|
|
|
 
Efficiency and Effectiveness of our Criminal Court System
Our court systems have, in recent years, been said to be inefficient,
sometimes ineffective, and even backlogged to the point where cases have to
be dismissed because of how long it takes for them to get to court. After
my trip to court, these are my opinions and observations on the "Efficiency
and Effectiveness of our Criminal Court System".
The court procedures of provincial court are very systematic and are
carried out very swiftly. It is much like a tennis match, the ball, or
control in the court, is volleyed back and forth between the judge (and
court clerk) and the lawyers. The court clerk arraigns the accused, the
defence lawyer responses with how the accused pleas, if it is "not guilty",
the court clerk asks how the Crown lawyer wishes to proceed and so forth.
However, this is not so in the Ontario Supreme Court (Trial Division),
though similar in methodical procedures, the court cases are longer and
much more time is spent on each individual part of the case, from
presenting the evidence to cross-examination of the witness, this is
because of the amount of information involved.
The general atmosphere and behaviour in the Provincial Courtrooms were
general loose and calm. The people, lawyers, judge, clerk and recorder
seem to know each other very well. They joked openly, even while the court
was in session, the defence lawyer asked if he could persuade the judge
into a lighter sentence after the judge had already made a decision in a
very easy and friendly tone of voice, something seemly unprofessional that
caused chuckles throughout the courtroom. Where in the Ontario Supreme
Court the atmosphere was much more serious, professional, strict and at
times high in tension.
Our current bail system, in either monetary terms or personal
recognizance, seemed pretty successful in Provincial Court, though not
observed in the Ontario Supreme Court, all the people did show up for their
trial, which included two people on bail for possession of marijuana
cigarettes. As a final note, no bench warrant was every called for by the
judge for people whom failed to attend their trial.
The necessity of the duty council is for those who don't have a lawyer
and is for their benefit that they discuss legal options that the accused
might have before proceeding, however this part of the system is not very
efficient as the court must adjourn for this and thus waste valuable time
that could be otherwise used for processing other court cases.
The Crown Attorney in provincial court was, on the whole, fairly well
prepared, efficiently bring relevant facts to attention, friendly and well
acquainted to the defence lawyers as well as the judge, and quick to get to
the point that he was trying to prove. There was little time wasted,
between the arraignment and the sentencing, on the part of the Crown
Attorney. In Ontario Supreme Court, the Crown Attorney there seemed well
prepared, efficient, and quick, however there seemed to be a lack of
personal evolvement in the case, rather he seemed emotionless, just doing
his job, not being familiar with the judge or other people in the court
room. By the way he presented and dressed, he appeared far more strict and
serious in conduct and appearance than his Provincial Court counterpart.
Calling a remand can be helpful in that it allows witnesses,
especially key witnesses, to be present at a later date when it is possible
for them to attend the trial, as duty may call them to do otherwise. The
disadvantages, however, are mostly on the accused's part, as s/he must
remain in custody longer in order to be brought back to trial.
The necessity for a lawyer for minor offences can sometimes outweigh
the cost the accused must pay for them because the lawyer understands the
law and how the system works, he might be able to point out some small
discrepancies or may suggest what type and how much punishment is suitable
for the accused's crime. The lawyer may also point out that if the person
has a record, how old it really is, as records older than 5 years old that
are not cleared are disregarded by the judge. They also help the cases
progress faster as an accused legal options will be already made clear to
him by his/her lawyer.
Lawyers are absolutely necessary for major cases, as the accused may
not understand his legal rights clearly or may not know how to defend
himself correctly in the correct the manner during trial in court.
Court judges in Provincial Court were generally looser than those in
Ontario Supreme Court as that the one we saw in Supreme Court seemed more
serious, lacked in emotional expressions, but also easily bored. However
in Provincial Court, they were serious but there was room for humour and
understanding of the accused's situation. Over all they looked like they
enjoyed their jobs.
All in all, the system we currently have cannot be any better as it is
efficient as humanly possible without violating any individuals rights as
in the Charter.
ADDITIONAL FEATURED ESSAYS
Should Juveniles Be Waived To Adult Court
. There has been tension between teens (pre-teens) and adults for thousands of years, and the question how to deal with
Juvenile Justice
The System as it typically functions in America's thousands of jurisdictions is the subject that will be covered. The Ju
The POSitouch System
Sunday, April 06, 1997 POSitouch was conceived in 1982, by the Ted and Bill Fuller, owners of the Gregg's Restaurant cha
To Kill A Killer
A few of my friends and I once saw a bumper sticker that questioned, "Why do we kill people who kill people, to show tha
Court Case Number 15: Bowers V. Hardwick (June 30, 1986)
Court Case Number 15: Bowers v. Hardwick (June 30, 1986) In August of 1982, Michael Hardwick was charged with violating
|
|
|
|
