2 years for the paedophile coach?

[Tilter]

Gee---- that sentence will sure save some young sportskids from their coach

I guess now's the time to enrol my grandkids in Scouts knowing that they are now safe from people like James who slip thru the cracks of the security checks. :ph34r: .

Edited March 20, 2012 by Tilter

[g_bambino]

Federal politics?

[bud]

under harper's new bill, growing pot will give you a longer sentence than !@#ing little kids.

[Guest American Woman]

But, but ... he showed remorse, and he apologized to his victims, and he was *gasp* humiliated. He definitely deserved a reduction in his sentence.

[-TSS-]

A link to a news-story could be most enlightening.

[Guest American Woman]

A link to a news-story could be most enlightening.

link

[Bryan]

Are there people STILL opposed to mandatory minimum sentences now?

[-TSS-]

link

Thank you very much!

I thought there was some similar case not so long ago involving a Ukrainian coach.

[WLDB]

Are there people STILL opposed to mandatory minimum sentences now?

For victimless crimes, yes. I was always fine with longer sentence for this type of crime or murder.

[Guest American Woman]

This is what I can't believe: "...the judge also pointed out that James expressed remorse, apologized to his victims and has experienced what she called 'an extreme degree of humiliation' — factors that warranted a reduction in his sentence."

He should have been humiliated. Why should that warrant a reduction in his sentence?

Edited March 21, 2012 by American Woman

[WLDB]

This is what I can't believe: "...the judge also pointed out that James expressed remorse, apologized to his victims and has experienced what she called 'an extreme degree of humiliation' — factors that warranted a reduction in his sentence."

He should have been humiliated. Why should that warrant a reduction in his sentence?

Makes one wonder what would have happened had Paul Bernardo apologized and shown remorse.

[cybercoma]

Are there people STILL opposed to mandatory minimum sentences now?

Yes.

[cybercoma]

Makes one wonder what would have happened had Paul Bernardo apologized and shown remorse.

Have a little perspective here. What the man did was horrible, but it was nothing compared to Bernardo's crimes.

[Bryan]

Yes.

Really? Then you're OK with a judge being able to just accept that this pig was remorseful and humiliated enough to warrant such a small sentence?

There is no way in hell a judge should have any leeway when it comes to things like this. You give them an out to let scumbags off, and they'll do it. A crime like this should be a minimum of 10 yrs per offence.

[cybercoma]

Really? Then you're OK with a judge being able to just accept that this pig was remorseful and humiliated enough to warrant such a small sentence?

I'm not ok with the sentence, so don't put words in my mouth.

There is no way in hell a judge should have any leeway when it comes to things like this.

Yeah, actually they should because everyone should have the right to have a judge hear the circumstances of your particular case before deciding your fate, rather than bureaucrats arbitrarily picking a one-size-fits-all solution. The reason people say "for things like this" is that it's an emotional reaction to something that most of us would find inconceivable. I don't think one-size-fits-all solutions should be implemented in any cases whatsoever because the legislative branch of our government certainly cannot conceive of every possible situation where someone will be charged under these laws. If the sentence is out of line with the sentences of other cases or is "suitably unfit" then it's up to the Crown to appeal it. Mandatory minimums are not necessary.

Edited March 21, 2012 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

I might be okay with this sentence if his rehabilitation included daily gang rape to instill a bit of perspective in him, but he's not likely to see a day in general population. I feel much better, however that a professional during the trial testified that he was responding well to rehabilitation, and has learned to focus his sexual energy on adults who are young in appearance rather than actual kids. I'm sure he'll be fine from here on in.

Yes. Because rape is wrong, unless you justify it.

[Bryan]

I'm not ok with the sentence, so don't put words in my mouth.

Who's putting words in your mouth?

Mandatory minimums are not necessary.

The problem is, as usual, you're talking out of both sides of it. Lenient sentences are not OK, but doing something to stop them is not OK either. People complaining about pedophiles are just emotional, a bunch of heartless meanies, right? Mandatory minimums absolutely are necessary, and this sentence is the proof.

[cybercoma]

The problem is, as usual, you're talking out of both sides of it. Lenient sentences are not OK, but doing something to stop them is not OK either. People complaining about pedophiles are just emotional, a bunch of heartless meanies, right? Mandatory minimums absolutely are necessary, and this sentence is the proof.

Before I waste my time replying, do you genuinely misunderstand what I'm saying or are you just pretending for the sake of argument?

I didn't say it's not OK to do something to stop lenient sentences. In fact, I explained a fix in my last reply.

[cybercoma]

I'm not saying it is right, but I sure as hell wouldn't lose any sleep over his suffering.

How right is it for his victim to sit at a table with a loaded gun his mouth trying to talk himself out of pulling the trigger because of the emotional and psychological damage this animal has done? Sorry, I just can't give this waste of skin a modicum of compassion no matter how hard I try.

It's not about giving him compassion. It's about not sinking to his level when condemning him.

