• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page

Comments

Comments

Recent comments

  • Sandi
    July 02, 2010 - 13:32

    Thats sad. The court of queens bench in Saskatchewan has a law that also allows polygamy. The federal law is against it, but that province allows polygamy. Thats sad too. In that province of Canada ( Saskatchewan) they say people can be married and also have common law spouses..all at the same time! What's next from the crazy courts?

  • Frustrated taxpayer
    July 02, 2010 - 13:30

    The underlying problem in this case, and several others is the appointment process for judges. Our provincial court bench is appointed according to their connections to Danny's tories, despite the fact that the provincial court bench is where most criminal cases are dealt with, the majority of appointments are lawyers with little or no criminal law experience. At $180k per year, its a nice plum. Judge Short is the exception, he had 10 years of criminal law experience.

    The Supreme Court is appointed by the federal tories on the same basis. In fact, despite the Lamer Inquiry recommending that the feds elevate provincial court judges, they continue to appoint lawyers that have no criminal law eperience to the highest courts...they then rule on the most serious of criminal law decisions. At about $267k per year, its a very nice plum.

    End result, political friends apopointed to the bench despite having no experience in criminal law and they make offender friendly decision. Experienced criminal lawyers are bypassed. Victims of crime suffer...criminals benefit.

    No good being mad at Danny, every political party has and will continue to do this until the selection process changes. But this is, as I see it, the underlying problem in this case and others like it.

  • Judge This look
    July 02, 2010 - 13:22

    The one thing I remember, and will take, from this whole fiasco, durning sentencing was what was said by the judge. The verdict has to merely Appear to the public that justice has been served. Which to me only means on the outside. So it is what it is, and it definitely is what it ain't or should never have been. The court proceedings are, most often, far more scarier then the actual crimes. What a system of process and way to punish the victims. Shameful

  • Polly
    July 02, 2010 - 13:22

    To Bob Wakeham , I say a very loud and boisterous THANK YOU . This is dirty laundry that needed to be exposed to the public . We have had everyone from talk show hosts to now retired politicians make the argument for plea bargaining in the case of Barry Oake . This man pleaded guilty to the indecent act of buggery . Laws are being rewritten to suit the needs of the criminal , but , not just your average old criminal mind you . These are the new high profile felons , usually someone who has been in a position of trust . They say justice is blind , I say it STINKS .

  • My3Cents
    July 02, 2010 - 13:18

    I think we should start appointing judges that at one time were victims of crimes themselves. Or if they sentence house arrest, well, okay, drop them off at the judges house.

  • Isedabye
    July 02, 2010 - 13:11

    whats that you say...the premier has announced children as his newest highest priority...going to make sure their rights are protected....oh i see...and he does that by allowing HIS justice department make a JOINT SUBMISSION with the defence(represented by one of the premiers closest buddies)to agree with house arrest of an admitted pedophile...wellll...now see i know im stunned and all but i just didnt realize how stunned given i would never have thought thats how you protect children from societies lowest and worst....live and learn they say.

  • Sandi
    July 01, 2010 - 20:21

    Thats sad. The court of queens bench in Saskatchewan has a law that also allows polygamy. The federal law is against it, but that province allows polygamy. Thats sad too. In that province of Canada ( Saskatchewan) they say people can be married and also have common law spouses..all at the same time! What's next from the crazy courts?

  • Frustrated taxpayer
    July 01, 2010 - 20:18

    The underlying problem in this case, and several others is the appointment process for judges. Our provincial court bench is appointed according to their connections to Danny's tories, despite the fact that the provincial court bench is where most criminal cases are dealt with, the majority of appointments are lawyers with little or no criminal law experience. At $180k per year, its a nice plum. Judge Short is the exception, he had 10 years of criminal law experience.

    The Supreme Court is appointed by the federal tories on the same basis. In fact, despite the Lamer Inquiry recommending that the feds elevate provincial court judges, they continue to appoint lawyers that have no criminal law eperience to the highest courts...they then rule on the most serious of criminal law decisions. At about $267k per year, its a very nice plum.

    End result, political friends apopointed to the bench despite having no experience in criminal law and they make offender friendly decision. Experienced criminal lawyers are bypassed. Victims of crime suffer...criminals benefit.

    No good being mad at Danny, every political party has and will continue to do this until the selection process changes. But this is, as I see it, the underlying problem in this case and others like it.

  • Judge This look
    July 01, 2010 - 20:07

    The one thing I remember, and will take, from this whole fiasco, durning sentencing was what was said by the judge. The verdict has to merely Appear to the public that justice has been served. Which to me only means on the outside. So it is what it is, and it definitely is what it ain't or should never have been. The court proceedings are, most often, far more scarier then the actual crimes. What a system of process and way to punish the victims. Shameful

  • Polly
    July 01, 2010 - 20:06

    To Bob Wakeham , I say a very loud and boisterous THANK YOU . This is dirty laundry that needed to be exposed to the public . We have had everyone from talk show hosts to now retired politicians make the argument for plea bargaining in the case of Barry Oake . This man pleaded guilty to the indecent act of buggery . Laws are being rewritten to suit the needs of the criminal , but , not just your average old criminal mind you . These are the new high profile felons , usually someone who has been in a position of trust . They say justice is blind , I say it STINKS .

  • My3Cents
    July 01, 2010 - 19:59

    I think we should start appointing judges that at one time were victims of crimes themselves. Or if they sentence house arrest, well, okay, drop them off at the judges house.

  • Isedabye
    July 01, 2010 - 19:48

    whats that you say...the premier has announced children as his newest highest priority...going to make sure their rights are protected....oh i see...and he does that by allowing HIS justice department make a JOINT SUBMISSION with the defence(represented by one of the premiers closest buddies)to agree with house arrest of an admitted pedophile...wellll...now see i know im stunned and all but i just didnt realize how stunned given i would never have thought thats how you protect children from societies lowest and worst....live and learn they say.