2 years for the paedophile coach?

[Guest Peeves]

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

I've requested several times when you have stated such to please give an example.

Graham James sentenced to two years in prison. A serial rapist/pedophile. I wonder if the sentence would have been harsher for assaulting young females ?

As for THE Sentence in reality...As has been written by Christie Blatchford today,

Carlson sent James back to jail for a whopping two years, but of course, like all inmates, he’ll be eligible for passes and day parole after serving six months and full parole after eight months, or a third of his sentence.

That’s for hundreds of acts of sexual abuse over many years committed against two trusting young teens, as Fleury and Holt then were, who were first in James’ thrall and then firmly under his control.

[Guest Peeves]

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?

Abraham Lincoln got 40% of the vote. I doubt any Liberal got much more than Harper. So, what's your point?

The public wants stricter punishments and Capitol Punishment, but there's been no vote on that either.

The Conservatives won repeatedly and the losers are still quoting % sorry...whining%

[cybercoma]

I've requested several times when you have stated such to please give an example.

Graham James sentenced to two years in prison. A serial rapist/pedophile. I wonder if the sentence would have been harsher for assaulting young females ?

As for THE Sentence in reality...As has been written by Christie Blatchford today,

All the bold fonts, underlining, and italics in the world is not going to change the fact that this judge considered the 4 victims and gave him a charge befitting of a trial that would have included all four, rather than going to court for two then another two. If the cases were held at the same time he would have gotten roughly 6 years in prison. Since he has not reoffended in 15 years and according to experts is rehabilitated, she gave him 2 more years to bring up his total to 5-1/2 years. When considering the totality of the crimes he has been charged for (as you want to do by calling him a serial rapist; you want to look at the totality of what he did), 6 years incarceration in federal penitentiary is exactly what he would have been given. It's funny how people are complaining no about this decision, but they didn't complaing about the 3-1/2 year decision before Fleury had written his memoir. Two years is too lenient, but nobody said a word about the 3-1/2 years. Now, instead of combining the two and looking at it like the's getting 5-1/2 years in the federal pen. for what he did, the story is being sensationalized as though a serial rapist is getting 2 years.

[fellowtraveller]

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.

Actually, you described the problem, not the fix, in that reply by comparing this sentence to others for similar crimes. That implies that those sentences are appropriate too. It also introduces a terrific grounds for appeal, as all a clever defence attorney has to do for a successful appeal of a harsh sentence is to find one that is lenient.

One of the stated reasons the judge in this instance gave James two years only was that it was consistent with the sentence he got for raping Sheldon Kennedy when convicted over a decade ago. That does not make either sentence appropriate, except with you.

[waldo]

The public wants stricter punishments and Capitol Punishment, but there's been no vote on that either.

at least you are consistent in your grandiosity and baseless claims. I accept your retreat from 'voters' to 'pollers', notwithstanding the integrity of said polls.

[cybercoma]

Sensationalized?? The fact is 2 years is exactly what the sentence was. The only sensationalism is trying to make a 2 year sentence look a 5 1/2 year sentence.

In the long run, he got 4x 5-1/2 year sentences served concurrently. That's the point the judge was making and that everyone seems to be missing. Edited March 21, 2012 by cybercoma

[WLDB]

Abraham Lincoln got 40% of the vote. I doubt any Liberal got much more than Harper. So, what's your point?

The public wants stricter punishments and Capitol Punishment, but there's been no vote on that either.

The Conservatives won repeatedly and the losers are still quoting % sorry...whining%

40% of the votes should not get 100% of the power is the point.

[g_bambino]

40% of the votes should not get 100% of the power...

And they don't.

[cybercoma]

The public wants stricter punishments and Capitol Punishment, but there's been no vote on that either.

Maybe you should pry Adler's hand out of your ass and stop being his little puppet.

Here's the Abacus poll that this SUN claim comes from: http://abacusdata.ca/2011/01/26/a-majority-of-canadians-support-the-death-penalty-but-only-40-want-it-reinstated/

If you look at the responses, it shows that your claim above is absolutely incorrect. Canadians do not want capital punishmenet.

Support the death penalty, support reinstating it: 41%

Support the death penalty, oppose reinstating it: 25%

Oppose the death penalty, oppose reinstating it: 28%

None of the above: 7%

Sun TV looks at those figures and says, "66% of Canadians support the death penalty," then goes on to argue that it should be reinstated.

Someone else looking at those figures will say "53% of Canadians oppose reinstating the death penalty."

The question, however, was vague as it mentions the death penalty in "certain circumstances" but we have no idea what circumstances are supported by respondents.

Moreover, the question was an online poll, so the sample is not entirely random. A segment of the population that does not regularly use the internet, such as those of lower socioeconomic status, would have been excluded from the random sampling.

Edited March 21, 2012 by cybercoma

[g_bambino]

Rehabilitation is part of it, consequence is another.

What consequence would satisfy you?

Hard to say for sure, but 2 years in prison (he'll likely be out before Chrismas) in exchange for a lifetime of suffering inflicted seems a little out of balance.

Is two years in prison the only sentence James received? Is it the only suffering he'll have to endure from now on?

