Stunt Driving.... Need Help!!!

hedo2002 said:

Respectfully, disagree that is reasonably safe to assume guilt, based merely on a charge being laid. There have been abuses with this particular section of the HTA and it's heavy handed "enforcement opportunities".

Click to expand...

I'm genuinely and open mindedly interested to hear (real, not heresay) examples of abuses of this law. I'd like to think that being such a serious charge the police wouldn't be just slapping that charge without a reasonable expectation that they can actually make it stick. Some cursory Google searches show a lot of results where people are whining about disliking the law (which doesn't invalidate it), suggesting it's unconstitutional (already hashed out, it is), and to be clear, in the early days of the law there was indeed a handful of stories where it seems some of the charges laid might have been invalid, but it seems those stories were in the early days of 172, not recently.

I'm open minded however if you have legit recent stories of the law being abused.

hedo2002 said:

Although ruled constitutuional by the courts the vehicle impound and licence suspension are defacto "penalties" that even if found not guilty, or charges are withdrawn, the accused has no recovery options for.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, but in the case of someone who has the charge withdrawn or beats it based on a technicality (despite it being clear that they actually did the infraction), I don't have a lot of pity for them when it comes to still being stuck with those fees. Effectively, one is getting off darned easy in the end.

If the charge is withdrawn because it shouldn't have ever been applied to begin with (AKA, the offender can somehow prove that they were indeed NOT guilty of the stunting charge), then sure, there's an argument to be made that there should be some recourse, but again, I don't see a history of that being a problem in the last many years since 172 came into law.

hedo2002 said:

There are rules and procedures officers adn the crown must follow to get a conviction. If these are not followed and a lwyer is sucessful in pointing them out then that isn't "luck" on the part of the defendent, but rather a failing by the system.

Click to expand...

When I see some of the members here jumping to suggestions that someone who has already admitted they did the crime try to fight to get it tossed based on technicalities (AKA, "Did they see your face, can they prove it was you driving the bike", amongst a few others I read right here in this thread) this is where my comments are based. If someone followed some of the advice in this thread from the very beginning (Don't talk to the police, etc etc) in a sole effort to get the charge tossed or withdrawn based solely on a technical basis​, and succeed, yeah, respectfully...IMHO...that's luck.

PrivatePilot said:

I'm genuinely and open mindedly interested to hear (real, not heresay) examples of abuses of this law. I'd like to think that being such a serious charge the police wouldn't be just slapping that charge without a reasonable expectation that they can actually make it stick. Some cursory Google searches show a lot of results where people are whining about disliking the law (which doesn't invalidate it), suggesting it's unconstitutional (already hashed out, it is), and to be clear, in the early days of the law there was indeed a handful of stories where it seems some of the charges laid might have been invalid, but it seems those stories were in the early days of 172, not recently.

I'm open minded however if you have legit recent stories of the law being abused.

Click to expand...

http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic1082.html

This was a few years back, but I see zero reason to believe that it has stopped happening. There is too much power given to cops under HTA 172. They will abuse it no matter what.

DOHC1 said:

http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic1082.html

This was a few years back

Click to expand...

Most threads I saw with regards to abuse of the law were circa 2009, just like that one.

DOHC1 said:

but I see zero reason to believe that it has stopped happening.

Click to expand...

I look at it from the perspective of if it had continued...we'd see threads on the topic a lot newer than 2009.

Yes, from 2007 to 2009 there appeared to be a lot of "creative" applications of 172, but it seems the police probably saw too many of their cases getting tossed and tightened their application of the charge as the stories have dwindled greatly.

PrivatePilot said:

Because when backed into a corner, often a result of finding themselves loosing a debate, some here take the childish way out and resort to name calling and personal insults. The same reason a few of us more responsible and older types around here (who don't know everything anymore and are no longer invincible) have been called various other names as well.



Perhaps you'd like to go read the rest of my posts on my riding years vs drawing conclusions based on 1 thread title, much less its content. I was a street bike rider probably before you were even born, and was riding dirt bikes and such off-road for probably a decade or more before that.

Click to expand...

If we are talking riding motorcycles in general now, not just street. I have been riding for 48 years. Licensed since my 16 birthday, and started road racing in 1986. And you?

