Have you
ever attended a day in court, or seen how cases are routinely handled by the
court?
I have, and
I must say, the process is much more involved than reading the outcome of a
court case in a newspaper.
The whole
notion of seeing justice done, has a connotation as to administering justice to
whom?
Remember,
justice for a victim, an accused, and those that represent their clients
respectively-are varied.
Of course in
all of this melée we have a federal government who enacts popular laws without
thinking about its consequences...
Again, I am
of the view that the judicial system, including the Supreme Court of Canada are
“victims” if I may be so bold to use the term, to whatever lunacy may be
introduced and legislated by a majority government.
In this instance
the use of the Red Chamber would be most appropriate and should be used as a
template; to negate rules of law that are not designed to assist all those who
abide within Canadian society.
Some exclaim
that it is not the purview of the judiciary to “pick and choose’ which law
they’ll enforce”.
They admit
that a Supreme Court ruling might be in order to provide the final say; as to
what judges can and cannot do while applying the laws of this country.
I don’t know
about you, but that seems a little bit hypocritical.
There has to
be common sense and a good deal of reflective thought when our members of
parliament invoke new laws designed to “protect us all”, and that would mean
the offenders themselves.
Is justice
served when a judge imposes (or not) a three year prison term for the
possession of a prohibited firearm?
I dare you
to make a verdict based on this fact alone.
There are
more than meets the eye when sentencing issues are concerned. My mind returns
to Joe Spence who was the victim of a brutal assault last year.
I wonder if
adding the mandatory “victim fine surcharge” in Spence’s case would have given
him the added sentiment that the newly Conservative legislation in this case,
would have offered him any additional sense of “justice being served”.
Are we so
quick to render judgement on those who have fallen?
Those who do
not fit into the ‘cookie cutter’ have a way to find themselves in front of a
judge. They are the most vulnerable, the dispossessed, those who are
marginalized.
The truth of
the matter is that the consequences of any law being broken in Canada are
impacting us all.
Those that
take part in the process, such as Spence and his family, have to adapt and
survive knowing that forgiveness and not retribution-will heal.
Those that
have perpetrated the crime, take part in the process as having to acknowledge
that the pain, suffering and possible loss of life inflicted to the victim is
forever.
I don’t know
if I would have the means to dispense judgement to those that deserve of far
worse and to those that deserve far less.
Is love
stronger than hate? Is the ability to forgive deemed a weakness versus the
ability to punish a virtue?
You see, our
judiciary are instructed to follow the law. They also must take into consideration
the merits of the case, the victim impact statements and the court discovery of
the perpetrator.
In matters
of indigenous cases, the Gladue decision instructs the court to further examine
the issue, and therefore temper any verdict accordingly.
We can be
disappointed when we are informed of certain cases in the media being
misappropriated either by the Crown or by a sentencing judge.
We can argue
why such a decision was made at all, but with respect to placing blame?
Does that
have to be part of the equation?
We all have
responsibilities towards one another. Take for instance the poor fellows
freezing and taking refuge within the doors of the RBC bank here in The Pas.
Giving them
a few dollars to eat, perhaps a warm beverage might be enough for them to feel
that someone cares enough to offer assistance.
This in turn
might give that person pause, reflect, and maybe stop them from doing something
(criminal act) that has a more lasting impact on us all.
Some of you
might find this over simplistic, or even ridiculous. Why should we help them at
all?
For those of
you who feel that it is not your responsibility to offer assistance to people
in need, to those who you feel should be taking their lives by the ‘boot
straps” and make better decisions....Make one yourselves.
Perhaps
having judges refuse to apply laws newly introduced by any federal government
would give me pause as an ordinary Canadian to ask questions.
Laws in
themselves are not foolproof, and those that have not taken the time or the
effort to evaluate what any new legislation might have on the judiciary-is
irresponsible.
I don’t make
any pretense to know all point of law; but when tenured judges across Canada
articulate their concerns, and act accordingly to the merits of the facts and
to their conscience-we need to listen.
It is not a
case of wanting to have it all. I would be very leery of any government
obsessed with shoving newly minted legislation down the pike.
Undermining
the confidence of the public buy not imposing the mandatory minimum sentencing,
or not invoking the victim fine surcharge, is not it.
What
undermine the justice system are legislative laws that make no sense, or are
created to appease those who are like minded.
What erodes
confidence in the justice system is the absence of due process, of effective
time lines, and proper sentencing options which mitigates the suffering and
loss on all fronts.
What angers
Canadians …having to endure the rants of extremism's, politicians, and special
interest groups who claim to know best and tell us not to think for ourselves.
When courts
of law have to pronounce; we as a society have failed.
No comments:
Post a Comment