Life Sentence: Stories from Four Decades of Court Reporting -- or, How I Fell Out of Love with the Canadian Justice System

by Christie Blatchford

A beloved crime reporter revisits some of her biggest assignments and passes judgement on our judicial system and especially its judges.


When Christie Blatchford wandered into a Toronto courtroom in 1978 for the start of the first criminal trial she would cover as a newspaper reporter, little did she know she was also at the start of a self-imposed life sentence.
     She has been reporting from Canadian courtrooms for the Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail and the National Post ever since. Back in '78, she loved the courts, lawyers and judges, and that persisted for many years. But slowly, surely, she suffered a loss of faith. What happened? It was at the recent Mike Duffy trial she had the epiphany: That judges are the new senators, unelected, unaccountable and overly entitled. Yet unlike senators, they continue to get away with it because any questioning by government or its agents is deemed an intrusion onto judicial independence.
    In her explosive new book, Christie Blatchford revisits trials from throughout her career and asks the hard questions--about judges playing with the truth--through editing of criminal records, whitewashing of criminal records, pre-trial rulings that kick out evidence the jury can't hear. She discusses bad or troubled judges--how and why they get picked, and what can be done about them. And shows how judges are handmaidens to the state, as in the Bernardo trial when a small-town lawyer and an intellectual writer were pursued with more vigor than Karla Homolka.
     For anyone interested in the political and judicial fabric of this country, Life Sentence is a remarkable, argumentative, insightful and hugely important book.

Genres: Nonfiction, Law, True Crime, History, Politics, Canada, Legal

366 pages, Kindle Edition

First published October 30, 2016

Reviews

[Stitching Ghost]

I initially picked this one up because I read a lot about the American justice and carceral systems but not so much about the Canadian ones, I'm a Canadian living in Canada, I'm sure you can see the problem too, and this book came up when I searched for "books about the Canadian prison system" and it was available at my library.

I got about 25% through and there were quite a few parts that sounded like they were in really bad faith and laced with uncalled for cruelty, even when I did agree with at least part of the author's takeaway (basically that justices need to be held accountable more) so I went looking into what that author was all about and I realized that bad faith arguments and hate fueled rhetoric were really her thing. I'm not in the mood to hate read something so I'm yeeting this one into the nope pile and calling it a day.

No rating.

[Blair · Rating 3 out of 5]

Christie Blatchford often has the rare ability to defy the rules of what we are supposed to think, and yet not fall into the trap of saying something stupid. But stringing together a series of newspaper columns about prominent court trials, even if many are insightful, does not add up to a coherent book. While reading, I often asked myself why do I need to know all of this mind-numbing detail.

She does provide a lot to think about. For example, our increasing obsession with victimhood is leading us to forget that justice is about determining guilt and finding an appropriate punishment, rather than letting certain people feel better about themselves. She movingly describes how a couple tortured and abused their baby, yet the judge treated them as the victims. On the other side, she also shows how the parents of the victims of the horrible Paul Bernardo murders also had far too much influence over the conduct of the trial.

To her credit she does not advocate simplistic solutions to complex problems. When talking about how judges get appointed, she admits that,

“Our choice is between a process in which the politics is open, acknowledged, and possesses some degree of balance or a system in which political power and influence is masked, unacknowledged, and unilateral.”

She takes a dim view of the sense of entitlement and unaccountability of both judges and the lawyers who hope to become them:

“Lawyers just can’t help themselves; they indulge in that sort of flowery horseshit about one another all the time. And some of them, along the way, begin to believe it. And that’s when it appears they decide they should be judges - and even that, you know, they deserve it.”

That’s fine, but near the end of the book she loses her habit of not saying something stupid:

It was one day in April 2015, during the Mike Duffy trial, that I apparently lost my mind entirely, whether because of Duffy’s habit of never paying for a thing, or his lawyer’s general unctuousness, or just because I’d had it that day with the widespread habit among lawyers of overpraising one another….

I wrote to [] and said, Hey, any chance you can get a Latin translation of ‘Let no cock go unsucked?’ Seriously….

I imagined my motto better described what often happens in the courtroom. In my dreams, I pictured it on a fancy coat of arms.

I have to note that the book was written, or perhaps assembled, after she “lost her mind entirely”. Thus we are provided with a useful peek into the judicial system for one with patience to get through it. Just remember that this is only one person’s view, with no legal training, gleaned from observing a number of selected high profile trials. It is not the last word on the subject.

