Florida woman granted asylum in Canada

guyser · May 28, 2014

Max 2 years.

Cant read the part that you quoted says 14 yrs max?

2 yrs only if he trys to annoy or aggrieve the other party.

Really? This is pretty sad debate tactics.

Wrong - the guy is *charged* with something that is not a crime in Canada. It makes no difference that he could be charged with other crimes what matters are the crimes he is actually charged with.

Oh ffs, it is a crime here. What part of that escapes you?

Not to mention, YOU posted the charge.

Now what?

TimG · May 28, 2014

2 yrs only if he trys to annoy or aggrieve the other party.

And that all the harm that an abortion pill could cause. So 2 years max if that is what he was charged with. He was charged with 1st degree murder which makes his sentence completely disproportionate to act - which is the rational given for letting this woman stay. If that rational is good enough for this woman then it is good enough for this guy.

Oh ffs, it is a crime here. What part of that escapes you?

What part of "he was not charged with that crime" escapes you? Edited May 28, 2014 by TimG

guyser · May 28, 2014

And that all the harm that an abortion pill could cause.

Really? He administered it through false means, thus she would not be on the lookout to miscarry. Thus he could very well endanger her life and by extension the baby.

So 2 years max if that is what he was charged with. He was charged with 1st degree murder which makes his sentence completely disproportionate to act - which is the rational given for letting this woman stay. If that rational is good enough for this woman then it is good enough for this guy.

Well considering that....#1,he has not been convicted and #2 he could very well get the 14yrs here, the penalties are what the IRB guidelines suggest are close enough ...sorry Charlie, back to the US for you.

What part of "he was not charged with that crime" escapes you?

Im sorry, you are getting confused.

Lets recap shall we?

Adult Chick A has sex w a 16 yr old , she isnt a coach teacher or authority figure

Ergo Crime in Florida , not a crime in Canada.

Guy IN Florida gives pill and says its antibiotic, girl miscarries ( suffers harm)-gets charged w murder

Guy IN Ontario gives pill and says its antibiotic, girl miscarries (suffers harm) -gets charged w administering noxious substance.

So in the first part, no crime here. But of course that wasnt the mitigating factor as we all should know. It was the comepletely dumb sentence of 30 years, ya know....that cruel and unusual punishment part the Board wrote about?

Edited May 28, 2014 by Guyser2

Bob Macadoo · May 28, 2014

It was the comepletely dumb sentence of 30 years, ya know....that cruel and unusual punishment part the Board wrote about?

So are you saying that if he is tried, convicted, sentenced, appealed and then being sent for 30 yrs for an abortion pill he could then apply for protected status for unusual punishment. What if a polygimist in Saudi doesn't want to be stoned......are they SOL because its a crime here as well?

guyser · May 28, 2014

Uh oh Bob , please dont cross over into this territory

So are you saying that if he is tried, convicted, sentenced, appealed and then being sent for 30 yrs for an abortion pill he could then apply for protected status for unusual punishment.

No, in fact he couldnt. He is incarcerated after conviction, he aint going anywhere.

He wouldnt even get in, he would most likely be stopped at the border.

But lets say he does get in and applies. The IRB said in its guidleines something about similar laws and penalties.

So he gets max there, 25/life, here he gets 14. That is not cruel and unusual, in fact would seem fairly normal

What if a polygimist in Saudi doesn't want to be stoned......are they SOL because its a crime here as well?

Then tell that Saudi to put down the doobie....or get off the Hookah, whatever his choice.

A saudi would need a VISA, and would be subject to criminal checks before issuance. Presumably that would be exposed and he be denied, thus never entering the country...thus never trying to apply for it.

TimG · May 28, 2014

No, in fact he couldnt. He is incarcerated after conviction, he aint going anywhere.

So please explain how this woman got here after being convicted and why wouldn't the same loop holes that she exploited be available to any other criminal in the US?

Bob Macadoo · May 28, 2014

Uh oh Bob , please dont cross over into this territoryNo, in fact he couldnt. He is incarcerated after conviction, he aint going anywhere.He wouldnt even get in, he would most likely be stopped at the border.But lets say he does get in and applies. ......

