Judges aren't applying Harper's mandatory minimums

Hoid

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
4
36
Perhaps it illustrates the fact that the law is a difficult thing to alter. It resists political manipulation.
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
Just imagine judge candidates pandering to populism to win. Scary thought.

The social conservatives are whining incessantly about Trudeau but they want the folks that elected him to elect the judges as well. I guess it makes sense if you're drunk, stoned or senile
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
"Mandatory Minimums" makes sense when you are after "Law and Order" as true "Canadian Values" for people who believe "Man walked with the Dinosaurs"

Well as a matter of fact man still does walk with the dinosaurs. But you being a kid in the city are too stupid to know that. There are actually many breeds of dinosaurs roaming the earth.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,888
126
63
Well as a matter of fact man still does walk with the dinosaurs. But you being a kid in the city are too stupid to know that. There are actually many breeds of dinosaurs roaming the earth.
Birds come to mind.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
I absolutely would not want to be tried by a partisan judge. I can tell you that much.

Don't break the law. If you think judges are not partisan you are sadly mistaken.
There used to be a judge traveling the north island whose name escapes me at the moment that was called the fisherman because all he did was catch and release.
 

White_Unifier

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
2
36
Don't break the law. If you think judges are not partisan you are sadly mistaken.
There used to be a judge traveling the north island whose name escapes me at the moment that was called the fisherman because all he did was catch and release.

It's not about not breaking the law. Imagine a man being tried by a feminist judge. All his wife would need to do is say that he's lying about her abusing him and say he raped her. That's all the proof the judge would need along with his penis.
 

Hoid

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
4
36
It's not about not breaking the law. Imagine a man being tried by a feminist judge. All his wife would need to do is say that he's lying about her abusing him and say he raped her. That's all the proof the judge would need along with his penis.
and that's why the real problem with sexual assault is too many men being punished for no good reason.
 

White_Unifier

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
2
36
and that's why the real problem with sexual assault is too many men being punished for no good reason.

It's an overall mess. Yes, some men have been wrongfully convicted while many more have gotten away with rape. Many women have gotten away with raping men too. However much I don't identify with a feminist, I do sympathize with feminists on the fact that many rapists do get away with the crime precisely because it's just so bloody difficult to prove.

In spite of that though, I totally, wholeheartedly oppose rape-shield laws since they greatly increase the risk of a man being wrongfully convicted. I'm sure most women who accuse a man of rape are probably telling the truth, but still too many have other motives. Just read up on the cases we can find online.

One thing I could support would be to try any alleged sex criminal under an inquisitorial system by default unless the complainant, the defendant, and all of the other participants involved unanimously agree that they want an adversarial trial. An inquisitorial trial might be somewhat more intrusive, but it might also give the judge more facts to work with in a trial in at least some cases.

Pete's drunk again

Yeah, that comment of his did seem kind of random. Was he posting in the right forum?