How about those mandatory minimums?

jailicon

CP reports,

MONTREAL – After preying on 285 young girls, and getting them to remove their clothes in front of their computer, a convicted cyber-predator received his sentence Thursday: two years in prison.

Philippe Truchon, who used Facebook and chat sites to convince adolescent girls to take off their clothes, was handed that penalty at the Montreal courthouse.

The sentence was far more lenient than the five years Crown prosecutors has asked for.

In the 40th Parliament, Bill C-54 was in Senate committee when the opposition pulled down the government.

Bill C-54 sought, among other things,

to increase or impose mandatory minimum penalties for certain sexual offences with respect to children;

Currently, mandatory minimum sentences are not in place for luring a child. Bill C-54 would have put in place a mandatory minimum sentence for this offence. If the law had applied then, on indictment on four counts of cyber-luring (s. 172.1) to which Truchon plead guilty, he would have received a minimum of four years in prison. The judge in this case would have had no other option than to rule that this sentence be served. But, we then learned that this case was even worse after Truchon plead guilty.

During sentencing arguments last week, [the judge] Rheault was informed Truchon approached 285 teenage girls between March and July 2008 through social networks such as Facebook.

Four counts plead, 285 victims, 2 years in prison.

This is not justice.

It’s time to re-introduce and expeditiously pass C-54.

  • Mike Brock

    I’m just curious, though: how do you measure justice in years? It seems so arbitrary to me. 

  • http://www.stephentaylor.ca Stephen Taylor

    how do you measure justice?

  • Mike Brock

    It’s a good question. You actually inversely-quantified it by suggesting two years for this guy is “not justice”, so I’m merely attempting to get to the root of your reasoning.

  • http://www.stephentaylor.ca Stephen Taylor

    well ok. 285 girls will be messed up for how long? Add that all up for starters.

  • http://www.stephentaylor.ca Stephen Taylor

    well ok. 285 girls will be messed up for how long? Add that all up for starters.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Tim-Das/806840391 Tim Das

    Notice at the very bottom of the story:
    “…two young women had been drugged and forced to work as prostitutes. Truchon pleaded guilty to pimp-related charges and was sentenced on Feb. 8 to a 17-day prison term…”
    17 days for ruining two lives.
    Wonder if the judge has a daughter…

  • Mike Brock

    Okay, but they might be messed up for the rest of their life. Or maybe some won’t be messed up at all. You don’t know. This is all unquantifiable. 

    I’m not trying to suggest the guy should be scott-free. But I’m trying to understand the manner and way in which persons such as yourself who seem to support the proliferation of minimum sentencing come to the conclusion that justice is better served.  And more broadly, if society is better served.

    Moreover, your calculation of justice seems to be based on retribution. That the removal of liberty should be commensurate with the time impact of the adulterated victim. But this measure is deceptive in it’s intuitiveness.  

    It just so happens that in the broader sense, that an increase in mandatory and minimum sentencing will drastically increase the prison populations in this country — as it did when the US began a similar programme at both federal and state levels during the Nixon years.  Thus, the cost of this increase in incarceration — both in incidence and duration — has come at a massive increase in taxpayer burden. 

    So to be clear, you’re not just asking that this Skyping pedophile pay more for his crime. But you’re asking that I pay more for his crime.

  • http://twitter.com/EverettColdwell Everett Coldwell

    Obviously minimums are suitable for some crimes. However we must allow judges to make exceptions as needed.
    On the other hand, it is not only stupid, but will only hurt Canadians when idiotic mandatory minimum are passed on drug crimes. Drug prosecutions (not the act of using drugs) can easily ruin lives. Further these sentences skyrocket government costs, and inevitably lead to more crime.

  • http://profiles.google.com/parliamentary.terrence Terrence Watson

    The reporting on this is exceptionally bad.

    The Vancouver Sun article indicates that Truchon “approached” 285 girls, which could mean anything from “he sent 285 Facebook messages, few of which were ever returned” to “he got 285 girls to take off their clothes.”

