Florida woman granted asylum in Canada

[cybercoma]

Whatever the case may be, 30 years in prison for consensual sex with someone who is not under the age of consent in 30 US states is to the point of absurdity.

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

I agree that she never would have served 30 years, not even after jumping bail, but I am not convinced that "sexual interference" crimes like this should not have harsh penalties for each count, especially after finding identical "Canadian Law" that specifies an identical 18 year age of consent for certain sexual activity along with a ten year maximum sentence.

[Bob Macadoo]

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.

It's not about hypotheticals, its showing the flaw in your argument which is why you won't engage it. Each individual piece of your response has been broken down, your argument is the sum of the parts is more heinous than the parts......I and others disagree. Its heinous or its not........the depends on how I feel about the situation is nothing close to jurisprudence.

[cybercoma]

It's not about hypotheticals, its showing the flaw in your argument which is why you won't engage it. Each individual piece of your response has been broken down, your argument is the sum of the parts is more heinous than the parts......I and others disagree. Its heinous or its not........the depends on how I feel about the situation is nothing close to jurisprudence.

What are you even talking about? What flaw in my argument? What is the argument that I'm even making? You seem to think that sex with a 2 year old should be the same as sex with a 17 year old, when the age of consent is 18. I shouldn't have to tell you why that argument is incredibly stupid and flawed.

[cybercoma]

especially after finding identical "Canadian Law" that specifies an identical 18 year age of consent for certain sexual activity along with a ten year maximum sentence.

Show where that law has been applied and someone received a 10 year sentence for it, where the intercourse was consensual (like in the Florida case) and they didn't rape someone.

You can't because it has never happened. The important point about the asylum was that the sentence was absurd. You can sit here and point out laws all you want, but until you show it in practice you have nothing. More to the point, you have a 10 year maximum sentence, not someone serving 30 for it either. This woman was facing three times as long in prison for having a consensual relationship.

[Bob Macadoo]

What are you even talking about? What flaw in my argument? What is the argument that I'm even making? You seem to think that sex with a 2 year old should be the same as sex with a 17 year old, when the age of consent is 18. I shouldn't have to tell you why that argument is incredibly stupid and flawed.

No you think 30 yrs for a 12 yr old is righteous but 30 yrs for a 16 yr old is cruel and unusual......b/c he's an "adult", not in anything else in life but this instance.

[Argus]

Reported and ignored.

You can't actually do both at once...

[Argus]

I agree that she never would have served 30 years, not even after jumping bail, but I am not convinced that "sexual interference" crimes like this should not have harsh penalties for each count, especially after finding identical "Canadian Law" that specifies an identical 18 year age of consent for certain sexual activity along with a ten year maximum sentence.

From my reading, as a news junkie, most sexual interference charges are laid against adults who have a relationship of some sort, ie, coach, teacher, parent, step parent, etc. I think that's mainly because it's rare for anyone else to have contact with a young person long enough and repeatedly enough to 'seduce' them. I can't honestly remember the last time there was a charge laid against an adult without, as the law says, 'authority, trust or dependance'. However, I think these are a reasonable comparison.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/heidi-ferber-ex-hockey-coach-gets-1-year-in-jail-in-teen-sex-case-1.2595085

http://www.calgarysun.com/2013/09/12/former-ringette-coach-kelsea-hepburn-gets-18-months-on-sex-charges

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/04/23/teacher-pleads-guilty-to-sex-charges

[cybercoma]

No you think 30 yrs for a 12 yr old is righteous but 30 yrs for a 16 yr old is cruel and unusual......b/c he's an "adult", not in anything else in life but this instance.

I never said 30 years for a 12 year old is fine. Where did i post that?

[Bob Macadoo]

I never said 30 years for a 12 year old is fine. Where did i post that?

I apologize I thought Post 308 was confirming my previous narrative. I misread.

So you think 30 yrs for sex with a 12 yr old is cruel?

[Argus]

I apologize I thought Post 308 was confirming my previous narrative. I misread.

So you think 30 yrs for sex with a 12 yr old is cruel?

Yes, and ridiculous.

[cybercoma]

I apologize I thought Post 308 was confirming my previous narrative. I misread.

So you think 30 yrs for sex with a 12 yr old is cruel?

do you thnk sex with a 12 year old would be like consent from a 16 year old? Because I don't think the cases are the same at all, despite your insistence. A 12 year old is more likely to be sexually assaulted.

[Bob Macadoo]

do you thnk sex with a 12 year old would be like consent from a 16 year old? Because I don't think the cases are the same at all, despite your insistence. A 12 year old is more likely to be sexually assaulted.

