Canadian Politics Redux

Meltdown99

I gave it some though ... Im just guessing here, but I doubt  Columbia's regularity standards and environmental standards are in the ballpark as are's...this is a country that just ended a 50 year civil war, and has been host to some of the world largest drug cartel's...the government probably had much more important things to worry about...

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Meltdown99 said:

I gave it some though ... Im just guessing here, but I doubt  Columbia's regularity standards and environmental standards are in the ballpark as are's...this is a country that just ended a 50 year civil war, and has been host to some of the world largest drug cartel's...the government probably had much more important things to worry about...

I'm not necessarily going to disagree with you; however, I'm pretty sure they didn't string together empty paper towel tubes with duct tape. There was a level of engineering and there were levels of planning to prevent a mishap.

My whole point is that it doesn't matter what level of sophistication supports a pipeline project: once an accident occurs... it is brutal. There is a legitimate element of risk.

And Columbia is not the only country with a pipeline incident. I only submitted the recent case given the latest context of this thread. Use google (if you haven't already) to peruse at your leisure.

PJ_Soul

Meltdown99 said:

Then why are you arguing...

personally i I would rather deal with a spill as opposed to an explosion that can happen from rail cars and semi’s...plus I trust the engineers far more than I’ll ever trust an overworked, underpaid semi drive or train engineer...

Whatever your level of distrust for train engineers and oil tanker truck drivers may mysteriously be, the fact of the matter is that there are far more pipeline spills and oil storage facility accidents than there are oil tanker truck/train accidents.
And FWIW, my friends in the trades always say that engineers like the guys who give the go-ahead with shit like pipelines and electrical systems and stuff are next to useless 90% of the time. You are putting WAY too much faith in those guys.

PJ_Soul

Sounds like a good idea. I'm sure more could be done, and sentencing issues remain obviously, but still, a step in the right direction I think.

Liberals propose major criminal justice changes to unclog Canada's courts

Bill ends most preliminary inquiries, updates bail system and changes jury selection process

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-crime-justice-reform-1.4598480?cid=

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

Sounds like a good idea. I'm sure more could be done, and sentencing issues remain obviously, but still, a step in the right direction I think.

Liberals propose major criminal justice changes to unclog Canada's courts

Bill ends most preliminary inquiries, updates bail system and changes jury selection process

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-crime-justice-reform-1.4598480?cid=

this was my exact thought, and then there it was in print:

The bill will restrict preliminary inquiries to those accused of an offence punishable by life imprisonment, which is expected to reduce the number of preliminary inquiries by 87 per cent. There are now more than 9,000 a year.

But many criminal defence lawyers are opposed to the idea, saying it could have the opposite effect, since the preliminary inquiry process can weed out some cases that don't have enough evidence to go to trial.

I agree 100% with this. the whole point of the prelim inquiry is to stop unwinnable cases from going to trial. now a much higher portion will go to trial, unless you have a fortune-telling DA that will somehow be able to predict which cases would get thrown out and which ones won't. My guess is many DA's will just roll the dice on a trial in hopes of scoring a conviction. or many people will get off scott-free when they shouldn't have because you have a gun shy DA who is being pressured not to waste taxpayer money on anything that isn't a slam dunk. at the very least they should have included serious crimes against the person; assault, sexual assault, rape, etc. 

and this:

"In particular, they cited 'condition creep,' where excessive conditions are placed on an accused person in the name of public safety," the report reads. "Participants said that many of these conditions do not contribute to public safety and can set people up to fail, resulting in longer criminal records."

The report cited the example of alcoholics ordered by courts to stop drinking who don't subsequently get the community support they need to stay away from alcohol.

the court system isn't designed to be a counselor. The court system is designed to tell you what you need to do to get help. It's not there to hold your hand while you do it. I get it. My sister's husband died from alcoholism. But come on. So a booze hound doesn't show up to court. No consequence. Ok. Four days later he gets behind the wheel and kills a family of 4. Now what?

PJ_Soul

I disagree with your assessment of what most DAs will do, and I don't think a DA needs to be a fortune teller to try and predict which cases would get thrown out and which ones won't. I feel that is specifically one of their skills needed for their jobs. I think we need to hold on to at least a little faith in those within the system to employ some common sense here... And honestly, of all the people in the criminal justice system, I'm thinking maybe defense lawyers aren't the very first ones we should be trusting for an objective opinion. But anyway, I guess we'll see how this all shakes out! The bill might not even pass.

HughFreakingDillon

I didn't say most. i said many. 

I think getting rid of the PH would put undo stress on the DA's office and a higher amount of scrutiny where it doesn't necessarily belong. 

it was my opinion before I saw it in print. it doesn't matter to me which "side" they are on. I agree with it. and the defence lawyers I have known have been more interested in justice than getting a guilty person off. I have known both prosecutors and defence lawyers, and they are pretty much the same people. I have even known people who have swtiched jobs and in the process switched "sides". 

saying I disagree with getting rid of the PH does not all of a sudden make me distrusting of the justice system as a whole. 

