You spent the first half of class looking at the issue of Locker Searches based on yesterday's handout. Some of the points, as raised yesterday, that are worth considering include:
Points to Consider in Locker Searches:
1. Privacy.
2. Who owns the locker?
3. School-wide security.
4. What constitutes "reasonable suspicion"?
5. Who are the witnesses?
6. What about shared lockers?
7. Seriousness of the suspected offense.
8. What about lockers that are not locked?
9. Prior offenses of the suspects?
10. Should all lockers be searched?
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Monday, March 28, 2011
DAY 33 (Mar 28) Locker Searches and Your Rights
On Friday I distributed the Search and Seizure in a School Setting sheet which covers various aspects of your rights in a school setting, in particular your rights regarding your lockers.
We spent 2/3 of the class discussing Search and Seizure of contraband (e.g. marijuana) in a school setting and the case of R. v. G. (G.M.). We also reviewed the factors that must be considered when searches happen (# 1-10).
Next you spent some time looking through the write up on Locker Searches. I have asked, on the handout, that you create a four paragraph response explaining how you see the information on Locker Searches connecting with the Charter of Rights. You must be specific (i.e. cite the sections of the Charter) when you refer to the Charter and in each case explain the significance of the Charter in ensuring an effective justice system in Canada.
Points to Consider in Locker Searches:
1. Privacy.
2. Who owns the locker?
3. School-wide security.
4. What constitutes "reasonable suspicion"?
5. Who are the witnesses?
6. What about shared lockers?
7. Seriousness of the suspected offense.
8. What about lockers that are not locked?
9. Prior offenses of the suspects?
10. Should all lockers be searched?
We spent 2/3 of the class discussing Search and Seizure of contraband (e.g. marijuana) in a school setting and the case of R. v. G. (G.M.). We also reviewed the factors that must be considered when searches happen (# 1-10).
Next you spent some time looking through the write up on Locker Searches. I have asked, on the handout, that you create a four paragraph response explaining how you see the information on Locker Searches connecting with the Charter of Rights. You must be specific (i.e. cite the sections of the Charter) when you refer to the Charter and in each case explain the significance of the Charter in ensuring an effective justice system in Canada.
Points to Consider in Locker Searches:
1. Privacy.
2. Who owns the locker?
3. School-wide security.
4. What constitutes "reasonable suspicion"?
5. Who are the witnesses?
6. What about shared lockers?
7. Seriousness of the suspected offense.
8. What about lockers that are not locked?
9. Prior offenses of the suspects?
10. Should all lockers be searched?
Friday, March 25, 2011
DAY 32 (Mar 25) Human Rights Laws
We went through "Rajiv's Story" and the questions on the back of that sheet.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
DAY 26 (Mar 10) R. v. Ford
We did a quick review of yesterday's Sue Rodriguez and the Right to Die with Dignity in Canada discussion. Today we're looking at three different philosophies of law as follows:
Positivism - the way of looking at a legal idea that considers FACTS, technical information, literal interpretation of law, "letter of the law". What this school of thought does not consider is any other legal philosophy. This school of thought is not interested in "extenuating" circumstances.
Natural Law - the way of looking at a legal idea that considers the "will of god", the compassionate nature of the god or the wrathful nature of the god. This school of thought is often guided by religious principles that establish what the "natural order" of existence should be. For some people nature is ruled by God.
Realism - this way of looking at a legal idea does not direct it in any way. Realists acknowledge that many different factors influence legal ideas. For example, psychological, social, cultural, religious, economic, experiential, etc. factors can influence how we should examine a legal principle. A true realist judge would try to gather as much information from many aspects of a case to render a good judgment (background of the offender, religious beliefs, motivations of people, etc.).
Here's the handout on Three Legal Philosophies (see R v. Ford below).
On the back of this sheet is the R. v. Ford Case in which I ask everyone to make a legal judgment on a case, your first case!
