2 Calgary brothers charged with sex attack on teen

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Yeah, I agree completely.

As far as I'm concerned no victim impact statement should be allowed in any case. Ever. The very concept is a blight on the justice system.

Who knows what the judge's rationale was for not allowing it in this particular one, though.

I can think of many more ''blights'' on our ''justice'' system then victims of a horrible crime being allowed to have their day in court and confront their attacker(s) and having a chance to tell them to their face how their crime affected them.

[Sainters7]

Yeah that's brutal what the defence is seeking. It takes a very special person to be a defense attorney. A very $$$ > morality type personality. How someone can defend people like that for a living and still get a good night's sleep is something I'll never understand.

[To Be Quite Honest]

I was thinking about this thread a few days ago. It's so gut wrenching and horrible on every level.

[taco.vidal]

Google the judges the name Terry Semenuk. He seems like a liberal hug-a-thug judge. First pages of results are news stories with him being easy on criminals.

[calgaryblood]

I can not believe a crime like this and these scumbags will be out in maximum 10 years and very likely less.

Rape and kidnapping should carry a minimum 25 year sentence.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

I can think of many more ''blights'' on our ''justice'' system then victims of a horrible crime being allowed to have their day in court and confront their attacker(s) and having a chance to tell them to their face how their crime affected them.

I would actually be fine with it if the judge wasn't present, didn't hear it and it didn't impact sentencing. If it was just a cathartic measure for victims, that would be one thing, but that's not what the process is. If I were a judge, I would take every measure I could to keep those statements away from my hearing.

And yes of course there are bigger problems with the justice system. I never said there weren't.

[puffnstuff]

I think it serves a purpose to have the judge hear the impact statements. Justice should be blind but it shouldn't be ignorant.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by Sainters7

Yeah that's brutal what the defence is seeking. It takes a very special person to be a defense attorney. A very $$$ > morality type personality. How someone can defend people like that for a living and still get a good night's sleep is something I'll never understand.

Ok, I'll bite...

Criminal defence lawyers are statistically among the lowest paid and hardest working members of the profession, who by the very nature of the people and subject matter they deal with, necessarily operate with the highest regard for ethics.

Your righteous indignation betrays your superficial understanding of what it means to have a justice system as typically defined in an advanced constitutional democracy.

You see, to avoid the appalling injustices of rule by lynch mob or totalitarian decree, one must accept that an integral part of a system that seeks (and sometimes even provides) truly just outcomes is to ensure that a person who the government declares through its armed officers should be imprisoned has his or her rights protected in a fair and impartial hearing.

In that sense, I defend people charged with heinous crimes so that you and the rest of society can sleep at night unencumbered by worry that innocent people are languishing away in prison falsely punished on your behalf for things they did not do.

Defence lawyers have families, just like you. Walk the same streets as you. Are victims of crime just like you. We suffer through horrific images and evidence no more no less than do police, judges, prosecutors, and jurors.

Your employ of 'morality' as a measure of what defence lawyers must lack in order to defend "people like that" misses completely that it is society's very application of morality which gives the defence lawyer his mandate.

It is precisely because I serve the morality of a society governed by the rule of law that I not only defend "people like that" but do so with pride, a true sense of purpose, and I sleep just fine.

I will certainly agree with you it takes special people to be good criminal defence counsel. But not because they reap fame and fortune through corruption of their morals. Rather, because we ignore the angry mob mentality, the threats, the sneers and the jokes and we fearlessly make arguments on behalf of those who have often times no other hope and to whom it would be all too easy for us to act unjustly.

Parenthetically, on occasion, we even have the privilege and simultaneous terrifying burden of representing factually innocent people. Wrongfully accused. They are a real thing.

Eloquence and wit aside, boiled down to its essence - it's an incredibly tough job at times - but somebody's gotta do it. And it is fairly clear you will not be answering the call. So...you're welcome.

[AltaGuy]

Defence lawyers have an absolutely critical role in our society and everyone benefits from them doing their jobs with as much passion and conviction as they can.

Just imagine the State coming after you for something you didn't do!

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by MBates

Ok, I'll bite...

Criminal defence lawyers are statistically among the lowest paid and hardest working members of the profession, who by the very nature of the people and subject matter they deal with, necessarily operate with the highest regard for ethics.

Your righteous indignation betrays your superficial understanding of what it means to have a justice system as typically defined in an advanced constitutional democracy.

