Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Public confidence in Canadian justice system low: Oppal

Canadian Press

Latest comment posted at 4:32 PM EST 31/12/07

B.C.'s Attorney-General says judges need to start paying attention to how the public feels ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. W ho from Canada writes: '...public mores and public standards. I think judges have to be cognizant of what the public thinks...' What percentage of which 'public'?
  2. Jalali Saragli from Cape Verde writes: When criminals are let go free with a slap on the wrist and illegals enjoy few years of free stay in Canada courtesy of the tax payers, no wonder why Canadians feel so bad about their legal system. Judges should be elected, not appointed. The law should become more strict and reduce the degrees of freedom given to judges. Canada needs some law and order.
  3. Jimmy K from Toronto, Canada writes: The Canadian justice system is a sick joke, and so are the judges who have been appointed to administer it.
  4. Nassar Ben Houdja from Canada writes: Why would the legal industry care what the public thinks, it is resposable to no one other than its shareholders.
  5. tim wilkinson from Canada writes: No wonder with the constant unjust harping from Harpie and co. Harpie? Stop trying to create a political opportunity for your own selfish gain...slime.
  6. deliciously uncanadian from Canada writes: 'Why would the legal industry care what the public thinks, it is resposable to no one other than its shareholders.'

    The public is the only shareholder. A little bit of critical attention to Canada's judicial system can only be beneficial.
  7. Michael Powers from Canada writes: Canada has a Legal System and not a Justice System. To really work, a Justice System has to be seen and preceived to be working fairly.

    In Canada today, neither seems to be the case, the system worries too much about the criminals rights and forget about the victims.

    Electing judges with a set term limit would be fairer for everyone. It really doesn't bother me that the Americans do it this way - when a system works - copy it.
  8. Denis Love from Victoria BC, Canada writes: StoneWally as ex Judge Oppal is called out here on the wet coast gets his name in the paper now and again. Sometimes for refusing to aswner questions, which gives him the nickname , Sometimes for down right dumb comments.

    He remembers the good old days with robes and folks actually listening with baited breaths for his legal utterances. People see politicians different than Judges. But lets not forget, judges rule withing limits set by the politicians not themselves. Any case might well go up the chain to the Supreme Court of Canada. Point fingers at the folks who draft he laws.
  9. Bob in Chilliwack from Chilliwack BC, Canada writes: The overwhelming majority of Canadians are fed up with the Legal Industry. Will something be done about it? Not likely.
  10. Shawn Bull from Canada writes: Canada has a justice system? Who knew!!
  11. harvey maclean from Canada writes: Public confidence in the Canadian ustice system would be considerably improved if WALLY OPPAL was fired
  12. Slippery Slope from Canada writes: The court system:

    a) Takes too long;
    b) Costs too much;
    c) Pursues too many charges (most are mickey mouse and shouldn't go to trial);
    d) Doesn't concentrate on repeat offenders.
  13. Western Winer from Vancouver, Canada writes: Mr. Opal's statement that the Canadian justice system is a model for the world only shows how out of touch with reality this man is. The fact is there is no justice when repeat criminals are handed suspended sentenes or someother lenient sentence. The victims have little or no rights in this system and are again vitctimized by the so called judical system. The cops are frustrated with the revolving door and light sentencing policies.

    If one truly wants justice in this country they will have to extract it themselves. The policy makes like Mr. Opal don't seem to understand we are a haven for criminals and have their heads stuck so deep in the sand they will never be able to help us. When the vigilanties get orginized and take to the streets, sign me up.

    Mr. Opal, wake up and smell the coffee, your system has fail every victim and future victims. There is no deterent.
  14. Michael Peters from White Rock, Canada writes: Jalali Saragali from Cape Verde writes 'Judges should be elected, not appointed.'
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I work with a lawyer who practiced in the US before returning to Canada; and it is that person's experience that elected judges make bad legal decisions based on what will get them re-elected, without considering what the law really says. Too often these decisions are overturned by the appeal court and either the matter is returned to the original court or the 'convicted' person is set free. In the first case you are bogging down the courts, in the second you are nullifying the legal system.
  15. Charles Murray from Toronto, writes: Our justice system is incredibly slow and inefficient. Justice should be swift.
  16. globefan EH from Canada writes: Which people is Wally Opel talking about. The informed public, the ill informed public, the posses, the compassionate, the rednecks, the bleeding hearts. How will we determine what the public want?
  17. r s from Canada writes:
    Judges listen to the public?

    Sure when hell frezzes over!

    In my divorce trial I represented myself and had several affidavits he would not even look at. As per ususal the male gets soaked for everything and the female walks away with a smile on her face. WHEN IS THIS BIASED GOING TO BE FIXED ONCE AND FOR ALL? There is a 97% rate of male payors across this country. Meanwhile 21 billion in EI funds sits there building a pile of cash. Why not pay the females from this fund?

    Come on Judges afraid you and your Lawyer buds will loose some income? Or do you all injoy your male witch hunt methods in the court room? Your a sick bunch to make males responsible for a x. Its a knowen fact most marriages don't work, why persicute the male?
  18. Justin Campbell from Ottawa, Canada writes: People complain and complain about the legal system in Canada, but they really don't have any idea what the legal systems in other countries look like. Spend a good lengthy stay abroad somewhere, and then come back. No doubt you'll see things very differently.
  19. Chuck - from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Fact: our prisons are overcrowded. Fact: currently, most Canadians will not vote for any political party that spends on prisons rather than social workers. Fact: the Conservatives are the only party willing to spend on prisons. Fact: the Liberals, NDP and Bloc will not spend on prisons.

