Dont' bring manga into Canada

[Martinus]

It depends whether this assumes only one instance or full appellate process, and whether it includes costs of experts or just litigators. Probably quite excessive if this was just one instance and only the lawyers' fees (unless they went to like the most expensive lawfirms, in which case I wonder why they would).

Yeah, I hadn't thought about experts.  I would bet the figure takes into account appeals, but it's not clear.

Btw, plea bargaining is pretty great--although prosecutors might occasionally use a "wham" charge as leverage, if the defendant is adequately represented I don't see that as a serious danger.  Are you opposed to civil settlements?

Civil settlements are a different matter. They are, ultimately, about resolving a dispute (and there is a "parity of arms", on both sides, at least in theory). In criminal prosecution, it is about justice, and the "Crown" has a much stronger position, however which also puts a requirement on it to act in the public interest, rather than in the interest of "winning" at all cost. 

[Martinus]

And yeah, TheBrain is right. A real dominant partner is fucking hard to find. It's power bottoms everywhere. 

Depending on how far a sub wants to go, it can get uncomfortable.  I just want a blowjob, damn it.

From personal experience (in both roles), I can tell that subs are quite exacting and controlling about the way they want it to be done, which is quite counterintuitive. In fact, the "dom" is often little more than a prop.

[Neil]

*Illustration purposes only.  I don't think Islamabad should be nuked.  Only conventionally bombed. :p  Also, given this is Canada, [y]our home and native land, I would not be at all certain I could write that.

Hard to say.  Once upon a time, I would say that it would be alright, but the busybodies have been trying to stamp out freedom of expression in any way they can, and that would probably fall under 'hate speech'.

[Barrister]

It depends whether this assumes only one instance or full appellate process, and whether it includes costs of experts or just litigators. Probably quite excessive if this was just one instance and only the lawyers' fees (unless they went to like the most expensive lawfirms, in which case I wonder why they would).

Yeah, I hadn't thought about experts.  I would bet the figure takes into account appeals, but it's not clear.

Btw, plea bargaining is pretty great--although prosecutors might occasionally use a "wham" charge as leverage, if the defendant is adequately represented I don't see that as a serious danger.  Are you opposed to civil settlements?

Civil settlements are a different matter. They are, ultimately, about resolving a dispute (and there is a "parity of arms", on both sides, at least in theory). In criminal prosecution, it is about justice, and the "Crown" has a much stronger position, however which also puts a requirement on it to act in the public interest, rather than in the interest of "winning" at all cost.

While I fully agree with what you said, I don't understand wat that has to do with plea bargains.   

[Neil]

But forget (frankly unsafe) BDSM play for a minute.  What the SCC doesn't seem to realize (or doesn't care because they were following Parliament's lead) is that they turned a goodnight kiss on your sleeping girlfriend's forehead into a sexual assault.  Excellent work, top legal minds of an entire nation!

One wonders if Parliament had much to do with it.  The SCC is a law unto itself at this point, and Parliament doesn't have the courage to have the lot of them disposed of, but they certainly show what minds bereft of morality, ethics or reason can do when applied to the law.

[Neil]

I think I've heard of that particular kink.  I think it has a lot more to do with submission and power - kind of just a particular twist on S&M - rather than an attraction to infants.  Plus I'm, unaware of anyone progressing from that kind of porn to child sexual abuse.

But surely they're creating a virtual minor?

[Ideologue]

It depends whether this assumes only one instance or full appellate process, and whether it includes costs of experts or just litigators. Probably quite excessive if this was just one instance and only the lawyers' fees (unless they went to like the most expensive lawfirms, in which case I wonder why they would).

Yeah, I hadn't thought about experts.  I would bet the figure takes into account appeals, but it's not clear.

Btw, plea bargaining is pretty great--although prosecutors might occasionally use a "wham" charge as leverage, if the defendant is adequately represented I don't see that as a serious danger.  Are you opposed to civil settlements?

Civil settlements are a different matter. They are, ultimately, about resolving a dispute (and there is a "parity of arms", on both sides, at least in theory). In criminal prosecution, it is about justice, and the "Crown" has a much stronger position, however which also puts a requirement on it to act in the public interest, rather than in the interest of "winning" at all cost.