PrivatePilot said:

I'm genuinely and open mindedly interested to hear (real, not heresay) examples of abuses of this law. I'd like to think that being such a serious charge the police wouldn't be just slapping that charge without a reasonable expectation that they can actually make it stick. Some cursory Google searches show a lot of results where people are whining about disliking the law (which doesn't invalidate it), suggesting it's unconstitutional (already hashed out, it is), and to be clear, in the early days of the law there was indeed a handful of stories where it seems some of the charges laid might have been invalid, but it seems those stories were in the early days of 172, not recently.

I'm open minded however if you have legit recent stories of the law being abused.

Fair enough, but in the case of someone who has the charge withdrawn or beats it based on a technicality (despite it being clear that they actually did the infraction), I don't have a lot of pity for them when it comes to still being stuck with those fees. Effectively, one is getting off darned easy in the end.

If the charge is withdrawn because it shouldn't have ever been applied to begin with (AKA, the offender can somehow prove that they were indeed NOT guilty of the stunting charge), then sure, there's an argument to be made that there should be some recourse, but again, I don't see a history of that being a problem in the last many years since 172 came into law.

When I see some of the members here jumping to suggestions that someone who has already admitted they did the crime try to fight to get it tossed based on technicalities (AKA, "Did they see your face, can they prove it was you driving the bike", amongst a few others I read right here in this thread) this is where my comments are based. If someone followed some of the advice in this thread from the very beginning (Don't talk to the police, etc etc) in a sole effort to get the charge tossed or withdrawn based solely on a technical basis​, and succeed, yeah, respectfully...IMHO...that's luck.

Click to expand...

There was a member here, some years back, who was charged under HTA 172 for lane splitting. He was found not guilty under 172 but because of the towing and storage charges, that he couldn't afford to pay, he lost his bike. IIRC he sold it to another member for the value of the outstanding fees.

That is not an unusual situation. Many people have been over-charged, specifically both for the 'regular' applicable charge and under HTA 172, in order to force a guilty plea to the 'lesser' charge. This, despite the fact that you can only be found guilty of one charge for the same infraction. This still happens to this day. If the only real purpose behind HTA 172 is that it be used as a blunt object in court, then it shouldn't exist.

Rob MacLennan said:

There was a member here, some years back, who was charged under HTA 172 for lane splitting. He was found not guilty under 172 but because of the towing and storage charges, that he couldn't afford to pay, he lost his bike. IIRC he sold it to another member for the value of the outstanding fees.

Click to expand...

I believe I found that thread when I was looking for details on 172 "abuse", and yes, that would be a situation where it had a ****** outcome and the charge was applied improperly. Is someone loosing their vehicle because on an inability to pay the related fees the rule, or the exception though? Seems to be the exception based on the evidence to be found online.

Rob MacLennan said:

If the only real purpose behind HTA 172 is that it be used as a blunt object in court, then it shouldn't exist.

Click to expand...

However, as mentioned, it seems (or seemed, as it doesn't seem to be regular occurrence anymore) that it's being applied much more carefully now as most of the stories of abuse or overreaching of 172 seem to have dwindled off many years ago. To the contrary, having spent some time Googling 172 stories (plenty of them at the Ontario HTA forum) it seems that most people that post about getting nailed for 172...were actually admittedly doing something that warranted it. There's the usual smattering of "the law is stupid traffic was moving at 140 on the 401 and I had to pass some guy who was blocking me so I was only doing 155 for a few seconds" stories of woe, but those are irrelevant - the charge was deserved as it fits.

So yes, I'll concur that in the early days of 172 it seems to have been used as a blunt object as you describe, but as I mentioned earlier, I think they found the charge being dismissed (prosecutor agrees in summary judgement that the law was applied improperly) or defendants winning against it (Defendant/lawyer/paralegal argues it was applied improperly and the judge tosses the change) often enough that the word got out that it needed to stop. The result was leaving the crown with dirty hands and the driver who might have actually been deserving of a lesser charge) walking away scot free. Sooooo...the consensus seems to be now that the guys lane splitting are more apt to end up with a dangerous charge vs 172.

If there's more recent stories where someone was "blunt forced" by 172 when it clearly wasn't deserved by the letter of the law I'd be interested in hearing them, but I've done a lot of Googling on the subject in the last few days (since it interests me and I like to know what I'm talking about in these situations) and I'm not seeing a lot of recent stories where the charge doesn't seem to fit...again, according to the letter of the law.

PrivatePilot said:

I believe I found that thread when I was looking for details on 172 "abuse", and yes, that would be a situation where it had a ****** outcome and the charge was applied improperly. Is someone loosing their vehicle because on an inability to pay the related fees the rule, or the exception though? Seems to be the exception based on the evidence to be found online.