    So how are judges supposed to lock more people up for longer periods if there is nowhere to put them? I'd say that Canadians are getting the justice system that they asked for when they vote(d).
  20. Zacarihia Smith from Canada writes: Thanks to the wackt loonie left starting with Trudeau.No rules.Forget about the victim.
  21. Luke R from Toronto, Canada writes: Denis Love from Victoria BC, Canada writes: StoneWally as ex Judge Oppal is called out here on the wet coast gets his name in the paper now and again. Sometimes for refusing to aswner questions, which gives him the nickname , Sometimes for down right dumb comments. He remembers the good old days with robes and folks actually listening with baited breaths for his legal utterances. People see politicians different than Judges. But lets not forget, judges rule withing limits set by the politicians not themselves. Any case might well go up the chain to the Supreme Court of Canada. Point fingers at the folks who draft he laws. ******************* the statement that judges work within the limits set for them by politicians is only a nice soundbite and has no real meaning. judges regularly (in our common law system) over rule the gov't and rather than just striking down the law the 'read meaning into it'. that reading into it should be BANNED by the Cosntitution. the law is either constitutional or its not but then then Parliament shoudl have another go at it and not the judge 'reading into it'. judges also pick and choose how they act within the confines of the law with sentencing being the best example. most sentences in the criminal code have a wide ranged and judges always choose the lower end regardless of the circumstances. no one over gets the maximum where there is a range allowed. like giving 2 years less a day house arrest for drinking and driving causing death. the max is 14 years but no let's give them house arrest.
  22. Keep it simple man from Canada writes: Hmmm, I wonder if those suspended sentences for long term offenders are because they were held in custody prior to their trial.

    That's the problem with the media and uninformed citizens for that matter....sensational headlines sent people into a tail spin.

    The central piece of this brief article is the suspended sentences, yet we the reader are given no further explanation as to why there is a suspended sentence.

    There are multiple reasons why a sentence would be suspended.

    If you want to live in a country where your sent to a labour camp for a minor theft....then your welcome to move...I also would guess that the absolute vast majority of countries on the planet are not as safe as Canada, have as low a crime rate or as fair a justice system.

    But who cares about the facts, Grrrrrr!!!!! Suspended sentence for a career criminal!! The sky is falling, the sky is falling!!!
  23. Michael Sharp from Victoria BC, Canada writes:

    The Canadian justice system is too liberal.
    With the emphasis on Liberal.

    Hug-a-thug is not a Canadian value.
  24. Keep it simple man from Canada writes: Charles Murray, to blindly proclaim that justice should be swift...would guarantee that there would be no justice for anyone...

    How do you swiftly prosecute or defend a criminal case that has a million pieces of disclosure, or thousands of dna exhibits....or dozens...hundreds of witnesses....

    What would you like to see. Justice served at a drive thru...would you like a lawyer with your order sir?
  25. Luke R from Toronto, Canada writes: Keep it simple man from Canada writes: Hmmm, I wonder if those suspended sentences for long term offenders are because they were held in custody prior to their trial.

    That's the problem with the media and uninformed citizens for that matter....sensational headlines sent people into a tail spin.
    ***********
    Maybe you should get informed. Suspended sentences is when your prison time is commuted to community time. The thing about pre-trial custody is when they give you a 2 for 1 credit on your time to be served. They are 2 totally different concepts. People are upset with jail time being converted to community time like house arrest, etc.
  26. Brad Ruiz from Canada writes: If by 'the public' Mr. Oppal means the hordes of ill-informed, drum-beating knuckle-draggers that hollar about 'elitie judges' every time a judge makes a decision they don't agree with, then I'd rather judges not take that kind of public opinion into account.

    Of course judges should take 'public opinion' into account. But this doesn't mean judges should pander to the segments of society that hollar the loudest.

    Canada's justice system is actually pretty good. You don't have to look very long to find examples of where it has made mistakes, but any system will make mistakes. It is inevitable, and it is human nature. It is the exceptions and mistakes that make the news, not the regular hard work and reasonable decisions of the vast majority of judges.

    The problem is that it is in no one's best interest to talk about the successes of the system. Judges can't do it because publicly defending their decisions runs counter to their institutional role. When lawyers try, they often just sound self-serving. Bureaucrats and special interests are often just looking for a way to increase funding in their areas of interest, and you don't attract more funding by saying everything is pretty good. and there's no easier way for politicians to win votes than blaming all the problems on 'the justice system' -- because obviously nobody likes crime, and it is very difficult for 'the system' to stand up and defend itself.
  27. Jack Robinson from London, Canada writes: The notion that our judiciary should be influenced by 'public opinion', or that individual judges need to consider 'changing community standards' when interpreting the laws, statutes and precedents that are The Crucible of our system of established rights, freedoms and due process based upon the presumption of innocence... not only scares the hell out of me... but implies that many of the Globe Blogheads commenting above are cross-addicted to Law and Order T.V. simplistics as a panacea for their Yuppie Angst.
  28. Keep it simple man from Canada writes: Longer sentences, build more jails, raise your taxes....people talk tough until realty sets in.

