Florida woman granted asylum in Canada

[TimG]

The ruling was made because her sentence amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.

So every criminal facing a sentence longer than the would serve in Canada is now entitled to refugee status? Or do you have a matrix that lists the different crimes and length of sentences required to meet the 'cruel and unusual' criteria? If so does that mean if someone's sentence is 1 day less than what it says on the matrix then they go back to jail or would you argue for yet another exception because they are "borderline"?

The problem that Rue and I have with this ruling is it is unclear how one would decide future cases. Given this lack of clarity the judgement will expand to include many cases which you agree should not be accepted but are legitimate under these new ill-defined criteria. Canada needs to protect itself from this and that means some cases that appear to be legitimate when looked at isolation must be rejected.

Edited June 2, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

I would hazard a guess that future cases will be concluded the same way, based on the same laws and constitution.

[guyser]

So every criminal facing a sentence longer than the would serve in Canada is now entitled to refugee status?

Yes. The courts around the world have special agents in them. When convicted the Judge calls to the back of the courtroom and asks the Special CDN Agent to please issue refugee status to the convicted criminal.

Airfare is their own expense though.

Forget for a moment most people have no idea where to go, how to do it , have posted a bond or had someone do that for them, cant get a visa, may have their passport taken for holding,cant afford to get here, cant get through the border for various reasons.....sorry what was the question again?

The problem that Rue and I have with this ruling is

....The fact neither of you get it from the get go. The sheer ridiculousness of both your arguments have been exposed in detail.

Hell, your first sentence of this post suggest a serious lack of forethought. Rue is still arguing about something that isnt even law in the first place here.

Canada needs to protect itself from this and that means some cases that appear to be legitimate when looked at isolation must be rejected.

Canada doesnt need to protect itself from anything , not to mention Canada has always done this.

Edited June 2, 2014 by Guyser2

[guyser]

I would hazard a guess that future cases will be concluded the same way, based on the same laws and constitution.

Wow....easy and succinct.

But but but.... this verdict will destroy CDN society !

[TimG]

Yes. The courts around the world have special agents in them. When convicted the Judge calls to the back of the courtroom and asks the Special CDN Agent to please issue refugee status to the convicted criminal.

This is a completely ridiculous argument. A refugee system cannot be designed based on the assumption that is difficult for most people to make a claim. It has to be designed based on the proper balance between the needs of Canada and a desire to help people that need protection. People facing long sentences in US jails are NOT in need of protection.

[On Guard for Thee]

Wow....easy and succinct.

But but but.... this verdict will destroy CDN society !

Well I guess I "cherry picked" a bit, but I didn't get bleary eyed thinking it over.

And yes I can imagine the "father rapers" and the "mother stabbers" are flooding the borders as we speak.

[guyser]

This is a completely ridiculous argument.

The the question begs.....why did you make such a ridiculous argument?

It has to be designed based on the proper balance between the needs of Canada and a desire to help people that need protection. People facing long sentences in US jails are NOT in need of protection.

Apart from the stroked out section, that is exactly what we do.

People who need protection......are people who need protection. Why would you prevent certain peoples?

[Bob Macadoo]

The the question begs.....why did you make such a ridiculous argument?Apart from the stroked out section, that is exactly what we do.People who need protection......are people who need protection. Why would you prevent certain peoples?

The argument isn't ridiculous, both sides are making valid statements. I find it peculiar that you are incensed that your argument in the abortion thread is being dismissed as ridiculous, yet your statement has the same smell. The question is the broadening definition of "need protection". Does this need to be more explicit/restricted or open/broad?

The argument that logistics are a definitive barrier to alleviate the need for legislation has no basis in logic. I wouldn't have thought she could've crossed the border with a sexual conviction, yet here she is.

Edited June 2, 2014 by Bob Macadoo

[cybercoma]

It hasn't been broadened at all. Someone who is put in jail for the rest of their life for something that isn't a crime in Canada, nor most Western nations, nor most US states even, is absolutely in need of protection. If Florida wants to make the age of consent 18, that's their prerogative. When they start jailing people for the rest of their lives for consensual sex with a minor, that's an egregious violation of just and ethical sentencing practices. As I've said, if she wasn't sentenced to 30 years, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. She wouldn't have been granted asylum.

