— Musings —11.23.2010 08:28 AM
— Musings —11.23.2010 08:28 AM
Are the crowns appointed by the Province or the Federal Government? You have certainly made a good case for a thorough house cleaning. It is time for the government officials who appointed them to act.
Criminal law is promulgated by the feds, and administered by the provinces.
The Crown Attorney’s Offices staff themselves. No political people could ever, or would ever, interfere.
Thank you for the information; however, does this mean that the Crown Attorney’s office is self perpetuating and does not answer to anyone? If so, how can this bunch be held responsible for their shortcomings?
Political staffers can’t have any contact with them. They could be charged with obstruction of justice.
Yet it appears that some members of the Crown Attorney’s office may have been obstructing justice. What a strange system! How can the bad performers in the Crown Attorney’s office ever be fired or be reassigned?
Crown Attorney’s answerr to the Attorney General. He/she should be able to clean house.
Sorry, chief, but political folks just can’t dip into a Crown Attorney’s Office and do whatever they want.
Then I have to ask: how _do_ we clean it out? Who watches the watchers?
I may be wrong, but I think the AG is also an officer of the court (not just a run of the mill MLA/MPP), and ultimately responsible for the Crown’s decision etc.
They need this guy:
http://is.gd/hEap9
So, who does it? Who cleans them out?
One of the problems with being independent is it often results in being unaccountable …
You got hat right – cf. Gomery, Somalia inquiry, etc
I admit, I don’t think it was cool or terribly professional to make faces. But then, it was equally twisted for the jury to be so weak as to care, and even more bizarre to make it grounds for a mistrial. Every possible angle of this story is absurd.
I labeled my own tweet on the matter with the simple words, “Western Civilization is doomed,” and the link. What next, we’ll be ruling laws unconstitutional because somebody heckled an MP in Parliament during the vote?
What, you mean lawyers and the justice system doesn’t work like its portrayed on TV?
Seems a silly reason to call a mistrial.
The art of distraction was one of the means of winning trials at the turn of the century. Clarence Darrow would smoke cigars in the court room to distract the jury from the prosecutions arguments.
Reasonable people who want a fair trial would prefer sober thought to consider the facts, not parlour tricks, to arrive at a just outcome. But I guess that, as a Conservative, you wouldn’t be interested in thoughtful consideration of the truth and would rather insist on “the art of distraction.”
As a Conservative, I am interested in thoughtful consideration of the truth. But I’m also interested in putting justice before distraction and trivia. There are consequences – even for the accused – from blowing this stupid incident out of proportion into mistrial territory.
What the hell are you talking about?
I was commenting on that fact that the trial was dismissed because the Crown Attorney made a face in court and that is hardly the type of distraction that sways juries on TV court dramas (as a make a face…you know the one…).
I’m wondering if the crown attorney who rolled his eyes was actually the Cookie Monster.