[Neil45]

Kelly Ellard to appeal sentence in Virk death

A judge has ruled that Kelly Ellard will get a government-funded lawyer to pursue a fourth trial on charges she beat Victoria teen Reena Virk to death. Is there any point? She has caused the Virks enough pain as it is. Not to mention, she is a threat to society; for instance, when she assaulted that 58 year old women in New Westminister just proves that this girl is not fit for society. Anyone feel that there is a special place reserved in hell for this monster?

[RUEZ]

Since the courts in Canada aren't prepared to give us justice, I wish she would just die allready. Hang yourself in your cell bitch.

[TattoodGirl]

Unfortunately, she won't hang herself . She is a pyschopath, someone should have killed the bitch a long time ago. How many freakin trials does it take to prove innocence or quilty?
Just Fuckin end it.....put a bullet in the freaks head and make it end for everyone.

[grainfedprairieboy]

RUEZ RUEZ:

Since the courts in Canada aren't prepared to give us justice,

The only reason the courts will not give us justice is that they are unaccountable. They are unaccountable because they are appointed rather then elected. They are appointed rather then elected because it benefits politicians of all stripes to have a court sympathetic to their politics. It is important to have a court sympathetic to your politics in order that they can ensure legislation that the party would never draft out of fear of the electorate is created defacto.

The lazy uneducated Canadian electorate gets the judiciary it deserves and until we start electing and thus holding judges accountable for their decisions we will continue to reap what we sow.

[RUEZ]

grainfedprairieboy grainfedprairieboy:

The lazy uneducated Canadian electorate gets the judiciary it deserves and until we start electing and thus holding judges accountable for their decisions we will continue to reap what we sow.

You've got that right, the people of Canada need to wake up. Stop listening to the CBC.

[Firecat]

grainfedprairieboy grainfedprairieboy:

RUEZ RUEZ:

Since the courts in Canada aren't prepared to give us justice,

The only reason the courts will not give us justice is that they are unaccountable. They are unaccountable because they are appointed rather then elected. They are appointed rather then elected because it benefits politicians of all stripes to have a court sympathetic to their politics. It is important to have a court sympathetic to your politics in order that they can ensure legislation that the party would never draft out of fear of the electorate is created defacto.

The lazy uneducated Canadian electorate gets the judiciary it deserves and until we start electing and thus holding judges accountable for their decisions we will continue to reap what we sow.

Elevating a learned lawyer to a judge by popular vote is comparable to certifying a medical practitioner the same way. You would be asking laymen to assess someone's legal skills and judgement bsed on a campaign that can only become MORE not LESS political. Do you want a judge beholden to a rich businessman or consortium or other interest to be the one hearing a case involving them?

Elections ARE politics.

That makes as much sense as having your own job (assuming you aren't holding an elected office) appointed that way.

The law must be dispassionate; the electorate is never so.

The judicial decisoins from an elected judge might be more popular but they wouldn't necessarily be "just."

Six months ago most of the nation still firmly believed in their hearts that Maher Arar was guilty of something or he wouldn't have been arrested in the first place. Turns out after dispassionate and thorough review he was innocent. This is still not a popular conclusion to some but it is the right one. Popular is not always right. I prefer my judges accountable to no one who financed their campaign thanks.

I also prefer that they be nominated by their peers as someone who has earned respect within that community of specialists, not someone who is elected because they are good rabble-rousers. Let the medical practitioners be the ones to certify someone's medical practices to be sound; Let the orchestra conductor determine which violinist has what it takes to be soloist.

Do you want the most popular surgeon or the best one, and Who do you think is best qualified to determine who is the "best?"

Remember Dubya got elected, proving any moron with the right backing can be elected.

[Firecat]

lily lily:

Well said, Firecat. You get a little blue star.

Firecat flops at lily's feet, stretches and rolls with a loud purr.

He pads to the food pantry and waits expectantly.

