2 years for the paedophile coach?

[stopstaaron]

Are you serious?

Claim: The criminal justice system in Canada is broken.

Support: Just watch these shows on HBO.

Well, The Wire was HBO. Dexter is Showtime & Justified is FX. Apparently it is broken if he gets 1 year per victim. Heck, 4 or 5 years back a drunk driver hit and killed 4 old ladies coming back from Church and he's out already!

You can't tell me the Canadian justice system is NOT broken

Edited March 21, 2012 by stopstaaron

[Guest American Woman]

the presiding judge, in sentence consideration, stated it. Your personal feelings have no bearing.

The presiding judge doesn't know if James has re-offended or not; all she knows is whether or not there have been any more charges. Again. No one knew he was committing the offences at the time he was sexually molesting the kids that he was convicted for - doesn't mean it wasn't happening just because the kids kept quiet about it/no charges had been made. So actually, it's the judge's and Cybercoma's personal feelings have no bearing on the reality. My personal feelings that we don't know if he has re-offended or not are actually fact.

Edited March 21, 2012 by American Woman

[stopstaaron]

This sounds familiar...haven't I heard from you before?? You need to separate reality from fantasy.

TV shows reflect society whether you want to admit it or not. Bureaucracies drop the ball constantly and there are a lot of loopholes a murderer can sneak through on his way to getting away with murder.

[waldo]

Oh, I'm getting it. You have no idea if James has re-offended or not - and the ludicrous tangent you went off on proves it.

The presiding judge doesn't know if James has re-offended or not; all she knows is whether or not there have been any more charges. Again. No one knew he was committing the offences at the time he was sexually molesting the kids that he was convicted for - doesn't mean it wasn't happening just because the kids kept quiet about it/no charges had been made. So actually, it's the judge's and Cybercoma's personal feelings have no bearing on the reality. My personal feelings that we don't know if he has re-offended or not are actually fact.

I will balance my personal 'no idea' against your personal 'no idea' and/or your pure conjecture that re-offending "might" have occurred... in favour of the trial judge sentence consideration that stated no re-offending had occurred since the prior 20-year old abuse. Equally, I will factor your purposeful ignoring of medical treatment, rehabilitation undertakings, and medical opinion provided during the trial.

[g_bambino]

Police fail at it.

Whether they do or don't doesn't affect the fact that it is their job to ensure public safety, not the courts.

I suppose that, since the police are also to be guided by the law, it's also part of our legislators' responsibility to ensure public safety.

[cybercoma]

Oh, I'm getting it. You have no idea if James has re-offended or not - and the ludicrous tangent you went off on proves it.

Your implied argument is that he has molested children again. Arguing that he may have molested children again is a non-argument and pointless, for the reasons that I've pointed out (you may or may not be molesting a child right now... I'm just saying). So given that your implied argument is that he has indeed re-offended. You're committing a logical fallacy called "argument from ignorance." My ludicrous tangent serves to highlight the point that you have absolutely no argument. I know that as soon as I point out that you're arguing that he has re-offended, you're going to claim that's not what you're saying. You're sitting on the fence saying "we just don't know." Which is not actually an argument for anything and is meaningless given the current discussion. It doesn't prove that he needs to be in jail or that his sentence needs to be longer. It's a pointless diversion. What you want to do is imply his guilt. You want to imply that he could reoffend because he's free. Well, guess what, that's where my tangent comes in. If your argument is that he should be in prison right no because he could possibly be committing a crime (which just as I can't prove he is not committing crimes, you can't prove that he is) then you too should be imprison because you could be diddling a child right now. You could be. I'm not saying that you are. But I guess we'll just never know. That's your non-argument argument and those are the lines you so obtusely pretend are not there.

[dre]

Well, The Wire was HBO. Dexter is Showtime & Justified is FX. Apparently it is broken if he gets 1 year per victim. Heck, 4 or 5 years back a drunk driver hit and killed 4 old ladies coming back from Church and he's out already!

