The cop(s) failed the victims in this case!
Did the cop(s) get repremanded for their mistakes?
|
|
|
Top court rules RCMP breached rights of drunk driver
- Thread starter MarcosSantiago
- Start date
The cop(s) failed the victims in this case!
Did the cop(s) get repremanded for their mistakes?
The police were at best sloppy, were they "corrupt" GMAFB. How exactly did they benefit from this?? If they were truly "corrupt" they would have lied and said they gave the accused access to a phone and he refused to call a lawyer when he had the opportunity. In this case they simply didn't do their job as is required.
As Brian and Rob have said the system worked exactly the way in which it is designed to work.
Femmefatale: Not sure how the driver being convicted or not affects the rights of the injured parties? It may mean they don't get "justice" if ones view of Justice is retribution. They would have gotten nothing from the criminal case. In Canada they are viewed by the court system as victims, plain and simple they have no "rights" when it involves the criminal case as that case is between the crown and the accused. Even IF the driver had been convicted he would have gotten likely a fine, (which goes to the crown), a driving suspension, (which for the period of time he was suspended would have PERHAPS prevented him from doing it again). None of that would have helped the victims recover physically or monetarily, from their injuries. It "may" have helped them in the short term with the emotional trauma.
Now having said that they have the RIGHT to sue the other driver, (we can't call him the "impaired driver" as he has been cleared of that allegation). The dismissal of the criminal charges in no way affects the victims rights in a civil trial. Once they sue and he losses his insurer will be on the hook for their rehab, and monetary damages.
As Brian and Rob have said the system worked exactly the way in which it is designed to work.
Femmefatale: Not sure how the driver being convicted or not affects the rights of the injured parties? It may mean they don't get "justice" if ones view of Justice is retribution. They would have gotten nothing from the criminal case. In Canada they are viewed by the court system as victims, plain and simple they have no "rights" when it involves the criminal case as that case is between the crown and the accused. Even IF the driver had been convicted he would have gotten likely a fine, (which goes to the crown), a driving suspension, (which for the period of time he was suspended would have PERHAPS prevented him from doing it again). None of that would have helped the victims recover physically or monetarily, from their injuries. It "may" have helped them in the short term with the emotional trauma.
Now having said that they have the RIGHT to sue the other driver, (we can't call him the "impaired driver" as he has been cleared of that allegation). The dismissal of the criminal charges in no way affects the victims rights in a civil trial. Once they sue and he losses his insurer will be on the hook for their rehab, and monetary damages.
Last edited:
Ok so what "justice" have the victims lost by the fact that the driver was not convicted? If the view of justice is seeing the accused "punished" then that is a viable form of retribution?
You began the discussion by asking what about the rights of the victims. But the victims have no rights, (at least in a criminal trial), nor should they. The justice system is predicated on the theory that the "crown" is dispassionate and impartial" which is why in our system the crown brings the case.
Is it a perfect system? Not by a LONG shot, but it does "improve" because of judgments like this. I have lost cases against impaired drivers over a violation of their rights. Now in my defence that was in the early 80's when the charter first came into being, and no one, (police, Crown or defence attorneys, and often judges), knew how it was to be applied. It was a steep learning curve, most of the time we, (police), got it right, but sometimes we didn't. Because of that the system improved, as Rob said the incidences of people getting off these days on charter violations are substantially lower.
I get your frustration, but reverse the tables for a minuet, If you did something would you not want your defence team to present every possible argument? If something was during the investigation was or wasn't done would you not hope to benefit from that?
The crown did what it is supposed to do, the defence lawyer(s), did what they are supposed to do. The Judge done what he/she was supposed to do, (given the evidence). In a big way the police blotched it. I doubt they did to rob the victims of justice. Was likely rookie officers who figured perhaps no one would notice, their error. When the error was discovered, I respectfully submit the "justice system" did what it was designed to do.
Now that this ruling has come down the likelihood of it occurring again are great diminished.
Like I said, justice & retribution are two different things.
jus·tice (jsts)
n.
1. The quality of being just; fairness.
2.
a. The principle of moral rightness; equity.
b. Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.
3.
a. The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.
b. Law The administration and procedure of law.
4. Conformity to truth, fact, or sound reason: The overcharged customer was angry, and with justice.
5. Abbr. J. Law
a. A judge.
b. A justice of the peace
retribution (ˌrɛtrɪˈbjuːʃən)
n
1. the act of punishing or taking vengeance for wrongdoing, sin, or injury
2. punishment or vengeance
jus·tice (jsts)
n.