I think they are subject to the same scrutiny, not identical though. You still haven't answered though, is 30 yrs appropriate for sexual assault of a minor (<16)? Your obfuscation is shining through.....Argus was direct 30 yrs is too much no matter the circumstance.......I don't know if I agree but at least he is logically congruent.

[cybercoma]

30 years is a stupid sentence. They don't give that to first degree murderers.

[On Guard for Thee]

30 years is a stupid sentence. They don't give that to first degree murderers.

It's even beyond stupid, it's cruel and unusual. There are those folks who don't nor ever will get that. Could be they are trying to turn back time to before smart people decided to seperate church and state.

[BC_chick]

So you think 30 yrs for sex with a 12 yr old is cruel?

Sentencing varies for sexual-assault for a reason, you can't say "sex with a 12 year old" as a blanket statement like that.

Variables come into play such as the sex-offender's prior history as well as the level of force. For example, a repeat offender's sentencing is longer than a first time offender (something like max 5 years vs. 10 or 15, I can't remember exactly).

The level of force and violence also play a role. Was it coerced verbally or did the 12 year old get kidnapped tortured and raped repeatedly for period of time?

There's aggravated sexual-assault, assault with a weapon etc etc because unlike the black and white thinkers out there, most people do take these things into consideration.

As for your question - yes, a 30 year sentence would be cruel unless the crime was particularly horrific and committed by a violent repeat-offender.

Edited May 22, 2014 by BC_chick

[bush_cheney2004]

30 years is a stupid sentence. They don't give that to first degree murderers.

Not in Canada....where one can slap his/her daughter so hard it causes her death. Sentence = 60 days

Moussa Sidimé, a Longueuil, Que., man who pleaded guilty in the 2010 death of his teenage daughter, was sentenced today to 60 more days in jail and then probation of two years.

Sidimé will not have to serve the 60 days consecutively. He will serve his time on Mondays and Tuesdays starting next week.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/moussa-sidim%C3%A9-gets-60-days-in-slapping-death-of-daughter-1.2649142

Edited May 22, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[cybercoma]

Thanks for the irrelevant aside, Bush.

[cybercoma]

But let's address your attempt to derail the thread here, how is that case even remotely close to first-degree murder, Bush? Can you elaborate? You're posting the decision about a man convicted of manslaughter, which is accidental death in Canada, who has had no history of violence or prior charges/convictions, and whose family said putting him behind bars would cause the family to suffer (perhaps he's the sole income in the home?). Is there something wrong with a 60 day jail sentence (served intermittently) and likely 2 years of supervised parole, then 2 more years of unsupervised parole (this wasn't mentioned in the article but is de rigeur). Not only did he have no intention on killing his daughter, he has to endure the accidental death of his own daughter by his own hand. Just like many US States, spanking or slapping your children is not a crime if it is seen as a level of force that is "reasonable." The underlying issue of her suffering a fluke fatality as the result of a brain hemorrhage was completely accidental, hence the manslaughter and not the murder charge. So can I assume by your sarcastic example here that you're all for 30 years behind bars for this 74 year old man, who has never committed a crime before, whose daughter's death was entirely accidental, and who's probably the sole breadwinner in the family? Sorry, but I'll take the expert testimony of the criminologists and the pleas of his remaining family members over your sarcastic indictments any day.

[bush_cheney2004]

Thanks for the irrelevant aside, Bush.

Then why did such a long winded explanation with lots of excuses follow ? Am I not permitted to have an opinion about easy breezy prison sentences in Canada ? You can assume whatever you like, but I made no comment about what sentence would be appropriate in the manslaughter case. I think my point is very obvious without requiring any further elaboration.

[Rue]

The refugee process excludes from its scope of protection serious non political crimes. This woman engaged in one. Therefore she is not entitled to protection. Her act was not an expression of belief that was then persecuted by the government. She has not been persecuted because of her perceived religion, skin colour, gender, ethnicity, the criteria required to come under the refugee status.

Some of you are mistaking that length of a sentence lone automatically supercedes the refugee definition status and provides automatic grounds to be given refugee protection, it does not.

The length of sentence she was given only constitutes refugee protection if it was applied inconsistently to her and not others because of her political, religious beliefs.

It does not and therefore the Refugee Board's decision is based on an error in the application of law, in this case the refugee law definition and so will be appealed and thrown out. This is not the first time the Board has made decisions that subsequently are thrown out on appeal.

The intent of the refugee process definition in regards to considering "cruel and unusual punishment" is based on the legal presumption that this "punishment" was carried out government of the day against an individual to discriminate against that individual expressing a political opinion or being discriminated against because of perceived skin colour, ethnicity, religion, gender, gender preference, political belief.

That is not the case with this woman.