Edited June 2, 2014 by cybercoma

[Bob Macadoo]

It hasn't been broadened at all. Someone who is put in jail for the rest of their life for something that isn't a crime in Canada, nor most Western nations, nor most US states even, is absolutely in need of protection. If Florida wants to make the age of consent 18, that's their prerogative. When they start jailing people for the rest of their lives for consensual sex with a minor, that's an egregious violation of just and ethical sentencing practices. As I've said, if she wasn't sentenced to 30 years, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. She wouldn't have been granted asylum.

Then as a general consecutive sentencing is cruel and unusual? It seems the argument point is simply numbers and not legislative ideas. Would 5 consecutive terms of 1 year have been OK for a crime that is a non-crime here.....it would seem any sentencing for a non-crime should be construed as cruel and unusual.

[guyser]

The argument isn't ridiculous,

Not sure what the heck you are saying....but it appears you didnt catch that Tim was making his own opinion the one being ridiculous.

He quoted me , where I was mocking the idea and opining we had operatives in all the countries ready to offer up refugee status and Tim replied thats ridiculous.

It is...was and will be.

There are no agents.

I find it peculiar that you are incensed that your argument in the abortion thread is being dismissed as ridiculous, yet your statement has the same smell.

I honestly have no idea what this part is about.

The argument that logistics are a definitive barrier to alleviate the need for legislation has no basis in logic. I wouldn't have thought she could've crossed the border with a sexual conviction, yet here she is.

Except in many cases they are a barrier, a convenient one I grant you.

There isnt a need for legislation, perhaps you meant improved upon?

Because Americans dont need a VISA to come, they can come in rather easy. Of course with husband and kids in tow....makes it easier.

[Rue]

Cyber Let me break down this comment you made:

"The ruling was made because her sentence amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. It has very little to do with the crime not existing anywhere in Canadian law, although that does offer some support to the notion that the punishment was far too harsh. It's also a point to be made to those who say she shouldn't be allowed in the country because she's a criminal. Not in Canada she isn't and not even if she did the same "crime" in Canada would she be a criminal."

1. If the ruling was solely based on the length of sentence it is necessarily defective because its premature because the decison was made before this woman availed herself of Amendment 8 of the US Constitition that would have enabled her to challenge the length of the sentence as cruel and unusual.

2. In fact she did not avail herself of the very legal argument you use to justify her protection in Canada which she is also entitled to in the US for appealing length of sentence as cruel and unusual and that is why I have challenged what you said as illogical.

3. The Federal Court did not ignore the fact that since she had not committed an equivalent crime in Canada she could not be deported just as you don't.

4. You again acknowledge that in your opinion she is entitled to protection in Canada since she committed an act that isn't a crime in Canada.

In regards to 3 and 4 as you flip and flop back and forth arguing she is entitled to protection both because her length of sentence is too long and there is no equivalent in crime for what she did in the US in Canada I have argued against both and stated why,

Your come back has been to use insulting come backs to avoid dealing with the points I raised and to dismiss my opinions.

Let me try make it clear to you. If some argues an opinion you disagree with, the fact you don't agree with it does not make it irrelevant it just means you disagree with it and call it a name rather than go on to debate why you think its irrelevant.

So for example, you have yet to respond to Amendment 8 of the US constitution which is directly relevant.

Now I will simply limit myself to your comments on the age of 16 and its relevance given Tim G said anything else I wanted to say and again so precisely I commend him for that.

My point is that the law deems 16 year olds NOT ADULTS when they commit a crime although with some few exceptions they might be sentenced as adults.

The law also does not consider 16 year olds adults when it comes to signing contracts.

The law differentiates and does not consider 16 year olds capable of having the same rights behind a car as adults.

The law does not allow us to draft 16 year olds into the armed forces.

This notion you have that 16 uear olds are adults when it comes to sex is to me defective because other than consensual sex our law says a 16 year old is not an adult and there are good reasons for that.

Using the same reasons we do not consider 16 year olds adults in all other areas of law, I argue 16 year olds should not be treated as adults when it comes to sex.