More than 25.....consecutive terms....assault, etc. He can run for the border on appeal, same as her. CBSA obviously doesn't look up warrants/convictions, they let her in without a note to file.

You are jumping through the hoops you derided us for here......the crime of ending a fetus is the debate here......bringing up other charges is specious. He will be incarcerated for a non-crime.......it is an excellent example of hypocrisy. Bravo Tim.

Argus · May 28, 2014

Here is a case that should be discussed:

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/is_killing_a_fetus_murder/

Given this ruling this guy would be entitled to claim refugee status in Canada because he is being charged with something that is not a crime in Canada.

If people are OK with the woman getting refugee status the should be OK with this guy getting refugee status.

If someone is not OK with this guy getting refugee status then they shouldn't be OK with the woman getting refugee status.

Under the law the two cases are identical and cannot be treated differently because the law is supposed to be applied fairly and not based on the whims of the person doing the judging.

You misunderstand the law. It doesn't matter if it's a crime in Canada or not. That rule is applied to extradition treaties, not refugees.

The deciding factor in the current case was the ludicrous overpunishment the state of Florida applied. In the case you cite the individual actually pleaded guilty to a lessor offense and was sentenced to 14 years in prison. To my mind, that's again, far too heavy handed for killing a 7 week old fetus, but I'm not sure if it rises to the level of 'cruel and unusual punishment'.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Argus

Rue · May 28, 2014

This happened once, in a completely different thread, and I thought we had settled that. I don't care about your profession.

Lol a lot don't. For the record I teach law at three colleges, amd several universties, mediate, arbitrate and do consulting and training work now but I do provide pro bono legal services to the mentally ill and others. The actual work I used to do was in the sex crimes area. All kidding aside I did not mention my legal background as an attempt to be arrogant but to assure people I was not making up what I said in past posts. In this thread there is no right or wrong. We are really discussing the political implications. I snip back at you only when I think you are being too serious. I do not think on a thread like this I know more than anyone and in fact Tim G has explained my concerns quite well and pointed out quite correctly certain things that challenged what I said and I think in one sense he was dead on. My disagreements are with public policy implications.

I do appreciate there is no equivalent crime in Canada so this lady can not come under the federal extradition treaty but I do think it may have fall out politically with other areas of law provincial and federal and federal and state level. That is my opinion only.

I told you I think personally this lady should not have gotten 30 year. There was no violence or forced sex so yes I appreciate that. So do many Floridians. For me that is an issue that Florida citizens and law makers must deal with. I personally think we should respect their right to change such laws and if this was in reverse and it was a male on female crime or a male on male crime or female on female crime, there would be far different reaction and that to me is questionable and some posters I think were right to bring that kind of argument up. If this was not a woman on boy crime people would have a far different reaction and that in my opinion is not how the law should work. The law should be blind to which gender is doing the act when treating the perpetrators.

To me there was a bigger picture. I also have tried to make clear my bias. I am very bias I admit it because it deals with a sex offence and I must admit to you my background has made me very intense on the subject. I worry such developments could be used as Tim G is now suggesting.

Here is what I am really worried about. Nations are trying to figure out how we monitor the movement of sex offenders internationally.

Should we have an international registry of sex offenders? How can we if we are not on the same page as to how we define a sex offender?

Cyber all kidding aside, I know some people do not think a 16 year old boy having sex with a middle aged lady where there was consent is no big deal. How though will that be distinguished from other cases?

Here is another example I will leave for you to think about. There was a man who came from Iraq as a refugee. He molested a boy in Iraq and fled to Canada. In that case it was decided he was not a refugee. It could have easily gone the other way. He could argue in Iraq he gets a death sentence in Canada he does not. Same crime, different sentence. Under this ruling we now talk of, could he not now argue the difference in sentence is sufficient to have him declared a refugee?

As it is he is now in Canada defined as a failed refugee applicant but we won't deport him because he says he will be killed if he is sent back. Now what? He is on welfare, entitled to free dental, OHIP, and free legal counsel.

How many of these criminals all over the world whose criminal laws are not the same do we take in? How much money do we spend on them that could be used to help sex victims in Canada or genuine refugees or immigrants come to Canada?

