2 years for the paedophile coach?

[Moonbox]

Thread title is weird. I would think that pedophilia is something that would just come natural to you, and wouldn't require a lot of coaching on...

[huh]

Not to quibble, but he's actually not really what we think of a child molester. And he's not a paedophile either.

James was, apparently, attracted to young men between 15-25. That doesn't make him a child molester. It makes him a gay man.

And a rapist, btw, since there is no statute of limitations on sexual assault why should a sentence be reduced if the time between the last assault (proven) and prosecution is a long one?

Haven't we all been told by women's groups for a long time that sexual assault is a terrible thing to endure, should we now punish those who come forward years later by allowing there attacker to get off easier? Why do we need to have so much concern for the life of a man who raped teenage boys? Are we so weak as a society that we need to be lenient on the worst of us in an attempt to protect the rest of us? Why cant we objectively agree the we don't need people like James in our society, he adds nothing that cannot be outweighed be his crimes and his greater likelihood of committing more crimes.

If the judge had the ability, and could have sentenced him to life in prison, just what as a society would we have lost? Is the fear that harsh sentences for terrible crimes would lead to other harsh sentences for say shop lifting? Are we really that simple minded?

Maybe, but i think we can do better by victims.

[cybercoma]

Victims deciding sentences would not be justice.

[cybercoma]

His parole eligibility should not be automatic, but be dependant on his response to treatment, activities while in the system, and other factors of rehab.

The thing is those were a consideration because of the amount of time that had passed since he was first convicted. The judge had to take into consideration the fact that he responded positively to treatment, he took responsibility for his actions by not fighting extradiction from Mexico, and he hasn't re-offended since he was first sentenced. When you're in prison, parole isn't automatic. You need to go before a parole board that decides. You also have to bear in mind that prisons cost a crapload of money and they're overcrowded as it is. So if you have to make a choice as a judge between someone that has clearly been rehabilitated, left the country, and hasn't re-offended since his last sentence, or a new offender, perhaps of some more grievous act, you've got to make a choice between the lesser of two evils. Does it suck? Yes. But the judge in this instance also recognized that it would be completely unfair and an abortion of justice to give him a conditional or suspended sentence. She's requiring him to be incarcerated due to the heinousness of his crime. I know I said the sentence was too lenient at first, but the more I look at this case, the less I believe it is; it becomes particularly evident when you consider the totality of the charges, as the judge did and the fact that the maximum sentence for these crimes is 10 years. That's for the absolute worst offender under those charges with multiple aggravating factors, which he is not.

[fellowtraveller]

The answer here seems to be that politicians who have absolutely no background in criminology and absolutely no knowledge of the cases before the court should decide on sentences.

No, it is the role of the judiciary to determine an appropriate sentence for James. They failed in this, twice. He was in a position of trust for a long time, and used that position to sexually assault minors many, many times over a long period of time. This was not an occasional lapse of judgement but a long term pattern of behaviour that deserves a much stronger penalty.

The cases before the court have had several books written about them and have been played out in public for 15 years. It is one of the highest profile cases in the history of this country. If you have no knowledge of the situation, blame yourself.

Then you said the only way to keep him from re-offending is by putting him in prison

I believe that was Fellowtraveller that said that.

No, I didn't say that.

What I did say is that incarceration is the only way to keep James from reoffending, for the period of the incarceration. In this type of crime, there is nobody in jail that he has an opportunity to have a dominant authority relationship. There is supposedly a panel of experts stating that James won't reoffend. There is no guarantee he won't, but that is not relevant to the case, obviously you cannot convict and jail anybody on the possibility of future crime. What is relevant is a) a longterm pattern of serious offences his conviction for those crimes . That warrants a longer sentence. The judge has failed .

[cybercoma]

The starting point for the charges he was given is 4-5 years. The maximum is 10 years. If both cases went to trial at the same time, he would have been given longer than the starting point for the aggravating factors you describe. Likely he would have been given 6 years for each of the 4 to be served concurrently. Instead he was given 3-1/2 years in his first trial, was released from prison, has not re-offended since, and has been rehabilitated according to experts, then was given 2 years at a second trial following all of that. So he was given 5-1/2 years instead of 6. Sure you could argue he should have been given 10 years, but the Crown didn't even argue that. The Crown asked for 6 and the judge gave him 6 considering the totality of the charges and trials.

[Guest American Woman]

MANITOBA'S Justice Department is reviewing the two-year prison sentence a judge gave to Graham James on Tuesday to see if there are any legal grounds to appeal it.

The Crown has 30 days to appeal Carlson's sentence, a Justice Department spokeswoman said.

link

If I understand it correctly, the crown would appeal the sentence because of it's leniency. As the article points out, such a mild sentence could prevent victims from speaking out, as they may very well feel as if the final outcome is not worth it. It sounds as if police officers, who evidently put a lot of time and effort into this case, are also disappointed with the outcome.

Sounds, too, as if the judge has been receiving threats, which is always wrong. Seems some will always carry things too far.

[stopstaaron]

In this case the threats towards this judge are totally justified

[cybercoma]

In this case the threats towards this judge are totally justified

Threatening a judge or any other public official is never justified. You know who else threatens governments and their agents? Terrorists.

[stopstaaron]

Threatening a judge or any other public official is never justified. You know who else threatens governments and their agents? Terrorists.

LOL! so? I guarantee this judge was bribed

[cybercoma]

LOL! so? I guarantee this judge was bribed

I'm sure Alcan appreciates your business.

[stopstaaron]

I'm sure Alcan appreciates your business.

I don't understand what this means

[Bryan]

I don't understand what this means

More of a Reynolds guy are you?

[stopstaaron]

More of a Reynolds guy are you?

I don't understand that either

will you people explain what you mean further please

[cybercoma]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_foil_hat

[Argus]

And a rapist, btw, since there is no statute of limitations on sexual assault why should a sentence be reduced if the time between the last assault (proven) and prosecution is a long one?

As I said, I haven't followed all the details. But to me, rape would require him to physically force himself on one of the teenage boys. If he just pressured them by suggesting, or even saying, that they would be cut from the team, or wouldn't be on top lines, or whatever, that falls under a somewhat different bracket of sleaziness. As to the length of time, judges always take things like the likelihood of re-offending into consideration. Since it has been a long time and no evidence exists that he has re-offended, and since some psychiatrist says he's now all better.. judges are bound to take that into consideration.

And I have to admit that I'm a sexist and less sympathetic to teenage boys than I would be to teenage girls. As a buddy of mine has said "They could always have told him to F**k off and left".

[Bonam]

And I have to admit that I'm a sexist and less sympathetic to teenage boys than I would be to teenage girls. As a buddy of mine has said "They could always have told him to F**k off and left".

And girls couldn't say that?

[TwoDucks]

Are there people STILL opposed to mandatory minimum sentences now?

He received more than the mandatory minimum sentence. I don't think you're making the point you think you're making.

[Argus]

And girls couldn't say that?

Under similar circumstances, yes, but in rape you seldom get that choice.

I mean these guys stayed with him on that team for years and even joined him on occasion after that for various business deals and celebrations.