Mr Mair's commentary shows once again that the "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" is not even good toilet paper. The minute the majority have a hissy fit over some perceived injustice, we just get parliament to change the law; the Bum Wad not withstanding.

If the parliament can pass such a law, notwithstanding, then why not just keep Picton 'at the queens pleasure'?

Stop bothering with dozens of lawyers for him. Only assign one. If he wants a jury trial, then fine, he is kept 'at the queens pleasure' for so long as it takes to find that jury, with only the one lawyer doing all his legwork (at the lowest rate of pay for a public defender).

The 'swift justice' must also be desired by the accused, and in this case I think the accused, Picton, may not want any examination of the facts at all.

As to Mr. Mair's first point, the RCMP Commissioner, the change must be done and seen to be done ASAP! I agree that this action is not likely at all with the current crew in Ottawa as they are more interested in the amateur theatricals of Parliament than really doing any of the 'peoples' business' with any alacrity.

Without disagreeing with the generality of the above statement, I know (although I know nothing of the circumstances in this particular case) that there are many cases involving extended jury trials where the 'lawyers' would be more than happy to wind up affairs quickly and with admirable dispatch - even if it cost them some money in the short term. They would, in other words, be very glad if things could be moved along more quickly too.

I suspect, given the nature of the Picton trial, that this may well be the case here too.

Lawyers are somewhat necessary, but among the greediest slime in society. We once had an ownership dispute and were sued. We were absolutely right, and the plaintiff's claim was a complete money grab. Our lawyer knew this and talked us into fighting the claim.

We followed his advice and ended up eventually settling. Why? Because the plaintiff wasn't really even asking for all that much, and it got to the point that our legal bills exceeded our settlement costs.

We (The two parties)u ended up meeting at a diner for lunch, and hashing out a deal in around half an hour - no lawyers present.

It is possible that the other party came down, because of his legal bills - that being said I have a very poor view of the industry.

So in the end, the lawyers got the biggest piece of the pie. It was ridiculous.

This is a massive problem, because lawyers have the motivation to increase their billable hours - to make money. The only way they can do this is through their clients. This is why there are lawsuits everywhere.

Also - for the first time in a while, I agree with Rafe.

Especially regarding politicizing the RCMP Commissioner. The government is not the solution, it is the problem.

They have gone too far.

Yea, apparently alongside trade unions and every other sector of society save yours.

As Lynn once accused you before, If I recall, what a friggin' hypocrite you are! One of the manifest "greediest slime in society" one will find on these pages, if one follows you as many of us regulars here do-, is this Capitalism arsehole- to say nothing of the social system and "market morality" for which he speaks.

You obviously think we forget and should disregard at your pleasure Capitalist Fukup.

Listening to yourself, once we disregard your plumping for the morality of the Greed System itself, perversely bespeaking the social benefits of capitalist market greed and your love of it, one would think you Godliness manifest itself. Mixed with a generous dollop of, "Do as I say, not as I do." of course, typical of your bourgeois breed.

Back into the slime of the capitalist market snakepit from which you slither, Mr. Capitalist, to hold forth on the greed of others at least no worse than yourself.

I can't agree with Mr Mair on this one, on several grounds.

The Police took a very big, very embarrassing hit on this one. Families had to stage parades before they'd even admit anything was wrong.

Whenever that happens we have to look very closely at whatever solution they propose. Their interest lies more in getting somebody to wear this than getting the right guy.

This Mr Picton seems to be a somewhat, um, looneytoons kinda guy. What if somebody else did this and just hung it on him? What if he did it, but was just insane at the time? I could pose quite a few whatifs when I look at this guy.

The crown spent megabucks sifting that farm. They paid every anthropology student for miles around twenty some dollars an hour for months and months. The evidence they got was mostly about who was there, not who did what to whom.

Mr Picton is at great jeopardy. The authorities are throwing huge resources at him. His defence must have sufficient resources to evaluate every bit of it if justice is to be seen to be done.

Mr Pickton's guilt notwithstanding, my issue here is the jury system. Jury decisions have been widely panned, anecdotally, legally and scientifically.

In possibly the most horrid example of spokesmanship around, ICBC chooses juries in all of their court cases. ICBC is the very picture of the psychopathic corporation, and the jury plays a big part in their soulless games, based upon their unreliable nature. If the jury sides with ICBC's latest victim, the upstanding corporate citizens that they are, ICBC throws money at an appeal -- even if they lose the appeal, they're spending tax dollars; the victim just has their award eaten away by their lawyers' defense. If the jury sides with ICBC, the victim rarely has the money or the resources to appeal.