You see, to avoid the appalling injustices of rule by lynch mob or totalitarian decree, one must accept that an integral part of a system that seeks (and sometimes even provides) truly just outcomes is to ensure that a person who the government declares through its armed officers should be imprisoned has his or her rights protected in a fair and impartial hearing.

In that sense, I defend people charged with heinous crimes so that you and the rest of society can sleep at night unencumbered by worry that innocent people are languishing away in prison falsely punished on your behalf for things they did not do.

Defence lawyers have families, just like you. Walk the same streets as you. Are victims of crime just like you. We suffer through horrific images and evidence no more no less than do police, judges, prosecutors, and jurors.

Your employ of 'morality' as a measure of what defence lawyers must lack in order to defend "people like that" misses completely that it is society's very application of morality which gives the defence lawyer his mandate.

It is precisely because I serve the morality of a society governed by the rule of law that I not only defend "people like that" but do so with pride, a true sense of purpose, and I sleep just fine.

I will certainly agree with you it takes special people to be good criminal defence counsel. But not because they reap fame and fortune through corruption of their morals. Rather, because we ignore the angry mob mentality, the threats, the sneers and the jokes and we fearlessly make arguments on behalf of those who have often times no other hope and to whom it would be all too easy for us to act unjustly.

Parenthetically, on occasion, we even have the privilege and simultaneous terrifying burden of representing factually innocent people. Wrongfully accused. They are a real thing.

Eloquence and wit aside, boiled down to its essence - it's an incredibly tough job at times - but somebody's gotta do it. And it is fairly clear you will not be answering the call. So...you're welcome.

Mic drop.

[CaptainCrunch]

They'll be out in under 5 years anyways.

Its how the system seems to work. Scum like these two seem to get opportunity after opportunity.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

They'll be out in under 5 years anyways.

Its how the system seems to work. Scum like these two seem to get opportunity after opportunity.

Ok, I'm back to hoping they get killed in prison.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by MBates

Ok, I'll bite...

Criminal defence lawyers are statistically among the lowest paid and hardest working members of the profession, who by the very nature of the people and subject matter they deal with, necessarily operate with the highest regard for ethics.

Your righteous indignation betrays your superficial understanding of what it means to have a justice system as typically defined in an advanced constitutional democracy.

You see, to avoid the appalling injustices of rule by lynch mob or totalitarian decree, one must accept that an integral part of a system that seeks (and sometimes even provides) truly just outcomes is to ensure that a person who the government declares through its armed officers should be imprisoned has his or her rights protected in a fair and impartial hearing.

In that sense, I defend people charged with heinous crimes so that you and the rest of society can sleep at night unencumbered by worry that innocent people are languishing away in prison falsely punished on your behalf for things they did not do.

Defence lawyers have families, just like you. Walk the same streets as you. Are victims of crime just like you. We suffer through horrific images and evidence no more no less than do police, judges, prosecutors, and jurors.

Your employ of 'morality' as a measure of what defence lawyers must lack in order to defend "people like that" misses completely that it is society's very application of morality which gives the defence lawyer his mandate.

It is precisely because I serve the morality of a society governed by the rule of law that I not only defend "people like that" but do so with pride, a true sense of purpose, and I sleep just fine.

I will certainly agree with you it takes special people to be good criminal defence counsel. But not because they reap fame and fortune through corruption of their morals. Rather, because we ignore the angry mob mentality, the threats, the sneers and the jokes and we fearlessly make arguments on behalf of those who have often times no other hope and to whom it would be all too easy for us to act unjustly.

Parenthetically, on occasion, we even have the privilege and simultaneous terrifying burden of representing factually innocent people. Wrongfully accused. They are a real thing.

Eloquence and wit aside, boiled down to its essence - it's an incredibly tough job at times - but somebody's gotta do it. And it is fairly clear you will not be answering the call. So...you're welcome.

It pisses me off when people say things like "He got off on a technicality". Those technicalities exist so that innocent people don't get railroaded by the police for something they didn't do, or the police don't come and knock down your door without probable cause.

[calgarywinning]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I would actually be fine with it if the judge wasn't present, didn't hear it and it didn't impact sentencing. If it was just a cathartic measure for victims, that would be one thing, but that's not what the process is. If I were a judge, I would take every measure I could to keep those statements away from my hearing.

And yes of course there are bigger problems with the justice system. I never said there weren't.

