as for the claim that the Stanley jury was biased because it contained no Indigenous jurors, so, therefore, the Criminal Code should be amended to eliminate the defence’s right to automatically exclude jurors, remember that can cut both ways.
Just as defence lawyers can use peremptory rules to exclude jurors they believe might be sympathetic to victims – such as Indigenous jurors may have been in this case – so too can prosecutors and defence lawyers use the rules to keep out bigots and hardline jurors who might be biased the other way when the defendant is Indigenous.
Bigger fences and serious gates will be needed in the future for all, even the rural people.
And guard dogs, lots of guards dogs.
The Liberal way:
Frustrated and helpless': Rural residents say Stanley trial sparked concerns about crime and safety
.
'We need to work on the solutions together': Canada's Minister of Public Safety Ralph Goodale
'Frustrated and helpless': Rural residents say Stanley trial sparked concerns about crime and safety - Saskatoon - CBC News
Back in 2016 before Boushie
SARM asks for more police officers as farmers take up arms - Saskatchewan - CBC News
Frustrated and helpless': Rural residents say Stanley trial sparked concerns about crime and safety
.
'We need to work on the solutions together': Canada's Minister of Public Safety Ralph Goodale
'Frustrated and helpless': Rural residents say Stanley trial sparked concerns about crime and safety - Saskatoon - CBC News
Back in 2016 before Boushie
SARM asks for more police officers as farmers take up arms - Saskatchewan - CBC News
Yes and no. The accused won the first trial but lost the appeal. However, she insisted that the proof was available but that the Minister's counsel would need to cooperate to get it. That's the problem with the adversarial system. The Minister's counsel, who's paid to win, holds the key to the available proof. It's like fighting with your hands tied behind your back.
Let's stir the pot and keep preaching the 4 thugs were innocent kids and the racist Canadians are against them.
'Do something': Liberals faced angry backlash over Colten Boushie case
'Do something': Liberals faced angry backlash over Colten Boushie case