Pubdate: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 Source: Lindsay Daily Post (CN ON) Copyright: 2010 Osprey Media Contact: http://drugsense.org/url/EYweHoXP Website: http://www.thepost.ca/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2333 Author: Alan Shanoff JUDGES MUST APPLY LAW, CHECK BIASES The four-year jail sentence imposed on former Toronto Maple Leafs captain Rob Ramage by Justice Alexander Sosna and upheld by the Ontario Court of Appeal last week is evi-dence some judges do treat impaired driving cases seriously. That's in sharp contrast to judges who don't seem capable of applying simple impaired driving laws as mentioned in last week's column. Many readers shared their theories on why some judges don't follow appellate directions or the law in impaired cases. Many speculated about the drinking habits of judges. One reader made the argument: "Lawyers and judges are some of the worst drinking and driving offenders anywhere. Alcoholism runs rampant in these professions due to the enormous demands and stress of the jobs. In fact, Osgoode Hall has one of the most impressive and well-stocked bars in the prov-ince -- if not the country -- so it should come as no surprise that those who so frequently and freely imbibe often deliver verdicts that are lenient, outrageous, and in some cases even criminal (pardon the expression)." Perhaps -- I'm not aware of any statistics on impaired driving by lawyers or judges -- but another group of read-ers think some judges don't follow the law because they disagree with the law. "The judges disagree with the method cur-rently being applied to deal with alcohol addiction. Translation: Sending someone to jail is not the solution and until we find a better one, sending a drunk to jail isn't the long term solution," one reader wrote. That may be so, but judges are paid to apply the law, not to decide cases based on personal views. Perhaps the best blatant example of a judge letting his personal opinions get in the way of the law can be seen in the 2008 Zeyu Song decision. Song pleaded guilty to a charge of produc-tion of marijuana. He operated a large scale grow-op in a Brampton, Ont. residential area. He stole electricity. More than 1,400 plants were seized. There were no mitigating circumstances, other than it was a first offence and, based on prior appeal court decisions, a jail term was warranted. Instead, Justice J. Elliott Allen imposed a conditional sentence, meaning no jail time. He made no efforts to disguise his agenda or his personal views of drug laws as evidenced by his statement, "really what we're doing by prohibiting the production and consumption of marijuana is giving the Hells Angels several billion dollars worth of income every year." Late in 2009, the Ontario Court of Appeal reprimanded Allen stating, "judges are entitled to hold personal and political opinions as much as anyone else. But they are not free to permit those views to colour or frame their trial or sentencing decisions. They are bound to apply the law as it stands. ... Personal diatribes of the nature engaged in by the sentencing judge here are unhelpful, however, and dem-onstrate a lack of objectivity". Judges who are unable or unwilling to follow statutes and precedents create a strain on our legal system. Scarce resources are wasted and unreasonable expectations are raised dealing with their erroneous decisions. They create a lack of respect for the judiciary in general and the rule of law. - --- MAP posted-by: Jo-D