    Rather sensationally, the CP article and several other papers suggest the latter interpretation, but I kind of doubt it. Truchon was able to plead guilty to only 4 counts of cyber-luring. The 285 number only came up in sentencing, which means it (a) came from the prosecutor, (b) was designed to make Truchon sound as bad as possible, even though (c) there was no evidence of 285 separate crimes, let alone 285 separate victims.

    Think about it:  if there were 285 actual, genuine victims, including or in addition to what came up in this trial, that means Truchon can be charged with cyber-luring or whatever all over again. It’s not double jeopardy if there really are more victims out there.

    Just a guess. Of course, demagogues are going to do their thing over a case like this.

  • http://profiles.google.com/jqpublic08 John Public

    The Liberal legacy endures…like an old war wound.

  • http://profiles.google.com/jqpublic08 John Public

    Geeze Mike, why not just pull up a latte and think about it. Having peeked at your blog, there’s no doubt why you’ve commented in such a fashion and the reaction you’re trying to provoke. So let’s just suppose, just for a minute, that your daughter had been victimized in such a way. Or since you probably have no kids, your mother. You endure all this at the hands of a criminal and find the judge hands out a sentence that is less than he would get for auto theft. Would you sit back with your thesaurus and find all kinds of meaningful analysis to justify why you think this is ok?

    When thinking people say that this is not justice it’s because of a little human foible called empathy. That would be the sharing of someone’s (even a stranger) pain.  It’s something we like to display in Canada, well, most Canadians like to anyways.

    Quantifying someone’s pain in monetary terms is sort of “basic”, if you catch my drift. I’m sure the victims would love to hear your enlightened assessment of how you justify the desire not to pay taxes so their tormentor can be emprisoned. After all you don’t care enough to suffer your tax dollars going to this cause. I’m sure it would pretty well put a dent in your entitlements anyways. Maybe the “feeding the poor is a crime” thing wouldn’t work out so well…whatever.

    If I sound a bit condescending, it’s because I have a problem with folks like you. You whine and complain, you find fault and anyalize ad nauseum, you excuse your reprehensible stand on matters you don’t understand by blaming it on everyone and everything but yourself. Now I said, “everything but yourself”, if you don’t agree or find fault with that statement you should re-read it 285 times or until it makes sense. So do us all a favour, if you’re here to provoke; don’t.

    This purp deserved to go to jail for a much longer sentence, 285 times longer.

    Nuff said.

  • Mike Brock

    What, pray tell, makes you think I’m excusing the pain of anyone? My point is I don’t believe that putting a guy who watched underaged girls strip on Skype for (2 x 285) 570 years in prison heals any of this suffering.

    I have a daughter, by the way. And if she was exploited by some pervert like this guy, I’d probably want to beat him senseless. But I wouldn’t. Because that’s my emotions, not reason talking.

    I don’t believe the purpose of justice is punishment and retribution. I don’t believe in locking someone up because it makes the victim feel better. I believe in making the victim whole, if possible. But not by simply throwing people into a cell and forgetting about them.

    I’m not surprised you’re being condescending, so don’t apologize. I know that conservatives see the world in black and white, right and wrong, freedom or punishment, life or death. I know it makes everything appear to wrap up into a tidy package. And I know it makes you feel better when we’re building more prisons and throwing more people in jail; it letters you in the bullshit illusion that society is more just and your family is safer.

    But, and sorry if I’m being insulting, that’s because you’re a statist scumbag who thinks the answer to crime and vice is state violence.

  • Hunter Alberta

    I would encourage you all to talk to some offenders before you take a stand. I was interested to learn that some offenders themselves think that the sentences given out are too lenient, and that “short-timers” do not learn anything from their time in jail. 

  • Switchyard O’Taylor

    Mike,

    What do you think “justice” is for?  You did a good job of explaining that it’s not for “punishment” or “retribution”.  In my mind, keeping a man who has preyed on 250+ children in prison isn’t so much about punishing him as it is protecting the countless others that might otherwise be preyed on.

