2 years for the paedophile coach?

[cybercoma]

For every lenient sentence in the news, there's probably a overly harsh sentence that isn't reported.

[Bonam]

For every lenient sentence in the news, there's probably a overly harsh sentence that isn't reported.

And those aren't any good either. I'm sure overly harsh sentences need to get appealed by the defense, just as overly lenient ones should be appealed by the crown. The problem seems to be that so many excessively lenient sentences are given out to begin with, and then need to be appealed. Why is that the case? Why are so many low level judges giving out such woefully wrong sentences, which then need to be re-examined by higher courts?

Perhaps the problem is with the inherent level of training, professionalism, competence, and biases of our judges. Perhaps we should be looking to raise the quality of the individuals that serve as judges to a higher level, so that these mistakes happen a lot less frequently to begin with.

The justice system is a very high stakes game, you can lock someone away for years when they don't deserve it, or release someone that can become a menace to society. We need people capable of making the correct decision and assigning an appropriate sentence 99.99% of the time.

Judges that repeatedly make inappropriate sentences (either far too lenient or far too harsh) should be removed from their duties.

[waldo]

apparently, the Crown asked for a 6 year sentencing... would that have met the bar for all those clamoring for mandatory minimums?

[Bryan]

For every lenient sentence in the news, there's probably a overly harsh sentence that isn't reported.

What exactly would an "overly harsh" sentence be for multiple counts of raping children?

[Bryan]

apparently, the Crown asked for a 6 year sentencing... would that have met the bar for all those clamoring for mandatory minimums?

Even 6 years is ridiculously light. It should have been a minimum of 10 years PER offense.

[bud]

in the u.s.:

A Fathers Revenge. Shooting his sons rapist.

link

the father received a 5 year probation.

Edited March 21, 2012 by bud

[cybercoma]

The problem seems to be that so many excessively lenient sentences are given out to begin with, and then need to be appealed.

A couple things I would like to see from you to support your argument. How many lenient sentences are given out to begin with and what is your criteria for determining if a sentence is too lenient or not?

The prolbem I see is that people don't really understand sentencing. We have one of the best criminal justice systems on the planet, although there are faults that can certainly be fixed. Nevertheless we have the lowest crime rate in a generation. Recidivism is also less than 10%, even when you include breach of conditions charges.* So I'm just not seeing the "problem," especially as SpiderFish pointed out. I'm not seeing criminals being bolstered by these lenient sentences and committing more crimes.

*When someone is release from jail, they have served their penalty and paid their debt to society. They ought to be allowed to re-integrate as much as possible or else we set ourselves up for a whole series of other problems. This doesn't always happen. Nevertheless, they're given conditions upon release, much like being on probation. Sometimes they're not allowed to drink or do drugs. Othertimes they're not allowed to be within a certain distance of people they've victimized. Sometimes they need to go to counselling or a whole slew of other things. A large bulk of the 10% recidivism rate are people breaching those conditions. For instance, someone gets out of jail and he's doing his grocery shopping. His victim lives in the same community and she shows up to the grocery store at the exact same time to do her shopping. She sees him and calls the cops even though he doesn't see her. They arrest him and charge him with breaching the conditions of his release because he was in the same place as her against the stipulations. Now a judge may dismiss this because of the circumstances, but not always because the conditions as they are written say the offender is not allowed to be there. This is counted in the recidivism rate because there has been a new charge laid against the offender; however, for all intents and purposes he didn't go out and commit another crime, ie, assaulting or raping someone else. My point is that our system seems to be quite successful in spite of the perception that sentences are too lenient.

[cybercoma]

Judges that repeatedly make inappropriate sentences (either far too lenient or far too harsh) should be removed from their duties.

Oh, I absolutely agree with this too, btw. However, I don't believe the test for too harsh or too lenient should be the court of public opinion.

[cybercoma]

Six years is likely all the crown thought they had a chance at getting, which only substantiates the claim that the system fails to hand out justice that is representative of the crimes committed. What about the life sentence that was given to the victims? Can they appeal?

It seems the people that want more severe penalties wouldn't be happy with any sentence. There are many that get so passionate about this, they wouldn't be satisfied with anything short of death or castration.

