Douglas Garland Trial - Guilty- 1st degree- 3 counts / 75 years no parole.

[The Familia]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I don't understand your last sentence. Do you mean too soft and sympathetic on the guilty?

Correct. I should rephrase, the consequences and penalties for those found guilty are too soft.

[DionTheDman]

Maybe he's suggesting lawyers do a half ass job when the client is "clearly" guilty...that should solve the problem.

Nobody's stopping you from having an opinion, Familia. But nobody's stopping me from dropping a huge load on that opinion when it's clearly uneducated and clouded by some misguided resentment. Especially when it's directed at someone whom I consider a friend, and who is very highly regarded in the legal profession.

[The Familia]

Originally Posted by DionTheDman

Maybe he's suggesting lawyers do a half ass job when the client is "clearly" guilty...that should solve the problem.

Nobody's stopping you from having an opinion, Familia. But nobody's stopping me from dropping a huge load on that opinion when it's clearly uneducated and clouded by some misguided resentment. Especially when it's directed at someone whom I consider a friend, and who is very highly regarded in the legal profession.

Ha. Very hypocritical. You state I'm allowed to have an opinion but then proceed to say mine is uneducated and misguided and your opinion rules. Whatever buddy. Enjoy your next family BBQ with him.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

My issue with defence lawyers is that if they simply were there for checks and balances against oppressive governments/police forces, that's completely understandable. When a defence lawyer preys upon our (in my opinion) weak judicial system and manages to drop a second degree murder charge to a manslaughter conviction, that's where I have an issue with their morality. The incident I am referring to is for a friends brother who was murdered in Calgary. I have very little respect for the type of lawyer who tries to minimize the sentence for a client who is clearly a murderer.

You see this is what the presumption of innocence is about. Until convicted (in a court according to law, not by the police or the media or the victim's family) you are not clearly anything but innocent according to our system.

Since my pointing out that David Milgaard was 'clearly a murderer' even when he was completely innocent seems to have no impact on many posters, try giving a read to this summary of the Royal Commission into the wrongful conviction of Donald Marshall Jr. It makes me sick to my stomach:

https://www.novascotia.ca/just/marsh...n_findings.pdf

I can't find the full report online right now, but take my word for it, the Commission found that if the defence lawyers had done even basic work that it was their duty to do, it would be hard to imagine how Marshall Jr. could have been convicted in the first place.

So there's the problem with your view. Marshall Jr. was 'clearly a murderer'. That, and the fact he was native may well have been why the defence lawyers did sweet f-all to actually defend him (and why the police, crown and basically every level of court completely failed to even remotely act just and fair).

People probably would've cheered hearing about him being beaten in jail too I imagine.

Problem was he was innocent. Not just in the presumed technical way...but factually innocent. Didn't do it. Even though everyone said he did.

Arguing to prevent a 'clear murderer' from being convicted as such IS the check and balance against oppressive government / police forces. Why is that so difficult to understand?

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by The Familia

Watch your mouth. I happen to know the murder victim in a case where he defended the guy who murdered my acquaintance. See it from the other side #######.

As you seem to have direct anecdotal experience, what is it specifically about Der vs other criminal defence lawyers, that makes him a 'piece of crap'.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by The Familia

I don't know every case he has ever worked on. I don't go to his house for dinner and chat. I'm sure he must have had an innocent client that he proved was innocent.

Thanks for the lecture. I'm scolded for choice of words in my commment, yet DiontheDman and others teed off on me and that is acceptable. Interesting.

You defamed Balfour Der...flat out...with no reference to any facts upon which you based comparing him to convicted triple murderer Doug Garland.

People who know him came to the defence of his reputation.

You didn't get scolded for "choice of words."

[GGG]

Originally Posted by MBates

Arguing to prevent a 'clear murderer' from being convicted as such IS the check and balance against oppressive government / police forces. Why is that so difficult to understand?

It's difficult to understand because you are applying a dispassionate rational argument to an emotional situation. It's correct and the correct approach but that doesn't hold much weight when emotion gets involved.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by The Familia

Ha. Very hypocritical. You state I'm allowed to have an opinion but then proceed to say mine is uneducated and misguided and your opinion rules. Whatever buddy. Enjoy your next family BBQ with him.

Everyone's entitled to an opinion. Nobody once disputed that. There's nothing hypocritical here though.

However if said opinion is posted in public, it's also entitled to be scrutinized, and if it's uneducated or misguided it's more than entitled to be called out upon.

I used to have a very similar opinion of defense lawyers when I was younger and couldn't believe anyone but slime would enter the profession.

Thankfully people like MBates and Dion have presented a clear presentation from the other side that have made me change my opinion in the last couple decades. I'll openly admit my opinion was baseless and facts have very much swayed my opinion. One of the many positives of open discussion, especially on a forum such as CP where there's many more views than people I hang out with, since I tend to gravitate to people with similar stances on many subjects in real life.

I find it strange you anecdotally lambaste him, but refute the position of people that are close enough to him to judge his character, and then take the solid rebuttle of "Whatever, buddy". But you are certainly entitled to your opinion and I don't think anyone is trying to dispute that.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by MBates

Why is that so difficult to understand?

It isn't difficult to understand, and I've even said earlier that I get it's their job. I'm not some dunce that your last sentence is implying either. Like GGG said earlier, you're giving a rational answer to an emotional situation, and believe me when I say that burying a young adult knowing full well his killer is getting out in under 5 years due to how astute a defence lawyer he hired is hands down the hardest thing I've been through in my time.