    I’m all for longer mandatory sentences for pederasts because I know victims of rape.  I also know that state justice is one one element of returning the world to a just state.  The other of course is vigilante justice, and when state justice is inadequate to prevent heinous crimes, it’s the only way to go.

    How do you “make whole” someone who has been abducted, drugged, raped and forced into prostitution?… especially when that someone knows that their abductor, drugger, rapist and pimp will only get 17 days (less double time for time served of course).  Unless you have something else concrete to solve this, the concrete of a jail cell is the only reasonable justice.

  • Mike Brock

    Well, for one, it has not been established here that this guy is an immediate danger to anybody. He’s certainly done a creepy thing. 

    It seems to me, and forgive me if this sounds “liberal”, but it sounds like this guy is sick and needs help. Simply locking someone up for longer doesn’t fix a sexual pervert. If anything, it may just worsen his urges. And there is in fact, plenty of evidence that longer sentences do not decrease recidivism. In many cases, they are correlated with increases in recidivism rates. Which leads to my problem with law and order conservatives; they don’t give two shits about whether or not the person is rehabilitated. 

    Conservative justice can be summed up like this:

    1. If the person commits a crime, punish him hard;
    2. if the person does it again, punish him harder;
    3. if the person does it again, punish him harderer;
    4. if the person does it again, punish him hardererer;
    5. if the person does it again, punish him haderererer;
    5. Repeat this pattern towards infinity.

    Conservative law & order types never stop to think, whether, maybe the fact the person keeps repeat offending, despite harsher and hasher sentences, is maybe well… because prison is not exactly effective at rehabilitating almost anyone. If anything, it turns petty thugs into hardened criminals.

    Conservatives don’t give a shit about any of this, of course. It’s the “principle” of the matter. Punish! And execute, if necessary!

    Then of course, the increase in recidivism that conservative L&O policy leads to, actually causes more victimization. Not less — the absolutely opposite effect that you’d hope to get out of a justice system. Which pretty much seals the case on conservative justice: it’s principle above all else. Even if everyone is worse of in the end. Even if the taxpayers are more burdened, future victims are more likely, and the criminal isn’t rehabilitated. The principle of punishment must be upheld. But boy does it “feel good” when those sentences come down!

    So let me repeat what I said originally: conservatives don’t want just the criminal to pay for their crimes. They want me to pay for them, too. And future innocent victims, if necessary.

  • Mike Brock

    Well, for one, it has not been established here that this guy is an immediate danger to anybody. He’s certainly done a creepy thing. 

    It seems to me, and forgive me if this sounds “liberal”, but it sounds like this guy is sick and needs help. Simply locking someone up for longer doesn’t fix a sexual pervert. If anything, it may just worsen his urges. And there is in fact, plenty of evidence that longer sentences do not decrease recidivism. In many cases, they are correlated with increases in recidivism rates. Which leads to my problem with law and order conservatives; they don’t give two shits about whether or not the person is rehabilitated. 

    Conservative justice can be summed up like this:

    1. If the person commits a crime, punish him hard;
    2. if the person does it again, punish him harder;
    3. if the person does it again, punish him harderer;
    4. if the person does it again, punish him hardererer;
    5. if the person does it again, punish him haderererer;
    5. Repeat this pattern towards infinity.

    Conservative law & order types never stop to think, whether, maybe the fact the person keeps repeat offending, despite harsher and hasher sentences, is maybe well… because prison is not exactly effective at rehabilitating almost anyone. If anything, it turns petty thugs into hardened criminals.

    Conservatives don’t give a shit about any of this, of course. It’s the “principle” of the matter. Punish! And execute, if necessary!

    Then of course, the increase in recidivism that conservative L&O policy leads to, actually causes more victimization. Not less — the absolutely opposite effect that you’d hope to get out of a justice system. Which pretty much seals the case on conservative justice: it’s principle above all else. Even if everyone is worse of in the end. Even if the taxpayers are more burdened, future victims are more likely, and the criminal isn’t rehabilitated. The principle of punishment must be upheld. But boy does it “feel good” when those sentences come down!

