 |
 |
Offthepost (Generation II)
ATTENTION: OFFTHEPOST.NET NO LONGER EXISTS AS A URL. The old site had to be closed. Please reset your bookmarks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
razzmatazz
Go Habs Go! Vive le CH!
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 1826
Location: Burnaby, B.C.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jyrki21
Rebel Sell + Moneyball = Life
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 2018
Location: Ottawa, ON
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 9:28 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Suzanne Fournier wrote: |
| "Judy wants the world to know what this man did to her daughter and if we have to do it through civil litigation, we will." |
What, is she going to sue him for an apology? I'm guessing the guy doesn't have a ton of assets left.
I'm with you on this one Razz, I really don't see what the second trial would accomplish except in the most abstract way. It doesn't take a ton of imagination to know what happened, once you've decided he's guilty (as the families have surely done well before the first conviction itself, let's face it).
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
razzmatazz
Go Habs Go! Vive le CH!
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 1826
Location: Burnaby, B.C.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 10:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yeah, sue him, I've got news for you, the government already picked his bones dry before eventually ponying up to cover the legal costs that exceeded his net worth. This is why families of victims should not have a voice - they are irrational 99 times out of 100... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tuzer
No longer Croozing
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 973
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| razzmatazz wrote: |
| This is why families of victims should not have a voice - they are irrational 99 times out of 100... |
That's pretty harsh dude,Even for you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
razzmatazz
Go Habs Go! Vive le CH!
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 1826
Location: Burnaby, B.C.
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 3:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Well, I do feel for them in that their true recourse is civilly, and this guy has no money, so it would be a dry judgement. What I really meant was, in the criminal system they should have no voice. Civilly fine, go ahead, that's the arena set up for compensation. But to have them go on in the press about how they're gonna get Willie Pickton... that's just the press sluts trying to sell more papers.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Av-merican
Un-Tenured Professor of Hockey
Joined: 17 Oct 2007
Posts: 2322
Location: Denver
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| razzmatazz wrote: |
| Yeah, sue him, I've got news for you, the government already picked his bones dry before eventually ponying up to cover the legal costs that exceeded his net worth. This is why families of victims should not have a voice - they are irrational 99 times out of 100... |
Amazingly enough, I agree, harsh as that sounds. There's a reason juries are picked as unbiased as possible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
harmfuljays
King of Men
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 1507
Location: Djibouti
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 12:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
so the bottom line here is that the families of those that were victimized should be satiated by his original life sentence?
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bell Centre Ghost
Haunting the Bell Centre since 2005
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 537
Location: Guelph
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't know if the main raison d'etre of the legal system is to serve the financial needs of the public, other needs of the public (e.g. safety), or the needs of those affected. It seems to be a question similar to the purpose of the government.
What I'm wondering is how or when will Pickton be deemed a dangerous offender and so remove any possibility of parole/exiting the prison system?
_________________
The fans represent the soul of the organization. This is their team. Us, we simply try to make it better. They tell us when things are going good, and when they are less so. We don't always give them the impression that we are listening, but we are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
razzmatazz
Go Habs Go! Vive le CH!
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 1826
Location: Burnaby, B.C.
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bell Centre Ghost wrote: |
I don't know if the main raison d'etre of the legal system is to serve the financial needs of the public, other needs of the public (e.g. safety), or the needs of those affected. It seems to be a question similar to the purpose of the government.
What I'm wondering is how or when will Pickton be deemed a dangerous offender and so remove any possibility of parole/exiting the prison system? |
Harmy, the point is that they shouldn't be looking to the criminal justice system for satisfaction because the system can't and won't give them any. Running another trial won't make their loved ones go all Lazarus. They're dead, period. Pickton will only get out of prison in a pine box, period. Running another trial would have zero utility and monumental cost. There are far cheaper and more appropriate ways for society to aid these families in the grieving process. Hell, give em each a personal shrink for a year and it will still be way cheaper...
Casper, the dangerous offender or long term offender designation is sought as part of the sentencing process. For whatever reasons it wasn't sought here. I think the problem is that you really do need a pattern of criminal history, and Pickton didn't have that prior to these incidents. It's a high bar for the Crown to overcome, and for good reason - putting someone in jail indefinitely is as harsh a punishment as society can concoct. To be sure it's justified in the rarest of cases - Clifford Olson being one of them - but it's really the A-bomb of the sentencing provisions... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bell Centre Ghost
Haunting the Bell Centre since 2005
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 537
Location: Guelph
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 4:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| razzmatazz wrote: |
| Bell Centre Ghost wrote: |
I don't know if the main raison d'etre of the legal system is to serve the financial needs of the public, other needs of the public (e.g. safety), or the needs of those affected. It seems to be a question similar to the purpose of the government.