I do not argue to jail 16 year olds who have consensual sex with other minors. I do not even argue they should go to jail for having consensual sex with adults. However I hold adults to a different standard. I have argued the larger the age difference between minor and adult the more that should be considered an aggravating factor in determining whether a criminal jail term or some other form of intervention is required. That sliding scale of age disparity matches the sliding scale of age disparity used when determining under the DSM-V psychiatric diagnostic manual whether an adult is a hebaphile or pedophile.

Unlike you I live in a world where I have seen many minors who claim to have had consensual sex with every disease imaginable including aids, children they can not look after, and emotional problems they did not count on when they have consent.

in my world minors bully other minors into sex and demand they say it was consensual. In my world peer group pressure on minors to have sex at younger and younger ages is a fact. In my world kids at 9 and 10 are having oral sex and have told me they did so because its safe sex and no one gets pregnant.

In your world I do not doubt every 16 year old is an adult when it comes to sex and understanding what it means to have sex. In my world I believe minors need to be protected and seen as vulnerable when it comes to sex.

No I do not assume a 16 year old is fully capable of understanding the full implications of sex anymore than I do when they drive a car.

In my world an adult who engages in sex with a minor is a self indulgent asshole.

Those are my opinions. Especially the one about them being a self indulgent asshole.

You want to defend this woman as a victim in need of protection go ahead. I think she is a self indulgent asshole who ran like an irresponsible child from the consequences of her actions right into the hands of an idiot legal system that treats her no different than a refugee escaping horror.

No I do not think she should jump the cue in front of all the law abiding immigrants who want to come to Canada.

Yes this country does provide citizenship and protection to criminals from around the world on the grounds the crime they committed does not exist in Canada and/or they might be killed or given a criminal sentence if they are sent home.

Now I will be blunt. Canadian soldiers went to Afghaistan because we felt we could help create a democracy. We sent good men and women over there. They now many come back emotionally scarred and our government ignores them when they return. They are scarred because they had to witness adults bugger children in the street and were told to stand down and not interfere.

The country they now come home to says, hey if some person commits a crime in their country that is not a crime in Canada we will spend more resources on them then these soldiers when they come home. Better still, if someone buggers a boy in his country and flees to Canada fearing

he gets killed if he goes home no problem he stays indefinitely.

Our priorities are screwed up as to who we protect.

We need to protect Canadians first. Then we need to welcome hard working law abiding immigrants or genuine refufees, not two bit criminals who come to this country not because of what Canada has to offer in terms of being a law abiding person, but because what it offers to help some avoid being responsible for their past actions.

What I find even better is the very same elitists like you who argue to take in such people would be the first to whine and scream when these same people are placed next door to you.

Tell me Cyber if you have children will they be safe if you turn your country into a haven for fleeing criminals? Will it. No doubt. I don't think you've ever had to be in a room with a sex criminal let alone any criminal. I doubt you know what its like to sit across the table from a sex offender and listen to them make excuses for what they did.

I do. Thus my bias.

I do and thus my deep concern for soldiers who witness what they do and blame themselves for having witnessed it and done nothing.

I do because I have worked with the minors who years later understand what they did was not what they wanted to do and they have hurt ever since.

I am not an angry man about it Cyber. I used to be. I have no feelings now when I now the sheer volume of sex offenders walking the streets.

I accept it but I sure as hell will fight it and try argue the law must revisit what its doing.

[cybercoma]

A haven for sex offenders and criminals. Amazing. It's like you've completely ignored the case and the reason for her asylum. Good job. I'm done trying to explain things to you. In your mind, we've opened the floodgates to all the murderers and rapists the US has to offer because we gave asylum to a woman had sex a few times with a 16 year old teenager who consented. The funny thing is you don't even see how ridiculous and unreasonable your claims are.

Edited June 2, 2014 by cybercoma

[guyser]

My point is that the law deems 16 year olds NOT ADULTS when they commit a crime although with some few exceptions they might be sentenced as adults.

All the while ignoring the FACT that a 16 yr old can and does do the dirty. So in essence, thanks for the superflous point.

The law also does not consider 16 year olds adults when it comes to signing contracts.

The law differentiates and does not consider 16 year olds capable of having the same rights behind a car as adults.

The law does not allow us to draft 16 year olds into the armed forces.

