Florida woman granted asylum in Canada

WestCoastRunner · May 21, 2014

Reported and ignored.

What is it with these 'reports'? Should OGFT now quiver in his boots until he gets reprimanded and warned or suspended? Come on, you 'old forum members'. How about embracing new blood!

On Guard for Thee · May 21, 2014

BC has already admits in one of his recent posts that he provides negative sarcasm and such things here. Apparently he doesn't like the same. I don't think I'll be quivering in my boots anytime soon.

WestCoastRunner · May 21, 2014

BC has already admits in one of his recent posts that he provides negative sarcasm and such things here. Apparently he doesn't like the same. I don't think I'll be quivering in my boots anytime soon.

But he is quick to report and ignore when it undermines his responses.

On Guard for Thee · May 21, 2014

But he is quick to report and ignore when it undermines his responses.

Almost as quick as Florida courts would throw you in jail.

WestCoastRunner · May 21, 2014

Almost as quick as Florida courts would throw you in jail.

On Guard for Thee · May 21, 2014

Again I can't believe I am debating on BC's side but he made justified observation. The argument has been how much a yardstick our system is (RE; Argus) and how much FLA is a rube state. He has shown how absurd we can be. Bravo. You went immature, and he defaulted to his natural state unfortunately.

I don't see it as justified. And immature gets as immature gives.

bush_cheney2004 · May 21, 2014

But he is quick to report and ignore when it undermines his responses.

Moderator direction on this has been clear....report the perceived rules violation (attack) and do not retaliate (ignore). My position is not undermined by ignoring such attacks and off topic attempts to solicit a similar response. My posts on actual Canadian law furthers this discussion.

cybercoma · May 21, 2014

So 30 yrs is OK if he was 12? So the sentence isn't cruel and unusual. Now it is statutory rape. Hmmmm. So then laws must be identical to Canada to be respected. Understood.

What happens when we lower our age of consent? Still on board?

I'm going to let you put your critical thinking skills to use and answer you own ad absurdum fallacies yourself.

What if it was an infant!? What then?

On Guard for Thee · May 21, 2014

Moderator direction on this has been clear....report the perceived rules violation (attack) and do not retaliate (ignore). My position is not undermined by ignoring such attacks and off topic attempts to solicit a similar response. My posts on actual Canadian law furthers this discussion.

So you violated the rules by attacking me.

cybercoma · May 21, 2014

Actually they could be considered a crime here under some circumstances.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/clp/faq.html

Does CBSA not check to see if a person is a wanted fellon when allowing someone into our country? Do we allow entrance to any US citizen who has been convicted of something that is not technically a crime in this country, then offer them asylum with the option of permanent residency? Kind of spits on the poor shmuck who has been waiting for years to get in and hasn't had so much as a parking ticket. Want to get a fast track into Canada? Get convicted of something that isn't technically a crime in Canada and request asylum.

This woman is not a hero. She is someone who acted selfishly, irresponsibly and knowingly broke the law. She is not someone we would normally want as an immigrant, unless we have some need for horny middle age women with the hots for young boys. The US should be happy to be rid of her. Now she's our problem.

any evidence whatsoever she exploited him?

And no one is calling her a hero, so put your strawman back in the barn.

On Guard for Thee · May 21, 2014

Maybe we should all go watch "The Graduate" and calm down.

cybercoma · May 21, 2014

It doesn't make any sense to claim that Canada has a "rational" approach to these laws if the age of consent remains 18 years for anal sex and the punishment is a max of ten years (per count ?). Hell, you may as well do it Florida and enjoy much better weather !

The only time anyone is charged under these laws is when they're also charges with rape.The anal sex charges are then thrown out at trial as a general rule. Feel free to show where someone in the last 5 years was charged and convicted for anal sex, then given a 10 year sentence. It doesn't happen, whereas the woman in Florida was convicted and sentenced to 30 for consensual sex with someone who would have been legal age in 30 states.

Wilber · May 21, 2014

any evidence whatsoever she exploited him?

And no one is calling her a hero, so put your strawman back in the barn.

Don't know but you seem to, even though the trial didn't take place here. Seems you think Canada should have jurisdiction over the appeal. You know, the one she never hung around for.

bush_cheney2004 · May 21, 2014

The only time anyone is charged under these laws is when they're also charges with rape.The anal sex charges are then thrown out at trial as a general rule. Feel free to show where someone in the last 5 years was charged and convicted for anal sex, then given a 10 year sentence. It doesn't happen, whereas the woman in Florida was convicted and sentenced to 30 for consensual sex with someone who would have been legal age in 30 states.