    So let me repeat what I said originally: conservatives don’t want just the criminal to pay for their crimes. They want me to pay for them, too. And future innocent victims, if necessary.

  • Lynn Brooks27

    So, if punishing criminals is not the solution, what do you suggest?

  • Cytotoxic

    I have never seen a credible rehabilitation story for major crimes. To the best of my knowledge, they have all been flaming failures. Jail may not be best for petty criminals-unless they repeat-and I would prefer counselling and flogging. But if this guy is guilty of what they say he is, then he has committed a grievous crime and is a threat to others. He should probably go in for 4-5 years rather than 2. Than again, the reporting has been so bad we may not really know anything about what he’s done.

  • Switchyard O’Taylor

    While I appreciate you calling me a conservative L&O type (based on elements of what I wrote), I’d prefer you refrain from prejudice and pure ignorance, otherwise it’s not worth engaging you further on this.

    I don’t know if you can find any “conservative L&O types” that push vigilante justice.  

    You missed the only part of my response that I actually cared to hear clarified:

    “How do you “make whole” someone who has been abducted, drugged, raped and forced into prostitution?… especially when that someone knows that their abductor, drugger, rapist and pimp will only get 17 days (less double time for time served of course).”

    Rape, and sex assaults are worse than murder because the victim lives with the crime until they die (if they’re not also killed (either by the rapist or their religious family)).

  • Anonymous

    well ok. 285 girls will be messed up for how long?

    That part is in their parents’ and society’s collective hands, and the punishment meted out to the perpetrator will have very little effect on it. If society tells the girls they should be messed up, they probably will be. If you explain that exposing themselves online is never a good idea, even to other teens, and that they should think about it… they probably won’t be messed up.

    The creep’s been locked up, that’s good. The internet is still rife with pictures of foolish, immature girls who get a small thrill from exposing themselves online, mostly to equally foolish and immature boys.  They don’t think of it as a big deal. It’s a fad that will hopefully pass, but not right away.

    So I repeat, the amount of long-term harm to the young girls is mainly in our hands.  They matter more than the creep, right?

  • Mike Brock

    Well, this is a complex conversation. I’m not opposed — in principle — to imprisonment. But we are, in fact, not talking about a guy who committed either rape or sex assault. He is a an internet pervert. 

  • John

    There are other options: 1) consecutive sentences; 2) When you have a repeat offender (most of them are), he/she has to serve the remainder of his/her previous sentences (most of them are released on parole).
    There is another that would avoid getting to this: the 3 strike law – these are repeat offenders, when they break the law for the 3rd time, put them in jail for a long, long time.
    But what to do about cases like that of Guy Turcotte? He killed his 2 children and was acquitted by the jury because they said he was distressed or something. So a guy kills 2 kids and does not go to jail?! How do you measure that, Mike? Canadian justice, indeed.

  • Mike Brock

    So a guy kills 2 kids and does not go to jail?!

    Is this a real example, or a bullshit hypothetical? I’d like to know before responding. Because if it’s the latter, I’d prefer not to argue a petitio principii.

  • Mike Brock

    So a guy kills 2 kids and does not go to jail?!

    Is this a real example, or a bullshit hypothetical? I’d like to know before responding. Because if it’s the latter, I’d prefer not to argue a petitio principii.

  • Liz J

    The Left are all in knots over this and anything that punishes the offenders in any way. Another example of their lack of any capacity for reason and common sense.

    Now they, including the MSM are all squawking about the rising costs of incarceration of those who offend whether it’s murder, dangerous offenders, sexual deviants who are a danger to our kids, no matter, they must be coddled through the legal system and society pays a price that really can’t be determined monetarily.

    Trusting Judges isn’t fail safe either, Canadian justice appears to be the most lenient in the world especially when you take a look at the case of Conrad Black in the USA. He didn’t kill anyone, he didn’t maim anyone physically or mentally for life and he is not a danger to society.