[John of Canada · Rating 5 out of 5]

Christie Blatchford is fearless.She names names,is unfamiliar with the thought of being politically correct,is willing to point out the inadequacies of the Canadian justice system and the corruption and incompetence of the police.The part that scared me was the inability to crack the code of secrecy of the government,and I can't see how that's going to change(banana republic anyone?).She also took on "Me too".What gave me hope was that the lawyer for Jian Ghomeshi exposed the concept of 'guilty if accused' for what it was.MacLeans magazine,a Canadian rag promptly vilified Marie Henein,the defence lawyer for the fact that Ghomeshi was found innocent.Blatchford is just as tough on the press and herself.I learned a lot from this book and it gave me a little hope for our country.

[Beth · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found this non-fiction read wholly engrossing: how well-known Canadian reporter Christie Blatchford fell OUT of love with the Canadian justice system.....especially judges. Who knew?? I guess I need to pay much more attention. The first few chapters were rather convoluted but the last two chapters on Paul Bernardo/Karla Homolka and Jian Ghomeshi were very interesting!

[Sandra · Rating 5 out of 5]

On page 18 - I'll go ahead and give it 5 stars.

Christie Blatchford is my most favorite journalist of all times ever, and I enjoy her writing to death, convoluted sentences notwithstanding.

[Janice Moran]

Really interesting commentary about the legal system in Canada and the entitled lawyers/judges.
The chapters on Bernardo are really frightening - Karla Homolka's deal was sooooo bad!

[Burt Schoeppe · Rating 3 out of 5]

Christie Blatchford's most recent book is Life Sentence: Stories From Four Decades of Court Reporting - Or, How I Fell Out of Love with the Canadian Justice System. I think the title of this post is fair in its characterization of the title of the book. The book is interesting, but definitely disjointed. Bltachford makes excellent points throughout the book about the unnecessary opaqueness and exorbitant costs associated with the Canadian legal system. Life Sentence comes across as three books in one.

Book 1 - An Introduction to the Canadian Justice system

The first four chapters cover what the book really purports to tell in the title. In these chapters Blatchford gives the highlights of the vast majority of her career as a court reporter. This section of the book comes across as a little too much inside baseball for someone who is not directly related to the justice system in Canada, and especially Ontario. It is mildly engaging to read the nature of the way in which judges are appointed, compensated and regulated in the Canadian system. However, if this section had been the entirety of the book it would have been a disappointing read outside its narrow target audience.

Book 2 - The Bernardo/Homolka case and the Tribulations of Stephen Williams

The book takes a turn for the interesting in the fourth chapter R v Bernardo. In many respects it feels like this chapter is a book on the Paul Bernardo - Karla Homolka case that Blatchford never got around to writing. The 'chapter' is nearly a third of Life Sentence. It provides insight into Homolka's plea deal and the tremendous influence that Tim Danson, the lawyer for the victims' families, had on the case.

R v Bernardo continues with the mistreatment of Canadian writer Stephen Williams in relation to the case. Williams wrote two books on the trial. He raised the ire of the Canadian judicial system in his attempts to report on the trial. He was charged with 97 criminal charges related to his reporting and faced a two year ordeal before the case was settled. Williams eventually plead:

"guilty to a single count of breaching a court order by publishing the names of some of the sexual assault victims on his short-lived, experimental website that had only ever been viewed by police officers, and a few reporters. He was given a suspended sentence and three years probation --- and a criminal record."

The treatment of Williams at the hands of the Canadian justice system is a real eye-opener.

Book 3 - The Harm of Sexual Assault Claims

Blatchford's third book-in-a-book deals with the Jian Ghomeshi trial and the way the court system deals with sexual assault complaints. It is at this point where Blatchford really hits her stride. She points out the necessary adversarial nature of the court process:

"In fact, Jake Jensin, who represented the first Ghomeshi complainant, says police should spend some time telling alleged victims about the process --- that, for instance, the videoed interview will be provided to the defence; that they will be challenged and must expect it; that they should take their time and be as descriptive as possible."

Blatchford goes on to outline why #Ibelievewomen is not in itself valid grounds for automatically convicting those accused of sexual assault. Blatchford gives a few examples of men who faced accusations of sexual assault who had their reputations severely impacted as well as having their careers destroyed or nearly destroyed. These charges are especially troublesome when the accused are public figures:

"the names of public figures, whether athletes or parliamentarians or celebrities will emerge, either because at a certain stage police release them (when formal charges are laid, it's the usual practice in both Canada and the U.K. to release names, but "wanted" persons are sometimes identified too) or because journalists will find out on their own."

