Virus news of Friday evening
While some media announce a ‘massive’ screening strategy in Montreal, others eye the failure to test potential carriers that has helped make the city a hotspot. CBC heard from a nurse who says only her insistence on being tested stopped her from carrying an asymptomatic case of the virus into a facility previously untouched by infection.
TVA notes that most of the COVID-19 cases in Terrebonne and Mascouche are under 60 years of age.
Philip Authier at the Gazette summarizes the disarray of the Legault-Arruda side at this time.
The STM will be handing out free masks to users.
A judge refused to free a man being held on remand at Bordeaux Jail on charges of growing and distributing cannabis. Johnny Samuel Videz-Rauda has been there for a year and a half awaiting trial, and doesn’t want to catch COVID-19, as who would? Meantime, the government went into the pot business itself. Surely someone like this, not accused of any violent crime, could be safely let go – after being tested, of course?
The superior court judge, Guy Cournoyer, says the pandemic is only one element in deciding whether an inmate can be let go. Daniel Renaud reveals here that Videz-Rauda does have “des antécédents de violence” so there’s that.
Alison Cummins 09:47 on 2020-05-10 Permalink
RE Videz-Rauda, the judge says:
« L’obligation qui incombe aux autorités correctionnelles est de faire preuve de diligence raisonnable par la mise en place de mesures raisonnables afin d’empêcher la transmission et la propagation du virus. L’échec des mesures mises en place n’établit pas nécessairement le caractère déraisonnable de celles-ci ».
So the judge’s job is to decide whether someone stays in jail or is offered bail while awaiting trial, based strictly on the accused’s risk to society. The judge may not have an opinion on the risk to the accused while in custody.
In particular, according to this judge, correctional services does not have a duty to keep the people in its custody safe. It has a duty to act reasonably, but no duty to act effectively.
As long as administrators can demonstrate that they acted reasonably, everyone within a prison’s walls can die of a communicable disease and that’s nobody’s problem or responsibility.
+++ +++ +++
I’m troubled that the judge is speaking as if Videz-Rauda has already been found guilty, which he has not.
I thought that denying bail — by definition, to someone who is not [yet] guilty — was justified by the seriousness of the charges, not the likelihood of the accused’s continuing to offend. If someone is charged with growing pot, you offer bail no matter how likely the accused is to continue growing pot, because growing pot is illegal but not that immediately dangerous. If someone is charged with murder, you deny bail because the risk to society is high enough that it balances out the possibility that the accused is not guilty.
Somebody please correct me!
david1000 22:07 on 2020-05-10 Permalink
I’m pretty sure this is the key issue:
« Même en tenant pour acquis que le requérant se présentera à son procès, le profil de ce dernier, les récidives en semblables matières alors qu’il fait l’objet d’une enquête policière et l’irrespect des ordonnances judiciaires justifient de conclure que sa détention s’avère nécessaire pour assurer la sécurité du public », conclut le juge Cournoyer.
—
Ie. he’s a stone cold criminal. And that’s not touching on whether he’s in this country legally, has been ordered deported already, is a gang member, has had other charges dropped for lack of evidence, or has misbehaved in prison. That’s JUST on what the judge has reviewed of his criminal history and likelihood to show up at trial.
david1000 22:08 on 2020-05-10 Permalink
Sorry, meant to say NOT on likelihood to show . . . rather, public safety of releasing him.
Alison Cummins 01:46 on 2020-05-11 Permalink
david1000,
Yes, the judge is assuming that the subject is guilty of the charges against him. That’s my concern. There has been no trial *in a year and a half.*
A year and a half is an awfully long time to hold someone who hasn’t been convicted.
david1100 02:02 on 2020-05-11 Permalink
Right, but the judge is saying that he’s a hardcore criminal and that in his opinion, it’s not in the public’s interest to release him. This is exactly the sort of decision judges are there to make. Trust me, this sort of move is rare. Meaning that there’s obviously some background here.