James Rosczo made a tactical error when he committed suicide after killing four young RCMP officers in Alberta two weeks ago. He should have simply gone back to his house, cleaned his guns, and proclaimed his innocence when the inevitable arrest came.
In the Canadian justice system, where serial murdering sociopaths are released back into society, rapists who kidnap,beat and torture teenage girls get 7 years (and identity protection from the court), and plane bombing terrorism investigations take 20 years and end in acquittals – James Roszco probably stood a better than even chance of walking away a free man.
Beltway Traffic Jam
The daily linkfest:
Cam Edwards reports blogging will be minimal until the twins are born. After that, he’ll have plenty of time for blogging….
julia montgomery taste tests various Easter candies in the interests of science.
aTypical Joe…
You know, the criminal justice system is just not the way to deal with terribly destructive acts like Omaha City, 9-11 or Air India. The criminal justice system is set up to protect ordinary people from arbitrary or ignorant abuses and errors visited upon them by police and prosecutors. In this, it is reasonably successful though far from perfect. Sentencing and corrections is a separate policy area, and Rozcko’s case shows how much work needs to be done there.
But for Air India type events, there needs to be an exemplary, cautionary approach. These awful acts should be “carved out” of the realm of criminal law, and all the “reasonable doubt” issues done away with. For this sort of act, it should be common, street knowledge that if you’re even found to be in any way connected to it, you’re nailed.
We’re fond of imposing “zero tolerance” standards all over the place. Well this is a type of activity that really calls for one.
Yo Q-Red,
I second your emotion. Cancers are cured with both medicines and the knife.
BTW It’s Oklahoma City, Omaha is in Nebraska.
Roszcko would have been turned into ground beef by the time the swat team had finished airing out his booby hatch.His last decision appears to have been the best he made his entire life.
Quebec Redneck is of course kidding. Visit a conservative web-site and suggest that the rule of law be done away with in the case of horrific crimes. It’s an effective way to tarnish the site. If some commenters agree with such fascist sentiments the attack is all the more effective.
Kate, I hope I am not reaching to say that I understand your point of view. I am waiting now to see if she is actually released. And then, if she were released, I would be waiting to see if Canadian society has come of age. I know that sounds over the top, and it won’t be me. That woman went way out of bounds.
It’s not fascist to remodel the justice system to reflect a time when terrorists and scumbags like Malik, Bagri and Homolka are making a mockery of the system.
Redneck didn’t say anything about discarding the rule of law either.
I think redneck was promoting a system similar to the US RICO statute that makes it illigal to be involved in an illigal organization.
Why do liberals only have ad hominims for an argument?
T-Gain assumes the worst of my admittedly not completely s-p-e-l-l-e-d out suggestion. How can he be so ungenerous, unless … hmmm.
Thank U Richfisher for connecting the dots.
Of course, the only way to subject certain acts to different standards of proof and penalty would be – by act of law! Why it might be as simple as allowing the criminal code to continue dealing with the “person” while attaching stiff civil penalties under statute – fines, confiscation, deportation etc. Penalties already well known in – as I said – certain other areas of “zero tolerance” approach (including RICO).
The punishment or deprivation for getting involved in certain acts must be so livid and so certain as to touch the very outer limits of acceptability to what is, at its center, a civil society governed by the rule of law. It is well beyond those limits, after all, where the viciousness and callousness acts like 9-11, 3-11, Okla City and Air India lives. We need to discover those limits and post signs for anyone who strays that way.
Q-Red; Amen, I’m not a Lawyer and I don’t need to be one to recognize that the systems broken and past bandaid remedies. No reflection on the Judge in the Air India Trial but the verdict defies all logic.
The CSIS boffins that destroyed the taped evidence need to stand trial in the court of Public Opinion. The Liberals have buried this so deep under Secrecy legislation that we’ll NEVER know why CSIS protected the terrorists. IMHO The stench of corrupt officials is an offense to every decent Canadian!
Although I agree with the sentiments of Quebec Redneck (I can’t believe there is such a thing!), the reality of the matter could be quite horrible. Karla should get the death penalty no doubt about it, but should people be found guilty just because someone suspects you may be a part of a crime? There have been at least 3 instances in the past 10 years where an innocent man was put in jail for a horrific crime. In many cases the police had significant pressure placed on them to solve the case and in their zeal to find the trees, completely missed the forest. I don’t blame the police – it’s not intentional on their part, but their testimony does carry more weight than a civilian in some judges eyes and it’s easy to convict when even minor circumstancial evidence coupled with unreliable testimony and public outrage combine to eliminate an innocent person.
Having said all that, the criminals really do get the benefit of the doubt (Roszco proves that all to well) and it explains why the Libs are so intent on letting convicts vote.
Liberal Scumbags! Can’t understand why people keep voting for them.