What I'm wondering is how or when will Pickton be deemed a dangerous offender and so remove any possibility of parole/exiting the prison system? |
Harmy, the point is that they shouldn't be looking to the criminal justice system for satisfaction because the system can't and won't give them any. Running another trial won't make their loved ones go all Lazarus. They're dead, period. Pickton will only get out of prison in a pine box, period. Running another trial would have zero utility and monumental cost. There are far cheaper and more appropriate ways for society to aid these families in the grieving process. Hell, give em each a personal shrink for a year and it will still be way cheaper...
Casper, the dangerous offender or long term offender designation is sought as part of the sentencing process. For whatever reasons it wasn't sought here. I think the problem is that you really do need a pattern of criminal history, and Pickton didn't have that prior to these incidents. It's a high bar for the Crown to overcome, and for good reason - putting someone in jail indefinitely is as harsh a punishment as society can concoct. To be sure it's justified in the rarest of cases - Clifford Olson being one of them - but it's really the A-bomb of the sentencing provisions... |
Casper, lol. Nice!
I didn't realize it was an ongoing pattern. I first heard of the designation with Olson and I as far as I remember, that was due to the severity of his crime. Isn't Bernardo designated a dangerous offender? (and yeah - his "severity" was more of a result of media sensationalism)
_________________
The fans represent the soul of the organization. This is their team. Us, we simply try to make it better. They tell us when things are going good, and when they are less so. We don't always give them the impression that we are listening, but we are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
razzmatazz
Go Habs Go! Vive le CH!
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 1826
Location: Burnaby, B.C.
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's been ages since I thought about Bernardo, lol. Oddly enough I did a paper on the plea agreement with Homolka they used to help nail Bernardo, rather than the main guy himself.
I can't remember if the D.O.'d him. To be honest I haven't studied the provisions much, and my Code is currently at the office  . But I'm pretty sure they have to do the application at the sentencing, or shortly thereafter.
However, the Crown and defense are both appealing, as I understand it. It may be that they are simply waiting until the appeals are exhausted, and then, assuming nothing is overturned, they will make their application...
Problem is they dinged him for 2nd degree, which is not the premeditated murder you'd want for a D.O. application, I would think... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bell Centre Ghost
Haunting the Bell Centre since 2005
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 537
Location: Guelph
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 2:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| razzmatazz wrote: |
It's been ages since I thought about Bernardo, lol. Oddly enough I did a paper on the plea agreement with Homolka they used to help nail Bernardo, rather than the main guy himself.
I can't remember if the D.O.'d him. To be honest I haven't studied the provisions much, and my Code is currently at the office . But I'm pretty sure they have to do the application at the sentencing, or shortly thereafter.
However, the Crown and defense are both appealing, as I understand it. It may be that they are simply waiting until the appeals are exhausted, and then, assuming nothing is overturned, they will make their application...
Problem is they dinged him for 2nd degree, which is not the premeditated murder you'd want for a D.O. application, I would think... |
Hmm.. yeah. Would make it difficult with a 2nd deg.... although common sense says it shouldn't.
They did D.O. Bernardo - and put him in a protective cell in the Kingston Pen. Karla was across the street in the P4W and was "my classmate" at Queen's, lol. Do you have your paper still? I'd like to read it.
_________________
The fans represent the soul of the organization. This is their team. Us, we simply try to make it better. They tell us when things are going good, and when they are less so. We don't always give them the impression that we are listening, but we are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
razzmatazz
Go Habs Go! Vive le CH!
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 1826
Location: Burnaby, B.C.
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 3:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
I wrote it in Grade 12 , so no. Did it for a speech competition, ended up going to the finals at the Law Courts but not placing. Weirdest thing - I shouldn't have made the final, but my second go round was great, yet didn't place... anyway.
The upshot of the paper was that a deal is a deal, and the Crown had to honour the agreement with Homolka even though they found videos after. At the time they thought they needed her to nail Bernardo - you can't just renege on that when you find other evidence after the deal is done... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bosc Ulrich II
OTP Resident Historian
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 3477
Location: Sweetest lid in the league
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 3:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| razzmatazz wrote: |
The upshot of the paper was that a deal is a deal, and the Crown had to honour the agreement with Homolka even though they found videos after. At the time they thought they needed her to nail Bernardo - you can't just renege on that when you find other evidence after the deal is done... |
A deal is a deal, so someone fucked up large with her deal if the crown discovered the shit that they did and they can walk away without any consequences. I obviously don't know the ins and outs of deal-making, but it seems mind-bogglingly stupid.
_________________
Bring back the old OTP!
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
razzmatazz
Go Habs Go! Vive le CH!
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 1826
Location: Burnaby, B.C.
