Quote:
Originally Posted by Weitz
Seems like a failure of the law here. Just because what you think and feel is right shouldn’t trump what actually is right when it comes to life and death issues such as this.
This sort of thing is exhibited in other criminal situations (self defence).
Is the court not justifying anti-vaxxers and their ilk with s judgement like this?
|
That quote from the dissent was only to show that the evidence is much more complicated than it might seem from media reports.
While it is hard to accurately articulate just what is required to be guilty for failing to provide the necessaries of life, it isn’t enough for an acquittal just to say you did what you personally felt was right. It is an objective standard of reasonableness but that includes a fairly broad range of behaviours.
Negligence is not enough. It has to be something more. But that something more can be elusive. And something about the mix of the evidence makes this a difficult case. Difficult enough to have a new trial because of a very narrow error in the original jury instructions, difficult enough to split medical doctors over what illness the child had - even post mortem, difficult enough to have a conviction followed by an acquittal.
Is it a failure of the law? Maybe. But just as likely there are cases that push the limits of what any legal system can attempt to address and this is one of them.
I know one thing, while I have zero inside info, in my experience I can be very confident in saying the dissenting appeal judge is a very conscientious and diligent judge...and in this case and several others he is upheld by the SCC. I have little difficulty accepting the conviction as it stood was wrong. Which makes it easier to accept that an acquittal might well be right.
It would be completely unjust for a trial judge to decide an individual’s case based on how he or she thinks the decision would encourage or discourage other groups of people not before the court facing criminal accusations. That is not a fair thing to put on a trial judge’s shoulders.