In his initial post Quebec Redneck said:
“These awful acts should be “carved out” of the realm of criminal law, and all the “reasonable doubt” issues done away with.”
In his second post Quebec Redneck said:
1. “T-Gain assumes the worst of my admittedly not completely s-p-e-l-l-e-d out suggestion. How can he be so ungenerous, unless … hmmm.” and
2. “Of course, the only way to subject certain acts to different standards of proof and penalty would be – by act of law!”
Redneck, “hmmm” is not a compelling argument.
You do not explain how a system which eliminates reasonable doubt could somehow be created “by an act of law”. (Of course the Soviet Union had a splendid constitution which guaranteed rights to every one.)
We do need changes to the criminal law, however, eliminating the necessity of reasonable doubt is not one of those changes.
“Carved out”? Is Redneck suggesting a different standard of proof depending on the seriousness of the crime. The idea is ridiculous.
Redneck also misunderstands the concept of zero tolerance. It applies to the punishment phase of a proceeding, not the guilt or innocence stage.
Sometimes guilty people are acquitted. That’s the way the system works. If we change the system to ensure that all of those who are guilty of particularly heinous acts are convicted then a lot of innocent people will go down with them.
I have no opinion on whether the Air India defendants are gulty or innocent. I wasn’t at the trial and it was not widely reported.
Incidentally, my credentials as a conservative are impeccable. If those of you who disagree with me had ever defended innocent people ( and seen them nevetheless convicted) you would be less inclined to spout off like the trolls at Daily Kos. (Ouch)
Terry, thank you for posting that. Like you, I have no opinion on the guilt or innocence of the suspects.
Like you, I’ve seen what I believed to be innocent people charged with a crime – and sometimes even convicted.
To me, Justice is more important than democracy. Jesus was democractically crucified. Barabas was democratically set free.
Justice should always mean that the onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Unfortunately, there are too many folks who don’t understand what “beyond a reasonable doubt” means.
My credentials as a “conservative” are not so impeccable. But I’m no pinko lefty, soft on crime guy, either.
I would think after 20 years of investigating, they would at least know one of two things: we have an airtight case or we have no case.
If they had no case why did they bother taking it to trial?
Terry Gain wrote: “Sometimes guilty people are acquitted. That’s the way the system works. If we change the system to ensure that all of those who are guilty of particularly heinous acts are convicted then a lot of innocent people will go down with them.”
I don’t disagree. But the discussion couched in these terms goes nowhere. I’d substitute “proved on some accepted standard of proof to be complicit” for “guilty”. I’d substitute “found complicit using the looser standard but might have been acquitted on the reasonable doubt standard” for those T Gain labels “innocent”.
The lexicon of the criminal law just lays traps for the discussion I’d like to encourage. “Guilty” and “innocent” are terms that wind up just begging the question. I’m not really talking about Carlo Homolka. This is about Air India, 9-11, Slobodan Milosevic, even Saddam.
Can’t you imagine the circus that would transpire if the international criminal court got hold of Saddam? Exactly. The criminal law is just not made for these sorts of transgressions.
Terry Gain wrote: “You do not explain how a system which eliminates reasonable doubt could somehow be created “by an act of law”.
By statute. Create a class of “civil offences”. Attach procedures and standards and penalties. Sort of like, oh I don’t know, the Income Tax Act. If malefactors do not pay their civil fines, go ahead and actually imprison them like the statutes say you can …
Terry Gain wrote: “We do need changes to the criminal law, however, eliminating the necessity of reasonable doubt is not one of those changes.”
Agreed. Create a new, statute-based class of civil offences. Leave the criminal law alone – we need all the protection we can get against police & prosecutors.
And as for misunderstanding “zero tolerance”. I think I can grant T. Gain the correctness of his legalistic explication. Whack away, pal. But I’m not there. I’m putting the idea of “zero tolerance” to work to drive discussion of how wide and how deep to cast the net of liability for really depraved and murderous acts, the sort of offences against the civil society itself that the criminal law cannot handle.
Terry wrote;
“I have no opinion on whether the Air India defendants are gulty or innocent. I wasn’t at the trial and it was not widely reported.”
It wasn’t widely reported?! (I live in Vancouver so naturally it got huge coverage here.)
That the largest by far mass murder in Canadian history should go “not widely reported” (the trial that is) is in itself a travesty. In contrast the Oklahoma bombing and trials have received complete coverage since day one; why is the Air india trial going unrecognized? Oh right! We’re Canadian, and it didn’t involve Toronto…
At the risk of beating a dead horse let me address Quebec Redneck’s proposal to create a new class of civil offences- with a lower standard of proof than reasonable doubt, because that standard annoyingly gets in the way of ensuring that every guilty person is convicted.
