Last week’s post on the disturbing mismatch between Toronto Police Services arrest rates and provincial criminal court caseloads seems to have hit a nerve.
I have a thought, which would require some digging into the data to see whether or not it provides the explanation.
I’ve noticed, in reading the news, that the people arrested are often charged with multiple offences which seemingly overlap, but refer to different laws. People might get charged with illegal possession of a firearm, possession of an illegal firearm, possession of a firearm for an illegal purpose, and improper storage of a firearm, etc. So, four or more charges relating to a single activity. If and when they get to trial, they plead guilty to one of the charges, in exchange for the others being dropped. This all seems to be worse since the emphasis on fighting gun crime. You see some parallels with drug crimes.
Anyhow, wondering if the number of charges per arrest has increased, while the number of charges dropped has simultaneously increased.
It would be interesting to know what directives and priorities such modern arbiters of justice work under. It appears that lengthy show trials for some protests trump seemingly politically favored protests for example.
I have a thought about some, repeat, some of the stays.
In 2016 the Supremes issued the Jordan decision that set a time limit for actual prosecution of criminal cases. I have seen reference in my jurisdiction (Alberta) to cases being dismissed due to time limits imposed under Jordan.
So, my thought is to ask if there is any way to determine what portion/proportion of the stays occurred due to Jordan reasons? If, say, fifty per cent of the stays occurred due to Jordan that explains a lot.
Notwithstanding such an explanation, the next question that MUST be asked and MUST be answered by our governments is: why does our legal system not have sufficient number of courtrooms, Crown prosecutors, judges, etc. such that the system can meet the strictures of the Jordan decision?
Of course, if the preponderance of stays, etc. are not due to Jordan that raises further questions. For example, are the police arresting people who, when all circumstances are evaluated by the Crown that Crown prosecutor finds the evidence unpersuasive and unlikely to lead to a conviction? There are many other questions that could and should be asked but, truly, I think our legal system [please do not EVER call it a justice system because justice seems to be a coincidence] like much of our government apparatus seems to be seized by the determination that much of society is "oppressed" or some such. Fools! [Oops! An editorial comment that slipped out.]
I don't know exactly how many dismissals are due to Jordan issues, but I have read that it's a substantial portion of them. The underlying message of the Supreme Court's Jordan decision was that we don't have enough judges and court infrastructure to manage the system fairly.
Having said all that, the numbers I'm seeing from the past few years suggest that even if we suddenly tripled the number of judges and court employees, most cases would still never see a courtroom, because the Crown prosecutors don't seem to want it.
My problem is that I have observed commentary about this topic but I simply do not have sufficient first hand knowledge or access to data to be able to do more than surmise as I read that commentary.
From what I can tell, the former government absolutely refused - bizarre but accurate, I understand - to appoint judges on a timely (or at all for quite a while) basis so that is one thing. Further, it seems that the provinces, in the name of not wanting spend "unnecessary" [hah!] money did not appoint sufficient Crown prosecutors or support staff and did not invest sufficient money in facilities and modernization of systems.
Then, remember, we the taxpayers keep howling for lower taxes at the same time we demand more services.
In other words, we are all complicit but, truly, the buck stops with taxpayers who want more, more, more in services or whatever but we are unwilling to pay for those services. Which takes me back to my tired old argument: the governments are ten miles wide and one centimeter deep, trying to too much because we want that "too much" but we are unwilling to provide those same governments with adequate resources.
We keep telling ourselves that we are a kinder and more gentle country but we aren't willing to pay for kindness or gentility.
I apologize for my rant but it truly is frustrating that people want what is/should be reasonable but we, the public, are unwilling to recognize that more, more, more in services means more, more, more in taxes; and the reverse: lower taxes mean fewer services.
"The modern arbiter of justice isn’t a judge or even a jury. It’s a someone sitting in front of a computer in the Crown prosecutor’s office." Exactly - the most opaque part of Canada's so-called "justice system" is the Crown prosecutor, who can arbitrarily decide not to proceed with any case without explanation. Was it for legitimate legal reasons? Was it already a Friday afternoon and it's time to go to the cottage? Did a call come in from the Prime Minister's Office? We just don't, and never will, know. The lack of public accountability is appalling.
