The Judge Superthread- Merged Topics

[zipperhead_cop]

Ugh. Subjecting the judiciary to the whims of the mob isn't a great idea. Yeah, some judges might not go with what we feel is right as individuals, but ultimately their cases are subject to review by higher courts if there's a miscarriage of justice. I strongly believe in the need for an independent judiciary, and one that doesn't have to tread on eggshells out of fear of not getting re-elected.

No.  There is no review by the higher court unless a case is appealed by a Crown.  And when that happens, the petty-ass Lords make sure that the Crown that offended them pays dearly and gets no convictions for a long time.  Plus, the time wasting system that we have now does not allow for the Crowns to appeal, since just getting cases to court the first time is a huge enough effort as it is. 

Recceguy- Our system has a lot of flaws, but sentence length is not one of them. Statistics show that the stiffer a sentence, the more likely one is to eventually re-offend. It's counter intuitive, I know, but the longer someone's locked away the fewer options they have when they get out.

Bullshit.  Sentence length is a massive problem, and a guy in jail is not going to re-offend in public.  Simple. 

If you just want to punish or segregate the guy, OK, fine- but if your goal is to reintegrate them into society (which the majority do successfully), handing down huge sentences isn't the way to do it. That said, a lot of reform is necessary in many areas to make the system better. Judges are not pro-criminal, though; they're just versed in what works, or at least what does the least net harm. Locking someone in jail is not, in most cases, either necessary or constructive in their reform- at least not the way our jails are run. Turn them all into club Ed and maybe we'll have something.

You are smoking friggin' rope. 
Judges have no clue what works.  Reintegration does not work.  Club Ed does not work.  The legal system is so bankrupt of credibility that even the defense lawyers around here have to laugh and acknowledge what a joke it is. 

http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/forum/e053/e053h_e.shtml

Here you go. A few of the raw numbers- out of offenders released on full parole, 72% of those subjected to the study were completely successful after at least seven years of observation. Of the remainder who were readmitted, roughly half were readmitted for technical violations, not for new offences.

Wow.  What an obnoxious and arrogant piece of broadband that was.  Liberal fuzzy logic at its best.  The part I like is how they try to suggest that technical violations are somehow "nit picking" and really not a big deal.  And the criteria for success was simply to not re-offend for the same federal offence.  So, on the rare chance some clown finally got dealt with by way of indictment, if he didn't get it a second time, he was deemed to be "successful"?  Pathetic and ridiculous.  You would have to make a conscious decision to be ignorant to even start to believe in such biased crap. 

Nonetheless, these numbers support my claim that the majority of released offenders reintegrate into society successfully.

No, the numbers support somebodies attempt to candy coat the fact that the legal system is a donkey show.

Moving on, what in your mind, constitutes an 'effective sentence'? If it's keeping the prisoner segregated for life from the rest of society, so be it- but prepare to fork over many more tax dollars. If it's getting them back into society, sentencing should be focused on subjecting the inmate to programming to help control behavioural patterns, giving them trade or skills training so they have OPTIONS when they exit prison, treating dependencies they may have, etc. Throwing a person in prison merely as punishment is inefficient if it offers no advantage in reducing their rate of reoffence.

But it takes them out of the game so they can't re-offend.  Rehabilitation is a paper tiger and does not work.  Plus, it only exists at the Federal level, and since no one ever gets dealt with by way of indictment, they won't end up in that system anyway.

A hefty fine or probation can both be effective in many cases to convince a person to get a grip on their behaviour.

More arse talking.  All a fine does is encourage a criminal to commit more crime so he can pay the fine off.  Do you want your home to be the one that gets broken in to so Jimmy Asshat can pay off his $7000 Judge-pretending-to-be-a-real-hard-ass fine? 
And probation is a joke.  Almost every rounder I know plans his crack head schedule around pleading out for breaches of probation.  "I got three breaches.  I plead guilty, I'm gonna do two weeks and I'll be out for May two-four".  These dinks know sentencing better than the Crowns do. 

People generally have a hard-on for throwing the book at prisoners. Make no mistake, I'm not trying to excuse or to lessen the harm of what criminals do, but one must view them as 'broken' members of society, and many of them can be fixed. There are effective systems for determining an offender's risk of reoffence, and these must be used and studied further so as to make the parole system as valid a predictor of an offenders level of risk as possible.

No, one does not have to view them as being "broken".  One can view them as being useless kit and recommend that they be taken out and dumped in a corn field.  However, if there was a system that created a mindset in the ACTUAL CRIMINAL that suggested to him "Hey Jackass, your next hit is going to be your last" then perhaps things could start to change. 

