Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CTV)   High speed chase? Check. Crash in to the cops? Check. Half a pound of crystal meth in the vehicle? Check. Waiting in jail for 31 months for trial? Charges dismissed for delay of due process. Priceless   (ctvbc.ctv.ca ) divider line
    More: PSA  
•       •       •

5709 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Oct 2011 at 4:51 AM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



42 Comments     (+0 »)
 
 
2011-10-04 11:49:46 PM  
Three years in jail sounds about right for reckless driving. You'd like to nail him harder for the meth, but think of it this way: If he was in prison for a known sentence, he'd probably be more relaxed than waiting day after day wondering if you'll ever get out of jail.
 
2011-10-05 04:55:53 AM  
Was it the Duchess of Alba? She's a real wild child.
 
2011-10-05 04:59:17 AM  
Since he never actually got convicted, would those crimes not count against him for, say, employment purposes? I wouldn't mind serving three years or so for hitting a police officer with my car and then walking free with no other consequences.
 
2011-10-05 05:01:16 AM  
I'm not defending douchebag meth-heads, but this is exactly what should happen. (DNRTFA)
 
2011-10-05 05:03:18 AM  

jaylectricity: Three years in jail sounds about right for reckless driving.


Yeah. For a conviction.
 
2011-10-05 05:04:49 AM  
The guy may be a druggy dealer who made a bad decision or 5.. but I think the courts are being the d-bags here. I would go and say time served but as the judge mentioned, there was no trial and no guilty verdict, for all possibilities he could have had a smaller sentence after plea.
 
2011-10-05 05:05:59 AM  

vexle: I wouldn't mind serving three years or so.


You sir or maddam, have never been to jail.
 
2011-10-05 05:06:59 AM  
Here is a pic of crash.
from chbcnews.ca

Om nom nom. Little police truck gets squished.
i.imgur.com
 
2011-10-05 05:20:36 AM  
Hey it at east it's not 38 years not years old never kissed a girl.
For 2 oz. of coke
 
2011-10-05 05:26:29 AM  
Link (new window)
 
2011-10-05 05:32:33 AM  

vexle: Since he never actually got convicted, would those crimes not count against him for, say, employment purposes? I wouldn't mind serving three years or so for hitting a police officer with my car and then walking free with no other consequences.


Speaking for the U.S. situation, unsure how Canada is different, BUT....

It's been a long time since I've been job hunting, but I do recall that they are concerned with arrests, not convictions.

And then there's the matter of it being on your arrest record. I know someone who was arrested for something unsavory, and he related how he responds to a request for his ID with "I left it in my car" because "Here it is" can result in guns being drawn on him. So imagine someone running your ID and seeing drug charges, vehicle chase, vehicular assault, assaulting an officer, or whatever the arrest charges were.

BTW - I'll never understand "prison math". 31 months in jail equals 7 1/2 years of prison time? Do you just go in for 10 hours a day like it was a job, then go home at night?

/also: in before the Kevin Mitnick reference
 
2011-10-05 05:49:59 AM  

Mister Peejay: vexle: Since he never actually got convicted, would those crimes not count against him for, say, employment purposes? I wouldn't mind serving three years or so for hitting a police officer with my car and then walking free with no other consequences.

Speaking for the U.S. situation, unsure how Canada is different, BUT....

It's been a long time since I've been job hunting, but I do recall that they are concerned with arrests, not convictions.

And then there's the matter of it being on your arrest record. I know someone who was arrested for something unsavory, and he related how he responds to a request for his ID with "I left it in my car" because "Here it is" can result in guns being drawn on him. So imagine someone running your ID and seeing drug charges, vehicle chase, vehicular assault, assaulting an officer, or whatever the arrest charges were.

BTW - I'll never understand "prison math". 31 months in jail equals 7 1/2 years of prison time? Do you just go in for 10 hours a day like it was a job, then go home at night?

/also: in before the Kevin Mitnick reference


Hugh betcha ass - They (many jerbs) will make you get a police security check that shows your employer every single thing you ever done or been charged with in your life. And if you wanna job that involves money, guns, people, information, or the govmint you are F'din the A.
 
