RSS FeedJudge found guilty of of corruption; 6500 convictions overturned
This story comes from Philadelphia:
All Ciavarella juvie convictions vacated
County judicial scandal ruling on about 6,500 cases is a victory for advocacy group Juvenile Law Center of Philadelphia
Seeking to remedy what it deemed a “travesty of justice,” the state Supreme Court on Thursday vacated the convictions of all juveniles who appeared before former Judge Mark Ciavarella from 2003 to 2008 and barred retrials in all but a small portion of those cases. [...]
The high court based its ruling on Ciavarella’s admission that he accepted millions of dollars from the owner and builder of two juvenile detention centers to which he sentenced youths [emphasis mine], as well as his “systematic” deprivation of the constitutional rights of juveniles who appeared before him. [...]
The District Attorney’s Office has come under fire for its failure to alert authorities to abuses of juveniles’ rights that were perpetrated under Ciavarella.
Some notes:
- What relations are judges allowed to have with detention centres? Is there legislature anywhere that makes explicit what judges may or may not accept from the owners, managers, etc of prisons? Was the issue here that Ciavarella accepted a hellish amount of money from the prison management, or that he accepted any at all? In other words, had he received a “reasonable” amount of money openly and transparently, would he have been alright?
- There’s no mention of what the judges’ punishments were, which suggests (that the paper thinks) that people are or should be satisfied with the overturning of the convictions. But that ignores the fact that these men negatively impacted the lives of at least 6,500 adolescents. At the very least, will these two be allowed to serve in court again? Will they serve any jail time?
- I wonder what remedies and health services will be offered to the people who were convicted under these men.
- I should look up Canadian judicial regulatory bodies. Suggestions?
The fight for equal justice
We wrote about the growing legal aid boycott before. A couple of days ago, crown prosecutors supported the protest. Hugh Locke, a retired judge and current member of Toronto’s police services board, weighed in too recently. The former Superior Court judge condemned the Ontario government for withering the legal aid system.
Ontario could use a dedicated constitutional rights’ organization like the Constitution Project in the US. It published an in-depth report [PDF, 3.5 Mb] on the public defender system failings in April. A similar inquiry could be a good step forward for this province.
See also: Report Calls Out Flaws In Public Defender System
A story of crime (?) and punishment (!)
If a teacher and a student fall in love and have a consensual sexual encounter, should the teacher go to jail for 10 years? What if the student is of the age of consent? What if both of them are female? This is a real case: a trial court in Georgia convicted a woman of sexual assault on her female student and sentenced the teacher to 10 years in jail plus 5 years of probation. The court rejected the consent defence. Although, the Georgia Supreme Court overturned the trial court on this point, the real possibility of 10 years in jail for an encounter with an of-age student lover is shocking. It does not serve the state interest in protecting children, places a disproportionate burden on teachers, and is possibly in this case a product of homophobia.
Read more
Canadian / US Law Outline Wiki
A new Wikipedia-type site for law outlines has been created by law students at Queen’s University.
Law students across Canada and the USA can post to the wiki, which works just like Wikipedia; anybody can post, and anybody can edit.
The hope is that it will be used to help students collaborate and share ideas.
There are already a few outlines on the site. The tricky part is formatting them so they look good in wikipedia language.
Students are encouraged to convert their outlines to text using a .doc to .txt converter and post them on the site for others to edit. Anybody can then fix up the formatting and correct any mistakes.
Articles should be named using the following method: “School-Course” or “School-Course-Professor”.
For example, an outline for Queen’s University’s Commercial Law outline is named “Queen’s Commercial Law”. Students can also create outlines that are not specific to a school or a professor by simply naming the article by its course name.
Most law schools have a database of outlines, but nobody checks them for accuracy, and they’re usually out-dated. Now everybody will be able to help keep them up to date, and anybody with a computer will able to access the information for free.
Man Busted for Impaired Operation of a Riding Mower
Last month, I discussed the potential criminal liability for the impaired operation of a motorized wheelchair in Canada.
On the topic of drunken care and control of non-traditional motor vehicles, the Grand Rapids Press reports the story of a Michigan man caught operating a riding lawnmower with a blood alcohol level of 0.441 percent. That level is over 5 times the legal limit in Michigan – 0.08. It’s also enough to put most casual drinkers into a coma.
Witnesses told police that Earhart earlier appeared to be slumped over the wheel of the mower as it went in circles in the intersection. He appeared to regain control at one point, but passed out again and was thrown to the ground. The mower continued until it struck a tree and lawn ornament. A witness shut off the engine.
The man has been criminally charged with drunk driving.
While this case may sound pretty funny, it’s obvious that the impaired operation of a riding mower in an intersection could easily have led to serious injury or death.
By the way, the man would have been criminally liable in Canada, too. While many people may like to have a few beers before mowing the lawn on a fine Sunday morning, operating a riding mower while impaired is an offence under section 253 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Don’t drink and drive, kids!
California becomes second U.S. state to legalize gay marriage
This morning the California Supreme Court ruled that the state’s laws restricting marriage to heterosexual couples were unconstitutional. Following a close 4-3 decision, California has become just the second state in America (after Massachusetts) to legalize gay marriage .
The lengthy (174 page!) decision entitled “In re Marriage Cases” represented a consolidated appeal from six cases. You can read the full text of the decision here.
Californian homosexual couples were already entitled to virtually all of the same benefits available to straight married couples under the Domestic Partnership Act. The court, however, determined that the language and statutes governing “domestic partnerships” did not go far enough. The definition of marriage in California would no longer exclude homosexual couples.
At p. 120, George C.J. (Kennard, Werdegar, Moreno JJ. concurring) wrote:
… [W]e determine that the language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union “between a man and a woman” is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples.
In an interesting dissenting opinion (for fans of the “legitimacy of judicial review” debate), Baxter J. wrote that the majority had engaged in “legal jujitsu” and had been overzealous in interpreting the constitution. He was of the view that there was nothing implicit or explicit in the constitution which allowed the recognition of marriage between a same-sex couple. Therefore, he wrote, the majority had erred in viewing the progressive changes made by the legislatures in recognizing domestic unions as creating an implicit constitutional principle that marriage should extend to homosexual couples.
At p. 5 of the dissent, Baxter writes:
Recent years have seen the development of an intense debate about same-sex marriage. Advocates of this cause have had real success in the marketplace of ideas, gaining attention and considerable public support. Left to its own devices, the ordinary democratic process might well produce, ere long, a consensus among most Californians that the term “marriage” should, in civil parlance, include the legal unions of same-sex partners.
But a bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves.
In any event, gays and lesbians in California have won a significant civil rights victory today in California. Following the 30 day suspension period, they will be legally allowed to marry in that state.
Conservative groups must now petition for an amendment to the state constitution if they wish to challenge the court’s decision. According to the New York Times, these conservative groups have already gathered over a million signatures supporting a constitutional ban on gay marriage. The initiative will likely be put to the voters in November. Interestingly, despite vetoing two attempts by the legislature to recognize gay marriage, Gov. Schwarzenegger has said that he will not support the constitutional ban initiative.
Podcast Feeds
Awards
Partners
- Advertise Here
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The Whiners - The Elusive Fish Creative Services
- Mesothelioma Lawyer
- no win no fee solicitors
- Compensation Claims
- personal injury lawyer toronto
- no win no fee
- Pardons Canada Accident Claim Medical Negligence Whiplash Claim
- No win No fee Claims
- Venue
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