Whether Pickton was ill or not, if he killed all those women, he should fry. Unfortunately, there's no Canadian death penalty the near future for him, ICBC or the jury system. All three need to come to a swift end.

I certainly agree with the first paragraph, the police need to be distanced from the political process, at the Federal level, Provincial and Municipal levels.

As for doing away with the Jury system, I suggest that we walk a careful path here, there are huge pro and cons to the Jury system, making such a law may have unintended consequences down the line. Actually a lot of lawyers I have met wanted to do away with the jury system, as it slows down the system making it less efficient. Personally though I think the jury system has relevance and importance. The average citizen has little direct contact with the legal system, removing them entirely may make that situation worse.

As for the police (mainly the VPD) ignoring the situation on the streets, I think this case and the cost of investigating it will make them realize that they need to start taking missing street workers case far more seriously. It will be cheaper in the long run than allowing suspected serial killer run loose.

Bailey,if Picton didn’t do, then who did? the Butler. Bailey, Bailey, your watching to much C.S.I
And apparently not enough of the Sex channel, according to what you stated and asked on the other thread.

Basically, I don't think Picton did it, er, not all of it anyway.

I think he's the fall guy. I'll wait for about five years after the trial though to see if the mountain of dna has really been correlated to the victims as the prosecution is going to claim to prove.

I doubt if a jury's going to really understand the science, anyway, but it's equally possible to get a biased judge.

In this kind of case with so much scientific evidence, it's going to be a matter of bias for or against Picton that wins the day, anyway.

Of course, as far as I know, maybe they've got direct evidence beside the dna stuff.

And why were off duty police officers partying out at the Picton farm, anyways?

I don't have any idea whether he did it or not. He certainly seems made for the part.

That's my real concern, to tell the truth. He's absolutely made for it. If the Green River sicko or any random psychotic were wandering around looking for someplace to work his evil, a place like that with a guy like that in residence would be like a present from hell.

Just look at the picture at the top here. All the images we see of Mr. Picton are like that. Looking at these pictures one can believe absolutely anything of him. This alone makes me want to look very hard at the evidence. Mr. Picton himself prejudices the judgement of everybody who comes near. Mine included.

Add to that the fact that the police, with all the baggage they bring with them, were sizzling on the hot seat over their incompetent handling of the matter for so many years. Families were howling for blood, feminists were shouting about bigotry, street people were going 'See? See? The police don't protect us, they aid our abusers!'

They needed somebody bad, and they needed him quick. Enter Mr. Picton. Very convenient.

Maybe he did it, maybe he didn't, nobody's getting a look at the evidence just yet. But boy oh boy was he ever convenient!

A regular slam dunk, he is.

I agree 100%, Bailey. He's just too perfect. Seems to me like the farm was a dumping ground for women that society had deemed worthless; "junkies" "crackwhores" "lowlives".
In Honduras, Brazil the police routinely kill the unwanted and throw their bodies in ditches and garbage dumps. Couldn't happen here?
Why not?

Speculation about "who did it" aside, I agree with Rafe that our government should find a way to avoid a juried trial.

I have no doubt that the juror's in this case will experience years of emotional and familial turmoil. The post-traumatic results of this case will last a lifetime for them. How can the average person deal with this kind of horror? I wouln't wish the role of juror on anyone!

I know someone who was asked to be on the Pickton jury. She has been excused from the jury due to ADHD. Good thing for her since I wouldn't want to sit there and listen to what I would imagine will be horrific evidence. Before being excused, she had already been told that her job may not be waiting for her when the trial was over.

I am neither a math nor a law professor, I am just a family member of a street person who was very happy that at least one potential threat against my cousin was put in jail. (Who, by the way, told me last summer that girls aren't disappearing like they used to so either Pickton is guilty or the real murderer is lying low now). So can someone tell me please why taxpayers are paying for an entire team of lawyers for Mr. Pickton? Surely he must have some money. I realize that Pickton Meats have been pulled from the shelves long ago (let's not get into the details of that, please) but Pickton must have been able to mortgage his share of the farm or something. Sorry ... but even if he can't afford a lawyer, why does he get a whole team as opposed to one?

I'll pass on Rafe's recommendation that a judge handle the case, in spite of the fact that a jury can be bamboozled by fallacious evidenciary arguments like the famous "prosecutors' fallacy". (Google it)Notwithstanding that the average human IQ seems to hover over about a hundred or so, the real danger in having a single judge handle the case is the possibility that a judge is a part of a hidden agenda to protect Vancouver's image by finding Picton guilty.

Also, I was called a few years ago to be on a criminal case jury. I filled in the blanks which requested information regarding why it would be a hardship and I was excused.