[cybercoma]

Fair enough, could we at least entertain a sentence that fits the crime...or at least one that is brought to within the same general weight as the conviction. This sentence is a joke. Actually it's not a joke, it's troubling. Judges are only making the governments case for mandatory minimums with sentences like this.

Again, it's up to the Crown to appeal sentences that are "suitably unfit" for the crime.

[cybercoma]

And to clarify my position, the point I was making with my original comment was that 2 years is an inappropriate sentence that cannot possibly serve as condemnation for his actions. There is no correlation between the crime he committed and his punishment. A weak sentence like this serves no purpose other than to encourage child molesters.

I don't for a minute believe that someone who otherwise wouldn't is going to go out and rape some children because of this sentence. Someone that's sick enough to do that is going to do it regardless the sentence because, as I've said countless times before, people don't commit crimes like thi believing they'll be caught. In some cases, they don't even believe they're doing anything wrong because they're sick.

[Smallc]

but the issue a lot of people have is that the process is failing the public.

In the vast majority of cases, is it really failing the public. The Crown should probably appeal this decision, if only for the optics.

[dre]

Really? Then you're OK with a judge being able to just accept that this pig was remorseful and humiliated enough to warrant such a small sentence?

There is no way in hell a judge should have any leeway when it comes to things like this. You give them an out to let scumbags off, and they'll do it. A crime like this should be a minimum of 10 yrs per offence.

Judges and government both can make bad decisions and often do. The difference is that the judge presides over the trial, heres from witnesses and reviews the evidence, as opposed to politicians in the Capitol that know nothing about anything.

The judge is in the best position to make the decision, whether or not this particular judge made a bad one in this case.

[cybercoma]

Putting judicial procedure aside for a moment, can I ask you how you feel personally about this sentence? I understand due process and the appeal process, but the issue a lot of people have is that the process is failing the public.

I don't have enough information about the case to really say. It seems that the sentence is way too lenient. On the other hand, I've seen cases where a couple were making child porn with their children and they ended up with house arrest. They could only leave their home during set hours and had to check in daily with their PO. Their kids, of course, were taken away. The sentence shocked me.

However, they lost their kids and were never to have contact with them again for as long as they live. As sick as they obviously were, they were still parents and were devastated by losing their kids, in spite of what they were doing to them. Instead of serving out their time in prison they couldn't leave their home, but it's not like they had freedom. They were imprisoned, but in their own home. They also weren't allowed access to a computer or the internet (including mobile devices), which means they couldn't own cellphones. In other words, they were almost entirely cut off from the outside world.

Now, I don't feel bad for them one bit. They were criminals and needed to be accountable for their actions. The point is that sentences are sometimes deceiving. The case above could simply be spun as "child pornographers get house arrest". Without any additional information that sense spectacularly bad. I still think their sentence may have been a bit too lenient, but it wasn't quite as lenient as those headlines could have been.

Likewise with this case. His sentence appears too lenient, but I'm basing that off a headline. I don't know all of the information the judge had or that was presented at trial. The judge appropriately took into consideration that these crimes took place 20-30 years ago, he already served one sentence for them, he has had no criminal record for the last 15 years (or whatever it said in the article), he did not fight extradition from Mexico (which he could have), and that his trial is very high-profile, meaning he'll be condemned by everyone every day for his crime. He's going to be forced to live in isolation because of the shame this crime obviously holds. Moreover, he'll be serving his sentence in a federal penitentiary, which is not going to be a walk in the park for someone his age. And speaking of his age, evidently he seems gaunt and he's getting up there in years. We don't know this from the story, but he may actually be sick and not have much longer to live. His medical records would be confidential and they would not be allowed to report on it. That's purely speculation and doesn't really matter in the long. The point is that his age and the length of time that has passed since the crimes, whether she said it or not, was probably a consideration as well.

In any case, with the information I have the sentence seems to lenient and I would like to see the Crown appeal the decision. We may not see that, since they were asking for 6 years anyway. Something tells me that the sentence the Crown asked for wouldn't be enough for some people either. Six years in a federal pen. is a long time though. Think about where you were 6 years ago and everything that has happened since then. Imagine spending that with the worst criminals in the country. Perhaps he deserves it, but you have to understand that incarceration is typically only ever given to the worst offenders and it's rarely as long as you would expect. I think all of these prime-time crime dramas has warped people's perspective on the criminal justice system and what kind of sentences are actually given out. Erasing years of a person's life is a very serious thing and this guy certainly deserves it. However, if we're going to discuss how much is enough, the problem is that the judge was absolutely right when she said "no sentence will be enough" for the public and the victims. In my opinion two years is too low, but again the Crown only asked for 6. I'm sure there are many that would rather see him locked up for the rest of his life, but the Crown didn't even ask for that and it would be out of line with sentences for similar offenses.

[dre]

I understand due process and the appeal process, but the issue a lot of people have is that the process is failing the public.

Well the point of the criminal justice system is to maintain order and keep crime rates relatively low so that economy can function properly.

You cant judge the system only on its worst mistakes, you need to evaluate its performance as a whole. Ive looked into this a few times over the years and from what I could tell our system performs pretty well against that of our peers.