This notion you have that 16 uear olds are adults when it comes to sex is to me defective because other than consensual sex our law says a 16 year old is not an adult and there are good reasons for that.

Using the same reasons we do not consider 16 year olds adults in all other areas of law, I argue 16 year olds should not be treated as adults when it comes to sex.

I do not argue to jail 16 year olds who have consensual sex with other minors. I do not even argue they should go to jail for having consensual sex with adults. However I hold adults to a different standard. I have argued the larger the age difference between minor and adult the more that should be considered an aggravating factor in determining whether a criminal jail term or some other form of intervention is required. That sliding scale of age disparity matches the sliding scale of age disparity used when determining under the DSM-V psychiatric diagnostic manual whether an adult is a hebaphile or pedophile.

Unlike you I live in a world where I have seen many minors who claim to have had consensual sex with every disease imaginable including aids, children they can not look after, and emotional problems they did not count on when they have consent.

in my world minors bully other minors into sex and demand they say it was consensual. In my world peer group pressure on minors to have sex at younger and younger ages is a fact. In my world kids at 9 and 10 are having oral sex and have told me they did so because its safe sex and no one gets pregnant.

In your world I do not doubt every 16 year old is an adult when it comes to sex and understanding what it means to have sex. In my world I believe minors need to be protected and seen as vulnerable when it comes to sex.

No I do not assume a 16 year old is fully capable of understanding the full implications of sex anymore than I do when they drive a car.

In my world an adult who engages in sex with a minor is a self indulgent asshole.

Those are my opinions. Especially the one about them being a self indulgent asshole.

You want to defend this woman as a victim in need of protection go ahead. I think she is a self indulgent asshole who ran like an irresponsible child from the consequences of her actions right into the hands of an idiot legal system that treats her no different than a refugee escaping horror.

Yes this country does provide citizenship and protection to criminals from around the world on the grounds the crime they committed does not exist in Canada and/or they might be killed or given a criminal sentence if they are sent home.

Now I will be blunt. Canadian soldiers went to Afghaistan because we felt we could help create a democracy. We sent good men and women over there. They now many come back emotionally scarred and our government ignores them when they return. They are scarred because they had to witness adults bugger children in the street and were told to stand down and not interfere.

The country they now come home to says, hey if some person commits a crime in their country that is not a crime in Canada we will spend more resources on them then these soldiers when they come home. Better still, if someone buggers a boy in his country and flees to Canada fearing

he gets killed if he goes home no problem he stays indefinitely.

Our priorities are screwed up as to who we protect.

We need to protect Canadians first. Then we need to welcome hard working law abiding immigrants or genuine refufees, not two bit criminals who come to this country not because of what Canada has to offer in terms of being a law abiding person, but because what it offers to help some avoid being responsible for their past actions.

What I find even better is the very same elitists like you who argue to take in such people would be the first to whine and scream when these same people are placed next door to you.

Tell me Cyber if you have children will they be safe if you turn your country into a haven for fleeing criminals? Will it. No doubt. I don't think you've ever had to be in a room with a sex criminal let alone any criminal. I doubt you know what its like to sit across the table from a sex offender and listen to them make excuses for what they did.

I do. Thus my bias.

I do and thus my deep concern for soldiers who witness what they do and blame themselves for having witnessed it and done nothing.

I do because I have worked with the minors who years later understand what they did was not what they wanted to do and they have hurt ever since.

I am not an angry man about it Cyber. I used to be. I have no feelings now when I now the sheer volume of sex offenders walking the streets.

I accept it but I sure as hell will fight it and try argue the law must revisit what its doing.

...and a whole lot more superflous meanderings, from downright incoorect assessments to the military.

WTF?

No I do not think she should jump the cue in front of all the law abiding immigrants who want to come to Canada.

She didnt.

Do you research or just make these things up thinking none of us can easily check?

[Bob Macadoo]

Sorry Guyser mixing up you and Cyber. I can't stay in threads with "He Who Shall Never Stop Typing" My bypass scroll finger gets cramped.

[Peter F]

It seems that there are various issues in play. Perhaps its this that seems to be fuelling argument here.

1. A 16 year old can legally give consent for sex in certain circumstances. in Canada anyways but not Florida. One must be 18 to give consent in that state.

