Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site alberta.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcsri!ubc-vision!alberta!ken From: ken@alberta.UUCP (Ken Hruday) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Television coverage and censorship in Canada (in net.columbia??) Message-ID: <830@alberta.UUCP> Date: Wed, 12-Mar-86 14:24:41 EST Article-I.D.: alberta.830 Posted: Wed Mar 12 14:24:41 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 12-Mar-86 16:24:04 EST References: <6396@utzoo.UUCP> <514@kontron.UUCP> <814@alberta.UUCP> <11573@watnot.UUCP> <42@gilbbs.UUCP> Reply-To: ken@pembina.UUCP (Ken Hruday) Distribution: net.politics Organization: U. of Alberta, Edmonton, AB Lines: 117 Keywords: Law somtimes confused with justice Summary: The Mounties always get their man :-). In article <42@gilbbs.UUCP> mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) writes: >In article <11573@watnot.UUCP>, jjboritz@watnot.UUCP (Jim Boritz) writes: >> Asides from this I would like to mention some things that are different in the >> Canadian and American systems of justice. >> >> In the US you tend to lean very heavily towards protection of the accused, and >> freeedom of the individual. In fact you lean in this direction so heavily, >> that there are cases in which guilty persons have been set free because the >> police violated the rights of this individual. > > Oh, good heavens! You mean the system isn't *PERFECT*? Oh, what *SHALL* > we do, what shall we do? Don't panic Tom, help is on the way - remember "The Mounties always get their man" :-). If you follow my article carefully you *too* can correct injustice. > >> In Canada we lean towards the protection of society as a whole, and we place >> less emphasis on the rights of the accused that we do on the rights of >> society. The arm of the law in Canada is much heavier in Canada than it is >> in the US. The biggest problem is that most Canadians know more about the >> American Legal System than they know about the Canadian Leagl System. I >> myself was one of these, luckily I have been told or taught what the >> differences are. Canada now has a constitution of its own. Could you believe >> that we existed for over a hundred years without a constitution. Imagine that. >> :-) Somehow we haven't gone to hell in a handbasket, we haven't become >> socialists or communists or Nazi's. We did not have 'Freedom of Speech' as >> a right. Yet we had it somehow. We had no CIA or FBI or NSC . When we got >> our constitution though we soon after got the CSA (Civilian Security Agency) >> They are probably not related, but sometimes I wonder. > > > In other words, sir, in Canada, the law presumes that because you are >accused, your have few, if any rights. On the other hand, society *MUST* be >protected from filthy criminals, and society has the right to stopm on you >as an individual because you are accused. This is a called "reading between the lines", normally it isn't difficult but in your case I suggest that a visit to the local optometrist is in order. In any event, even in Canada the accused is entitled to be judged fairly, without being "stopm" [sic.] on. Something that you should remember is that the accused has a special status even in your society. It is possible, for instance, to detain (imprison) someone accused of a crime with or without bail before the trial. Is this detention not a restriction of their liberties? Isn't this a "pre-judgement" of the accused?? Furthermore, don't you agree that sometimes it's a pragmatic necessity? > Unfortunately, we in the U.S. are also moving toward this disgusting point >of view. Our so-called "victim's rights" movements are nothing more than thinly >veiled attempts to remove the protections provided under the law to ensure that >one will be, in fact, considered innocent until proven guilty, and that the >evidence generated against the accused must be gathered in a lawful and >honest fashion. Who might be behind these attempts to "take away" your rights Tom - the the communists? Maybe those nasty Democrats? Perhaps the prime motivation of these movements is to restore some measure of justice which is percieved to be lacking. There is a great deal of evidence to indicate that your country is disatisied with it's current legal system. As a highly educated society (12.7 years - so I'm told) perhaps there is something more behind it than the sinister desire to deprive you of your rights. I doubt very much that these people want to make you "guilty before proven innocent." > > Having been the victim of a violent crime, I can fully understand the >emotionally driven desire for revenge. Certainly, it is difficult to see the >perpetrator of a crime against you, or your family or friends, set free under >some technicality. This is partially the fault of an imperfect system, and >partially the fault of unethical attorneys, who view their role as that of >"getting the client aquitted", as opposed to "ensuring that the client >receives the full protection of the law". Don't blame the lawyers because they're using an imperfect system. The job of the defense attorney is to give his/her client every chance possible under the law, if he/she does any less than they will have failed not only their client but the justice system as a whole. The injustice is in the law - *NOT* in the laws application. > Okay, so the system isn't perfect. In a society that CLAIMS to value >freedom, it remains true that it is better that 10 guilty perpetrators go >free, than that one innocent person is convicted. I think that the old chest nut "better 10 guilty free than one innocent be imprisoned" applies to the principle - innocent until proven guilty. But in this instance we are discussing people known to guilty - thus this "folk axiom" doesn't apply :-). Everyone should be considered innocent until proven guilty. But if an individual is definitely known to be guilty why should he go free? Accidental injustice will always occur; letting 10 guilty go free does not correct the balance, since innocent men are still imprisoned even under the present system. In fact, the net effect of what you argue is that 10 guilty go free *AND* one innocent person is convicted :-). In a society that CLAIMS to love truth and justice - how could any evidence be rejected out of court on the grounds that it was gathered improperly? A court must decide on the basis of truth - "The *WHOLE* truth and nothing but the truth." (see - I can spout old cliches too! :-) Let those who gathered the evidence improperly be punished - not the society. > Remember that the laws granting the accused protections and rights were >eneacted to counteract perceived brutality and injustice in the system. >Remember also that someday, it may be *YOU* who is the accused, and won't you >want some protection, some rights to defend yourself? I must agree with you here for the sake of variety. As the innocent accused I would expect rights and protection - but as the guilty I would expect none. The brutality and violations of rights are caused by the individuals who represent the system. Why should society shoot itself in the foot because some local sheriff takes it upon himself to use an illegal wiretap to obtain evidence? A one year term in prison should be in order for the sheriff - after all, it is the sheriff who has transgressed against the rights of the criminal *not* society. We would imprison a criminal for transgressing the rights of someone else wouldn't we Tom? Tom?? ... well, at least I would. Ken Hruday University of Alberta