  • Liz J

    The Left are all in knots over this and anything that punishes the offenders in any way. Another example of their lack of any capacity for reason and common sense.

    Now they, including the MSM are all squawking about the rising costs of incarceration of those who offend whether it’s murder, dangerous offenders, sexual deviants who are a danger to our kids, no matter, they must be coddled through the legal system and society pays a price that really can’t be determined monetarily.

    Trusting Judges isn’t fail safe either, Canadian justice appears to be the most lenient in the world especially when you take a look at the case of Conrad Black in the USA. He didn’t kill anyone, he didn’t maim anyone physically or mentally for life and he is not a danger to society.

  • Mike Brock

    I’m not on the left, and I’m in knots about this because as a free market capitalist, and a libertarian, I am opposed in principle to the expansion of state power. 

    The fact that conservatives so quickly throw liberty away without thinking through the consequences, every time some new bogeyman enters their mind (drugs, terrorism, sexual predators) just demonstrates how little conservatives care for liberty, even though they claim to have a monopoly on it. Really, they don’t believe in liberty anymore than socialists do.

    The difference between socialists and conservatives is: socialists want a big welfare state, and conservatives want a big moral state (stricter policing, harsher jailing, war).  But both approaches end up bankrupting countries: see Europe on one hand, and the United States on the other.

    Whenever I hear conservatives opining about liberty, it pisses me off. Because they time and time show they’re willing to throw it away; they want to throw us in jail if we put substances they don’t like in our body. They want to spend billion and billions on bombing countries, in the mistaken belief they’re making the world more “free”. They generally approve of state discrimination on religion and sexual orientation on the basis of “tradition” — a concept which has zero to do with liberty, or really any logical argument whatsoever.

    Conservatives and liberty. Bah.

    Lower taxes, bigger deficits, more war, more jails, more police, more military, less rights, less privacy, less civil liberty protections, less social freedom, less immigration, etc.

  • Liz J

    It’s a delicate balance for sure, we have to be careful but freedom in a law abiding society means abiding by the law. Perverts who prey on children, sexual molesters and murderers have to pay the price, their victims lose more than their freedom.  Laws are meant to protect society and keep order.

  • Mike Brock

    Laws are meant to protect society and keep order.

    Which laws are those? Laws against using my own money to save my own life — for healthcare or experimental drugs. Laws against the ability to use alternative private currencies (like gold) for business transactions to protect the government’s monopoly control of money and credit, and steal our wealth through inflation? Laws that tell me I can’t put up a deck in my back yard unless I pay some government bureaucrat to approve the plans? Laws that say I can’t watch what I want on TV, or listen to what I want on the radio?

    I could go on …

    You’ve touched on another point of contention I have with conservatives: rule of law worship. ie. the whole, “even if you don’t agree with it, you have to follow the law. Because the law is the law.”  Bullshit.

    If the government says we must be silent, we should speak.

    If the government says we can’t watch something, we should watch it.

    If the government says we can’t do voluntary business in a currency of our choosing, we should do so anyways. 

    Bullshit laws only have power, because the state has monopoly on violence. They have all the guns, and all the “rights” to use it, to make us fall into line. 

    The choice is not between civil society and chaos. It’s a choice been a voluntary society and statism. 

  • Gabby in QC

    “Summertime, and the living is easy … So hush little baby, don’t you cry.”

    Commenters whose purported arguments are nothing but wild generalizations about conservatives should have a mint julep or something similar to soothe those faux feelings of  oppression.

  • Liz J

    A mint julep might further fuzzify their thinking, we couldn’t take a chance on that.

  • Gabby in QC

    “Fuzzify” it more than it already is?

  • Liz J

    You got it.  I did preface “fuzzify” with “further”, very important!