    Then people will scream, who cares about jail conditions....oh yeah, that whole human rights thing a ma jiggy....no human rights for prisoners then!!

    Quick trials, hang em judges, long sentences, load up the jails, stack em 6 to a cell....that'll satisfy the angry Canadians!!

    Yay, Canada has a justice system just like a third world nation!!!
  29. Keep it simple man from Canada writes: Luke R, your right, I'm wrong. In some jurisdictions it's a 3 to 1 credit....which is ridiculous.
  30. Derek Holtom from swan river, Canada writes: this is the most sensible story I've read on this site in some time.
    ironically there are people who don't want the courts to come down hard on criminals. these must be happy times for them.
  31. JP M from Canada writes: The government, not judges, need to be cognizant of what the public thinks of the judiciary, not to exploit it politically, but to understand that they need to educate the public on the role of the justice system. Justice, unlike current politics, is about truth, and not a popularity concept. If the electorate cannot understand this, it is the failure of the legislature and our civil society in general, not the judiciary who, as the article justly points out, are a model for the world.

    If you want elected judges passing sentence to gain politically, move to a country that condones such miscarriages.
  32. Yvonne Wackernagel from Woodville, Canada writes: In my opinion, the justice system in this country is so corrupt, it cannot be fixed easily or in a hurry. And please do not compare Canada to any other country because does that make Canada's fraudulent system right? Lawyers and Judges make deals all the time, especially in rural areas where they have to depend on each other for golf games and social evenings. The biggest scam is when an appeal is unjustly allowed because the case CAN be appealed to the Supreme Court who NEARLY ALWAYS decides it is too small to hear and the original Plaintiff who won in the first place is left to pick up all the costs. WHY SHOULD THE SUPREME COURT DECIDE WHAT TO HEAR AND WHAT NOT TO HEAR BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE CASE; WHAT ABOUT JUSTICE? In rural areas, judges are appointed through cronyism, like every other good job in rural areas. AND even though I have never had to stoop that low to get a job for any of my family in rural Ontario, I still think it stinks. The excuse you get in rural areas when any bureaucrat is sadly lacking is that it would be too expensive to fire him or her because of the severance which would have to be paid under the contract. In rural municipalies, the whole administration is closed for the ten days at Christmas and New Years - apparently because of the unions ???? Things are going to have to change; unfortunately I am too old to work alone for all those who keep their heads in the sand and wait for someone else to do their dirty work, or -in many cases, particularly in rural areas, they cannot afford to raise their heads to be completely blacklisted if they are in debt or would like to make a living for themselves or any of their family. I remember back when Q.C.'s were cancelled because of the same fraudulent practice where one would get dozens of his friends to swamp the system with nominations on his behalf, when he or she was not worth a 'first' thought. Shame, Shame.
  33. Luke R from Toronto, Canada writes: Keep it simple man from Canada writes: Luke R, your right, I'm wrong. In some jurisdictions it's a 3 to 1 credit....which is ridiculous.
    *********
    No. You're wrong period. It's not a 2/1 or 3/1 issue. Suspended snetences are totally different from reducing your sentence by your time served in pretrial custody. people have problems with suspended sentences (sending some home rather than to jail) vs. still making them serve time but less the time they served before the trial.
  34. David Gibson from Hamilton, Canada writes: I think it's too far gone. The only thing which would provide opportunity for a serious re jigging would be a dissolution of the political entity that is Canada, then start over. 'Justice' doesn't exist, in half the courts.
  35. Keep it simple man from Canada writes: Yvonne...coorupt eh? Open ur eyes, maybe travel....experience a real corrupt nation....
  36. francis mercer from Canada writes: now this is like farting against thunder; nothing is going to change until this crop of judges die off and more of the less bleeding hart judges are put in place.. ,and that will only happen with a more conservative government.
  37. Larry Robinson from white Rock, Canada writes: So are we reverting to a system of the crowd giving thumbs up or down?

    The problem started with a Charter of Rights that enshrined individual rights, that's okay, but gives infinite opportunities for individual interpretive accommodation. Then we have a couple of decades of Liberal appointed judges plus politicians who are constantly pandering to any special interest group and then pile on the nanny state enablers and shazaam .... nobody is responsible for anything.

    And we would not have overcrowded jails if we had mandatory work programs, labour camps and road crews .... back in the day.
  38. Let me tell You How It Is from Seattle, Washington, United States writes: ' Canada's justice system is seen as a model for the world.'

    Give me a freakin' break. Are you kidding me or what?
    Let's look at some juicy examples of Canada's Injustice system:
    1) Air India bomber murdered over 300 Canadians and 2 Japanese nationals:sentence: walking around Vancouver laughing and thinking Canadians are such a joke.
    2) Pickton likely murdered over 40 women: convicted of freakin SECOND degree murder. He must be spliting his sides laughing at that. What happened? 40 women just happened to turn up at his place and he just happened to butcher them by mistake.
    3) Ressam the Millenium bomber drives around Canada and his way to the US with his trunk stuffed with explosives apparently a failed refugee claimaint under order of deportation endangering thousands of Canadians and a BC ferry he used to get to the US.-US Justice took care of him
    4) Conrad Black- embezzles millions of dollars in a crime that took place in Canada- US Justice took care of him
    5) Vancouver School teacher molests school girls for a decade: sentence house arrest.
  39. Kevin Desmoulin from TO, Canada writes: I think Yes there are 'problems with our justice system from it being slow, expensive, hard for the average person to understand.