2011-10-05 05:55:31 AM  

vexle: Since he never actually got convicted, would those crimes not count against him for, say, employment purposes? I wouldn't mind serving three years or so for hitting a police officer with my car and then walking free with no other consequences.


It'll still count against him....if anyone asks for a record check. In Canada the first step in a record check is getting a Criminal Name Index report, this just means that your name is submitted and based on your name alone it'll come back as either Clear (nothing on the record) or Not Clear (something's there, but no indication of what). A stayed charge will trigger a Not Clear finding. Most companies that require record checks, when presented with a Not Clear would then either file the job application in the round file or request a Full Criminal Record report (based on fingerprints), which would list details and dates of the stayed charges as well as any other convictions. Getting a Full Criminal Record report takes a LOT longer, up to six months, so it just depends if wherever he's applying will take a report that he's ordered pre-emptively (accompanying which he could request a letter from the RCMP stating that he has no convictions, if that's the case), or if they want one with their company name in the "reason requested" field. If the company wants their name on it, but is looking to fill the job opening in less time than it would take to get the report (and really, who advertises for jobs they don't need filled for 6 months?), he'd be screwed.

However, if the company doesn't ask for a record check, and just uses the standard application question "have you ever been convicted of a crime for which a pardon has not been granted", if the stayed charges are his only history he'd be able to honestly say no since he wasn't convicted.
 
2011-10-05 05:59:57 AM  

Mister Peejay: vexle: Since he never actually got convicted, would those crimes not count against him for, say, employment purposes? I wouldn't mind serving three years or so for hitting a police officer with my car and then walking free with no other consequences.

Speaking for the U.S. situation, unsure how Canada is different, BUT....

It's been a long time since I've been job hunting, but I do recall that they are concerned with arrests, not convictions.

And then there's the matter of it being on your arrest record. I know someone who was arrested for something unsavory, and he related how he responds to a request for his ID with "I left it in my car" because "Here it is" can result in guns being drawn on him. So imagine someone running your ID and seeing drug charges, vehicle chase, vehicular assault, assaulting an officer, or whatever the arrest charges were.

/also: in before the Kevin Mitnick reference


CANADA yay !!!-

BTW - I'll never understand "prison math". 31 months in jail equals 7 1/2 years of prison time? Do you just go in for 10 hours a day like it was a job, then go home at night? "sometimes, yes - depends on the judge and severity of crime.

Examples include drop a 20lb brick on a bus driver and kill him from a bridge while white = 18 months XBox home arrest. Drive your BMW into a parked car while drunk and kill the passenger in a deadly fire while a po-lice-man = go free


YAY Canada!!
 
2011-10-05 06:04:31 AM  
so, who's the bigger jerk.... the guy who committed the crime, or the prosecution services [who, seemingly, had loads of evidence] who let the guy walk
 
2011-10-05 06:09:33 AM  

Mister Peejay: Speaking for the U.S. situation, unsure how Canada is different, BUT....

It's been a long time since I've been job hunting, but I do recall that they are concerned with arrests, not convictions.


We have multiple (4) levels of criminal record checks

Level 1 checks only criminal convictions which are unpardoned. 2 adds outstanding charges. The remainder will search arrests and discharges as well, 4 obviously being the fine-toothed comb to find anything you've got across the board - enforcement, judicial and correctional databases.
 
2011-10-05 06:14:52 AM  

furterfan: so, who's the bigger jerk.... the guy who committed the crime, or the prosecution services [who, seemingly, had loads of evidence] who let the guy walk


It's not the prosecutors that are the problem, it's that there aren't enough judges to hear all the cases. Like the article points out, B.C. is now looking at increasing the number of hours that senior part-time (ie semi-retired) judges can work, and at luring some judges out of retirement in order to get the backlog under control.
 
2011-10-05 06:21:43 AM  

imprimere: I'm not defending douchebag meth-heads, but this is exactly what should happen. (DNRTFA)


This, this and this. THIS.