I suppose we all deviate from the topic periodically, I have very little faith in the jury system, for starters modern day lawyers and judges have muddled the system up so badly that the ordinary citizen simply cannot grasp their jargon and why should they have to,If you want an acquittal, Juries are the way to go, simply drag the case out over an extended length of time, bring in lots of confusing contradicting testimony, doesn’t have to be necessarily true, or accurate. Proof of this procedure was in the O. J Simpson case, this case showed the world just how inept a jury can be, another example of defunct juniors and this one was local ,Gillian Guess .
When all the evidence is in, the Judge charges the jury possibly for hours, more jargon, more double talk, juries sit there with their eyes glazed , should the judge add or delete a word in his charge, the defense lawyer starts salivating on his table, his appeal has just been delivered to him, if required. And what can the ordinary person do, diddle squat, just put your head down go to work and pay more taxes.

For instance, how many jurors would understand that the years of collecting all that dna and matching it to the victims etc is actually irrelevant: A massive red herring! The only dna that matters is Robert Picton's dna being provably present at the location of the commission of a crime--probably totally impossible to prove at this late date, especially when it is entirely reasonable, and of no evidenciary import to find a person's dna at his own residence and on or in close proxmity to people who visited his residence.

I'd say there's no real case against him--guilty or innocent, unless the jury or judge can be bamboozled by the "prosecutor's fallacy" regarding the correlation (or not) between present evidenciary circumstance and the correctness of "a priori" statistical dna findings.

woody
Perhaps, then, you could explicate the Air India acquittal for us then. With your deep knowledge and expertise of the legal system, I'm sure you recognize that B.C. Supreme Court Justice Ian Bruce Josephson made the decision in that case after sitting in judgment on the bench (with no jury) while testimony, presentation of evidence and arguments lasted until Dec. 3, 2004, just over 19 months from the time the trial started.

Justice is a costly, messy business. Whether there is a jury in place or not it's likely it will remain so. Cutting corners to save money isn't in anyone’s' best interests in the long run, imo.

Everyone has a right to trial by jury. This is totally funbdamental. I am shocked the Rafe Mair is advocating the removal of our rights as citizens. Who the hell does Rafe Mair think he is???

Of course in big cases like Pickton, the accused is villified and so people feel justified in saying he shouldnt have those rights. But if any suspected or villified person is denied their rights, then we all could be denied our rights.

Yes its a long trial for jurors. But many people look forward to the opportunity to serve on a Jury. Its easy enough to get out of it if you dont want to do it. (Just say you have some neo-nazi meetings you need to attended and they wont pick you ;).

I think we live in an increasingly selfish society, where a certain sect of the population, represented here by Rafe Mair, seem totally unwilling to make any sacrifices for the gfreater good, or for anyone but themselves.

We've even seen this with the childcare debate, where people want to have children by are flabberghgasted that they might have to delay their careers by 5 years to raise their children. They want society to look after their kids, and pay for it, just so they can continue in their own personal selfish endevours.

G West your much to generous in complimenting me on my deep knowledge and expertise of the legal system you cheeky thing you, I not knowing whether you being animal, vegetable or mineral., what I stated about juries was my opinion nothing more nothing less.
In regards to the Air India Acquittal ,I don’t agree with the judgement that was made in that case, I think the judge made an err pure and simple, also you will note in my jury opinion (previous thread) I also refer to an error made by a Judge, That’s why Judges and lawyers went into this occupation they are accountable to no one but themselves, why can’t mechanics, carpenters, waitresses screw up as much as these people and not also be fired.
I am of the opinion are two organizations that are having a very difficult time in recruiting people one is the Court Jurors the other is the Armed Services. The reason being there is very little pride instilled in the young people and citizens of this country . You go sit on a jury for 2-3 months for what ten - twenty bucks per day and possibly be sequestered, mean while the judge is sucking down $200,000- $250,000 the prosecutor about the same, the lawyers probably more, and you be the good Samaritan for $10 or $20 per day , you couldn’t get a lawyer or judge to even fart for $20 bucks per day, that’s no bullsh!t.
Why join the armed forces and give your life, for what, for who,for a political system that’s rife with corruption,the very day the government was voting on whether to stay or leave Afghanistan almost half of the spineless politicians voted against them to stay, at that same time a fallen soldier laid dead in he battle field. Chicken sh!t NDP-BLOC politicians.

woody
So, the Justice system is fine, as long as you agree with the decisions it renders.

Doesn't really matter too much if a judge alone, or a judge and jury, brings down the decision then, right?

Moreover, democracy's great so long as those votes comport with your prejudices too. Have I understood you rightly?

What else can you tell us about the way things ought to run in the best of all possible worlds?

And your ‘impressions’ about the level of salaries for Crown Counsel in this province.