    Their are problems as described, people convicted of my priors and let off on a light sentence.

    But I see no little parity and one justice system for people who can afford a lawyer and those who can not.

    In white collar crime it has changed for the better, people are actually doing jail time. Their is a big difference between a well educated executive of with years of experience, who should know better and some young kid that had no education who does some stupid crime bc they did not know anything better or was born in a environment that is hard to get away from.

    It is said Justice for all, and I think the Justice lacks some dignity when only few have real representation in the form of a lawyer, although their is legal aid, I know cutbacks have hurt this system too.

    My point is how can it be a truly fair justice system when not all are represented to the best of the system's ability. Hence I think too in this way justice is lacking and it does truly not live up to its name.

    To fix this I think Any one charged who can not afford a lawyer should have one paid for by the system to ensure that Justice is amply represented.
    I am glad Mr Oppal is bring this up. We need to look at our institutions from time to time as our society changes and develops.

    They call it justice but it is only to keep people in line by threat of Jail instead of educating people to respect the laws and the reasons for the laws.
  40. Neurophage Tells It Like It Is from Not Toronto, Canada writes: Luke R from Toronto: Fascinated with the details! Yay!! Process for the sake of process!!

    You sound like someone whose livelihood depends on the inefficiencies of the system. Complexity = job security, eh? Are you a lawyer, a bureaucrat or perhaps a 'just-out-of-college' idealist?

    The bureaucracy is sick. Fake jobs with fat pensions. Trim the fat.
  41. Yvonne Wackernagel from Woodville, Canada writes: The more I think if it, the more I have come to the conclusion that it starts with education. Children must be taught from Kindergarten that honesty is the best policy, then how to be always ethical and honourable, because to be a good judge, these characteristics are completely necessary. Of course, some of them are inherent and can be nurtured by good parenting but, then again, the latter is solely lacking as a general rule in our society today.
  42. Yvonne Wackernagel from Woodville, Canada writes: Keep it simple man from Canada writes: Yvonne...coorupt eh? Open ur eyes, maybe travel....experience a real corrupt nation....

    Sir, I am willing to bet that I have travelled far more than you; to start with, I grew up in South America, lived most of my young adult life in Britain and Europe and have been a few decades in North America. You do not run your life according to some corrupt regime or even acquaintance. You decide -or are helped through education and association -to be the person your creator wanted you to be. And then you set an example for your successors.
  43. Mike B from Kingston, Canada writes: One judge who finally gets it.
  44. Vancouver Island Voice from Canada writes: When you compare our system to that in China, Russia, or many other 'justice' systems, of course it seems fantastic. At least the accused have a voice. Trouble is the pendulum has swung WAY too far for just about everyone's liking.
  45. James Cyr from Balmertown Ontario, Canada writes: It is more than paying attention to how the public 'feels'. It is dispensing true justice to fit the crime committed. It is abolition of parole for violent offenders and it is the elimination of the 'two thirds clause' and early release. It is about revamping sentences for drunk driving and auto accidents involving alcohol. It is time for people to get more vocal about the injustices of our justice system.
  46. Brian Marlatt from White Rock, BC, Canada writes: The independence of the judiciary is fundamental to the rule of law and to democracy. No judge should ever be influenced by popular opinion or by political office in the administration of justice. Mr. Opal, as a former BC attorney-general, should know this. His resignation should be tendered immediately and accepted by the premier of BC.

    More importantly, these remarks tell us about the grave threat to democracy, the rule of law - applied equally and without prejudice - is posed by a Reform Party dominated 'Conservative' party in power which has moved toward 'confirmation hearings' which would make the judiciary subject to political opinion and parties in power, especially insofar as the BC Liberals are so largely composed of supporters of Stephen Harper's once-named Canadian Alliance.

    I have learned to respect Mr. Opal over his long career and therefore am all the more disappointed. Sadly, immediate resignation is the only honourable course open to him.
  47. Michael Tripper from Vancouver, Canada writes: well as long as prohibition exists we will always have problems with the so-called justice system.

    prostitution, cannabis are but two examples where a sizable portion of the population - over 50 percent in BC - have used at least Cannabis yet the government, pandering to fanatical church bullies both north and south of the border prevents any justice in these things.

    Canada should be leading North America but instead narrow interests claim the border will be shuttered if we do not have identical drug war policies - nonsense - a few Canadian quislings are claiming the sky will fall.

    Chicken little morons who have a lot of cash to spread around - Schreiber and the good german christian party that sent him out into the world to spread the good word anyone?

    we have energy, we have resources - the americans will trade and btw there are many us jurisdictions with far more liberal approaches to prohibition than are ever mentioned in the neo-liberal, market anarchy media that is de rigeur for 2007/2008.

    Kissing butt to power and money appears to be the raison d'etre of all media today over truth and justice.

    and yeah taking forever to deport violent and dangerous immigrants is surely a black eye.
  48. Andrew Bignell from writes: Oppal and the majority of commenters above massively miss the point of a judicial system. The very foundation of our legal system is that judges should be impartial. Impartiality is crucial for the rights of both the 'accused' (remember not every accused is a criminal...) and the public - including the victim. Do we really want judges weighing sentences based on the collective outrages of a public that is only informed through the foggy and sensationalist lens of the media? Shall we have internet polls and text voting to determine sentences?