If somebody was hurt or killed, it would be a tragedy on this account. But it would still have to be done. The Constitution is not to be farked with. You have the right to a speedy and public trial, plain and simple.
 
2011-10-05 06:22:24 AM  
So does that mean he's not guilty?

I kid I kid.

But doesn't it slightly worry you that you can be put in jail for the equivalent of a 71/2 year sentence without being found guilty of anything?
 
2011-10-05 06:28:58 AM  
I say set him free, clear his arrest record, and backpay him his average earnings for the time he was locked up. If he was never charged for his alleged crimes due to the court system being retarded, AND stayed in jail the whole time, A) they never proved he was guilty B) Denied him the chance to prove his innocence C) Didn't eventually release him on Own Recognizance D) Denied him wages that he could have earned as either a free man or as one out on bail/bond.

Guilty or not (Imagine spending that much time in jail for something you didn't do), and since he wasn't found uh vkguilty
 
2011-10-05 06:30:25 AM  
Make budget cuts = letting rapists and murderers go free, right?

That's about all I got out of the whargabll from the article...

The Judge saying "I hate to do this, but constitution and all that..." is just telling me that the Judge is pointing fingers for the cutbacks at the main government and allowing this man his rights to a speedy trial or release when that doesn't happen...

Why the outrage? The man got his rights upheld, and now he can sue for wrongful emprisonment, right?
 
2011-10-05 06:33:12 AM  
This is idiotic. If you have an open-and-shut case, even if there's a lot of evidence to sort through, it should be prioritized in the court system (particularly if the offense was violent in nature, or potentially deadly to one or more persons).

It's not like they planted this guy's truck at the scene of the crime... it's pretty obvious what happened, and that should have gone to trial in a prudent manner. I have a feeling that there were a few lower priority cases in the province.
 
2011-10-05 06:55:41 AM  
ya know, sometimes I wonder what my life would be like if I had a half pound of crystal meth.
 
2011-10-05 07:06:17 AM  

puffy999: This is idiotic. If you have an open-and-shut case, even if there's a lot of evidence to sort through, it should be prioritized in the court system (particularly if the offense was violent in nature, or potentially deadly to one or more persons).

It's not like they planted this guy's truck at the scene of the crime... it's pretty obvious what happened, and that should have gone to trial in a prudent manner. I have a feeling that there were a few lower priority cases in the province.


This'n.


And don't worry... this guy will be back in jail. He has 'recidivism' written all over him.

/in sharpie.
 
2011-10-05 07:19:55 AM  

imprimere: I'm not defending douchebag meth-heads, but this is exactly what should happen. (DNRTFA)


Actually, this is what should have happened 2 years ago.
 
2011-10-05 07:45:17 AM  
Seems like Canada has some fair laws. It is just wrong to keep someone in jail without a trial.
 
2011-10-05 07:51:22 AM  

Knarf: ya know, sometimes I wonder what my life would be like if I had a half pound of crystal meth.


It would be fast. Really really fast and then oh fark I just hit a cop car what was that doing there aw shiat my pickup man this say isn't going well who the hell are you people why are these spiders everywhere
 
2011-10-05 07:58:25 AM  

jaylectricity: Three years in jail sounds about right for reckless driving.


no.

for evading police, reckless driving, obstruction of justice, DUI, and possession with intent to distribute... yeah, maybe. but not for just reckless
 
2011-10-05 08:03:47 AM  

Arcturus72: Make budget cuts = letting rapists and murderers go free, right?

That's about all I got out of the whargabll from the article...

The Judge saying "I hate to do this, but constitution and all that..." is just telling me that the Judge is pointing fingers for the cutbacks at the main government and allowing this man his rights to a speedy trial or release when that doesn't happen...

Why the outrage? The man got his rights upheld, and now he can sue for wrongful emprisonment, right?


Nope. He had a chance to argue for his pretrial freedom with a show cause hearing (probably more than one given the length of his detention) and he lost. The imprisonment was perfectly legal and it only ended because his charges got askoved. If he were to sue then he would have to prove the Crown was somehow negligent in throwing him in jail, which he can't do.
 