Everyone had a good opportunity to list the factors that are important in this case as follows:
1. Ford was charged with theft of narcotics (insulin).
2. He stole the insulin for his daughter (diabetic)
3. Dyslexia prevents him from getting a job despite his efforts to find one.
4. Freeland is deeply religious.
5. That religion required Ford to provide insulin for his daughter.
6. He could not afford it so he had to steal it.
7. Ford has been unemployed for eight months.
8. Social assistance was not available to Ford because he was not disabled "enough".
9. Mandatory penalty of 15 yrs. in jail for narcotics theft (insulin is considered a narcotic in Freeland).
10. Daughter's health was deteriorating because of lack of insulin (three weeks).
Positivism - the way of looking at a legal idea that considers FACTS, technical information, literal interpretation of law, "letter of the law". What this school of thought does not consider is any other legal philosophy. This school of thought is not interested in "extenuating" circumstances.
Natural Law - the way of looking at a legal idea that considers the "will of god", the compassionate nature of the god or the wrathful nature of the god. This school of thought is often guided by religious principles that establish what the "natural order" of existence should be. For some people nature is ruled by God.
Realism - this way of looking at a legal idea does not direct it in any way. Realists acknowledge that many different factors influence legal ideas. For example, psychological, social, cultural, religious, economic, experiential, etc. factors can influence how we should examine a legal principle. A true realist judge would try to gather as much information from many aspects of a case to render a good judgment (background of the offender, religious beliefs, motivations of people, etc.).
Here's the handout on Three Legal Philosophies (see R v. Ford below).
On the back of this sheet is the R. v. Ford Case in which I ask everyone to make a legal judgment on a case, your first case!
Everyone had a good opportunity to list the factors that are important in this case as follows:
1. Ford was charged with theft of narcotics (insulin).
2. He stole the insulin for his daughter (diabetic)
3. Dyslexia prevents him from getting a job despite his efforts to find one.
4. Freeland is deeply religious.
5. That religion required Ford to provide insulin for his daughter.
6. He could not afford it so he had to steal it.
7. Ford has been unemployed for eight months.
8. Social assistance was not available to Ford because he was not disabled "enough".
9. Mandatory penalty of 15 yrs. in jail for narcotics theft (insulin is considered a narcotic in Freeland).
10. Daughter's health was deteriorating because of lack of insulin (three weeks).
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
DAY 25 (Mar 9) The Right to Life, Liberty and Security of the Person
From yesterday's class you should now know the four questions to ask when considering whether a case involving the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Today we are looking at the case of Sue Rodriguez and the right to die with dignity in Canada.
Please write these questions down:
Sue Rodriguez: "Whose body is this? Who owns my life?"
1. How does this quote relate to your own life and your own body?
2. Who has the authority to tell you what you can and cannot do with your life or your body?
3. What is Euthanasia?
4. When is Euthanasia used with animals?
5. How does s. 1 of the Charter limit individual rights?
While viewing the video clip, let's try to answer these questions:
6. What are the symptoms of Lou Gehrig’s disease? Is it treatable?
7. What constitutional rights did Rodriguez say had been violated by the Criminal Code?
8. What is the significance of the timing of Rodriguez’s death?
Today we are looking at the case of Sue Rodriguez and the right to die with dignity in Canada.
Please write these questions down:
Sue Rodriguez: "Whose body is this? Who owns my life?"
1. How does this quote relate to your own life and your own body?
2. Who has the authority to tell you what you can and cannot do with your life or your body?
3. What is Euthanasia?
4. When is Euthanasia used with animals?
5. How does s. 1 of the Charter limit individual rights?
While viewing the video clip, let's try to answer these questions:
6. What are the symptoms of Lou Gehrig’s disease? Is it treatable?
7. What constitutional rights did Rodriguez say had been violated by the Criminal Code?
8. What is the significance of the timing of Rodriguez’s death?
Then I distributed a handout on Sue Rodriguez and the Right to Die in Canada. It was a synopsis of the case and some more questions for you to tackle.
Monday, March 7, 2011
DAY 24 (Mar 8) Cdn. Charter of Rights Continued.
Let's start the class by having a look at these three cases:
R. v. Oakes, Page 39
Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys, Page 41-42
Canada v. JTI-McDonald Corp., Page 44
Please read the cases and answer the questions that follow.
DAY 23 (Mar 7) Dudley George and the Cdn. Charter of Rights
We finished some of our discussion of Dudley George and the Ipperwash Inquiry. The whole point of us addressing the incident is to show that in Canada, sometimes people's rights are trampled upon by the government, or at least by agents of the government, in this case the OPP.
Next we looked at the Charter of Rights . . .
