Has Nova Scotia lost it's collective mind?

**FalconAngel** · Mar 10, 2010, 8:30 PM

Originally Posted by Darkside2009

Well, I believe I did address the points you raised in my previous post, but here they are again.

Firstly, on the limited facts we are given by the OP the judge has acquitted on the grounds of the unconscionable delay in the prosecution of the defendant. As I said, every defendant is entitled to a swift and fair trial.

The ability of the defence to ask for a delay in proceedings is strictly limited. It usually concerns the fact that they have not received the papers detailing the case against their client from the prosecution and are therefore unable to mount their defence.

It might also be the case that the accused is mentally ill and unable to understand the charges brought against him, let alone enter a plea of guilty or not guilty.

If such were the case, and the accused was likely to recover his health, a plea of not guilty would be entered on his behalf. If the accused was mentally ill and unlikely to recover then he could be sectioned under the mental health acts if it was thought he was a danger to himself or others. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

Secondly, the media ban is to ensure an innocent man does not have an accusation hanging over him for the rest of his life.

Thirdly, as the Canadian, US and English Law systems are all based on Common Law, a person accused does not have to prove his or her innocence. They are innocent until proven guilty and the burden of proof lies entirely on the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Fourthly, the defence cannot object to the prosecution gathering evidence. They can claim that the evidence is inadmissable if it has been contaminated, or the chain of evidence has been broken.

They can also claim that the Defendants rights to a fair trial have been breached if the Prosecution gives details of evidence in press interviews before the evidence has been heard in court and before that evidence has been ruled as admissable or in-admissable.

The aim is to ensure that the jury decides the case on the basis of the admissable evidence revealed in court and on that alone, to ensure the Defendant has a fair trial. Such a ruling is called sub judice.

I hope this helps, as many of you seem too eager to rush to judgement, before knowing the full facts of the case.

Actually, if you look at the points that you raised, none of them addressed the points that I brought up. All of your points were about the speedy trial and legal process, not the repercussions of dropping this case without going to trial.

But since you didn't read beyond my saying that you missed some points, you wouldn't notice my points at all.

Do a read-over of my prior post on the points that you missed. Those things that I pointed out will affect the victim and the accused for the rest of their lives.

Of course, when you quote someone, it makes it easier to tell who you are responding to.

**rdy2go** · Mar 12, 2010, 6:53 PM

Originally Posted by Hephaestion

rdy2go "...Now can we lynch the bastard?..."

That's not the way it's supposed to go. But on a point of clarification please, which one do you propose goes first - the judge or the suspect?

Yours in despair

H.

I propose lynching the judge first, the defence team next. Then just to be sure justice is served how about we cut the rapists nuts off feed them to him, then lynch him as well. ... Evil lil shit, ain't I?

**darkeyes** · Mar 12, 2010, 8:16 PM

Originally Posted by rdy2go

I propose lynching the judge first, the defence team next. Then just to be sure justice is served how about we cut the rapists nuts off feed them to him, then lynch him as well. ... Evil lil shit, ain't I?

No... I doubt you can claim justice would be served. We live in countries where we have what is loosely termed, rule of law. Pray tell me which law is served by acting as you propose? Is a human being, man or woman not entitled to be tried by his peers for his or her alleged crimes?

I hope the day never comes when you are accused of a viscious rape against a child, whether or not that child is your progeny is immaterial, or even against an adult woman, with only one person knowing and able to say for certain that you did not do the crime, other than of course the alleged victim(s), that person being yourself. I sincerely hope that if such a scenario ever comes to pass, that you are not deprived your rights as a human being, trussed and hauled from your gaol cell, dragged accross the street by a wailing vengeful lynch mob, have your balls surgically removed and stuffed in your mouth, and your cock burned before your eyes prior to being strung up for a long unpleasant and lingering death.

I do not claim that the man in question is innocent of the crimes for which he was accused. But he may be innocent of some, or even all, for without the facts being made public, no one, other than the child in question and the accused can possibly know. That is why we have a criminal justice system. To provide justice. Yes it has failed irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the case. Sometimes it does so and always has and as justice is provided for and by human beings with human failings it shall always be so.

One of the reasons why we have a criminal justice system is to protect the innocent. It exists to protect the innocent from you and people like you who pre-judge without full knowledge of the evidence.

Evil? No sweetheart I don't believe you to be evil. A trifle unpleasant possibly, but you are not alone in that, but worse, you have absolutely no understanding of why we have the concept of innocent until proven guilty, and why we have criminal justice systems in the first place.