Click to expand...

Whether or not someone actually loses the vehicle, the inequity remains. If you have done the research then you have also seen politicians, police, and prosecutors all note something to the effect that, "Even if the accused gets off, at least he has been punished." THIS is not how the law is supposed to operate.

However, as mentioned, it seems (or seemed, as it doesn't seem to be regular occurrence anymore) that it's being applied much more carefully now as most of the stories of abuse or overreaching of 172 seem to have dwindled off many years ago. To the contrary, having spent some time Googling 172 stories (plenty of them at the Ontario HTA forum) it seems that most people that post about getting nailed for 172...were actually admittedly doing something that warranted it. There's the usual smattering of "the law is stupid traffic was moving at 140 on the 401 and I had to pass some guy who was blocking me so I was only doing 155 for a few seconds" stories of woe, but those are irrelevant - the charge was deserved as it fits.

So yes, I'll concur that in the early days of 172 it seems to have been used as a blunt object as you describe, but as I mentioned earlier, I think they found the charge being dismissed (prosecutor agrees in summary judgement that the law was applied improperly) or defendants winning against it (Defendant/lawyer/paralegal argues it was applied improperly and the judge tosses the change) often enough that the word got out that it needed to stop. The result was leaving the crown with dirty hands and the driver who might have actually been deserving of a lesser charge) walking away scot free. Sooooo...the consensus seems to be now that the guys lane splitting are more apt to end up with a dangerous charge vs 172.

Click to expand...

Double charging still occurs, as you should also have noted through your Google searches. For example people are being charged both with stunt driving AND speeding (in excess of 50 Kmh over the limit). There can only be one of two reasons for that. The first is using 172 as a blunt object. The second is to obtain a conviction even if the driver can present a 'reason of due diligence', as the law governing speeding does not offer a defence of due diligence.

And the guy who is lane splitting should generally be charged with "improper driving where the road is divided into lanes" (3 points + fine) rather than "operation without due care and attention" (6 points + fine), "dangerous operation of a vehicle (charge under the Criminal Code of Canada), or HTA 172 (seizure, tow/storage fees, fine, and carries potential jail time). What is actually happening, as has been shown to be the case since HTA 172's immediate poor conviction rates, is gross over charging in an effort to get ANY conviction. Again, this is not how the law is supposed to work.

Rob MacLennan said:

Whether or not someone actually loses the vehicle, the inequity remains. If you have done the research then you have also seen politicians, police, and prosecutors all note something to the effect that, "Even if the accused gets off, at least he has been punished." THIS is not how the law is supposed to operate.



Double charging still occurs, as you should also have noted through your Google searches. For example people are being charged both with stunt driving AND speeding (in excess of 50 Kmh over the limit). There can only be one of two reasons for that. The first is using 172 as a blunt object. The second is to obtain a conviction even if the driver can present a 'reason of due diligence', as the law governing speeding does not offer a defence of due diligence.

And the guy who is lane splitting should generally be charged with "improper driving where the road is divided into lanes" (3 points + fine) rather than "operation without due care and attention" (6 points + fine), "dangerous operation of a vehicle (charge under the Criminal Code of Canada), or HTA 172 (seizure, tow/storage fees, fine, and carries potential jail time). What is actually happening, as has been shown to be the case since HTA 172's immediate poor conviction rates, is gross over charging in an effort to get ANY conviction. Again, this is not how the law is supposed to work.

Click to expand...

Preach!!!

Sent from my SM-G925W8 using Tapatalk

Rob MacLennan said:

Double charging still occurs, as you should also have noted through your Google searches. For example people are being charged both with stunt driving AND speeding (in excess of 50 Kmh over the limit). There can only be one of two reasons for that. The first is using 172 as a blunt object. The second is to obtain a conviction even if the driver can present a 'reason of due diligence', as the law governing speeding does not offer a defence of due diligence.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. As with many laws there's situations where it's used, and situations where it's abused.

Respectfully, To play devils advocate, when I immediately see people comment in this very thread, where the OP has completely admitted guilt, and suggest he try to get off on an identification technicality (AKA, "Can he prove it was you riding", ie did he see your face behind your full face helmet with tinted shield), there's an argument to be made that the police are wise to the game and, yes indeed, are trying to throw enough mud at the wall hoping some of it sticks. One must ask if in that scenario drivers (as a whole, not just cyclists) are their own worst enemies - we've seen it time and time again where people feel justified breaking laws and immediately look for technicalities to "get off" even though they've admitted guilt.

