2 years for the paedophile coach?

[g_bambino]

I pointed out the fallacy of the statement.

It's actually the judge's statement.

[g_bambino]

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.

Again: Innocence is assumed until guilt is proven.

[g_bambino]

There are several idiots here...

Now we have... insults and stupidity beyond belief.

I doubt you see the hypocricy in the above.

Things were proceeding fairly civilly here until you popped in with your tired, “Ummmm... Is there something wrong with you?... You got it yet?... I'M GONNA USE ALL-CAPS!!!" drama queen repertoire.

[fellowtraveller]

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.

No of course it is not the only reason or even the most important, the most important reason for incarceration of a sexual predator is not rehab, but protection of the public. You, the judge and supposed experts cannot ensure we are safe with promises that he won't reoffend. Only incarceration guarantees that.

I agree that balance is paramount, but any sentence must lean heavily and inevitably toward public safety.

The sentence he got for kennedy and the one he got yesterday were far too light and the judge failed miserably in her work. There are few crimes more serious than this one. If a man had sexually assualted women 350 times while in a position of trust would you think 2 years(eight months in reality) is enough? This crime is worse.

[cybercoma]

You, the judge and supposed experts cannot ensure we are safe with promises that he won't reoffend.

Nobody's promising he won't reoffend.

Only incarceration guarantees that.

Incarceration also guarantees that people won't commit crimes in the first place. If we incarcerate everyone there wouldn't be any crime. That's not the way our CJS works.

[fellowtraveller]

Nobody's promising he won't reoffend.

Incarceration also guarantees that people won't commit crimes in the first place. If we incarcerate everyone there wouldn't be any crime. That's not the way our CJS works.

THanks for the snot, I needed that.

Unlike you, I have little faith in the experts you assure me that James is rehabilatated. Pedophiles are very likely to do it again. It does not matter anyway, he richly deserves a much longer sentence for the crimes he has been convicted for.

I don't want to incarcerate everybody, just have appropriate sentences for those that commit the worst of crimes. Like James.

[cybercoma]

The implication that once he has served his sentence, he is of the same risk level as any member of society to molest a child is simply unrealistic. There is a big difference between him and a random citizen when it comes to risk.

Again, you're suggesting that anyone that commits a crime should be locked away for the rest of their life. This is unreasonable.

[dre]

Again: Innocence is assumed until guilt is proven.

Exactly. And its pretty obvious in the context of a thread about the legal system that saying a person has "not re-offended" means that he not been charged and convicted... not been found guilty of re-offending.

[dre]

THanks for the snot, I needed that.

Unlike you, I have little faith in the experts you assure me that James is rehabilatated. Pedophiles are very likely to do it again. It does not matter anyway, he richly deserves a much longer sentence for the crimes he has been convicted for.

I don't want to incarcerate everybody, just have appropriate sentences for those that commit the worst of crimes. Like James.

Unlike you, I have little faith in the experts you assure me that James is rehabilatated.

So what... The question is whether theres someone in a position to do a better job. 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.

What special trust do you place in politicians that would make them better suited to make a legal decision than a judge or legal expert?

Judges make some bad decisions, but they are still the right people to make sentencing decisions. They are intimately aquainted with both the law, and with the facts of the case and the witnesses and evidence presented.

[dre]

Actually, that's not what I'm suggesting. Didn't you agree just a short time ago that you thought the sentence was too lenient? I think it's too lenient as well.

Again thats fine. Any justice system is going to produce some bad decisions, and some unpopular decisions. You have the same problem if you replace the judgements of judges with the judgements of politicians, or even worse. Take Billc30 for example... it has mandatory minimum sentences for growing 5 plants that the majority of the population doesnt even think should be illegal.

No matter WHAT you do to the system, youre not going to be able to get rid of the fact that humans make bad choices and judgements and show up with all kinds of baggage and bias.

Our system as it stands seems to be reducing most crime rates... Id be really careful about fixing something that isnt broken.