I dunno.  Civil disputes are about justice, too.  The law doesn't (or tries not to) offer unjust remedies, or unjust causes of action, or unjust procedural requirements.

As for the unlevel playing field in a criminal prosecution, the State is generally restrained from exercising its full power over a defendant.  I can agree, however, that some prosecutors (not all, perhaps not most, and indeed none I've ever talked to personally or professionally) don't recognize a difference between working in a civil litigation firm (what is best for my client is the biggest settlement or judgment at the least cost, and the system will ensure fairness) and working for the common weal (what is best for my client is what is just, and I have to ensure fairness).

[Ideologue]

*Illustration purposes only.  I don't think Islamabad should be nuked.  Only conventionally bombed. :p  Also, given this is Canada, [y]our home and native land, I would not be at all certain I could write that.

Hard to say.  Once upon a time, I would say that it would be alright, but the busybodies have been trying to stamp out freedom of expression in any way they can, and that would probably fall under 'hate speech'.

My eyes have been opened a great deal over the past few years on the difference between the American, or (usually) correct, approach to speech and expression issues, and the approach that seems to be embraced by every other Western country, which is to say a deeply troubling, sometimes tyrannical and occasionally even truly evil approach.  And the Euros and Canadians I talk to don't even seem to realize how their rights have been limited and their societies made poorer and less safe for it.

While I fully agree with what you said, I don't understand wat that has to do with plea bargains.

I took it to mean that Martinus believes that the State/Crown uses its full weight to lean on people to make settlements.  Which is not entirely incorrect, but the judicial system is fair enough that even when faced with an overzealous prosecutor--short of straight-up lying and fabricating evidence--a settlement made with an adequately represented defendant cannot be said to be unfair, and benefits the defendant at least as much as the State or Crown.  Like, I wouldn't say that a defendant is cheated when he or she trades a 5% chance of acquittal and a 95% chance of going to gaol for ten years for a 100% chance of only going to gaol for two, or one, or none.

[The Brain]

One argument against plea bargains could be that the state shouldn't jail people unless it has proved beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law that the person is guilty.

[Slargos]

My eyes have been opened a great deal over the past few years on the difference between the American, or (usually) correct, approach to speech and expression issues, and the approach that seems to be embraced by every other Western country, which is to say a deeply troubling, sometimes tyrannical and occasionally even truly evil approach.  And the Euros and Canadians I talk to don't even seem to realize how their rights have been limited and their societies made poorer and less safe for it.

I don't know about the situation in Canada, but you must realize that here in Scandinavia we've been exposed to a focused propaganda effort for decades (hell, in the case of Sweden almost a century's worth), and the average citizen doesn't really know or understand how limited his freedoms are and how much he's being lied to.

[Ideologue]

One argument against plea bargains could be that the state shouldn't jail people unless it has proved beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law that the person is guilty.

They sort of have.  A considered admission of guilt would allay most people's reasonable doubts.

On the other hand, you could argue you might as well beat a confession out of somebody.  Imprisonment is as fundamentally violent as a kick in the ribs.

[HVC]

One argument against plea bargains could be that the state shouldn't jail people unless it has proved beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law that the person is guilty.

if they acquiesce to their guilt then it is proven.

[Martinus]

One argument against plea bargains could be that the state shouldn't jail people unless it has proved beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law that the person is guilty.

if they acquiesce to their guilt then it is proven.

Not really. In fact, doing away with this principle is considered the most important step in moving away from medieval to modern idea of justice.

[HVC]

One argument against plea bargains could be that the state shouldn't jail people unless it has proved beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law that the person is guilty.

if they acquiesce to their guilt then it is proven.

Not really. In fact, doing away with this principle is considered the most important step in moving away from medieval to modern idea of justice.

but if you can't take a criminal at his word who can we trust?

How is different from someone confessing when they get arrested and entering a guilty plea? there's no trial there either.

[Barrister]

One argument against plea bargains could be that the state shouldn't jail people unless it has proved beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law that the person is guilty.

if they acquiesce to their guilt then it is proven.

Not really. In fact, doing away with this principle is considered the most important step in moving away from medieval to modern idea of justice.

Please stop trolling Marti.

Every justice system in the world accepts a valid confession as proof of guilt.