Congratulations Toronto Police

[jdobbin]

Big news in Canada and now being reported world-wide, Toronto Police make an arrest in pedophile case. Suspect was caught live and was arrested within two hours.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/200...hild-abuse.html

I think congratulations are in order. I wish this type of police team working in more countries around the world.

The police officer involved did an incredible job. Hope he doesn't burn out from this distasteful type of investigation.

[Hydraboss]

Kudos to the police involved.

I can't imagine the restraint they would have to have not to just draw their 9mm's and take care of the problem right there. Unfortunately, the guy will probably plead-out and get house arrest for six months. Nothing to do but play on his computer.....

We need more cops like these guys.

[jdobbin]

Kudos to the police involved.

I can't imagine the restraint they would have to have not to just draw their 9mm's and take care of the problem right there. Unfortunately, the guy will probably plead-out and get house arrest for six months. Nothing to do but play on his computer.....

The police said a few days ago that a lot of judges refuse to see the evidence of child porn because it is so disturbing. However, because they don't, they don't hand out the full weight of sentencing that they have at their disposal.

[White Doors]

Kudos to the police involved.

I can't imagine the restraint they would have to have not to just draw their 9mm's and take care of the problem right there. Unfortunately, the guy will probably plead-out and get house arrest for six months. Nothing to do but play on his computer.....

The police said a few days ago that a lot of judges refuse to see the evidence of child porn because it is so disturbing. However, because they don't, they don't hand out the full weight of sentencing that they have at their disposal.

Interesting. I never thought of it that way. They should have a 'judge watch' like O'Reilly is doing in the US to take judges, who are soft on pedophilia, to task.

:angry:

[bk59]

The police said a few days ago that a lot of judges refuse to see the evidence of child porn because it is so disturbing. However, because they don't, they don't hand out the full weight of sentencing that they have at their disposal.

Really? That surprises me quite a bit. Is there a link or article for that? I'd be very curious to read it.

[geoffrey]

The Calgary Police Association was calling for capital punishment for sex offenders only a couple months ago.

Those that see the consequences definitely have little interest in showing much mercy to these inhumane peices of shit. A year in the general prision population would be enough, he'd be dead.

[blueblood]

lets hope the judge trying this clown is not like that one quebec judge who reduced the sentance on a similar sicko, it would negate the job the cops done.

[jdobbin]

Really? That surprises me quite a bit. Is there a link or article for that? I'd be very curious to read it.

I can't find the quote from a few days ago but it is one that the Toronto Police have repeated in the last year.

""It's very apparent to me there are some judges and justices in Toronto that are just way too sympathetic," says Detective Sergeant Paul Gillespie. "And maybe they just don't understand the problem. And they're not that often that willing to look at the images that we have to present in court. They often don't want to see them or they don't want to see all of them. I don't get it. These are crime scene photos of torture of children. And would that child be something else, perhaps an animal, I suggest people would be all over it."

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...60311?hub=WFive

[jdobbin]

The Calgary Police Association was calling for capital punishment for sex offenders only a couple months ago.

Those that see the consequences definitely have little interest in showing much mercy to these inhumane peices of shit. A year in the general prision population would be enough, he'd be dead.

Why wait there? Why not have the police administer instant executions?

[geoffrey]

The Calgary Police Association was calling for capital punishment for sex offenders only a couple months ago.

Those that see the consequences definitely have little interest in showing much mercy to these inhumane peices of shit. A year in the general prision population would be enough, he'd be dead.

Why wait there? Why not have the police administer instant executions?

I still believe in trials.

There is no evidence (actually tons to the contrary) that sex offenders can be rehabilitated. It's more likely to have a murderer clean up their act than a pedophile. So why keep 'em around. Through them to the prisions and let them decide.

[jdobbin]

I still believe in trials.

There is no evidence (actually tons to the contrary) that sex offenders can be rehabilitated. It's more likely to have a murderer clean up their act than a pedophile. So why keep 'em around. Through them to the prisions and let them decide.

You'll have to show me that sex offenders can't be rehabilitated.

I have no particular sympathy for child sex offenders as they have a pathology that makes them dangerous offenders. However, as far as sex offences go, I don't know it is correct that non child sex crimes have higher recurrences than other crimes.

[Riverwind]

You'll have to show me that sex offenders can't be rehabilitated.

You will have to convince me that we should even bother trying. We really need to get over this idea that every criminal can be rehabilitated. The fact is there are some criminals that are so far gone that they will always be a danger to society shouldn't never be let out.

[blueblood]

Can a prosecuter apply for dangerous offender status on this sicko?

[geoffrey]

Can a prosecuter apply for dangerous offender status on this sicko?

Likely to succeed? Nope. First time offender? Little chance.

[Argus]

Kudos to the police involved.

I can't imagine the restraint they would have to have not to just draw their 9mm's and take care of the problem right there. Unfortunately, the guy will probably plead-out and get house arrest for six months. Nothing to do but play on his computer.....