As for this 'three strikes' crap? Garbage. How many kids get busted for several stupid things in their 20s, and by the time they're 30 have settled down with a girl, don't act retarded anymore, and have a family and a job to worry about? You're telling me a kid with a DUI and a couple short terms for public order offences should go to jail for life when all he needs to do is grow up a bit and get his shit together? I don't buy it.
You can dislike statistics and academic research all you want, and sources do need to be examined, but most of it is valid.

See, now you are showing that you have an agenda and are trying to deliberately skew the discussion.  The "Three Strikes" concept is for violent crime, and I suspect you know that.  Obviously, if a guy gets done for shoplifting, a breach and a fail to attend, he is not going to go to jail for the rest of his life. 

Rather that demanding more proof from my side, let's see some research you guys can provide that justifies more than the strictly necessary restriction or revocation and liberty for a person who commits an offence. Right in the criminal code it says that sentences should not be any more than is necessary to achieve the aims of sentencing- rehabilitation, denunciation, deterrence general and specific, and punishment. Ours is not a retributive system; it's designed to rehabilitate, and in the majority of cases is successful, even as flawed as it currently is.

See, I would love to trot out stats for what you are asking for, but sadly the system only provides weakness and uselessness.  At such time as a pilot project is put together and a group is given a free hand to obliterate a bunch of rounders, I will be the first to sign up and will submit whatever statistical reviews are asked of me. 

I'd be curious to see a properly done cost benefit analysis comparing the cost of various programs to assist inmates in squaring themselves away with the economic costs as a result of both further crime and of further incarceration. Call it an investment, if you will- pay some to help inmates now so we don't pay more to feed and house them again later.

If you want to make it a money game, then take a look at the cost of cutting these clowns loose and how much harm they cause while they are out. 
Or even better, you make an argument for capital punishment.  But that is a separate subject of other threads.
Smashing on through the tripe...

Academics doesn't deal with individual cases. I challenge you to point out where I've said otherwise. Saying that offender program X vs offender program Y will result in 8% fewer re-convictions post release doesn't mean that in the case of Joe Bloggins offender it will make that specific difference. Demonstrating that probation and fines is more effective in some minor offences than incarceration doesn't mean that joe blow shouldn't be jailed for his particular stunt, or that a fine is all that's necessary in every case. I'd never take the studies to the range- but I'd take them to policy and legislation debates, because that's what they're intended for, and I've never claimed otherwise.

Because you are a candy ass contrarian.  You have the luxury of sitting wherever you are and typing out your crap without ever really needing to worry about how it affects the real world.  But people like you are what is wrong with this county.  Mealy mouthed nay sayers that just sit back and criticize without really knowing what the hell is going on in the real world.  And the killer?  You are so friggin convinced of your convictions because a book tells you something.  Pathetic.

Please don't make inferences about what I'm saying, as everything I claim in a discussion like this is meant to be taken at face value and with the limits inherent in what is actually said. Research hits the range only in studies that have positive application to individuals- i.e., psychological research into methods of anger management training, or offender risk profiling, or criminal interrogation methods, etc.

Then why are you going to the wall for it?  Kind of too late to back pedal now. 

Before you go slamming the value of criminological research, ask yourself why the system is the way it is today: hint, it's not the whims of correction or law enforcement officers; it's the policies laid down by governmental agencies derived from hundreds or thousands of studies into what does and does not work, filtered through the processes of politics and bureaucracy. I'd never presume to tell a corrections officer or official how to do his job; I only bring up data which ought to be considered in debating the matter at hand. Don't kill the messenger here, I'm just presenting another side to the party line, and if I step on a few toes, so be it. The second I am demonstrated to be wrong on anything I say, I will gladly admit it and learn from it.

Disingenuous bullshit.  Yes.  Kill the messenger.  Because you have been more than just a messenger.  You have been an advocate of all that is wrong in the legal system.  Why is the system the way is it?  Maybe a quarter decade of Liberal morass and behind-the-scenes wrangling.  Maybe a quarter decade of Liberal judicial appointments of judges that make Jack Layton look like Brian Mulroney. 
You say you will learn from being demonstrated wrong, but you openly blow off people like Bruce who actually live within the system.  You have pretty much said that you will only respect statistics and studies, and those really hold no sway in the real world where some of us live. 

Academics study real life in broad terms and samples. Understanding the interplay between research data and action or policy is vital to having a grasp of the whole picture of any system or institution, and that's all I'm trying to claim in this particular instance. Just don't dismiss study as useless in all cases- that is an assertion you cannot prove.

