textfiles/reports/ACE/judges.txt

        ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ                            ÜÜÜ           ÜÜÜÜ
     ÜÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛßÛßßßßßÛÛÜ       ÜÜßßßßÜÜÜÜ ÜÛÜ  ÜÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÜÜÜÜÜÛßß ßÛÛ
    ßÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÜ  ßÛÛ   ÜÛÛÛÜÛÛÜÜÜ   ßÛÛÛÛÜ ßÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÜÛÛÜÜÜÛÛÝ Ûß
        ßßßÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÜ ÞÝ  ÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛßßÛÜÞÛÛÛ    ÛÛÛÛÛÜ    ßßÛÛÛÞß
Mo.iMP  ÜÛÛÜ  ßÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÝÛ  ÞÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛ    ÞÛÛÛÛ     ÞÛÛÛÛÛÝ      ßÛß
      ÜÛÛÛÛÛÛÛ  ÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÝ ÞÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÝ     ÛÛÛ       ÛÛÛÛÛÛ
     ÜÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÝ  ÞÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛ ÞÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛ       ß        ÞÛÛÛÛÛÛÜ   ÜÛ
    ÜÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÝ    ÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛ  ÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÝ               ÞÞÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛß
   ÜÛßÛÛÛÛÛÛ ÜÜ  ÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÝ ÛÛÞÛÛÛÛÛÝ               ÞÛÛÛÛÛÛßß
  ÜÛßÛÛÛÛÛÛÜÛÛÛÛÜÞÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛ ÞÛ ßÛÛÛÛÛ           Ü   ÛÝÛÛÛÛÛ             Ü
 ÜÛ ÞÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛß  ÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛ ßÛÜ  ßÛÛÛÜÜ    ÜÜÛÛÛß ÞÛ ÞÛÛÛÝ         ÜÜÛÛ
ÛÛ   ÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛß    ÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÜ ßÛÜ  ßßÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛß ÜÜÜß ÛÛÛÛÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÛÛÛÛÛß
 ßÛÜ   ÜÛÛÛß       ßÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÜ  ßßÜÜ ßßÜÛÛßß  ßÛÛÜ   ßßßÛßÛÛÛÛÛÛÛßß
    ßßßßß                ßßÛÛß      ßßßßß        ßßßßßßßßßßßßß
	  ARRoGANT                CoURiERS      WiTH     ESSaYS

Grade Level:       Type of Work           Subject/Topic is on:
 [ ]6-8                 [ ]Class Notes    [Canadian judges         ]
 [x]9-10                [ ]Cliff Notes    [                        ]
 [ ]11-12               [x]Essay/Report   [                        ]
 [ ]College             [ ]Misc           [                        ]

 Dizzed:7/94    # of Words:1976  School: ?              State: ?
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ>ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ>ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ>Chop Here>ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ>ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ>ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ>ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
    Career Essay on JUDGES

    The dictionary defines a judge as "a public officer authorized to hear
and determine causes in a court of law."  The following essay will deal on
how to become a judge, the requirements to become a judge, salaries, and
the different types of judges and what kind of information they deal with.

    Judges are some of the most important people in Canada.  They are the
men and women who sit on the benches in the courtrooms, whose
responsibility it is not only to decide the fate of human beings, like
themselves, but to steer and control the course of the law itself.  The
arrival advent of the 1982 Charter of Rights changed many things for
judges.  Since then, they have been handed the tasks of determining the
fundamental rights and freedoms of all Canadians.

    WHAT IS A JUDGE?
    A judge basically decides on the fate of the person who stands before
him.  He listens to the information presented from the defendant, who is
the accused, and the plaintiff, who is the accuser.  Once all of the
information has been presented, either the judge makes a decision or the
jury does.  In a small court, usually a judge makes the decision, but if
the defendant was a mass murderer, and had eye witnesses seeing him kill a
person, but had a virtual air-tight case for him that would get him out
scot-free because he was the prime minister's son, there would be a jury.