You’re way off base there too.

The most senior Crown Counsel in B.C. get about $140k/annum. Most of the average boys and girls in the trenches get less than $100k. And they juggle a workload that would break your wooden heart every day.

G West rather then ask of me to criticize my own opinion, why don’t you make a concerted effort and offer up some alternate contradictions of your own, seeing as you disagree with pretty well all that I have stated.
And incidently your cliche in regards to the boys and girls in the trenches, first of all, lawyers don’t work in “trenches” simply because they have no idea which is the business end of a shovel.
Second I was referring to, Pickton, Air India, type lawyers not your first year jocks, recently one of your trench worker buds , got his fingers slapped by the Law Society who had defended an air India accused, what type of sympathetic spin are you going to put out for this one.

G West wooden heart! that's much more than most lawyers have.
Work load, now that's stretch, I have never seen a lawyer that was worn out from work,as to what you refer to as work.

The NWC is not to be used lightly, apprently,
and Pickton is not worth using it.
The Charter is a contributory influence that adds to the length of jury trials. twenty years ago, a jury trial took far less time to complete.
It's hard to get information about the evidence, unless you go onto American web sites like captiansquarters.com, who are not stifled by the Canadian Courts.
I hope that the prosecutors have at least one clear cut guilty case, so we can plea bargain an outcome far less ugly as it could be.
But alas, the guy has to be proved guilty of murder.
The Air India trial proves how careful we must be in putting forth a rock solid case.

Truman Green wrote:

absolutely.

Now since Parliament has already been hired by the people and can pass such laws as could 'notwithstanding' handle any such thing; perhaps we should be demanding that they, from the 308 MP's find the 12 jurors to serve in such a jury. Then we need not worry about lives interrupted, nor about funds lost as they, the 12 MP's, would simply for an extraordinary committee that would perform the jury function. If they are good enough to deliberate on the laws that could extract a mans freedom 'nothwithstanding' then they should be good enough to pronounce upon his judgement under the supervision of the courts that all other accused face.

woody
You're talking defence; I'm referring to crown counsel...in other words the prosecution. I have no idea what the defence lawyers in this case will be paid. I do know Picton had to sign over all his assets to the province to help defray the costs of his defence. I don't know how hard the defence is working; I do know the Crown works far harder and under more difficult conditions than you might imagine.

As for shovels, if you want a lawyer who's skilled with such tools I hope you never find yourself in front of the bench. My guess is you're not much for metaphorical language - right?

At this point Picton is still just the accused and entitled to the presumption of innocence.

I had no idea your heart was wooden too! Quelle surprise!

G West in short, you have stated , Crown counselors are inferior to defense lawyers, therefore earn less, but work harder, come on West give me a break, no one works (your idea of work) harder for less pay, the fact of the matter is the Crown lawyer , is an assured position of pay, hours, holidays,perks, win ,lose or draw, the pay ,perks, etc. don’t change one iota, where is the incentive to win? Oh right, there is an incentive, it’s called the plea bargain.
You mention in the Pickton case that your not sure how hard the defense is working, where is there an incentive to wrap this case up ,there’s a whole gaggle of lawyers getting rich off this case, why hurry. The following is a remark by Rafe , which is self explanatory in regards to this subject.
(The Robert Pickton trial, where, I'm told, there are some 15 to 20 lawyers involved, all paid by me and thee, the taxpayers.)

In addition Rafe comments on the jury, which I alluded to in an earlier thread ,to which you more or less also choose to ignore, which I must say, you do much of ( must be the lawyer instinct in you) The following is from Rafes comments
(The first problem is the right to a jury trial, a right all of us have in capital cases. But how do you get jurors able and willing to give up two years of their lives, no matter what you pay them (and that won't be much)? What about their jobs? Their families? Their personal lives?)
As for Pickton , of course he is to be assumed innocent until proven guilty, I never stated other wise
As for my name, you should realize that Im all WOODY

Crown counsels are "inferior"!
Well we certainly know where you stand. I'd have to say I disagree. You might want to check where a lot of the current justices on the BC bench actually came from.

As for Rafe. How long is it since he actually practiced law? Do you think he's still a member of the BC bar?

I didn't ignore the costs of a jury trial, I simply mentioned that one doesn't guarantee a lower bill of costs merely by avoiding trial by jury. That was the whole point about the reference to the Air India case. I guess you missed that too.

You are definitely all wood.

If you or Rafe suggest a better way to remunerate jurors in long trials I'd be pleased to give my opinion.

I suggested, and I think most practicing lawyers would agree, that the incentive to make enormous sums of money in the criminal bar is a very occasional thing. I'm quite certain everyone involved in the Picton case would be more than happy to see it dealt with quickly and expeditiously.

