[martin14]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

He'll shed a few tears and take a few pictures then umm and....and ahh his way through a speech or two and in the end, nothing will be improved for anyone. And electroshocked will continue with his bullshit conspiracies.

We can only hope.

An inquiry to waste $ 5-6 million and actually do nothing
would do the trick just fine.

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Why should the Natives have to be "represented" on a jury trying a white man? They aren't his peers and would undoubtedly bring a biased approach to the proceedings if it involved a native. .

That's a dangerous idea.
Once can safely assume all Native juries would let a high number of Native defendants walk,
to 'stick it to the man', just like OJ.

Don't want to go there.



BTW, the Gerald Stanley gofundme is moving along:

https://www.gofundme.com/gerald-stanley-support-fund

[PluggyRug]

If I was a member of that jury I would be incredibly angry. Sitting through the trial, listening to evidence from both sides and making an informed verdict. Then Trudeau effectively calls you a racist. WTF.

[Strutz]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

He'll shed a few tears and take a few pictures then umm and....and ahh his way through a speech or two and in the end, nothing will be improved for anyone. And electroshocked will continue with his bullshit conspiracies.

You have pretty much summed it up.

[martin14]

https://globalnews.ca/news/4022425/colt ... au-appeal/

Trudeau’s comments on Boushie case may have ‘tainted’ a potential appeal process: lawyer

$1:

“By commenting on a particular case, it may affect the ability for Crown to proceed with the case if an appeal is granted,” Robichaud said.

“I would have serious concerns moving forward, then. There will be a suggestion by the defense that the jury pool is now tainted and fair trial cannot proceed.”

Good.

[ShepherdsDog]

Chronic constipation of the brain and diarrhea of the mouth. Pretty terrible when he has shit for brains.

[Zipperfish]

Tricks Tricks:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Tricks Tricks:

I'd love to know how terrible a proposed change would be.

It might be due. But the alternative should also retain the accused right's to choose a jury 'of their peers'.

It should retain all the rights present in the Charter. Maybe they should look at the fact that 70% of the jury summons didn't show up? That's how you fix the system. When you compel someone to show up, make sure they actually do.

Yeah, it's an odd situation. Who ends up on the jury? "New Canadians" beg off saying that they wouldn't be able to keep up due to comprehension difficulties. Anybody scraping by claims financial hardship. You end up with people with union jobs (who get paid their regular wage to be there, instead of the standard $15/day or whatever it is), wealthier folks who can eat the loss and retired folks. At least the ones I've been to.

[Freakinoldguy]

martin14 martin14:

https://globalnews.ca/news/4022425/colten-boushie-justin-trudeau-appeal/

Trudeau’s comments on Boushie case may have ‘tainted’ a potential appeal process: lawyer

$1:

“By commenting on a particular case, it may affect the ability for Crown to proceed with the case if an appeal is granted,” Robichaud said.

“I would have serious concerns moving forward, then. There will be a suggestion by the defense that the jury pool is now tainted and fair trial cannot proceed.”

Good.

0:

well-thats-a-level-of-incompetent-weve-not-seen-before-3589736.png [ 66.13 KiB | Viewed 337 times ]

[BeaverFever]

AFAIK nobody is demanding that there be affirmative actions on juries but I wonder if anyone on this thread is aware that under Canada's Criminal Code, defence lawyers and Crown prosecutors can exclude people from a jury without giving any reason through what are called "peremptory challenges."

This practice has long been criticized because of the potential for misuse and lack of transparency and it was used by the defence in this case to exclude all of the First Nations jury candidates and ensre an all-white jury. I’ll get back to this point in one second.

Now before Martin and the rest of the righties and FN haters rupture an ovary here, let me digress for a moment and state for the record I have no objection to verdict in this case. Even if the accused was actually guilty - and I have no reason to believe he was guilty - the evidence presented at trial was not sufficient to convict him and that’s all that matters. A sign of a true democracy with a well functioning legal system is that sometimes guilty people have to be acquitted because the evidence does not meet the standard for conviction. Only dictatorships have 100% conviction rates. This is why I don’t pat much attention to trials in the news or get outraged over verdicts. And don’t pretend that if I am somehow in a better position to judge a defendant from my living room than the people who’ve spent weeks or months or years at trial.

Now getting back to my original point, I understand that a Justice system must not only be fair it must also be seen to be fair.. Allowing either side to systemically and deliberately target all people of a certain race in order to exclude them from a jury in a racially charged trial violates that principle. I’m sure if it had been a FN man on trial for killing a white guy and all the white jurors were excluded, most of the people on this thread would be singing a different tune.