     

  • Lynn Brooks27

    I agree with some of your points, for example, building additions to your house has always bugged me and I’m not even a home owner. Or neighbourhood associations that go around telling people that can’t hang washing out on a line, etc. I disagree about the gold thing. At one time there were different currencies in use in Canada, but trying to convert one currency to another must of been chaos, so having one common currency makes perfect sense. As for some of your other comments, I would like to point out that starting wars or enacting new laws is not exclusive to the conservatives. Remember, it was the Liberals that got us involved in Afghanistan. The same for some of the  laws that the conservatives get blamed for. I read a good write-up the other day that pointed this out (Unfortunately, I can’t remember the newspaper/reporter that carried the article).  Heck, look at all the nanny state laws we have here in Ontario, all of them brought in by the Liberals, not conservatives.

  • Cytotoxic

    You may have a point, but you´re using emotional blackmail and implicitly recommending it be used in courts. The justice system needs to be dry eyed and objective. I do not see evidence of widespread ´failure´ in the system. There should probably be a means to quarantine people like those mentioned in your post though.

  • DougM

    But I’m not using emotional blackmail – everything I recited was precisely true – I’m using facts and believe me, I didn’t use the most graphic ones or it wouldn’t have been printed.  And the Justice system is already far too dry-eyed and objective – for the criminals and that’s the problem.    As mentioned even the Reporters weren’t “dry eyed” when it came to the victim and she wasn’t there to give her side of the story.  It (the Justice system) must start protecting “quarantining” if you wish, far better than it does now.  If you don’t see “failures” in the system you must be very out of touch – ever hear of a woman named Holmolka?  Where I live we recently had a perons in Court for his 37th impaired charge!  Really!  We have gang members (and so does everywhere else with the Angels) running around the legal system as a joke.  No one, Conservatives or anyone else are suggesting you throw a kid in jail for a schoolyard fight, but as any cop will tell you, they spend 98% or their time chasing and re-chasing 2% of the same old repeat offenders.    What the conservatives are saying is that by the 3rd, 4th or 5th time a person commits a “violent” offense, then he has surrendered his right to live in society.  If it makes you feel better to call it quarantine rather than jail, fine, but the idea, whatever you call it remains to be removing repeat, violent offenders from endangering the public.   Most of us call it jail.

  • DougM

    Holy Geezus Ken!  So, if society and the parents didn’t make such a big deal of it, it wouldn’t be a big deal?  Lol – and here I thought the old “If rape is inevitable, then lie back and enjoy it” concept still survived only in neanderthals and apes.   If your fellow “progressives” get ahold of you, you’ll be lucky if they don’t string you up!
      But with that said, I still get confused about them showing all kinds of graphic violence on the TV, yet two adults engaged in sex is somehow “obscene”.  I think Lennon generally had it right.

  • Anonymous

    I  have no idea how you jumped to that conclusion (other than you just want to stir things up)

    You do know that teenagers are “sexting” each other at an unnervingly frequent rate, correct? The case in question is of an older adult masquerading online as another teenager, and convincing the girls to expose themselves and send him the pictures.

    So what are you saying, exactly… that the act itself of exposing oneself online is “damage”? If so, the count isn’t 285, it’s like  5% to10% or more of all teenage girls in N. America. If you’re referring just to the 285 girls … well, absent notification, they would still think that they simply sent pix to another teenager. Or do you think the perv got his kick by going “haha I’m 38 “  (or whatever) to each victim?

    So yeah, in this case, assuming Mr Perv didn’t out himself to the girls, the actual longterm harm is  very much in the hands of officials and parents, and how they go about discussing this with the girls, what sort of counseling is done, etc. How could it be otherwise, if the girls didn’t know?

    And trying to drag this back on topic…whether or not you think the sentence is long enough, it’s still the case that, compared to the influence the parents and officials have in this situation, the length of the sentence itself will have just about no effect on the girls’ harm or recovery.

    Justice isn’t what’s best for Stephen (or you) , it’s about what’s best 1) for the victims, and 2) for society. You and Stephen seem to have missed this.

  • DougM

    Me? Stir things up?   Aww, c’mon, that’s a bit rich coming from the biggest churner on the board, isn’t it?