[cybercoma]

Actually, that's not what I'm suggesting. Didn't you agree just a short time ago that you thought the sentence was too lenient? I think it's too lenient as well.

Until you define a suitable sentence, this argument will go in circles.

You said his sentence was too lenient.

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

This implies that you would want him in prison for the rest of his life, so that he may never re-offend.

At this point you need to come clean with what you think a reasonable prison sentence is.

I think 6 years in federal penitentiary may be slightly too lenient, but it seems according to the judge that cases of rape in a position of trust begins at 4 to 5 years. Where she said she would have given him 6 years for the sum of the offenses, I don't know if I can really argue with that. Perhaps 8-10 years would be better. I don't know. At the end of the day, 6 years (concurrent for the charges mind you) for each offense is slightly longer than the starting point due to the aggravating factors. Moreover, 6 years in a federal penitentiary is a lot longer than it looks on paper. The courts and the laws put a lot of gravity on locking a person up and removing them from society. Someone that's assaulted probably suffers fear and emotional distress, possibly for the rest of their life. Yet, in domestic violence cases, it's rare that someone gets any time behind bars. They would have to assault the person with a weapon or put them in the hospital. Even then they will usually only get a couple of years, then be forced to comply with conditions, such as never being anywhere near the person, drinking, or having any weapons on them for the rest of their life. There's just so many things people don't consider outside of the incarceration itself.

[waldo]

The implication that once he has served his sentence, he is of the same risk level as any member of society to molest a child is simply unrealistic. There is a big difference between him and a random citizen when it comes to risk.

and if risk to re-offend is your criteria, and you totally discount any consideration of medically supervised treatment/rehabilitation, then... at what point would you consider risk has been lowered enough to a level sufficient to allow you to accept release? What's your risk measurement criteria and how would it be applied/determined? What's the risk you would assign/accept in relation to a 15 year sentence, versus a 10 year sentence, versus a 5 year sentence? Oh wait, are you suggesting a correlation between risk and incarceration length? Is that your risk criteria - length of incarceration?

[g_bambino]

Pedophiles are very likely to do it again.

He's not a pædophile. He's supposedly a ephebophile. People 15 and over are not children.

[g_bambino]

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

This implies that you would want him in prison for the rest of his life, so that he may never re-offend.

That's what I was reading, as well.

[Guest American Woman]

I doubt you see the hypocricy in the above.

My choice of words was very deliberate.

Things were proceeding fairly civilly here until you popped in with your tired, “Ummmm... Is there something wrong with you?... You got it yet?... I'M GONNA USE ALL-CAPS!!!" drama queen repertoire.

Yes, of course. My responses which you are now (very selectively) referring to were all made to very civil responses to me. I hardly call saying that I could be a child molester myself, and that the authorities should be alerted about me, and your original comment that I should volunteer to be imprisoned myself "civil" - although at least you had the sense to edit your post. That doesn't make it any less telling.

I made a very civil response to a comment that was made here and the pack mentality that followed was hardly "civil." An incorrect statement was made, and it wasn't made by the judge - it was made by the poster I responded to - and I legitimately refuted it. Obviously I hit a nerve.

Fact of the matter is, no one - including the judge - knows if James has re-offended. Just as I said; and since that has been used as part of the argument for sentencing, my pointing it out was very legitimate - and if you feel it ruined your "civil discussion," it's simply because you didn't like what I had to say.

-----------------------------

I have read a victim impact statement, and James' sentence, and the reality that his sentence means that he could be out as early as November, is difficult to understand and doesn't begin to fit the crime. It is difficult to understand how a crime that can have such a lasting negative impact on a person's life could be treated so lightly. Any "humiliation" that James suffered was due to his own actions and should have no impact on the criminal sentencing.

[waldo]

Obviously I hit a nerve.

it's the same throat nerve you continually hit (see foot-in-mouth).

within lawful reality, an evaluation of not having re-offended presumes upon no charges/convictions. The ongoing AmWo syntactical parsing will not, does not, factor in lawful reality... it is irrelevant.