You might want to check some of Vancouver's biggest firms; I think you'll find the majority of them practice commercial law….very profitably.

G West Crown counsels are "inferior" That’s the read you put on it Westerly
Regarding Rafes status as to how long since, or whether he is still a lawyer. What’s this got to do with the price of tea in China.
You say I might want to check where a lot of the current justices on the BC bench actually came from. That’s a fore gone conclusion. They don’t want to give up their security blanket do they.
On the Air India matter, I already stated my view.
You say many lawyers find criminal law not that rewording (sh!ty money)
Explain why, in the yellow pages (here in B.C.) There ad upon ad of lawyers advertising for criminal cases, one more little tid bit for you Westy. Do the criminals lawyers follow the criminal circuit or do the criminals follow the lawyers around. A couple of years back, I read an opinion survey had been taken, it was discovered that used car salesmen were trusted more than lawyers, that's pretty well self explanatory , as you say,RIGHT.

Don't know what happened with the RCMP when they botched the Mulroney Airbus(?) kickback scandal. That's when they lost their credibility with me.
Mulroney ended up sueing the country for millions for defamation.

One big bitch I have is the Judges being too lenient - another is protecting the names of underage hoodlums who think nothing of destroying public property.

Hey Woody, did you read this G. Westianism:

"Im quite certain everyone involved in the Picton case would be more than happy to see it dealt with quickly and expeditiously."

Yeah, so they can make $6500 bucks apiece instead of $385,000 or so.

hee hee, ho ho, hah, hah hah, ha ha

This is what G. West does, Woody.

You can't really take him seriously!

He's just trying to be funny, eh.

Case in point: I once agreed to accompany a friend of mine to her trial. She was accused of stealing some expensive gloves from a store.

She was semi high on cocaine at the time and I couldn't get her to go into the courtroom at the time of her case coming up. I found her lawyer (who didn't seem at all bothered by her tardiness) and apologized ad nauseum and asked him how pissed the judge would be if she wasn't on time. "Are you kidding?" he said. "He'll just postpone if for another time. No big deal."

He didn't say: "We like to drag these things out as long as we can."

But I knew that's what he meant.

Truman Green I agree, what goes on in the courts is almost funny, I use to occasionally go and watch cases that interested me, I’ve seen these going ons that your talking about.
I recall a few years ago one particular case where this guy had been before the (same) judge quite a number of times ,always had an excuse , no lawyer , lawyer was away, laid off job, so on and so forth, when finally the judge had, had enough, the guy pled guilty, he received a fine, the judge ask if he required time to pay and was also offered an instalment plan, but he had no money he stated, from the tone in the judges voice I really thought he was going to reach in his own pocket and pay his fine, I left, I never heard the out come, before this case I had probably watch the judge remand 6-8 cases they all had pretty lame excuses for delaying their trails, but what incentive is there for the Judge to speed things up, I suppose they consider it job security to lay cases over into the future.
May be, the way to go is like the states where the Judges have to run for their jobs,then these revolving door cases would cease.

Truman Green, maybe G West is the replacement for Lewis Swift,man did Swifty ever get pissed off at times, I miss the character, I use to get a kick out him.

Woody
you know why there are so many criminal lawyers advertising in the yellow pages? Because it's dog eat dog out there for the criminal bar. Why don't you phone up Van Fasken and ask them how much criminal law they do?

Why don't you check out what legal aid rates are for lawyers?

In fact, man, you haven't got a clue about how the law operates.

Call up a couple of firms and ask where the money is in the law these days. I guarantee you it's not in the criminal courts.

G West no money in criminal law eh, well some body forgot to mention this to those 15 to 20 lawyers involved in the Pickton case.
Look Westerly ,lets face it , Hookers and Lawyers are in the same business, they both screw people, I cannot make it any plainer for you.

woody
I'm not saying that the few lawyers who are involved in a really high profile case every few years aren't doing very well. The Gibbons brothers also did very well - but those firms are really the exception, I kid you not. Just walk into the foyer at Fasken Martineau and look at the wall plaques of the firms they represent. The big commercial firms never touch criminal cases. All the ads you see in the yellow pages are for little outfits struggling to make a go of it. A lot of criminal work is paid for by legal aid. Believe me, it's no picnic making a living on those peanuts.

Here, have a look at Fasken Martineau's website:
http://www.fasken.com/WEB/FMDWEBSITE.NSF/.frmHome?OpenForm

If you want to go off on lawyers - pick the right targets; trust me, it's not the criminal bar that is making all the cash.