Peremptory challenges were banned in the UK, limited in the US and in Canada similar reforms have been discussed publicly and at trial since at least 1980.

So hopefully certain people can take a break from their daily rage masterbation over Trudeau and “affirmative action” and FN and realize that there’s a valid non-partisan concern that has once again been brought to the forefront as a result of this trial.

[Tricks]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Yeah, it's an odd situation. Who ends up on the jury? "New Canadians" beg off saying that they wouldn't be able to keep up due to comprehension difficulties. Anybody scraping by claims financial hardship. You end up with people with union jobs (who get paid their regular wage to be there, instead of the standard $15/day or whatever it is), wealthier folks who can eat the loss and retired folks. At least the ones I've been to.

This isn't a question of being excused or not. This is a question of people not even bothering to be present. Everyone who didn't show up could be fined upwards of 1000 dollars. Why not fine all 500 of them, and put the funds into a victim relief fund. Put some actual teeth on it.

[Tricks]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

AFAIK nobody is demanding that there be affirmative actions on juries but I wonder if anyone on this thread is aware that under Canada's Criminal Code, defence lawyers and Crown prosecutors can exclude people from a jury without giving any reason through what are called "peremptory challenges."

This practice has long been criticized because of the potential for misuse and lack of transparency and it was used by the defence in this case to exclude all of the First Nations jury candidates and ensre an all-white jury. I’ll get back to this point in one second.

I could see that being an issue if they could do it 500 times. They can do it 12 times in this case. AND the prosecution is able to do the exact same thing. So it's fair to both sides. In a jury pool of (what should have been) 700 people, this shouldn't matter.

[Thanos]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Now getting back to my original point, I understand that a Justice system must not only be fair it must also be seen to be fair.. Allowing either side to systemically and deliberately target all people of a certain race in order to exclude them from a jury in a racially charged trial violates that principle. I’m sure if it had been a FN man on trial for killing a white guy and all the white jurors were excluded, most of the people on this thread would be singing a different tune.

What specifically then was unfair about the Stanley trial? The judge appeared to have gone to great lengths to make sure it didn't turn into some kind of racial shit-show and didn't let the defense get away with trying to put in some nonsense they found on Reddit about firearms. The only thing that's being called unfair is that a large local demographic (in this case the Natives) didn't get the verdict they wanted, with an accompanying freak-out over it that's pretty much identical to the way white people in Los Angeles went into hysterics over the verdict in the OJ Simpson trial.

Two other things:

1) if we make today's political imperatives the deciding factor in trials then a really silly yet completely innocent man named Jian Ghomeshi would be in prison right now because it would have been not just politically incorrect, but completely illegal, to produce evidence that his accusers were lying about him, even though it's been 100% conclusively shown that they were lying
2) if those five Native jury call-ups had been put on the jury then Gerald Stanley would still be a free man today because, assuming the jury broke on racial lines, the trial would have ended in a mistrial and the accused are released when that happens

[BeaverFever]

Tricks Tricks:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

AFAIK nobody is demanding that there be affirmative actions on juries but I wonder if anyone on this thread is aware that under Canada's Criminal Code, defence lawyers and Crown prosecutors can exclude people from a jury without giving any reason through what are called "peremptory challenges."

This practice has long been criticized because of the potential for misuse and lack of transparency and it was used by the defence in this case to exclude all of the First Nations jury candidates and ensre an all-white jury. I’ll get back to this point in one second.

I could see that being an issue if they could do it 500 times. They can do it 12 times in this case. AND the prosecution is able to do the exact same thing. So it's fair to both sides. In a jury pool of (what should have been) 700 people, this shouldn't matter.

It don’t see how it matters that the Crown can racially discriminate if it wants to, as if 2 wrongs make a right or something. Also note that the Crown and the FN community are not one and the same and don’t necessarily share the same objectives or perspective on the topic of racial equality or systemic bias.

Nor does it matter that the defence can only discriminate 12 times (actually it 14 times were allowed in this case) . That doesn’t make it fair to both sides. There were only 5 FN in the jury pool and the defence rejected them all. Do you think a FN Crown-if such a thing even existed- could possibly exclude all white people from a jury pool? It’s not numerically possible.

As I said before optics matter. If either side wants to exclude jury candidates they should have to give a reason.

[Tricks]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

It don’t see how it matters that the Crown can racially discriminate if it wants to, as if 2 wrongs make a right or something.

Because then it's even. That's the point, be even.

$1:

Also note that the Crown and the FN community are not one and the same and don’t necessarily share the same objectives or perspective on the topic of racial equality or systemic bias.

The crown wants convictions.

$1:

Nor does it matter that the defence can only discriminate 12 times (actually it 14 times were allowed in this case) .

