Pregnant teens belong in jail

[KrazyHorse]

By the way, I take domestic abuse cases with serious physical damage to the female as being on a level with a charge like assault with a deadly weapon. It's not very hard for a full-grown man to kill a woman with his bare hands. This is a very serious matter. Also, you should note that there are forcible confinement charges here. Those are pretty ****ing serious.

[snoopy369]

Read Wezil's article again. It's not 100% clear, but it suggests that she is in bail on a bench warrant, and possibly even relating to her shoplifting charge (it's really quite confusing there).

In any event, missing the first appearance changes the equation for me - once she's missed a court date she was required to attend (the material witness warrant was for the FIRST count date, mind you), she can be jailed IMO.

The Court should weigh the interests of the Crown vs the Individual indeed- I think that in the case of a non-lawbreaking individual, her interests in not being jailed far exceed the Crown's interests here. For that matter, even the police argue against denying her bail (read the article)...

[KrazyHorse]

Uh, snoopy, a material witness warrant is a warrant for detention. That's it.

She may have also had an incidental bench warrant, but the mat wit warrant has no meaning except in that it allows the police to hold you.

[KrazyHorse]

If the Crown goes to the trouble of getting a material witness warrant against you then they're not going to decide to let you run around free...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by snoopy369
In any event, this argument is moot because she clearly violated various actual laws and therefore belongs in jail

It figures. Anyone who won't help police put away a violent criminal is probably a criminal herself.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Uh, snoopy, a material witness warrant is a warrant for detention. That's it.

She may have also had an incidental bench warrant, but the mat wit warrant has no meaning except in that it allows the police to hold you.

The writer of the article, and apparently a lot of other people who actually know what they're talking about, disagree.

I believe it allows the police to hold you if you of course, but the purpose of issuing it is to make it easier for the police to hold you if they need to - often warrants are issued for this reason.

In this particular case, it is evident that the judge refused bail, which I consider an unusual step except when there is a significant flight risk above and beyond the norm. In this case, she DID flee, so that is the reasoning - although many people including the police STILL believe she should have been allowed free (on house arrest, but this is much less severe than jail time).

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by snoopy369


The writer of the article, and apparently a lot of other people who actually know what they're talking about, disagree.

I don't think your reading comprehension is particularly impressive if you don't understand why there's no conflict between what I'm saying and what the article says.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by snoopy369
I believe it allows the police to hold you if you of course, but the purpose of issuing it is to make it easier for the police to hold you if they need to - often warrants are issued for this reason

WTF are you on about here?

In this particular case, it is evident that the judge refused bail, which I consider an unusual step except when there is a significant flight risk above and beyond the norm. In this case, she DID flee, so that is the reasoning - although many people including the police STILL believe she should have been allowed free (on house arrest, but this is much less severe than jail time).

Stop complicating the issue. We're not talking about the denial of bail.

Let me get your position straight: you think it's okay that the Crown got a court order allowing the cops to hold this woman, but you wouldn't think it was okay if they actually used it?

[snoopy369]

Pretty much, yes. (And you still must not have read or understood the (second) article, given you don't see how it disagrees explicitly with your position. Maybe it's the fact that you're a Physicist with no legal background... hmm ... stick to telling Ben about black holes perhaps?) I think they should have arranged for the warrant to require her into court (or used a subpoena, which would do just as well), but not used it to hold her in prison (again, under the assumption that she hadn't failed to appear. That changes everything.)

The article clearly states that she was denied bail (which is why she is in jail, and not under house arrest or otherwise free), and that is the interesting part (and further does not make it clear what she is being held on - at points it implies the bench warrant, and at other points it implies the shoplifting charge.) It makes crystal clear that the material witness warrant was prior to the first court appearance (or lack thereof...) and AFTER that failure to appear, a bench warrant was made out. Quite standard practice, in both countries...

[KrazyHorse]

Uh, snoopy, a material witness warrant is a warrant for detention. That's it.

She may have also had an incidental bench warrant, but the mat wit warrant has no meaning except in that it allows the police to hold you.

I'd like to know how this contradicts the article, given that it's what you quoted.

If you want to claim that this:

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

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

contradicts the second article then you would have a case (I posted it before reading second article, and based it on another news report I read).

Pay attention, son.

[Wezil]

TORONTO - A 19-year-old pregnant woman jailed to ensure she would testify against her allegedly abusive boyfriend finally took the stand on Friday and denied the abuse took place, trying to explain away marks on her arms and face as mere bug bites and carpet burns.

Noellee Mowatt called police after an argument with her boyfriend but then refused to co-operate with authorities. She was taken into custody on April 1 to make sure she would appear in court.

Mowatt decried her detention during a recent interview from jail, saying, "I thought they only put guilty people in jail, not innocent, pregnant women."

