Page 1 of 1
Justice should not take this long...
Posted: Wed May 19, 2021 9:34 am
by Tired Mama
A story from my home province... and one I am beyond happy to see end with a victory for the woman in question... but good GOD does it ever shine a light on how woefully lacking our system still is. It should not be this hard to get vindication for a victim of assault. Full stop.
https://theindependent.ca/journalism/ho ... l-assault/
Everywhere I look in my neighborhood, I see signs of support for Jane Doe. I live next door to a womens resource center and their windows have been plastered with neon poster boards declaring things like "We believe her!" "Three trials is too many!" and "#SupportJaneDoe"
I'm very glad her identity was protected through all this madness at the least. Whomever and wherever she is... I hope and pray that this verdict is the first step in the journey of healing.
As for Ex Constable Carl Douglas Snelgrove... lets all hope he gets some much needed perspective via soap-dropping, shall we?
Re: Justice should not take this long...
Posted: Wed May 19, 2021 2:29 pm
by RikkiTikkiTavi
She was extraordinary in her persistence. Just reading what she went through in the third trial caused me empathy fatigue. I am glad she persevered - not just for her sake but for other women as well.
It brings to question who else the officer violated. His actions seemed very predatory. He was not super violent, but since he knew what to look for in an inebriated person he did not have to use force - just coercion. I totally believed her account - even though she did not recall everything due to her drunk state. His account was polished and rehearsed - and I didn't believe a word of it. He was determined to have sex with her and he knew she would be unable to resist.
Hope she will put this behind her and go on to live a wonderful life.
Re: Justice should not take this long...
Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2021 7:02 pm
by NAS
Yah unfortunately it's a bit of a damned if you do damned if you don't situation, only way to make things go faster for any sort of criminal trial would be to remove the rights currently afforded to accused. One such example would be to change proof requirements, instead of requiring proof beyond all reasonable doubt it could be simply on a balance of probabilities
The problem is doing so would significantly increase incarceration rates across the board which would also include increasing the number if innocent people sent to jail.
Re: Justice should not take this long...
Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2021 5:25 pm
by RikkiTikkiTavi
NAS wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 7:02 pm
Yah unfortunately it's a bit of a damned if you do damned if you don't situation, only way to make things go faster for any sort of criminal trial would be to remove the rights currently afforded to accused. One such example would be to change proof requirements, instead of requiring proof beyond all reasonable doubt it could be simply on a balance of probabilities
The problem is doing so would significantly increase incarceration rates across the board which would also include increasing the number if innocent people sent to jail.
The problem with this whole situation and the incredible delay was caused by technical issues of the court. The first trial problem was that the judge failed to properly explain 'reasonable doubt' - so they did a second trial. That trial was a problem because the judge selected by hand (think pulling slips of paper out of a bowl) which two random alternate jurors would be dismissed from the jury deliberations. So they had a third trial...
This whole thing went on so long that one of the expert witnesses from the first trial died before the third trial. Luckily they allowed his testimony posthumously.
I think the redo of the trial regarding not explaining reasonable doubt was valid -- but the second trial being nixed because of the way the judge randomly selected the jurors to be dismissed - that makes a mockery of the system. In the final trial the judge made a big deal about using a system like a lottery drawing to choose the random juror - just so that his hand was not touching anything.
So - it isn't that the system should not afford the accused a fair trial - it is that the system needs to get its act together and properly run those trials. It might be said the lackadaisical running of the trials indicates a lack of respect for the victim who seemed to suffer the most from all the repeated testimony and cross examination.
Re: Justice should not take this long...
Posted: Sat Jun 19, 2021 9:05 am
by NAS
RikkiTikkiTavi wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 5:25 pm
NAS wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 7:02 pm
Yah unfortunately it's a bit of a damned if you do damned if you don't situation, only way to make things go faster for any sort of criminal trial would be to remove the rights currently afforded to accused. One such example would be to change proof requirements, instead of requiring proof beyond all reasonable doubt it could be simply on a balance of probabilities
The problem is doing so would significantly increase incarceration rates across the board which would also include increasing the number if innocent people sent to jail.
The problem with this whole situation and the incredible delay was caused by technical issues of the court. The first trial problem was that the judge failed to properly explain 'reasonable doubt' - so they did a second trial. That trial was a problem because the judge selected by hand (think pulling slips of paper out of a bowl) which two random alternate jurors would be dismissed from the jury deliberations. So they had a third trial...
This whole thing went on so long that one of the expert witnesses from the first trial died before the third trial. Luckily they allowed his testimony posthumously.
I think the redo of the trial regarding not explaining reasonable doubt was valid -- but the second trial being nixed because of the way the judge randomly selected the jurors to be dismissed - that makes a mockery of the system. In the final trial the judge made a big deal about using a system like a lottery drawing to choose the random juror - just so that his hand was not touching anything.
So - it isn't that the system should not afford the accused a fair trial - it is that the system needs to get its act together and properly run those trials. It might be said the lackadaisical running of the trials indicates a lack of respect for the victim who seemed to suffer the most from all the repeated testimony and cross examination.
That's a misunderstanding of the issue. The judges were not being disrespectful nor were they being lackadaisical in there actions, they issue is that becuase guilt must be established beyond all reasonable doubt that the smallest error can bring about a retrial. And becuase the judges are human they will make minor errors, those errors were likely not even realized by anyone present, only discovered after reviewing the transcript with a fine tooth comb.
You'll find retrials popping up fairly regularly with any lengthy trial simply becuase although the system expects near perfection it is beyond human capability to reach this. You'll find mistrials and retrials more than you might think in lengthy trials for this reason