Page 38 - How do we know if an action warrants the application of the Charter? The courts will always ask these questions in this order:
1. Does the Charter Apply? If it involves the government, then it could apply. e.g. the government passes a law about how the police can search for and seize evidence for a trial. The law could potentially breach a Charter right.
2. Has a Charter right or freedom been infringed? Has the government action infringed a specific right or freedom from the Charter, if so then it might be a Charter case.
3. Does the Reasonable Limits Clause (s. 1) justify the infringement? Is the action of the government that infringes upon the right or freedom justifiable and reasonable in our country which is a "free and democratic" country? e.g. age limit of 18 for voting.
4. If not, is there a remedy under the Charter (s. 24)?
Next we looked at the Charter of Rights . . .
Page 38 - How do we know if an action warrants the application of the Charter? The courts will always ask these questions in this order:
1. Does the Charter Apply? If it involves the government, then it could apply. e.g. the government passes a law about how the police can search for and seize evidence for a trial. The law could potentially breach a Charter right.
2. Has a Charter right or freedom been infringed? Has the government action infringed a specific right or freedom from the Charter, if so then it might be a Charter case.
3. Does the Reasonable Limits Clause (s. 1) justify the infringement? Is the action of the government that infringes upon the right or freedom justifiable and reasonable in our country which is a "free and democratic" country? e.g. age limit of 18 for voting.
4. If not, is there a remedy under the Charter (s. 24)?
DAY 22 (Mar 4) UN Declaration of Human Rights and Dudley George
Great presentation today on the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (Abby, Carly).
Next we drew connections between the very clean record of Canada, when compared to other countries, of our practice of providing people with "due process" if and when they are charged with a crime and our practice of allowing peaceful protests to occur. Then we watched a short clip on the case of the police killing of an unarmed protester, Dudley George, in the Ipperwash / Stony Point First Nation standoff in 1995.
Here's what happened:
We had a discussion about the incident following these ideas:
We didn't get to it today, but for Monday we'll continue our look at this - see the handout - and you'll be completing the thinking chart attached too.
Ipperwash and the killing of Dudley George.
Next we drew connections between the very clean record of Canada, when compared to other countries, of our practice of providing people with "due process" if and when they are charged with a crime and our practice of allowing peaceful protests to occur. Then we watched a short clip on the case of the police killing of an unarmed protester, Dudley George, in the Ipperwash / Stony Point First Nation standoff in 1995.
Here's what happened:
Setting the Stage for Ipperwash
1942 – The federal government expropriated land belonging to the Stony Point First Nation under the War Measures Act in order to build a military camp. After the war, the Department of National Defence said it would return most of the land as long as it could lease back what it still needed. The offer was later withdrawn.
1972 – Jean Chretien, then Minister of Indian Affairs, suggested that the band should be offered another piece of land as compensation, but nothing was resolved.
1993 – Frustration motivated Stony Point band members to begin moving back onto the land. A group of about 30 protesters, including Dudley George, built barricades at nearby Ipperwash Provincial Park to reinforce their land claim and to protest the destruction of a burial ground.
1995 – The OPP moved in on the protesters. In a night-time raid, Dudley George was killed. OPP Sgt. Ken Deane was convicted of criminal negligence causing death after a court ruled that he did not have a “reasonable belief” that George was armed. Neither the criminal court nor the Ipperwash Inquiry ever found any evidence that the protesters were armed.
2005 – Soon after the Inquiry was commissioned by the McGuinty Liberal government, allegations of police racism surfaced. The Ipperwash Inquiry found fault in the OPP, the government of former Ontario premier Mike Harris, and the federal government.We had a discussion about the incident following these ideas:
Synopsis of the Video: The video examines the findings of the Ipperwash Inquiry. The Inquiry’s mandate was to investigate the 1995 shooting death of Dudley George during a protest by First Nations peoples at Ipperwash Provincial Park.
Discussions Ideas:
1. Suicide Levels among first Nations people are twice the national average.
2. Most of these suicides occur among youth.
3. More First Nations people are in jail than in college or university.
4. 10% of First Nations children (22,000) are in the care of child welfare authorities.