    A judge also passes sentence, which is how long the accused, if found
guilty, should be punished.  A judge is looked upon as "god" to the accused
standing before him, the judge holds the fate of a person in his hands.
They command respect, and the job of a judge, if it is the supreme court or
a small claims court, the word "judge" holds special meaning.

    A judge also has the good fortune to see almost every type of person
living today, from killer to housewife, from jaywalker to terrorist.

REQUIREMENTS TO BECOME A JUDGE AND HOW TO BECOME ONE
    Only the best can become a judge.  The word "best" does not apply to
the best at math, physics, or science, but the best that they can do.  If a
judge only sits there, in a black robe, staring attentively at the wall,
then anyone could become a judge.  To become a judge, you must have the
ability to think logically, fairly, and to listen to two sides of a story,
conflicting each other.  One says guilty.  One says mistake.  The judge
must listen and make his decision.

Research on fifty judges from around Canada showed up the following
information:

  All of them had a Law degree.
  60 percent said that they hadn't planned on being a judge
			
    The first step to becoming a judge is work.  You have to work hard to
graduate from law school.  Many judges said that they hadn't planned on
being a judge, and almost all of them said that it was the right job for
their abilities.  Many say that emotion during a trial can kill a judge,
but to look at it from many different points of view to come up with a
decision actually helps the judge to make the correct decision.

    Many lawyers often become judges.  It is a stereotype to say that
judges are all old, white haired men, because there are many, many women
judges.  The information I have so far gathered says that a law degree is
the first step. There really is no other second step.  You can't really
become a judge of a high court on just a law degree, so anything else which
will help.  One judge surveyed has his law degree, MBA, a degree in
economics, and has gone to school for over half his life.  He is seventy
three years old.  He is now retired, after being on the bench at Provincial
Court for over 20 years. Provincial Court is where street level cases are
heard.

    To get into law school, you must have an average score of 94 percent or
better, (1987 figures) and to graduate you must have 95 percent or better
(again 1987 figures.)  The first step is very tough.  There are too many
lawyers out there, but not enough judges.  Hundreds of cases have been
thrown out simply because they were waiting to be brought to trial.  One
person was waiting for over a year, and the case was thrown out.

    Judges are selected to an appropriate court when they are needed.  When
a major case comes up into the Supreme Court, a judge is selected.  When a
new court opens up, a judge is selected.  To become a judge, you have to
wait and be patient until a job comes, much like a lawyer.  Many judges
sit, or work at a particular court.  For example, there are fifty one
judges at the Supreme Court of Canada.

    A judge really boils down to a fancy lawyer.  But not just any lawyer,
not a prosecutor or a defence attorney, but both rolled into one who must
make a decision for one of the two.
			
	TYPE OF JUDGES AND THEIR SALARIES
			(Average approximate salaries from judges in Canada.)
Traffic Court                 40,000+
Provincial Court              50-60,000
Supreme Court                 70-90,000+
Basic All-Around Judge        Anywhere from 30-70,000

    A Traffic Court judge deals with traffic accidents and offenses,
jaywalking (although jaywalking usually just has a fine,) parking tickets,
etc.

    A provincial Court judge is the kind of judge who deals with domestic
street violence.  This is the type of judge seen on the TV show Night
Court.  Almost anything is presented in provincial court, from assault to
arson, from second degree murder to littering.  Most first degree murder
charges are sent here, or if they have very serious ramifications, they are
sent to the Supreme Court.  Old City Hall is a Provincial Court.

    The Supreme Court judge has a tough job, but not the toughest.  The
supreme court deals with reinterpretations of the law, changes of the law,
(like the abortion law,) mass murderers or serious arson or car accidents.

    A basic, all-around judge is the type of judge that deals with almost
everything.  He/she is not exactly a Supreme Court judge, but more than a
Provincial Court judge. He/she deals with everything and probably has a
second job with a law firm or something else, like a lawyer.

