Why The Canadian Court System Needs An Element of Surprise For Proof

Leave a comment

One highlight of the BC court process I witnessed was how not having a full element of surprise for straight forward civil cases in the initial stage can make an issue more complex than it needs to be. Essentially, in the court process you are supposed to provide the other party with all your evidence ahead of time so that they can prepare on how to answer it. This is supposed to make it fair. But does it really?

Based on my experience and observations this process simply enables people to potentially sway their statements into a different direction. As a humorous but in many ways an accurate example that can happen, take a look at this Dr. Phil episode about a man who completely denies having an affair with more women than the ones which he has been caught with:

For those who don’t want to watch through the whole thing, basically it progresses in a rather embarrassing fashion where when he denies there is no one else he has cheated with they then introduce another women. He then says that is really it only then for more women to be introduced. This leads to eventually him making comments such as “I wonder how many more chairs you can fit over there” in reference to how many more women there really are.

Imagine if in this situation they told the guy ahead of time of everything they knew. Basically, it will give him an opportunity to change his story direction. How would not having an element of surprise help in getting the full truth out here? Yet in many ways this is how the BC provincial civil court process works from my experience.

I think the solution would be pretty simple. In the initial stages you need to get the two parties to describe the whole version of their story in detail. After each party submits their version of the story, a session needs to be conducted where an official court representative or say a judge needs to verify and clarify any fine details of the submitted story so that one can’t backtrack from it or claim that they meant to say something else. Afterwards each party would submit their evidence where an impartial judge/jury will evaluate everything and they can sit both parties down based on the facts and statements to make a decision or to determine the next step.

I encourage anyone to try and explain why something like this wouldn’t work better for civil cases. Like saying again a jury of people on social media can probably find out the truth faster and more accurately when you minus the bureaucratic nature of the court process.

Is Social Media The Key To Changing A Justice System

Leave a comment

Anyone else see all those incredible images of the #MillionsMarchNYC rally? If not, I saw this time-lapse video which shows just how much people got together in what appeared to be a peaceful protest over the recent court decisions with cases like the Eric Garner scenario.

I am obviously not from the US, but I was reading how so many of the big news outlets such as CNN wasn’t really covering this story at all. As a result, people were praising how they have social media to show things like this nowadays. Of course the common hearsay on why a big network wouldn’t really cover topics like this is because in many ways it would potentially affect its funding. Is social media really the key?

In many ways I would say yes. It kind of reminds me of that Kony / Invisible Children story a few years back. Essentially, it was a social media campaign that got the world’s attention to actually create tangible action. I think improving the Canadian justice system is the same and that everyone is lacking the ability to take all the hard cold facts that are available and presenting it in a fashion that will touch the majority of the public.

Instead, it seems like efforts are usually focused in say trying to get a seat or voice within the already tight knitted legal system. Like with that Kony example, I highly doubt trying to get a seat or voice in their country’s political system first would have been very effective. Maybe it’s a strange train of thought, but focusing on educating the general public first with the compelling stories that are available seems to make more sense.

I have often heard that a big reason why the justice system isn’t investigated into is that the general public simply has no interest in the issue. That sounds kind of wrong doesn’t it? Almost like saying a restaurant will continue to be unsanitary as the public doesn’t care enough about it to pressure an investigation. That business should be maintaining best practices regardless of a watchdog or public pressure in my opinion.

What would it take for the issues to be presented to light in Canada? I guess only time will tell as clearly what is currently being done simply maintains the current system and in many ways.

Why Do People Go To Court

Leave a comment

I was reading this post at http://representingyourselfcanada.com/2014/12/03/checking-our-egos-and-accepting-our-part-is-fundamental-to-restoring-public-trust-in-the-justice-system/ which provides a valid viewpoint on how everyone is part of the issue in restoring trust to the justice system here in Canada. In general I do agree with the notion that it takes everyone in all sides to fix something. This particular quote got me thinking though:

“Which brings us to the public. The public has an important part to play in the A2J dilemma. There is a widespread expectation that all problems should be solvable by the justice system. And that everyone should have a right to access it.

Understandably, when the public sees this “offer”, they want to take it up. But it is an unrealistic oversell of what the legal system can actually do.”

There were then examples of how judges can’t change say a deadbeat parent as an example of over expectation. That then made me think how maybe there is a disconnect as to why many people go to court in general which would explain a lot such as all those stories I hear on how courts usually never enforce things such as if people tell false stories in court.

For myself, my decision to go to court wasn’t only to solve a technical issue per se. My train of thought on why we have a court system in the first place is that we live in a society that values and promotes a certain standard of behavior. Example, it’s wrong to steal from a bank. Imposing a ruling that condemns that bad behavior is protecting society as a whole from becoming like a “scamville” so to speak.

So if we have a case of someone robbing a bank, while technically the issue itself is about proving if a crime was committed, ultimately the reason why we do it is to protect the idea that we can live in a safe society free from this bad behavior. In theory, these court rulings and its presence should discourage people from doing these types of things. You can change this to any other example such as the more recent sexual assault and rape cases plastered in the media.

Like from my experience, my thought was if I simply allowed my situation to slide then there is a high chance it will happen to someone else. Same reason why people like me speak out about our court experiences too. Hence, in many ways it’s like a social responsibility where the public invented the court system to essentially condemn serious bad behavior to protect the public as a whole. Impose fines, send people to jail, etc. It’s not about wanting a judge to decide which chocolate bar tastes better in a subjective way for example where it’s based on personal preference. Unless my idea of what a justice system is supposed to stand for is completely wrong.

But if you are telling me that it indeed isn’t to get justice for example but rather to simply solve disputes on a surface level, then what is the point of a court system or law in general? It would almost make more sense to simply have mediators and independent news reporters to broadcast cases in a live talk show format to the open public about issues to decide upon.

Even I agree that nothing can be perfect for everyone and you will always have bad apples on every side of the fence. If there is a clear confusion as to what a court should be all about where the public thinks it’s “the” way to get justice and people in the system think it’s simply an alternative method to resolve disputes then that is a huge issue.

On the topic of trust in the justice system, until there are practical ways to get true transparency on what actually goes on in the whole court process this distrust isn’t going anywhere. For example, imagine if in this video there was no such thing as videotaping of court proceedings:

For a person like myself, sadly based on my experience I wouldn’t doubt if things like this happen more often than we would like to believe. Transcripts, audio and court papers wouldn’t be able to tell that story. In this scenario it would have mostly been that lady’s word against powerful people in the court system. There is simply no way she would have been believed or won there which results in no change. Build trust by being fully transparent and implement ways that will better ensure that everyone, including the public, can be held accountable for their actions throughout the court process.