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well the problem was that the lawyer had hidden the evidence in the attic of his office, so it was a bit of a, er, unique situation...
That's actually a really diffcult ethical issue for lawyers, the situation where a client brings you evidence and tells you what it is. There's no "by the book" answer, but everyone agrees what the lawyer did wasn't a good plan. Think he got suspended or disbarred or something... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bosc Ulrich II
OTP Resident Historian
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 3477
Location: Sweetest lid in the league
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| razzmatazz wrote: |
Well the problem was that the lawyer had hidden the evidence in the attic of his office, so it was a bit of a, er, unique situation...
That's actually a really diffcult ethical issue for lawyers, the situation where a client brings you evidence and tells you what it is. There's no "by the book" answer, but everyone agrees what the lawyer did wasn't a good plan. Think he got suspended or disbarred or something... |
What would any other person face for it? Witholding of evidence, obstruction of justice? I'm certainly no lawyer, and I realize that the defense lawyer's job is to provide the best defense for the accused, but when you come into physical evidence like that? I don't think that there's any question what should be done with it. Turn it in and if you still want to fight the case, go for it. Otherwise, drop the case in a hurry.
| Quote: |
| In November, 1994, at the request of the Ontario Attorney-General, the OPP launched an investigation that culminated in charges being laid against Murray and MacDonald on January 24, 1997. The Law Society carried out its own investigation. On November 10, 2000, Murray was found not guilty by Mr. Justice Patrick Gravely, who pointed out the guidelines for lawyers who come into evidence aren't clear. |
Did anything ever come of that lack of clarity? Seems like something that they should make pretty friggin clear 
Read up on the lack of throwing out the deal on Wikipedia. Here's what they said about it:
| Quote: |
| In respect of the prosecutor’s decision not to charge Homolka with murder after the videotapes were discovered, the inquiry held that it was not feasible for the prosecutor to charge Homolka.[21] Such action would have violated the terms of the resolution agreement[22] and is barred by the Criminal Code of Canada[23] Homolka had not committed a fraud upon the Crown or the Court that sentenced her[24] From the very beginning, she had advised the authorities that the videotapes existed but that she did not know where Bernardo had hidden them. Homolka made full, complete and truthful disclosure of all of the criminal activity in which she participated or of which she had knowledge[25] She had lived up to her end of the resolution agreement[26] |
Truthful disclosure? Didn't they end up showing that she was full of shit?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karla_Homolka
_________________
Bring back the old OTP!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
razzmatazz
Go Habs Go! Vive le CH!
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 1826
Location: Burnaby, B.C.
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The problem is that the videotapes, and any other evidence turned into a lawyer by a client, is subject to solicitor-client privilege. The absolute last thing you could do is simply turn it in. That's also why the guidelines remain unclear, and probably vary from province to province. There's really no right answer in that situation. The ethics guy from the Law Society that taught me professional responsibility at UBC didn't even an answer for it.
The best suggestion I've heard would be to put the item in a box, send it to another lawyer, with no indication of what it is or who it's from. That lawyer would then turn it into the police. I don't know how that doesn't still violate solicitor client privilege, but I can't come up with a better idea either... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jyrki21
Rebel Sell + Moneyball = Life
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 2018
Location: Ottawa, ON
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| razzmatazz wrote: |
| The best suggestion I've heard would be to put the item in a box, send it to another lawyer, with no indication of what it is or who it's from. That lawyer would then turn it into the police. I don't know how that doesn't still violate solicitor client privilege, but I can't come up with a better idea either... |
That's what was suggested to us in my "Legal Process" (what most schools call Civil Procedure) class... show up at the police station, say, "This was given to me," and leave.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bell Centre Ghost
Haunting the Bell Centre since 2005
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 537
Location: Guelph
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jyrki21 wrote: |
| razzmatazz wrote: |
| The best suggestion I've heard would be to put the item in a box, send it to another lawyer, with no indication of what it is or who it's from. That lawyer would then turn it into the police. I don't know how that doesn't still violate solicitor client privilege, but I can't come up with a better idea either... |
That's what was suggested to us in my "Legal Process" (what most schools call Civil Procedure) class... show up at the police station, say, "This was given to me," and leave. |
Whether the lawyer shows up or just mails it, that should be the law. A priest, doctor, or counselor can't do otherwise and while it is slightly unique given their occupation, a lawyer should be bound by the same duty.
_________________
The fans represent the soul of the organization. This is their team. Us, we simply try to make it better. They tell us when things are going good, and when they are less so. We don't always give them the impression that we are listening, but we are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
razzmatazz
Go Habs Go! Vive le CH!
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 1826
Location: Burnaby, B.C.
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Except that the lawyer has a duty to the client that is more sacred than even the ones you have described, at least in the eyes of the law... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