5. Fewer than one percent of lawyers are First Nations.
Discussion Questions:
1. Is protesting a good way to achieve group goals?
2. What is peaceful civil disobedience?
3. Do you think police treat all citizens equally?
4. What should First Nations peoples do to resolve land claims?
5. Should the police answer to the government or should they be independent to achieve fairness?
While Viewing:
1. What motivated the McGuinty Liberal government to create an inquiry 8 years later?
2. What do you think motivated Charles Harnick to go public?
3. Did Ken Deane take the fall for the OPP or were his actions independent of the police response that night?
After Viewing:
1. How confident are you that the work of the Inquiry will change how Aboriginal people are policed and how protests are handled?
2. The Inquiry cost $13.3 million; the George family received $100k in a settlement. What do you think of these two amounts?
3. Do you think that the historic treatment of First Nations peoples resulted in Ipperwash? How?
We didn't get to it today, but for Monday we'll continue our look at this - see the handout - and you'll be completing the thinking chart attached too.
Ipperwash and the killing of Dudley George.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
DAY 21 (Mar 3) Clarifying Introduction to Law (Textbook)
Abby was not here so we could not finish the presentations (Universal Declaration of Human Rights), but we'll try again tomorrow.
Here is a list of notes and clarifications of Legal ideas that you worked on yesterday. This information is in Chapter 1 of your text, pp. 8 - 28.
Why Do We Need Laws?
- Keep the Peace
- Set rules of behaviour
- Protect people & property that need protecting (Criminal Law)
- Protect public safety
Difference between RULES & LAWS?
- Rules apply to specific circumstances (e.g. game of hockey, no swearing at school)
- Laws apply to EVERYONE ALL the time. Laws are written. Laws are mandatory. Laws are enforced by the government.
FUNCTION OF LAW
1. Rules of Conduct (e.g. speed limits)
2. System of Enforcement (Police and Judiciary)
3. Protect Rights and Freedoms (Constitutional Law)
4. Protect Society (Criminal Law)
5. Resolve Disputes (contracts & law suits)
DIVISION OF LAW
Public Law - laws that apply to EVERYONE. This part of law regulates the relationship between the government and the people.
- Criminal Law
- Constitutional Law
- Administrative Law
Private Law - (Civil Law), rights and responsibilities of private individuals and organizations. A person can sue someone or an organization if he or she believes that the defendant has caused him/her harm, loss or injury.
- Tort Law
- Family Law
- Contract Law
- Property Law
- Labour and Employment Law
Historical Development of Law - as seen through your History of Law Projects, modern laws have been built upon the philosophies of older laws. Because people living "civilized lives" (i.e. not hunting and gathering) have all developed towns and cities and have economies based on materials goods with value, people have always had to deal with disputes and have therefore needed laws. Also, the idea that governments should allow for rights and freedoms of citizens has developed over time into what we have in Canada now, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Similar laws (protections of citizens) exist in most other countries.
COMMON LAW - was developed in England - relied on case law and applied to all people. The idea was that legal cases with similar facts had to be ruled upon similarly. A ruling in one case would later determine how future similar cases would be handled.
CASE LAW- the written record of decisions of judges (this is actually part of our law).
PRECEDENT - a legal decision that becomes an example and authority for future similar legal cases.
Citation of Case Law - Page 17 has this in great detail. One point to note - in criminal cases it's always listed as "R. vs. Smith" (or the defendant's last name), where the "R." represents "Rex" or "Regina", which is Latin for King or Queen. The state (Canada) lays criminal charges, individuals do not lay criminal charges.
RULE OF LAW - The Magna Carta was an important development in human rights. It forced King John to fall under the power of the law, he (the head of state) was no longer above the law, he was subject to it. It also ensured that the ruler did not arbitrarily restrict rights and freedoms of citizens.
HABEAS CORPUS - (Latin for "have the body"). People have the right to go before a judge for the judge to determine whether the person is being detained lawfully.
How Laws are Made in Canada
Parliamentary Democracy - nobles gathered after the Magna Carta and discussed legal ideas and this developed into a formal system, "House" of Parliament where representatives from around the country would meet to create laws (obviously they did a lot of debating and talking in the process). Canada maintains this system today.
One of the outcomes of this system is the idea of "STATUTE Law" - the law is Written Down. The main job of our elected officials is to write new laws and to update older ones.
HOUSE OF COMMONS - First reading, a bill is introduced by the Cabinet or private member, first vote is taken.
