I don't think that too many murders walk free in Canada. It's not like Florida where the case is first tried in the newspapers and media, where a lawyer can throw everything (fact and fiction) at the wall to see what sticks ... or juries are bored, disinterested and confused about the law. Rafferty's lawyer was bound by the law and if, by chance, the jury came to the incorrect verdict, the crown would appeal until they got it right.
I have no problem with ensuring that a person's character is not used to taint the jury. Follow a spousal homicide case in North Carolina and you'll be shocked to see that in a five week trial, the first two weeks are spent attacking the accused's character. By the time the evidence is heard, the jury already has a very negative opinion about the accused - often because the victim's friends,family and neighbours did not like the accused. When I first watched a trial where that happened, I wondered what was wrong with the prosecutors ... why they would waste so much time on information that was not relevant to the case. I was wrong ... if a man was angry with his wife for overspending the family into bankruptcy, that normal reaction was relevant in his trial for her murder. I would not want to see that happening in Canada.