That is just one of the saddest things I have ever read.  Truly, you must have no mirrors in your home.

Back to the original start of this whole mess, the only thing I've positively claimed is that stiffer sentencing has not been demonstrated to have a positive effect in reducing rates of recidivism. No one has yet shown me anything to prove me incorrect. I'd rather not drag this thread further off topic with more of an academic tangent though, and I've got a paper to finish, so I'll take this up again sometime tomorrow.

And that is again the paper tiger.  Screw recidivism.  That rate is high, because there is no real reason to fear being found guilty.  Rehabilitation is a bunch of crap too.  There is no real reason to try to change, because it is easy to be a criminal.  No sentences.  No penalties.  No real bad times when you are in jail.  Where is the down side?
As for proving you incorrect, those of us who "get it" know how way off you are.  You are just another anchor that is dragging down the fabric of our society, and telling anyone who will listen how great and helpful you are. 

I hope your paper was wildly successful and garners you much academic accolades, and you get to bask in the heady glow of intellectual addoration. 
But please know that the people who actually deal with the ones you are so quick to speak up for have summed you up and have seen your true colours. 

 

[Journeyman]

I'll just throw in my non-statistically backed two cents....

Let me acknowledge that, on one hand I think I'm pretty familiar with the academic world, on the other my corrections knowledge comes from having lived with a Federal Corrections Officer for several years; she's now a Parole Officer (and I've been to Kingston Pen on recce [a former Airborne task] and escorted a buddy to "Club Ed"; neither relevant, except Edmonton was more intimidating than KP).

I know very well how to legitimately skew academic date; stats are the easiest to manipulate, followed closely by oral history taken out of chronology. For that reason there is no academic study for which I'd fall on a bayonet. Sure, it can be useful to quote shit in a debate (see Matt Damon's character take the grad student down a notch in the Good Will Hunting bar scene). I suspect you may be overly enamoured with your academic work Brihard, making you no less guilty of the being "too close for objectivity" that you accuse Bruce.

In saying that you'd "never take your studies to the range- but .... to policy and legislation debates, because that's what they're intended for," you are effectively stating that its relevance is limited to discussions but invalid at the practical level. I therefore have to question the validity of criminology scholarship that isn't applicable to the real world of criminals.

As for the practical application of these policies, I really haven't studied them, but I have seen their effect on aforementioned PO. She used to be an awesome, caring person. She's since become bitter and cynical about her chosen vocation because of her mandated restrictions (she makes me sound downright cheery when discussing HQ staff officers and other Hesco Hobbits  ). She's obligated to release people who she knows will be back, after people get hurt, because they've served a pre-selected portion of their sentence. They don't have to fake contrition, or indicate any source of income or housing. The "policy and legislative" level has decreed that they be released, and so they are.

As an equally statistically invalid point, a friend and her little girl are moving to our neighbourhood after living on the fringes of the well-established con net in Kingston's north end. She said that when looking for houses, what sold her was "someone was walking down the sidewalk...whistling. I looked, and he was smiling." I guess in your Ottawa neighbourhood, you don't get the practical results of the "policy and legislative" level moving in next door; if you don't feel fearful for your children's safety, it's just an academic exercise.

 

[niner domestic]

The title of this thread should be changed to, "What's wrong with the criminal justice system" because it certainly is not about converting the judiciary over to an elected function. 

I haven't seen a commentary on how one would accomplish a Constitutional amendment of 50/7 to repeal the section 98 appointment of judges.  So how exactly does the "everything wrong with the criminal justice system" address that again? Then there is the question of how to get around the appointment of judges for the Federal Courts (that is the one that deals with all matters arising from the CF and is also the court of equity etc) and the Taxation Court (they also hear matters of Pensions) ? Now what to do about the section 91/92 division of power that affords the provinces authority to appoint judges to subordinate courts such as the Family, POA, YO, small claims and Probate or the numerous justices that sit in courts of civil law. Then there is the Quebec municipal courts.  How do you propose to circumvent that legislation to have all the judges elected instead of appointed. 

I see there is still a large amount of erroneous information being posted on how a judge is actually appointed.  It is not simply a matter of a politician making nice to a friend for a political gain then voila, his/her buddy is on the bench.  The process is quite intense and has several levels of checks before a judge is sworn in.  It's not perfect but it certainly is more complex than what some posters would have us believe. 

