Florida woman granted asylum in Canada

[cybercoma]

False..the age of majority in Canada varies by province, and is not 16 in any case:

The age of majority in the individual provinces and territories of Canada is

• Alberta - 18
• British Columbia - 19
• Manitoba - 18
• New Brunswick - 19
• Newfoundland and Labrador - 19
• Northwest Territories - 19
• Nova Scotia - 19
• Nunavut - 19
• Ontario - 18
• Prince Edward Island - 18
• Quebec - 18
• Saksatchewan - 18
• Yukon Territory - 19

why not post the legal age to drive while you're at it. How about you look up age of consent, which is federal law and doesn't change by province.

[Argus]

actually, if you look at the map I posted you'll notice that the South mostly has the same age of consent as Canada.

Irrelevent. Their sentencing over minor crimes of all kinds tends towards the cruel, as if each area is trying to one-up its neighbour in how heavy a sentence it can mete out for minor crimes.

Edited May 18, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

So what ? There are laws in Canada that are stupendously stupid (e.g. language, hate speech) with matching penalties. What "damage" is caused by such infractions ? Should the U.S. grant asylum to these Canadian "victims" ?

You can if you like. But I don't believe anyone has ever been sentenced to much, if any time for language. As to hate speech, such sentences are exceedingly rare and tend to be minor in nature. We just don't have the same degree of blood lust for vindictive sentences as is shown in a number of US jurisidctions.

Edited May 18, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

In Canada, you can get five years for polygamy, even for consenting adults (violating Charter Rights):

But you won't.

Do you know the last time anyone was convicted of polygamy in Canada?

Polygamy is illegal almost everywhere in the US, too, btw.

[Argus]

Answer is about 4 years for rape assaults in Canada, less than robbery and dope crimes. Now that's stupid !

Your vindictive dope laws are stupid too. Isn't it about time you admitted the war against drugs was lost and surrender?

[Argus]

The OP is not about sex between consenting adults. If you don't understand why the law protects children under the age of consent, that's your problem.

A sixteen year old is not a child.

[Argus]

Completely different issue.

No, not really. It's part of the same hysteria over underage sex and nudity which has caught on over the past fifteen or twenty years or so. Yes, we do get occasional prosecutions for 'sexting' and yes, we do get prosecution for child porn, but even here, the sentences are mild compared to the vindictive determination to crush defendants we see in parts of the US, where you can get a hundred years in prison for downloading a few pictures of child porn from the internet, and where teenagers convicted of sexting wind up on sex offender lists for the rest of their lives.

[Argus]

But you just said that 16 year old's with their pilot's license should be able to make any decision they want, including child porn. Play chess with me and you will always lose.

I don't believe pictures of sixteen year olds should be called child porn, nor treated in the same manner.

Unfortunately they are, in both Canada and the US. The punishments, however, are far more brutal in the US.

[Bob Macadoo]

Fla has consecutive sentencing; 5 counts x 6 years. Consecutive sentencing has not been found to be in violation of law standards.

In Florida, it is illegal for a person over the age of 24 to have sex with a person 16 or younger. In Canada, the age of consent is 16. If the accused is in a position of trust or authority, the age of consent is 18.

So you all are arguing that if he was 15 yr 11 mo, fry her, but he was 16 yr 1 mo......so all's good?

The judge in the appeal case ruled the IRB had not provided adequate reasoning explaining why Ms. Harveys sentence contravened international standards.

You may think her sentence is over the top, but she had a due process in her state to follow to review. She could've appealed on violation of her 8th Amendment right. There was no talk of when she'd be eligible for parole.....I doubt very much she would've served 30 yrs. Or are you all thinking she shouldn't be on the sex offender list?

I can't believe I am on the same side of an issue as BC; defending US autonomy. A polar vortex must be over hell right now.

]

Edited May 18, 2014 by Bob Macadoo

[Argus]

Could we stop the sniping, please, before Charles shuts down the topic?

Edited May 18, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

Fla has consecutive sentencing; 5 counts x 6 years. Consecutive sentencing has not been found to be in violation of law standards.