**Hephaestion** · Mar 13, 2010, 3:58 AM

Originally Posted by Hephaestion

It must be in the air, even in England

10 Mar 2010 - The 56-year-old father is serving a life sentence for repeatedly raping his daughters, who went through 16 pregnancies between them.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-25-years.html

Now that the Law has run its course, can we exclude the judge who seems to have done adequately in this case and substitute the managerial members of Social Services and Police who seemed deaf (claimed powerless to the sound of shuffling as they close ranks) to reports of their juniors following observations of the medics.

**rdy2go** · Mar 13, 2010, 5:01 AM

Now that the people have spoken on the rights of the accused, fair trial and all that, let's take it one further. This case is now officially closed. There will be no further investigation. Justice will not be served, the rapist will be free, so what happens when the rapist decides that he should target another innocent young woman. Does he have another daughter? Will he seek revenge on the daughter he already violated? Or will he just pick a random young woman from some highschool or college and let 'er rip again? Maybe if he does this again he will get convicted. It seems to me that it is possible he could. Yeah I know there are restraining orders and all that, but so what? There have been many funerals that have resulted from some maniac ignoring a restraining order. If we can't protect our youth from people like this then why bother? If people that commit crimes against young folks or anyone for that matter are allowed to manipulate the law so that they don't have to answer to the charges, then why bother with a justice system in the first place. I know that it is important to have a system in place that protects the rights of the accused. But why pay police and investigators to gather evidence and do the work they do, if a judge can in one sentence and for the wrong reasons let the guy walk? I would probably have a different opinion on this had the guy gone to trial, but it never got there. The judge could have made it so, but he decided to play the defence game and let it go on to long. Now, there will be no justice for the victim, she now gets to live like a prisoner herself, wondering if and/or when daddy will come to "visit" her. No young person should have to live like that. The rights of accused people to a fair and speedy trial are all well and good, but the rights of the innocent general public are no less important, let's not forget that. What would you do if some night the police came to your door saying a family member had been murdered or raped etc. and you find out that the suspect had been arrested several times for similar crimes but the judge let him walk, on technicalities?

**darkeyes** · Mar 13, 2010, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by rdy2go

Now that the people have spoken on the rights of the accused, fair trial and all that, let's take it one further. This case is now officially closed. There will be no further investigation. Justice will not be served, the rapist will be free, so what happens when the rapist decides that he should target another innocent young woman. Does he have another daughter? Will he seek revenge on the daughter he already violated? Or will he just pick a random young woman from some highschool or college and let 'er rip again? Maybe if he does this again he will get convicted. It seems to me that it is possible he could. Yeah I know there are restraining orders and all that, but so what? There have been many funerals that have resulted from some maniac ignoring a restraining order. If we can't protect our youth from people like this then why bother? If people that commit crimes against young folks or anyone for that matter are allowed to manipulate the law so that they don't have to answer to the charges, then why bother with a justice system in the first place. I know that it is important to have a system in place that protects the rights of the accused. But why pay police and investigators to gather evidence and do the work they do, if a judge can in one sentence and for the wrong reasons let the guy walk? I would probably have a different opinion on this had the guy gone to trial, but it never got there. The judge could have made it so, but he decided to play the defence game and let it go on to long. Now, there will be no justice for the victim, she now gets to live like a prisoner herself, wondering if and/or when daddy will come to "visit" her. No young person should have to live like that. The rights of accused people to a fair and speedy trial are all well and good, but the rights of the innocent general public are no less important, let's not forget that. What would you do if some night the police came to your door saying a family member had been murdered or raped etc. and you find out that the suspect had been arrested several times for similar crimes but the judge let him walk, on technicalities?

By your law hun, the rights of far more people will be trampled on than would ever be served by justice. U want the law of the mob..fine.. go somewhere it exists.. I dont fancy your chances of survival... an if u did u wud not like it 1 little bit..

**Donkey_burger** · Mar 13, 2010, 2:38 PM

Originally Posted by rdy2go

Now that the people have spoken on the rights of the accused, fair trial and all that, let's take it one further. This case is now officially closed. There will be no further investigation. Justice will not be served, the rapist will be free, so what happens when the rapist decides that he should target another innocent young woman. Does he have another daughter? Will he seek revenge on the daughter he already violated? Or will he just pick a random young woman from some highschool or college and let 'er rip again? Maybe if he does this again he will get convicted. It seems to me that it is possible he could. Yeah I know there are restraining orders and all that, but so what? There have been many funerals that have resulted from some maniac ignoring a restraining order. If we can't protect our youth from people like this then why bother? If people that commit crimes against young folks or anyone for that matter are allowed to manipulate the law so that they don't have to answer to the charges, then why bother with a justice system in the first place. I know that it is important to have a system in place that protects the rights of the accused. But why pay police and investigators to gather evidence and do the work they do, if a judge can in one sentence and for the wrong reasons let the guy walk? I would probably have a different opinion on this had the guy gone to trial, but it never got there. The judge could have made it so, but he decided to play the defence game and let it go on to long. Now, there will be no justice for the victim, she now gets to live like a prisoner herself, wondering if and/or when daddy will come to "visit" her. No young person should have to live like that. The rights of accused people to a fair and speedy trial are all well and good, but the rights of the innocent general public are no less important, let's not forget that. What would you do if some night the police came to your door saying a family member had been murdered or raped etc. and you find out that the suspect had been arrested several times for similar crimes but the judge let him walk, on technicalities?