Rue seems to acknowledge that but believes that Canada should raise the age of consent to 18 or 21 or something. Now why that belief in itself

should lead to not granting Ms. Harvey protected status is beyond me since his belief is not the law in this country.

2. A 30 year sentence for Ms. Harvey's crime seems to be universally agreed to be 'excessive'. The IRB also came to the same conclusion.

I am guessing that those against granting protected status while believing the Florida sentence to be excessive do not see it being cruel and unusual.

I wish to point out to them that when the IRB considered the question of wether the Florida sentence fit cruel and unusual they compared the sentence

to what a Canadian court would have reasonably sentenced her if what she did was also illegal in Canada. So they looked at sentences given in

Canada to people who were found guilty of sex with a minor by Canadian law. All the way down to sex with 5 year olds. They determined that the

Florida court imposed a sentence - for the crime of sex with a minor - of 15 times the norm compared to Canada.

As Cybercoma and the Federal Court pointed out, If the Florida court had have sentenced her to somewhere within the range of a Canadian norm, irregardless of the fact that in Canada 16 year olds can give consent, then the Floridal sentence would not have fit into cruel and unusual and Ms. Harvey

would not have been granted protected status.

I for one am wondering why such a sentence, acknowledged to be excessive, does not fit 'cruel and/or unusual'.

It seems to me that some believe cruel and unusual punishment can only apply to instances where actual physical harm is inflicted but not to length of

sentence. To them a prison sentence can be excessive but can never be cruel and unusual.

3. It seems that Ms.Harvey should never have been granted protected status because then all murderers and child molesters can seek asylum in Canada.

This is a false assumption. As was shown in the Federal Court all claims for protected status must meet certain criteria. Because protection is provided to one individual does not mean that protection must be provided to all individuals. The sentence must be cruel and or unusual. For Americans they must

have availed themselves to the appeal process. That is to say that the Canadian courts have a hight opinion of the American justice system. Canadian courts believe that while lower courts can make mistakes from time to time, in the USofA there is a tried and true appeals process that corrects things.

Only if that appeals process still fails to right the egregious wrong does any American have access to Protected Status in Canada.

4. I get the feeling that many believe this country should not grant protected status for cruel and unusual punishments at all for anyone. Except maybe those being punished under Sharia law. Certainly not Americans because Americans deserve whatever America dishes out. No matter the excess.

[Bob Macadoo]

Good overview of the debate for newcomers and those repeating mantras.

I'm not with mass murderers running for the border, thats a bit of a strawman......except for Rue maybe.

I was not aware the IRB did a relative comparison of sentencing.....was that in the 2nd ruling? Interesting. This is what I was looking for in the first ruling.

To them a prison sentence can be excessive but can never be cruel and unusual

I wouldn't say never, unless we reject consecutive sentencing as a judicial concept. If you accept it for murderers then you must accept for all or none.

For Americans they must have availed themselves to the appeal process.

Is only 1 appeal, to the lowest district, enough to say you tried the US judicial system and failed? I'd say no others say yes.

Certainly not Americans because Americans deserve whatever America dishes out. No matter the excess.

Again a bit excessive itself, "whatever" presupposes that it is already excessive. This negates the argument. I would say if we, as a general rule, agree with the judicial system and the protections that are in place for its citizens (eg appeals, attorney representation, torture, starving, etc.) then we shouldn't dispute their particular statutes as they did indeed choose (key: choose) to live in that state as its citizen reaping the benefits of that life. Sorry karma sucks. Edited June 3, 2014 by Bob Macadoo

[On Guard for Thee]

Rue, she didn't commit a crim

Good overview of the debate for newcomers and those repeating mantras.
I'm not with mass murderers running for the border, thats a bit of a strawman......except for Rue maybe.
I was not aware the IRB did a relative comparison of sentencing.....was that in the 2nd ruling? Interesting. This is what I was looking for in the first ruling.
I wouldn't say never, unless we reject consecutive sentencing as a judicial concept. If you accept it for murderers then you must accept for all or none.
Is only 1 appeal, to the lowest district, enough to say you tried the US judicial system and failed? I'd say no others say yes.
Again a bit excessive itself, "whatever" presupposes that it is already excessive. This negates the argument. I would say if we, as a general rule, agree with the judicial system and the protections that are in place for its citizens (eg appeals, attorney representation, torture, starving, etc.) then we shouldn't dispute their particular statutes as they did indeed choose (key: choose) to live in that state as its citizen reaping the benefits of that life. Sorry karma sucks.