We have to seriously look at the limits of our government is what I am arguing and get realistic to what we can provide and to who we provide it. We can't be all things to all people, certainly not a haven to people like this woman. Yes I do understand your saying her sentence is not fair. However we could have said, she had the option to go to another US state without the same state laws as Florida.

The problem here is the US has criminal laws at the state level where many states have different laws in Florida. She could have gone to another US state without the law then argued all the way to the US Supreme Court and probably got the sentence reduced or raised a serious constitutional issue as to conflict of criminal laws between two US states. She did not.

Sorry but I do not think she properly availed herself as to the full extent and protection the US legal system affords her.

I also make no mistake of my bias that the US legal system is as good as ours and as our closest ally we should respect their laws not be used to circumvent them when they are different then ours.

That is it. As for the ridiculous reference to buggering, I trust you know I was using the word loosely. I really do not care what anyone calls her act of sex with that boy. Call it the kowabunging him if you want.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Rue

guyser · May 28, 2014

So please explain how this woman got here after being convicted and why wouldn't the same loop holes that she exploited be available to any other criminal in the US?

Sure, piece of cake.

She was out on bond.

She skipped the country.

She came into Canada.

She got the IRB to agree with her case.

Whereas.....

He, upon conviction of a violent act , or a penalty that involves life or the death penalty must be held in jail under the Bail Reform Act.

Any other questions ?

Youre welcome.

Rue · May 28, 2014

So please explain how this woman got here after being convicted and why wouldn't the same loop holes that she exploited be available to any other criminal in the US?

Thank you Time for both challenging certain things I said earlier with clear precise words and then capturing my concerns as well in your later comments.

I could not have challenged some of the things I said better and you put into words what I am trying to explain in easier to understand terms.

Excellent, both when you disagree and agree. Your discourse is precise and to the point.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Rue

guyser · May 28, 2014

More than 25.....consecutive terms....assault, etc. He can run for the border on appeal, same as her.

Not unless he is carrying the jail cell, the guards on his back...whiulst in leg irons?

Ya thing he can do it?

He is held in jail,no bail granted before conviction nor after conviction. See above for explaination.

CBSA obviously doesn't look up warrants/convictions, they let her in without a note to file.

She may have crossed in with her family, looking all family like....and they goofed I guess. Afterall, moms dad and kids arent the ones creating suspicion as you well know.

You are jumping through the hoops you derided us for here......the crime of ending a fetus is the debate here......bringing up other charges is specious. He will be incarcerated for a non-crime.......it is an excellent example of hypocrisy. Bravo Tim.

No hoops at all here my friend. Nice try anyway.

Let me explain.

No we are not talking about crimes per se, but we are talking about if there is acrime here ( and there is) versus the first one, there is no crime here and 30 years is really stupid, even for Florida.

MAry Jo Letourneau....remeber her? 300 times she boned the kid, he was 13 when they started .

She got 7 years....served 6 months. Promptly got out and boned the kid again.

Aint no hoops to jump thru.

guyser · May 28, 2014

Your discourse is precise and to the point.

If not wrong of course.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Guyser2

TimG · May 28, 2014

He, upon conviction of a violent act , or a penalty that involves life or the death penalty must be held in jail under the Bail Reform Act.

So your entire argument is based on the assumption that the US keeps people facing certain crimes in jail prior to trial? Does that imply that your argument would change if the US decided to relax these requirements or would you just make up some other irrelevant reason why the case of a man killing a foetus is not the same as the case of a woman having sex with a 16 year old?

guyser · May 29, 2014

So your entire argument is based on the assumption that the US keeps people facing certain crimes in jail prior to trial?

These attempts to misconstrue, or outright lie about a position is quite funny, sad, but funny.

Now my post, whereupon I touched on jail/bond stuff was a response to a question from you, lest you forgot.

Heres the question

So please explain how this woman got here after being convicted and why wouldn't the same loop holes that she exploited be available to any other criminal in the US?

I answered it but you want to try and twist it around.

I didnt argue, I answered a question you should have known the answer to before you asked. Sorry charlie!

