The corruption in our judicial system is sickening. It is a business developed to legally steal people’s money while they unnecessarily drag cases on while they charge the hard working people of this province for their games. Ever tried making a complaint with the Barristers Society? The whole system needs a over haul! Judges making ignorant and inappropriate comments should be fired immediately. You do no deserve to be making decisions for people you can’t even speak to properly. Remember we pay for your services stop playing god! We do have a right to question a judge and we will! —Send them to sensitivity training camp!
This article appears in Mar 9-15, 2017.
Forget rude comments, we need judges that can stay reasonable.
There is nothing reasonable about a taxi driver being allowed to have sex with drunk unconscious women in the back of their cabs.
Better to let the taxi driver get away with something he MIGHT have done than eroding the concept of justice any further by caving in to Cultural Marxists and the brainwashed Liberal masses.
GV, in a court of law the evidence did not prove the man did not have consent. If you have evidence to prove that he did not, I would suggest that you contact the courts immediately. However: Conjecture is not evidence. Disappointment is not evidence. Disagreement is not evidence.
Now at this point your anger will direct you to ask me for a definition of evidence. Google it.
The man did not have evidence of consent. He only had his own testimony to cast reasonable doubt. so the question still remains, Is it reasonable doubt to merely say “I had consent” when a police officer catches a man with an naked drunk unconscious woman in a dark alley?
I think I’ll get the local bank manager drunk as a skunk, then if I get caught robbing his bank I’ll just say “I had the bank manager’s permission” and when the manager testifies that he doesn’t remember a thing, I’ll be found not guilty of robbing a bank. Because “not remembering does not equal not giving consent”. A drunk bank manager can surely give consent.
Is that reasonable?
A lawyer’s job is simply to ensure that the correct legal process is followed and to present evidence on their client’s behalf. A prosecutor’s client is the general public. A defender’s client is the accused. The judge’s role, in turn, is to weigh the evidence to determine whether guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt within the current law and taking into account past precedents. In the vast majority of cases this is exactly what happens.
Questioning the competence of the judge (unless they have said something that shows strong bias one way or the other) is a dead-end street. If people are unhappy with the results in a case then the law needs to be changed – such as clarifying the laws of consent while intoxicated. That would yield more progress.
Yes GV, go for it.