The Instigator
Kevink7m
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
bobby7
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Judge sets a dozen accused free after Crown lawyer is late

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/27/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,030 times Debate No: 17669
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Kevink7m

Con

Read this article first. http://www.thestar.com...
bobby7

Pro

I agree with this judge in spite of how the article tried to portray him as an eccentric. Due process is an important part of an individual right to be protected from their government. Amateur hour was back in law school; lateness does effect the outcome of a trial.
Debate Round No. 1
Kevink7m

Con

I agree with you that due process and individual rights are very important and you make a very good point referring to The Charter of Rights and Freedoms
s .11(b) to be tried within a reasonable time

However the purpose of a legal system is to protect society. Let me remind you that "the accused included a man deemed to be a violent schizophrenic, a spouse charged in a domestic abuse case, a disbarred lawyer charged with fraud and a robbery suspect. Some of the dozen prisoners set free included accused who had already pleaded guilty and who were awaiting sentencing." The domestic abuse perpetrator and the debarred lawyer who is responsible for defrauding 1.2 million dollars from 21 clients are a danger to society. There are victims in these cases and the perpetrators I have just stated have been released into the public. Who will bear the responsibility if these criminal reoffend? Two minutes does not outweigh the stability of society.

Lateness and stalling in courts is very common and let's not forget that there are over 92,000 cases still awaiting resolution at least 8 months after charges were first laid as records indicate by the auditor general in 2010. In R. v. Askov, [1990] 2 SCR 1199, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the guideline for delay is 6 to 8 months. More recently in R.v. Morin, [1992] 1 SCR 771, they set the benchmark at 8 to 10 months which is still the precedent today. Does the lateness of a case make a difference? Of course. Dismissing a case that is 48 months late is reasonable, dismissing a case because the crown was 2 minutes late is not. Let's not forget that the judge was late himself. I wonder what the judge would have done if the defence counsel was late. Would the judge have automatically convicted the accused? This case raises many red flags like blackmailing and bribery and there should be a thorough investigation on Justice Howard Chisvin.
bobby7

Pro

Have to step my devil's advocate up, and remember to respect the knowledge of a law, and society major. That being said, let's remember that the nature of the legal system is not to protect the society. The law only exists to safeguard the elite through conditioning of the masses, and if that fails provide justifiction for force (police). The primary concern of the police force is to protect the state, and my surname isn't Canada: neither is yours. When the G20 riots came to the climax it was due to police interference, and sabotage. Remember that burning car? That was a false flag, a police plant that gave the state's protection force justification to round up peaceful protesters, and undermine their right to freedom of assembly. Case, and point: the crown needs to be checked, and balanced. Showing up on time is just one example of a check, and balance. On a final note, let's try to stay away from these hyperbolic buzzwords such as 'stability of society' in this case. The US's impending default on its 13trillion debt, the Euro collasping, and China's ghost economy, those are destabilizers of societies. Not a man whom may have stolen 1.2 million, piecemeal in comparison to what the government takes from us on a daily basis. I do respect your opinion with this all said, and yeah I'm a little paranoid.
Debate Round No. 2
Kevink7m

Con

‎1. Setting the accused free because the crown was 2 minutes late is an infringement on the rights of the victims.
2. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the benchmark for delay of court proceedings is 8-10 months.
3. The judge needs to be checked and balanced.
bobby7

Pro

I understand your position, but my entire conumdrum I'm facing involves the first principles of this legal debacacle. As I see it, this case involves the right of a state entity versus the right of an individual(s). As it occured, the state tried to exercise its right to be late, to be powerful, and to be indifferent to lives at stake. I won't argue that victims of crimes were negatively impacted; people that were innocent in every sense of the word. What I'm stressing is that people are what matter, and even if a person is evil, their evil is nothing compared to the organized sadism of a government. Governments act to redistribute wealth. Intellectual, moral, and physical wealth. Redistribution is theft, and theft is immoral. I get it, I get you, and get this whole ordeal. But it is still wrong. I should probabely care more about nitty gritty legal details -- but no one is so naive to believe that a law is sacred. Laws can be changed easily: the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been suspended before. I don't have anything else to say on this small, but somehow important matter?
Debate Round No. 3
Kevink7m

Con

I feel that we are getting off onto another tangent. The key issue in this case is that the crown was late and the judge set the accused free. The crown coming 2 minutes late is a conflict that should have been resolved with the judge and the crown, not the accused. The judge should have waited and heard the reasons why the crown was late. In this case the crown apologized and the reasoning for being late was that he was studying the prisoner's psychiatric report. Lawyers are human beings and there are circumstances like a crown getting into a car accident, should the judge set an accused free of murder because the crown acted wrongly by coming late? Let's say person A steals 1 million dollars and in the criminal code the sentencing is 5-10 years. Person A ends up receiving 5 years. In another court, person B is being tried for stealing 1 million but since the crown is late, the judge sets him free. This violates the fundamental principles of equality of law. If the higher courts allow this, the scenario I have just given would be allowed. There are future implications if such thing is allowed such as the judge setting the accused free because the crown was 1 second late. The judge should have waited, given recess or rescheduled for another date and heard the reasons why the crown was late. Then the judge could have taken appropriate action after hearing the reasons for the lateness whether to give the lawyer a fine or to revoke his licence etc. Let me remind you that the crown was 2 minutes late and the severity of this case is minimal. The accused should have been sent to another judge or court for trial since some of the accused already pleaded guilty. This issue regards the judge and the crown not the accused and the judge or the accused and the crown.
bobby7

Pro

You give them an inch, and they will take a mile. Western Jurisprudence is based off of precedent. Being late to a trial projects the notion that in a court of law timely attendance is unimportant. That was the tangent -- its the same topic we were always on. The judge was following the letter of the law. It's not like there won't be a new trial. All I'm saying is that the judge, by following the letter of the law is justified in his actions. Barely, but that's how law can work. I would rather have a h-onky judge than a judge who has no respect for how the law works. We all know what's going to happen in the next decade (hint great, GREAT, depression), and s-hit is going to get real. I would rather have this judge than the nazi judges whom allowed someone like Hitler to gain even more power. You think we are far from a militarized totalitarian state, but there you are wrong. We have no rights when they prove inconvenient for the government. Remember the G20. All I'm saying is that judges like this d-ouche protect us from even worse d-ouches. That's it. I'm not stupid, I get this whole victims have rights, judge should have cut a side-deal with prosecutor, and etc. Whatever. You are sticking up for the wrong team. Right or wrong, it's not hard to really see why the judge might have done what he did.
Debate Round No. 4
Kevink7m

Con

I understand and respect your point of view. I am grateful to have a friend like you who I can discuss legal matters like this. Were both young and in the future we should keep discussing topics like this to improve our knowledge. Have a great summer!
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.