[cybercoma]

Do you have a link that shows he was granted a pardon? I haven't read that once.

[g_bambino]

As I indicated...

That doesn't answer the question.

Any suffering he endures over and above that is self inflicted...

No moreso than the jail time he received.

[cybercoma]

I don't really think all of his suffering was self-inflicted either. It's not every pedophile that ends up in such a high-profile case.

Edited March 21, 2012 by cybercoma

[g_bambino]

Do you have a link that shows he was granted a pardon?

Convicted sex offender and former junior hockey coach Graham James, whose 2007 pardon caused outrage and pushed the Canadian government to propose changes to a federal law, is living and working in Mexico.

Graham James found in Mexico

[cybercoma]

Jesus. Why would they give him a pardon? Now that seems ridiculous.

[Guest Peeves]

Maybe you should pry Adler's hand out of your ass and stop being his little puppet.

Moreover, the question was an online poll, so the sample is not entirely random. A segment of the population that does not regularly use the internet, such as those of lower socioeconomic status, would have been excluded from the random sampling.

Above truncated for brevity.

Oh yeh, we can go that route.

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics. - Twain ... Figures don't lie, but liars figure. ..

I say the majority support capitol punishment. I also suggest those you refer to as the "lower socioeconomic status" would boost the % wanting capital punishment.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Most+Canadians+support+return+death+penalty+poll/6124259/story.html

Most Canadians support return of death penalty: poll

Opponents are mainly in Quebec

Postmedia News February 9, 2012

A majority of Canadians say they support reinstating the death penalty for murder, according to a new poll.

In an online survey of 1,002 Canadian adults by Angus Reid, conducted in partnership with the Toronto Star, sixty-one per cent said they support reinstating capital punishment - which the Canadian government abolished in 1976. However, 34 per cent of respondents disagreed.

According to pollsters, while a majority of Canadians say they support the return of capital punishment, this support "drops considerably" when given the choice of life in prison without parole.

Fifty per cent of respondents said they prefer life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, while 38 per cent supported the death penalty.

In the survey, 63 per cent of survey respondents said capital punishment is sometimes appropriate, with 23 per cent saying it is never warranted and eight per cent saying it is always appropriate.

Personally I'm against capital punishment IF there is a real meaning to the alternative, LIFE Sentence meaning till death.

BTW your implication of a hand up my ass suggests you may need more of the same.

[cybercoma]

Actually, the pardon thing doesn't seem to be as bad as I expected:

Currently, a National Parole Board pardon effectively seals a criminal record except under certain, narrow circumstances, such as if a person convicted of a sexual offence applies to work with children

It's not as though it goes away. The conviction still limits his ability to work with children even with the pardon.

[cybercoma]

I say the majority support capitol punishment.

That's not what you were implying. You're implying that people want the death penalty reinstated and that's not the case. The new article you've posted clearly shows that people prefer life imprisonment to death. Edited March 21, 2012 by cybercoma

[Guest American Woman]

It's the only sentence he received from the justice system. Any suffering he endures over and above that is self inflicted and falls under the laws of cause and effect. I only hope he is not granted another pardon for his crimes.

He can't be granted another pardon; Canada has rewritten the rules since then so convicted child sex offenders can't be considered for a pardon.

Edited March 21, 2012 by American Woman

[Tilter]

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

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.

If there is a mandatory sentence there are no legal grounds to appeal the sentence--- let the pedos sit in jail forever or at least in the normal prisoner crowd--- then they would feel (if not in their hearts, at least in their posterior) the harm they have done to their victims

[fellowtraveller]

Actually, the pardon thing doesn't seem to be as bad as I expected:

It's not as though it goes away. The conviction still limits his ability to work with children even with the pardon.

Not working with children does not effectively restrict him from molesting children. Being in prison does.

[cybercoma]

If there is a mandatory sentence there are no legal grounds to appeal the sentence

Why wouldn't there be grounds for appeal? It's a mandatory minimum. If a person is given a sentence that's for more harsh than others that commit the same offense, then of course it will be appealed.

[cybercoma]

It's the best moderately 'objective' answer I can give to you. I'm trying hard not to offend your sensitive and empahtetic nature when it comes to sentencing criminals...suffice it to say my idea of a fair sentence would be MUCH more than 2 years. Obviously my opinion on the matter does not set sentencing guidelines. As I said earlier, I'm more interested in showing empathy to the victims of crime than to the criminals, but that's me.

Showing animosity towards the offender is not the same thing as showing empathy towards the victim.

[cybercoma]

Not working with children does not effectively restrict him from molesting children. Being in prison does.

People far more qualified than you have said he's rehabilitated.

[Guest American Woman]

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.

How do you know he hasn't re-offended? No one knew what he was doing at the time, so how can anyone know for certain what he's done in the last 15 years? The kids he was abusing as a hockey coach were afraid to come forward for years - so perhaps other victims have not come forward. How long was he living in Mexico? And why was he living there? At any rate, no one can say that he hasn't re-offended, and you certainly are in no position to determine if he's "likely not going to."

Edited March 21, 2012 by American Woman