She said she was "scared, terrified and angry" and vowed never again call police for help, adding she expected her arrest and detention would deter other abused women from calling authorities.

Her boyfriend, Christopher Harbin, is charged with assault, assault with a weapon, forcible confinement, theft and breaching a probation order.

Mowatt told court Friday that on Dec. 28, the day that she called 911, she had asked Harbin to get her some food but he refused, saying he was tired. An argument ensued.

She later called police frantically from a pay phone, alleging that Harbin punched her several times in the face and said she had bruises all over her face.

But in court Friday, Mowatt said she lied during that call and that Harbin never attacked her with a knife, as the Crown alleges.

When asked about police photos that show marks on her arms and face she said they were the result of bug bites, falling on the carpet at home, and sleeping on something hard.

While earlier interviews with Mowatt suggested she was due to give birth next week, court heard Friday the young woman isn't due until mid-May.

Mowatt came to Canada from Jamaica in 2006 and worked part-time at a McDonald's restaurant while going to school.

She met Harbin at a Toronto subway station when he asked her for directions. They eventually moved north to Barrie, Ont., to live with his family but didn't stay long and found a small bachelor apartment in Toronto.

Under questioning from the Crown, Mowatt said they were happy and got along, although they had arguments about "simple stuff."

They would fight when he didn't want to go to bed at the same time as her, saying he wasn't tired yet, and she was bothered by his habit of watching pornography on his laptop while she was in the room, Mowatt said.

When the Crown pressed her for more details about his porn viewing habits and whether he was "doing anything else," Mowatt said, "I don't know. I wasn't watching."

When asked how long he would do it she said, "I don't time him."

She said his porn habit made her feel "bad" and she often told him to "turn it off and do something constructive."

It was expected that Mowatt, who has said she hopes Harbin is acquitted so they can build a life together, would be released on bail Friday.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2008/04/10/5246991-cp.html

[Aeson]

The next time I'm being attacked by bugs and carpet, I'm definitely not going to feel safe calling the cops.

Poor baby.

[Wezil]

She's dumb as a brick and a liar.

A pregnant teen stared at colour photographs of her bruised and bloodied body and testified yesterday the injuries were from accidents and not at the hands of her unborn baby's father.

Almost four months ago, Noellee Mowatt told a chillingly different story to Toronto Police about how she suffered these injuries: She said Christopher Harbin punched, kicked, and grappled her in choke-holds.

The 19-year-old said some of the attacks were triggered when she complained he was endlessly watching pornography instead of looking for work while she laboured long hours at a McDonald's restaurant.

In a statement, Mowatt said Harbin called her a "pig" for her ravenous appetite and a "******." He flashed a knife inches from her body to intimidate her and cut her foot while chopping around it as she lay on a bed.

But yesterday she told Justice Beverly Brown those statements were lies she told to punish the 25-year-old Harbin for "kicking her out" of their one-room apartment after a spat.

Mowatt, who was jailed on April 1 on a material witness warrant to compel her to testify, left Old City Hall courthouse a free woman after the judge released her with the Crown's consent.


Mowatt testified that her due date is May 15 -- not Tuesday -- as she had said last week.

"I'm really happy that I can phone my mother and daughter in Jamaica because they weren't aware I was arrested," said Mowatt, flanked by her lawyer Lydia Riva.

'NO SENSE TO JAIL HER'

"We're so relieved -- it made absolutely no sense to jail her. This will discourage women from coming forward with complaints of domestic violence," Riva told reporters outside court.

Mowatt, pregnant with Harbin's child, came forward on Dec. 28, 2007 with allegations about his violence to Det. Const. Mandy Morris.

Harbin, 25, has pleaded not guilty to eight charges, including assault with a knife and unlawful confinement.

In a videotaped statement played in court yesterday, Mowatt pinpointed the bruises and cuts on her mouth, neck and feet, where she told Det. Const. Morris that Harbin had hit her.

But all those injuries were self-inflicted and accidental, she testified.

She said she bruised herself, falling into a wall as she chased Harbin. Her sliced foot was caused when her foot slid under a door. Mowatt told court she met Harbin at the Yonge-Bloor subway station last summer and become pregnant by him before they started having a relationship.

She said she wanted to continue her relationship with him and raise their child together but denied lying to free him quickly.

"Yes (I want him out), but I speak the truth no matter what," she said.

Mowatt said she told police she "didn't want to continue with the case" but admitted she never told officers that her videotaped statement or frantic 911 call were false because "I was afraid."

At her bail hearing on April 1, Mowatt testified she visited Harbin -- who is prohibited from having any contact with her as a complainant -- "more than three times" in jail.

"I wasn't aware" of the prohibition, she told the hearing.

The trial will continue April 22 with Mowatt.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2008/04/12/5266481-sun.html