Pregnant teens belong in jail

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Wezil


I have an issue with this. If you are going to demand the use of my tax money to summon the police and involve the courts b/c you have been assaulted, I damn well expect you to testify.

Thats because you haven't been subjected to domestic abuse for years and don't understand the courage it takes to go to court

[Wezil]

Originally posted by TheStinger


Thats because you haven't been subjected to domestic abuse for years and don't understand the courage it takes to go to court

But you see that is the conundrum the women's groups have created. They pushed for "zero tolerance" wrt the laying of charges but are now saying "Go ahead and lay the charge every time just don't expect the victim to assist". It is absurd.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Wezil


I have an issue with this. If you are going to demand the use of my tax money to summon the police and involve the courts b/c you have been assaulted, I damn well expect you to testify.

I don't disagree with this, but I don't think it's logical to allow the police to imprison the victim to compel testimony. "Expect" and "Permit legal action" are very different levels of action after all...`

[Kidlicious]

I'd like to get both of them in jail. They're menaces to society.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by snoopy369


I don't disagree with this, but I don't think it's logical to allow the police to imprison the victim to compel testimony. "Expect" and "Permit legal action" are very different levels of action after all...`

She's on a material witness warrant. They're afraid that if they let her out she will consort with the accused and he will affect her testimony.

It's not an unreasonable fear.

[snoopy369]

I understand WHY she's in jail, but I don't agree with the reasoning. Given that she did not commit any crime, I don't think it is reasonable in a liberal society to hold her in jail. Order her to testify, yes. Hold her in contempt if she doesn't show and THEN jail her, yes. But until that occurs, I don't think this case is at the level of importance to the State to justify pre-emptive imprisonment for a witness ...

[Wezil]

There is also some indication she failed to attend at a previous court appearance (granted, this is not in the article I posted - see my comment on modern journalism earlier).

[KrazyHorse]

So you disagree with the entire concept of material witness warrants?

[snoopy369]

I disagree with using a material witness warrant in this particular instance (or, with the final outcome being imprisonment - is it not possible in Canada to issue the warrant but not fully enforce it until/unless she fails to appear?)

If she failed to appear at a previous court session, then that changes this rather substantially...

[KrazyHorse]

A material witness warrant is a wrrant for the detention of a material witness to a crime.

She's a material witness, and is obviously demonstrating a proclivity toward non-cooperation with the Crown. The Crown visited a judge and he granted them the right to detain her. I don't see the problem here. She's being detained for a well-defined period of time (until the guy's trial) on a legal warrant obtained through proper means.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by snoopy369

If she failed to appear at a previous court session, then that changes this rather substantially...

This is unclear. I wish I could say definitively but I can't. If I can source this I will (as well as the update from todays appearance).

[Wezil]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
She's a material witness, and is obviously demonstrating a proclivity toward non-cooperation with the Crown. The Crown visited a judge and he granted them the right to detain her.

It looks like this was the case.

Riva [Mowatt's lawyer] said Mowatt never received a subpoena before she was detained by police. But she conceded that the Criminal Code allows warrants to be issued when there's evidence that someone is evading a subpoena or that they might not respond to a subpoena if it were to be issued.

I don't know what that "evidence" was but it was strong enough to convince a judge.

[Wezil]

There are many reasons a pregnant teenager ended up in jail a week before her baby's due date, a source close to the case said yesterday – and it wasn't just to make sure she shows up in court today to testify at the domestic assault trial of her boyfriend.

Noellee Mowatt, 19, has been locked up for 11 days for a number of reasons, the source said:

She tried to run away from police, moving from shelter to shelter, lying about her name and whereabouts.

She skipped out on court when she was facing a shoplifting charge.

When Mowatt, who is due to deliver a baby girl Tuesday, was finally arrested, she didn't have anyone to post her bail.

And even though there were two warrants out for her arrest – a bench warrant for failing to appear at a January court date for theft under $5,000 and a material witness warrant – the source said
.
.
.
(cont)

http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/413498

That looks like the answer to the question.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
A material witness warrant is a wrrant for the detention of a material witness to a crime.

She's a material witness, and is obviously demonstrating a proclivity toward non-cooperation with the Crown. The Crown visited a judge and he granted them the right to detain her. I don't see the problem here. She's being detained for a well-defined period of time (until the guy's trial) on a legal warrant obtained through proper means.

I'm saying that, if it weren't for Wezil's above posts, I would disagree with the detention of a witness in this particular instance because it is not an adequately serious crime to justify the detention. If this were a murder trial or a Mob trial or something like that, then I'd agree - but a simple domestic violence charge is inadequate. Certainly you'd agree that holding someone in jail because they need to testify at a case regarding someone smoking weed would be excessive, yes? I have the same opinion here... for me the line is higher than simple domestic violence.

In any event, this argument is moot because she clearly violated various actual laws and therefore belongs in jail

[KrazyHorse]

Again, she's not in jail for violating the law.

She's in jail to protect the Crown's case.

I have faith that, unless I'm given evidence to the contrary, the reasons the judge had to grant the material witness warrant were probably pretty good.

This isn't something that the Crown prosecutor gets to decie on his own. A judge is supposed to weigh the interests of the Crown against the interests of the individual...