That being said, it may be less safe to assert that he has no chance of parole. “Eligible” is certainly not the same as seeing it granted, certainly: but who knows what Canadian society will look like in 25 years?

Always better to resolve the problem now than count on your descendants feeling your same sense of outrgae in the nebulous future.

Now, people are going crazy over the *eligibility* for parole in 10 to 25 years. One of the words in the previous sentence is key. He can be *eligible* for parole next week, and he’ll wind up in the same place that he will 25 years from now: Rotting in prison.

You have a better chance of cloning yourself at home than Pickton has of ever being free again. “Eligible for parole” does *NOT* mean that they will be paroled. Let’s use that common sense thing that seems to be in such short supply these days.

Oh, and for CR, Pickton was charged with six counts of first-degree murder. He was convicted of six counts of *second*-degree murder.

“Fair and impartial” is a nice theory, but that’s all it is: a theory. The reality is that every juror comes to court with his or her personal biases, prejudices,and predispositions that will absolutely prevcent that person from rendering a “fair and impartial” verdict - which is precisely the kind of jurors both sides want, and the defense will spend a lot of money on consultants to find the ones prejudiced their way.

The real goal of voir dire is to find jurors who are biased, prejudiced, and predisposed in your favor.

Trials, at least in America, are not about truth and justice: they’re about winning. Prosecutors want convictions to build a record of putting bad guys in jail - so they can be elected or appointed to higher, including political, office. The defense wants acquittals because acquittals in high profile cases make them rich. The end result is neither side is partricularly interested in truth or justice: justice is when they win.

I don’t know, as noted, about Canada, and its equivalent of voir dire, but if it’s anything like the US, you can bet that the defense was working overtime to get at least one person on that jury who wouldn’t vote for the 1st degree with the possibility of execution if it had been Hitler on trial.

Looks like they succeeded.

There was probably a holdout juror who thought he was not guilty by reason of insanity or some such, but who agreed to the compromise.

Humans in non-hierarchical groups are some of the most irrational social constructs that have ever been constructed.

Without technology and education, it never would have worked better than the alternatives.

Liberals have turned our justice system into a joke that is what is wrong with Canada.

If you are wondering what conservatives in Canada think of all this you could go to one of the best Canadian blog called Small Dead Animals.

If that sounds strange to you, consider that one of the juries I served on was hung up for three hours by one man who finally admitted that if we didn’t reach a verdict by 5:30, we would all be given $4.50 to pay for dinner. (We all chipped in for his dinner, convicted the defendant and went home.)