How about this: every time a Crown prosecutor stays a criminal charge by claiming "no reasonable prospect of conviction" or similar catch-all phrase, their next pay will be reduced by 5%. Then we will know how many of these dropped cases are stayed due to genuine objective reasons, or whether they are stayed due to laziness (or worse).
That person behind a computer knows that his organization has a budget, and is aware that traditional retributive justice is very expensive. One of the arguments used by proponents of restorative justice is that it is much less expensive and more effective in preventing re-offending. The police here (Sechelt Peninsula) are very much in favour of it, and since they are the ones who encounter their former suspects on the street every day, I think they might be onto something. However all successful restorative proceedings are confidential—because otherwise no one would agree to participate—so information about it is very hard to find.
From my observation, the police think the system as it stands is deeply frustrating. Even in a best-case scenario, when the system works as expected, the police arrest, the offender is sentenced, and serves his sentence. Once released, rinse and repeat. Meanwhile, the victim more or less falls through the cracks as the machinery of the state runs its course. Restorative justice has suffered from proponents over-promising its benefits, but it doesn’t follow that there aren’t any. When restorative justice is applied correctly, the victim with his supporters has the opportunity to confront the offender in a controlled and safe setting. The offender has to face the harm he did to a real identifiable human, as well as the shame and disappointment of his own associates. Which can be much more difficult than doing time. When offered a choice, offenders often choose prison. They HATE restorative justice because it forces them to face themselves. I am the survivor of a violent sexual assault with a weapon. If I had been able to pick the suspect out of a police line-up, (I couldn’t—bad eyesight), I would have welcomed the opportunity to ask him what he thought his actions were going to do for him. He was married, with a child. How could it have possibly have been worth what it could have cost him?
Cy, you say that the police think that system is just fine. What do the victims think?
One of the things that I have heard about restorative justice is that when someone is, oh, raped, violently assaulted, robbed with violence, just plain robbed, etc., one of the ongoing traumas is that they have to see and interact with their perpetrator on an ongoing basis thereby increasing the trauma. I can see both sides but our system seems to be all about making the perpetrator comfortable but it seems that victims are not particularly important.
I have a thought, which would require some digging into the data to see whether or not it provides the explanation.
I’ve noticed, in reading the news, that the people arrested are often charged with multiple offences which seemingly overlap, but refer to different laws. People might get charged with illegal possession of a firearm, possession of an illegal firearm, possession of a firearm for an illegal purpose, and improper storage of a firearm, etc. So, four or more charges relating to a single activity. If and when they get to trial, they plead guilty to one of the charges, in exchange for the others being dropped. This all seems to be worse since the emphasis on fighting gun crime. You see some parallels with drug crimes.
Anyhow, wondering if the number of charges per arrest has increased, while the number of charges dropped has simultaneously increased.
Interesting thought. I took a look and there doesn't seem to be a big difference between 2014 and 2023:
2014 total number of charges: 48,890
2014 total number of arrested individuals: 31,876
2023 total number of charges: 47,345
2023 total number of arrested individuals: 29,883
OK, looks like the same number of charges per arrest.
It would be interesting to know what directives and priorities such modern arbiters of justice work under. It appears that lengthy show trials for some protests trump seemingly politically favored protests for example.
I have a thought about some, repeat, some of the stays.
In 2016 the Supremes issued the Jordan decision that set a time limit for actual prosecution of criminal cases. I have seen reference in my jurisdiction (Alberta) to cases being dismissed due to time limits imposed under Jordan.
So, my thought is to ask if there is any way to determine what portion/proportion of the stays occurred due to Jordan reasons? If, say, fifty per cent of the stays occurred due to Jordan that explains a lot.
Notwithstanding such an explanation, the next question that MUST be asked and MUST be answered by our governments is: why does our legal system not have sufficient number of courtrooms, Crown prosecutors, judges, etc. such that the system can meet the strictures of the Jordan decision?
Of course, if the preponderance of stays, etc. are not due to Jordan that raises further questions. For example, are the police arresting people who, when all circumstances are evaluated by the Crown that Crown prosecutor finds the evidence unpersuasive and unlikely to lead to a conviction? There are many other questions that could and should be asked but, truly, I think our legal system [please do not EVER call it a justice system because justice seems to be a coincidence] like much of our government apparatus seems to be seized by the determination that much of society is "oppressed" or some such. Fools! [Oops! An editorial comment that slipped out.]
