While the law & order junkies are screaming blue murder about the deal that Peter Whitmore received for his violent sexual offences...essentailly he was not tagged a dangerous offender pursuant to Part XXIV of The Criminal Code.... the reality of the situation is that the Dangerous Offender tag does not change Whitmore's parole eligibility at all.

The Dangerous Offender tag,the arguement goes, is a red flag for the parole board, however, Whitmore's record is pretty much a red flag as is his life sentence without anyone being killed.

The arguement that he will be forgotten and will slip through the system without the police, the family or the press being any the wiser is, sorry to say, nonsense. When this dude comes up for parole we are all going to know about it and there will be plenty of people to remind the board why he should stay in prison.

The deal is worth it to save the victims the displeasure of testifying. His guilty plea and agreed life imprisonment are worth the sacrifice of the dangerous offender label. The plea bargain system actually worked in this case and, frankly, those who cannot see it are blinded by outrage that they are projecting onto the system.

Update: The commentators at Small Dead Animals are none too pleased. Also this post on bail gone wrong... I note that there are never any stories on bail that goes right, which is almost all bail cases... however, the real story is about a guy fighting back and I'm pleased that it worked ou for him. If we need some outrage it should be about the removal of property rights and the ability of property owners to protect their property. That too would cut down on repeat crime.

Last week in Kitchener a mother killed one of her children and drugged the other. The dead child was a mere three months of age. Instead of the normal cry of monster, the reaction has been one of saddness, that this woman did not get the help she needed when suffering from a clear a mental disorder of the post-partum psychosis kind. At least one talk radio show had a public heath nurse on to talk about recognizing post-partum depression. Note that the depressed rarely if ever hurt their children. It is the psychosis that causes the action and is a complete break from reality:

Post-partum psychosis or PPP, (also called Post-natal Psychosis or PNP and puerperal psychosis (PP) in the UK) is a mental illness, which involves a complete break with reality. Although correctly termed as a postnatal stress disorder or postpartum depressive reaction, Post-partum psychosis is different from Post-partum depression. The majority of PPP occurs within the first two weeks after childbirth with a classic 10-14 day meltdown, likely caused by the radical hormonal changes combined with neurotransmitter overactivity. When correctly diagnosed at the earliest signs and immediately treated with anti-psychotic medication, the illness is recoverable within a few weeks. If undiagnosed, even for just a few days, it can take the woman months to recover. In cases of PPP, the sufferer is often unaware that she is unwell.

Psychosis can also take place in combination with an underlying psychiatric disorder, such as bipolar affective disorder, schizophrenia, or undiagnosed depression. In some women, a part-partum psychosis is the only psychotic episode they will ever experience, but, for others, it is just the first indication of a psychiatric disorder. Only 1 to 2 women per 1,000 births develop post-partum psychosis. It is a rare condition, and often treatable. However, much media coverage of post-partum depression has focused on psychosis, especially following the Andrea Yates case. Whilst postpartum/puerperal psychosis is a serious psychiatric illness, the risks of a mother suffering this illness harming her baby are low: infanticide rates are estimated at 4%, and suicide rates in postpartum/puerperal psychosis are estimated at 5%. )

The mother has been charged with first degree murder and is currently residing in prison while the matter gets investigated and works its way through the court system. The Criminal Code Of Canada recognizes post-partum psychosis and/or other mental disorder related to birth Section 233, the infanticide provision, which reads:

A female person commits infanticide when by a wilful act or omission she causes the death of her newly-born child, if at the time of the act or omission she is not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth to the child and by reason thereof or of the effect of lactation consequent on the birth of the child her mind is then disturbed.

"Newly born child" is defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code as "a person under the age of one year".

Why the First Degree Murder Charge? I suspect it's because of the ongoing investigation to ensure that the elemnets of the offence are met. A Section 233 charge calls for the proof of certain  elements including:

1. the mother is not fully recovered from the effects of the child birth; and
2. the mother's mind is disturbed as a result thereof.