[cybercoma]

I hardly call saying that I could be a child molester myself, and that the authorities should be alerted about me, and your original comment that I should volunteer to be imprisoned myself "civil" - although at least you had the sense to edit your post. That doesn't make it any less telling.

...

Fact of the matter is, no one - including the judge - knows if James has re-offended.

We really don't know if you're molesting children or not. You may be or you may not be. Nobody knows except you and the children you may or may not be molesting.

Now I'm not saying that you are molesting children. I'm just saying nobody knows.

Funny that you find that so extremely offensive, yet you can't understand why all of these "idiots" are saying that you're implying James has re-offended. If saying that doesn't imply that you're an offender, then why would it be so offensive to you?

So don't sit here and pretend like "all [you're] saying is that he may have or he may not have" because you know damn well what is implicit in your argument.

I would have a hell of a lot more respect for you if you would just come out and say, "once a rapist always a rapist. Put him away for life." At least then you wouldn't be playing this silly little intellectual game that you're losing handily.

Edited March 21, 2012 by cybercoma

[Argus]

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

He was not charged with rape. I admittedly haven't followed all the sordid details but from what I've gathered what he did was pressure teenage boys into having sex with him? Wasn't that the gist of it? Ie, if he hadn't been their coach, given the age of consent was 14 at the time, most of what he did would have been legal.

[cybercoma]

He was not charged with rape. I admittedly haven't followed all the sordid details but from what I've gathered what he did was pressure teenage boys into having sex with him? Wasn't that the gist of it? Ie, if he hadn't been their coach, given the age of consent was 14 at the time, most of what he did would have been legal.

Almost. Homosexual sex at the time (I'm not sure if it changed with the other legislation) was illegal with anyone under 18. There was (is?) a different set of laws for gay sex than there is for heterosexual sex. It's not constitutional, but it has yet to be challenged at the SCC.

Edited March 21, 2012 by cybercoma

[Argus]

Is there something wrong with you? That's a serious question. Because here's the thing. We are talking about a convicted child molester.

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.

[cybercoma]

Argus, this may be what he was charged with if what you're saying is correct:

Sexual Exploitation (section 153) - no one in a position of trust or authority over a 16 or 17 year old (for example, a teacher, religious leader, baby-sitter or doctor) or upon whom the young person is dependent, can touch any part of the body of the young person for a sexual purpose or invite that young person to touch himself/herself or them for a sexual purpose. The penalty for this offence is a mandatory minimum period of imprisonment of up to a maximum of 10 years;

Which fits with what the judge was saying about the offense. The starting point would be between 4 and 5 years, right in the middle.

[cybercoma]

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.

The junior hockey league is 15-20. If they were 18, even in a position of authority it wouldn't be rape, exploitation, or interference.

edit: come to thin of it, it might be 16-20.

Edited March 21, 2012 by cybercoma

[g_bambino]

...[T]his silly little intellectual game that you're losing handily.

Come now; "intellectual" is a bit of a stretch.

[Guest American Woman]

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

Actually, according to what I've read, he's what a lot of people think of as a child molester. Here's but one example: From Global News Hour - James Sentence - "Convicted serial child molestor Graham James sentenced to two years in prison."

And he's not a paedophile either.

14 years old would be considered borderline; and I've read that pedophiles who prefer boys generally prefer them a little older than pedophiles who prefer girls. So it's debatable.

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

One was as young as 14 when it started, and I don't think the age of the other victim is being released. As I said, some do see him as a child molester.

But you're right. That wasn't the charge, so he's not a "convicted child molester" as I thought.

Edited March 21, 2012 by American Woman

[g_bambino]

James was, apparently, attracted to young men between 15-25.

It's called ephebophilia. (Though that isn't limited to an attraction to males.)

It makes him a gay man.

Not necssarily.