    Anyhow, the point I was making was that while society certainly does find some “crimes” worse than others, that stigma is generally a reflection of societes values – not mine nor Stephen’s, but a substantially larger population.   That said, I agree completely that the kids today are “sexting” – wasn’t aware that there was a name for it at a rate and with a detail that was unheard of when I hit puberty.   When I was still in uniform, I used to go up to the Sea Cadet camp and administer the Engineering boards (the Sea Cadets had an extremely good engineering program) for the end of the course.    Some of the chaps who ran the camp became and remain quite good friends.  I still think that Cadet programs produce some of the best Canadians in the country – the engineering program was a 20 hour a day bitch and not too many people choose to go to an educational and leadership camp for their summers.  These kids oftem become the “Hometown heros” and movers and shakers of society at an incredibly young ago and a lot of it is due to the program but I digress.    At the same time, they are teenagers, with hormones in full riot.  I would never have beleived that kids with the discipline to do an entire “Ceremony of the Flags” in full dress uniform and in front of the public could do some of the things I found out, so I have to agree with that part of it.   But when its adults doing it, as I found out through another rather bad experience, the experts (Shrinks) say that that behavior is one step away from rape and you’ve got a danger to society on your hands.    In brief, when kids are doing it they are exploring their sexuality and stepping into adulthood, when adults are doing it – well, as you point out – then its uncle pervy.

       You’ll have to excuse me if it seems I’m agreeing with you in part – its really not my fault.   But I would also agree that the first duty of a Justice system is to protect society, and offer retribution for those wronged.

  • DougM

    Me? Stir things up?   Aww, c’mon, that’s a bit rich coming from the biggest churner on the board, isn’t it?

    Anyhow, the point I was making was that while society certainly does find some “crimes” worse than others, that stigma is generally a reflection of societes values – not mine nor Stephen’s, but a substantially larger population.   That said, I agree completely that the kids today are “sexting” – wasn’t aware that there was a name for it at a rate and with a detail that was unheard of when I hit puberty.   When I was still in uniform, I used to go up to the Sea Cadet camp and administer the Engineering boards (the Sea Cadets had an extremely good engineering program) for the end of the course.    Some of the chaps who ran the camp became and remain quite good friends.  I still think that Cadet programs produce some of the best Canadians in the country – the engineering program was a 20 hour a day bitch and not too many people choose to go to an educational and leadership camp for their summers.  These kids oftem become the “Hometown heros” and movers and shakers of society at an incredibly young ago and a lot of it is due to the program but I digress.    At the same time, they are teenagers, with hormones in full riot.  I would never have beleived that kids with the discipline to do an entire “Ceremony of the Flags” in full dress uniform and in front of the public could do some of the things I found out, so I have to agree with that part of it.   But when its adults doing it, as I found out through another rather bad experience, the experts (Shrinks) say that that behavior is one step away from rape and you’ve got a danger to society on your hands.    In brief, when kids are doing it they are exploring their sexuality and stepping into adulthood, when adults are doing it – well, as you point out – then its uncle pervy.

       You’ll have to excuse me if it seems I’m agreeing with you in part – its really not my fault.   But I would also agree that the first duty of a Justice system is to protect society, and offer retribution for those wronged.

  • Anonymous

    I forgive you.

    Reparation and harm reduction should come before retribution, whenever possible.

  • DougM

    Ahh, that’s more like it.    Strangely the Procecutor in this case, particularly in the sentencing phase, joined the definitions of “reparation” and “retribution”.  He gave a detailed explanation of what specifically retribution was in the legal/judicial context and how it differed from revenge.  Despite what Mr Brock says above, I’m in compete agreement with the system giving chances to those young misguided or risk taking young fools who just need some direction – providing the crime was not violent.   For torture, rape and murder, then the harm reduction must take precedence and we put them away – like the Bernardo’s, (OK, Hololka was an abject failure of the system which neither the Crown nor the Bench should have accepted) the Clifford Olsen’s and the Willy Picktons.   Which again, seems to be in line with your comment.   So, how does it feel to be in the Conservative camp?  Lol