Huh? So we extract the victim in the criminal case, ignore the impact and just past sentence?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by calgarywinning

Huh? So we extract the victim in the criminal case, ignore the impact and just past sentence?

That is the way the system worked for centuries, yes. Victim impact statements are a recent thing (introduced in Canada in 1988), an attempt to have the justice system serve a social role it was never intended to serve. How the victim feels about the crime was never taken into account, because you can get into dangerous territory when you make criminal justice about the victim and not the perpetrator and crime.

Victim impact evidence is simply not consistent with the traditional goals of sentencing. It furthers none of the historically considered ambitions of punishment. The best that can be said for victim impact evidence is that it is somewhat conducive to the retribution goal. (Dugger, 1996, p. 403)

Opponents of Victim Impact Statements also argue that their use makes sentencing an arbitrary process, shifting the focus from the offender to the victim (Mulholland, 1995). The use of Victim Impact Statements also creates classes of victims, leading to stiffer sanctions for those who offend against particularly eloquent, loved or upper class victims (Abramovsky, 1992; Dugger, 1996; McCarthy, 1994; Mulholland, 1995; Vital, 1994). “VIS’s potentially create a situation in which sentencing length may be determined by the eloquence and social standing of the victim rather than the severity of the offense and the specific underlying facts of the crime” (Abramovsky, 1992, pp. 21- 22). A proposed solution to the legal problems associated with Victim Impact Statements is to allow a VIS to be presented at the time of sentencing...

http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/pub/old/C53.htm

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by calgarywinning

Huh? So we extract the victim in the criminal case, ignore the impact and just past sentence?

The impact can be determined without the victim speaking themselves, so yes. Absolutely. The fact that victim impact statements are not only used to determine the sentence, but that's their whole purpose, is completely perverse. You then have a judge whose sentence of an offender depends partly on how sympathetic, well-spoken and impactful the person who happened to be the victim of the crime is.

Not to mention inherent, subconscious biases we all have - a middle aged white male judge is more likely to be moved, and give a sterner sentence to, an offender who rapes a pretty, middle class blonde girl than one who rapes a homeless first nations girl who doesn't speak well. That's horrifying. And to what end? The identity of the victim should not matter. The crime is what matters. That's what should determine your punishment.

Even clearer case: can you imagine if you were a judge, and had to sentence an offender who had murdered a girl who in photos you can't help but notice looks almost like your own 8 year old daughter? What impact do you think that would have on you, even if you tried to suppress it? Judges are practiced and capable and do a good job of being impartial but this makes it more difficult for them to be, for reasons that are actually counterproductive to justice and just serve our emotional desire and the duty we feel to the victim.

Well if that's what we care about, we might as well just let the victims decide the sentence themselves - should end up being fair and just, right?

[AcGold]

I agree on the victim statements, half my former bosses would be in jail with how I speak of them. People that are wronged have a tendency to exaggerate and confabulate because emotion does that.

Put a victim on the stand and you'll get the most biased responses even if the accused is guilty. Emotion is not needed in an impartial judicial system.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

It pisses me off when people say things like "He got off on a technicality". Those technicalities exist so that innocent people don't get railroaded by the police for something they didn't do, or the police don't come and knock down your door without probably cause.

I think a lot of people hate that because everyone knows the person is guilty, but they get off. The committed the crime, but due to some police screw up, or whatever else they are "technically" innocent, even though they did the crime. For examples, see most white collar crime. It's also becuase if you can afford it, you can buy your way out of prison with really good lawyers. Justice ends up not being evenly applied across society. The wealthy go free, while the poor get locked up becuase they can't afford lawyers to get them off on "technicalities".

[taco.vidal]

Originally Posted by AcGold

I agree on the victim statements, half my former bosses would be in jail with how I speak of them. People that are wronged have a tendency to exaggerate and confabulate because emotion does that.

Put a victim on the stand and you'll get the most biased responses even if the accused is guilty. Emotion is not needed in an impartial judicial system.

This teenage girl was kidnapped and raped. You suggest she may exagerate the impact it had on her life? You compare her kidnapping and rape to your poor treatment by former bosses?

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by taco.vidal

This teenage girl was kidnapped and raped. You suggest she may exagerate the impact it had on her life? You compare her kidnapping and rape to your poor treatment by former bosses?

No. No. I suggest she can't accurately give a description of events because emotion clouds judgement and thusly nobody should be giving victim statements as they are inherently exaggerated. Where did I compare rape to former bosses? Learn to read, stop being pedantic.