The judiciary effectively bans under 18s from adult sentences

[I am Groot]

It's an interesting example of the two-faced nature of the Left who when it comes to crime, anyone under 18 is too young to appreciate the gravity of their actions, and so should not be held responsible for what they do, however brutal, vicious, and violent. But if they're ten years old and want to change genders, they instantly decide that the child knows what's best for it and the hell with what its parents want or say.

The way the leftists on the Supreme Court kept cutting back on youths being sentenced as adults has now made it virtually impossible to hold them responsible for their actions. Ignoring the law, ignoring the will of parliament, and hand-waving away all concerns for public safety, they've made it clear they will not tolerate anyone under 18 being sentenced as an adult. No matter what the public or parliament want, do or say.

In the summer of 2025, the Supreme Court put adult sentences into impossible territory with a decision called I.M., adding a new requirement that youth be proven to have the “developmental age akin to that of an adult.” That calculation takes a host of factors into account: biological age, sophistication, independence, mental health, behaviour after the crime, among others. Race, too, was made a factor through the guise of systemic discrimination, a concept that courts have adopted wholeheartedly. Under this regime, the young offender’s interests far outrank society’s interest in public safety.

Jamie Sarkonak: Cold-blooded murderer, 17, sentenced like a child thanks to Supreme Court

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

In the summer of 2025, the Supreme Court put adult sentences into impossible territory with a decision called I.M., adding a new requirement that youth be proven to have the “developmental age akin to that of an adult.” That calculation takes a host of factors into account: biological age, sophistication, independence, mental health, behaviour after the crime, among others.

There's no chance that the Sarkonak kid won't inflict himself on innocent civilians again after he gets out of prison.

The judge is basically sentencing innocent Canadians to violence. It like a violent assault or death lottery for people living in his area.  

[herbie]

OMG they did their job! What a surprise!
They didn't hang people who aren't old enough to drink or vote or in your opinion have consensual sex. They stood up for the law as its written rather than your political views... 

[I am Groot]

14 minutes ago, herbie said:

OMG they did their job! What a surprise!
They didn't hang people who aren't old enough to drink or vote or in your opinion have consensual sex. They stood up for the law as its written rather than your political views... 

Not old enough to drink or vote or have consensual sex, but if they want to change genders and take life-altering drugs then that's okay, no matter what their parents want.

[eyeball]

6 hours ago, I am Groot said:

It's an interesting example of the two-faced nature of the Left...Blah blah blah...

As your story indicated we started taking the steps it took to get where we are today back in 2003 - 2008, a period of transition from a Liberal government led by Paul Martin to a Conservative government led by Stephen Harper.

Nevermind the fact that from where I'm sitting neither Paul Martin or Stephen Harper are lefties - I get what Sarkonak is saying but notice he was able to say it without all the ideology you bring to the issue.

When people like you insist on blaming every single grievance you have on the left and worse, when right-wing politicians pander to your way of viewing everything, you make it difficult to pay attention to what you're saying....all anyone hears is...

...the Left...blah blah blah

Edited October 25, 2025 by eyeball

[blackbird]

I posted an article above about a cold-blooded 17 year old with a criminal record shot to death an older taxi driver for no reason.  The 17 year was given a sentence of 4 years to be followed by several years of house arrest.  This is a shocking miscarriage of justice.  The guy should have got capital punishment.  Who will he kill next?  Write to MPs.

[blackbird]

13 hours ago, herbie said:

OMG they did their job! What a surprise!
They didn't hang people who aren't old enough to drink or vote or in your opinion have consensual sex. They stood up for the law as its written rather than your political views... 

Get your head examined!  Read how a 17 year old, with a criminal record, murdered a taxi driver and got 4 years for it.

He deserves capital punishment.

Edited October 26, 2025 by blackbird

[herbie]

See what I'm talking about? The supposed Christian who's beliefs separated youth and adult punishments now wants to KILL children.

Yet another example of the American perversion of Christianity.

[blackbird]

34 minutes ago, herbie said:

See what I'm talking about? The supposed Christian who's beliefs separated youth and adult punishments now wants to KILL children.

Yet another example of the American perversion of Christianity.

The 17-1/2 year old was no child when he pulled a gun in the back seat of a taxi and shot the driver several times killing him, for nothing.  

"6  Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."  Genesis 9:6  KJV

Doesn't say anything about a guy that is 17 should be allowed to get away with it. He was no child.  In fact it doesn't give any age limit for punishing murderers.

What is a not Christianity is letting murderers get away with murder. 

I'll go with the Bible before any liberal ideology. 

Edited October 26, 2025 by blackbird

[herbie]

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

The 17-1/2 year old was no child

says the same guy who'd claim otherwise if he had sex with a 19 year old.
Who claims the maximim lawful punishment allowed is "getting away with it'
Who attempts to use Biblical grounds for murder by the State.

I say again, nice try at supporting your own argument.

[I am Groot]

On 10/25/2025 at 4:42 PM, eyeball said:

- I get what Sarkonak is saying but notice he was able to say it without all the ideology you bring to the issue.

And I didn't bother doing so. 

So what? Would you like to comment on the belief that 10-year-olds are old enough to decide their future gender, but 17-year-olds are too immature to be punished for murder?