Thus, the mental defect must rise from the child birth (or the effect of lactation consquent on the birth) and cannot have another cause, though pre-existng conditions do not take away from the element and may be indicators in a diagnosis.

An investigation and some medical opinion will be necessary before the infanticide charge may be brought. There is a significance to this charge as opposed to a murder charge in that Infanticide, unlike murder or manslaughter, does not have a minimum sentence.

The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary were called to a home by child protection workers when a mother of three children would not cooperate with the said workers in the apprehension of her children. The police then made a small mistake that probably isn't going to sit well with the Newfoundland public (CBC reports):

St. John's police officers used pepper spray on a boy during a confrontation in which he and his siblings were seized from their defiant mother, her boyfriend says.

The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary was called to the woman's home on Cookstown Road, near downtown St. John's, on Wednesday night to assist child protection workers who had arrived to take three children into custody.

The woman, however, refused to co-operate and barricaded her family inside the house in a confrontation that went on for hours.

At one point, police said, she swung a baseball bat at an officer's head, grazing but not injuring it.

"She didn't want them to go," the boyfriend, who was at the house during what he called a "crazy" confrontation, told CBC News.

....

The boyfriend said the woman's 12-year-old son was pepper-sprayed while he used a stick to keep a police officer from climbing through a window.

At that time, he said, the mother reached for a baseball bat.

The RNC confirmed pepper spray was used in the incident, but would not say on whom.

A negotiator was called and the matter was resolved, however, one would think that pepper spraying the kids you are supposed to be protecting wouldn't be an option.  Apparently one would be wrong in that thought.

Of course, child protection in Newfoundland has been under the microscope since the Dr. Shirley Turner incident who, while accused of murder in the USA of the father of her expected child and fleeing to Newfoundland, her child, Zachary Turner, was placed in her unsupervised care. This was despite protest from US justice officials and from the family of the Dr. Andrew Bagbey (The father and murder victim). The Courts had cleared the procedural steps for the extradition and it could no longer be avoided so Turner then did the old murder-suicide by stapping the infant to her body and walking into the North Atlantic Ocean. This raised more than a few questions about what was going on in the child protection industry in Newfoundland.

As a result, however, we are probably going to see a fair bit of over-reaching on the part of child protection workers. Without knowing the facts of this recent case it would seem, however, that it was the RNC who did the over-reaching.

(Speaking of Dr. Shirley Turner, her kids, or someone representring themselves as the same, will have none of the murder allegations against Turner going unanswered. They are out and about on the internet with the most pathetic defences of their mother including that both Shirley Turner and her child were murdered, Turner didn't have a trial so nothing was proven, the extradition didn't happen, etc. It is sad to read the ramblings and it has come to some serious threats being made against a blogger by one of the kids. However, it is like the mother who will not believe her son died at sea because she hasn't seen the body, denial is part of human nature and we are seeing it. There seems to be little need to continue to debate this poor girl in denial; for her it is reality (it's like debating with a fundamentalist over the existence of God or with a delusional person about the effect of mirowaves) and to continue to do so seems a tad cruel. No amount of debate  is going to bring back Andrew Bagbey or Zachary Turner. No amount of debate will make the survivors feel any better.)

Must NBC Stop Running Law & Order If Fred Thompson Announces His Candidacy or else face the obligation to give rival candidates equal time?

Apparently the answer is yes... or maybe... or who knows?

Does it also mean that the networks cannot show any of his movies including Hunt for the Red October, Cape Fear and Die Hard II unless they also show an equal amount of footage of Hillary Clinton sitting through Bill's impeachment hearings? Thompson was also on some episodes of Matlock, which seems to run on cable 24 hours a day, and he did an episode of Sex and the City.

