0
Richards

Weak sentence is a disgracefull insult to victim

Recommended Posts

Please read this article from the Toronto Sun;

{Sat, February 11, 2006

EDITORIAL: Unspeakable crime - and sentence



She was nine years old. He was 47, a truck driver.

He snatched her away from a birthday party in Vaughan on June 6, 2004.

He took her to a shed, 10 km away. He beat her, strangled her and sexually assaulted her.

He threatened to kill her. He told her he had murdered Cecilia Zhang, Holly Jones and 14 other little girls. The judge called it "an unspeakable act of violence."

On Thursday, he was sentenced to seven years in prison after pleading guilty. But he will serve only four because he received a standard two-for-one deal for time spent in custody prior to trial. He'll be a free man by the time his victim is 14. Assuming "good behaviour" he'll be on parole well before that.


After the sentencing in a Newmarket court, the girl's parents spoke with the media. Or rather, they tried to. The girl's mother was shaking as she read from a prepared statement.

Her father was totally distraught, red-faced, barely able to breathe, overcome by anger and grief. And yet they thanked the court staff and the police for their support.

But they said the justice system had failed them.

"Try to get something done about this," the father pleaded with reporters. Then he broke down in sobs and embraced his wife.

We can't identify anyone in this case, since doing so could identify the little girl.

But ask yourself this. Who really received the greater punishment here? The rapist? Or this family?

Justice Peter Wright was thoughtful and thorough as he carefully explained the reasons for his sentence. He said he had searched the relevant cases and could not find one where a sentence of more than seven years had been imposed for a crime like this, where there was a single victim and incident.

Even in cases of serial assaults, he said, a typical sentence would be less than 10 years. Think about that.

During the election, Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised a complete overhaul of the criminal justice system, to make it tougher on criminals and fairer to victims.

We expect him to fulfil those promises. We expect the opposition parties to co-operate.

And along with millions of other Canadians we'll be watching.
Next story: EDITORIAL: No one wants a strike, Dalton}




WHAT THE FUCK WAS THE JUDGE THINKING?!?!?!?!?!

Seven Years!!!!!!!!

The judge should be sentenced to prison himself for offering such a weak sentence!!!!!

I am repulsed that in our society that is the value we place on a childs safety and well being! Commit a horible crime like this and you will get seven years (paroled after 4 of course)!!

I am about to explode!! Someone please tell me how this makes any sense! Should this scumbag not be tortured to death for what he did to that child???! I apologize for ranting but how do you respond to reading an article like that!

Our wonderfull so called justice system! Oh I forgot why...in Canada prisoners get to vote so we do not want to appear to be unkind to criminals!

Disgusting!!!

Richards




My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Disgusting. Vermont's Judge Cashman would be proud of this fellow.

Fuck-tard.

That is so infuriating. Hard to believe we live in a society where punishment is so light. There have been heavier sentences for robbing liquor stores.

>:(
Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

WHAT THE FUCK WAS THE JUDGE THINKING?!?!?!?!?!



That he has an obligation to ensure that sentences are in line with those previously handed out for the crime? If he handed down, say, a 20 year sentence, it'd just be reduced on appeal because it was out of line with the norms for that crime.

If you feel the need to rant and threaten someone, aim your vitriol at those that drafted the sentencing guidelines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a self fulfilling observation isn't it. The next judge won't be able to find one either. Acceptable sentences change with time and judges can consider aggravating circumstances.

BTW what do you have to do to get charged with kidnapping? Abducting a kid and taking them 10 km would seem to qualify, the penalty can be harsh for that. Then there's 3 strikes. Couldn't they have stacked 3 violent felonies? One when he snatched her. One when he hauled her away in the truck, and another when he got to the destination, throw another in for making violent threats against a minor. You see prosecutors throw the book at people for relatively innocuous shit then you see this bullshit, it's completely disproportionate.

P.S. and another for stealing the clothes the kid was wearing (on the off chance that the jurors aren't as gutless as this judge).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

That he has an obligation to ensure that sentences are in line with those previously handed out for the crime? If he handed down, say, a 20 year sentence, it'd just be reduced on appeal because it was out of line with the norms for that crime.