PrivatePilot said:

Fair enough. As with many laws there's situations where it's used, and situations where it's abused.

Respectfully, To play devils advocate, when I immediately see people comment in this very thread, where the OP has completely admitted guilt, and suggest he try to get off on an identification technicality (AKA, "Can he prove it was you riding", ie did he see your face behind your full face helmet with tinted shield), there's an argument to be made that the police are wise to the game and, yes indeed, are trying to throw enough mud at the wall hoping some of it sticks. One must ask if in that scenario drivers (as a whole, not just cyclists) are their own worst enemies - we've seen it time and time again where people feel justified breaking laws and immediately look for technicalities to "get off" even though they've admitted guilt.

Click to expand...

The justice system must meet certain standards of proof, in order to result in a conviction. Every time that someone tries to use a "technicality" in order to avoid conviction it tests the system, giving it the opportunity for improvement. When law enforcement and prosecutors try to cheat the system by abusing charges under various statutes it not only doesn't improve the system, it damages it. "Justice" is not about "getting convictions."

Rob MacLennan said:

Every time that someone tries to use a "technicality" in order to avoid conviction it tests the system, giving it the opportunity for improvement.

Click to expand...

Checks and balances on that, though?

There can't be. Many rush to support the defendant in this sort of scenario, but who rushes to the defence of the government when someone wrongly gets a charge dismissed because of said technicalities, even very serious charges where people have died, for example?

Yes, then the people are angry that the system failed. They run to Facebook and newspaper websites and scream about how the court system has failed justice once again and how a criminal is getting away with a slap on the wrist, or worse yet, walking away free as a bird.

172 is but one example, there's lots of stories of people getting charges dismissed on technicalities or errors in far worse crimes that 172, yet in many cases it's evident the offence did clearly occur.

I reuse my example from my previous reply. Our OP admitted guilt, even laying out exactly what happened on a silver platter. Someone responds that he should fight it on an identity confirmation basis. Do you feel that's justified and right, morally or otherwise? Let's also reuse the earlier mentioned Marco Muzzo example while we're at it - guilt is clear, but if his high prices millionaire lawyer gets him off on a technicality (ie, "the breathalyzer wasn't calibrated" to use but one example), does that somehow make the whole situation better?

PrivatePilot said:

Checks and balances on that, though?

There can't be. Many rush to support the defendant in this sort of scenario, but who rushes to the defence of the government when someone wrongly gets a charge dismissed because of said technicalities, even very serious charges where people have died, for example?

Yes, then the people are angry that the system failed. They run to Facebook and newspaper websites and scream about how the court system has failed justice once again and how a criminal is getting away with a slap on the wrist, or worse yet, walking away free as a bird.

172 is but one example, there's lots of stories of people getting charges dismissed on technicalities or errors in far worse crimes that 172, yet in many cases it's evident the offence did clearly occur.

I reuse my example from my previous reply. Our OP admitted guilt, even laying out exactly what happened on a silver platter. Someone responds that he should fight it on an identity confirmation basis. Do you feel that's justified and right, morally or otherwise? Let's also reuse the earlier mentioned Marco Muzzo example while we're at it - guilt is clear, but if his high prices millionaire lawyer gets him off on a technicality (ie, "the breathalyzer wasn't calibrated" to use but one example), does that somehow make the whole situation better?

Click to expand...

You are misunderstanding one basic part of that premise. The Government inherently has the upper hand in these dealings, which is why these "technicalities" as you keep referring to them, or as I would call them "legal requirements", are so important to the proper administration of justice and why they are enshrined in law. Recent changes to the law, that result in lower standards for The Government, serve to reduce actual justice.

that should adequately answer your question and, hopefully, make you rethink your position.

Rob MacLennan said:

that should adequately answer your question and, hopefully, make you rethink your position.

Click to expand...

Although it may seem like I'm pro government in this discussion, that's not necessarily the case. I think laws serve good purposes and I'm certainly not in agreeance that laws should be abused or overutilized in a heavy handed approach, but I am also the type of person that sees most things from both perspectives. I think it would be naive to suggest that everyone who fights a charge (be it traffic or criminal) does so based solely on the fact they are 100% innocent, many try to do so based on excuses and yes, as I keep mentioning, technicalities. I sat in court about 5 years back asking for a reduction on a speeding charge (Yes, I'm not perfect) and I sat listening to some of the utterly ridiculous excuses and explanations that people tried to use in an effort to justify their actions or dismiss the law - that alone can, as you suggest, could make you rethink your position a little.