Does that imply that your argument would change if the US decided to relax these requirements or would you just make up some other irrelevant reason why the case of a man killing a foetus is not the same as the case of a woman having sex with a 16 year old?

Huh?

The two cases are so far apart that comparing them is futile, not to mention bizarre.

Vehicular homicide is not akin to a speeding ticket.

Edited May 29, 2014 by Guyser2

TimG · May 29, 2014

How can one explain that killing a fetus is NOT the same as a mature woman having sex with a 16 yr old boy

Both are not crimes in Canada and that is the only bar required to hurdle before gaining refugee status in Canada according to this ruling.

cybercoma · May 29, 2014

The same is true of the guy who gave his friend an abortion pill yet you seem to have no problem with him going away for the rest of his life for doing something that would be considered no worse than a punch to the face everywhere else in the United States. It is shameless hypocrisy on your part.

They are completely different cases. Drugging someone is not consensual. How on earth you can think that forcing someone to abort a baby by poisoning them with something against their will is the exact same thing as having a consensual relationship with someone is beyond me. It's a painfully stupid example that doesn't relate in any way whatsoever to the OP, no matter how much you want to cling to it.

My comparisons are not ridiculous because, unlike you, I understand that law is about precedent and facts...are not that important.

This sums up exactly how ridiculous your comparison is.

cybercoma · May 29, 2014

I think the irrelevant part is saying "if she did it 6 months earlier" but she didn't, therefore no crime in Canada. You could apply the same thinking to driving a car. Get caught doing that before 16, busted. After 16, with a license of course, no prob. Same activity, legal age.

If only it was six months earlier. Hell, why not 6 months later? Or a year later? Facts aren't important when making comparisons. They're completely meaningless to case law in TimG's world.

TimG · May 29, 2014

They are completely different cases.

In both cases they are charged with things that are not crimes in Canada which means they are being persecuted according to the IRB. Why do you think the IRB is expected to pass judgement on other crimes which the applicant may have committed? Edited May 29, 2014 by TimG

guyser · May 29, 2014

Both are not crimes in Canada and that is the only bar required to hurdle before gaining refugee status in Canada according to this ruling.

Well , when you realize, or research this, youll find that in fact there is a crime in Canada for what he did.

When you deal with facts and not your own belief system, come on back, we can discuss it then.

But you refuse to see the facts to your own .......jeopardy

cybercoma · May 29, 2014

Max 2 years.

Wrong - the guy is *charged* with something that is not a crime in Canada. It makes no difference that he could be charged with other crimes what matters are the crimes he is actually charged with.

Causing a woman to abort is causing bodily harm. The fetus is part of her body and he caused it to abort. Depending on how far along she was, it could have also placed her life in danger. Christ, it's like talking to someone who doesn't speak English sometimes. You don't get to just make up your own personal meanings for words, then tell everyone they're wrong for actually understanding what they're reading.

cybercoma · May 29, 2014

You misunderstand the law. It doesn't matter if it's a crime in Canada or not. That rule is applied to extradition treaties, not refugees.

The deciding factor in the current case was the ludicrous overpunishment the state of Florida applied. In the case you cite the individual actually pleaded guilty to a lessor offense and was sentenced to 14 years in prison. To my mind, that's again, far too heavy handed for killing a 7 week old fetus, but I'm not sure if it rises to the level of 'cruel and unusual punishment'.

The sentence is actually pretty close to what someone would get for administering a noxious substance causing bodily harm here. So the conviction is right in line with our laws and perfectly reasonable for someone that poisons another person. Edited May 29, 2014 by cybercoma

cybercoma · May 29, 2014

Lol a lot don't. For the record I teach law at three colleges, amd several universties, mediate, arbitrate and do consulting and training work now but I do provide pro bono legal services to the mentally ill and others. The actual work I used to do was in the sex crimes area. All kidding aside I did not mention my legal background as an attempt to be arrogant but to assure people I was not making up what I said in past posts. In this thread there is no right or wrong. We are really discussing the political implications. I snip back at you only when I think you are being too serious. I do not think on a thread like this I know more than anyone and in fact Tim G has explained my concerns quite well and pointed out quite correctly certain things that challenged what I said and I think in one sense he was dead on. My disagreements are with public policy implications.