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, I am Groot said:

And I didn't bother doing so. 

Yes you did. You're patently incapable of doing otherwise.

3 hours ago, I am Groot said:

So what? Would you like to comment on the belief that 10-year-olds are old enough to decide their future gender, but 17-year-olds are too immature to be punished for murder?

Sure, 10 years olds are old enough to act the way they like but that doesn't mean they can just run off and get themselves a surgeon. That's ridiculous.

And 17 year olds are plenty old enough to be punished for murder.

[taxme]

On 10/25/2025 at 7:02 AM, I am Groot said:

It's an interesting example of the two-faced nature of the Left who when it comes to crime, anyone under 18 is too young to appreciate the gravity of their actions, and so should not be held responsible for what they do, however brutal, vicious, and violent. But if they're ten years old and want to change genders, they instantly decide that the child knows what's best for it and the hell with what its parents want or say.

The way the leftists on the Supreme Court kept cutting back on youths being sentenced as adults has now made it virtually impossible to hold them responsible for their actions. Ignoring the law, ignoring the will of parliament, and hand-waving away all concerns for public safety, they've made it clear they will not tolerate anyone under 18 being sentenced as an adult. No matter what the public or parliament want, do or say.

In the summer of 2025, the Supreme Court put adult sentences into impossible territory with a decision called I.M., adding a new requirement that youth be proven to have the “developmental age akin to that of an adult.” That calculation takes a host of factors into account: biological age, sophistication, independence, mental health, behaviour after the crime, among others. Race, too, was made a factor through the guise of systemic discrimination, a concept that courts have adopted wholeheartedly. Under this regime, the young offender’s interests far outrank society’s interest in public safety.

Jamie Sarkonak: Cold-blooded murderer, 17, sentenced like a child thanks to Supreme Court

Maybe it is time for the people to start electing our judges and our police chiefs. Right now, it would appear as though our judges and police chiefs are a bunch of leftist appointed activist lieberal judges and police chiefs. 

The sheriffs in America are elected to office by the people. Maybe the chiefs of all of the police departments in each city in each province should be elected to office by we the people. Just thinking about that. What think you? 

[John Stone]

In the U.S. a person is considered an adult - established by federal law (26th Amendment)  at the so-called, age of majority. (18 y/o)

IF it is not challenged then opinion rules supreme. 

 

 

 

[ironstone]

On 10/26/2025 at 4:19 PM, herbie said:

See what I'm talking about? The supposed Christian who's beliefs separated youth and adult punishments now wants to KILL children.

Yet another example of the American perversion of Christianity.

Do you consider someone that is 17 years and 5 months old to be a child?

Read more about the criminal history of this mere 'child'. It's not raiding the cookie jar kind of stuff.

He was 17 years and five months old when he murdered Jung, and was under three separate weapons prohibitions at that time from prior crimes . He’d been convicted in February 2020 for property crimes, court order breaches, impaired driving, assaulting police and possessing a gun. In August 2020, he was convicted for possessing and transporting a gun. And in September 2021, he was convicted of breaching a court order, possession of stolen property and robbery.

[blackbird]

The judiciary that enables these young criminals should be held sccountable for their crimes.  What kind of democracy is this when a handful of appointed judges allow the offenders off to recommit crimes against innocent citizens?

Edited January 2 by blackbird

[herbie]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

The judiciary that enables these young criminals

The Judiciary doesn't enable them the law of the land defines young offenders.
Once again, someone with zero understanding of law believes himself more knowledgeable that those placed in positions because of their qualifications. The epitome of Dunning Kruger

Worse we have the professed Christian calling for Biblical punishments for children, and others who claim a 17 yr old is old enough to hang but not f*ck. 

[Nefarious Banana]

On 10/26/2025 at 1:19 PM, herbie said:

See what I'm talking about? The supposed Christian who's beliefs separated youth and adult punishments now wants to KILL children.

Yet another example of the American perversion of Christianity.

A 17yr old is not a child. 

Your thought process is childish.

[herbie]

1 hour ago, Nefarious Banana said:

A 17yr old is not a child. 

A PRIME EXAMPLE

3 hours ago, herbie said:

Once again, someone with zero understanding of law believes himself more knowledgeable that those placed in positions because of their qualifications. The epitome of Dunning Kruger

 

[I am Groot]

15 hours ago, herbie said:

A PRIME EXAMPLE

 

The selection of the age of 18 as the separation point between adult/child does not really hold much scientific weight if we're discussing emotional and psychological maturity. Yes, by eighteen, pretty much all are physically mature, but not much moreso than at seventeen. As far as responsibility, if we accord that by mental/emotional maturity, we know that the human brain is still developing at eighteen. For the most part, full development doesn't happen until the early twenties, often not until 23 or 24. And the last part of the brain to develop is the prefrontal cortex, which governs decision-making and impulse control. So we could scientifically say people below, say 25, are less responsible for the things they do.

The problem with that is obvious. The 17-25 age group, particularly among males, is the most violent, the most murderous, the most criminally oriented. This group commits an enormously disproportionate amount of murder, rape, and assaults. And the state has to maintain order and provide a measure of safety for its citizenry, or the citizenry will start doing it themselves.