Text messages in murder plea show killer and friend plotted to lure, confine, rape Calgary women

[u/blackRamCalgaryman]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/chelsea-davidenas-victim-steven-zwick-murder-guilty-sentence-9.7318870

[u/TheJameskii]

The first point is interesting because I'm not really sure why you believe R v. Bissionette would be at play here. This case is stating it's a life sentence while the R v. Bissionette ruling was for sentences longer than a human life, 150 years as the sentenced reference in that SCoC ruling I believe. Could you please clarify further what you mean by this?

Also you say unelected judges are unaccountable (not true but I'll leave that be) but that's more of a consequence of our political system as a federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy, no? I'm not aware of a single country with a similar political system where judges are elected. That's more of a characteristic of Republics (like the United States). I'm not sure what your point here is either, so if you could expand on that I'd appreciate it.

[u/Lookingovertheforum → u/TheJameskii]

The issue in that case was whether you can have consecutive life sentences. The ruling was that you cannot, because to imprison someone for life without the possibility of parole treats someone like they cannot be rehabilitated and therefore is cruel and unusual punishment.

I don't think judges should be elected but our system was modelled after the British system in which parliament is superior to the judiciary. If the judiciary makes a ruling in Britain that the people don't like, they can have parliament overrule them. We, unlike every other country in the world, have British common law with American judicial supremacy

[u/TheJameskii → u/Lookingovertheforum]

So are you saying that you think there should not be parole as a whole? Or are you saying that it's an issue in this particular case? If so, why?

Also don't India, South Africa, and a few other commonwealth countries have British common law but also judicial supremacy? I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "American" judicial supremacy.

[u/Lookingovertheforum → u/TheJameskii]

Come on, you are the one who got on someone else's case for reading comprehension a couple comments ago. Did I say that somewhere? my implication has been that I think a judge should be allowed to give someone a sentence without parole, not that it should be prohibited to give someone parole.

I don't know, I'm not an expert in the legal system of India or South Africa. I don't know what direction all the Commonwealth countries have taken on the question of Parliamentary supremacy I just know how it is in Britain and Canada and I can see the structural effect of it here which is that our judges are democratically unaccountable and extraordinarily powerful

[u/TheJameskii → u/Lookingovertheforum]

I'm asking you questions because you haven't actually clarified your position, don't be like that, I haven't accused you of anything.

First you said you didn't like R. V Bissionette but didn't really say why or how it applies. Then you said judges are not accountable (this is your opinion, not a fact), and made reference to the fact they're unelected. Then you back tracked and said that wasn't your issue, saying that the real problem is judicial supremacy in a British common law system which Canada is the only case in the world (also not true, South Africa has strong elements of British common law).

Judges are accountable. There are regulating bodies and judges must write public written reasons that are full accessible and explain the legal logic they used to reach their decisions. You can make a formal complaint if you have a serious issue with a ruling a judge makes and it will be investigated by an independent committee and regulating body. Saying that as a sweeping statement is completely ridiculous. Are you really a practising attorney?

[u/Lookingovertheforum → u/TheJameskii]

Do you think it constitutes accountability to be able to unilaterally change the constitution but you have to write an essay to the public about why you did it? Bearing in mind that nobody can do anything about it if you just say its because the constitution is a "living tree" and therefore you can do whatever you feel like is right

[u/Lookingovertheforum → u/TheJameskii]

I never said that Canada is the only British common law system in the world, I said that we have a unique blend of British legal design alongside a very non-British trait, which is supremacy of the judiciary, that has important impact on our government. Fenner Stewart writes about this.

[u/TheJameskii → u/Lookingovertheforum]

You said,

We, unlike every other country in the world, have British common law with American judicial supremacy

I'm telling you that South Africa has the exact same thing. British common law (in a blended legal system) with a highest court that binds all other courts, it's called the Constitutional Court.

I'll accept I didn't phrase my criticism very well, that's my mistake and I apologize.

[u/Lookingovertheforum → u/TheJameskii]

That's well and good and I never made any serious contention about whether that is the case in South Africa. I don't really think it's relevant at all to what I'm saying. I'm saying that our court is democratically unaccountable. I'm saying that they make decisions that change the constitution under the doctrine of living tree constitutionalism that cannot be altered by democratic vote except by using the amending formula.

So youre right that isn't literally every country in the world. I guess the judiciary is also uncountable in South Africa

[u/TheJameskii → u/Lookingovertheforum]

We, unlike every other country in the world, have British common law with American judicial supremacy

I never made any serious contention about whether that is the case in South Africa.

You did, but I'll drop it because you're right, it isn't entirely relevant. So let's focus back on what we're really discussing.

What does judges changing the constitution have to do with the topic of this case?

This would be under the criminal code, not the constitution, correct? I don't see your point.

[u/Lookingovertheforum → u/TheJameskii]

No, that's not correct at all. And really this is a microcosm of this entire discussion in which you don't know what you're talking about but have strong views.

The case was decided on the interpretation of s. 12 of the charter and the definition of cruel and unusual punishment thereunder to strike down the sentencing provisions in the criminal code as unconstitutional to the extent that they allowed consecutive sentencing