The system is fundamentally broken. The best we can do is to replace it with another, less fundamentally broken system.

DB

**rdy2go** · Mar 13, 2010, 3:15 PM

Originally Posted by darkeyes

By your law hun, the rights of far more people will be trampled on than would ever be served by justice. U want the law of the mob..fine.. go somewhere it exists.. I dont fancy your chances of survival... an if u did u wud not like it 1 little bit..

The point I'm trying to make here is not the one that you seem to have translated from my rants. The point is that why should innocent people, and victims have to live life in fear of the bad ones getting off (no! not that kind of getting off, lol) because loop holes exist in the systems around the world? The general population is basically decent people, so when one gets through the system who shouldn't, all of a sudden life for the innocent changes. We are allowed to be able to feel safe ya know. However the young victim in this case may have a hard time believing it. Law enforcement personell are sadly way to busy to offer the kind of individual protection some of these folks need to have. Here is a good example of what I'm talking about. In Canada, when sex offenders have served their time they are released. The debt to society is paid and they are free to get on with life on the outside. That is all well and good, you pay your debt, you go free. I have no problem with that at all. One stipulation of such an offender getting out is that where they will live and the likelyhood of them re-offending is made public knowledge. All of a sudden, if the person is at risk to reoffend, life in the community goes straight to Hell. Women and men are afraid to go out, kids are told to sit in front of the TV and not get outside and get some fresh air and exersize. The rights and freedoms of the citizens who are 100% innocent go away, we live in the fear that at anytime this person who we know can re-offend will, and often does. All I'm saying is that an innocent person has just as much right to live safely and without fear as the person who does the crime in the first place. Sure his debt to society is paid and he has the right to resume his life, that is not in question by me or anyone else. But why should families have to live as prisoners in their own homes because of it. The innocent should have just as much right to freedom as the person getting out of prison. If not then what is the point of being a law abiding citizen in the first place? Picture this, a defender of the rights of the accused marches in rallies, signs petitions and makes speeches. Suddenly a convicted murderer out on parole lands in your community. People go nuts, you stand by your morals and belifs and say, "This person has as much right to resume his or her life as any of us." You become the town crier for the rights of the ex con. I'm not saying that is a bad thing, supporting someones rights is awesome, think of the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's and the gains that were made. One rainy night a cop comes to your door, to tell you a loved one has been butally murdered, and theperson in custody for it is the same person you went to bat for. Some how I don't think your gonna say, "Well golly gee, isn't that to bad, I sure hope that when he goes to trial that he will be afforded every right that's avaliable to him. It's to bad that (insert name of victim) had to die, but .... I just don't think it would happen like that.

**Hephaestion** · Mar 13, 2010, 4:32 PM

The problem as always is one of the extreme case causing problems. What we all have to be careful of is using the extreme cases to undermine the sensible moderated approaches that have evolved through trial and error over the years. Revolution rarely provides an infallible solution.

**darkeyes** · Mar 15, 2010, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by rdy2go

The point I'm trying to make here is not the one that you seem to have translated from my rants. The point is that why should innocent people, and victims have to live life in fear of the bad ones getting off (no! not that kind of getting off, lol) because loop holes exist in the systems around the world? The general population is basically decent people, so when one gets through the system who shouldn't, all of a sudden life for the innocent changes. We are allowed to be able to feel safe ya know. However the young victim in this case may have a hard time believing it. Law enforcement personell are sadly way to busy to offer the kind of individual protection some of these folks need to have. Here is a good example of what I'm talking about. In Canada, when sex offenders have served their time they are released. The debt to society is paid and they are free to get on with life on the outside. That is all well and good, you pay your debt, you go free. I have no problem with that at all. One stipulation of such an offender getting out is that where they will live and the likelyhood of them re-offending is made public knowledge. All of a sudden, if the person is at risk to reoffend, life in the community goes straight to Hell. Women and men are afraid to go out, kids are told to sit in front of the TV and not get outside and get some fresh air and exersize. The rights and freedoms of the citizens who are 100% innocent go away, we live in the fear that at anytime this person who we know can re-offend will, and often does. All I'm saying is that an innocent person has just as much right to live safely and without fear as the person who does the crime in the first place. Sure his debt to society is paid and he has the right to resume his life, that is not in question by me or anyone else. But why should families have to live as prisoners in their own homes because of it. The innocent should have just as much right to freedom as the person getting out of prison. If not then what is the point of being a law abiding citizen in the first place? Picture this, a defender of the rights of the accused marches in rallies, signs petitions and makes speeches. Suddenly a convicted murderer out on parole lands in your community. People go nuts, you stand by your morals and belifs and say, "This person has as much right to resume his or her life as any of us." You become the town crier for the rights of the ex con. I'm not saying that is a bad thing, supporting someones rights is awesome, think of the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's and the gains that were made. One rainy night a cop comes to your door, to tell you a loved one has been butally murdered, and theperson in custody for it is the same person you went to bat for. Some how I don't think your gonna say, "Well golly gee, isn't that to bad, I sure hope that when he goes to trial that he will be afforded every right that's avaliable to him. It's to bad that (insert name of victim) had to die, but .... I just don't think it would happen like that.

