Off Topic

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

  • Last Updated:
  • Feb 21st, 2018 9:33 pm
Deal Expert
User avatar
Mar 18, 2005
17872 posts
1466 upvotes
Niagara Falls
silky28 wrote:
Feb 13th, 2018 10:04 pm
Why have Jurors at all then and not just 3 judges that decide ones fate?

cause what I'm proposing is significantly more affordable and the people who could fill the job would be significantly more abundant. What even makes you think 3 judges could follow each case in Canada?
Sr. Member
User avatar
Sep 1, 2013
642 posts
245 upvotes
Mississauga
pfbmgd wrote:
Feb 13th, 2018 10:50 pm
There is no point in discussion here .
Amen to that. Put him on ignore like everyone else has.
Penalty Box
Jan 17, 2012
4027 posts
101 upvotes
Toronto
Evil Baby wrote:
Feb 13th, 2018 11:03 pm
cause what I'm proposing is significantly more affordable and the people who could fill the job would be significantly more abundant. What even makes you think 3 judges could follow each case in Canada?
the point is that having a professional jury base is no different than have permanent judges making every decision. We have jury's for a reason and that is specifically so we are not at the whim of judges or the government.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Mar 18, 2005
17872 posts
1466 upvotes
Niagara Falls
silky28 wrote:
Feb 13th, 2018 11:11 pm
the point is that having a professional jury base is no different than have permanent judges making every decision. We have jury's for a reason and that is specifically so we are not at the whim of judges or the government.
How is it not different? It would still allow attorneys to discard jurors they don't want, it would just give them a better overall selection of candidates. That way, in a case like this, people can't complain it was an all white jury when in reality they likely have overwhelming white people to choose from.

Not only that, but an impartial group of people from around the province/country (depending on what is required) wouldn't have a bias of what is occurring around them. In this case, they wouldn't have any possible prejudice against natives because they likely aren't affected by any.
Penalty Box
Jan 17, 2012
4027 posts
101 upvotes
Toronto
How does limited the jury pool to professional jurors give a better overall choice of jurors?
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jan 21, 2009
2322 posts
325 upvotes
TO
pfbmgd wrote:
Feb 13th, 2018 10:50 pm
There is no point in discussion here .
When you're as foolish as he is, it just makes you feel sad for Ontario and those on the far left. So out of touch of reality.
Deal Fanatic
Aug 15, 2015
6050 posts
2131 upvotes
ON
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.
I'd be worried, but I doubt you can manage to read, understand and fill out a ballot properly.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Mar 18, 2005
17872 posts
1466 upvotes
Niagara Falls
silky28 wrote:
Feb 13th, 2018 11:32 pm
How does limited the jury pool to professional jurors give a better overall choice of jurors?
It gives you more diversity when you're concerned with any area that's not the GTA.(for Ontario). It allows the jurors to not be influenced by their location to certain factors.

If the gang related issues with this band are as a bad as people are stating I'm going to guess people already have negative views in their mind. Selecting from a pool of jurors completely detached from the situation removes any bias that could occur there.

All that being said, even if this were a thing the outcome could have been the exact same, it just removes this narrative that somehow an all white jury was the reason this farmer got acquitted and honestly it does look bad that the defense immediately had a challenge to anyone that looked Indigenous.
Deal Expert
User avatar
May 10, 2005
30830 posts
5680 upvotes
Ottawa
Evil Baby wrote:
Feb 14th, 2018 8:15 am
It gives you more diversity when you're concerned with any area that's not the GTA.(for Ontario). It allows the jurors to not be influenced by their location to certain factors.

If the gang related issues with this band are as a bad as people are stating I'm going to guess people already have negative views in their mind. Selecting from a pool of jurors completely detached from the situation removes any bias that could occur there.

All that being said, even if this were a thing the outcome could have been the exact same, it just removes this narrative that somehow an all white jury was the reason this farmer got acquitted and honestly it does look bad that the defense immediately had a challenge to anyone that looked Indigenous.
The jury pool had over 700 in it, only 200 showed up. Almost half were "indigenous".
"a significant number of Aboriginal people in the room asked to be disqualified,......more than half of the Aboriginal people were granted permission by the judge to be exempt from the trial and free to go home.", and "some of the remaining 45 or so were vocal in expressing their bias and signalling to everyone in the room they were unfit to serve on the jury."
“You could audibly hear some of them talking amongst themselves, discussing how they were going to hang Stanley, or they were going to make sure he gets hung, or that if they don’t get the results they want, that they were going to handle it themselves,”

In the end, once the interviews were over and with those that remained,“everyone was assigned a number and they literally pulled numbers from a bucket. It was totally random,”.
So, what did "peremptory challenges"have to do with this process?

http://ottawasun.com/news/national/malc ... 77a2fe677c
In the 21st Century deleting history has become far more important than making it. Anonymous
Deal Fanatic
Apr 11, 2006
5562 posts
1244 upvotes
Mississauga
Pete_Coach wrote:
Feb 14th, 2018 8:50 am
The jury pool had over 700 in it, only 200 showed up. Almost half were "indigenous".
"a significant number of Aboriginal people in the room asked to be disqualified,......more than half of the Aboriginal people were granted permission by the judge to be exempt from the trial and free to go home.", and "some of the remaining 45 or so were vocal in expressing their bias and signalling to everyone in the room they were unfit to serve on the jury."
“You could audibly hear some of them talking amongst themselves, discussing how they were going to hang Stanley, or they were going to make sure he gets hung, or that if they don’t get the results they want, that they were going to handle it themselves,”

In the end, once the interviews were over and with those that remained,“everyone was assigned a number and they literally pulled numbers from a bucket. It was totally random,”.
So, what did "peremptory challenges"have to do with this process?

