dbd33

Cross-posted. Yes.

Boy d

as far as it can be....the charter attempts to create a notion of fairness with respect to the adminstration of the principles of fundamental justice but.....there are wrongful convcitions. Certainly not fair for them.

Former Lancastrian

No and thats a whole other debate.
Those who were convicted like the Steven Truscotts and David Milgards of this world received justice and also compensation. Others havent.
Whats is justice anyway and by whos definition?
Spending 10 years in Prison for being wrongfully convicted then being found not guilty some would call justice. The conviction was overturned is justice.

Boy d

But it is. The crown have to prove the case, defence challenge the crown, which means they challenge the police's findings. There a famous quote which is something along the lines of, the trial of the accused is a mere side show. The main event is the trial of the police investigation."

Have criminal trials become interminable games, in which the trial
of the accused is regularly overshadowed by the trial of the
investigation?....The Honourable Justice Michael J. Moldaver
Court of Appeal for Ontario

bats

I should think that the majority of police officer's days are mundane.

There are other jobs where workers face occasional violence. Should they be armed too??

JonboyE

It was many, many years ago that I studied this but what you say flies in the face of the original intention of a trial by jury.

What I leaned was that the Normans wanted to homogenize the administration of justice throughout their Kingdom so they trained judges in their laws in London and then sent them out to preside at courts around the country. (The origins of circuit judges?) The judges were experts in law but knew little of the places where they were presiding or the people involved.

Juries were selected from the population who would know the accused or complainants. Their job was to listen to the evidence given by the people involved to assess who was being truthful.

Almost Canadian

If they were acquitted and that was not successfully appealed they are innocent. If you don't believe that this is, legally, correct, please provide me with your legal authority for the position that they were not innocent in the criminal sense.

The accused is on Trial. The fact you appear to fail to understand this is very worrying

Former Lancastrian

But are they charged with a duty to protect the public as a police officer is?

Oink

Are all all lawful things in a sense just things?

bats

Hospital staff have a responsibility for patient advocacy and care. It's fairly common for staff to be attacked by patients and relatives. One hospital I worked in a nurse had a gun aimed at her. A patient tried to strangle one worker. I've been hit, insulted, spat on. I work alone at night.

Former Lancastrian

Depends on your point of view I guess or what you classify as things.
I describe things as an event given the context of this thread.
The tasering death at YVR was an event not a thing that happened.
Buying an iPhone 5 is an event to some but buying a thing to others.
Nobody said the world or society is fair.
If I turned around and said its not fair my mother would say Aye and its not raining either.

Oink

Then is its not very good then is it. Shouldn't we be striving for the good life with justice being an essential element in any such context.

Boy d

First Point

Sigh....

I ask you to show me where not guilty is "legally" considered innocent.

Here is what legal dictionaries consider it:

not guilty

2) verdict after trial by a judge sitting without a jury or by a jury, stating that the prosecution has not proved the defendant guilty of a crime or that it believes the accused person was insane at the time the crime was committed.

Its such a well established principle I'm genuinely surprised at your apparent lack of knowledge .....innocent actually means you didn’t do something while not guilty is a legal term that means there wasn’t enough evidence to convict. the two are not mutually exclusive.

The presumption acts as a shield at trial, and only at trial until and if the accused is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption does not exist outside of the actual trial, ie while the accused or his lawyer may consider him innocent (which is their perogative), the courts don't. If he's guilty he's not innocent. But if he's found not guilty, he's considered not guilty of the charged offence/offences but not innocent of the offence, ie the case was not proved.

Similarly, one may be found not guilty of a certain offence but guilty of another. It does not mean they were innocent of the original offence, that is they did not do it.

For example, suppose there's no doubt someone stabbed someone (maybe it was on live tv or something....) He's charged with attempt murder. The judge is not convinced as to the evidence of intent and finds him:

1. not guilty of attempt murder

2. but guilty of assault weapon

To have ruled innocent, ie he didn't do anything, would be factually wrong. He did stab the person but was only guilty of assault and not attempt murder.

The courts don't make a finding of innocence. The presumption does not apply in any setting other than at trial and reverse onus cases even challenge this notion, creating a bit of legal quandary.

So, there is really no such thing as innocent until proven guilty, only a presumption of innocence during trial.The courts don't care if the person considers themselves not guilty or innocent. It is not the place of the court to consider such matters.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Section 11(d): the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law

The Supreme Court of Canada has referred to this constitutional right as “the golden thread” that runs through the criminal law. The burden is always on the prosecution to prove a criminal case. The presumption of innocence acts as a shield to protect an individual where the evidence falls short of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Section 11(d) entrenches the long standing common law principle that no person can be convicted if there exists a reasonable doubt that they committed the offence. It is because of s. 11(d) that the court is constitutionally required to prove every element of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt and also to disprove the validity of any defence beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court has ruled that it would contravene s. 11(d) if the defence was required to disprove an element of the offence or to prove the existence of a defence. Thus, at minimum, the defence must show that the case, as presented by the prosecution, leaves a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant is guilty.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/charter_digest/s-11-d.html

Criminal Code under section 6(1) (a): a person shall be deemed not guilty of the offence until he is convicted or discharged under section 730 of the offence: and.......

Boy d

second point

I was not literally suggesting that the accused was not on trial, of course he/she is. I would have thought that obvious, but the nature of the adversarial system requires the crown to prove guilt not the accused to prove they are not guilty. Defense attack the crown's case, which are the fruits of the police's investigation. We are not like the USA and the crown are not permitted to direct the investigation or conduct aspects of it. In essence, and I quote many legal layman, the police investigation is what is on trial:

Justice David Watts said the following: The trial of the accused has become a mere side-show; the trial of the investigation is now the main event”.


See top of page 7 in the linked address from another Canadian Justice.

Have criminal trials become interminable games, in which the trial
of the accused is regularly overshadowed by the trial of the
investigation?....The Honourable Justice Michael J. Moldaver
Court of Appeal for Ontario

__________________

http://www.lsuc.on.ca/media/tenth_co...m_moldaver.pdf

It is of course only intended to highlight that it's the nature of how police gather evidence that is largely considered at trial, and is often central to what takes place in the court room. This has certainly been my experience. there are certainly more police witnesses called than any others.

dbd33

How is the one different from the other?