    CASE HISTORIES

    The first case history presented will be of one of libel.  The
plaintiffs, a man named Norris Walker and his company, Walker Brothers
Quarries, had sued CTV for libel.  WBQ was a family operation that had been
in operation for several decades now, and for the past ten years or so most
of their business consisted of disposing industrial waste.  In the spring
of 1980, W5, the investigative program on the CTV network, got some news
that Walker Brothers was lax, or even illegal, in its methods it used for
burying the industrial waste.  W5 sent one of their reporters to get the
story, which he did, an 18 minute segment for the show.  The film was more
for the idea of illegal burial methods.  On October 26, 1980, W5 ran that
18 minute segment, and on january 1, 1981, Norris Walker, along with the
company, sued CTV for libel.

    The court consisted of a jury, since libel is one of the remaining
civil actions in which a jury is required.  The six person jury consisted
of four women and two men.  The plaintiff, Norris Walker and WBQ, kept
explaining that the W5 segment had created an untrue picture of the Walker
Brother's operations through biased film editing.  Parts of the interviews
that didn't fit the program's thesis that the company was a dangerous
polluter were cut out.  The show talked about in the community where the
Walker Brother's operations were situated about that the company was up to
no good, and in the interview with Norris Walker, no-one put the local
gossip to Walker. Unfair, libellous, said the plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs
had enough witnesses to the stand to underline the point, but they weren't
sure that the jury was getting it.

    By the end of the trial, there could be a new record for the amount of
money awarded to damages for the plaintiffs, said the plaintiff's attorney.

    When the trial entered its third week, the defendants pressed that W5
presented a straightforward, account of the situation at Walker Brothers,
as the facts revealed it to be.  It was responsible journalism, as the
public had a right to know, said the defendants.  Anyway, the law permitted
print and electronic media to comment fairly in matters of public concern.
If the situation were turned around, it would put a crimp in investigative
journalism.  A noble defense from the defendants.

    By October 18, 1981, all of the witnesses had been heard, and the
plaintiffs made their address to the jury.  He prowled in front of the jury
box, beginning light, with a joke, and then escalating to listing all of
the accusations W5 made at Walker Brothers, and after each accusation, he
said the same two words: Not True.  He said them until he was screaming,
and until the words echoed off of the ceiling of the courtroom.  A recess
was called so the jury could take its coffee break.

    When the jury came back, the plaintiffs resumed their address.  The
plaintiffs argued that W5 got hours of tapes and cut them down into 18
minutes, something that would make their show into something great and
popular, and something that would attract hundreds of viewers, and when it
was all finished, they said that Norris Walker was negligent and crooked.
Porter was building up to something huge.  It was the last two lines of his
address: "When a man dies, all he leaves behind is  his reputation and his
good name."  Court was adjourned for two and a half hours.

    The jury retired to make its decision the next day.  One person asked
the judge what the decision would be.  He responded that they might give
the plaintiff something, maybe twenty five thousand dollars, no more,
because he was libelled and because W5 didn't really seem to have cost the
company any appreciable loss of business.

    The next day, the jury handed the court clerk its decision, on two
pieces of paper, which was handed to the judge. The judge studied it for a
moment, and was tempted to tell the counsel how many zeroes he was looking
at.  Up until that moment the most money awarded for libel was $125,000.
The figure the judge was looking at topped that figure by over one million
dollars.

    The jury had found that W5 libelled Norris Walker and his company, and
it calculated the damages for libel in a number of categories.  $25,000 in
personal damages, $50,000 in exemplary damages to W5 for its offensive
journalism, and an eye popping $883,000 in damages to the Walker Brothers
company computed at one dollar for every person who was watching W5 the
night W5 had broadcast that show, plus interest from January 1, 1981 when
the lawsuit was initiated.  Grand total: $1,372,048.

    The preceding was an excellent example of how a judge must sit and
listen through over nine months of argument and testimony.  Patience is a
virtue.  Also, it was another good example of where slander can get you.
It can get you into the hole of more than a million dollars.  And, finally,
it shows how competing with another TV show for your own gain, and hurting
someone else to gain that, can hurt you even more.  A judge: The toughest
job in the business.


  BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.  JUDGES, Batten, Jack. Macmillan of Canada, 1986. Printed in Canada. ??