http://ottawasun.com/news/national/malc ... 77a2fe677c
Logic has no bearing on blind JT supporters. Bias and prejudice are irrelevant when it comes to jury selection, so long as, it's not the desired outcome for JT, and by association, his blind supporters. US feels sorry for Canadians.
Deal Addict
Jul 13, 2012
3704 posts
383 upvotes
Ottawa
Pete_Coach wrote:
Feb 14th, 2018 8:50 am
The jury pool had over 700 in it, only 200 showed up. Almost half were "indigenous".
"a significant number of Aboriginal people in the room asked to be disqualified,......more than half of the Aboriginal people were granted permission by the judge to be exempt from the trial and free to go home.", and "some of the remaining 45 or so were vocal in expressing their bias and signalling to everyone in the room they were unfit to serve on the jury."
“You could audibly hear some of them talking amongst themselves, discussing how they were going to hang Stanley, or they were going to make sure he gets hung, or that if they don’t get the results they want, that they were going to handle it themselves,”

In the end, once the interviews were over and with those that remained,“everyone was assigned a number and they literally pulled numbers from a bucket. It was totally random,”.
So, what did "peremptory challenges"have to do with this process?

http://ottawasun.com/news/national/malc ... 77a2fe677c
Go away. The internet is not a place for facts.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Mar 18, 2005
17872 posts
1466 upvotes
Niagara Falls
Pete_Coach wrote:
Feb 14th, 2018 8:50 am
The jury pool had over 700 in it, only 200 showed up. Almost half were "indigenous".
"a significant number of Aboriginal people in the room asked to be disqualified,......more than half of the Aboriginal people were granted permission by the judge to be exempt from the trial and free to go home.", and "some of the remaining 45 or so were vocal in expressing their bias and signalling to everyone in the room they were unfit to serve on the jury."
“You could audibly hear some of them talking amongst themselves, discussing how they were going to hang Stanley, or they were going to make sure he gets hung, or that if they don’t get the results they want, that they were going to handle it themselves,”

In the end, once the interviews were over and with those that remained,“everyone was assigned a number and they literally pulled numbers from a bucket. It was totally random,”.
So, what did "peremptory challenges"have to do with this process?

http://ottawasun.com/news/national/malc ... 77a2fe677c
Although I do appreciate this view of events, before we take it as 100% proof lets remember this is an article written from the account of one eye witness and nothing has been verified yet(as per the article).

As I understand it, the final jury selection was not done at random as this article would seem to indicate.
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.”


Article

Right there is the peremptory challenges.

I'm not arguing anything was done wrong, the rules of law were followed and the jury came to a conclusion. I have full confidence in our judicial system and 100% accept the results. That doesn't mean things can't be done to make our system even better. I would love a world where someone can't make the claim that they only reason he was acquitted was because it was a jury of 12 white people. Would have been great if the jury was full of all great nationalities we have in Canada.
kenchau wrote:
Feb 14th, 2018 9:55 am
Logic has no bearing on blind JT supporters. Bias and prejudice are irrelevant when it comes to jury selection, so long as, it's not the desired outcome for JT, and by association, his blind supporters. US feels sorry for Canadians.
Really? We're in the middle of civil discussion and this is the crap you decide to reply with? How about instead of throwing mud you actually join the discussion.
Last edited by Evil Baby on Feb 14th, 2018 10:10 am, edited 2 times in total.
Deal Expert
User avatar
May 10, 2005
30830 posts
5680 upvotes
Ottawa
kenchau wrote:
Feb 14th, 2018 9:55 am
Logic has no bearing on blind JT supporters. Bias and prejudice are irrelevant when it comes to jury selection, so long as, it's not the desired outcome for JT, and by association, his blind supporters. US feels sorry for Canadians.
ConsoleWatcher wrote:
Feb 14th, 2018 10:00 am
Go away. The internet is not a place for facts.
Sorry guys.... I forgot. I just though someone may be interested in what really happened. :)
As someone else stated, "the only people who can argue they have a truly “informed” opinion would be the people who attended or participated in the trial".
In the 21st Century deleting history has become far more important than making it. Anonymous
Penalty Box
May 28, 2009
1811 posts
93 upvotes
Toronto
Pete_Coach wrote:
Feb 14th, 2018 8:50 am
The jury pool had over 700 in it, only 200 showed up. Almost half were "indigenous".
"a significant number of Aboriginal people in the room asked to be disqualified,......more than half of the Aboriginal people were granted permission by the judge to be exempt from the trial and free to go home.", and "some of the remaining 45 or so were vocal in expressing their bias and signalling to everyone in the room they were unfit to serve on the jury."
“You could audibly hear some of them talking amongst themselves, discussing how they were going to hang Stanley, or they were going to make sure he gets hung, or that if they don’t get the results they want, that they were going to handle it themselves,”

In the end, once the interviews were over and with those that remained,“everyone was assigned a number and they literally pulled numbers from a bucket. It was totally random,”.
So, what did "peremptory challenges"have to do with this process?

http://ottawasun.com/news/national/malc ... 77a2fe677c
+100

"But but but please give us more millions $$ and apologies and reparations and fluffy propaganda "reporting" on CBC every night to convince the rest of the canadian population to swallow the bill."
Last edited by qewcool on Feb 14th, 2018 10:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Penalty Box
User avatar
Mar 20, 2009
1285 posts
186 upvotes
Toronto
Evil Baby wrote:
Feb 14th, 2018 10:10 am
Really? We're in the middle of civil discussion and this is the crap you decide to reply with? How about instead of throwing mud you actually join the discussion.
+1

Top