Jane Creba Trial: JSR Charged, Controversy!

[lordmandeep]

Yeah those stupid defense lawyers should not be listened to...

As I said, the defense lawyers try to seek compassion to people who do not deserve it.

 

[ganjavih]

The job of the defence lawyer is to protect their client... what do you expect them to do?

 

[lordmandeep]

Yes your right 100%...


That does not mean the judge or Jury should listen to them...
The blame is not on the lawyers but on those who fall into the traps and lies put out by the lawyers.

 

[Hydrogen]

Hmm. Then why are countries in Europe with gun control enjoying murder rates a tiny fraction of those in the United States?

Awe, c'mon man. They're European.

Honestly, a concealed weapon for everyone? Why don't we just greet each other by saying: "Hi, how are yah - and by the way f*ck with me and maybe I'll kill ya. Willing to risk that punk?"

 

[Second_in_pie]

Yeah those stupid defense lawyers should not be listened to...

As I said, the defense lawyers try to seek compassion to people who do not deserve it.

I agree with you 100% Anybody that's willing to protect a murderer just really irks me, and is probably a selfish jerk concerned only with advancing their own career.

There are some people that deserve to have compassion, but anyone in a gang is not one of those people. Perhaps our police could do better to help people get out of gangs and prevent gangs, but that definitely does not excuse killing someone, or even any other criminal activity.

Now my easter weekend is going to be reduced to figuring out how to make the legal system better. I'll post when I figure it out

 

[ShonTron]

Again, I wonder if people here watch too much Dexter.

 

[doady]

Yes your right 100%...


That does not mean the judge or Jury should listen to them...

Is this for real?

 

[lordmandeep]

Well I course I mean of course the Defense should be heard!!!


However if the Judge and Jury had half a mind, they should see through the lies...Trying to play the "kid is poor, he no choice to commit crime", or the "he was only a kid" card...

There is nothing wrong with defense doing this. Its those who believe that nonsense. They have let dozens of young criminals back on to the streets who know commit more crimes.

 

[kEiThZ]

They are not 'lies'. The defence's job is to criticize the case sufficiently to create reasonable doubt. It is essential to the process of a fair trial. The prosecution's job is to put forward an airtight case. If the Crown's argument is sound, then the jury will convict. If not the defendant will walk.

There's no point in having the justice system if we are going to advocate that juries hear the defence and then just proceed to ignore it.

 

[Whoaccio]

I agree with lordmandeep. Even though I normally try to take an understanding view on crime, I get exceedingly frustrated where it appears that charges are dropped based, sometimes solely, on technicalities and legal procedure. I just saw in the Post that Kelly Ellard had her conviction overturned again, for the third bloody time. I get that everyone is innocent until proven otherwise, and we shouldn't jump to conclusions, but she has been found guilty about 3 separate times now. If ever there was a criminal case where, I think, we have a good idea of guilt it is this one. Yet, because of legal procedure, the 3rd conviction has been overturned and now the prosecutor will have to file a fourth round of charges, for a murder she has basically admitted to committing.

Its ridiculous cases like this, where horrendous crimes are punished not based on guilt or innocence of the accused, but by legal procedure, that make people loose faith in the justice department.

 

[Hydrogen]

I agree with you 100% Anybody that's willing to protect a murderer just really irks me, and is probably a selfish jerk concerned only with advancing their own career.

There are some people that deserve to have compassion, but anyone in a gang is not one of those people. Perhaps our police could do better to help people get out of gangs and prevent gangs, but that definitely does not excuse killing someone, or even any other criminal activity.

People are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The purpose of the court proceeding is to show that guilt (or innocence). The burden of proof lies with the prosecution.

You confuse your own misunderstanding of the legal system as a defence of criminality, which is actually sad.

Well I course I mean of course the Defense should be heard!!!


However if the Judge and Jury had half a mind, they should see through the lies...Trying to play the "kid is poor, he no choice to commit crime", or the "he was only a kid" card...

There is nothing wrong with defense doing this. Its those who believe that nonsense. They have let dozens of young criminals back on to the streets who know commit more crimes.

Actually, on the basis of your posts here, it's clear you don't know what you mean. Nor is it clear that you comprehend the legal system. By suggesting that the judge and jury "see" through lies, you appear to support a kangaroo court that passes sentence on the basis of opinions and rubber-stamps sentences. You assume a stance that anyone brought before the court is automatically guilty. The fact is, the police and prosecution must prove their case publicly and according to process, otherwise we end up in a police state. You'd probably have no issue with that - until you were hauled in front of court and deemed guilty, then you would be whining and wailing.

