Off Topic

Conservatives accuse Trudeau of political interference in Canada's justice system

  • Last Updated:
  • Feb 18th, 2018 10:21 pm
Sr. Member
User avatar
Mar 20, 2009
743 posts
122 upvotes
Toronto
MTommy wrote:
Feb 13th, 2018 2:10 pm
Who else is living out there? Only whites and natives?
Guess you didn't watch Little Mosque on the Prairie?
Who am i kidding - neither did I.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Dec 7, 2012
28850 posts
7038 upvotes
GTHA
hugh_da_man wrote:
Feb 13th, 2018 1:56 pm
Also, everyone points out that the jury wasn't diverse. Do we know that for sure? The family commented that it was an "all white" jury and the media has run with it. The media isn't supposed to comment on the jury so they're really just repeating the comments made by the family.
Chris Murphy, a Toronto-based defence lawyer, commented on the jury selection process.

Murphy spoke emotionally today about jury selection for Stanley’s trial, and how five possible jurors who looked Indigenous were challenged by the defence, which meant they were ruled out. Talking with reporters, here’s how he described that scene at a Saskatchewan community centre, starting with a random draw of possible jurors, from which the 12 who ultimately made up the jury were chosen:

“They drew 45 names out of a drum, and five of those people appeared to be Indigenous. And the fourth person to come up was a beautiful man, long hair, and a twinkle in his eye. I’m a defence lawyer and I thought before this selection process, there is no chance that there will ever be an Indigenous person on this jury. And I saw him walk up, and even I had a brief glimmer of hope that this guy was going to make it on. He walked up and, ‘Accused look upon the juror, juror look upon the accused,’ and the word ‘challenge’ came out. And then four more, challenge, challenge, challenge, challenge.”

Murphy said this predictable pattern of rejecting Indigenous-looking jurors in trials where the victim or the accused is Indigenous shouldn’t be allowed, and could be ended easily by doing away entirely with peremptory challenges. He said they are generally based on little more than the appearance of the prospective juror. “You get to eyeball that person for three seconds before you make the decision. And so if you’re an Indigenous person watching this process, what are you to think? What is this decision based on?”


from http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/ ... al-system/
Deal Fanatic
Jul 5, 2005
6276 posts
233 upvotes
MTommy wrote:
Feb 13th, 2018 2:10 pm
Who else is living out there? Only whites and natives?
My childhood best friend was 50% cree and you wouldn't have been able to tell by looking at him. The media doesn't get a briefing on the ethnicity of jurors do they?

tk1000 wrote:
Feb 13th, 2018 2:26 pm
Chris Murphy, a Toronto-based defence lawyer, commented on the jury selection process.

Murphy spoke emotionally today about jury selection for Stanley’s trial, and how five possible jurors who looked Indigenous were challenged by the defence, which meant they were ruled out. Talking with reporters, here’s how he described that scene at a Saskatchewan community centre, starting with a random draw of possible jurors, from which the 12 who ultimately made up the jury were chosen:

“They drew 45 names out of a drum, and five of those people appeared to be Indigenous. And the fourth person to come up was a beautiful man, long hair, and a twinkle in his eye. I’m a defence lawyer and I thought before this selection process, there is no chance that there will ever be an Indigenous person on this jury. And I saw him walk up, and even I had a brief glimmer of hope that this guy was going to make it on. He walked up and, ‘Accused look upon the juror, juror look upon the accused,’ and the word ‘challenge’ came out. And then four more, challenge, challenge, challenge, challenge.”

Murphy said this predictable pattern of rejecting Indigenous-looking jurors in trials where the victim or the accused is Indigenous shouldn’t be allowed, and could be ended easily by doing away entirely with peremptory challenges. He said they are generally based on little more than the appearance of the prospective juror. “You get to eyeball that person for three seconds before you make the decision. And so if you’re an Indigenous person watching this process, what are you to think? What is this decision based on?”


from http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/ ... al-system/
This doesn't say anything about the ACTUAL ethnicity of the jurors other than the fact that anyone "indigenous-looking" (to this one defence lawyer) was challenged and the jurors apparently look "white". The whole thing is a pretty clear example of the racist bias of people who push skin colour as the only means of determining diversity.
Member
User avatar
Jun 5, 2017
259 posts
26 upvotes
Guelph, Ont
i dont even know why we have a jury system. everyone hates jury duty. we should do away with the current system and have a panel of judges hear evidence like a jury and make a verdict. people are not qualified to be a jury.
Deal Addict
Feb 26, 2003
4046 posts
102 upvotes
Tahsis
kevindurant1 wrote:
Feb 13th, 2018 2:12 pm
Whats crazy is that you think an all white jury is the best way to have a fair trial.

