Sentencing in caged boys case

[bobocop]

canoe.ca

Two lads were abused, caged, chained, scared for their lives for 13 years but their "parents" are sentenced to 9 months. That's right, 9 months. Their childhood taken away from them and the "parents" get a slap on the wrist. This just makes me sick. Gotta love liberal turn style justice.

[idealisttotheend]

I thought that the judge's argument that the two were not emotionally cabable to deal with two boys was pretty weak. They should have went to jail for just as long (if not longer) than I would if I picked up a random child off the street and kept them in a cage for 13 years. Deterence needs to be a real factor in child abuse cases IMO.

[takeanumber]

50 years woulda been more appropriate.

And to be locked in a cage for a good measure.

I'm outraged by the judges decision and I'd like to know if the crown is going to appeal.

The Crown should appeal.

The sentence was WEAK!

[caesar]

That is the Judge"s decision not the government.

Don't blame the government for everything that you don't agree with.

[playfullfellow]

That is the Judge"s decision not the government.

The government sets the minimum/maximum sentences that the judges use so in all reality, yep it is the governments fault. I think 9 months is disgusting no matter what. These people should be put away for a good long time. I just saw that the kids only asked for 6-9 years for them. That is the least the judge could have done for these kids. What a gong show our judicial system is!

[The Terrible Sweal]

The crown should definitely appeal. I think the judge here has clearly failed to give proper weight to the 'repudiation' element of sentencing.

[Michael Hardner]

The government sets the minimum/maximum sentences that the judges use so in all reality, yep it is the governments fault.

Well, there might be some cases of abuse where 9 months is too long too, right ? So you can't expect the government to increase the minimum sentence based on this case alone.

[PublicCaucus]

The government sets the minimum/maximum sentences that the judges use so in all reality, yep it is the governments fault.

Well, there might be some cases of abuse where 9 months is too long too, right ? So you can't expect the government to increase the minimum sentence based on this case alone.

M.H. -- You're right, of course. playfullfellow's implication is that the gov't has put a maximum at or near 9 months.

I think we're all in agreement that the punishment was too light. Blame bad things on the party you don't like. That's just the way it goes.

[Argus]

That is the Judge"s decision not the government.

Don't blame the government for everything that you don't agree with.

And how was this person made a judge?

The government chose him.

[playfullfellow]

M.H. -- You're right, of course. playfullfellow's implication is that the gov't has put a maximum at or near 9 months.

you are wrong, I did not imply such a thing. Read it again. All I stated is that the laws made by our government states maximum/minimum sentences. No where did I imply that this is at or near the maximum sentence which would be even more grotesque than it already is.

[Bro]

That's right, 9 months.

Actually,they will be out in 3 months,the remaining time left of their sentence.

[takeanumber]

And how was this person made a judge?

The government chose him.

Nope.

The system is different in each province.

I'm not sure in Ontario, but I think it goes:

1. people apply to the committee made up of community members, judges, etc.

2. they widdle down the applicants to a short list.

3. The solicitor general of the province chooses who's going to be a judge from that list.

It varies.

Ah, appeal courts and whatnot, they work in a similar fashion.

So it's not entirely the government.

It just gets complicated depending on the court and jurisdiction etc.

But yeh. Not entirely the government in most cases.

[Bro]

Almost right.The phrase should say,not entirely the government in a few cases.

[caesar]

I think that I would like to hear more about the case before passing judgement. These boys were products of alcoholic and drug taken parents. This often produces children that are very unruly and hard to handle. Some are down right dangerous at a very young age. The comments from the boys were very aggressive and judgemental and very angry. Children that have been abused and intimidated all their lives are generally reluctant to speak out. It takes time for them to gain confidence and trust to speak out.

Did these adoptive parents have anywhere to turn for help. Did mental health authorities give them help. Why didn't any of the relatives step in and take the kids earlier?

There are many questions that we really do not have the answers to in the articles in the news.