    Whoever said that the real problem here is the opacity of the whole process is correct. The public doesn't understand what goes on in a courtroom and politicians have a vested interest in sewing distrust, thus hiding their own failings in drafting legislation. If the public spent the time to truly understand the whole range of issues facing the judge including the rehabilitation and future reintegration of society of individuals as well as the constraints imposed upon them by the laws and prior decisions, their opinions would be vastly different.
  49. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: My, My! The depths of ignorance displayed here. First, and most important, our justice system is directly sprung from the British system. Which includes all that common law 'stuff and nonsense' and precedents - that means 'Judge-made Law' for the uninformed - and so on. Not to mention the detail of appointed as opposed to elected judges. More on that later. Saying that our system is corrupt and venal means that the source of our system is also corrupt and venal. Any of you pundits here want to try claiming that the British system is corrupt and venal? I thought not. As for the issue of slow-downs, that is a direct result of the trivial fact that we got a Constitution back in the 1980's. That whole Charter of Rights and Freedoms thing. The fact that the defence lawyers are using it to full advantage is a double-edged dagger. It is the duty of a defence attorney to use every tool available to defend the client. That is how the adversarial system works. Mind you, this can, and has been abused, but that is the responsibility of the Law Societies and Elected Representatives to address. Judges are bound by the laws and regulations. Now, the other issue that none of the 'Hang-Em-High' pundits here have discussed is the great disparity in both absolute power and resources the State has compared to the power an individual has. Not even large multinational corprations have the power and resources of any state. The greatest of which is to pass legislation - including retroactive laws. Everyone of the hardliners here has also posted commentrs in favour of the retroactive tax-cuts Harper is pushing. Sounds real good. But what if a law was passed that retroactively made a previously legal act illegal. Pick your own example. How happy would you be to learn that you were now a felon and liable for whatever punishment had been decided was appropriate. And WTF are YOU going to do about your newly-acquired criminal status? It's the law now. Which brings us to our legislators.
  50. Open Mike from Vancouver, Canada writes: If people's views on Canada's judiciary are formed mainly from reading the tabloid muck that usually passes for journalism in this country, no wonder they're as upset as many posting on this story. I'd be, too. If only it were as simple as cynically selective court-reporting, agony-aunt columns milking human tragedy for circulation gain, pompously hypocritical editorials (remember that some of the most virulently hang-'em-high urgings came from media organs owned by Conrad Black). But it's not. People naturally want justice and I don't blame them. For a fair start, how about demanding that more of our corporate news media provide us with objective, accurate, non-partisan crime reporting instead of their constant fear-mongering and populist pandering? In an environment where news has become Murders, Fires and Car Accidents at Eleven, it's far easier to feel, and not think. The public, goaded by the selectively sensationalist reporting pervading our media, has the luxury of strong feeling without second thought; this is what makes the public so vulnerable to cynical politicians looking for distraction and equally cynical publishers trying to gain circulation by targetting judges. Judges do not have that luxury: that's why they're judges. And most of the time most of them do a far better job than the tabloid media that target them give them credit for. Not that you'd ever see that on the evening news or in your local pravda.
  51. Michael Tripper from Vancouver, Canada writes: but it seems there are many problems with our system - from bias against men - it's for real - and only the fact that only rich or wealthy citizens can even go to court.

    we are not a democracy in my opinion and are going further and further into a class-based authoritarian system.

    as we do business more and more with dictators our own business leaders want more and more powers and privileges that dictators have.

    Welcome to the benefits of globalization - socialized costs for everything, but all the profits go to private business.

    I strongly recommend Naomi Wolf's The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot.

    I grew up in New England until I was just short of 7 and I love America - the america of the constitution and the revolution - not the imperial tragedy it has become today - just fyi.
  52. K Barkley from Parkway, Canada writes: Without outside public checks and balances, the various court systems in Canada have attached themselves like barnacles on the hull of an 18th century sailboat. These court systems are like barnacles because they are safely below the waterline and out of sight – so we have justice away from scrutiny and safe from criticism. It occurs to me that these now enfeebled courts no longer serve the Canadian public need for justice. Therefore since our justice systems are weakened, and our ship of state needs to be dry-docked to have the barnacles removed. You could start by electing the justices for one single 4 year term – maximum 2 terms allowed on the bench. Make the juries prescribe sentencing. Remove time off for good behavior. Canada has allowed far too many Self Governing Organizations to come into existence and the individuals within these organizations have been allowed to be exempted from prosecution in all but the most egregious of crimes. There is no credible prosecution system here for the professional classes. Notice, if you please, the dismal record of white collar criminal prosecutions and convictions in Canada. Do you really think Conrad Black would have been convicted here in Canada? Or have been sentenced to prison for 6 years? And how long would his trial have lasted here to produce a non result? Then consider the 10 year BreX fraud trial – it was a travesty. And consider the eventual outcome. At what cost to us does this farce continue to exist?
  53. Rick Jones from The Rock, Canada writes: Who is 'stone wally' to lecture anyone?
  54. Brian Marlatt from White Rock, BC, Canada writes: To err is human. Opal has erred. Although the point remains. I, too, made an error by hitting 'send'/submit before checking for typos - one of which was to say Mr. Opal is a former BC attorney-general when in fact he is a former appeals court judge and current BC attorney-general. So, I too erred, if only by typing to quickly and not checking for typos. Similar mistakes can be made verbally. Let's assume, of the sake of fairness, that in saying 'I think we have to get moving and some of the sentences have to reflect public mores and public standards. I think judges have to be cognizant of what the public thinks of their sentencing process, ' Wally Opal erred, but in doing so demonstrated why politics must be keep out of the chambers of our courts. As to 'confirmation hearings' and the US process, 1776 is as much a disgrace as 2007.
  55. p m from vancouver, Canada writes: when millionaires get legal aid to the tune of millions (air india) and the average joe can't afford a lawyer...
    and the judges, as noted, have a turn stile approach to repeat offenders
    and illiegal aliens get free lawyers.

