Crowns role to be fair, not necessarily to win
 

http://www.edelsonlaw.ca/news/show/46/8/0000/0

Our Courts have repeatedly said that the ideal prosecutor is a “minister of justice” who discharges his or her duty to the court in a fair and objective manner.

It is the Crown’s duty, therefore, not to secure a conviction at all costs, but to ensure that the evidence supporting the prosecution is put fairly before the court. For this reason, it is often said that the Crown never wins or loses.

Moreover, prosecutors are not permitted to express their personal opinions about the guilt or innocence of the accused or to engage in inflammatory rhetoric in the court proceedings. They must carry out their role with solemnity, dignity and professionalism.

Similarly, the Crown ought not to act as an advocate for the victim or the victim’s family. The criminal justice system is not a three-party proceeding and, in general, complainants or their relations have no standing in the criminal process.

I disagree.

The evidence won/lost the case.

Don't like that he can't protect himself and family against vigilantism now...

The evidence won the Stanley case, but the prosecutor granted immunity to armed thieves and gained nothing by doing so.

Won the case! Lost the case! Which is it? You said both!

Even if the prosecution never granted immunity to the little thugs, the penalty if found guilty would of been laughable. We all know that they weren’t gonna do 5 years in prison..... a slap on the wrist at most. So really...does it matter if they were granted immunity? Not really.

Stanley won a not guilty verdict, because of the evidence, the prosecutor lost the case, and gave up possible prosecutions on the vehicle occupants, in his losing attempt to get Stanley convicted. Even though Stanley won the case, he still lost a great deal.

True but the principle of the matter comes to mind.

So are you saying that because of our joke of a legal system, these people should not be charged when they commit criminal acts? So when they commit theft or firearms violations, we should just give them a free pass and ignore their crimes?

If we just ignore their criminal actions, they will just keep living a life of crime, with zero reason to stop.

Did I say that’s what I think is right? That’s right elk... I never...I said it’s not a huge tragedy they weren’t persecuted because they would have a kindergarten timeout penalty. Thought that was pretty clear. Perhaps not for some.

How’s it working so far elk? I mean these little thugs around the province that are charged. No repeat offenders? Bahahaha
Hate to break it to you but criminals have no reason to stop right now.

There is a huge difference between persecution, and prosecution. :sHa_sarcasticlol:

ALL OVER HIS WALLS? How so? He must of had a lot of guns and not many walls. Got two laying on the bed right now and one on the kitchen island. I guess that must mean they’re all over the bedroom and kitchen? If I went out side to introduce myself to somebody stealing something I guess I would be in the same predicament as Gerald?

Fellas, this one has been fully discussed and run its course. Too many deleted posts, suspensions, and overall drama.