Blatchford outlines the cases of four men who were accused of inappropriate behaviour, never faced formal charges for their 'crimes' and the impact of these accusations on their lives. Former VANOC chair John Furlong's case was the most detailed. Former Liberal MPs Scott Andrews and Massimo Pacetti were accused of misconduct while members of the federal Liberal caucus. There was no formal hearing held in their case. No charges were field Neither were allowed to run as Liberals in 2015.

The final case was that of Patrick Witt. Witt was the starting quarterback for the Yale Bulldogs, a Rhodes Scholarship finalist and is in his final year at Harvard Law. Witt's ex-girlfriend filed an 'informal complaint' against him to Yale's University-Wide Committee on Sexual Conduct. Witt was not allowed to view the complaint against him or to request a finding of fact in the case. The news of the complaint was anonymously leaked to the Rhodes Trust. An anonymous tip also lead to a full-time offer of employment Witt had received being rescinded.

There are common themes in the Furlong, Andrews, Pacetti and Witt cases. None of these men were ever charged with a crime. None were given the ability to confront their accusers. All suffered serious damage to their reputations and careers. No one is held accountable.

Summation

Blatchford's book is well-written and will appeal to a variety of audiences. The first part of the book is of interest to those in the legal community. The appeal of the book widens when Blatchford deals with the Paul Bernardo - Karla Homolka case. Blatchford buried the led in my case as her treatment of the Jian Ghomeshi case, and other murky cases of sexual misconduct, is the most interesting part of the book.

It truly is a book that can appeal to a wide audience, if the non-legal types can make it through the first three chapters.

[Ruth Seeley · Rating 2 out of 5]

This would actually be 2.5 stars because it's an important topic - critically important - in the hands, sadly, of the wrong writer. Anyone who's worked within the judicial system knows how crazy it is - Blatchford would have been shocked to learn the inside stories about some of the judges and prosecutors she wrote about. Unfortunately, the book's hard to read for a couple of reasons: one, Blatchford actually doesn't write all that well - she's got a straight ahead approach to storytelling that is less than compelling, clunky phrasing, and - well - unwarranted 'tude. Pity, because in the hands of another writer it might have made us wake up and call for change in the way judges are appointed, evaluated, and disciplined.

[Sakshi]

It takes so much for me to not finish a book, and I tried with this one, but I just can’t finish it. This book is preachy, disorganized, soap box-y. The author comes off both misinformed and with a weirdly personal bent to the issues she outlines, which just makes her ire look misplaced. I would give it one star but I didn’t finish it, and it’s not worth the effort to confirm that I did not enjoy it.

[Nikki in Niagara · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the first time I've read a book like this, about the law so I don't feel up to reviewing it competently. However, I found it to be an excellent piece of writing. Entirely eye-opening and thought-provoking. The Canadian justice system is a wreck. People are convicted in the press. Victims report to the press instead of the police. The word "alleged" is never really applied to anyone. All prosecuted are guilty and all witnesses are truth-tellers. If someone guilty is actually convicted then they can look forward to a short term in prison where their life may possibly be more affluent than it was outside of jail. I found some of the book tedious though always informative. The best chapter, of course, was the Bernardo trial which really centred more on the Homolka cover-up and the final chapter on the Ghomeshi trial. I found Blatchford's narrative voice entertaining while both her attitude and viewpoint were right on. She's certainly someone I'd love to meet in person. Will now certainly read her other book.

[William · Rating 5 out of 5]

I first picked this book up near Christmas, read the jacket and considered buying it. Christie Blatchford is a great writer. For some reason I put it back and thought I'd find it at my local library. I had to wait a couple weeks before I was able to get it from other readers with the same idea. I'm glad I read this book. Blatchford pulls no punches and doesn't stoop to insulting or politicizing things, she simply analyzes things and comes to logical, pragmatic and truthful conclusions. I'll be purchasing this book soon. Just to have it around. We need more writers, authors and columnists like her! To say I loved reading this book is an understatement. She says and writes what so many others want to say but can't for many obvious reasons (you'll understand if you read the book!). There's a reason this book is so popular. The reason is that it's the truth.