In contrast to some countries, there are no university programs in Canada specifically
designed to train judges. Judges are usually selected from practicing lawyers or jurists.
In order to practice law, all lawyers must have completed a university degree in law and
have passed additional exams to become members of the bar in the province in which
they live and practice. Under section 3 of the Judges Act, no person is eligible to be
appointed a judge of a superior court unless he has been a member of the bar of a
province, and has practiced law for at least ten years or has acted in a judge-like capacity,
whether before an administrative tribunal or a provincial court, for at least ten years. The
requirement of 10 years experience imposes the passage of time during which a candidate
can build his reputation indicating whether he would be suitable candidate for judgeship.

Federal judges are appointed on the advice of the federal Cabinet and on the
recommendation of the Minister of Justice. Recommendations to Cabinet are made from
amongst the names submitted to them by the Office of the Commissioner for Federal
Judicial Affairs. This Office is an independent entity outside the Department of Justice,
created pursuant to section 73 of the Judges Act, in order to recruit new judges and
administer their salaries (among other things). The logic behind creating a separate office
for this purpose was to safeguard the independence of the judiciary. The Commissioner
heads the Office and has the overall responsibility for the administration of the
appointments process.

Qualified candidates, who wish to be considered for appointment, may send an
expression of interest to the Judicial Appointments Secretariat in the Office of the
Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs. Also, members of the legal community and
other interested parties may nominate persons they consider qualified for judicial office.
Candidates are then required to complete and submit a Personal History Form, which
provides basic data on them for assessment, and an Authorization Form, which allows the
Commission to obtain information on their standing with the bar of their province.
Information on candidates is then turned over to independent judicial advisory
committees, who have the responsibility of assessing the qualifications for appointment
of the lawyers who apply. There are currently sixteen committees, namely one for each
province and territory, except that Ontario has three and Quebec has two because of their
larger population. Candidates are assessed by the regional committee established for the
judicial district of their practice. Each committee consists of seven members, selected
from the provincial bar associations, judges, lawyers and the general public. Committee
members may be required to nominate candidates. Committee members are selected by
the Minister of Justice to serve a two-year term, with the possibility of a single renewal.

The primary qualifications for the position of judge are professional competence and
overall merit. Committee members evaluate candidates pursuant to defined assessment
criteria, which relate to professional competence, experience, social awareness, personal
characteristics, and any potential impediments to appointment. After investigation and
careful evaluation of the candidate, the committee is required to assess candidates on the
basis of three categories: “recommended”, “highly recommended” or “unable to
recommend for appointment”.

The committee then submits its assessment to the Minister of Justice. The assessments
are valid for a period of two years from the date of issue, which means that during that
time any recommended or highly recommended candidate remains on the list of those
available for appointment until an opening comes along. Once the two-year period
expires and if the candidate is still interested in appointment, he must renew the
application by presenting a new Personal History Form.

Once the Minister appoints the judge, this appointment is permanent and terminates only
upon attainment of the age for compulsory retirement, which is currently 75, or upon the
resignation or removal of the judge from office. Judges hold office during good
behaviour and are removed only for cause. Complaints against federal judges may be
filed before the Canadian Judicial Council, another body independent from the Ministry
of Justice, which investigates them and if a finding of misconduct is made, a
recommendation for the removal of a judge may be given to the Minister of Justice.
Even then, a judge may only be removed by a joint address of the Senate and the House
of Commons.

Given the difficulty in removing a judge after appointment, great care must be given to
the process of selecting a judge. This is the reason why committees were created with the
specific task of investigating the background and characters of the candidates.
The creation of committees within a body (Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs) independent of the work
venue (the Department of Justice), and the work done by these committees in selecting
and screening the candidates, appears to satisfy this requirement.

Now if I were a plaintiff, complainant, respondent in any other court than one that deals with criminal matters, I'd certainly want a judge who had a level of expertise in the area before my rights as a parents were extinguished, or my claims to my spouse's estate were handed over to a distant relative or RevCan got my last penny or my claim for a lost limb in a car accident was reduced to couple of bucks because of a judiciary being elected from having the better campaign rather than having the knowledge and experience. 

In the US where the majority of judges are an elected official, the criteria for them to even be a lawyer is overlooked.  Can you honestly say you'd want that scenario sitting on your case of child custody and support hearings?

 

[Bane]

+1 Niner (excellent post)

 

[warspite]

Okay Brihard I got a few questions....

1- Have you ever been on the receiving end of a crime. I for one know I want the S.O.B. that robbed me to rot in the coldest dankest cell of the local prison  for the longest time the courts can see fit to dish out, remember it's not just getting robbed, but the terror that every sound can make when your alone in the middle of nowhere and you fear the S.O.B's could come back.