Her decision to screw an underage boy was not based on her religion, ethnicity, political beliefs, etc., that in turn led the government to want to discriminate against her.No they apply that law to all Floridians.

The act of this woman in no way constitutes an act of political expression or other belief or perceived characteristic.

Some of you have taken what you think is an unfair length of sentence to mean you think our refugee protection system should help a convicted sex offender escape to Canada and get away scott free. That is illogical.

For those of you who think you can automatically assume the length of the sentence is cruel and unusual missed a basic precept and that is, who stopped this woman from appealing the sentence?

She had that right. What makes you think she should be able to circumvent the appeal process by fleeing to Canada and posing as a refugee?

If its not the length of sentence but simply the fact she was even sentenced then go on state it, state you think Canada should impose laws on the world stating if a sex offender has sex with a minor Canada can be a haven for them to escape the consequences of what they did. Go on spit it out.

For those of you who argue, well its cruel simply because of the length, oh really. So then what is an appropriate length? Do you know?

What ..you want her out in a day, a week, a month, why?

What's your criteria for humane and usual punishment?

Its easy to assume something is cruel and unusual but then what then is humane and usual?

Do you know? Well the Refugee Board members better know because on appeal they will have to show how they determined the sentence was cruel and unusual buy comparing it to what they think was a humane length of sentence. Then the Courts ar egoung to ask where in the statute that gave you your powers did they give you the expertise to interpret Florida criminal laws and determine appropriate lengths of sentences for sex crimes in Florida?

Lol. Good luck on that one.

The law doesn't define standards of fairness by simply stating what is not fair and leaving it ambiguous let alone grant that to Refugee Board members who do not have the legal expertise and training to determine that.

This is a ridiculous decision and not the first or last by Board members who think they have jurisdiction to second guess non political criminal legal systems.

Our refugee system was not created to protect sex offenders escape to Canada and be welcomed as full citizens.

I do not blame the US for thinking we are a bunch of idiots on this one.

This is another reason we have to re-examine our refugee system.

How in the hell did we get to the point where we think refugees are sex offenders fleeing US jails?

Edited May 22, 2014 by Rue

[cybercoma]

Then why did such a long winded explanation with lots of excuses follow ? Am I not permitted to have an opinion about easy breezy prison sentences in Canada ? You can assume whatever you like, but I made no comment about what sentence would be appropriate in the manslaughter case. I think my point is very obvious without requiring any further elaboration.

"Easy-breezy" prison sentences in Canada do not preclude the decision that the sentencing of this Florida woman was excessive beyond all reason, according to the courts. There is no rational explanation that I've yet to hear or can imagine that would explain why the justice system in Florida thinks it needs to put a woman away for what is essentially the rest of her life because she had a consensual relationship with someone that was below the age of consent for Florida, but not below the age of consent in 30 other US states, Canada, and numerous other nations. The severity of that sentence has absolutely nothing to do with Canada's sentencing.

If you would like to defend the Florida sentencing, that's the issue here. Tell me why someone that has a sexual relationship with a consenting 16 year old (once again, legally consenting in 30 states and Canada) deserves the same sentence as a repeat offender who confined and forcibly raped an elderly woman and was convicted of sexual battery, kidnapping, lewd and lascivious battery on an elderly person and lewd and lascivious molestation of an elderly person. Thirty years behind bars takes her beyond the average life expectancy for an American, which means she would likely die behind bars. Tell me how you justify giving someone a life sentence for sex that was not rape.

[cybercoma]

Rue, she's not a refugee. She was given protected persons status for facing cruel and unusual punishment back home. If you're going to get technical with the legal status, you might want to use the right one.

Edited May 22, 2014 by cybercoma

[guyser]

Am I not permitted to have an opinion about easy breezy prison sentences in Canada ? You can assume whatever you like, but I made no comment about what sentence would be appropriate in the manslaughter case. I think my point is very obvious without requiring any further elaboration.

No , your point isnt obvious because you are confused, which is obvious. Its either that or trolling to get a rise, which most suspect is the case.

You answer to someones post about murder and talk abouit manslaughter.

Oh you can comment about easy breezy sentences in Canada, but youd pretty much be wrong .

Now run off and find an outlier so you can come back and post more irrelevant crap again.

Edited May 22, 2014 by Guyser2

[bush_cheney2004]

.....Tell me how you justify giving someone a life sentence for sex that was not rape.

The same way Canadian law justifies the age of consent for anal sex at 18 years, with a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment. But I don't have to justify what the legislature and courts of Florida have decided to do, anymore than you have to justify laughably lenient sentences in Canada for murder or manslaughter. She turned down a plea bargain and jumped bail, and is now a fugitive from the law. Add that to her bill.

Edited May 22, 2014 by bush_cheney2004