Second Reading - Bill introduced again and debated in general, second vote taken.
Committee Stage - Bill is studied in general by experts, parliamentarians, members of the public who have been invited to speak and by those who have asked to speak. Amendments are made.
Third Reading - Bill briefly debated, third vote taken.
SENATE - Same three stages happen here - this is also known as the "Sober Second Look".
GOVERNOR GENERAL - signs the bill into law - this is called, "Royal Assent". Once this happens the bill is "Proclaimed Into Law" and it then takes effect.
Here is a list of notes and clarifications of Legal ideas that you worked on yesterday. This information is in Chapter 1 of your text, pp. 8 - 28.
Why Do We Need Laws?
- Keep the Peace
- Set rules of behaviour
- Protect people & property that need protecting (Criminal Law)
- Protect public safety
Difference between RULES & LAWS?
- Rules apply to specific circumstances (e.g. game of hockey, no swearing at school)
- Laws apply to EVERYONE ALL the time. Laws are written. Laws are mandatory. Laws are enforced by the government.
FUNCTION OF LAW
1. Rules of Conduct (e.g. speed limits)
2. System of Enforcement (Police and Judiciary)
3. Protect Rights and Freedoms (Constitutional Law)
4. Protect Society (Criminal Law)
5. Resolve Disputes (contracts & law suits)
DIVISION OF LAW
Public Law - laws that apply to EVERYONE. This part of law regulates the relationship between the government and the people.
- Criminal Law
- Constitutional Law
- Administrative Law
Private Law - (Civil Law), rights and responsibilities of private individuals and organizations. A person can sue someone or an organization if he or she believes that the defendant has caused him/her harm, loss or injury.
- Tort Law
- Family Law
- Contract Law
- Property Law
- Labour and Employment Law
Historical Development of Law - as seen through your History of Law Projects, modern laws have been built upon the philosophies of older laws. Because people living "civilized lives" (i.e. not hunting and gathering) have all developed towns and cities and have economies based on materials goods with value, people have always had to deal with disputes and have therefore needed laws. Also, the idea that governments should allow for rights and freedoms of citizens has developed over time into what we have in Canada now, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Similar laws (protections of citizens) exist in most other countries.
COMMON LAW - was developed in England - relied on case law and applied to all people. The idea was that legal cases with similar facts had to be ruled upon similarly. A ruling in one case would later determine how future similar cases would be handled.
CASE LAW- the written record of decisions of judges (this is actually part of our law).
PRECEDENT - a legal decision that becomes an example and authority for future similar legal cases.
Citation of Case Law - Page 17 has this in great detail. One point to note - in criminal cases it's always listed as "R. vs. Smith" (or the defendant's last name), where the "R." represents "Rex" or "Regina", which is Latin for King or Queen. The state (Canada) lays criminal charges, individuals do not lay criminal charges.
RULE OF LAW - The Magna Carta was an important development in human rights. It forced King John to fall under the power of the law, he (the head of state) was no longer above the law, he was subject to it. It also ensured that the ruler did not arbitrarily restrict rights and freedoms of citizens.
HABEAS CORPUS - (Latin for "have the body"). People have the right to go before a judge for the judge to determine whether the person is being detained lawfully.
How Laws are Made in Canada
Parliamentary Democracy - nobles gathered after the Magna Carta and discussed legal ideas and this developed into a formal system, "House" of Parliament where representatives from around the country would meet to create laws (obviously they did a lot of debating and talking in the process). Canada maintains this system today.
One of the outcomes of this system is the idea of "STATUTE Law" - the law is Written Down. The main job of our elected officials is to write new laws and to update older ones.
HOUSE OF COMMONS - First reading, a bill is introduced by the Cabinet or private member, first vote is taken.
Second Reading - Bill introduced again and debated in general, second vote taken.
Committee Stage - Bill is studied in general by experts, parliamentarians, members of the public who have been invited to speak and by those who have asked to speak. Amendments are made.
Third Reading - Bill briefly debated, third vote taken.
SENATE - Same three stages happen here - this is also known as the "Sober Second Look".
GOVERNOR GENERAL - signs the bill into law - this is called, "Royal Assent". Once this happens the bill is "Proclaimed Into Law" and it then takes effect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)