2- What do you believe the point of the justice system is, cause it sure sounds to me as if you believe it should be rehabilitation. See that doesn't seem to make sense to me, cause then it would seem to me that we would have rehabilitation clinics, not prisons....oh wait THE POINT OF OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM IS TO DELIVER JUSTICE AND PUNISH THOSE WHO HAVE WRONGED OTHERS

3- Do you actually believe that academics ever can truly represent the real world (excluding mathematics and science(which is mostly mathematics))

4- whats your high and mighty opinion on some drug dealer, who lets say for the sake of argument not only sells drugs, but laces them with even more harmful substances that the buyer is unaware of hooking them for life. Now lets say this scum bag gets busted and hauled into court, by your logic this guy is just a misguided fool who will surely straighten his life out if only given the chance. So he receives a light sentence and is back on the street the next day. You can't honestly tell me that this scum deserves to be on the streets, he should be locked up for life as an example to others ( actually he should just be shot and we only have to pay for an executioner and a bullet rather than his internment but that's another argument)



Note: Perhaps a mod could separate this discusion into a separate thread. As niner domestic pointed out it doesn't have much to do with the election of judges.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

MOD POST.....this weekend I am going to clean/combine several threads like this and make a thread on each subject, so for now just go with it.

 

[Journeyman]

So we keep bashing Brihard?  >

(Knowing this post will get tossed in the cleanup  )

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Okay Brihard I got a few questions....

Warspite, I agree with the feeling of your post.  However, Brihard and his types see posts like that and it just entrenches their positions.  See, us being the ignorant, unwashed hordes are given to emotion, anger and are easily dazzled by bright shiny objects.  Therefore, it is the duty--nay, the calling of the uber-intellectual to step in and save us from ourselves.  Because once we started to see past the red haze of our berserker fury, we might regret our actions, and how sad that would be for us. 
Thus, a bureaucratic malaise settled in, and all we see now are pathetic sentaces and half measures.  That is the big benefit that the legal system seems to feel that appointed judges brings to the table.  How horrifying to think that a judge would need to consider the feelings and needs of the People before he doles out his milquetoast ruling?  And they will be the first to tell you that the needs of society are not as important as the rights of the individual. 
As for the thesis from Niner Domestic, what is your point?  So the process would be complicated.  Is that a reason to not take up a cause, because it seems like a lot of work?  Plus, it is well known that the criteria that make a candidate attractive are the fact that they intend to promote the Liberal socialist agenda that is firmly entrenched now.  All the rest of that is just static and noise. 

 

[Edward Campbell]

We cannot, it seems, ever get rid of our mistrust of too much democracy.

It must be better to use a closed, secretive process to select an important branch of government.  We certainly don't want to trust the people to select their own judges, do we?

Why do we always want to trust appointed people more than the people we elect?  Is it, I wonder, because we instinctively mistrust our own judgement? 

 

[a_majoor]

We cannot, it seems, ever get rid of our mistrust of too much democracy.

A close reading of the Federalist Papers (or the "History of the Peloponessian Wars" for that matter) suggests that unrestrained democracy really is a bad thing, which is what many of the posters in this thread are worried about. Turning the Justice system over to mob rule by the "Demos", or clever manipulation by demagogues is clearly undesirable. The only problem is the current system is regarded with equal suspicion; who decides the criteria for appointing a judge? What happens when the judge is not applying the law but making it up? How do you remove or limit the ability of appointed judges to dish out bad sentances or faulty law?

I have said this before in other contexts, but term limits are probably the best possible mechanism to maintain branches of government in a healthy condition. Politicians should have very short term limits, and I might accept judges should have relatively long terms for continuity and stability, but after the term it is time to move on.

This isn't even very harsh; a person who has the intelligence, wisdom and character to be a good judge should have fine prospects after their term, and as for a bad judge........

 

[Edward Campbell]

Fortunately, I guess, I've never had much to do with the justice system, anywhere, so my thinking, such as it is, is based on observation.  There is, in Texas anyway, a vigorous debate on the law and order issue.  Texans are by no means united in their ideas about how to manage their legal and justice systems.

They elect judges in Texas and the campaigns (in/around Dallas) seemed, to me, well informed, well focused and carefully followed and reported upon by the media.

It is only county court judges who are elected, as I understand the system in Texas, but this, too, is debated.  While most people who do interact with the justice system do so in county courts the laws are, mainly, made in appellate and federal courts and these judges are appointed by processes which are secretive and, in the minds of many Americans, too open to political abuse.  Given the overtly partisan political manner in which superior and supreme court judges are appointed who is to say that elections would be less partisan?

