The majority of criminal cases in the province have ended with charges being withdrawn, stayed, dismissed or discharged before a decision at trial since 2020.
Meanwhile, 30% of my property taxes go to police services, and doesn’t matter in the end whether a criminal is caught or not.
It has more about the courts not having enough judges or enough rooms to process every trial than the police. With the Jordan rule, the delays are exceeding the limit and therefore criminals are walking off free.
Either we extend the minimum period, or get rid of the Jordan rule, or get more judges. But I don’t think cancelling the Jordan rule is a good idea. We definitely need more judges.
It has more about the courts not having enough judges or enough rooms to process every trial than the police.
Maybe we should get rid of court buildings and do everything virtually. If you’ve even been to a court, 90% of the time is basically wasted for everyone involved, simply due to how slow things are when you are in a physical building.
If we don’t modernize our justice system, we’ll never have enough judges or rooms to prosecute every criminal.
Maybe Dougie wants to explain why he’s able to find money to rip out existing bike lanes, or to build a FUCKING TUNNEL UNDER THE 401, but not have enough to make sure that our justice system moves as the speed of crime.
To a certain extent, you really do not want to rush legal proceedings because we’ve spent hundreds of years of common law precedence making really big deals out of minute details. Court cases can be won on even the smallest of details or slip-ups, and that can have far-reaching consequences for either side.
But yeah, other than that, 100% we should be having more judges presiding over more cases to prevent timing out criminal cases.
I think it’s fair to say that there are a lot of cases that can be expedited without the need to drag them along.
The problem with our current justice system (at least in its current state) is that it HIGHLY favours criminals.
Rapists walking free, drunk drivers getting their fourth or fifth “warning”, people being arrested for crimes while breaching a previous court order, people murdering cyclists and getting off with a minor traffic ticket, etc.
With more judges, a more efficient process, and more Crown prosecutors, hopefully things will move along more quickly. That won’t happen unless our government gets their priorities straight.
Either way, victims should always come first; society second; criminals last.
The police don’t exist to protect citizens from crime. They exist to squash “illegitimate violence”, not because it benefits you or reduces crime, but because the police exist to enforce the state’s “monopoly on violence”. Their role is to do violence to you, not to protect you from it. The money that is levied from you is used to pay for the interests of the state, not your interests. They don’t work for us, no matter what you might hear from 1AAs.
Meanwhile, 30% of my property taxes go to police services, and doesn’t matter in the end whether a criminal is caught or not.
It has more about the courts not having enough judges or enough rooms to process every trial than the police. With the Jordan rule, the delays are exceeding the limit and therefore criminals are walking off free.
Either we extend the minimum period, or get rid of the Jordan rule, or get more judges. But I don’t think cancelling the Jordan rule is a good idea. We definitely need more judges.
Maybe we should get rid of court buildings and do everything virtually. If you’ve even been to a court, 90% of the time is basically wasted for everyone involved, simply due to how slow things are when you are in a physical building.
If we don’t modernize our justice system, we’ll never have enough judges or rooms to prosecute every criminal.
Maybe Dougie wants to explain why he’s able to find money to rip out existing bike lanes, or to build a FUCKING TUNNEL UNDER THE 401, but not have enough to make sure that our justice system moves as the speed of crime.
To a certain extent, you really do not want to rush legal proceedings because we’ve spent hundreds of years of common law precedence making really big deals out of minute details. Court cases can be won on even the smallest of details or slip-ups, and that can have far-reaching consequences for either side.
But yeah, other than that, 100% we should be having more judges presiding over more cases to prevent timing out criminal cases.
I think it’s fair to say that there are a lot of cases that can be expedited without the need to drag them along.
The problem with our current justice system (at least in its current state) is that it HIGHLY favours criminals.
Rapists walking free, drunk drivers getting their fourth or fifth “warning”, people being arrested for crimes while breaching a previous court order, people murdering cyclists and getting off with a minor traffic ticket, etc.
With more judges, a more efficient process, and more Crown prosecutors, hopefully things will move along more quickly. That won’t happen unless our government gets their priorities straight.
Either way, victims should always come first; society second; criminals last.
The police don’t exist to protect citizens from crime. They exist to squash “illegitimate violence”, not because it benefits you or reduces crime, but because the police exist to enforce the state’s “monopoly on violence”. Their role is to do violence to you, not to protect you from it. The money that is levied from you is used to pay for the interests of the state, not your interests. They don’t work for us, no matter what you might hear from 1AAs.