Our reporting was guided by our prejudices, and even though the story turned out to be false, we stand behind our prejudices.

link

Apparently the New York Times stringer covering the Conrad Black Trial maynot actually be covering the Conrad Black Trial. ... he may not even be in Chicago...he may not even be animate:

Theree is much speculation about the whereabouts of the New York Times stringer who has been filing dispatches on the trial. His report the other day seemed (to some) to suggest he was in the courtroom, and yet nobody seems to have laid an eye on him. Nobody is suggesting anything untoward of course. Certainly not. This is the finest newspaper in the world we’re talking about. And, to be fair, nobody among the assembled scribes knows exactly what this fellow looks like, so it’s possible he was among us at some point over the past few days, disguised as a lawyer perhaps. Or an empty chair.

UPDATE: NYT guy is in the building:

The Jury has asked the judge to allow them to render a partial verdict in the Corad Black Trial after informing the judge that they could not reach a verdict on one or more counts. Of course no one has any idea what verdicts the jury has reached on what counts, but I would suspect that in light of the two notes that the jury sent to the judge, that the jury members are pretty far apart on some of the counts. The judge has asked the jury to sleep on it and see how they feel in the morning.... i doubt it will change much but you never know. As such, look for verdicts tomorrow.

After following the Conrad Black trial closely, i would not want to be federally prosecuted in the USA. The prosecution resmbles persecution. The charging of Mark Kipnis is essentially a malicious prosecution. The State essentially led no evidence against him, rather he was lumped in because he would not cooperate...unlike numerous witnesses used by the prosecution who had cut deals with the SEC to avoid regulatory proceedings.

In light of this..

Canada tokes at 4 times world average: UN

... isn't it about time that we looked at pot as having a broad acceptance in society and take the necessary steps to decriminalize its usage? 16.8% of Canadians admit to using... so if were to throw in another 5% who simply do not admit ( and i expect that this is low) we have as many people smoking pot as tobacco. If the cops were to charge them all we would have some 6 million tied up in the court system. That would cause quite the backlog.

I have a post at The London Fog on the Chair of the Committee for Suatainable Development

from the National Post:

Three Halton police constables have been charged with assaulting a 79-year-old retired teacher who was shot with a rubber bullet and tasered during an arrest in Oakville last fall. Gerry Morgan died in May, six months after he was arrested at a Marine Drive home at 4:30 a.m. on Nov. 25, 2006. A woman who identified herself as his daughter answered the phone at Mr. Morgan's home yesterday: "My dad was a wonderful man." She said her father had four children-- two daughters and two sons --and taught at teacher's college and was a consultant with the Halton and Dufferin-Peel Catholic school boards. Mr. Morgan was arrested after Halton Regional Police Services responded to a call for assistance. "While inside the home, officers employed use of force weapons," the Special Investigations Unit said in a statement yesterday. "They discharged an ARWEN (Anti Riot Weapon Enfield) weapon and as a result, Gerry Morgan was struck once with a projectile made of rubber-like material and the allegation is that he suffered a serious injury to his upper arm. Officers also used a TASER device on Mr. Morgan and the allegation is that when he fell to the floor, Mr. Morgan suffered a broken hip." The trio will appear in court on May 28.

The trial of a Newfoundland Doctor for trafficing in narcotics and sexual assault, has had a second mistrial over jury related incidents. The first mistrial came about when 4 jurors & 2 alternate jurors came to the judge with reasons why they could not serve:

A Newfoundland Supreme Court judge declared a mistrial Wednesday in a closely monitored case involving narcotics.

Justice James Adams made the decision Wednesday in the trial of St. John's physician Sean Buckingham over concerns that proceeding further with the case — in which four jurors and two alternates were excused — may trigger an appeal

Before new jurors could be selected, Adams said a valid argument could be made at a higher court about the detrimental impact of removing so many original jurors and their alternates.

Buckingham is being tried on 23 charges involving sexual assault and drug trafficking. Police say he was illegally dispensing prescription drugs, including the powerful narcotic OxyContin, in return for sex.

The second mistrial has to do with the validity of the jurors list:

Justice William Adams declared a mistrial for Sean Buckingham, a St. John's physician facing 23 charges of trafficking and sexual assault, when his lawyer, Randy Piercey, argued that the local jurors list is woefully out of date.