The true genius of the Scots was to invent, for the modern world (pace Iūdeaus), universal public education – with the intent, in part, to enable the people to better mange their own affairs.  It is true that we elect demagogues, and worse (charisma is still terribly attractive in a celebrity obsessed culture) but we also appoint the wrong people, too – more often, it appears to me - than we elect bad ones.  Maybe the judgement of an informed, engaged electorate is at least equal to that of partisan politically appointed judicial selection (nomination) committees – but who can say?

 

[niner domestic]

I think most of your concerns were addressed/answered in the 2004 CBA opinion paper.  http://www.cba.org/CBA/submissions/pdf/04-10-03-eng.pdf

I'm not entirely convinced that here in Canada the process for selection our judges is as secretive as you suggest.  http://www.fja.gc.ca/jud_app/index_e.html As the committee to review and reccommend a candidate are open to the general public to participate on.  While we here in Canada, do not mimic the Americans in their judicial appointment hearings I do believe we have, as a country, come up with a mechanism to sift through the rubble and come up with a candidate or two for our benches, our military leaders, our church leaders, our CEOs, policing agencies etc.  If we can find fault with one area of being able to chose our leaders/judges then our ability to chose those leaders from similar processes of merit also are suspect of being secretive.  Where do we draw the line? Do we insist that our judges be elected yet, our military leaders and police chiefs remain appointed positions? Where do we stop mistrusting our own processes and at what level? Will we simply end up electing everyone to their respective positions? 

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think most of your concerns were addressed/answered in the 2004 CBA opinion paper.  http://www.cba.org/CBA/submissions/pdf/04-10-03-eng.pdf

I'm not entirely convinced that here in Canada the process for selection our judges is as secretive as you suggest.  http://www.fja.gc.ca/jud_app/index_e.html As the committee to review and reccommend a candidate are open to the general public to participate on.  While we here in Canada, do not mimic the Americans in their judicial appointment hearings I do believe we have, as a country, come up with a mechanism to sift through the rubble and come up with a candidate or two for our benches, our military leaders, our church leaders, our CEOs, policing agencies etc.  If we can find fault with one area of being able to chose our leaders/judges then our ability to chose those leaders from similar processes of merit also are suspect of being secretive.  Where do we draw the line? Do we insist that our judges be elected yet, our military leaders and police chiefs remain appointed positions? Where do we stop mistrusting our own processes and at what level? Will we simply end up electing everyone to their respective positions? 

Thanks for that CBA paper.  I found Part IV interesting - a bit tentative, perhaps; why not do that for most judicial appointments?

I'm not especially pro electing judges but nor do I think it's inherently evil.

I remain convinced that we have a strong mistrust of democracy, based, I think on a well founded mistrust of the quality of our own judgement.

 

[observor 69]

Populist versus peer selection, argumentative topic.
But I did watch the process and results during my little sojourn to Texas. This individual, Judge Yarbrough, was regarded by all as an intelligent and extremely competent individual. He responded well during a number of crisis situations affecting the county.
http://www.co.galveston.tx.us/County_Judge/default.htm

County Sheriff is also elected but that seemed to have a bit of the bubba element to it. Or is that just because, in Texas, county cops are so poorly paid?

I must admit to a preference for peer selection if it can be kept nonpartisan. Then again for many top offices there is a small number of qualified candidates anyway whether it is peer or populist choice.

 

[brihard]

Sorry guys, I lost track of this thread over the past few days; I didn't realize I was getting dogpiled during my absence.

First off, I'll apologize- I've obviously pissed off a lot of people here, mostly by getting out of my arcs.

Please don't mistake anything I said for intentional disrespect for any of the people here; maybe I've fallen a bit more victim to academic arrogance than I'd thought I have... I have immense respect for those involved directly in the criminal justice system, either in law enforcement or corrections. MY eventual aspiration is to be involved myself. Maybe it's good for me that I'm taking a couple years off school to go on tour. Whatever. Next time I won't wade in so deep. I think that a few of the posts here were unnecessarily harsh, but I brought it on myself, and I'm not stupid enough to expect any apologies- nor is my skin thin enough that I'll get worked up over it.

Anyway, I'd like to salvage some of this discussion if possible...