G West says ( A lot of criminal work is paid for by legal aid)
Legal aid, a polite and discrete way to say welfare.Heres a bit of a scenario for you Wester a very similar situation occurred in my neighborhood, a break in occurs, first a window gets broken, stereo, booze, jewelry are taken, a neighbor happens to see the thief leave ,gets a good description of him, its given to the cops, he is known to them ,does this quite a bit, he is 17, comes from a broken home, his mom has more live in boy friends, than Clinton had BJs, he gets charged, gets a welfare mouth piece (legal aid lawyer) gives the hard luck story to the (previous crown prosecutor) Judge
The thief walks, again.
The victim gets nothing back( the kid sold his stuff to a fence, maybe made a hundred or two) he had no insurance, he is out of pocket a couple thousand bucks, the landlord has to pay five hundred bucks for the window , his insurance has a thousand dollar deduction. But here is the piss off, your down in the trenches lawyer he got his money though, legal aid, mean while the victims get punished two times, first they bought their merchandise, then they had to repurchase due to the theft,and the second kick in the nuts is, they pay the lawyers salary through their taxes, Im aware of small town lawyer who makes one hell of a good living doing this. Pardon me I should say trench lawyer, as you so like to refer to them.
Wester tell me, if these criminal lawyers have it so hard making it, as you so claim, and their all reasonably intelligent people, obviously, and they like the law business, and their always knocking the sh!t out of the cops, why don’t they simply just become cops ,like they know all the answers, sh!t Wester we could have the crime cleaned up in no time flat with these LAWYER COPS on the beat, Westerly Don’t you wish you would have thought of this idea

Just to clarify things Rafe - the defence lawyers get paid well; the Crown get paid crap. We had an arbitrated settlement legislated out of existence last year by Gordo's bunch. They talk big on crime but they don't play fair with those of us in the trenches.

woody
most young offenders don't even get legal aid. They get a kind of public defender, or duty counsel. We should be doing what they've done in New Zealand where young offenders families are legally required to be part of the solution for their children. And that system is working.

I certainly agree there are problems, but don't blame the overworked legal aid lawyers and the public defenders who attend the courts every day and never get a chance to actually prepare for court - in many cases they don't even get to see the accused prior to an appearance. None of these people ever gets a jury trial. That part of the justice system is a far bigger outrage than the things Rafe is writing about.

I have two lawyers in my family as well as a son, who just graduated from law school, who has spent the last 4 months doing pro bono work for people who can't afford a lawyer and who still aren't poor enough to qualify for legal aid. You don't know the half of it.

There are a great many lawyers who wouldn't fit either of our definitions of well off - they are doing their very best to fulfil their obligations as officers of the court. It would be nice to think that the public didn't have such a jaundiced view of what they put up with.

woody
you might care to spend a little time with this document:
http://www.lss.bc.ca/__shared/assets/gtlat-ct209.pdf

This point ... I'm not suggesting getting roid of the jury system ... what I am saying is that once in a lifetime a case comes along that calls for special treatment. Juries are weakest when evidence is long, prolix and complicated. What little we know makes me thjink this is just such a case for an exception.

Far from wanting to abolish juries I would go the other way. I think that juries tend to bring the common sense of the community into the process while too often judges are sealed off from the realities of life.

Ah, Rafe...your memory is slipping with age. Today you complain that lawyers are all about the money, not the justice. Thirty five years ago I sat in the old Kamloops provincial courthouse and watched as you begged the Assize Court Justice to excuse you as the court appointed counsel for a defendent, because the complexity of the case meant that you'd be tied up for months, at a pay level that couldn't support your life style. Maybe you do remember...perhaps that's why you can accuse lawyers of greed. Been there, done that...and guilty of being the pot calling the kettle black.

Sort of reminds me of a couple of years ago, on a Yankee blog, when I caught this description of the "Just-Us" system as a gang of "Black-Robed Vultures". Another point for consideration; The story about the money-launderer dope kingpin and the seizure of his ill-gotten gains by the government. To my mind, these funds should NOT be consigned to "General Revenue" but, rather applied to Drug Rehabilitation, in order to try easa the misery that has been caused by such low specimens of humanity!

Rafe, yeah but can either scenario guarantee that justice will be done? I doubt it. Air India was judge only; was justice done? O.J. Simpson was judge and jury. Was justice done? I doubt it.

On balance, I think it is far more dangerous to leave the determination of guilt to one person than to have it be a matter of consensus. At least the jury will have conflicting biases. After all, who in B.C. has not associated the name Robert Picton with the murders?

Overall, though, I think the preference is merely a matter of opinion. It is not possible to prove which scenario will provide justice.