    and the police don't even get charged when murder is obvious,,

    and Oppal says all time low...I guess
  56. A reader from Canada writes: The whole justice system needs revamping but that is a pipe dream as most politicians are lawyers and it is not in their best interest to revamp the system; however, revamping might occur if their family is the victim of crime. In reality lawyers want more complex laws that will tie up the court system so that they will be gainfully employed and highly compensated once they leave office or once they are defeated. Judges are more prone to protect the criminal that the victim of a crime. You'll probably pay a greater penalty if your caught without a seat belt (a fine plus increased insurance rates for six years) than if you assaulted someone, committed fraud or stole something. Lawyers always advise the public to seek legal advice prior to signing any document so that they may explain and clarify these documents in simple English; however, they are the ones who initially wrote these documents, contracts and/or agreements. For example why can't purchase and sales agreements, and disclosure statement be written in clear non legalise language? Lawyers often put in front of you documents that they ask you to sign after explaining in a simple sentence what a four page document is all about but only if you ask. They certainly don't allow you to read it through even though they advocate that the public shouldn't sign anything without reading it first and consulting with them.
  57. J. P. from Fredericton, Canada writes: Ah, listen to them: a bunch of 'TV intellectuals.' You all have very strong opinions about the justice system, though most of them seem to simply echo American crime dramas or Fox News.

    The problem is that no one, absolutely no one, with an education will ever take you people seriously. Only 2 or 3 of you posted responses that show any education at all. I have never seen such poor grammar and spelling. Most of you can't even form sentences properly. Don't even get me started on your many fallacious leaps in logic.

    Have any of you received a university education? College? Highschool? No, didn't think so! Why should anyone listen to your 'opinions' (read: what you heard on TV) when you are clearly the dumest bunch of Canadians (and one American) to 'hunt and peck' your way through a poorly thought out opinion on a subject far beyond your intellectual ability.

    Pathetic! Put down the hoe and go back to school.

    By the way, just for example, the U.S. is very much a 'law and order' nation (elected judges, death penalty, 'three strikes', stiff sentences, and everything else you fools are jabbering on about) and their homicide rate is as much as 10 times higher than ours (per capita) in many places.
  58. Larry Robinson from white Rock, Canada writes: It is time for me to call it a year as I agree with Yvonne W. for the third time in a week.

    We have a society where responsibility is 'assumed' to be the sole jurisdiction of judges, teachers, police, counsellors, doctors, politicians and umpteen bureaucrats.

    Yet, we all were created by two people ( I think ) and those people are the most important role models, nurturers, friends and motivators in our life. To quote Charles Barkley ' It ain't my job to be no role model. '

    It's parents and the life we live. If we don't like our society, then live the life.

    Happy 2008.
  59. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: Elected vs Appointed Judges, Crown Attorrnies and contingency fees. As was noted by Michael Peters, elected Judges - and District Attorrnies (Our Crown Attorrnies), Sherriffs and so on - in the US are not quite as unbiased as some here think they are. The Mob rules. Wierd how it was the elected judges and other elements of the judicial system in the US South that were so instrumental in maintaining that racial segregation thing until the mid 1960's. Equally wierd was how those same elected members of the justice system somehow managed to fail to convict any White person of murder when the victim happened to be Black - even if there was clear photographic evidence. And then there are all the other examples of similar abuses of power / authority. Say, how about that little dry cleaning case in Washington DC? So much for 'Judical Independence' there. The thing about Justice and the Rule of Law (as opposed to the Mob) is that it absolutely requires three things. First, and most important, is that the State elements of the Justice system be as independent of the political element and majority as possible - this includes special interest groups like NGOs and corporationas, not to mention specific religious and ideological groups. Second is that ALL elements of the Judicial and LEO system are as unbiased as possible - aka: 'No one is above the law'. Which brings us to the third point - Contingency Fees and Personal Accountability aned Responsibility for one's own actions. One of the most amazing, and beautiful things about the US legal system, which so many of the pundits here want to bring to Canada, is the frivolous, vexatious and moron-mode law-suites that are such a prominent feature of the legal environment in the US. The reason this is possible is the contingency fee system in the US. The reason so many of these law-suites succede is directly related to that elected judges thing. We like to sneer about these. Why are some so eager to introduce the same crap here?
  60. Yvonne Wackernagel from Woodville, Canada writes: J. P. from Fredericton, Canada writes: Ah, listen to them: a bunch of 'TV intellectuals.' .........The problem is that no one, absolutely no one, with an education will ever take you people seriously. Only 2 or 3 of you posted responses that show any education at all. I have never seen such poor grammar and spelling. Most of you can't even form sentences properly. Don't even get me started on your many fallacious leaps in logic. '