Not to be callous, but rape is not equal to murder. I know some people are going to try to say it's worse, but that is just emotional rhetoric. Legally, it's not worse. Socially it's not worse and as a person ages, we begin blaming the victim for the crime: ie, she should have known she could have been raped walking down the street at night dressed like that. Blaming the victim is disgusting and wrong. However, we should remain cognizant of the fact that rape is not murder. He didn't take the life of his victims and he didn't physically torture them. He traumatized them psychologically. They can get help and try to move on from these experiences and still live their lives. Of course, those reacting emotionally to this will think I'm apologizing for his actions. I'm not. I'm simply saying that they fall short of the likes of Paul Bernardo, who inevitably was brought up in the first few posts. Yet some people in the public wouldn't have been happy unless this guy got the same sentence. That's not justice.

[PIK]

Liberal justice strikes again. I hope the left is happy.

[g_bambino]

True, and I believe that if Mr. James had sodomized you or your child repeatedly, you may have a different perspective.

"Justice" is not a synonym for "emotional reaction".

If Theo Fleury had pulled the trigger when he had the gun in his mouth, it would have been deemed a suicide. However, would the same course of action been taken had he not been psychologically destroyed by this guy? It's speculation, but you will get opinions on both sides.

It is indeed speculation, and thus has no place in a trial. The court relies on proof, which speculations made after the fact about the reasons behind a hypothetical suicide are not.

.

[cybercoma]

I think the negative reaction we are seeing from this inadequate sentence is a result of a failing grade of our justice system in the court of public opinion. The justice system should reflect societal values.

And it does, but it also shouldn't be so reactionary that it makes abrupt and frequent changes. If the sentence is inadequate, the Crown has the opportunity to appeal it.

[waldo]

It is indeed speculation, and thus has no place in a trial. The court relies on proof, which speculations made after the fact about the reasons behind a hypothetical suicide are not.

and I trust speculation wasn't leading the judge's sentencing. I don't know the particulars to understand why there is such a time interval gap between the abuse and the trial - I did read the linked article that highlighted the judge's consideration of no re-offending over the 20 year interval gap. The same article quotes the judge making reference to 'managing desires'... and my own speculation leads to asking how was that accomplished... was that accomplished through medical/therapy/treatment means? None of which, of course, diminishes the victim impact.

[dre]

The justice system is in place to protect society and uphold its standards and values. It is not in place to support the health of the economy. And how is the system supposed to uphold these standards and values if sentences don't reflect the gravity and weight of the crime?

Like I said... the purpose of the legal system is to achieve a desired outcome... public safety, safe streets, and low crime rates. MAINTAIN ORDER. And it IS about economics just like everything else the government does. The objective measure of success for everything they do is the smooth operation of society, and prosperity. Not whether the mob feels their subjective sense of justice has been served in every single case.

By your logic a system that achieve a near zero rate of crime would be a failure if there was a few bad decisions for people to emotionalise over. Sorry but thats just not reality. If you want to measure the effectiveness of our system you need to compare the results we get with the results our peers get, and again... our system when measured in any objective way is relatively good, and most crime rates are declining.

You appear to want to judge the system a failure without even looking at the results.

[cybercoma]

Just to shed some light on the sentencing here, which again I agree is way too lenient, the judge wrote:

To summarize:

1. The starting point of these offenses is 4-5 years

2. Mitigating and aggravating factors need to be considered and balanced

3. If all four incidents were heard at hte same trial, he would have received a concurrent sentence of about 6 years imprisonment. Instead he received 3.5 years in the earlier trial for 2 incidents.

4. The purpose of the CJS is rehabilitation and Graham James has been rehabilitated, according to professional opinion, since the first trial.

5. The punishment needs to be a deterrent and denunciation of the crime.

6. Given that he was already given 3-1/2 years for the other two offenses, she gives him 2 years for each of these two new offenses.

7. So as not to subject him to a 7-1/2 year prison sentence, which would be much greater than similar offenses (see 1), she makes the sentences concurrent.

8. He is placed in federal pentientiary, although he has not committed a crime in at least 15 years (and the actual incidents took place well before that).