I don't like abuse but the judge hints of this not being done for sadistic reasons; so perhaps they were doing the only thing they could do to protect themselves or to prevent these boys from causing trouble in the community? I don't know the answers but have we been given the whole story?

[takeanumber]

So...what set of conditions justifies sexual humilation and caging of another human being?

I'm hard pressed to think of a single condition, little though a set.

[Bryan]

So...what set of conditions justifies sexual humilation and caging of another human being?

Maybe we should ask the U.S. military for their opinion. I hear they have some experience with this

[caesar]

I never heard of any sexual humilitiion going on.. There would be no excuses for that. Caging; to protect themselves (parents) from being attacked or even murdered while the parents sleep. Sames as we do to criminals ourselves. Have you never heard of jails? I have heard many stories of children born with fetal alcohol syndrome as young as 4 that had parents terrified to sleep. Many children born with fetal alcohol syndrome have serious problems. These children were, also, products of a mother on drugs that could cause them even more problems. I don't know if they do have serious problems ; I only suspect, that this could be the case from some of the judges comments.

[playfullfellow]

wow caesar, I sit here and drink my coffee, getting ready for a day of work, wondering what the situation of the world is like and I read your thread. Your threads and posts are all about equality and fair treatment to everyone, very anti-american in your sentiment and then I read what you said about these boys. You systimatically put these boys in a cage without a trial just because their mother was a user and drunk. What you are suggesting smacks a lot of what you scream against when it comes to the US and the Geneva convention. You say that these boys may have been caged because of something they "might" do. I know lots of kids and adults that were the product of substance abusive parents that have turned out pretty damn good because they were raised in a good enviroment by caring people.

These boys were forced to live in a cage for many years. Eat their own fecal matter to survive, wear diapers etc. I can imagine their adoptive parents lived in fear, they should for treating humans like this. How would you feel if you were forced to live in a cage because your mother was a user, I am sure you would demonstrate a certain level of anger or agressiveness too.

You scream of American injustice in almost every thread for assuming all their war prisoners are terrorists. Then you turn around and defend parents for caging kids because of something they "might" because of the crappy mother they had. I guess if the Geneva convention protected these kids, then you might want to protect them too.

[caesar]

I am not condonig it. I just think from the judges statements that there is more to the story than we have read. When children are raised in an abusive atmosphere; it takes time for them to find their voice and be able to release their anger as these boys have done. Some children are fine but some children with this syndrome never do thrive. Chretien has an adopted son that seems to alkways have serious problems despite a loving supportive home. I have heard of others that are very dangerous at an extemely young age.

I am not even saying this is the case here. There are hints that this was not a consistent thing. They did attend school. I just think we need more answers. Has this judge handed out this type of lenient judgement previously. I suspect newspapers now. They are very editorial and intent on showing a one sided story too often. I now doubt anything that doesn't make complete sense. I have learned that what you read is not usually the whole picture. Where can we get more of the true picture. The boys however are victims both ways; I am not blaming them if they do have these problems. I would want them to get help not loose to create trouble if they are troubled. I just have this suspicion that not all is how it seems. Premonitions of mine are often found to be true. I just don't think it is as cut and dry as the news clips suggest.

[takeanumber]

If Caeser thinks it's alright for people to cage their kids 'out of fear', then somebody call child services.

Sometimes, the illiberal bone in my body says that you should have a liscence to have kids because of sick people like that.

But then my libearal bones say, "no, no, everybody can try to have kids and try parenting".

But seriously Caeser.

Those are some pretty sick beliefs you got there.

[I miss Reagan]

Come on guys, these parents are the victims. They are the victims of our society. It is our responsibility to rehabilitate them. Robert Pickton is a victim of society. He also deserves a long and prosperous life like the rest of us. He should be able to vote and live in a comfortable Canadian prison for a "life" sentence of 20 years and then be free.

[takeanumber]

I hope that was sarcasm.

Almost like that woman who beat Virk to death is a 'victim' too.

Enough with the victimization.