Zipperhead_cop- You've shoved some humble pie down my throat; probably what I needed. Thanks. In my defense, I vote conservative and I know I have a lot to learn. I just need to recognize a bit of my own bias a bit more, and fix up the talk/listen ratio. I'm going into law enforcement as a career, so I suspect I'll be learning a lot more the hard way in time. I'm coming at it from a different background, but by the time I'm there I'll have hopefully tempered that with some non-academic experience. In either case, if you're willing to enlighten me a bit, I'm willing to listen and consider- what do you see as possible ways to 'fix the system', or at least parts of it? I am curious how you see it- we've all talked about our views on the problem, but that's useless without solutions.

You specifically asked me at one point about forming an argument for capital punishment- I'm probably going against the grain here (again), but as a point of note I don't support it... Not because I don't think some crimes deserve death (several... in fact many do), but I just don't trust our system to make sure that it's right in every single case... I think the possibility of executing an innocent citizen automatically necessitates reducing capital crimes to life without parole; I'd prefer to see a hundred guilty scum in jail for life without parole than one innocent person executed. Anyway, that's in case you were curious, and weren't just throwing that out as more to shove in my face.

Warspite- Vengence isn't something I personally believe should have any role in the justice system; I believe in deterrence, denunciation and rehabilitation. No, I've not been a victim of a serious crime. Maybe my views would be different if I were. But I wouldn't trust my own angry feelings to be a valid basis for major aspects of our system. Remember that a major part of our justice system is also to reform people who have screwed up. Not all can be reformed, but those who can be oughtn't just be discarded if they can be turned around. Yes, I think academics is an important part of all larger systems; every improvement we make is due to learning in one way or another. A couple posters on the judges topic have mentioned the need for an informed populace for democracy to be truly effective, and education is an important part of this. As for your example, no, I don't think the guy should just be let off easy, not for something like drug trafficking; there's a vast amount of harm to all kinds of people that comes with the hard drug trade, and they need to be treated rather harshly. Stick him in Kingston Pen and let him deal there for all the other people who've consciously decided to flush themselves down the bowl.

On the very original subject, I think part of my dislike of the idea of electing judges is because I've seen plenty of antics by elected politicians... "The worst system except for all the rest" is bad enough for politics, but I'm definitely not convinced that's how it should be for a criminal justice system. Maybe checks and balances in judicial selection need to be reworked (and I have no solution to offer here), but I'm inherently mistrustful of a judge who's working for votes. Baden guy is probably on to something with his mention of peer selection, if in fact I understand what he's saying correctly.

 

[Blackadder1916]

It is only county court judges who are elected, as I understand the system in Texas, but this, too, is debated. 

The Court of Criminal Appeals
http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/
The Court of Criminal Appeals is Texas' highest court for criminal cases. The Court consists of a Presiding Judge and eight Judges. They are elected by the voters of the entire state, and they hold their offices for terms of six years.

Supreme Court of Texas
http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/
Composed of the Chief Justice and eight Justices, the Supreme Court of Texas is the court of last resort for civil matters in the State of Texas.  The Justices of the Supreme Court are elected to staggered six-year terms in state-wide elections. When a vacancy arises the Governor may appoint a Justice, subject to Senate confirmation, to serve out the remainder of an unexpired term until the next general election. All members of the Court must be at least 35 years of age, a citizen of Texas, licensed to practice law in Texas, and must have practiced law (or have been a lawyer and a judge of a court of record together) for at least ten years.

Plus the senior law enforcement officials of each county, the Sheriff and the District Attorney (prosecutor), and the state's highest legal officer, the Attorney General, are elected.  However not every judge in Texas is elected, e.g. Justices of the Courts of Appeal are appointed by the Governor.

However, using Texas as an example of a judiciary may not be the best idea because as they advertise - "Texas is a whole other country".  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_judicial_system

 

[niner domestic]

I'd suggest that if you've been locking up offenders for 18 years, you're probably a bit biased by having been exposed almost exclusively to one side of the equation for that long. That would understandably foster frustration at the system.

This was an interesting comment made by our young student.  He actually did pick up on a notion studied by Michel Larivière and David Robinson from the Research Division of
Correctional Service of Canada in February 1996:  http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/reports/r44/r44e_e.shtml

This particular study did make one of numerours findings that correctional staff depending on their tenure, position and institutional security level either had little empathy for offenders in 10-20 years period of employment.  Remarkably however, the level of staff empathy towards offenders goes up during the 20-30 period of employment and as they found the first 10 years of employment usually sees an offender in a shade more positve light. 

I recall when this study came out that John Edwards, was perplexed at the clear delineation of service time in to the relationship between offender and staff.  Recall if you will, that during this period, CSC was rife with inquiries, commissions and litigation surrounding offenders and treatment by staff.  Edwards unfortunately was never able to take this study further as he was forced to throw himself on his sword over the debacle at P4W. 