Their standards are too low.

You may think her sentence is over the top, but she had a due process in her state to follow to review. She could've appealed on violation of her 8th Amendment right.

But by your own admission these types of sentences are not unconstitutional. And 'due process' is not what most of us are all about. No doubt due process was followed in Sudan when a pregnant woman was sentenced to death for apostasy, but that doesn't reassure. It is the cruel and deliberate abscence of fundamental justice which concerns us.

[bleeding heart]

"Their standards are too low."

Argus, you just accused me of "high standards"....when I condemned international aggression and murder.

Too good.

[Wilber]

Forcing you ? Not the case at all. Now lots more child rapists are going to come a knockin'.

Yes forced. I don't buy the line that it is not a crime in Canada. I don't think we should be telling Florida what its age of consent for sex with an adult should be. I also don't think 16 is unreasonable. This woman's behaviour was clearly irresponsible and it bothers me that she broke the law and is trying to use my country to avoid the consequences. But 30 years for statutory rape? Was it even established that this 16 year old was a virgin when this "rape" took place? Who are you protecting by such over the top sentencing for a first offense of a non violent crime?

This is a sentence worthy of a country like Yemen and we are forced to look it as such no matter where it came from.

IMO, the fact you support it says more about you than us.

Edited May 18, 2014 by Wilber

[Argus]

"Their standards are too low."

Argus, you just accused me of "high standards"....when I condemned international aggression and murder.

Too good.

What I asked you, following your description of the Obama adminstration as, I believe, a murderous criminal regime, was whether there had ever been a government in the history of the world which met your standards. You did not, as I recall, come up with one. I wa spointing out your unrealistic world view. I don't believe my world view in terms of what we're discussing here on this topic is unrealistic.

In fact, my world view is rarely unrealistic because of how incredibly smart and wise I am.

Edited May 18, 2014 by Argus

[GostHacked]

Could we stop the sniping, please, before Charles shuts down the topic?

Actually it was kind of fun to see the trolling in this thread. Carry on!!

[bleeding heart]

My "Standards" are that no country should behave as an international rogue murderous state, Argus.

You 100% agree with me, incidentally...when it comes to other states. A few European and European offshoot geopolitical entities get a free pass from you for...some reason, as yet unstated.

[bush_cheney2004]

but even here, the sentences are mild compared to the vindictive determination to crush defendants we see in parts of the US, where you can get a hundred years in prison for downloading a few pictures of child porn from the internet, and where teenagers convicted of sexting wind up on sex offender lists for the rest of their lives.

Of course...some Canadians think their hug-a-thug sentences for convicted sex offenders and murderers should apply around the world. Not sure where that comes from, but there ya go.

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't believe pictures of sixteen year olds should be called child porn, nor treated in the same manner.

Unfortunately they are, in both Canada and the US. The punishments, however, are far more brutal in the US.

The US is not Canada. Why is this a problem ? Is there some cognitive inconsistency with Canada's biggest trading partner having "brutal punishment" along with better shopping and weather ? How many years punishment for this crime would be acceptable ?

[bush_cheney2004]

Was it even established that this 16 year old was a virgin when this "rape" took place? Who are you protecting by such over the top sentencing for a first offense of a non violent crime?

Not relevant and probably not admissible in court anyway, just like rape shield laws for female victims. But I expected such a double standard because the victim is male in this case.

This is a sentence worthy of a country like Yemen and we are forced to look it as such no matter where it came from.

IMO, the fact you support it says more about you than us.

I have no problem with convicted sex offenders being sentenced to consecutive vacations in prison for multiple counts of raping children. I would be more concerned if I was stuck hugging murderers and sex offenders a la Canadian style instead.

[On Guard for Thee]

Of course...some Canadians think their hug-a-thug sentences for convicted sex offenders and murderers should apply around the world. Not sure where that comes from, but there ya go.

Apparently the hug a thug thing as you call it works a lot better. Compared murder rates lately?

[cybercoma]

Yes forced. I don't buy the line that it is not a crime in Canada. I don't think we should be telling Florida what its age of consent for sex with an adult should be.