You can't tell me the Canadian justice system is NOT broken

Youre trying to prove a whole system is broken, by pointing out a few of its worst mistakes.

You need to judge the system based on the totality of its results.

Does it effectively control crime in Canada? Does it get results that compare favorably to Canadas peers?

[g_bambino]

Incarceration protects the public directly by ensuring that people who are convicted criminals, who have actually committed crimes, are unable to do it again for a specified time.

But what crimes warrant incarceration and for how long is set by the law as created by parliament, though there can be some leeway accorded to judges by said laws.

[fellowtraveller]

The argument that you can't guarantee he won't reoffend when he's out of prison doesn't hold any water.

Yet you yourself make that very argument when you state:

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

If he is fully rehabilitated as you and your trusted, anonymous and unaccountable experts claim and represents no danger to children whatsoever, what is the purpose of any sentence?

You are staggering in circles. Please try again. Harder this time.

[waldo]

TV shows reflect society whether you want to admit it or not. Bureaucracies drop the ball constantly and there are a lot of loopholes a murderer can sneak through on his way to getting away with murder.

apparently your reality fits perfectly within a 60-minute tee-vee window.

[g_bambino]

My point, if you really need it spelled out for you, is that Cybercoma doesn't know whether or not James has re-offended in the past 15+ years.

Yes, that's true. But you lead me right back to my question: what point are you trying to make in providing a statement of the obvious? What does it matter to his most recent conviction if we don't know whether James reoffended or not since he was pardoned?

[cybercoma]

it is broken if he gets 1 year per victim

Good thing he didn't get 1 year per victim then. If the trials were held at the same time, he would have ended up with 4x 6 year sentences to be served concurrently. After this case he has ended up with a 5-1/2 year sentence, split between 2x 3-1/2 year concurrent sentences and 2x 2 year concurrent sentences.

[cybercoma]

If he is fully rehabilitated as you and your trusted, anonymous and unaccountable experts claim and represents no danger to children whatsoever, what is the purpose of any sentence?

You are staggering in circles. Please try again. Harder this time.

Because rehabilitation is not the only reason for sentencing. I already outlined what the judge said about giving him a conditional sentence and I provided the link. Not giving him any time would have shown others that you can get away with molesting children without a prison sentence. That would be just as unfair as giving him a prison sentence that's too long or too harsh. This isn't an either/or issue. It's about finding a balance and justice.

Edited March 21, 2012 by cybercoma

[Guest American Woman]

I will balance my personal 'no idea' against your personal 'no idea' and/or your pure conjecture that re-offending "might" have occurred...

Don't know why you're using quotes there, but here's the thing, if we don't know if re-offfending has or hasn't occurred, then it follows that it "might have." In other words, your idea also conclude that it might have.

...in favour of the trial judge sentence consideration that stated no re-offending had occurred since the prior 20-year old abuse.

Makes no sense since your "personal 'no idea'" is exactly what I've been saying.

Equally, I will factor your purposeful ignoring of medical treatment, rehabilitation undertakings, and medical opinion [emphasis by American Woman] provided during the trial.

I've ignored that, have I? And you know that - how? Because all of that is merely opinion, too. You do realize that, right? Because you even used the word "opinion" yourself. My point stands. No one knows whether or not he has re-offended in the past 15 years. That is a fact. But rather than recognize it as such, some of you feel the need to go off on these tangents - which is actually quite amusing.

For the record, there is no "medical treatment" that equals a "cure" for such behavior, rehabilitation undertakings don't come with guarantees, and medical opinions are just that - opinions. So again. I've ignored nothing. I've stated a fact. No one knows if he has re-offended or not. EOS.

[Guest American Woman]

Yes, that's true. But you lead me right back to my question: what point are you trying to make in providing a statement of the obvious? What does it matter to his most recent conviction if we don't know whether James reoffended or not since he was pardoned?

Ummmm. I was responding to Cybercoma's* claim that James has not re-offended. Simple as that, mmmkay? So perhaps you should be questioning him since he's the one who brought it up.

