I am sick to death of our mamby-pamby, liberal, useless courts and our lazy and cowardly crown. What happened in the trial of Kenneth Fenton was a travesty. It was a travesty created because our judges and our crown refused to keep a known and repeat drunken driver off the road. Therefore, in my mind they bear a level of responsibility in the death of this dedicated public servant. But then, at the sentencing of Kenneth Fenton it got worse. Crown and the court disrespected Sarah Beckett with their cries of “Precedent“.
I realize there exist other controversies about this tragic accident. However, I cannot speak to those, but I can and will speak to the prosecution and trial of Kenneth Fenton.
Despite those controversies, the fact is that Kenneth Fenton drove drunk. Whatever excuse might be offered for that fact is just that, an excuse, but not a reason.
I have already said the courts and crown disrespected Sarah Beckett. It didn’t end there though. They also disrespected and sent a message to all police. They said, “We don’t care about you“. ” If you get killed by a drunken driver it’s just tough“.
Forget about the fact that we require police to spend almost countless hours in your cars, often “posting up” in traffic. The courts and crown don’t care. They protect roadside workers, but not police.
Back to Sarah Beckett though, who, as an aside, I knew
We were acquainted, not on a personal level, but on a professional level. I met her and worked with her on the murder trial of Wyatt Prince. That was another courtroom gong show with an ignorant judge, Madam Justice Susan Griffin.
Anyhow, without getting into the details of that case, Sarah Beckett was professional, efficient and caring. Now, let’s examine the court and the crown and their excuses.
Have you ever heard of “Precedent” – It is part and parcel of the pitiful failure of BC’s sentencing standards
“Precedent” is an intrinsic part of the court process. Succinctly defined, precedent is the act of comparing a possible sentence to other sentences issued in similar circumstances and using that comparative as a yardstick for sentencing. In theory, this is done to determine if that sentence is fair and serves the purposes of justice.
Precedent is the Crown’s and the Court’s excuse for disrespecting Sarah Beckett and you
At first blush, the principal of precedent seems like a sensible doctrine. Wait a minute though. We are dealing with precedent run amok in the hands of a liberal and cowardly judiciary and a lazy crown.
In their hands, precedent and the sentencing protocol derived from it have seen British Columbia become the most drug infested province in Canada. So, why would anybody deem it effective and continue using it?
Still though, we mush forward with that very standard that brought us to this point, as we continue to use it as our guidepost to determine whether or not current sentencing standards are fair.
Does that not seem wrong to you? How about insane!
Let’s examine precedent a little deeper for a moment. In order for the court to appear reasonable, it most often picks a sentence somewhere between the top of the precedent sampling of sentence severity and the bottom of the precedent sampling of sentence severity.
The long term effect of this is that the sentencing standard of severity, when judged by precedent, is gradually lowered. This is due to the fact that the top third or so of the sentences given based on a sampling gradually declines because judges rarely hand down the maximum sentence. Therefore, over time the average sentence declines. It’s simple grade school math.
Precedent only works if judges have the wisdom and courage to step outside of it’s boundaries. However BC’s judges apparently have neither. Instead, most perpetuate a lie about what the law allows them to do or not do, as did Judge Ronald Lamperson in this case. Then they molly cuddle criminals, and thereby, exacerbate our problems? If there is no real consequence there is no real deterrent. Thus, our judges are almost as great a threat to society as are our criminals
In the case of justice for Sarah Beckett, the court misled you. Precedent was the reason it gave for the ridiculously light sentence handed down to her killer, Kenneth Fenton. The trial judge claimed “no choice”. That is total bullsh*t.
The court had a choice. It just chose cowardice over justice, and it is outrageous.
The court simply chose the road of least resistance. It wanted to avoid an appeal of the sentence. It was an ego move by a judge who was afraid of being overruled in a possible appeal. So, it chose to disrespect Sarah Beckett and her family instead
The court wasn’t the only coward though; the crown failed first
Let me give the crown a commonsense wake up message. A court will very rarely give a harsher sentence than the crown asks. In fact, it will most often compromise. Therefore, if the crown wants a sentence that fits the crime it must ask for enough time that a compromise will be, at least, satisfactory. This is not rocket science.
However, out of laziness or out of fear of appearing somewhat unrealistic or incompetent to a judge, the crown only asks for sentences that falls within precedent. Thus, both the court and crown combine to lower sentencing standards. This is why criminals and defense lawyers laugh at our courts.
In closing I want you to think about this. This is the first time a cop was killed in the line of duty by a drunk driver in B.C. Therefore, our crown counsel and Judge Ronald Lamperson have created a “precedent” for killing a cop while driving drunk in British Columbia. That precedent is a pathetic four years. Incidentally, Fenton will likely serve only thirty-three months in custody.
Here is the full transcript of the judge’s at trial comments, supplied by SookePocketNews
SHARE THIS ON SOCIAL MEDIA
Also, like me on Facebook
Follow me on Twitter @HannonHal
You may post your comments below