2011-10-05 08:14:58 AM  

vexle: Since he never actually got convicted, would those crimes not count against him for, say, employment purposes? I wouldn't mind serving three years or so for hitting a police officer with my car and then walking free with no other consequences.


Or you could just be Randy Moss and get to walk free without the jail time.
 
2011-10-05 08:15:26 AM  

Flakeloaf: Nope. He had a chance to argue for his pretrial freedom with a show cause hearing (probably more than one given the length of his detention) and he lost. The imprisonment was perfectly legal and it only ended because his charges got askoved. If he were to sue then he would have to prove the Crown was somehow negligent in throwing him in jail, which he can't do.


But he can point to this judges ruling to prove that they were negligent about keeping him in jail. Especially whatwith the who no-trial in the forseable future bit.
 
2011-10-05 10:08:19 AM  

0Icky0: jaylectricity: Three years in jail sounds about right for reckless driving.

Yeah. For a conviction.


I find it hard to feel bad for the guy, given that he was caught red-handed. But the prosecutors should not have taken 2 1/2 years to get a case like that to trial. How much preparation do you need for a possession case??
 
2011-10-05 10:16:15 AM  

rev. dave: Seems like Canada has some fair laws. It is just wrong to keep someone in jail without a trial.


The United States has the same law. It's called the Sixth Amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

It doesn't mean that no one can be jailed prior to conviction (in either the U.S. or Canada). You can be denied bail for serious felonies if the judge is convinced that you pose too much of a danger to the community or that you'll skip town. But once they've got you in jail, they have to bring the case to trial quickly (unless you waive your right to a speedy trial).
 
2011-10-05 10:16:35 AM  
I'm OK with this.

They really should have brought it to trial, it looks like it was a slam-dunk since they actually caught him in the stolen truck and carrying meth. Having caught him in a stolen pickup though, there's no actual doubt he's guilty even if the proper legal process has not proceeded as it should. It's not like this was some crime where the police had to puzzle together who committed the crime with detective work.

So considering the facts, this would be a tragedy had it happened to someone else... happening to him is a whole other story. It is technically a shame, but realistically OK.
 
2011-10-05 11:12:30 AM  
static.tvguide.com
Approves
 
2011-10-05 12:25:28 PM  
My understanding is that jail is a lot worse than prison, so his 31 months probably felt like 10 years in the federal pen. This story displays just how arbitrary the Justice System is in America, though. If you really think Due Process and Reasonable Doubt matter, maybe you should try it.
 
2011-10-05 12:29:10 PM  

dnl.machine: Link (new window)


False dichotomy.
That's in the USA - Land of the Free.
 
2011-10-05 01:08:58 PM  

EditorialSpace: This story displays just how arbitrary the Justice System is in America, though.


img492.imageshack.us

No it doesn't.
 
2011-10-05 01:34:50 PM  

dittybopper: EditorialSpace: This story displays just how arbitrary the Justice System is in America, though.

[img492.imageshack.us image 350x233]

No it doesn't.


Shut your festering gob you tit. Your kind makes me puke.
 
2011-10-05 04:46:15 PM  

JeffMD: The guy may be a druggy dealer who made a bad decision or 5.. but I think the courts are being the d-bags here.


He *may* be a druggy dealer who made a bunch of bad decisions. He may also be an innocent man that they didn't take to court because they knew they wouldn't get a conviction if they did. For all we know, his actual crime was that he dated some cops ex girlfriend. As it stands, they never showed any evidence in court, they just issued a press release.

It's unreasonable to keep people in jail for 2 and half years without a trial.
 
2011-10-05 07:55:54 PM  
web.buddytv.com

"Yo, Mister White, these biatches b gaining on me"
 
2011-10-06 01:42:25 AM  

EditorialSpace: This story displays just how arbitrary the Justice System is in America. If you really think Due Process and Reasonable Doubt matter, maybe you should try it.


I really don't see how this story shows anything about the Justice System in America.
 
Displayed 42 of 42 comments


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report