The police said a few days ago that a lot of judges refuse to see the evidence of child porn because it is so disturbing. However, because they don't, they don't hand out the full weight of sentencing that they have at their disposal.

The crime here is not child porn, it is child molestation, which is a horse of a different colour.

It might be that in purely child porn cases, where the accused has no record, and is merely accused of downloading and posessing porn (which I believe is most of the cases) the judge feels that there would be no particular advantage in viewing what the pictures were. After all, should we punish someone more severely for downloading a nastier child porn pic, as opposed to, I don't know, a less nasty child porn pic? It would be very difficult to establish a sliding scale based on how disgusting the porn is. So I think the judges set the punishment based on the offender's previous history, and probably a psychological assessment of what, if any danger to the public he is.

Which, on the whole, doesn't sound that foolish.

[Hydraboss]

Argus, I agree with you. It would be like deciding whether there should be different levels of punishment for pre-meditated murder depending on how gruesome it was. Then again, there is. Life imprisonment, but the eligibility for parole changes.

This is why I believe that judges should have no choice in sentencing for certain crimes. Crimes against children for one. Molest a child - life imprisonment with no parole. (I'm actually a big believer in capital punishment for these crimes, but that's another discussion)

A revamp of the criminal justice system would remove the onus of sentencing from the non-elected justices of this country. They should still maintain the rest of their duties, but sentencing should be treated like a rule book. Specific crime = specific penalty. Only then would we have a system that I could believe in.

[jdobbin]

You will have to convince me that we should even bother trying. We really need to get over this idea that every criminal can be rehabilitated. The fact is there are some criminals that are so far gone that they will always be a danger to society shouldn't never be let out.

I certainly agree that some crimes warrant long terms. But sex offences also cover things like groping, peeping. The recidivism for these crimes is lower than crimes like vandalism and robbery.

[bk59]

A revamp of the criminal justice system would remove the onus of sentencing from the non-elected justices of this country. They should still maintain the rest of their duties, but sentencing should be treated like a rule book. Specific crime = specific penalty. Only then would we have a system that I could believe in.

The only problem with having stringent rules on sentencing is that the justice system becomes very inflexible. Historically, when many crimes had very severe punishments (e.g. you get hanged for stealing a loaf of bread) the courts - juries and judges - would not convict because they didn't think the sentence was appropriate. The only two alternatives were to kill the convict or let them go. By having certain sentencing guidelines and giving flexibility to a judge it ensures that people are convicted for the crime solely on the merits of whether or not the jury or judge believes they committed the offence. Then the specific sentence, within the guidelines, can be tailored to the individual and the circumstances of the crime.

That being said, if there is a general problem with sentencing for certain crimes, then adjust the guidelines (e.g. minimum sentences). But I really believe for a justice system to work and be fair, a judge must have some flexibility when they impose sentences.

[bk59]

I can't find the quote from a few days ago but it is one that the Toronto Police have repeated in the last year.

...

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...60311?hub=WFive

Thanks for the link. If I find any other similar articles I'll make sure to add a post here.

[Charles Anthony]

Crimes against children for one. Molest a child - life imprisonment with no parole. (I'm actually a big believer in capital punishment for these crimes, but that's another discussion)

I oppose capital punishment but I completely understand the sentiment: equating the crime of child molestation with murder.

There is no evidence (actually tons to the contrary) that sex offenders can be rehabilitated. It's more likely to have a murderer clean up their act than a pedophile. So why keep 'em around. Through them to the prisions and let them decide.

I am calling you on that "throw them to the prisons" statement.

If you truly believe that would be appropriate, I have a better solution: publish their names and addresses and release them to the public.

[Hydraboss]

A revamp of the criminal justice system would remove the onus of sentencing from the non-elected justices of this country. They should still maintain the rest of their duties, but sentencing should be treated like a rule book. Specific crime = specific penalty. Only then would we have a system that I could believe in.

The only problem with having stringent rules on sentencing is that the justice system becomes very inflexible. Historically, when many crimes had very severe punishments (e.g. you get hanged for stealing a loaf of bread) the courts - juries and judges - would not convict because they didn't think the sentence was appropriate. The only two alternatives were to kill the convict or let them go. By having certain sentencing guidelines and giving flexibility to a judge it ensures that people are convicted for the crime solely on the merits of whether or not the jury or judge believes they committed the offence. Then the specific sentence, within the guidelines, can be tailored to the individual and the circumstances of the crime.

That being said, if there is a general problem with sentencing for certain crimes, then adjust the guidelines (e.g. minimum sentences). But I really believe for a justice system to work and be fair, a judge must have some flexibility when they impose sentences.