"I suppose the central issue was that no one under the age of 28 could sit on a jury in Newfoundland, because of the way the jury system was working," Piercey said.

The list of potential jurors has not been updated since 1999, and is based on data collected by the motor vehicle registration system.

Adams said he found it breathtaking that the sheriff's office had the means to update the list, but did not. The list does not include, for instance, people who don't have a driver's licence and people who moved to the St. John's area since 1999.

The Sheriff is John McDonald and he is quite new to the position. If I recall correctly, he was made Sheriff within the past 12 months after a short stint as "Acting Sheriff". It is going to be hard to fault him personnaly, when he wasn't around for the majority of the problem and he has not been there long enough to have rooted out the problem. As well, it would appear that he is not covering anything but calling it human error. His Offices, however, may have some answering to do. With that said, the Sheriff's Office is about as unionized a shop as you will find and answering for things is not the norm. It is clear that someone was supposed to be doing this job for the past 7-8 years and failed to so do. It will be interesting to see the explanation. It will be even more interesting to see if anyone is held accountable.

From a legal perspective, I have not seen the reasons of Justice Adams, however, I suspect that it is a fundamental justice issue. The state prepares the list and limitations to the list reduce the ability of the defendant to receive a fair trial by 12 impartial jurors.

UPDATE: I have been advised that John McDonald is in fact still just the Acting Sheriff. Any culpability on his part is now not just hard to show, it's out the window.

As well, it isn't so clear that someone was supposed to be doing this, though the responsibility is with the Sheriff's Office.

UPDATE II (JULY 26, 2007): Jury List Fixed

Here is an interesting NYT article (via instapundit) that shows the Japan's criminal justice system as being little less than criminal. an excerpt:

“Traditionally in Japan, confessions have been known as the king of evidence,” said Kenzo Akiyama, a lawyer who is a former judge. “Especially if it’s a big case, even if the accused hasn’t done anything, the authorities will seek a confession through psychological torture.”

The law allows the police to detain suspects for up to 23 days without an indictment. Suspects have almost no contact with the outside world and are subject to constant interrogation, a practice that has long drawn criticism from organizations like the United Nations Human Rights Committee and Amnesty International.

Suspects are strongly pressed to plead guilty, on the premise that confession is the first step toward rehabilitation.

The conviction rate in Japanese criminal cases — 99.8 percent — cannot be compared directly with that of the United States, because there is no plea bargaining in Japan and prosecutors bring only those cases they are confident of winning. But experts say that in court, where acquittals are considered harmful to the careers of prosecutors and judges alike, there is a presumption of guilt.

A star is stillborn

(pic via The Toronto Star)

Was Paris Hilton on the Hollinger Audit Committee?

Cash Money. It is the legal tender of the country and you can buy whatever you want with it from anyone but the Candadian government:

Cash no longer accepted for paying taxes

Ottawa will no longer accept cash payments from people paying their taxes at service counters across the country.

The Canada Revenue Agency says it will still accept cash payments made through banks, however. Service counters will continue to accept cheque and debit payments.

Apparently it's too inconvenient....

The agency says it made the change because the amount of people who pay by cash is so small.

Of the seven per cent of taxpayers who make payments at the service counters, less than one per cent pay by cash, said Revenue Canada spokesperson Heather Cameron.

"It comes down to the fact … that there's so few people that are actually making their payments in cash now," said Cameron.

And here I was thinking that it was legal tender and if you tendered it on the government in payment, the government is to accept the same. A refusal to accept would certainly give rise to the question of whether penalties or interest would accrue.

(also at The London Fog)

CBC reports on a vaction to the Dominican Republic ....

That's when … we both realized that this was getting out of control, that this was not just a misunderstanding," said Dawn Sinnott, who began yelling for help.