Quebeck Redneck wants this new class to deal not with regulatory breaches and other quasi-criminal offence but with the worst kind of criminal offences-such as acts of terrorism that kill dozens or even hundreds of people.
So what is wrong with Quebec Redneck’s proposal?
First of all it’s not constitutional. Removing the requirement of reasonable doubt for offences which, however described, are not just criminal in nature but at the extreme end of the scale in terms of their seriousness would offend several Charter rights guaranteed under section 11 of the Charter.
Secondly the idea that the more serious the offence the lower the standard of proof is so ridiculous that it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
Look QR, I enjoy the writings of my fellow Aquarian Charles Lutwidge Dodgson as much as anyone, but when he had the Queen say “sentence first-verdict afterwards” he was only kidding. It was not a serious recommendation to cure the ills of the English legal system.
At any rate some fun may be had with Quebec Redneck’s catalogue of offences and his inversely corresponding degree of proof to the seriousness of the offence. Here’s what it would look like in a QR world.
OFFENCE DEGREE OF PROOF
LITTERING- – – BEYOND A SCINTILLA OF A DOUBT
SMOKING(ANYWHERE)- BEYOND A SHADOW OF ADOUBT
COPPING A FEEL — BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT
RAPE — BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES
MURDER — LESS THAN FIFTY PER CENT
MASS MURDER – A GOOD HUNCH
MASS MURDER X 2 – A HUNCH
ACT OF TERRORISM – A WHIFF OF SMOKE
MASS GENOCIDE – A FEELING
Mr. Gain continues to miss the point of my provocative little suggestion. Hint: when being asked to discuss blowing up and carting away a piece of the existing edifice of criminal law, the use of big chunks of criminal law orthodoxy IN the discussion is just NOT helpful (does anyone know what it means anymore to “beg the question”??).
As for bringing the administration of justice into disrepute – HELLO!!- why do you think we’re having this discussion??
The constitution might not keep the rising waters of impure populism at bay either, if the dead bodies should be in Vancouver or Montreal one of these times.
Anyway, this has been done already, elsewhere. When the offence against civil society is felt very strongly, you get strong medicine like “enemy combatants” in a “war on terror”. And – equal time for both fringes – you get Bush/Rumsfeld the “war criminals”, Saddam the sympathetic accused. Neither of those responses is without – ahem – certain drawbacks. Can we hope to do better?
Quebec Redneck,
There’s a difference between being provocative and just plain ridiculous. Your points have been deconstructed and demolished.
War was necessary and justified in Iraq because there was no justice there and no other way of establishing a civilized society. The regime had in fact been waging war on the people for 25 years.
Your proposal to do away with the requirement of reasonable doubt would destroy civil society as we know it . Your proposal is odious. You have attempted to deflect attention from your true purpose, which is to remove legal safeguards, by positing the need for a “new class of civil offences” and penalties (for the most serious criminal offences). These are your words and you can’t erase them or explain them away, to wit: (“These awful acts should be carved out of the realm of criminal law and all reasonable doubt issues done away with”)
Those who believe such radical measures are justitfied in Canada usually call themselves Marxist-Leninists.
“Saddam the sympathetic accused” !!?? Where have you been for the last two years? And what are you on?
Redneck, you’re in a hole. But keep digging anyway.
You have fooled no one. You are an extremist. In fact even more extreme than the leftist morons who run the CBC.
I’d try to rebut, but alas I’m too dizzy trying to remember if I’m playing the fascist/stalinist side or the marxist/leninist side. And how can I arrange my face to appear “ridiculous” and “odious” at the same time when I have coffee with a leftist moron CBC producer later?.
Oh, and I have apparently been deconstructed and demolished. Whew, what a day!
I now quite cheerfully confess, Terry Gain, that I’m just not in your league. Take me away, bailiff.
QR,
Not only have you stopped digging you’ve finally made a good point. I’m glad you are cheerful. Now work on the wise thing.
I’ll let you have the last word.
Seems to be some question as to whether you’re speaking about the Charter or the Courts’ increasingly lenient approach to interpreting the Charter. Volumes have been written about the warnings that Trudeau received about many aspects of the Charter and how those warnings have come home to roost.
Trudeau didn’t have any problem with alternative measures when he invoked the war Measures Act and incarcerated many without any regard for their ‘Rights’. The only correct thing he did, in my somewhat biased opinion…
Stick to your guns, Q-R, you’re on target!
It’s funny…this is exactly what my brother, a police officer said while we were talking about the case. He figured Rosczo would have been out within 10 years and would have been kept in a segregated environment, having a country club existence for his decade in exile. During the same discussion (which was last Sunday) he lamented that the Air India case would fall apart too. It’s just sad that we have very little faith in our justice system. It’s long overdue that our laws get teeth in them, and there becomes a fear in the criminal community, rather than it being seen as ‘a cost of doing business’.