No Money For The Wrongly Convicted in Ontario!

Must be because Ontario cannot afford to do the right thing? Sue us in another court? Great for lawyers!
Anger as Baltovich gets nothing


Lawyers accuse province of arbitrary action in denying redress to two wrongly convicted









http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/750603--anger-as-baltovich-gets-nothing

no its because there was no miscarriage of justice. They either pled guilty or were found guilty based on a proper hearing.

Dean:

But there are many reasons an innocent person might do so, said University of Western Ontario law professor Chris Sherrin. In Hanemaayer's case, the Crown's eyewitness identification, while clearly wrong, seemed overpowering and he was afraid he was heading to prison for six years.
When offered two years less a day in jail in exchange for a guilty plea, he took the deal.

In addition, we all know that many confesions are/were made under duress and after having been questioned for hours upon hours.

That's just an excuse imo.

They'll pay eventually.

This was not a confession beat out of the guy. This was him and his lawyer looking at the evidence before him and making the very hard decision to do way less time then if convicted. I have seen other cases where the person who was again not guilty NOT take the deal and then end up doing some way wacked out time.

Sometimes life sucks and you make a decision. Sometimes thats the right decision, sometimes the wrong.

Dean. Obviously the government fcuked up. The witness was wrong. The government prosecuted based on wrong information which resulted in the conviction. Legally, imo, it doesn't make any difference how that conviction came about. (It is unfortunate that people still believe that eye-witness testimony is 100% accurate while it has always been questionable.)

Anyhoo, afterall, the government has a responsibility to seek the truth, not just convictions.

JTF the difference is when the government lies and ignores facts to wrongfully convict someone on purpose even when they know or suspect or should have suspected based on the evidence that they were going after the incorrect person.

These cases that did not happen. The convictions while incorrect were done properly.

How many truths should the government seek? If it thinks it has the truth and has no good reason to suspect otherwise then they have met their obligation.

Sometimes the law and justice have tunnel-vision. Dangerfield here in Manitoba had this affliction big time.

Regarding eyewitnesses, there have been studies that show eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable. Perhaps there should be less weight given to eyewitness accounts when deciding guilt. Apparantly this is more-so the case between different ethic groups.

Dean. I don't know enough about these cases to respond actually, so I will bow to your assessment of the situation.

But, to my knowledge, and belief, there are a lot of innocent people in jail because of plea-bargain agreements. Imo, they only serve the interests of the government and the lawyers...seldom if ever, the innocent. (I'm not saying the guilty as they are well-served by them.) Just say'n in general we have a system that requires a lot of tuning.

I agree JTF. The plea bargain serves no real justice when the innocent accept such offers. Not sure what I'd do in a similar situation but I'd think long and hard before pleading guilty to something I did not do.

grumpy old man wrote:Sometimes the law and justice have tunnel-vision. Dangerfield here in Manitoba had this affliction big time.

Sometimes the actions of the government are almost criminal imo.

Regarding eyewitnesses, there have been studies that show eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable. Perhaps there should be less weight given to eyewitness accounts when deciding guilt. Apparantly this is more-so the case between different ethic groups.

Everyone knows this, including the government, so they should not place their actions solely on it, as appears to be the case here, as I understand it.

By prosecuting a person, knowing that the evidence is shacky, is wrong imo. Trials are a crap-shoot and to rely on them to decide a person's innocence can be unjust in all too many cases imo.

grumpy old man wrote:I agree JTF. The plea bargain serves no real justice when the innocent accept such offers. Not sure what I'd do in a similar situation but I'd think long and hard before pleading guilty to something I did not do.

Me too.

And therein lies the problem.

We would probably rely on our lawyers advice and he would give advice that is in his own best interests most probably, as he can be held liable for the advice that he gives.

and in this case, his lawyer seems to have advised him to take the deal... so sue the lawyer then

That would be like trying to sue "the system" I think.

lol...btw, how many lawyers would want to take your case?

These were wrongful convictions that the Provincial Government does not want to pay for, because they can delay things another 2-4 years!
The bureaucracy knows what it can do and they obviously have decided to do the "wrong" thing, in my opinion.

Deank wrote:Sometimes life sucks and you make a decision. Sometimes thats the right decision, sometimes the wrong.

While perfectly correct, this is neither a solution to the problem, nor a justification for not providing a solution. I don't know about you, but I discuss law under the assumption of justice. It's not justice to be incarcerated innocent under any circumstances, and whether it's a miscarriage of justice or not, those who are proven to be wrongfully incarcerated deserve compensation. It's not too much to ask, in fact it shouldn't even be controversial.

When the government wrongs you, no matter whether they felt compelled to or not, you deserve compensation. It's just and fair.

Either the system is good enough for this not to be a serious problem for it to handle, or the system is broken enough to justify excruciating penalties to induce some bloody effort to improve it.

I can't see any way to justify this injustice as just a part of life. It's not good enough. Armed robbery is a part of life too, that doesn't mean we should just live with it without compensation.

grumpy old man wrote:I agree JTF. The plea bargain serves no real justice when the innocent accept such offers. Not sure what I'd do in a similar situation but I'd think long and hard before pleading guilty to something I did not do.

I would never plead guilty to anything I did not do. No matter what. I would do as David Millgaard and would never stop proclaiming my innocence, I would sit in prison and would fight tooth and nail until the truth came out. That is what I would do.

Then I would file action in civil court asking for compensation.

I might even take it a step further. And sue the Dangerfields and others that did illegal acts to ensure a wrongful conviction.

Dangerfield should be behind bars IMO.

helgihg wrote:

Deank wrote:Sometimes life sucks and you make a decision. Sometimes thats the right decision, sometimes the wrong.

While perfectly correct, this is neither a solution to the problem, nor a justification for not providing a solution. I don't know about you, but I discuss law under the assumption of justice. It's not justice to be incarcerated innocent under any circumstances, and whether it's a miscarriage of justice or not, those who are proven to be wrongfully incarcerated deserve compensation. It's not too much to ask, in fact it shouldn't even be controversial.

When the government wrongs you, no matter whether they felt compelled to or not, you deserve compensation. It's just and fair.

Either the system is good enough for this not to be a serious problem for it to handle, or the system is broken enough to justify excruciating penalties to induce some bloody effort to improve it.

I can't see any way to justify this injustice as just a part of life. It's not good enough. Armed robbery is a part of life too, that doesn't mean we should just live with it without compensation.

oh so you are saying then it would perfectly alright for me to plead guilty to a crime, knowing full well I was not guilty.. serve two years and then get out and sue the government for compensation.

Seems like a damn simple way to make money to me. How about the government sue him for lieing to them and keeping a real criminal out on the street? How about the victim of the crime sue him as well?

No, Deank, obviously what I meant was that no matter what happens to people, they should just suck it up and be a man like you.