9. The sentences are too long to be conditional.

10. Even if they were shorter, conditional sentence does not fit the crime.

see: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/the-sentencing-decision-of-provincial-court-judge-catherine-carlson-143609826.html

What no one is reporting on is how she came to this decision. The reason he only got 2 years was because the judge was considering the totality of the 4 incidents. If they would have all gone to the same trial and he was served concurrent sentences, he would have been incarcerated for roughly 6 years. As he was already given a 3-1/2 year sentence, has not re-offended and has been rehabilitated, she gave him an additional 2 years to bring his total up to 5-1/2 years in federal penitentiary.

The case sounds a lot different when you actually read her decision.

[waldo]

The case sounds a lot different when you actually read her decision.

but that gets in the way of such illuminating and imprudent commentary... such as:

Liberal justice strikes again. I hope the left is happy.

and it also doesn't play well with the mandaTory minimum sound-biters!

[cybercoma]

I'll try and remember that next time the police issue their next warning about the release of a convicted violent offender who is a "high risk to re offend".

What does that have to do with this case? The judge and the evidence explicitly point to a man that has not re-offended in at least 15 years, so he's likely not going to.

[g_bambino]

Absolutely...

Then why did you say this:

I believe that if Mr. James had sodomized you or your child repeatedly, you may have a different perspective.

I totally agree, which is why social debate about the effectiveness of our justice system and sentencing needs to happen and does happen outside of a courtroom. This case is a representation or measure of the effectiveness of the system, it is not the object of the larger debate.

If such a discussion is to take place, its ultimate forum will be in parliament. However, you still give the impression that you're holding this case and sentence up as example of the system's failure and the system is failing because sentences don't satisfy people's need for revenge; you said somewhere else the sentence should have had repeated gang rape added to it. Revenge is not justice.

[Guest Peeves]

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?

As I've repeatedly said, the Judges are hoisted on their own petard which has culminated in the Governments response of mandatory sentence lengths. The voters feel that Judges are repeatedly favoring the criminal or circumventing the law with their bias, or sometimes perfunctory decisions.

[waldo]

The voters feel that Judges are repeatedly favoring the criminal or circumventing the law with their bias, or sometimes perfunctory decisions.

voters feel? Really? Was mandaTory minimum ever voted on... directly? Oh... you mean you're inferring it from the last election results - that 39% thingee, hey?

[cybercoma]

The voters feel that Judges are repeatedly favoring the criminal or circumventing the law with their bias, or sometimes perfunctory decisions.

The voters? All of them? What voters are you talking about?

What's repeatedly? All of the cases? Some of the cases? What proportion of the cases do they favour the criminals?

And as waldo and others have pointed out, the CJS is a means to an end. That end is less crime in society. That metric should be our starting point for discussion. Otherwise, I believe it was waldo that said, you could have almost no crime in society and still contest that the CJS is a mess because the sentences are too lenient when someone is convicted.

[cybercoma]

I already admitted that my initial comment was offside and was intended to emphasize the ineffectiveness of a sentence like this to rehabilitate.

So you're concerned with rehabilitating him now? The judge, presumably on the advice of professionals in the field, already noted that he has been rehabilitated and has not reoffended in at least 15 years. He's already rehabilitated. The purpose of the sentence is not that.

I'm not holding this case and sentence as the system's failure to avenge the victim, I'm using it as a talking point to debate the issue of effective and proper sentencing. I understand you feel that overall, the system is effective in rehabilitation and public safety. I don't.

What's effective and proper? What metric are you using to gauge that the system is not "effective in rehabilitation and public safety." You can't be using the declining crime rate and the <10% recidivism rates. How are you coming to that conclusion?

[g_bambino]

I already admitted that my initial comment was offside and was intended to emphasize the ineffectiveness of a sentence like this to rehabilitate.

Fair enough.

I'm not holding this case and sentence as the system's failure to avenge the victim, I'm using it as a talking point to debate the issue of effective and proper sentencing.

I haven't yet seen that you differentiate between the two.

I understand you feel that overall, the system is effective in rehabilitation and public safety.

Actually, I recognise that it's not the responsibility of the court to protect the public or to rehabilitate offenders.

[cybercoma]

Actually, I recognise that it's not the responsibility of the court to protect the public or to rehabilitate offenders.

He said "system," which I take to mean the Criminal Justice System as a whole. Not just the court.

[g_bambino]

I said that because a person's situation always dictates their point of view.

One's point of view should be dictated my more than just situation; otherwise, every opinion one holds is just an emotive reaction.