Justice Susan Griffin Proven Ignorant


After Wyatt Evan Prince had been found guilty of the murder and home invasion of Paul Rouxel, Madam Justice Susan Griffin made one of the most ignorant and unjust sentencing decisions imaginable. It is my belief that her decision was rooted in her overt prejudice against me, the fact that Wyatt Prince is a raging addict, and further, the fact Paul Rouxel, the victim was a drug user, and therefore, perhaps less important to society in her mind.

Given Wyatt Prince’s statements to other inmates that he is going to “come for me” when he gets out, what is one to make of Madam Justice Susan Griffin’s statement to Prince and to the courtroom about Prince’s supposed remorse?

Justice Susan Griffin and her broken justiceIn my mind, as it relates to the murder trial of Wyatt Prince, Madam Justice Susan Griffin could not separate her personal feelings from her professional reasoning, and I believe that I prove that case in my blog to which this sentence links in which I take you Inside the Murder Trial of Wyatt Prince. You really should read it if you want to see the extent of her injustice. It is lengthy, but worth the read if you want to understand much of what is wrong with our courts

Let us look back for a minute at the idiotic reasoning and statement of Madam Justice Susan Griffin when she originally sentenced Wyatt Prince for home invasion and murder. As you look at her statement to Wyatt Prince you should realize that this judge is a poster child for everything that is wrong with BC’s courts.

You need to look at Wyatt Prince’s criminal record to appreciate the next section wherein Justice Susan Griffin actually pronounces sentence on Prince

Justice Susan Griffin with her head in the clouds

Prince’s criminal record over just a seven year period in British Columbia only, with other provinces excluded because no records are available from those provinces:

  1. Break and Enter (3)
  2. Assault (2)
  3. Breach of Conditions, (6)
  4. Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking, (6)
  5. Robbery, (1)
  6. Possession of a Dangerous Weapon (2)
  7. Uttering Threats (1)
  8. Publication Ban (1) [Publication bans are often imposed based on a sexual assault of an adult or a child. I am unable to verify why this particular publication ban was ordered.]

He did all this in between jail stints for which he was incarcerated for at least three of those seven years, and that just includes British Columbia, omitting his crime spree in Alberta because those records were not available to me, but they were available to Justice Susan Griffin.

Before telling Prince the actual time he would serve, Madam Justice said to Prince, “Mr. Prince, you did express remorse.  You turned to face the family members of Mr. Rouxel’s family in the courtroom and said how sorry you were.  I believe that you were sincere in your remorse.”

Yet again, really? Is Madam Justice joking? Please consider:

  1. Throughout the preliminary trial and the actual trial, Prince had never uttered even a single word to The Court other than “Not Guilty.”
  2. The only other words spoken by Prince were those contained in his obligatory apology to the family, words possibly written and rehearsed with Prince’s attorney, and they were words uttered with Prince’s back to Madam Justice wherein she could not even see Prince’s eyes. From her vantage point, Madam Justice could not know exactly where Prince was looking or what his eyes revealed, if anything, about the sincerity of his words. For all Madam Justice knew Prince could have been looking at the wall behind the family and not the family.
  3. The jury had just found that Prince had committed a home invasion robbery and murder; therefore, despite that fact, at that point, Madam Justice, based on nothing other than the sound of Prince’s voice, was judging a convicted robber and murderer to be sincere.Justice Susan Griffin shows her bleeding heart
  4. Further, Madam Justice could see Prince’s extensive criminal record to which Madam Justice herself had stated, “ Prince’s criminal record and history does not allow for placing much weight on the sentencing objective of rehabilitation.” This comment makes no sense in view of Madam Justice’s statement that she judged Prince’s expression of remorse to be sincere. Is not rehabilitation a natural byproduct of remorse?
  5. Moreover, considering Madam Justice’s proven lack of knowledge of how individuals who are high on drugs behave, considering the fact that Madam Justice could not see Prince’s eyes, with the eyes being one of the few ways that a trained individual can determine whether or not a person might be high, and also considering the fact that trial had been delayed once already because Prince overdosed in jail [Yes, illegal drugs are available in jail], then for all Madam Justice knew, by the evidence before her, Prince was high on drugs when he professed his alleged remorse for killing Paul.

On December 10, 2011, Wyatt Prince was found guilty of home invasion and a brutal murder at which he jumped his victim from behind. He will be released in May of 2016 to, as Prince puts it, “come for me“. Braiden Rathy was sentenced today (October 19, 2015) to four years for his burglary spree, and Madam Justice Susan Griffin sees this as justice. It’s not justice; it’s a joke.

About Hal 162 Articles
Ex-golf inventor, Ex-stockbroker, author, blogger, social activist, drug counselor, public speaker

2 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. Canadian Police and Their Role in the Hood | Breaking The Code
  2. Want My Keyboard? Pry It From My Dead Fingers | Breaking The Code

Thanks for visiting. Leave a comment!