    YOU ARE THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK. You should take a dose of your own medicine because your grammar and spelling need great improvement.
  61. A reader from Canada writes: J. P. from Fredericton. Your grammar is not the best nor is your spelling.
    dumest is spelled dumbest
    highschool is spelled high school
    'most of them' in your second sentence should read 'most of you'
    'For every action there is a reaction!' If you completed high school, you would know this.
  62. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: What happened to 'my responsibilities'? We keep hearing about 'my rights'. But rights include responsibilities. Wierd how it is the RRW that makes so much noise about rights, but when the rubber hits the road, responsibioities is the last thing that crew wants to address is the responsibilities that go along with the rights. So much for accountability- which is just another way of sayng 'responsibilities'. For a particularly egregious exampe, see GWB. And Harper.
  63. Jim Goodwin from Philippines writes: First of all it is a justice system, not a vengeance system. Also the criminals do not have any more rights than the rest of us, they have the same rights, just most of us do not need them, but if you are ever falsely accused of anything you will be glad you have them. The biggest problem in the system is the cost of lawyers, not just for criminal, but also for civil and family court matters. The last lawyer I had was charging what I earned in a week for 1 hour. She even billed me 50 dollars for the phone call when I fired her. It was a family court matter. I think if those who seem to be so fired up against what the courts do now were to spend a few weeks sitting in a courtroom watching proceedings their perspective would change. I know I would not want to do the job the judges do. It is like being an engineer, 'You can build a million bridges, but let just one fall down', what is remembered. The problem with our system is accessibility, however many would not like to see that fixed either, because perhaps less peoplewould be in jail, or some poor estranged father may get a fairer shake, and be able to alter payments if his income changes, without the lawyer costing him more than 3 years of the reduction would be. All in all I think the judges do the best they can with what they have and if you were to delve into recividism rates the decisions rendered would be justified.
  64. J. P. from Canada writes: A Reader, 'most of them' refers to the opinions not the people--nice try! Also, there is a difference between a typo, like dropping a 'b' by mistake or not pressing the spacebar, and a complete lack inability to use the English language.

    Remember, I did not claim I was the best or brightest, or the most careful, just that most people on here that are crying about the justice system know nothing about it.

    Yvonne, looks like you are too stupid too point out any improvements though! At least A Reader relied on evidence to call me out (even though he/she was wrong and petty about typos).

    Also, look how easy it is to put the discussion off course. I have left so many calm, reasoned messages on this forum and I have never been replied to. The one time I get down in the gutter I get an instant reply. I love idiots.
  65. Wasabi Jones from Canada writes: I enjoy being a government lawyer, but if I could do it all over again, I'd be a stone mason. Who doesn't love a good stone mason?
  66. Ryan Ginger from ottawa, Canada writes: It is clear that the complexity of this issue far exceeds what most commentators can grasp. Nobody is talking about 'elected judges'. Nor did Mr. Oppal say we ought to trash the current system.

    At the very least, please read the article before you spew off your neo-con rants... There are too many of you above for me to name names.
  67. diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: The only people unhappy with the justice system are those who also believe that crime is increasing. Don't bother them with facts or the scientific analysis of said facts, they just want the appearance of action - hence their satisfaction with Mr. Harper's 'Tough on Crime' agenda. No doubt they also like the appearance of transparency and accountability. One might even say that the appearance of democracy in the form of having the great unwashed elect judges would also be to their liking.
  68. gregory macisaac from Ottawa, Canada writes: The idiocy and just plain vile knee-jerk unthought displayed in the majority of these comments is the strongest argument against elected judges I can think of. I shudder to think what sort of people you merciless, vengeful, 'hang first ask questions later', 'criminals have no rights' people would elect.

    I used to think that my fellow Canadians were decently educated, or at least relatively sensible. But since the G
  69. by jove from Canada writes:
    I for one have complete confidence in our judiciary.

    I am confident that they will impose extremely light sentences on those that commit some of the most heinous crimes. Ignoring the plight of the victims and the loved ones.

    They care more about protecting the rights of criminals than protecting society from these opportunistic predators.

    In Canada crime does pay.
  70. Yvonne Wackernagel from Woodville, Canada writes: J. P. from Canada writes: A Reader, 'most of them' refers to the opinions not the people--nice try! Also, there is a difference between a typo, like dropping a 'b' by mistake or not pressing the spacebar, and a complete lack inability to use the English language.
    Remember, I did not claim I was the best or brightest, or the most careful, just that most people on here that are crying about the justice system know nothing about it.
    Yvonne, looks like you are too stupid too point out any improvements though! At least A Reader relied on evidence to call me out (even though he/she was wrong and petty about typos'

    WELL, here are just two: 'Yvonne, it looks like you are too stupid TO point out any improvements THOUGH (?)' What is the purpose of the THOUGH? You might have said 'Although you are too stupid to point out any improvements, Yvonne, ...............blah, blah?' Actually, the whole construction of your post was inadequate: YOU should go back to school.