[ridenrain]

Although I agree that a high budget media campaign for elected judges would be counter-productive, the current judges are not doing what the people want. We've been seeing even the most heinous crimes punished with inadequate sentences. Judges are not there to perform social engineering but to meter out fair punishment. We've seen far too many cases of repeat criminals receiving the same punishments as before, with the same predictable results, they commit the same crimes again.
We simply refuse to put criminals in prison. Opponents cite the US prison system as an example but obviously, putting them on probation and letting them out again isn't working either. That's just a "catch and release" money maker for the legal industry.

[ridenrain]

Here's the perfect example of a dangerous, repeate offender who should never be let out of jail!

$1:

Jean Brault, the disgraced adverting executive snared in the $250-million federal sponsorship scandal, has been granted parole after serving only five months of his 30-month sentence.

[grainfedprairieboy]

Firecat Firecat:

Elevating a learned lawyer to a judge by popular vote is comparable to certifying a medical practitioner the same way. You would be asking laymen to assess someone's legal skills and judgement bsed on a campaign that can only become MORE not LESS political. Do you want a judge beholden to a rich businessman or consortium or other interest to be the one hearing a case involving them?

One reason: ACCOUNTABILITY. The system is set up currently where a political party appoints someone who they believe will best represent their particular politics. A direct election allows the candidate to be scrutinised by the electorate on their views about early parole, sentence length and enforcement, bail etc. It allows the community to decide what kind of person should be permitted to sit in judgement of them. By your assessment of laymen then we should no longer allow the ultimate in jurisprudence: Juries?

Firecat Firecat:

That makes as much sense as having your own job (assuming you aren't holding an elected office) appointed that way.
The law must be dispassionate; the electorate is never so.

The judicial decisoins from an elected judge might be more popular but they wouldn't necessarily be "just."

And the decisions by an appointed and UNACCOUNTABLE judge may be more politically correct but are definitely not more just. How many levels do you want to remove Judges from those they are supposed to preside over?

Firecat Firecat:

Six months ago most of the nation still firmly believed in their hearts that Maher Arar was guilty of something or he wouldn't have been arrested in the first place. Turns out after dispassionate and thorough review he was innocent. This is still not a popular conclusion to some but it is the right one. Popular is not always right. I prefer my judges accountable to no one who financed their campaign thanks.

Rules can easily be put in place to prevent single or major source campaign financiers. This is a very weak argument. Additionally, the decisions will still be controversial but they will be ACCOUNTABLE.

Firecat Firecat:

I also prefer that they be nominated by their peers as someone who has earned respect within that community of specialists, not someone who is elected because they are good rabble-rousers. Let the medical practitioners be the ones to certify someone's medical practices to be sound; Let the orchestra conductor determine which violinist has what it takes to be soloist.

Doesn’t apply with a conductor or medical practitioners as they are judged by ability. There is ACCOUNTABILITY built into each of those systems with a poor doctor being unable to practice through either excessive malpractice insurance or peer removal. For the conductor he lives and dies on his merit. The judge operates with impunity.

Firecat Firecat:

Do you want the most popular surgeon or the best one, and Who do you think is best qualified to determine who is the "best?"

The most popular will likely be the best and those who are most qualified to determine are those who vote with their dollars. If you don’t like my views on judicial integrity you’ll hate them on healthcare.

Firecat Firecat:

Remember Dubya got elected, proving any moron with the right backing can be elected.

I remember reading how the engineers of Google based their search engine on a study done by a university on the accuracy of the masses. As one of their test they reportedly asked people to guess the weight of an ox. They sampled thousands of people of all ages, sexes and cross cultures. What they found is that no one individual even came close but combined they were within several grams of the actual weight. This became the overwhelming realisation of the researchers. The large the sampling the more accurate the results.

Only a free people can choose who sits in judgement of their accusations.