Semantics, 14 in a pool of 700 shouldn't matter.

$1:

That doesn’t make it fair to both sides.

They both are given 14.

$1:

Peremptory challenges
634. (1) A juror may be challenged peremptorily whether or not the juror has been challenged for cause pursuant to section 638.
Maximum number
(2) Subject to subsections (2.1) to (4), the prosecutor and the accused are each entitled to

(a) twenty peremptory challenges, where the accused is charged with high treason or first degree murder;
(b) twelve peremptory challenges, where the accused is charged with an offence, other than an offence mentioned in paragraph (a), for which the accused may be sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding five years; or
(c) four peremptory challenges, where the accused is charged with an offence that is not referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).
If 13 or 14 jurors
(2.01) If the judge orders under subsection 631(2.2) that 13 or 14 jurors be sworn in accordance with this Part, the total number of peremptory challenges that the prosecutor and the accused are each entitled to is increased by one in the case of 13 jurors or two in the case of 14 jurors.

$1:

There were only 5 FN in the jury pool

That showed up We don't know how many of the 500 were FN.

[BeaverFever]

Tricks Tricks:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

It don’t see how it matters that the Crown can racially discriminate if it wants to, as if 2 wrongs make a right or something.

Because then it's even. That's the point, be even.

$1:

Also note that the Crown and the FN community are not one and the same and don’t necessarily share the same objectives or perspective on the topic of racial equality or systemic bias.

The crown wants convictions.

$1:

Nor does it matter that the defence can only discriminate 12 times (actually it 14 times were allowed in this case) .

Semantics, 14 in a pool of 700 shouldn't matter.

$1:

That doesn’t make it fair to both sides.

They both are given 14.

$1:

Peremptory challenges
634. (1) A juror may be challenged peremptorily whether or not the juror has been challenged for cause pursuant to section 638.
Maximum number
(2) Subject to subsections (2.1) to (4), the prosecutor and the accused are each entitled to

(a) twenty peremptory challenges, where the accused is charged with high treason or first degree murder;
(b) twelve peremptory challenges, where the accused is charged with an offence, other than an offence mentioned in paragraph (a), for which the accused may be sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding five years; or
(c) four peremptory challenges, where the accused is charged with an offence that is not referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).
If 13 or 14 jurors
(2.01) If the judge orders under subsection 631(2.2) that 13 or 14 jurors be sworn in accordance with this Part, the total number of peremptory challenges that the prosecutor and the accused are each entitled to is increased by one in the case of 13 jurors or two in the case of 14 jurors.

$1:

There were only 5 FN in the jury pool

That showed up We don't know how many of the 500 were FN.

You don’t seem to understand that FN are only a small percentage of the general population. The end result of this game even if both sides play will almost always be an all-white jury because there are at least 20 white peoples for every FN person in Canada and almost 7 for every one is Saskatchewan


175 names were called for this trial’s jury pool, it’s not optional to choose to “show up” as you suggest. 70 of those called asked to be excused due to health or other obligations and 50 of those requests were granted. The remaining 125 were put in a random draw that produced only 5 FN people, all of whom were systematically excluded by the defence without any reason given.

Why are you so against rhem having to provide an explanation? Explanation is the whole purpose of the legal system.

[Tricks]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

You don’t seem to understand that FN are only a small percentage of the general population. The end result of this game even if both sides play will almost always be an all-white jury because there are at least 20 white peoples for every FN person in Canada and almost 7 for every one is Saskatchewan

I fully understand that. but if 750 people are called, then that means 750/20 = 37 people if random distribution works out.

$1:

175 names were called for this trial’s jury pool, it’s not optional to choose to “show up” as you suggest.

They summoned 750 people. They only got 204. So yes, apparently in Sask. it was optional. I have no idea where you got the 175 number. Are we getting conflicting information? Or have I got something wrong?

$1:

Why are you so against rhem having to provide an explanation? Explanation is the whole purpose of the legal system.

Because sometimes you should rule someone out because of a potential for bias, in a way that may not be allowed. For instance, if a Priest gets summoned in a case that involves the accused being someone homosexual. I would want, as part of my defense, to be able to dismiss that person because they could have an automatic bias against me because of my sexual orientation. The Lawyer could attempt to argue that in the court, but because it's decided (typically) by 2 random people there summoned to be jurors, why take the chance of immediately hindering your case by having someone who has a clear bias against the defendant? Or the prosecution for that matter, that's why they both get it. For all you know, the previous two people could be part of that guy's religion to and find that offensive, so they say he's a valid juror out of spite. Because humans are stupid petty morons.

I understand the slipper slope that can be present by it, but that's also why it is limited to so few people.