Pickton Jury Got It Right: One Man'sOpinion

Monday, December 10, 2007 03:46 AM

They say that a jury rarely ever gets it wrong. In the case of Robert WilliamPickton being found guilty of second degree murder the jury got it right again.

It was hard to prove 1^st degree murder given that from what testimony we were given, it could not be proven that Pickton acted alone. There were fears expressed that the jury might not be able to find him guilty of murder 2 and the year long process would need to be repeated.

Pickton gets 25 years and is subject to parole, suffice to say that with convictions for six murders under his belt, and charges pending for upwards of another 20, his prospects of ever seeing the outside of the pen are limited.

He gets to walk free in 25 years with no parole, he gets guaranteed 25 years if he had been found guilty of 1^st degree murder.

It all comes back full circle to the matter of those 12 men and women who formed that jury. Judges will tell you they have great confidence in the jury system. Here you have 12 ordinary people who can sift through the information presented to them and come to a reasonable conclusion.

It is a testament to our system. When it works right it works and they are to be thanked for giving up for what many will find will be a major point in their lives.

I’m Meisner and that’s one man’s opinion.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Monday, December 10, 2007 03:46 AM in Views by Ben Meisner

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: pisspulper on December 10 2007 8:29 AM

Well Ben, based on this editorial, I'd certainly have to suggest that maybe you should have went to bed earlier. Now I'm a little underprivileged when it comes to facts and findings within the case, not being privy to the evidence submitted at trial. So loosely, I must concur that if a person who owns a property where numerous DNA samples of victims are found, they probably were't completely aware of how they got there. So when and if we capture a suspect in the case of Highway Of Tears victims, I would assume then that our suspect, if charged, would receive an even lighter sentence.

Posted by: diplomat on December 10 2007 10:40 AM

Too bad sentences are *concurrent* and not *consecutive.*

150 years would have been just about right.

Posted by: Foo738 on December 10 2007 10:44 AM

I applaud the jury. I once served on a murder trial and the process the jury goes through affects the lives of all those that serve.

The sentence is just; he will never see the light of day again.

Posted by: Harbinger on December 10 2007 12:13 PM

Maybe it would be good if he was forced to take "gender sensitivity courses" while incarcerated. And with all that extra time on his hands while not watching cable TV and eating government approved nutritional dinners he can take a "First Nations"" course and when he is not studying to get his university degree he can find God in jail. He lives there too, ya know.

Posted by: Sean on December 10 2007 1:49 PM

There's only one problem with your opinion, Ben. Pickton won't be getting out in 25 years. He will die in prison, even if he makes it to 40 years of incarceration. Clifford Olsen is now at 26 years and he will die in prison, too.

On another note, many of Pickton's victims fled sexually abusive homes by their parents and, or, guardians. Essentially, in the supposed sanctuary of their own homes by the very people that they thought they could trust the most and that makes them more repulsive than Pickton.

Posted by: billposer on December 11 2007 1:41 AM

Acting alone is not an element of murder in the first degree, so the fact that it could not be established that Pickton acted alone is irrelevant. What distinguishes murder in the first degree from murder in the second degree is premeditation. If, for example, Pickton had brought the women to his farm for consensual sex, then afterwards gotten into disputes with them and killed them, that would be second degree murder. The evidence really does seem to favor first degree murder - why the jury convicted him of murder in the second degree is unclear.

Posted by: Sean on December 12 2007 2:02 PM

Agreed, billposer.

Based on the evidence, the jury could not convict on a first degree murder charge. I will guess that the Crown knew all along that they would never get a first degree conviction. I'm guessing that the jury went with second degree because it would have been the lesser included most obvious offence. Regardless, he won't see the light of day again. Proceeding with a second trial is pointless.