| Subject: Re: Crown Counsel |
Author:
Anna^nth
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 09:38:49 02/25/02 Mon
Author Host/IP: 64.114.108.231
In reply to:
Davy
's message, "Crown Counsel" on 08:24:14 02/25/02 Mon
"All these people still collect their pay checks. "
As they should. Do you think these people just sit on their asses all day and think about who they're going to harass today? No, the vast majority of cases that go to trial are legitimate. Crown Counsels don't have crystal balls and can't tell if a judge is going to throw a case out or not. Seems to me that the people who should be under greater scrutiny are the judges.
"In Quesnel, for example, one only has to think back to the John Draper trial or Quesnel Mayor Steve Wallace's wife Joan Wallace's trial. Evidence on both of those cases clearly pointed that a trial should not have proceeded and yet they did."
Since I'm not familiar with either of these trials, I am not qualified to make a judgement about whether or not they should have proceeded. What was the evidence? Obviously the Crown Counsel felt there was enough to go to trial. And really, it isn't the Crown Counsel's job to be the judge and that is what you're asking of them. You're asking them to decide a person's innocence when they are only qualified to prove a person's guilt. This is why it goes to trial. That decision is then left to the judge and/or jury. Seriously, do YOU want the prosecutor to be the judge and jury as well? It's quite obvious you have no sense of how the justice system works.
"I am in full favor of the B.C. Liberals making cuts to Crown Counsel. They should cut them down by at least 50%. This way, the only cases that will be taken to court will be the ones that should be and it may improve the way the public looks at our court system."
What will happen is more cases will be thrown out because it took too long to go to trial. "Justice delayed is justice denied" as the saying goes. Who appointed you judge to decide which cases are worthy of trial? There is no such thing as an unworthy trial, even if you're the one being accused. The trial is your opportunity to prove your innocence beyond a doubt. The trial is the people's opportunity to seek justice and that is who the Crown Counsel represents (or should represent)--the people. Being a prosecutor is a thankless job, as you have proven. Imagine being responsible for getting riffraff off the street and then having your case thrown out on a technicality? And then having people such as yourself saying your pay and support staff should be cut by 50% because you're not doing your job? I think you should be throwing your barbs at bleeding heart judges. If you cut the Crown Counsel budget by 50%, the result will be more guilty people getting off.
As for Glen Clark, I haven't been following his case too closely, despite my being a staunch NDPer. However, I'm disturbed by people whining about the current government having to pay for his defense. *Every* accused should have access to defense counsel, same as the people should have an adequately funded Crown Counsel. Everyone should have access to defense counsel regardless of their prior occupation or the current government/regime. Our justice system depends on all the gears working smoothly. Ever see Lady Justice? The lady with the blindfold holding the scales and the sword? Those scales stand for something--balance. Crown Counsel should be given the tools to prove guilt. The accused should be given the tools to prove innocence. In a perfectly working system (and I'm not saying our system is perfect), only the guilty go to jail or are otherwise punished--and they are found guilty when they are. What happens when there is an imbalance in the system? Deny defense counsel and the innocent are punished. Deny Crown Counsel and the guilty go free. Do you cheer them on when they get a conviction on a scumbag like Clifford Olson?
Stop complaining because Crown Counsel does its job.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 