[Kat Doll · Rating 3 out of 5]

My bad, I was expecting some insider dirt on the crimes that she covers in this book. Not so, but I did learn some interesting things that I didn't know about the Canadian justice system. Much goes on under the table and behind closed doors that the public never hears about. I suppose that is what happens in most institutions, but you'd hope that something as long standing, entrenched and (on the outside) infallible as a court wouldn't be susceptible to human frailty and foibles.

This is one long laundry list of grievances, but informative for outsiders of the system.

[Paula Dembeck · Rating 3 out of 5]

Christie Blatchford, a well-respected journalist, has written for all the Toronto based newspapers covering trials in the city's courtrooms since 1978. Initially she loved her assignments, the drama of the courtroom, the back-and-forth arguments of the attorneys, the juries with their various facial expressions and the judges who ruled over it all. However, gradually over time, she lost faith in the system. In this book, she explains why she believes it fails Canadians by revisiting some of the trails she attended, asking probing questions about what happened both inside and outside the courtroom.

She saves her most egregious criticisms for the judges, who she collectively accuses of dubious work ethics and running their courtrooms like tyrants. She describes the flawed system by which judges are chosen, how those who are problems are dealt with and criticizes the fact their behavior is not covered by the federal ethics commissioner or the privacy commissioner. No one watches over judges but other judges, who are the least inclined to criticize their peers.

Given that judges have the power to edit criminal records presented in a trial and make decisions about what evidence the jury will hear before the trial starts, their actions can alter the outcome. She decries such condescending treatment of juries, treated like children, incapable of coming to their own reasoned decisions about evidence the judge refuses to let them see, limiting the facts that should be at their disposal to make their decisions.

She concludes that the judiciary are a smug, unelected, unaccountable and entitled bunch with a fistful of fringe benefits that make them expensive to maintain. She believes judges work for the people, should be held to account for their behavior, expenses and their rulings in court. They are human. They make mistakes and can be in a conflict of interest. In a time when there are calls for increased scrutiny of politicians, government and publicly owned companies, she wonders why judges and their behavior has been left unexamined and unquestioned.

The book opens readers eyes to further flaws in the system, as Blatchford casts a critical eye on everything and everyone, substantiating every criticism with objective well-reasoned evidence to support her claims.

Her narrative includes stories behind some of the most explosive cases she has witnessed unfold in court. She describes the case of Paul Bernardo and his wife Karla Homolka and the fiasco created by the disgraceful plea agreement Homolka wrangled from the system, despite her equal partnership in the rapes and killings carried out by her husband. Homolka, a manipulator and psychopath, is now free while Bernardo sits in jail. She explores the disgraceful ways of Mike Duffy, the senator who lived in Ottawa but represented Prince Edward Island, who was charged with fraud, breech of trust and bribery. He had used the system for years to feather his own nest, living the good life on the political dime. At the trial, the judge hearing the case chose to characterize his conduct as sloppy booking keeping, administrative error due to the ambiguity of senate rules and acquitted him of all thirty-one charges, leaving many Canadians shocked. She also takes a deep dive into the Jian Ghomeshi case, a trial that was brief and disastrous for the three female complainants because their testimony was so unreliable. She explores the issue of victimhood and shows how these complainants withheld information, lied or deliberately misled police. They had communicated with each other before the trial, with the full intention of “bringing Ghomeshi down”, a process that reeked of collusion.

Described by others as a workaholic and “tough as nails”, Blatchford was also known to be fair and compassionate, writing of victims with empathy and often viewed tearful in the courtroom, moved by heart breaking testimony especially when the victims were children. She favored a particular seat in court, the aisle seat in the first press row and would arrive early to get it. She said it was the best seat to hear every piece of evidence, to view both prosecutors and defense attorneys, the judge, the accused and the witnesses.

Blatchford completed changed the way criminal cases were reported in the media, using stories about her victims and describing the dynamics between the prosecutors and the judges. Plain spoken, she often got things right and many agreed with her views. Underneath it all was her belief that the politicians had long ago recognized the needs of criminals, but had forgotten about the victims and those who had been hurt or damaged by crime.

The book is dense at times and her tendency to go off on tangents to support her viewpoints, although noteworthy and important, can leave readers behind, losing the narrative thread describing the case. It is not an easy read, but it is a brave, very honest book, targeted at Canadian audiences and worthy of every readers’ attention.

[Conner Lowes · Rating 2 out of 5]

There has never been a book that I more strongly felt to urge to stop reading after each page I turned. I would like to separate my review of this book from its author and specify that while I am critical of the book, I in no way intend to be critical of the author (may she rest in peace).