As I have said, the absolute sentencing guidelines would be for some crimes, not all. I also believe that there must be flexibility in sentencing for less than major crimes (I may not have worded that in the best way). However, there are certain lines that society must draw that, if crossed, yeild immediate and severe punishments. There is no alternative for judges to allow for less than 25 year service before parole consideration for first degree murder. Personally I believe this to be far too short a time, but at least it is something. I have stated in several previous posts (capital punishment related) that there are crimes that fall into the mandatory category. Sexual and violent crimes against children are as bad, if not substantially worse, than the murder of an adult. These crimes should carry as brutal of penalties as society is willing to hand out.

People that commit these crimes cannot be rehabilitated, and we should not waste dollar one on the attempt.

Murder, rape, crimes against children. Life in solitary, no parole. To hell with the Human Rights Circus.

[Hydraboss]

Crimes against children for one. Molest a child - life imprisonment with no parole. (I'm actually a big believer in capital punishment for these crimes, but that's another discussion)

I oppose capital punishment but I completely understand the sentiment: equating the crime of child molestation with murder.

There is no evidence (actually tons to the contrary) that sex offenders can be rehabilitated. It's more likely to have a murderer clean up their act than a pedophile. So why keep 'em around. Through them to the prisions and let them decide.

I am calling you on that "throw them to the prisons" statement.

If you truly believe that would be appropriate, I have a better solution: publish their names and addresses and release them to the public.

I have often tried to make the case in Alberta that if the courts won't deal with child rapists, etc, like they are criminals, then let them live in Nisku (the oilfield industrial park where I work). Make them wear a sign that states what crime they committed. Pick up the body 48 hours later. Problem solved.

[FTA Lawyer]

Kudos to the police involved.

I can't imagine the restraint they would have to have not to just draw their 9mm's and take care of the problem right there. Unfortunately, the guy will probably plead-out and get house arrest for six months. Nothing to do but play on his computer.....

The police said a few days ago that a lot of judges refuse to see the evidence of child porn because it is so disturbing. However, because they don't, they don't hand out the full weight of sentencing that they have at their disposal.

The crime here is not child porn, it is child molestation, which is a horse of a different colour.

It might be that in purely child porn cases, where the accused has no record, and is merely accused of downloading and posessing porn (which I believe is most of the cases) the judge feels that there would be no particular advantage in viewing what the pictures were. After all, should we punish someone more severely for downloading a nastier child porn pic, as opposed to, I don't know, a less nasty child porn pic? It would be very difficult to establish a sliding scale based on how disgusting the porn is. So I think the judges set the punishment based on the offender's previous history, and probably a psychological assessment of what, if any danger to the public he is.

Which, on the whole, doesn't sound that foolish.

I have a couple of comments...

It is the Crown's job to present the evidence...if the judge refuses to look at every piece of evidence that the Crown places before the court, then they should make a mistrial application and get a judge who will.

That being said, the generally accepted rule (which in my experience is followed in Alberta) is that a trial judge must view at least a representative sample of the material. In most cases, it is not absolutely necessary for appellate courts to review the material because often only legal issues which are not affected one way or another by the images are at issue...therefore, appellate courts can use discretion whether they look or don't.

As to Argus' comments I totally disagree that sentencing for "pure child porn" cases shouldn't depend on how disgusting the material is. A naked picture of a 13 year old simply posing provacatively is child porn. A 10 minute long video of a baby being raped is also child porn. Mere possession of these two items by two different offenders reveals, in my view, vast disparity in the moral blameworthiness of the offender.

In the criminal code, the fundamental principle of sentencing is proportionality...like offences by like offenders should receive like punishment. Moral blameworthiness is a very important element to distinguishing how severe a punishment should be. In my view, the picture I describe above is way less serious than the video...especially if we accept the SCC view in Sharpe that creating demand for child porn actually encourages its production.

If all that was ever produced was things like the photo and no one ever produced things like the video, I would almost venture to say that child porn would be relegated to a minor concern in the world of law enforcement and criminal law.

FTA

[Hydraboss]

"If all that was ever produced was things like the photo and no one ever produced things like the video, I would almost venture to say that child porn would be relegated to a minor concern in the world of law enforcement and criminal law."

And that is where the problem lies. You can molest a child "a little" and get away with it. Hell, with today's sentencing guidelines, you can molest a child "a lot" and get away with it.

As long as you pretty-please-promise not to do it a ninth time.

[Argus]

As to Argus' comments I totally disagree that sentencing for "pure child porn" cases shouldn't depend on how disgusting the material is. A naked picture of a 13 year old simply posing provacatively is child porn. A 10 minute long video of a baby being raped is also child porn. Mere possession of these two items by two different offenders reveals, in my view, vast disparity in the moral blameworthiness of the offender.

Don't you think a judge can differentiate based merely on a description?

A 10 minute long video of a baby being raped seems descriptive enough to base a sentence on. It is clearly different than a picture of a 13 year old posing provocatively. What reason would there be for the judge to actually view the video? What new knowledge is this going to add, as opposed to rousing emotions in a person who is supposed to decide things with a cool, restrained mind?