PJ_Soul

Okay, I disagree with your assessment of what many DAs will do, lol.

oftenreading

I have lots of thoughts on this that I don’t have time to tap out on my phone now but will try to get to later. 

One picky point, though - Canada does not have DAs. We have Crown prosecutors. And I’m not actually just being picky; DAs have very different roles and expectations. Many are elected, and feel a lot of pressure to bow to public opinion. 

I work with a lot of people interacting with the legal system, and I see massive delays due to the choices of defence attorneys. They know that things will go better for their clients if they can delay and delay a trial, assuming the client does well in the community and avoids breaching bail conditions. Thus, they often find reasons to ask for stay after stay, and it all drags out. There are definitely other reasons for legal delays, but this is a big one.  

PJ_Soul

Okay, I disagree with HFD's assessment of what many Crown Prosecutors would do.

oftenreading

On a related note, one of the things that I think is most wrong with the American justice system is the fact that many roles are elected positions instead of appointed due to actual competence. 

PJ_Soul

oftenreading said:

On a related note, one of the things that I think is most wrong with the American justice system is the fact that many roles are elected positions instead of appointed due to actual competence. 

I totally agree with you - obviously once people are getting elected for a role, their job is mainly playing politics and greasing wheels rather than their actual job.

HughFreakingDillon

I wouldn't call it an assessment. it's a concern of what I think is possible. But who knows, maybe DA's welcome this as removing an unnecessary step. But that was just the first thought that came to my mind, and it was echoed in the article. 

Thirty Bills Unpaid

oftenreading said:

On a related note, one of the things that I think is most wrong with the American justice system is the fact that many roles are elected positions instead of appointed due to actual competence. 

edit: never mind.

Meltdown99

Senators fear legal cannabis will hike number of Canadians barred from entering the U.S.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-senators-fear-legal-cannabis-will-hike-number-of-canadians-barred-from/?click=sf_globefb

Unless you have a conviction the only way US customs would know is if you are dumb enough to admit you have used cannabis..of course some people are just dumb enough to admit this to the US Customs.

Meltdown99

Canadian barred from U.S. for life because he admitted he smokes pot

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-thursday-edition-1.3753202/canadian-barred-from-u-s-for-life-because-he-admitted-he-smokes-pot-1.3753205

And we have a winner...

PJ_Soul

I wonder what they're planning on doing once it's legal in BC, so on both sides of the border? They can't continue with this crap - it would be completely unmanageable. I mean, plenty of border guards are fine with a yes answer to this question, as long as you don't lie to them. If they find you lied (somehow... like find a crumb of weed in your bag, or a random photo with a pipe on the table in the background or someting, lol), that's when they decide you're inadmissable. The problem is that it depends on the border guard you are talking to. And once it's legal in Canada, saying no will just start seeming completely unbelievable for a large number of people.

Meltdown99

The US Customs are federal ... they enforce federals laws of the US ... I do not think they much care what we in Canada think, the US custom officer has the right to ban people, once they ban you, its very hard to get the ban over-turned, I would lie through the teeth ... but once again, the vehicle I use when travelling to the US has never had weed in it, the luggage I use have never had weed in it either ... call me paranoid, I prefer cautious and smart to avoid hassles, and I only once in over 30 years crossing into the states was ever pulled into  secondary inspection, and it was random...and the dogs go all through your car, including engine and trunk compartment...

PJ_Soul

Meltdown99 said:

The US Customs are federal ... they enforce federals laws of the US ... I do not think they much care what we in Canada think, the US custom officer has the right to ban people, once they ban you, its very hard to get the ban over-turned, I would lie through the teeth ... but once again, the vehicle I use when travelling to the US has never had weed in it, the luggage I use have never had weed in it either ... call me paranoid, I prefer cautious and smart to avoid hassles, and I only once in over 30 years crossing into the states was ever pulled into  secondary inspection, and it was random...and the dogs go all through your car, including engine and trunk compartment...

I know it's federal, but the Canadian legalization will be federal too, so what, the US plans on banning everyone in Canada who does something legal in their own country? I doubt that.
Anyway, I have never been asked that question at the border... I'm not sure what I'd do if I was. I'm a pretty bad liar, so I wouldn't be comfortable lying to them about it, mainly because I don't know if they'd believe me, and once they think you're lying about anything, you're done. I also wouldn't have any weed anywhere on me, but them just thinking you're lying because you're an unconvincing liar is enough for them to turn you around if they want... while they certainly don't all turn you back if you admit you've ever smoked weed. And once it's legal in Canada, I mean, soon enough, half the people crossing will have smoked it. So what then? The US knows we help their economy when we enter. 

Meltdown99

The entire legalization process was poorly put into place, they have way of accurately making sure we do not have stoned drivers and the trudeau liberals never engaged the Americans on this issue...