Not one minority. Not even one aboriginal. JUST ALL WHITE. This is what you consider fair. LOL.

This is exactly why things need to change.

The entitlement is just mindblowing. That is why I will vote for the liberals again and again and again.
How do you propose this is “fixed?”

The court system is not, and never was, there for the victims. The process protects the accused, it’s not intended to represent the victims and shouldn’t be. They get their say in sentencing, and they also have the civil court process.

At best, a representative jury would have had one or two FN on it. What do you think the outcome would have been?
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jan 21, 2009
2224 posts
261 upvotes
TO
Applesmack wrote:
Feb 13th, 2018 9:08 pm
https://np.reddit.com/r/canada/comments ... l/du37b4q/

A serious truth bomb was detonated showing that the Boushie family has deep gang ties.
The native problems around Stanley were quite underrepresented by the media. It was not a safe area or place to live unfortunately and there are many reasons to have a weapon, including self defence.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Mar 18, 2005
16953 posts
1153 upvotes
Niagara Falls
rommelrommel wrote:
Feb 13th, 2018 9:04 pm
How do you propose this is “fixed?”

The court system is not, and never was, there for the victims. The process protects the accused, it’s not intended to represent the victims and shouldn’t be. They get their say in sentencing, and they also have the civil court process.

At best, a representative jury would have had one or two FN on it. What do you think the outcome would have been?
I almost feel like, at this point with how well video conference works in court rooms, we should have professional jurors. They can just be paid full time to be jurors or something. I'm not saying it would have changed the outcome at all, but personally I think overall it would be better for both the accused and accuser.
Deal Fanatic
Apr 11, 2006
5053 posts
1033 upvotes
Mississauga
shikotee wrote:
Feb 13th, 2018 12:05 pm
I have zero problems with his comments on this matter. He clearly specified he was not weighing in on the legal aspects of the case. If the only way that people can grasp this is to label it "virtue signalling", i think it speaks more of their indoctrination and limited scope of imagination.
Saying you're not commenting on the specifics of a case, but then saying the country has to do better in context to the verdict of the case, is weighing in on the case and implying the verdict was wrong or there are issues with the verdict. Just because he says he isn't, doesn't make it so.

It would be like saying you didn't intend to fire the gun, but you did. Oh wait! :facepalm:
Newbie
Dec 14, 2007
92 posts
2 upvotes
The drama teacher is destroying the country. He brought up all the tensions, black vs white, indian vs white muslim vs white. Is it so bad of Canada after he took the office? I wonder when the civil war will start under him.
I give up.
Deal Addict
Jan 17, 2012
2983 posts
84 upvotes
Toronto
Evil Baby wrote:
Feb 13th, 2018 9:22 pm
I almost feel like, at this point with how well video conference works in court rooms, we should have professional jurors. They can just be paid full time to be jurors or something. I'm not saying it would have changed the outcome at all, but personally I think overall it would be better for both the accused and accuser.
Why have Jurors at all then and not just 3 judges that decide ones fate?
Newbie
Dec 14, 2007
92 posts
2 upvotes
silky28 wrote:
Feb 13th, 2018 10:04 pm
Why have Jurors at all then and not just 3 judges that decide ones fate?
Maybe don't even bother have 3 judges, just let JT alone decide who live and who die like North Korean.
By the way, All Canadian main stream medias show their true color - Fake News - by their reporting on the case.
I give up.
Deal Addict
Feb 7, 2005
2803 posts
201 upvotes
kevindurant1 wrote:
Feb 13th, 2018 2:12 pm
Whats crazy is that you think an all white jury is the best way to have a fair trial.

Not one minority. Not even one aboriginal. JUST ALL WHITE. This is what you consider fair. LOL.

This is exactly why things need to change.

The entitlement is just mindblowing. That is why I will vote for the liberals again and again and again.
There is no point in discussion here .

Top