I understand your outrage at this apparent injustice hun.. but what I am trying to get htrough your noggin is that if people went around acting and imposing the kind of justice you keep suggesting, the people you so rightly care about living free from fear will in fact have to live with a great deal more of it... the law of the mob creates much more fear among the community than does the any failure of the established justice system perceived or otherwise.. what is important is that legislators and justices learn from the cock ups which seem to have permeated this case from start to finish and do something to make it better than it is and more reliable in achieving its purpose...

**darkeyes** · Mar 15, 2010, 7:48 PM

..and now I have more time..on the gist of your main argument of your last post.. it begs the question..is one who has completed his or her sentence never to be entirely forgiven their sins? For what you suggest is that those who have been convicted of committing serious offences for the rest of their lives will never be allowed to live anything remotely like a normal life.. what you are saying is that they have a de facto life sentence.. fine if that is what u are saying.. then change the law to make that explicitly clear.. as it happens I have some sympathy with the argument but have not yet reached a conclusion as to whether or not it will be of benefit to the wider community.. I see drawbacks.. I see lynch mobs.. I see rehabilitated people hunted and never allowed to rest.. the hoo hah over Jamie Bulger in the UK at present shows that a very likely possibility..

I do not want the guilty to escape unpunished.. but I do want a society which can work to rehabilitate even the most heinous offender, for many can be and are rehabilitated... and contribute to society in a constructive and decent manner.. of course some, indeed many re-offend, but many do not..and they should be allowed to live their lives without living under the cloud of perpetual purgatory from society.. they already live it in their own minds...

**rdy2go** · Mar 19, 2010, 4:06 PM

Originally Posted by darkeyes

..and now I have more time..on the gist of your main argument of your last post.. it begs the question..is one who has completed his or her sentence never to be entirely forgiven their sins? For what you suggest is that those who have been convicted of committing serious offences for the rest of their lives will never be allowed to live anything remotely like a normal life.. what you are saying is that they have a de facto life sentence.. fine if that is what u are saying.. then change the law to make that explicitly clear.. as it happens I have some sympathy with the argument but have not yet reached a conclusion as to whether or not it will be of benefit to the wider community.. I see drawbacks.. I see lynch mobs.. I see rehabilitated people hunted and never allowed to rest.. the hoo hah over Jamie Bulger in the UK at present shows that a very likely possibility..

I do not want the guilty to escape unpunished.. but I do want a society which can work to rehabilitate even the most heinous offender, for many can be and are rehabilitated... and contribute to society in a constructive and decent manner.. of course some, indeed many re-offend, but many do not..and they should be allowed to live their lives without living under the cloud of perpetual purgatory from society.. they already live it in their own minds...

'Fer Chrissake! Why is it that all of a sudden a man who wants to keep his family and those close to him safe is the bad guy! Geezus, from reading some of the replies there are alot of folks who would forsake the rights of the innocent and children so that we can have legal systems that allow the guilty to go free. Why the hell do you think these slimebag lawyers look for the loop holes in the first place, so they can get the client set free. These guys know some of theses suspects are guilty, but if they go to the "big house" for life they (the lawyer) may not get paid. I never once said I was against fair trial and all that, let's just ensure that fair is fair, for ALL involved, that includes victims. There is absoulutely nothing wrong with wanting people to be safe, and wanting the guilty to serve the right amount of time for his/her crime. That's all I'm saying, innocent people have rights to!

**darkeyes** · Mar 19, 2010, 4:24 PM

Originally Posted by rdy2go

I never once said I was against fair trial and all that, let's just ensure that fair is fair, for ALL involved, that includes victims. There is absoulutely nothing wrong with wanting people to be safe, and wanting the guilty to serve the right amount of time for his/her crime. That's all I'm saying, innocent people have rights to!

Then we agree...