Colten Boushie’s uncle, Alvin Baptiste ,raises an eagle’s wing as demonstrators gathered outside of the courthouse in North Battleford, Sask., last Saturday.Matt Smith/The Canadian Press
Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Try to keep letters to fewer than 150 words. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@globeandmail.com
..................................................................................................................................
The Stanley verdict
The purpose of a criminal trial is to determine if each essential element of the offence has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Murder contains two essential elements: actus reus and mens rea. Actus reus is the commission of the act, killing the victim, and mens rea is the accused having intended to do so. In the Gerald Stanley case, the actus reus was clearly proven and not denied by the accused. The problem was the mens rea – did the accused intend to kill the victim or was it an accident?
To secure a conviction, the Crown had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Stanley intended to kill Colten Boushie (Stanley Acquitted In Shooting Death Of Boushie, Feb. 10). The jury wrestled with this issue for 15 hours before deciding unanimously that the Crown had failed to do so.
The length of deliberation suggests there was some evidence that he had an intention but not enough to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That is how the system is supposed to work. The English legal system of criminal justice, which is the law in Canada, is the only system that requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
It is intended to ensure that no innocent person is ever convicted of an offence. I sympathize with the victim's family and understand that it is difficult for them to accept the verdict but they must try to understand what has happened here. The jury was called upon to decide, based only on the evidence presented to them, whether the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Stanley intended to kill Mr. Boushie. After deliberating for 15 hours, it decided that the Crown had failed to do so, and as a result Mr. Stanley was found not guilty.
Garth M. Evans, Q.C., Vancouver
.......................................
Before we throw trial by jury under the bus in favour of some other system, three considerations:
We already have a robust mechanism for determining if the jury is biased. The challenge for cause procedure results in questioning jurors before they are sworn. It is often used when racial prejudices might influence the jury. The Crown chose not to use it here. The fact the Crown did not engage that procedure does not mean the rest of the system is wrong or needs to be changed.
Second, context matters: If media reports are accurate, protesters greeted the jury pool before they were selected, calling on them to find Mr. Stanley guilty regardless of what the evidence demonstrated. The identity of jury members is public information. It would be perceived by the accused that it would be much harder for someone who lived on reserve with the demonstrators to resist that call than it would be for someone unknown to the demonstrators.
When we politicize the outcome of a trial by protests, we make it much harder for the accused to feel comfortable that a particular juror will decide based on the evidence instead of his or her ethnic identification.
The underlying problem is that there are few Indigenous people in the jury pool. Justice Frank Iacobucci commented on that problem and made recommendations to fix it. That is the urgent reform needed.
Brian Casey, Q.C., Dartmouth, N.S.
.......................................
In considering the Boushie verdict, it is worthwhile to look at consequences for the actions of offenders. In hockey, a stick to the head, even if deemed accidental, will earn the wielder of the stick at least a minor penalty. When driving, accidentally hitting a pedestrian will earn the driver, some degree of fine, loss of demerit points, or a conviction as serious as criminal negligence in the case of a fatality.
Hockey sticks and cars are not built to do harm but guns are. Yet the supposedly accidental discharging of a gun resulting in death, as in the Boushie case, had no consequence for the offender. Shouldn't the use of a gun be subject to at least the same degree of stricture that is applied to the use of hockey sticks and cars?
Paul Tortolo, Waterloo, Ont.
.......................................
Saskatoon Mayor Charlie Clark says the acquittal of Mr. Stanley and the response of Mr. Boushie's family is a "a defining moment for our city, our province, our country, where we decide what kind of country we're going to be." This is an important statement if we are to move forward.
The call by the Boushie family and Indigenous organizations and communities for reform of the Canadian legal system – plus the urgent need to address the systemic racism pervasive in our society – has to be embraced now (Boushie Family Moves From Anger To Action In Wake of Acquittal, Feb. 12).
It is a critical moment to build bridges of understanding and action between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people.
We, as non-Indigenous people, can meet this call rallying support for the necessary reforms and actions by all levels of Canadian society – from our governance structure through to our civil society organizations such as churches, unions, community groups, educational institutions and business groups, both rural and urban.
If there is to be justice for Mr. Boushie we can take these actions and create a Canada that confronting its historical injustices.
Don Kossick, Saskatoon
.......................................
What PCs want
The column that purports to describe the difference between conservative and liberal voters is insulting and misguided (Ontario's PC Race Is A Battle Between Pragmatists, Populists, Feb. 12).
It draws on outdated stereotypes to explain what PC voters care about most. Whatever truths it contains, it misses the main point.
In 2018, Ontario PCs want transparent and accountable government, an end to corruption and high-handed elitism, a say for every voter of every age and ethnicity, and an economic approach that is sustainable and fair to all generations. We want our province to be competitive and prosperous, and we want public money directed to the benefit of citizens, not party members.
Whatever differences exist among the three main PC Ontario leadership candidates, all want to chart a course back to good government. That is a challenge, but only because Ontario has shifted so far from that path.
Julie Wood, Toronto
.......................................
Frenglish
English words seeping into the French language might be temporary, but French words in the English language seem to be long-lived (English Invasions Of French Language Shortlived, Linguist Finds, Feb. 12).
Any language is enriched by foreign words, which is probably why English is the lingua franca of world. English has 60 per cent French-Latin words in the language. Purity in any language is death. Like multiculturalism, languages thrive on diversity. Otherwise, the only way to keep them alive is through legislation.
There is no such thing as a "pure" or virgin language. Any language that exists in a bubble will eventually cease to exist. C'est dommage.
Douglas Cornish, Ottawa