epic gay, it's in his best interest to delay this till the end of time I guess.
When isn't it?
|
|
epic gay, it's in his best interest to delay this till the end of time I guess.
When isn't it?
When the suspect is innocent and able to quickly and easily prove his innocence... Of course, this does not appear to be applicable to the case in question![]()
When the suspect is innocent and able to quickly and easily prove his innocence... Of course, this does not appear to be applicable to the case in question![]()
How many people here go for 11b; innocent OR guilty?
I thought the precedent in ontario was: Guilty till proven innocent and the burden to prove your innocence is on your wallet.
I find this the most ironic part (maybe irony is the wrong word). That this entire thing revolves around a law that allows you to be punished and damages paid pre-trial with no recourse once proven not guilty. Yet the officer involved collects pay until proven guilty and even will get full salary during the appeals process which he could drag on for years.
I think there is a growing minority (hopefully someday a majority) that want to see a change to the way officer pay is handled when on trial for illegal activity.
He hasn't yet been convicted of anything, so there are no grounds for dismissal. The money that he 'earns', while on suspension, remains his.
There should be a system that is more fair under those circumstances.. Let's say a cop is charged with a criminal offense and put on suspension.. Their pay should go into an escrow. If found not guilty, they get all of it upon verdict and if found guilty, it goes back to us (the taxpayers). Typically, a cop charged with a criminal offense is able to work elsewhere, while on suspension and their union is big enough to provide employment assistance.
And such an officer should lose his car and home, because all the money that he should be getting is in escrow, instead of his account, potentially on the lies of a citizen? I wouldn't stand for that, for a police officer, any more than I would stand for it, for a regular citizen. He shouldn't have to "work elsewhere." Innocent until proved guilty.
You are making some good points Rob. However, it's not like the constable in question is unable to work while waiting for trial. Therefore, he can find other sorts of work and the union can also set up a fund to keep them afloat in such eventualities. If a bank employee got charged with financial improprieties, chances are they wouldn't get suspended with pay.
Making that money repayable under conviction is most likely a viable solution as long as there are safeguards against sheltering.
Still a bitter pill to swallow... To give a criminal $200,000 for doing nothing while waiting to get convicted.
Still a bitter pill to swallow... To give a criminal $200,000 for doing nothing while waiting to get convicted.
Consider it a corollary to William Blackstone's, “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”
Consider it a corollary to William Blackstone's, “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”
In the USA a lot of court officials are elected instead of appointed. One of their platforms is usually their succcess rate, sometimes blatently at the expense of an innocent person.
|
|
|