I don't know exactly how many dismissals are due to Jordan issues, but I have read that it's a substantial portion of them. The underlying message of the Supreme Court's Jordan decision was that we don't have enough judges and court infrastructure to manage the system fairly.
Having said all that, the numbers I'm seeing from the past few years suggest that even if we suddenly tripled the number of judges and court employees, most cases would still never see a courtroom, because the Crown prosecutors don't seem to want it.
My problem is that I have observed commentary about this topic but I simply do not have sufficient first hand knowledge or access to data to be able to do more than surmise as I read that commentary.
From what I can tell, the former government absolutely refused - bizarre but accurate, I understand - to appoint judges on a timely (or at all for quite a while) basis so that is one thing. Further, it seems that the provinces, in the name of not wanting spend "unnecessary" [hah!] money did not appoint sufficient Crown prosecutors or support staff and did not invest sufficient money in facilities and modernization of systems.
Then, remember, we the taxpayers keep howling for lower taxes at the same time we demand more services.
In other words, we are all complicit but, truly, the buck stops with taxpayers who want more, more, more in services or whatever but we are unwilling to pay for those services. Which takes me back to my tired old argument: the governments are ten miles wide and one centimeter deep, trying to too much because we want that "too much" but we are unwilling to provide those same governments with adequate resources.
We keep telling ourselves that we are a kinder and more gentle country but we aren't willing to pay for kindness or gentility.
I apologize for my rant but it truly is frustrating that people want what is/should be reasonable but we, the public, are unwilling to recognize that more, more, more in services means more, more, more in taxes; and the reverse: lower taxes mean fewer services.
"The modern arbiter of justice isn’t a judge or even a jury. It’s a someone sitting in front of a computer in the Crown prosecutor’s office." Exactly - the most opaque part of Canada's so-called "justice system" is the Crown prosecutor, who can arbitrarily decide not to proceed with any case without explanation. Was it for legitimate legal reasons? Was it already a Friday afternoon and it's time to go to the cottage? Did a call come in from the Prime Minister's Office? We just don't, and never will, know. The lack of public accountability is appalling.
How about this: every time a Crown prosecutor stays a criminal charge by claiming "no reasonable prospect of conviction" or similar catch-all phrase, their next pay will be reduced by 5%. Then we will know how many of these dropped cases are stayed due to genuine objective reasons, or whether they are stayed due to laziness (or worse).
That person behind a computer knows that his organization has a budget, and is aware that traditional retributive justice is very expensive. One of the arguments used by proponents of restorative justice is that it is much less expensive and more effective in preventing re-offending. The police here (Sechelt Peninsula) are very much in favour of it, and since they are the ones who encounter their former suspects on the street every day, I think they might be onto something. However all successful restorative proceedings are confidential—because otherwise no one would agree to participate—so information about it is very hard to find.
From my observation, the police think the system as it stands is deeply frustrating. Even in a best-case scenario, when the system works as expected, the police arrest, the offender is sentenced, and serves his sentence. Once released, rinse and repeat. Meanwhile, the victim more or less falls through the cracks as the machinery of the state runs its course. Restorative justice has suffered from proponents over-promising its benefits, but it doesn’t follow that there aren’t any. When restorative justice is applied correctly, the victim with his supporters has the opportunity to confront the offender in a controlled and safe setting. The offender has to face the harm he did to a real identifiable human, as well as the shame and disappointment of his own associates. Which can be much more difficult than doing time. When offered a choice, offenders often choose prison. They HATE restorative justice because it forces them to face themselves. I am the survivor of a violent sexual assault with a weapon. If I had been able to pick the suspect out of a police line-up, (I couldn’t—bad eyesight), I would have welcomed the opportunity to ask him what he thought his actions were going to do for him. He was married, with a child. How could it have possibly have been worth what it could have cost him?
Cy, you say that the police think that system is just fine. What do the victims think?
One of the things that I have heard about restorative justice is that when someone is, oh, raped, violently assaulted, robbed with violence, just plain robbed, etc., one of the ongoing traumas is that they have to see and interact with their perpetrator on an ongoing basis thereby increasing the trauma. I can see both sides but our system seems to be all about making the perpetrator comfortable but it seems that victims are not particularly important.