  71. J. P. from Canada writes: Oops, see I did it again: 'and a complete lack inability to use the English language.' That should read: 'and a complete inability to use the English language.'
  72. Anne Johnston from Red Deer AB, Canada writes: I think that the justice system is too out of touch with the people it is supposed to serve. The system needs to be more user friendly, such as making sure that EVERYONE has access to a lawyer, who will defend them. It is sad when the Chief Justice is concerned by the fact that more and more people are trying to represent themselves, and do not understand how the system works. The system needs to be overhauled where we can use it, and be comfortable using it. Not everyone can afford the exhoribitant fees that lawyers demand.
  73. J. P. from Canada writes: Ha, ha, ha! Yvonne that was too sweet. You admitted you don't know what 'though' means. I don't remember saying anything about formal style. I said that people had trouble with spelling and grammar, like using periods and and capital letters. What rule of grammar does my use of the word 'though' violate? I wouldn't use contractions if I was trying to impress you with my formal style. An online forum does not require perfect English (for example, some people use 10 or 15 periods in a row where 3 would be appropriate........................). However, if you want people to take you seriously, you have to at least sound like you have some education. Also, as I said to A Reader, pointing out typos is just petty.
  74. Dan L from Canada writes: Andrew Bignell wrote:

    'Oppal and the majority of commenters above massively miss the point of a judicial system. The very foundation of our legal system is that judges should be impartial.'

    Amazing how you've managed to miss what's plain as day, OUR JUDICIARY IS NOT IMPARTIAL!! As many have noted previously our justice system is failing miserably thanks to activist judges who can't resist the temptation to impose their own personal prejudices on the cases they oversee. Stop 'reading into' the laws and public outrage at the nonsensical decisions being made on a day to day basis will subside. You can't have it both ways tinkering with the law but then claiming you're not usurping parliament's role.
  75. Don Bryant from Calgary, Canada writes: We all know that the primary purpose of the Canadian justice system is to pamper and mollycoddle criminals. In most cases, criminals are let off with a slap on the wrist and, in the few cases where they are sent to jail, they're there for a very minimum amount of time (murderers getting 'life' except they're paroled after 7 years is just one example). The prisons are havens of luxury, complete with computers, wide-screen tv's, special diets, free tattoos, drugs on demand, etc., etc. - all funded by the hard-working, law-abiding taxpayer. It's long past time that prisons became prisons again and that incarceration in them became the punishment that it should be. Instead of all the hand-wringing and wailing that the bleeding heart lefties resort to when dealing with criminals, we should bring back hard labour and the lash.
  76. Randy D from Canada writes: Talk about stating the obvious. The system has bordered on farcical since Trudeau. Doubtful if an abortion such as this can or will ever be fixed. That is how you get vigilantism...
  77. Babbleon ! from Canada writes: JP says if your not educated your not smart!
  78. J. P. from Canada writes: Babbeleon, and your post says it all! What you should have said is, 'if you're not educated, you're not smart!' It seems as though you are not educated or smart.
  79. Gary Thomson from Surrey, BC, Canada writes: Boy, I can't wait till the posters on this sight begin electing judges. Will there be a grammar litmus test for either the candidates or voters? Like our health care system, our justice system deals with thousands of people/cases on a daily/weekly basis. The only stories that make the news are the handful where the outcome seems newsworthy, read sensational. No system is perfect, so there are going to be errors, though probably not nearly as many as it would appear to uninformed readers of sensational news reports. Now and then I allow myself a good ol' self righteous rant about justice after reading some of these stories that I read in the paper. But I chill out before I make decisions regarding the overall functioning of the system. I'm much more concerned with the increasing time and cost of our justice system and the inaccessability this is causing the middle class. We already have a two, or more, tiered justice system.
  80. Babbleon ! from Canada writes: See everybody how smart JP is,golly gee!
  81. No Name from Vancouver, Canada writes: I'm not sure what justice is anymore. Maybe prosecutors, judges, and parole boards need to wake up: 'Charged with attempted murder, Wallin, 26 at the time, pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and received a seven-year sentence. 'The parole board found Wallin, who plans to live with his parents in the Lower Mainland, is still willing to use violence or aggression to achieve his goals. He has watched a television special about Park and her life following the attack.' Ji-Won Park still suffers from serious brain damage after being left in a coma from the 2002 attack. Her attacker is due to be released on Jan 18th. And what exactly were Wallin's goals in attacking Park? (Really, look it up.) So, if we're going to let Wallin go, then what of the Latimer case? 'Mr. Latimer has served seven years in jail for the second-degree murder of his severely handicapped daughter, a killing he has steadfastly described as an act of mercy.' Quality of life is an incredibly touchy issue, but while advocates of disabled people seem to think the issue is really about being disabled, they choose to completely ignore the fact that Latimer was faced with the reality of his daughter having to suffer a lifetime of excrutiating pain on a daily basis WITHOUT MEDICAL RECOURSE to alleviate it (painkillers were contraindicated because they interfered with the seizure medication--the seizures were apparently intolerably frequent). Proof of her quality of life is that she smiled? I smile during my time at the dentist's, but would I ask for a life under the drill? ... and to then think that this poor little girl might be doing the same, but without any novocaine? Horror. Finally, when will crimes committed with motorized vehicles finally be put into the same category as those committed with other lethal weaponry such as firearms? Drunks and street-racing punks are sentenced as if they were the elite of our society... so they must be! People give the NHL a tough time!?
  82. diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: Don Bryant:-- What is it that you think we are trying to export to Afghanistan? It certainly wouldn't be the jails you would like to see here - they already have those.
  83. J. P. from Canada writes: Babbleon, don't get nasty. Fourth graders know the difference between 'your' and 'you're'. Clearly, I wasn't showing off.
  84. Jim IIII from Canada writes: DETROIT - (December 31, 2007) – On Thur