I truthfully hope no one ever has to know that feeling. I'm just a friend of the victim, I have no clue how the family could deal with it.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

I'm 54 and I've known no murder victims nor perpetrators.

Either you're lucky or don't get out much

I'm close to the same age.

- brother-in-law who I only met twice stabbed to death in a bar fight
- brother of childhood buddy shot to death at a convenience store robbery in Indiana. (nobody was ever caught)
- my wife's co-worker was killed by her husband in a murder-suicide.

[RougeUnderoos]

Well this has certainly taken some weird twists and turns.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Either you're lucky or don't get out much

I'm close to the same age.

- brother-in-law who I only met twice stabbed to death in a bar fight
- brother of childhood buddy shot to death at a convenience store robbery in Indiana. (nobody was ever caught)
- my wife's co-worker was killed by her husband in a murder-suicide.

There were 604 murders in ALL of Canada in 2015 (couldn't quickly find 2016 stats) and 133 in Alberta.

I think it's safe to say not knowing someone in these situations is common?

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

There were 604 murders in ALL of Canada in 2015 (couldn't quickly find 2016 stats) and 133 in Alberta.

I think it's safe to say not knowing someone in these situations is common?

This story is a little over a year old, but it has 505 people killed in Calgary since 1990: http://calgaryherald.com/news/crime/murder-data

[Northendzone]

Count me as someone who does not get out much or know many people. I can't even think of a friend of a friend who has died.

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Either you're lucky or don't get out much

I'm close to the same age.

- brother-in-law who I only met twice stabbed to death in a bar fight
- brother of childhood buddy shot to death at a convenience store robbery in Indiana. (nobody was ever caught)
- my wife's co-worker was killed by her husband in a murder-suicide.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by MBates

You defamed Balfour Der...flat out...with no reference to any facts upon which you based comparing him to convicted triple murderer Doug Garland.

People who know him came to the defence of his reputation.

You didn't get scolded for "choice of words."

exactly. Familia, this is a case of it being better to step away from the keyboard.
your emotions have gotten the best of you this time, and it's not doing you or anyone else any good.

[Dentoman]

Wasn't Balfour Der a Crown prosecutor at one time?
Thanks to all the lawyers who have been contributing to this thread .... your contributions have deepened my knowledge and respect for criminal defence lawyers. Now for corporate lawyers ........

[MBates]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

It isn't difficult to understand, and I've even said earlier that I get it's their job. I'm not some dunce that your last sentence is implying either. Like GGG said earlier, you're giving a rational answer to an emotional situation, and believe me when I say that burying a young adult knowing full well his killer is getting out in under 5 years due to how astute a defence lawyer he hired is hands down the hardest thing I've been through in my time.

I truthfully hope no one ever has to know that feeling. I'm just a friend of the victim, I have no clue how the family could deal with it.

Maybe my post did imply you were a dunce. It was not intended to. So my apology. And I fully accept the response that when it is personal and emotional it is therefore difficult to be rational (as opposed to not being able to understand).

So let me suggest only one further challenge to your statement above:

"...his killer is getting out in 5 years due to how astute a defence lawyer he hired..."

I will be frank. I see why defence lawyers get this burden and I know that part of my choosing this professional role means I will carry it more often than not. That is fine.

All I ask is that people try - even when it is hard due to emotion - to not blame the defence lawyer for doing his or her job (especially because of the significant importance of the role of defence counsel over and above the circumstances of the individual case).

Your sentence could just as easily (and in many cases might more appropriately) read:

"...due to how high of a standard proof beyond a reasonable doubt is"

"...due to how unprepared the prosecutor was"

"...due to how negligent the police investigation was"

"...due to how effectively he planned the crime"

"...due to how light sentences are in Canadian law"

etc.

I get that sometimes unscrupulous defence lawyers do act improperly. I have seen it happen. But I suggest that is a much more rare occurrence than public perception appears to be.

[belsarius]

Just wanted to thank all the information and insight into the defense lawyers.

I wanted to add a respect for the ability to put respect and reliance on the Law over personal morality. When I heard that Garland was assaulted in jail I was conflicted. Morally I was happy, on a deeply emotional level I despise him and wish the very worse; but on a level of societal rule of Law I was angered that this was allowed to happen to him, he was tried, convicted and sentenced to punishment and yet these others decided the punishment wasn't enough.

I applaud his lawyers for speaking out against the attacks, not because they are defending him, but in defending the foundation of our legal system and precedents. As far as I know his defense team was as horrified and disgusted by his actions, but respected the laws of this country more than their own moralities and were able to do their jobs, and continue to do their jobs regardless of personal bias.

I don't think this is something I could do, but I feel thankful to live in a country where there are professionals who are able to meet that standard to ensure our societal laws are respected and adhered to.

[DionTheDman]

Originally Posted by The Familia

Ha. Very hypocritical. You state I'm allowed to have an opinion but then proceed to say mine is uneducated and misguided and your opinion rules. Whatever buddy. Enjoy your next family BBQ with him.

Where's the hypocrisy? Let me tell you what I'm bringing to the table here.

1. I am a lawyer
2. I have also been on "the other side" as you put it as well, having personally known a victim of violent crime. The perpetrator of said violent crime was defended by Balfour Der
3. I know Balfour Der personally

So perhaps I am in a pretty unique spot to tell you how scummy Mr. Der is, or is not. If you're in a better position than me to comment, please feel free to do so.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by MBates

I get that sometimes unscrupulous defence lawyers do act improperly. I have seen it happen. But I suggest that is a much more rare occurrence than public perception appears to be.

It's this classic movies/TV/famous person/whatever that clouds peoples views and makes them think these are the norm, when as you suggested, they are rare.