I do appreciate there is no equivalent crime in Canada so this lady can not come under the federal extradition treaty but I do think it may have fall out politically with other areas of law provincial and federal and federal and state level. That is my opinion only.

I told you I think personally this lady should not have gotten 30 year. There was no violence or forced sex so yes I appreciate that. So do many Floridians. For me that is an issue that Florida citizens and law makers must deal with. I personally think we should respect their right to change such laws and if this was in reverse and it was a male on female crime or a male on male crime or female on female crime, there would be far different reaction and that to me is questionable and some posters I think were right to bring that kind of argument up. If this was not a woman on boy crime people would have a far different reaction and that in my opinion is not how the law should work. The law should be blind to which gender is doing the act when treating the perpetrators.

To me there was a bigger picture. I also have tried to make clear my bias. I am very bias I admit it because it deals with a sex offence and I must admit to you my background has made me very intense on the subject. I worry such developments could be used as Tim G is now suggesting.

Here is what I am really worried about. Nations are trying to figure out how we monitor the movement of sex offenders internationally.

Should we have an international registry of sex offenders? How can we if we are not on the same page as to how we define a sex offender?

Cyber all kidding aside, I know some people do not think a 16 year old boy having sex with a middle aged lady where there was consent is no big deal. How though will that be distinguished from other cases?

Here is another example I will leave for you to think about. There was a man who came from Iraq as a refugee. He molested a boy in Iraq and fled to Canada. In that case it was decided he was not a refugee. It could have easily gone the other way. He could argue in Iraq he gets a death sentence in Canada he does not. Same crime, different sentence. Under this ruling we now talk of, could he not now argue the difference in sentence is sufficient to have him declared a refugee?

As it is he is now in Canada defined as a failed refugee applicant but we won't deport him because he says he will be killed if he is sent back. Now what? He is on welfare, entitled to free dental, OHIP, and free legal counsel.

How many of these criminals all over the world whose criminal laws are not the same do we take in? How much money do we spend on them that could be used to help sex victims in Canada or genuine refugees or immigrants come to Canada?

We have to seriously look at the limits of our government is what I am arguing and get realistic to what we can provide and to who we provide it. We can't be all things to all people, certainly not a haven to people like this woman. Yes I do understand your saying her sentence is not fair. However we could have said, she had the option to go to another US state without the same state laws as Florida.

The problem here is the US has criminal laws at the state level where many states have different laws in Florida. She could have gone to another US state without the law then argued all the way to the US Supreme Court and probably got the sentence reduced or raised a serious constitutional issue as to conflict of criminal laws between two US states. She did not.

Sorry but I do not think she properly availed herself as to the full extent and protection the US legal system affords her.

I also make no mistake of my bias that the US legal system is as good as ours and as our closest ally we should respect their laws not be used to circumvent them when they are different then ours.

That is it. As for the ridiculous reference to buggering, I trust you know I was using the word loosely. I really do not care what anyone calls her act of sex with that boy. Call it the kowabunging him if you want.

Aside from you bringing up my name in the previous reply, I don't believe I have read or responded to any of your posts in this thread. Just to let you know, I haven't read this one either. I'll wait for the Coles Notes. So don't feel as though you need to respond to me because frankly I haven't been paying attention to you. Brevity is the soul of wit.

cybercoma · May 29, 2014

In both cases they are charged with things that are not crimes in Canada which means they are being persecuted according to the IRB. Why do you think the IRB is expected to pass judgement on other crimes which the applicant may have committed?

You yourself posted the law he broke in Canada!

cybercoma · May 29, 2014

What makes the example even more irrelevant is the fact that he hasn't applied for refugee status and isn't going to be applying.

Let's go back to the post where I ask for concrete examples of Americans fleeing convictions by becoming refugees in Canada. Do you have any examples we can discuss? I've looked. I can only find a bunch of cases of objectors and one super-bizarre case where someone thinks the NSA is trumping up child porn charges because he's associated with Anonymous.