[Firecat]

grainfedprairieboy grainfedprairieboy:

Firecat Firecat:

Elevating a learned lawyer to a judge by popular vote is comparable to certifying a medical practitioner the same way. You would be asking laymen to assess someone's legal skills and judgement bsed on a campaign that can only become MORE not LESS political. Do you want a judge beholden to a rich businessman or consortium or other interest to be the one hearing a case involving them?

One reason: ACCOUNTABILITY. The system is set up currently where a political party appoints someone who they believe will best represent their particular politics. A direct election allows the candidate to be scrutinised by the electorate on their views about early parole, sentence length and enforcement, bail etc. It allows the community to decide what kind of person should be permitted to sit in judgement of them. By your assessment of laymen then we should no longer allow the ultimate in jurisprudence: Juries?

Firecat Firecat:

That makes as much sense as having your own job (assuming you aren't holding an elected office) appointed that way.
The law must be dispassionate; the electorate is never so.

The judicial decisoins from an elected judge might be more popular but they wouldn't necessarily be "just."

And the decisions by an appointed and UNACCOUNTABLE judge may be more politically correct but are definitely not more just. How many levels do you want to remove Judges from those they are supposed to preside over?

Firecat Firecat:

Six months ago most of the nation still firmly believed in their hearts that Maher Arar was guilty of something or he wouldn't have been arrested in the first place. Turns out after dispassionate and thorough review he was innocent. This is still not a popular conclusion to some but it is the right one. Popular is not always right. I prefer my judges accountable to no one who financed their campaign thanks.

Rules can easily be put in place to prevent single or major source campaign financiers. This is a very weak argument. Additionally, the decisions will still be controversial but they will be ACCOUNTABLE.

Firecat Firecat:

I also prefer that they be nominated by their peers as someone who has earned respect within that community of specialists, not someone who is elected because they are good rabble-rousers. Let the medical practitioners be the ones to certify someone's medical practices to be sound; Let the orchestra conductor determine which violinist has what it takes to be soloist.

Doesn’t apply with a conductor or medical practitioners as they are judged by ability. There is ACCOUNTABILITY built into each of those systems with a poor doctor being unable to practice through either excessive malpractice insurance or peer removal. For the conductor he lives and dies on his merit. The judge operates with impunity.

Firecat Firecat:

Do you want the most popular surgeon or the best one, and Who do you think is best qualified to determine who is the "best?"

The most popular will likely be the best and those who are most qualified to determine are those who vote with their dollars. If you don’t like my views on judicial integrity you’ll hate them on healthcare.

Firecat Firecat:

Remember Dubya got elected, proving any moron with the right backing can be elected.

I remember reading how the engineers of Google based their search engine on a study done by a university on the accuracy of the masses. As one of their test they reportedly asked people to guess the weight of an ox. They sampled thousands of people of all ages, sexes and cross cultures. What they found is that no one individual even came close but combined they were within several grams of the actual weight. This became the overwhelming realisation of the researchers. The large the sampling the more accurate the results.

Only a free people can choose who sits in judgement of their accusations.

I quite disagree with your characterization of how judges are nominated and appointed but you're entitled to that view.
Thre is no innate flaw in your reasoning but I feel you reach the wrong conclusion. But your counter-argument is interesting.

I did work in health care and I've had some first-hand experience with it
my account was published by the Ottawa Citizen Weekly magazine in February, 2001. It was, however turned into a a rah-rah feel-good piece by my editor humph.

so I wonder just how our opinions would compare anbout the healthcare system.

I would guess you do favour multi-tiering and I think there is a place for that.
But that's a topic for a whole 'nother thread.

[CrazyCanuck007]

just kill the bitch!

preferably by blow torch from the feet up, one inch at a time!

[Firecat]

lily lily:

I have a really good idea. The RCMP should amass a file and send it to the US, who can then deport her to Syria.........

...Where they read that she smoked a cigarette while she held someone's head under water with her foot and commision her as an officer.