For instance, I think I would be the best possible judge of whether or not Picton's guilty. I understand all the dna nucleotide sequencing issues; all the probability issues; all the prosecutors and defense statistical fallacies, (google them) and have absolutely no bias or knowledge of whether Picton did anything wrong at all; I understand all the proclivities of each side to use unrealiable statistical models, and I don't automatically see a demonic figure when I look at Picton's photograph. (Just looks like a normal guy to me). And I'm aware that he could just possibly be the fall guy for some unbelievably sinister circumstance--or not.

But seeing as how nobody's asking me, I'll go with judge and jury.

Only problem with appointing you, Truman, is the one thing you don't know and won't admit is that you might be wrong. I think we should stick with the jury system unless the accused asks for trial by judge alone - just the way the system works now. Find other ways to deal with the cost overruns. Start with instituting a better and more effective way to involve the families of young offenders.

Another area of the criminal law where a specific group of Law Society members make huge profits is defending rich folks who blow over .08. You might ask the Premier about that area of the law.

Alcibiades

Your so correct Alcibiades, the law means sh!t to those with money. So goes the golden rule,

Alcibiades, weird that you chastise me for apparently not ever thinking I'm wrong, then go on to totally agree with me about keeping the judge and jury system--the status quo, as you say--correctly.

I was trying to make a point about bias and that it's probably difficult for most people to keep an open mind about this case.

Where's your research that I'm less likely to admit that I may be wrong than, say, you are--or anybody else? I'd like to see it.

...especially when I said that I think it's probably only "a matter of opinion" anyway, and that neither judge alone nor judge and jury can guarantee the correct outcome.

Hardly a dogmatic, narcissistic approach, I would think.

Dude,
I was joking!

See what I mean? I was wrong about your intent (I think), and I admit it. I thought you were putting me down.

I just read it again, though.

Are you sure you were joking, Al? Jokes usually use absurdity, irony, double entendre--hyperbole--stuff like that.

I bet a jury (I'm trying to keep this on topic) would maybe think you were being sarcastic.

But I might be wrong.

G West just to let you know, I looked over those two sites that you recommend, also book marked them for reference.

Truman
Actually, I think Picton would probably be better off trusting his freedom to you. I really was joking - I remember reading a lot about this case when it first hit the press and I thought at the time that Picton might be a fall guy. So no, the joke had to be taken in the context of reading Rafe's article - where he dumped all over the jury system - then appended the little comment about nine steps back up this thread where he now says juries are ducky poo.

I thought you were speaking tongue in cheek after all, no matter how much you know about DNA we both know the legal system would be unlikely to accept you as an expert.

No sacrasm at all, friend.

woody
Thanks. I appreciate you mentioning it. BC Mary says I should be looking more closely at what you post; I'll try!
cheers

Jury trial or not?

If jury trials were inexpensive, expedient, everyone's favorite way of solving the who-dids, then it wouldn't have to be written up as a right, as a law. You don't need to legislate the things that people naturally prefer to do. Therefore, it's obviously important to have this expensive, inconvenient inexpedient safeguard of the sound regard of people on the factory floor, who don't so easily get lost in the legalese, the horrific and the metaphysical, etc., but can actually accomplish the proverbial cutting of the proverbial stuff once in a while. Bon appetit (ooops, bad choice of metaphor ??).

Thanks Alcibiades. So let's cut the crap:

You'd have to be deaf and dumb not to know that the Vancouver Police have been accused of dragging their heels on the case of the missing women, and of abusing drug addicts and prostitutes on the downtown east side. Anyone not knowledgeable about this should try googling words to that effect or revisit the Kim Rossmo case or googling Human Rights Watch-Vancouver Police, or the Pivot Society.

I once attended a protest on the steps of the Vancouver Police station at Main and Hastings on that very issue--Vancouver Police mistreatment of drug addicts and poor people in general.

The issue of police behaviour is going to be a part of the Picton trial.

For Rafe Mair to suggest that that this particular case should be heard by a judge only, in my opinion, is an exercise in intellectual buffoonery at best and who knows what at worst.

I was told long ago and have seen nothing since to belie the fact - In the Halls of Justice the only Justice is in the Halls.

I find it easy to suspect that Willy Pickton is a fall guy, I just don't know for whom. I don't know if he knows either. I think we pay too much attention to the many individual deviants, child predators and serial killers and instead should be asking ourselves what is wrong with our society that creates all these warped individuals. They aren't created in a vacuum.

I'm not saying we should coddle these monsters, but why are there so many of them? Does it have something to do with the North American puritanism and discomfort with the naturalness of the sexual impulse that makes it possible for Dateline to set up a bait house with a 12-14 year old child theoretically "home alone" and bring in grown men like they were having a boxing day sale.