 

[zipperhead_cop]

In either case, if you're willing to enlighten me a bit, I'm willing to listen and consider- what do you see as possible ways to 'fix the system', or at least parts of it? I am curious how you see it- we've all talked about our views on the problem, but that's useless without solutions.

I think I was pretty clear about what I think is the solution:  election of judges.  I don't know if you got a chance to go back now that this is a merged thread with the old Judges Are Everything That is Wrong In Canada.  Things will get pretty cyclical if I have to get back into some of that stuff. 
What I see as the core issue here is academics vs. real life.  There are no limit to the eggheads that can weigh in and fire off stats, studies and theories.  In the mean time, some of us have to live with the musings of the intellectual elite, and watch our country go to pieces.  Almost every single facet of anything that maintains social order eventually comes back to the decision of a judge.  Interpretation of criminal law, civil remedies, family law, workers compensation, application of Federal statutes.  And as time marches on, we see that societies rights are getting drop kicked, and individual rights are becoming unreasonably powerful.  There are many threads that this site touches on to that effect.  Quebec and its spoiled crap.  Native abuse of privileges.  Multiculturalism run rampant causing divisiveness all across the country.  I am not a history major (or a minor for that matter) but I know that this country is still young in the global sense and that many of the ideas that it was founded on are being convoluted and warped.  If we need an example of how the founding ideals of our country are not working, just look at England and how badly things are going over there.  I believe that will be us in about twenty-odd years. 
It was suggested that anger shouldn't play a part in a decision process?  I don't agree.  Not raging-out-of-control-torch-wielding angry, but just pissed off enough to want to do something about things and know that dramatic change is needed. 
The ghettos have enough money.  The health care is fine for the masses.  There is plenty of school for everyone.  And that is not an invitation to created a myriad of hijacks on any of those topics.  My point is that these are often trotted out as roots of poverty and criminality.  Enough.  We have given enough.  It is time to bring back the concept of personal accountability to every single Canadian.  Until this happens, all of the groups that care more about screwing the system for every possible thing they can will continue to push and things will only get worse. 
And how would that come about? 
Judges.
We need them to be the ones that drop the hammer and say "No.  That is your fault and you have to make amends for that".  Or they need to be the ones to say "you have shown that you are useless in our society, and will no longer get free domain in our streets" and lock them away. 
By and large, nobody will make hard changes and improve themselves unless they are forced to.  Look at most people who have heart attacks.  They knew bloody well that McDonalds three times a day, smoking and boozing would hurt them, and holding an extra 60 lbs would tax their system.  But until they got that elephant standing on their chest and woke up with a stem-to-stern scar and a doctor saying "you need to change your lifestyle, or you're going to die" they would have been happy to continue with the fun lifestyle.  Criminals are the same way.  They could care less about getting caught, because the sentences are such a joke.  Then, if they claim drug addiction they get LIGHTER sentences! (because they have a medical condition and need help)  I know of at least ten crack heads in Windsor alone that have over 70 convictions for Theft Under $5000.  They spend their whole day walking around, smashing out car windows and stealing the change out of the ashtrays.  For every time they get caught, they probably do it twenty times.  If ever I loose my job, I will certainly open an auto glass shop (or get into white collar crime  )
Now, you might be inclined to blame the Crowns for that, but if you go back to the beginning of the thread you will see where I outlined the time wasting tactics of the defence lawyers, and how the judges support them.  And since a JUDGE made the arbitrary decision in Ascott that 8 months is the most a case can go and not be  considered unreasonable delay, we now have this pathetic revolving door system and it is only getting worse. 
Sum up?  Since the sub-par elements of society are not going to change or take any accountability for themselves, then the simple solution is to go after the ones who are enabling their malfeasance.  Election of judges would instill an element of "how does my decision affect others, and how would the common person view my decision if they were sitting here".  Will that make things worse for criminals, agitators, special interest groups and terrorists?  Absolutely.  And why would anyone be thinking that is a bad thing? 
Brihard, if you are actually considering a career in Law Enforcement if nothing else you will want to keep your ideas to yourself in an interview.  If you get the chance to see how devolved many of the human animals that are around us are, you may re-think your views on how nice we should be to them. 

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Where's the darn 'applause' smilely......................

 

[zipperhead_cop]

So how much time do you have on the job, Bruce?  I bet you can't wait until you make the 20 year mark and start caring about all of your precious inmates again.  >