This book is hypocritical, aimlessly long-winded, and at times, borderline disrespectful (see pages 158-159).
- Disrespectful because the author harshly criticizes and insults lawyers and judges (by name) for things like being late or advancing distasteful arguments (which, I might add, the Rules of Professional Conduct require lawyers to do).
- Hypocritical because after this far-from-deferential description of various members of the legal community, the book then unabashedly defends members of the media for breaking literal court orders and posting confidential victim information online (because that's just them doing their job right?)
- Aimlessly long-winded because each chapter, while full of information and quotes in a manner which is reasonably expected in a book written by a journalist, droned on with no central point of focus, theme, or thesis. Ultimately, it was the overwhelming sense of 'okay, but what is your point', or 'what are you even talking about' which make this book indigestible and borderline dreadful. While reading, I couldn't help but find interesting that a book written by such an experienced journalist would lack these essential elements. Perhaps it might have benefited from Justice Laskin's piece "Forget the Wind Up and Make the Pitch".

Despite being a hit piece on lawyers, judges, and the legal system generally, this book did have about 100 pages where a few redeeming qualities could be found.
- It has a very nice textbook ending
- Perhaps this is only because I agree so strongly with the dominant message in the back third of the book, but I found the storytelling of the Ghomeshi chapter (100 pages) to be quite interesting (sufficiently so to shift this book from a very low 1 star to a begrudging 2 star-- still the lowest rating I have given a book in years)

Ultimately, it is clear that the author can write short narrative pieces, and might have even made a good lawyer, but I would not read another book written by her.

Don't bother reading this unless you have a particular interest in one of the famous trials she writes about; in that case, read the corresponding chapter.

[Jane Mulkewich · Rating 4 out of 5]

The epilogue makes it clear that this is a book of five very distinct chapters, which is why her editor insisted that the book needed a "summing up". The epilogue ends with "I fell a little back in love with the justice system at that trial (Ghomeshi), and I'm grateful", which indicates that the subtitle of the book is a little misleading: "how I fell out of love with the Canadian justice system (especially judges). The focus on judges is only really in chapter 3, focusing on how they are selected. Chapter 2 is about the role of jurors particularly in today's world of the internet and social media, and how that affects trials. Chapter 1 culminates in Blatchford's thoughts on Mike Duffy's trial... as the dust jacket on the book says, her epiphany that judges are the new senators, unelected, unaccountable, and overly entitled. Chapter 4 is about Bernardo and Homolka (and Blatchford makes the point that many young people did not live through the visceral details of that case - and I recommend chapter to them) and about lawyer Ken Murray and what he should have done about those tapes (The Murray case ended with three negatives: no conviction against Murray, no disciplinary action by the Law Society, and no action by the Law Society to address the issue). The most eye-opening account in the entire book is about Stephen Williams, the author who wrote two books about Homolka and Bernardo, and how the justice system pursued him as a writer and the huge impact it had on him and his wife and their livelihood, simply for writing books... this is a story that should be more widely known. And Chapter 5, on the recent Ghomeshi trial and related stories of sexual assault, is a clear-headed summary of where we are at on this issue. However her own writing of this chapter would indicate that much of the injustice she raises is a result of accusations being quoted and reported and disseminated INSTEAD of going through a proper investigation and trying of facts in a criminal justice system. Her writing is excellent, however I feel the subtitle of the book should be "how I discovered how media is negatively impacting the Canadian justice system".

[Frederic · Rating 5 out of 5]

Christie Blatchford was a great journalist not just because she wrote clearly and forcefully, but because she was more interested in truth than in fashionable opinions. Here, she recounts her four decades reporting on criminal trials in Canada, including some of the most famous in recent memory, like Bernardo and Ghomeshi.

While it's fascinating to read her accounts of the specific cases, the meat of the book comprises Blatchford's observations on the challenges and tradeoffs inherent in law enforcement and the justice system. She demonstrates that, while there are advantages to a system that appoints judges, rather than electing them, there are serious disadvantages to judges being politically appointed and unaccountable to anyone, as happens in Canada.

She also lays out the horrors of the current fashion for so-called "social justice", including the "Believe All Women", "BLM", "Idle No More" and other movements pushing courts and police to right historical wrongs by lowering standards for women and minority groups.

