Are we being treated unfairly because we plea not guilty?

ive had some experience recently where i feel the prosecutor and/or jp are discriminatory towards people who are not pleaing to lesser charges and actually want to go to trial. has anyone else had this experience? what are your stories?

Discriminatory? How so? Of all the trials I've observed, I can't really say I've seen what I call any sort of "unfair" practices except in 2 or 3 isolated cases, even then it was nothing outrageous... but that's just my experience.

it just seems that the prosecutor puts off anyone who is pleaing not guilty. we are always put at the end and ive had to wait for hours while they deal with everyone else.

yet someone who is pleaing guilty is in and out in a few minutes........

also trying to intimidate the uninitiated with........."well the ticket was reduced at the roadside and we are going to ask for it to be amended to the original speed if you are found guilty".........

pure intimidation!

anyway just my thoughts...

every court I have ever been in...is always the same way

- paralegals

- guilty pleas

- trials with paralegals

- trials

There is case law at appeal level indicating that raising the speed back to original clocked speed is acceptable.

toybus wrote:

it just seems that the prosecutor puts off anyone who is pleaing not guilty. we are always put at the end and ive had to wait for hours while they deal with everyone else.

It may seem unfair, but this is standard procedure, as hwybear says.

Guilty pleas are handled expeditiously because the matter is essentially "closed" and it is a formality. It also encourages both parties to reach an agreement. In the same vein, at trials I've been present at, the Crown also announces which charges are being withdrawn at the outset, so in my view it works both ways.

The way I see it, putting off trials to the end makes the most sense. They take up the most time, and if someone has come in to plea-bargain or have their charges withdrawn, if the trial ran all the way through the docket block time, they'd have to come back another day. In some cases, a charge that was going to be withdrawn because the officer failed to appear may result in a conviction at a later date because, at the re-scheduled date, the officer DID appear.

The officer's discretion to reduce a ticket at the roadside is an encouragement to pay it. In my case, when an officer reduces a ticket at the roadside, I shut up and pay. If not, I don't argue, I don't protest, I just wish them a nice day and file a Notice to Appear a few days later. As hwybear said, as well, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that, at trial, the speed may be raised to the actual speed noted by the officer during the traffic stop. I don't particularly find it unfair. In fact, although I'm more "pro-defendant," I'd say that I get a bit irked when I find out that an officer dropped a ticket from some excruciatingly high speed and the defendant fought it anyway. I saw someone in court for a ticket for 25 over. Turns out, Odot stopped him for actually going 148 in an 80, reduced it, let him drive home... and he turns around and fights it. Fighting tickets that are substantially reduced only encourages the officer to hammer the snot out of drivers at the roadside with a plethora of tickets every time. If every ticket is going to be fought, no matter what, why reduce? This is particularly important to consider for drivers who may be hovering around, say, 51 over the limit.

That's my perspective on it.

well thats an interesting perspective. i have learned too that whatever i decide to do about the ticket i certainly am polite with the officer at the roadside.

and to be honest i dont think the officer should reduce tickets at the roadside!

if you are speeding then you are speeding end of story.

all im saying is that for the "lay" person who is challenging the charge it seems like the system is stacked against you. i dont know if thats the case with paralegals or lawyers but i dont think so.

so it all comes down to education and training.....

and thats why we are all here right? to educate ourselves and share information so that we are well informed!

Perspectives are just opinion... a lot of this board involves exchanges of opinion.

toybus wrote:

and thats why we are all here right? to educate ourselves and share information so that we are well informed!

Yep.

toybus wrote:

and to be honest i dont think the officer should reduce tickets at the roadside!

The only thing I'll say about that is: Be careful what you wish for.

toybus wrote:

and to be honest i dont think the officer should reduce tickets at the roadside!

**GASP**................**reflections runs to corner of room and yells obsenities about toybus, comes back**..........you were saying????

Radar Identified wrote:

toybus wrote:

it just seems that the prosecutor puts off anyone who is pleaing not guilty. we are always put at the end and ive had to wait for hours while they deal with everyone else.

It may seem unfair, but this is standard procedure, as hwybear says.

Guilty pleas are handled expeditiously because the matter is essentially "closed" and it is a formality. It also encourages both parties to reach an agreement. In the same vein, at trials I've been present at, the Crown also announces which charges are being withdrawn at the outset, so in my view it works both ways.

The way I see it, putting off trials to the end makes the most sense. They take up the most time, and if someone has come in to plea-bargain or have their charges withdrawn, if the trial ran all the way through the docket block time, they'd have to come back another day. In some cases, a charge that was going to be withdrawn because the officer failed to appear may result in a conviction at a later date because, at the re-scheduled date, the officer DID appear.

The officer's discretion to reduce a ticket at the roadside is an encouragement to pay it. In my case, when an officer reduces a ticket at the roadside, I shut up and pay. If not, I don't argue, I don't protest, I just wish them a nice day and file a Notice to Appear a few days later. As hwybear said, as well, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that, at trial, the speed may be raised to the actual speed noted by the officer during the traffic stop. I don't particularly find it unfair. In fact, although I'm more "pro-defendant," I'd say that I get a bit irked when I find out that an officer dropped a ticket from some excruciatingly high speed and the defendant fought it anyway. I saw someone in court for a ticket for 25 over. Turns out, Odot stopped him for actually going 148 in an 80, reduced it, let him drive home... and he turns around and fights it. Fighting tickets that are substantially reduced only encourages the officer to hammer the snot out of drivers at the roadside with a plethora of tickets every time. If every ticket is going to be fought, no matter what, why reduce? This is particularly important to consider for drivers who may be hovering around, say, 51 over the limit.

That's my perspective on it.

except in my case where I have to travel from toronto back to woodstock again (3rd time) Once to ask for date, twice to appear on a day that was grossly overbooked! and now again to finally get my case heard! (Jan 21)

This pleading innocent is costing me alot of money!!!!!

Good lord I am starting to think i should have taken a deal and moved on. Perhaps thats where i see a skew in balance

Yes it is standard procedure for any business to deal with the payers first. Those who do not want to pay are made to wait... it's a bit like hospitals taking the paying patients first and those on benefits (non payers) to wait in line for whenever a place/bed is available.