Adult, often married, men who are compelled to drive 200 or whatever miles to meet what they think is a child for sex are somehow deficient in their sexual development. Then those who need to mix their sexual satisfaction with violence or murder are another lot of sick puppies. From my reading about John Wayne Gacy, one of the leading serial killers in the United States, in terms of stats (a crowded field, to be sure), I could only conclude that after he had sex with the young men he picked up, he felt such self loathing and guilt for his "homo" desires, once sated, that he basically had to kill them, because they knew his "shameful" secret. He would probably still be picking up young men and killing them after sex if he had had a larger basement. Only after he ran out of room for bodies in his basement and began disposing of bodies where they would eventually be found was enough evidence found to track him down.

Of course the society envisioned by Harper and his ilk who think that whether or not two men or women marry each other is more important than issues such as poverty, the destruction of our environment and the exploitation of the many by the few is most likely to produce more monsters, rather than fewer.

Jury duty is just that, a duty as a citizen to enable rights that we collectively enjoy. I think it differs from signing your life away to the military to kill for profit dressed up in vague ideals which are ostensibly about rights such as security.
Why throw away citizenship where it is actually still meaningful?

Considering the Ministry of Justice was axed in Campbell's first term, I doubt there is too much of our tax dollars invested in access to justice. I'd rather see money there than on the goddamn 2010 Olympics. That said, over a dozen lawyers for Pickton alone does seem excessive. I bet it has to do with police implications. The case is high profile on a number of fronts.

Here's some speculation: Pickton's no serial killer, though not quite a fall guy. He and his brother had a farm where they threw parties for well connected bastards, notorious and otherwise for money. Pickton and possible accomplices, lured and drugged junkies and prostitutes knowing no one would be looking. Once there, they were the entertainment; gory snuff and the like. After, they were disposed of in the trough. Pickton was an entrepreneur.

Who would be the murderer in such a case? Considering the orchestration and premeditation of it all, would it be some sadistic **** looking for a thrill or the hosts? If Pickton names names will he be no better off than if he doesn't?

Bonus question: what movie paralells the above scenario?

[hint: a recent movie [2000s], title is a play on words and is one word. The film makes heavy inferences on communist/capitalist societies].

Dime, I'm kinda outa the loop re: movies, but I'm dying to know what movie you are referring to in your Bonus Question.

Okay, here's the give away: it was made by a well known Italian director from the US who is a big fan of gore.

In Canada, we need a jury. Many of our judges are political appointees, and, thus, in the chair not because of merit. I don't trust them. Many of the decisions they make in this country have been assinine. A fay judge might well release Picton (if he's guilty, that is). You should read some of the hair-brained judicial decision made against citizens in favour of corporations in this country! Look at that judge that allowed a biker on coke who murdered his wife to get off scot free, because he was "impaired", and probably didn't "mean" to! Likely the judge was impaired making that ruling. Canadian juries aren't as stupid as American ones. They'll give the proper verdict in the picton case. I'd like to be on the jury. Most people would.

Rafe:

Ask anyone who's ever been close to a murder why there has to be a charge for every victim. Only an insensitive lout would suggest otherwise.

Or a fool: what's the message if Pickton only faces 5 charges -- kill 20, get 15 free? (Or 45...or however many actually went missing, and may have been murdered by the man.)

If charges don't stick due to a lack of evidence, that's the cost of justice. Which is blind.

An acquaintance was murdered when I was young: had her husband not hung himself, I would have been appaled if there had not been charges laid on the basis that he was manic depressive. It's not an excuse, althought it might have mitigated the anger.

One thing Darcy.mcgee,

If the crown's case is at all iffy, they can try him on the best 5, and if things go badly, the rest remain when more or better evidence turns up.

In practical terms, it's very hard to try someone twice for the same count.

Bailey.

You're assuming I care about the practicalities of the issue.

For most, the murder (or, in Picton's case, likely murder) of a loved one or close acquaintance is not a practical matter.

I was touched by murder almost 20 years ago: I still can't think about it without feeling the astonishing sense of loss it brought with it, amongst others. It lives in my heart.

This for someone who was not even a part of my life for four years prior to the event. Hadn't even seen her. Many would argue that I was not close.

I can't even begin to imagine how the parents of Picton's victims (confired, or not) might feel. Even those whose children had pushed them away -- and surely some did -- will be missed by their parents.

Or maybe I have too soft a heart.

No. Your heart does you credit. I understand completely.

And when we are touched by such senseless evil we think the law should heal us, but the law doesn't do that. Except in a sort of social way. It can't.

I wish it could.

All it can do is provide us with a kind of balancing force. And protect the future by removing the violent from active participation.

But when all that's done, we still need to heal ourselves and each other the way we always do, with love and support and forgiveness and grace.