*Apparently my "statement of the obvious" isn't so obvious to him, eh?

Edited March 21, 2012 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

Your implied argument is that he has molested children again.

No. I'm not "implying" anything. You made a claim that James has not re-offended. I clearly stated that you do not know whether or not he has. And that is a fact.

[dre]

No. I'm not "implying" anything. You made a claim that James has not re-offended. I clearly stated that you do not know whether or not he has. And that is a fact.

Your statement of fact is patently obvious, and completely besides the point. Why dont you make some kind of relevant argument?

[Guest American Woman]

Your statement of fact is patently obvious, and completely besides the point. Why dont you make some kind of relevant argument?

Oh for God's sake. I WAS RESPONDING TO THE CLAIM THAT WAS MADE THAT JAMES HASN'T RE-OFFENDED. ok?????? If my response is so obvious, go after the poster who made the false claim in the first place, Ok????? Because obviously it wasn't obvious to him. Which is why I pointed it out. The big question is why you idiots so many of you choose to go after me for making a relevant response rather than point out that what I said is a fact.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[waldo]

Because all of that is merely opinion, too.

your anonymous internet self-declared fact puffery is inconsequential, irrelevant and self-defeating. The trial judge sentencing measure deals with known knowns... not your MLW world of known unknowns, pure conjecture and obvious face-palm facts.

[g_bambino]

I was responding to Cybercom's claim that he has not re-offended.

Again: why did you feel the need to point out the obvious fact that cybercoma doesn't know whether or not James reoffended? Cybercoma was only repeating what the judge said in explaining her reasoning for the sentence she imposed on James, in which she stated "Mr. James has not reoffended. He has rehabilitated by adjusting his behaviour, given his sexual preferences." Clearly she meant he has not been convicted for or even accused of comitting any crime since he was last released from prison. Nobody at this point knows whether or not he had since 2001 any sexual contact with any more underage teens, but, in our system of justice, innocence is presumed until guilt is proven.

[g_bambino]

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Take cover! It's the AW emoticon blitz!

[cybercoma]

Oh for God's sake. I WAS RESPONDING TO THE CLAIM THAT WAS MADE THAT JAMES HASN'T RE-OFFENDED. ok?????? If my response is so obvious, go after the poster who made the false claim in the first place, Ok????? Because obviously it wasn't obvious to him. Which is why I pointed it out. The big question is why you idiots so many of you choose to go after me for making a relevant response rather than point out that what I said is a fact.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Quoted for posterity. This has to be one of the most epic forum metldowns I've seen since being here.

I would insert the LOL emoticon here, but I've already reached the limit by quoting AmWo

[Guest American Woman]

Again: why did you feel the need to point out the obvious fact that cybercoma doesn't know whether or not James reoffended?

BECAUSE HE MADE THE CLAIM THAT JAMES HASN'T RE-OFFENDED. Jesus Christ. I pointed out the fallacy of the statement - is that the wrong thing to do on a discussion board??

I'll tell you what - you tell me when it's ok to point out fallacies and when it's wrong of me to "feel the need" to do so, ok? I sure as hell would hate to continue to offend you all by stating facts.

What a waste of time.

Edited March 21, 2012 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

Quoted for posterity. This has to be one of the most epic forum metldowns I've seen since being here.

I would insert the LOL emoticon here, but I've already reached the limit by quoting AmWo

Really? There are several idiots here going after me for pointing out the fallacy of your statement, I find it annoying beyond belief, and I'm the one with the problem? A simple acknowledgement of the fact is what would have been in order.

This forum used to be a decent source for discussion. Now we have this juvenile 'pack mentality' and insults and stupidity beyond belief.

As I said. What a waste of time.

[scribblet]

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

The judge says he has not re-offended and is rehabilitated but how do they know that, just because more victims haven't come forward doesn't mean it is so.

Too bad the new crime bill wasn't in effect for this crime.