Harris Wins, but Society Loses: One Man's Opinion

Thursday, October 05, 2006 03:48 AM

If Constable Justin Harris wanted to clear his name of any involvement with prostitutes in Prince George, he chose an unusual way of doing it.

Yesterday the tribunal, in which Harris was appearing before, decided too much time had elapsed and so the disciplinary tribunal was dismissed, Harris had won.

Now that raises the question; if you wanted to have your name cleared why in the world wouldn't you encourage the hearing to go ahead so you could tell your side of the story?

If he felt as confident as his father (an ex- police officer) did, he also would have wanted the truth to emerge.

But there remain other questions.

Judge Ramsay, (who was sent to jail for using underage prostitutes) appeared in court in P.G.

Why wasn't Harris's tribunal set for the same city? This is where the allegations first surfaced, and is home to the women who lodged the complaints.

Why did it take a fraction of the time to get Ramsay to trial but not Harris? With the same people prepared to testify against Ramsay, why were there no criminal charges? The testimony of the same group of women was sufficient to have Judge Ramsay plead guilty and yet somehow wasn't sufficient in Harris’s case.

Did the light not go on that to delay would allow Harris to go free?

Had the average citizen been accused of this same conduct, would they have escaped a criminal charge? Just how long a delay would they have been granted?

The Ian Bush death is an example of the system dragging its heels.

There was only one witness to interview; (the police officer who did the shooting) why has that matter taken nearly a year to be heard?

Society wants a better explanation of why there were no criminal charges and is entitled to an answer.

When the general public loses its trust in the police force, it loses its trust in the whole system.

People no longer report crime because they see no reason to do so. Two many events have taken place in the past year not to erode the trust of society in the police force in Canada. Instead of circling the wagons, those police forces should now be looking at how they can regain the trust of the people they are sent to protect.

Harris can now return to his old job with the comfort of knowing that by winning his case by a TKO, he has made the public even more suspicious about the whole affair.

That isn't exactly what we as a society should expect from someone we have hired to uphold our laws.

I'm Meisner, and that is one man's opinion.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Thursday, October 05, 2006 03:48 AM in Views by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: Marty on October 5 2006 7:05 AM

Great !!!

All a cop has to do to beat his crimes is get his pals on the inside to stall 1 day more than a year, and he can go free no matter what he did illegal.

So if I rob a store, hijack a plane, burn down a building or whatever else, can I get off to because i somehow get it stalled for a year ?

Fair is fair right???

Posted by: anniemartin on October 5 2006 7:48 AM

Another case were the RCMP should not investigate themselves. I agree that civilans are not necessarily the best judges of police procedure and what it means to be an officer, but there are plenty of criminoligist, social workers, military personell, judges and lawyers who do understand and these are the types of people who should sit on these panels. How are the young aboriginal women who told their stories supposed to deal with this? Sorry, you told the truth but a technicality makes your truth go away. What a bunch of hog-wash!

Posted by: ammonra on October 5 2006 7:54 AM

The internal disciplinary hearing may have a one year time limit, but criminal charges do not. The Attorney General must now conduct their own internal investigation to determine whether the previous decision to treat an RCMP officer differently than a member of the judiciary and differently than any member of the public could expect should be changed and charges laid. It is not acceptable that any woman be treated in the fashion this officer is reported to have treated them, and that time limit has not been exceeded.

Posted by: Don Mackenzie on October 5 2006 9:05 AM

WE would all do the same...TAKE THE CHEAPEST WAY OUT.. To have the hearing drag on for Days or Weeks with the cost of lawyers, Who would not take the least costly way out. By looking at all the Posts, Most you people have found the officer Guilty, before the hearing had even started.If the officer was found Not Guilty, All the posts would have said it was because he had a good lawyer,

Posted by: ammonra on October 5 2006 11:21 AM

Actually Don, my objection is not about whether he is guilty or innocent. Only a judge (or judge and jury) can determine that. It is about the fact that the RCMP very obviously do have evidence against him that they feel is good enough to warrant an internal disciplinary hearing. They would not have brought the charges at a hearing if they did not believe that. If that is the case, and it obviously is, why can the same evidence not have been presented in a court room before a judge in a criminal action? Evidence is evidence, and the same criteria are used to evaluate it in both cases, surely.

Posted by: Don Mackenzie on October 5 2006 12:51 PM

No..A RCMP disciplinary hearing is alot like a Military orders parade...no evidence is needed,just some one of higher rank making a example of the member, or Making the RCMP higher ups look good...I remember the Sgt Major saying "March the guilty bastard in", Then the company commander asking, "How do you plead". This is, I believe the RCMP higher ups, Public Relations stunt. NO Ranking officer gives a rats ass about the Member in a disciplinary hearing.

Posted by: fedup on October 5 2006 2:11 PM

So Don did the higher ups pay this women to logde the complaints against this officer or what?I am glad I am not her she will have to watch her back in case the RCMP street thugs are looking for her.

Posted by: Chadermando on October 5 2006 2:37 PM

I agree if she was smart she would move if this officer is still working in this town.

Posted by: Don Mackenzie on October 5 2006 3:00 PM

fedup.. No the higher ups did not pay this hooker to lodge a complaint. Why she did, Is between her and her drug dealer. But I believe with all the press the complaint got, the higher ups decided to hang the officer out to dry in a disciplinary hearing and make themselves look good.

Posted by: Harbinger on October 5 2006 4:20 PM

He said. She said. No witnesses, no receipts. I guess it all boils down to who you don't like the most. Right?