I would still like your thoughts on this however as I think it's relevant to the discussion.

PrivatePilot said:

I reuse my example from my previous reply. Our OP admitted guilt, even laying out exactly what happened on a silver platter. Someone responds that he should fight it on an identity confirmation basis. Do you feel that's justified and right, morally or otherwise? Let's also reuse the earlier mentioned Marco Muzzo example while we're at it - guilt is clear, but if his high prices millionaire lawyer gets him off on a technicality (ie, "the breathalyzer wasn't calibrated" to use but one example), does that somehow make the whole situation better?

Click to expand...

PrivatePilot said:

Although it may seem like I'm pro government in this discussion, that's not necessarily the case. I think laws serve good purposes and I'm certainly not in agreeance that laws should be abused or overutilized in a heavy handed approach, but I am also the type of person that sees most things from both perspectives. I think it would be naive to suggest that everyone who fights a charge (be it traffic or criminal) does so based solely on the fact they are 100% innocent, many try to do so based on excuses and yes, as I keep mentioning, technicalities. I sat in court about 5 years back asking for a reduction on a speeding charge (Yes, I'm not perfect) and I sat listening to some of the utterly ridiculous excuses and explanations that people tried to use in an effort to justify their actions or dismiss the law - that alone can, as you suggest, could make you rethink your position a little.

I would still like your thoughts on this however as I think it's relevant to the discussion.

Click to expand...

The actuality of innocence is immaterial. The presumption of innocence is sacrosanct. I've been in court as an accused (once), a victim, and a witness (criminal case). My opinion remains the same.

Fair enough, differing opinions / outlook on a same subject that it seems we are generally on the same page about, albeit looking at differently and with different outcomes accordingly. If nothing else, it's been a refreshingly spirited discussion in a thread that had otherwise turned into a quagmire.

I'd still like your thoughts on the second part of my last reply however as (IMHO) it's a double edged sword when it comes to the underly basis of the discussion.

PrivatePilot said:

Fair enough, differing opinions / outlook on a same subject that it seems we are generally on the same page about, albeit looking at differently and with different outcomes accordingly. If nothing else, it's been a refreshingly spirited discussion in a thread that had otherwise turned into a quagmire.

I'd still like your thoughts on the second part of my last reply however as (IMHO) it's a double edged sword when it comes to the underly basis of the discussion.

Click to expand...

My previous answer covers that. My belief doesn't change because of specific situations. The legal system is tested by each and every trial.

ZX600 said:

You must be fun at parties lol. Argue all you want but stop wishing ill on others.

To everyone saying 190 is a crazy speed. If you got on the back of my or dricked's race bike you will think that we are crazy for riding at those speeds, we would in the other hand be cruising at a very safe speed for us. Just because something seems impossible to you does not mean that other can not handle it, this is due to practice and training.

just some perspective

Click to expand...

190 isn't crazy fast. I've done it in a Jetta, which isn't exactly a performance car, and it was fine. All through college I commuted for 45 minutes on the highway and was almost never below 150. Cruise was set at 150 before I was off the onramp. In even a moderately decent car it would be fine unless you're doing it on city streets. On a 400 series it's nothing.

Yes you refer to the as "technicalities", and that people shouldn't be able to use them to their advantage. These "technicalities" exist for a reason, to ensure that all parts of the justice system performs to an "expected level" of competence, and to protect the accused from oversteps and abuses.

Let's use a completely different aspect. There are rigid building standards for say a skyscraper to be built, as in techniques to be employed as well as the quality of materials to be used. Would it be acceptable for a builder to determine that these are mere "technicalities" and therefore are unimportant and need not be adhered to?

Yes people use "technicalities" to avoid conviction, but if the justice system had done it's due diligence on all levels then no such "technicality" would exist and a conviction would be registered.