Thst is exactly it. It is easy to blme the judge, but it isn't the judge who is at fault here. it is the Canadian Justice system that is at fault. Hopefully Harper will make good on his election promises of overhauling the criminal justice system. If that isn't done, sentences like this will not stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I remember a case in Seattle about 15 years ago in which a man was about to go to trial for molesting a boy repeatedly from the time he was 10 or so till he was 14. The guy was fighting the charges until another guy stepped forward and claimed he too had been molested repeatedly by the same man, from the age of 9 till he was 12. Unfortunately, charges were not an option for the second case, as the statute of limitations had expired, but he was going to be a witness for the prosecution anyhow. At that point the man pleaded out...and received a 6 month sentence. Numerous incidents, two known victims (others likely), 6 month sentence. :S>:(

Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok fair enough. I perhaps lost my temper when I read the article and forgot to breath before posting. But giving the guy 4 years is just sickenning. It is heartbreaking to realize that this childs life has likely been destroyed just because this fuckfilth wanted to act upon his sick twisted fantasies and he will likely be resuming a normal life after 4 years. Where will his victim be in 4 years? Counselling? Drug rehab? What does her future hold? Constant fear, or perhaps suicide due to an inability to trust anyone or get over the self hatred that victims of crimes like these are plagued by? You are right that my desire to torture him shows a flaw in my own character but I was incensed upon reading this. I would accept life in prison if that meant life (ie he dies of old age in a prison cell).

Richards
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it acceptable to say that that is the way it has always been done. A judge should have authority to set new precedents. Otherwise all the old standards could apply just because that is the way it has always been done. i do not know the law in depth and short of going to law school I never will. I do however feel that the average laymen should be able to look at a sentence and feel that JUSTICE (not merely the procedural letter of the law) has been served. The victim, her family, and society have a right to expect better.

Richards
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That may have been the case at one time, but not anymore. I have a freind who works as a prison gaurd and he says that all of our bleeding heart liberal do gooders don't like to see child molesters hurt in prison so they get segregated wings. and furthermore since they are high priority targets, the gaurds are held far more accountable for their safety. Apparently animals like this have rights and should be guaranteed greater protection and rights than their victims. He will likely have a fairly safe and secure 4 years.

What a lovely system we have.

Cheers,

Richards
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I understand that the prison population does not take kindly to child molesters. With any luck the bastard will be molested daily by other prisoners and the guards will allow it,



Didn't we just have a long thread discussing the extra-legal prison attacks that molesters receive? :|

If we want offenders to receive just punishment, we need to make sure that OUR SYSTEM ITSELF is designed to adequately dispense it. We should NEVER, if we believe in true justice, hope for, work for, or defend the idea that other criminals in prison will do what we did not have our legislatures and courts mandate be done.

Now, I have to ask, why did this Canadian judge feel restricted by precedent in sentencing this guy? He seems to have said, "Well, no one's been given more than 7 years for this sort of crime, so I can't give more than 7 years." WHY? When the previous judge gave 7 years, and he was the first one to do so, the judge prior to him may have given only 5 years.

What I'm saying is, EVERY top sentence ever given IS the precedent. So knowing that the previous high was a precedent, what's wrong with setting a NEW high so that it's a precedent for the NEXT judge looking at a piece of shit like this?

-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Now, I have to ask, why did this Canadian judge feel restricted by precedent in sentencing this guy? He seems to have said, "Well, no one's been given more than 7 years for this sort of crime, so I can't give more than 7 years." WHY? When the previous judge gave 7 years, and he was the first one to do so, the judge prior to him may have given only 5 years.



Because unfortunately that is part of how canadian Law works. That is the part that needs to be changed. Hopefully witha conservative government (even a small minority one) that can be accomplished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Thst is exactly it. It is easy to blme the judge, but it isn't the judge who is at fault here. it is the Canadian Justice system that is at fault. Hopefully Harper will make good on his election promises of overhauling the criminal justice system. If that isn't done, sentences like this will not stop.




Since I am reasonably confident that there remain plenty of liberals in the Canadian legislature, I suspect that those liberals, who have given Canada a weak court system and weak sentencing structure because they are bleeding hearts and soft-on-crime, are probably just being hypocritical in calling for Harper to "fix this." Because if he does fix it, he'd have to be turning it into the opposite of what liberals have made it!

I mean, it's liberalism and softness on crime that make sentences go easy on bad people; now those same legislators (or their ilk) are laying down a challenge to a conservative to fix what they themselves broke. It's pretty fuckin' cynical. You know that on one hand, they are trying to look "tough on crime," and on the other hand, they want Harper to FAIL to make the law tougher on crime. This would serve two purposes:

1) to make Harper look like he can't get anything done (and the liberals in Parliament will probably put up block after block and objection after objection to keep tougher sentencing laws from being enacted)
2) to keep their liberal sentencing laws, which are their preference as well as their fault, left in place.

-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
part of that is true. However, a tougher stance on crime seems to resonatewith most people in Canada. If the liberals object to it too much and the conservatives don't say or do anything stupid during their tenure (which they have been known to do), the conservatives will easily win a majority government in about 2 years. I don't think the Libs will oppose too much, judging from the feel of society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0