We're not doing that. We're telling Florida that putting someone away for 30 years for having consensual sex with a 16 year old is excessive punishment. It's literally a person's entire life behind bars. Think about how old you will be 30 years from now.

[cybercoma]

Apparently the hug a thug thing as you call it works a lot better. Compared murder rates lately?

He doesn't even have to compare murder rates. He can just look at Texas's justice reform.

[bush_cheney2004]

The topic is not murder....save it for another laughable thread about lenient sentences in Canada.

Getting back to raping children, here is a good example of lenient sentences :

Why are Canada’s courts soft on sexual crimes against children?

...The crimes committed in R v P.M. are best described as horrifying. A father (identified only as “P.M.” to protect the identity of his victim) vaginally and anally raped his thirteen-year old daughter “approximately ten times” over the course of a little more than a year. When his home was searched after a school counsellor learned of the assaults and called the police, police discovered nearly 2,000 images of child pornography on the man’s computer. Included among them were photographs and videos of him raping his daughter. In some of the videos, the victim was heard begging, “Daddy, please stop”. Needless to say, he didn’t.

The man pleaded guilty to sexual assault, incest, sexual interference, making child pornography, possession of child pornography and careless storage of a firearm. He was sentenced to a total of six years imprisonment by Justice Stephen J. Hunter of the Ontario Court of Justice – five years for the rapes and one additional year for the child pornography convictions (a six-month sentence for the weapons offence was ordered to be served concurrently).

...Of course, in the case of P.M., to talk of a sentence of incarceration for “six years” is itself to promulgate a fiction: because of an institutional orientation in favour of ensuring that convicted criminals spend as little time as possible actually incarcerated, a sentence of “six years imprisonment” will mean nothing close to six actual years spent in prison.

http://c2cjournal.ca/2013/03/why-are-canada%E2%80%99s-courts-soft-on-sexual-crimes-against-children/

[Bob Macadoo]

Their standards are too low.But by your own admission these types of sentences are not unconstitutional. And 'due process' is not what most of us are all about. No doubt due process was followed in Sudan when a pregnant woman was sentenced to death for apostasy, but that doesn't reassure. It is the cruel and deliberate abscence of fundamental justice which concerns us.

I said consecutive sentencing as a judicial statute wasn't in violation of western standards. That's a far cry from 30 yrs not being "appealable" under 8th amendment grounds.

I never said I agreed with the sentence, I'm simply saying she is an american citizen who is subject to her country's due process. There is nothing going on in my opinion that warrants asylum.

[On Guard for Thee]

The topic is not murder....save it for another laughable thread about lenient sentences in Canada.

Getting back to raping children, here is a good example of lenient sentences :

Why are Canada’s courts soft on sexual crimes against children?

...The crimes committed in R v P.M. are best described as horrifying. A father (identified only as “P.M.” to protect the identity of his victim) vaginally and anally raped his thirteen-year old daughter “approximately ten times” over the course of a little more than a year. When his home was searched after a school counsellor learned of the assaults and called the police, police discovered nearly 2,000 images of child pornography on the man’s computer. Included among them were photographs and videos of him raping his daughter. In some of the videos, the victim was heard begging, “Daddy, please stop”. Needless to say, he didn’t.

The man pleaded guilty to sexual assault, incest, sexual interference, making child pornography, possession of child pornography and careless storage of a firearm. He was sentenced to a total of six years imprisonment by Justice Stephen J. Hunter of the Ontario Court of Justice – five years for the rapes and one additional year for the child pornography convictions (a six-month sentence for the weapons offence was ordered to be served concurrently).

...Of course, in the case of P.M., to talk of a sentence of incarceration for “six years” is itself to promulgate a fiction: because of an institutional orientation in favour of ensuring that convicted criminals spend as little time as possible actually incarcerated, a sentence of “six years imprisonment” will mean nothing close to six actual years spent in prison.

http://c2cjournal.ca/2013/03/why-are-canada%E2%80%99s-courts-soft-on-sexual-crimes-against-children/

A bit laughable how you dodged the question, but not surprising.