"You think you're in big trouble now?" Dawn Sinnott recalls a man identifying himself as an employee telling them. He then told them, she said, "You just disturbed the peace. I'm going to have you arrested.… You're going to prison forever."

Instead of a marked police vehicle, though, a white pickup truck arrived to take the Sinnotts away. They were taken to a building with cells, although they were later told the building is used by tourism security and not the actual police.

The Sinnotts said they were astonished when — at one point during the interrogation — the man who accused them of stealing his cellphone answered a cellphone he was carrying. The man said the cellphone he was using belonged to someone else.

"That's when it stopped being about the cellphone," Dawn Sinnott said.

"He said, 'If you just give us the money, you can go,'" Andrew Sinnott said. "I didn't have the [cash] — I didn't even have a room key."

The whole thing is worth a read and reminds me of my brother's friend who, upon graduation from medical school, headed to Mexico for vacation, which vacation ended when the police stuck a gun in his girlfriends face and made hime pay-up. They were going to charge him with some nonsense charge.

The Defence of necessity had been attempted in imparied driving cases in Canada on numerous occassions. I say "had" because of the abject failure of the defence to that particular charge. I'm not saying that it has never been successful, but the elements of the defence are so stringent -that you believe your life or the life of another to be in danger - that the defence virtually never works. It just did. The Globe and Mail reports on a case from Sudbury:

A Sudbury man was cleared yesterday of drunk-driving charges after admitting he drove while impaired to seek mental-health assistance after a failed suicide attempt.

....

Mr. Desrosiers testified that he told the police he had attempted to kill himself with carbon-monoxide poisoning inside his garage.

The officer on the scene told court he became so concerned over the man's uncontrollable sobbing in the back of his cruiser that he wanted to transport Mr. Desrosiers to hospital, believing he was a risk to himself and others.

...

Judge Keast said he found Mr. Desrosiers "to have been a reliable and credible witness."

"He was expecting to die," he said.

He believed Mr. Desrosiers chose to drive while intoxicated rather than stay inside his home, where he was considering a second suicide attempt.

....

At trial, it was revealed Mr. Desrosiers spent two weeks in hospital under psychiatric care, was put under different medication and remained under psychiatric care almost one year after his arrest.

It is clear Mr. Desrosiers' mental health had deteriorated badly in the hours before his suicide attempt and his decision to drive after consuming alcohol was made by a man with serious mental-health issues at the time, the judge said.

Glenn Reynolds (aka Instapundit): People don't stop killers. People with guns do

 Gun-free zones" are premised on a fantasy: That murderers will follow rules, and that people like my student, or Bradford Wiles, are a greater danger to those around them than crazed killers like Cho Seung-hui. That's an insult. Sometimes, it's a deadly one.

With respect to a NY Times editorial calling for stonger controls to prevent Virginia Tech like murders, Prof. Volokh asks:

What stronger controls over weapons would likely have stopped him from committing the murders, or even led him to kill fewer people?

Note that I'm not asking what controls would have prohibited him from doing something. Murder law, and for that matter the gun control law that banned firearms from campus, already prohibited him from committing mass murder. That didn't seem to help. I'm curious what "stronger controls" would likely have stopped a would-be mass murderer from killing, or at least killing as many.

(The comment thread should be good. The Volokh Conspiracy, to which I often link, usually elicits some very intelligent comments and debates.)

It is the same question that was flowing around the firm and the courts yesterday. There were the immediate comments on American gun culture, but they were quickly tempered by the question of what gun law could have prevented this shooting. Look at Dawson College in Montreal where the shooter complied with the very strict Canadian laws. Fewer people died, but not from a lack of effort: the shooter hit 20 people.

Remember the genocide in Rawanda- it was carried out by machete.

UPDATE: David Frum is kind of asking the same question (via Peaktalk):

America will try to learn lessons from this latest tragedy too. But there is no escaping the hardest lesson: that death lies waiting around the corner for us all. No public policy can rescue us from that grim human fact - or the equally fearful obligation to walk with courage under the burden of the reality of evil.