I agree with lordmandeep. Even though I normally try to take an understanding view on crime, I get exceedingly frustrated where it appears that charges are dropped based, sometimes solely, on technicalities and legal procedure. I just saw in the Post that Kelly Ellard had her conviction overturned again, for the third bloody time. I get that everyone is innocent until proven otherwise, and we shouldn't jump to conclusions, but she has been found guilty about 3 separate times now. If ever there was a criminal case where, I think, we have a good idea of guilt it is this one. Yet, because of legal procedure, the 3rd conviction has been overturned and now the prosecutor will have to file a fourth round of charges, for a murder she has basically admitted to committing.

Its ridiculous cases like this, where horrendous crimes are punished not based on guilt or innocence of the accused, but by legal procedure, that make people loose faith in the justice department.

The court system is not perfect by any means, but what is the alternative? Your own example illustrates that certain societal prejudices still carry a tremendous amount of weight and bring great pressure to bear on the legal system. Nevertheless, the system is still there and must be seen to at least operate in a just and reasonable manner.

I don't think you agree with lordmandeep. You've stated frustration at those times where the system fails to perform adequately; lormandeep has stated what appears to be a complete disregard for due process.

 

[Whoaccio]

The court system is not perfect by any means, but what is the alternative? Your own example illustrates that certain societal prejudices still carry a tremendous amount of weight and bring great pressure to bear on the legal system. Nevertheless, the system is still there and must be seen to at least operate in a just and reasonable manner.

I'm not an expert on jurisprudence, but European legal systems tend to have less strict criteria for things like the presentation of evidence. They usually don't have jury trials, so less emphasis is placed on technicalities that might confuse or mislead the jury. This is how the Ellard case fell apart, apparent misleading instructions to the jury. Then again of course their systems have other problems, but I'm sure there is something we could learn from them.

 

[lordmandeep]

They are not 'lies'. The defence's job is to criticize the case sufficiently to create reasonable doubt. It is essential to the process of a fair trial. The prosecution's job is to put forward an airtight case. If the Crown's argument is sound, then the jury will convict. If not the defendant will walk.

tell me why Can I bring up the past of a witness and not of the person being accused. What does smoking crack at 15 have to do anything with the credibility of the witness...I say we should eliminate this from our system. As many times before credible witnesses who see a crime first hand as discredited for some silly unrelated reason, allowing many people who are guilty walk off smiling.

I am not against due process or the Justice system.

Seriously you guys say "one cannot say anything the Justice system because there is no alternative". There isn't but there are ways to make it a much better system which is fair for everyone.

Actually, on the basis of your posts here, it's clear you don't know what you mean. Nor is it clear that you comprehend the legal system. By suggesting that the judge and jury "see" through lies, you appear to support a kangaroo court that passes sentence on the basis of opinions and rubber-stamps sentences. You assume a stance that anyone brought before the court is automatically guilty. The fact is, the police and prosecution must prove their case publicly and according to process, otherwise we end up in a police state. You'd probably have no issue with that - until you were hauled in front of court and deemed guilty, then you would be whining and wailing.

First of all I am talking about the sentencing part, after a verdict is announced.

Answer this, why would an innocent man be asking his lawyers to reduce his sentence on the grounds of compassion. That means the defense did all it can to disprove the charge and now see the only option is to reduce the punishment. Now, Giving up and asking for mercy isn't wrong...

I am saying that after the verdict is announced and where the defense is asking for compassion for these thugs, that none should be given.

Is seeking real justice so wrong these days.

Are we so consumed over the rights of the criminal that we forget about the effect these thugs are having on our society.

I fear for the future...

 

[Second_in_pie]

People are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The purpose of the court proceeding is to show that guilt (or innocence). The burden of proof lies with the prosecution.

You confuse your own misunderstanding of the legal system as a defence of criminality, which is actually sad.

There was nowhere in my post that I said all gang members should be presumed guilty until proven innocent. I was referring to the fact that the defense pleads somewhat crazy things such as "He was a kid! He didn't know" or "He was so poor that he had to resort to this. Put yourself in this guys shoes." I'm simply agreeing with lordmandeep, not saying that the legal system defends criminals

 

[urbanboom]

There was nowhere in my post that I said all gang members should be presumed guilty until proven innocent. I was referring to the fact that the defense pleads somewhat crazy things such as "He was a kid! He didn't know" or "He was so poor that he had to resort to this. Put yourself in this guys shoes." I'm simply agreeing with lordmandeep, not saying that the legal system defends criminals

Well, in terms of the youth sentencing I have to say this: we as a society don't give kids the right to make their own choices until they turn 18. Until then, all of their choices legally belong to their parents. They aren't trusted to make choices in terms of voting, driving, and drinking. If we don't trust kids to make choices as adults, then why should be held accountable as such?