I will reiterate the story I have told here before. About 3 years ago I was pulled over after making a left turn in front of an OPP cruiser at a red light. The cruiser made a Uturn and activated his lights I pulled over. As he was approaching the vehicle I released my seatbelt to retreive my wallet from my back pocket. The officer approached my pickup and advised he had stopped me as I was not wearing my seatbelt. He asked me why I wasn't I didn't reply, (as I am not required to). I gave him my documents he left wrote the ticket as he returned I was outside of the truck. He asked me to click the seatbelt to show him it worked. I reached in and did so. He handed me the ticket and left. I went to first attendance the crown offered no reduction adn I advised that I was indeed wearing my seatbelt but that prior to my purchasing the truck the seatbelt mechanism had be altered causing the seatblet to come straight ut and across my shoulder as opposed to the normal angle from above and that is why the officer didn't see the belt but that it was indeed in place when I was operating the truck. Crown elected to go to trial.

Trial day arrived I showed at the court house with a letter from my mechanic stating the seatbelt had been modified, before I bought the truck and that he had since returned the seatbelt mount to it's original location. I also had photos of the belt location before being returned to it's proper location as well as after photos. The crown called me to see if I wasnted to plead out as the officer was present I advised no and why. She asked to see my evidence, I showed it to her she advised me to have a seat and called the officer up. They had a discussion the officer then came to me with the evidence and asked me to step outside. I did so. He asked why I didn't advise him of this at the time he stopped me. I explained that as an ex cop I knew I was NOT guilty of failing to wear my seatbelt as charged. But I also knew enough that had I advised him at the time he could have charged me with improper equipment, (which although I had not modified the equipment as the owner of the vehicle I would be found guilty of). He said well the photos left him with a "reasonable doubt" as to weather I committed the offence of not wearing my seatlbelt, at the time of the offence so therefore the charges were being withdrawn.

Now you may say I won on a "technicality" But that would be incorrect as I had NEVER committed the offence as charged. I was guilty of another offence but the officer didn't do his due deligence and confirm the position of the seatbelt.

So seeing that I was indeed wearing my seatbelt at the time I was not guilty of the offence and therefore, there was no "technicality" involved although I am sure others may see it that way. It just so happened I was educated enough to keep my mouth shut, and not implicate myself in another offence which had indeed occured. Again no "technicality" as I was never charged with that offence.

So yes "technicalities" are an important part of the justice system. I am sure that OPP officer now has the accused do up their seatbelt while seated in the vehicle so he can testify it was in good working order and that it was positioned properly. Now had I just placed the belt under my armpit (as I have seen and charged people with), then argued I was "wearing my belt, just improperly" and got off then that would be a "technicality", (but that has also been ruled by the courts to be the same offence as not wearing your belt.

hedo2002 said:

... I explained that as an ex cop....

Click to expand...

I suspect this may have played a big part in the charge being dismissed.

My last interaction with a police officer resulted in just a warning, for the same offense actually. The officer struck me as someone best being honest, and thankfully I was right.

PrivatePilot said:

Fair enough, differing opinions / outlook on a same subject that it seems we are generally on the same page about, albeit looking at differently and with different outcomes accordingly.

Click to expand...

"the same subject that it seems we are generally on the same page about"? no

there are totally opposing views on a prime fundamental here, technicalities, one side is very clear,

The actuality of innocence is immaterial. The presumption of innocence is sacrosanct

Click to expand...

"legal requirements", are so important to the proper administration of justice and why they are enshrined in law.

Click to expand...

and in particular from

Originally Posted by hedo2002
... I explained that as an ex cop....

Yes you refer to the as "technicalities", and that people shouldn't be able to use them to their advantage. These "technicalities" exist for a reason, to ensure that all parts of the justice system performs to an "expected level" of competence, and to protect the accused from oversteps and abuses.

Click to expand...

Yes people use "technicalities" to avoid conviction, but if the justice system had done it's due diligence on all levels then no such "technicality" would exist and a conviction would be registered.

Click to expand...

So yes "technicalities" are an important part of the justice system.

Click to expand...

i'm totally with RM & h2002

the burden of proof lies with the accuser and i'm not bothered at all by technicalities

The presumption of innocence is sacrosanct

Click to expand...

"technicalities" exist for a reason, to ensure that all parts of the justice system performs to an "expected level" of competence, and to protect the accused from oversteps and abuses.

Click to expand...

proper justice includes 'must trump' technicalities, arguments against technicalities goes against "to protect the accused from oversteps and abuses."

and

to ensure that all parts of the justice system performs to an "expected level" of competence

Click to expand...

https://www.quora.com/Why-should-it...-should-we-give-both-of-them-equal-importance

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone's_formulation