1. The quality of being just; fairness.
2.
a. The principle of moral rightness; equity.
b. Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.
3.
a. The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.
b. Law The administration and procedure of law.
4. Conformity to truth, fact, or sound reason: The overcharged customer was angry, and with justice.
5. Abbr. J. Law
a. A judge.
b. A justice of the peace
retribution (ˌrɛtrɪˈbjuːʃən)
n
1. the act of punishing or taking vengeance for wrongdoing, sin, or injury
2. punishment or vengeance
Last edited:
It's been pointed out a couple of different ways now, and you're confirming it with this clarification. Justice and retribution are different. If justice was done (in your eyes) the conviction would not have been overturned and a sentence handed down. Does that change the outcome for the victims? Is that upholding the rights of the victims? No, it changes SFA for the victims. As hedo said, the system is impartial. A trial for a criminal offence is not to support victims' rights, it's to determine whether or not the accused should be found guilty of a crime, not a violation of the victim's rights. Ensuring there was no violation or denial of his/her rights is part of the process. The victim has an entire other avenue to pursue, and Rob has pointed out a few times that doesn't change.
Nobody wants to see an obvious case overturned on a technicality, but nobody wants to see a system that relies solely on the opinions or whims of the people that believe the accused is guilty, or a system that ignores the rights of the accused because the arresting officers are certain they're guilty. If they're that certain, there's no reason to not follow the simple procedures.
Either way, the victims can still seek retribution.
I agree. But even in this case, they did inform him of his rights, they just didn't bother to give him an opportunity to exercise them.
Yes thank you I am familiar with the dictionary definitions of both. Which is why I keep asking what "justice" did the injured parties lose as result of the case? Seeing we are speaking of a criminal LAW trial only the definitions 3(a), (b) under justice are applicable.
Therfore, I respectfully submit that indeed justice was done in that the judgment was just and fair, and in accordance with law, (albeit in favour or the accused), therefore justice has to be seen to have been done.
What you seem to be focused on is a classic case of retribution as defined under retribution definition 1.
As Emefef, has pointed out in a more eloquent manner than have I, The accused have no "right of justice." where in the definition of justice does it say that justice is only done if it favours the "injured party?" It doesn't because for it to be true justice it must be just for both parties. Given that the "injured parities" were not injured nor harmed by this decision it was indeed just and therefore justice was done..
Therfore, I respectfully submit that indeed justice was done in that the judgment was just and fair, and in accordance with law, (albeit in favour or the accused), therefore justice has to be seen to have been done.
What you seem to be focused on is a classic case of retribution as defined under retribution definition 1.
As Emefef, has pointed out in a more eloquent manner than have I, The accused have no "right of justice." where in the definition of justice does it say that justice is only done if it favours the "injured party?" It doesn't because for it to be true justice it must be just for both parties. Given that the "injured parities" were not injured nor harmed by this decision it was indeed just and therefore justice was done..
Good example. The OJ criminal case ended in a dismissal but the "injured parties" were still able to successfully exercise their rights in a civil trial. Simply being convicted of a crime does not ensure a victory in a civil case as it must be shown that the actions which lead to the conviction actually "injured" the parties.
And this is precisely why we need to take a good, hard look at any proposed law; to make sure that we're viewing the situation from a dispassionate point of view, rather than an emotional one. When we make such decisions emotionally we end up with badly thought out 'name laws', or situations like HTA 172. The law can't be about emotion.
Not necessarily true, but thank you just the same!
vociferous
Well-known member
+1.
this is why i don't like victims statements prior to handing down a verdict/sentence. all that should be settled (even if not announced) before the victims get to make an emotional statement (sworn testimony is different and necessary).
making laws based on emotion has us left with screwy laws. also, if we let charter/constitution violations go by because "we all know he's guilty), innocent people end up in jail.
save the emotions for civil court.
The actual person who failed the victims ultimately is the driver who is driving Drunk. i would think is was a technical error. legal mumble jumble is very complicated, most law are written by lawyer and interpreted by lawyers. at the end of the day they leave it to the poor public to decide who wins the case. I was once told who ever puts up the best show in the courtroom and impress the jury with out a doubt, wins the day.
Depends. If the accused is going to try and play the sympathy card, then a trial by jury is the usual way to go. If he wants to win on some esoteric point of law then it's a bench trial (trial by judge alone) that would be the route.
|
|
|
|
|