The universal presumption of innocence must be maintained, as Blatchford demonstrates by offering several examples of lives ruined when it is abandoned. Different justice systems for different people based on their gender or cultural identity are both a looming fiasco and sadly, increasingly popular in a tribal, Woke, identity obsessed world.

Highly recommended.

[Mathew Anania · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow.

Blatchford's take on infamous Canadian legal matters is painstakingly honest and truthful. Her ideas are grounded in fact and are the kind to make you go 'hmmm'. Coupled with her humour and writing voice, I see why she is revered as one of IF NOT the best Canadian legal/crime columnists. RIP <3.

And while the writing was undeniably dense, that is the case with most legal and political writings.

Fav passages:
"Now I was in my second year at the paper, and assigned to my first criminal trial, and what I knew was the sum total of sweet fuck all."

"..... burst with smiley indulgence at weak judicial witticisms. No one was guiltier of it than me [...]. It must be the sort of premature ejaculation approved of, if not actually encouraged in law school."

"Lawyers just can't help themselves; they indulge in that sort of flowery horseshit about one another all the time. And some of them, along the way, begin to believe it."

"Writing, can never be a crime in a free and democratic society." - Eddie Greenspan (RIP)

And how one client described a lawyer assigned by the AG: " The most arrogant, preening, eastern-seaboard, brogue-wearing dicksmack I've ever met in my life." (lol)

[Paul C. Stalder · Rating 4 out of 5]

Blatchford writes in a measured, sometimes witty, manner that conforms perfectly to the stories she is telling. She conveys the cases within this work complete with intensity, emotion, and a deep analysis that puts you right in the courtroom. Some of her critiques of the justice is system are a little short-sighted; but she makes up for it in her balanced epilogue. All in all, an interesting read for those who want a better view of the inner workings of the Canadian justice system. Not a complete view, nor an unbiased view. But a better view for the lay people in the audience.

[Brian Williams · Rating 4 out of 5]

The story lies somewhere between a good vent about the criminal justice system and a rant about it. Ms. Blatchford makes some good points about a lack of transparency in holding judges to account, their privileged lives protected to allow "judicial independence" (according to her even incompetence is tolerated!) and the mystery about how they are appointed. It makes good reading, but casts a shadow: how fair is the system?

[Theresa · Rating 2 out of 5]

Really disappointing. I expected juicy inside stories. Instead it was as dry as toast with no butter. I put it on hold at Toronto Public Library right after her death because she had been such a voice in Toronto for so many years. Because of COVID 19 it took months to arrive by curbside pickup. So I don’t really want to speak ill of the dead. I also ordered Fifteen Days so I will give her another chance. RIP Christie.

[Moth Valentine · Rating 4 out of 5]

I actually have to admit I didn’t finish reading. I had to stop because this book is more of a research book, and if you do like reading about the Justice system stories and how we as a Canadian justice system basically suck? It’s a good book. Twas just not a book for me to sit and read casually, but it was interesting to read the stories. It solidified how I felt about the Justice system.

[Heather · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a very well written book. The author makes an interesting comment on the Canadian legal system and the shortcomings. I would have liked more case discussions and less ranting about political issues.

[Stan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Didn't necessarily agree with the author's stance on everything but it was nonetheless an interesting and informative read about the Canadian justice system.
Maybe a little disjointed, as others have mentioned but it's a wide-ranging topic that's hard to reign in. It's a good combination of dry detail and specific examples and stories.

[Costa Voutsinas · Rating 3 out of 5]

Difficult read; depressing to realize how the courts that are mandated to ensure justice are also afflicted with bias, incompetence, and a purposeful lack of caring for doing what is right for society.

[Zoe Melo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Reminder that psycho Karla Homolka is out free and married with children!!

Well-written and interesting book about the Canadian Justice system with real case examples. Flew through the last two chapters.

Rest In Peace Christie Blatchford♥️

[Joan K · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well written and eye-opening.

[Allison Mclean · Rating 4 out of 5]

Made me think about the justice system, especially the idea of innocent until proven guilty in the metoo movement. No easy answers.

[Fayrose Hajer · Rating 1 out of 5]

I couldn't read this. It was so awful and mysogenistic. I refuse to waste any more of my time on it.

[Matt Vincelli · Rating 5 out of 5]

Solid anecdotes with good insight into what works and doesn’t in the Canadian justice system.

[Meg Harmer · Rating 1 out of 5]

It took me more than a year to finish reading this book. It felt like a chore to finish it!