Yeah and I suspect most of the people living wherever don't have the time to keep track of what a bunch of government trough feeding lawyers do between cashing their government checks. They have to work and raise their families. The next thing you know they are in jail for 30 years because of some restriction that probably arose from somebody throwing a dart. As Cyber has pointed out, if she had of hung around for the "appeals" process, she would be flat broke, and in jail for 30 years. I'd do the same god damn thing.

[Bob Macadoo]

You believe Floridians don't yet know they live in an judicially messed up state? Too busy watching Honey Boo Boo I guess.

[On Guard for Thee]

You believe Floridians don't yet know they live in an judicially messed up state? Too busy watching Honey Boo Boo I guess.

Well, as I've said, they probably won't know until they come up against it. As I recall, when I was a teenager and about to get laid I wasn't thinking too much about phoning up the provincial legislature for guidance.

[bush_cheney2004]

Ms. Harvey is a convicted rapist, registered sex offender, and fugitive felon. She'll do fine in hug-a-thug Canada.

[On Guard for Thee]

Ms. Harvey is a convicted rapist, registered sex offender, and fugitive felon. She'll do fine in hug-a-thug Canada.

She is none of the above. You on the other hand...have you heard the word troll? Anyway, always good for a laugh.

[cybercoma]

you must accept for all or none

That's not how the justice system works. There is no one-size-fits-all measure because everyone has a right to a fair trial. That means the courts hear the facts of each individual case and that person's circumstances then decides. It's not the consecutive/concurrent sentencing that's the issue. It's the unnecessarily punitive length of time she was imprisoned. I merely made the point that a concurrent sentence would have brought he time in prison down to 5 or 6 years, which I'm assuming would have denied her asylum. What specific length of time is not cruel and unusual? I don't know because the court never said that, but from what they did say it would have been some sentence that was comparable to other sentences for people who have had consensual sex with a minor. Thirty years is way out of line.

[Rue]

To respond to you Peter my arguments raised about the age of consent were not specific to Harvey's case but in general in responding to those persons who argue that Canadian law is superior to American law because it believes the age of sexual consent is 16. I have argued that the fact our law as to consensual sex is different does not make it better and explained what the problems were in defining sexual laws with people who we define as adults when it comes to sex but minors for everything else.

In regards to your comments that the sentence length had it been shorter would have led to Ms. Harvey not being protected is not accurate. She would be protected because even if her sentence had been lowered we still would not have deported her. We do not deport to the US any US criminal whose offence is not considered a crime in Canada and by the way not just with American criminals, but any criminals from any jurisdiction and that is interplayed with those who get failed refugee status to assure they can flee here and never be deported.

That is why I argue we need to reform our Immigration and Extradition laws.

More to the point the decision was defective I argued because how did our court make the presumption the sentence was too long when Harvey never availed. herself of an Amendment 8 US constitutional challenge of her sentence? If I took that Federal Court decision to the Supreme Court of Canada and argued it was defective because it was premature because the Federal Court did not wait for Harvey to exhaust her appeal rights before assuming the sentence was too long what do you think might happen?

The irony for me is the same anti Americans on this thread vowing their laws were superior quote our legal concept of cruel and unusual punishment to say the length was wrong well where the hell do they think that legal concept comes from? It comes from Amendment 8 we borrowed and placed in our Charter of Rights. There we have the smug anti American elitists parroting a US borrowed legal concept under the mistaken belief its a superior Canadian one.

Edited June 3, 2014 by Rue

[Rue]

Bush its interesting because I think if Ms.Harvey moved next door to some of our anti American Canadians they might have a different take when she starts having sex with their 16 year old boy in the basement and gets pregnant and asks them for child support since the consenting 16 year old certainly has a consenting penis but no wallet to match.

Reality Bush. Its a concept elitists don't get. In their world no one has pimples.