Look, I can only work with what is actual Canadian law, as cited in the board's ruling. The basis for asylum wasn't a "general rule". Lots of people aren't charged in Florida too...so what ? As another member explained above, the point of that cite is to demonstrate that Canadian law still has 18 year old age of consent and penalty maximums of ten years on the books.

cybercoma · May 21, 2014

Don't know but you seem to, even though the trial didn't take place here. Seems you think Canada should have jurisdiction over the appeal. You know, the one she never hung around for.

No. I'm saying Canada made a clear decision to provide asylum to someone that was facing a radically disproportionate sentence.

cybercoma · May 21, 2014

Look, I can only work with what is actual Canadian law, as cited in the board's ruling. The basis for asylum wasn't a "general rule". Lots of people aren't charged in Florida too...so what ? As another member explained above, the point of that cite is to demonstrate that Canadian law still has 18 year old age of consent and penalty maximums of ten years on the books.

Not the same law at all. If you're going to bring up a law, maybe you should know how it's applied and what case law there is around it.

On Guard for Thee · May 21, 2014

Look, I can only work with what is actual Canadian law, as cited in the board's ruling. The basis for asylum wasn't a "general rule". Lots of people aren't charged in Florida too...so what ? As another member explained above, the point of that cite is to demonstrate that Canadian law still has 18 year old age of consent and penalty maximums of ten years on the books.

The basis was the charter of rights

Wilber · May 21, 2014

No. I'm saying Canada made a clear decision to provide asylum to someone that was facing a radically disproportionate sentence.

I agree the sentence is over the top but you just assume what took place during the trial so don't ask me for evidence of exploitation.

On Guard for Thee · May 21, 2014

The scenario in this case is probably not the most wished for "family album" one. It's probably going to be a little "pooh poohed" at the next church picnic. OMG she was older so he couldn't have known what he was doing (5 times) So let's throw the bitch in jail for 30 years. Sometimes I wish the GD Mayflower would have sunk!

Bob Macadoo · May 21, 2014

I'm going to let you put your critical thinking skills to use and answer you own ad absurdum fallacies yourself.

What if it was an infant!? What then?

You can mock all you like. I've logically picked apart your emotional response. The argument has been 30 yrs was cruel and unusual. The definition of cruel and unusual to the perp is not dependent on the age of the victim. 30 yrs should be cruel and unusual if he was 2 or 200. Yet it is not which shows its cruel and unusual as it theoretically could have happened to you. That happens in alot in adverse reactions to sentences, whether it be tax cheats, fraud, etc. If you think that could've been you the punishment always seems severe.

cybercoma · May 21, 2014

I think this could have been me? What the hell does that mean?

Of course age matters. If you can't understand why, then there's something seriously wrong there.

bush_cheney2004 · May 21, 2014

Then what age is that? What victim age would reasonably incur a penalty of 10 to 15 years per count (served consecutively) , negating a ruling of "cruel and unusual" punishment by the board ? If not below the current age of consent, then what age, and how is that to be determined for an adult perp over age 24?

jbg · May 21, 2014

Then what age is that? What victim age would reasonably incur a penalty of 10 to 15 years per count (served consecutively) , negating a ruling of "cruel and unusual" punishment by the board ? If not below the current age of consent, then what age, and how is that to be determined for an adult perp over age 24?

My gut is that a 24 year old with a 16 year old is a lot different than a 40 year old with a 14 year old. Also, you're ignoring the best argument for not granting asylum; that the 30 year sentence, in practice, is most unlikely to be served. I would be shocked if, had she not vamoosed, she served more than six years.

cybercoma · May 21, 2014

Then what age is that? What victim age would reasonably incur a penalty of 10 to 15 years per count (served consecutively) , negating a ruling of "cruel and unusual" punishment by the board ? If not below the current age of consent, then what age, and how is that to be determined for an adult perp over age 24?

I'm not interested in pandering to hypotheticals. It goes without saying that sex with a 16 year old is something entirely different than sex with a 4 year old. If you can't understand that without an explanation, then there's nothing I can say that will make the least bit of a difference to you.

bush_cheney2004 · May 21, 2014

I'm not interested in pandering to hypotheticals. It goes without saying that sex with a 16 year old is something entirely different than sex with a 4 year old. If you can't understand that without an explanation, then there's nothing I can say that will make the least bit of a difference to you.

OK...it is clear that you do not wish to engage this topic at such a level given continued dismissive language that others "can't understand". Running from the legal framework and margins is not unexpected. Those who aren't afraid have to draft the legislation designed to protect underage and vulnerable persons, regardless of what you think makes a difference. First it was the age of consent, then the punishment, then both, then maybe not.