In an alarming turn of events, the Supreme Court of Canada has removed the mandatory minimum sentence for the crime of child luring, effectively placing the rights of the perpetrator above those of their victims, ignorant of the damages they and their families suffer that surely will last a lifetime.
Child luring falls under criminal code s. 172.1 and speaks to contacting or attempting to contact someone under the age of 18 with the intent to commit sexual exploitation, incest, child pornography, or sexual assault.
It is the communications that occur between the perpetrator and victim with the intended purpose of committing other offences against that child.
It is considered a hybrid offence, which allows prosecutors to choose to proceed by indictment (for more serious offences) or by summary conviction (for less serious).
The previous mandatory minimum sentence, deemed so egregious as to be a breach of the offender’s Section 12 Charter rights, was imprisonment of one year if found guilty on indictment, and six months if found guilty on summary conviction.
The children of a past generation already noticed that someone begged for the lives of their predators. Now they will notice you made the predator the hero. The pendulum will swing.
My message for the CPC on this one: if the death penalty for child predators is not on the table, what good are you?
Those child predators employ them. When you have no morals the money always wins.
yup,,, liberal judges put in place, to protect liberals.
I’d start checking the basements of the supreme court douches themselves, there are more than bodies down there.
What Would the Quebec Police do if you posted notice of a convicted child lurer was moving into your neighborhood?
If posting video of porch pirates is beyond the pale, what would warning of potential sexual predators be?
What? You can’t post videos of porch pirates?
Hey! The SCOC is situated in Ottawa! Do I need to repeat myself here?
Perhaps a deep dive into the back grounds into those who deemed it a violation of chartered rights?
I guess I’m the outlier on this. I never thought mandatory sentencing was a good idea. It’s purpose is, obviously, a deterrent attempt. And, while mandatory minimums are no longer constitutional in Canada, that doesn’t mean an indicted and convicted individual doesn’t possibly face a long time in incarceration. It depends on who is representing the Crown, and it depends on the facts of the case and the crime committed. And it depends on the lower court judge.
The facts of each case are different. Many times domestic disputes will result in one side of the argument falsely accusing the other for their benefit in custody cases etc. I don’t think it’s a good idea for a misrepresented parent to face a mandatory prison sentence because his/her spouse wants more alimony or custody of the kids. And, that happens…. a lot.
I’ve always been the kind of person that wants indictments pursued on facts, and sentencing equal to the crime. I don’t want predetermined punishments established well before the facts of the case are presented in court. That being said, I read the summaries of the case(s) used by the Supreme Court to reach their decision. My personal opinion is that the defendants got of very lightly. But, that has little to do with mandatory minimum sentencing, and more to do with liberal jackasses in the judiciary.
But, that’s just me.
This is why, were I to give advice to Mr Poilievre (although I doubt that he’d ask me), it would be to focus less on mandatory minimum sentences and far more on 1) the appointment of judges who can bring some common sense to the Charter; 2) take good, conservative advice on reform of those federal departments, e.g., Justice, in order to give common sense a chance; and 3) make prudent and judicious use of the “not withstanding” clause, and quietly urge the provinces to do the same.
RE: “liberal jackasses in the judiciary” nails it. Recall Pierre’s Supreme Court lowered the age of criminal buggery to 13.
Q: Why did Stephen Harper discern a need for Mandatory Minimum Penalties?
A: Because liberal appointed judges since Trudeau I are all soft on criminals, insensitive towards victims, and harsh on law abiding tax-paying/citizens (not gov’t workers). Crime helps their long-term agenda which is One Party Rule. Soviet.
Q: Do Mandatory Minimum Penalties handcuff the judiciary?
A: Yes, but it may be temporarily required for citizens to turn around a corrupt judiciary.
Q: Is it ultimately dangerous?
A: Yes, because a corrupt judiciary will (and do) use it for political oppression.
Orson – you argue a valid point. And as one who detests “zero tolerance” policies as mindless and lazy, I tend to agree with you. However, I will still staunchly support mandatory minimums when it comes to serial or repeat offenders. A classic example is the “three strikes” law that essentially says “enough is enough”. And don’t be swayed by the fraudulent argument that stealing a pizza could be an unlucky criminals third strike. Those stories are utter rubbish. Yeah, if you held the pizza delivery boy at gunpoint, then pistol whipped him … maybe. Otherwise it has always been 3-violent felonies.
So … try to pick up a little boy for a butt pucker more than once? You’re a predator who needs castration.
It’s been demonstrated repeatedly that mandatory minimum sentences (for any crime, not just luring) reduce convictions and jail time, as juries faced with a case where they don’t think the defendent deserves the mandatory minimum will choose to acquit instead. Knowing this, prosecutors will opt to plead out to a lesser charge.
More generally, stiffer sentences don’t deter crime. Increasing the likelihood of being caught does.
So in Canada the objective of mandatory minimums was to make sure that people who were charged with serious crimes were incarcerated for their sentence, instead of being eligible for parole at 1/3rd of their sentence, and statutory release at 2/3rds of their sentence.
The judges didn’t like that, because it prevented them from handing out soft sentences for various crimes like violent drug offences or the use of firearms in a related crime (robbery for example). Most of the time the crown prosecutors would have dropped those charges before trial, or in the plea process.
I’m sure the courts would also like to water down or remove the dangerous offender designation as well.
RTFM!
For the summary conviction, the minimum is only 90 days.
For indictment, which is invariably pretty bad, 1 year is reasonable.
The very much on purpose Destruction of Canadian Society via
Dictat from a PM who is, as far as Im concerned, a Bona Fide PEDOPHILE himself, continues unabated.
There is no way Alberta & Saskatchewan survives this onslaught of woke Progressive EVIL debauchery emanating from Ottawa. It’s long overdue for the 2 to start putting together the framework for ceceeding from this absolute & Not all that funny Joke of a country.
It is frustrating that separation is being slow walked. There is no alternative so lets get it on. Right now PP is being dangled as hope for a future within canuckistan. We know that road is going nowhere. The lieb/dp is actually regaining support nationally and can pull off another victory with a believable cheat so there is no future other than separation.
Can certain small parts of Ontario please be allowed to join you?
Steakman, I’d hit that thumbs up button, if we had one here.
Let’s be a little careful with this one…
Maybe I’m wrong, but it looks like this is mandatory minimums for “LURING” a child. Not sure what all that means, but it sounds vague enough that some innocent text messages to a nephew or niece could easily be used to put somebody in jail for 1.5 years, if somebody wanted that person in jail.
There’s been enough abuse of the justice system with the whole “me too” movement, that this sounds rather dangerous.
To be clear here, I’m not advocating lenience toward those who abuse children. I’m referring to the ability (and obvious intent) of our governments to abuse current laws and use lawfare to destroy the people they don’t like, such as most of us posting here.
No. RTFM!
It means luring for the purpose of committing a sexual crime.
// The previous mandatory minimum sentence, deemed … to be a breach of the offender’s Section 12 Charter rights, was imprisonment of one year if found guilty on indictment,
and six months if found guilty on summary conviction. //
Marchand was convicted of both child luring and sexual interference. He won the consitutional argument, but his sentence became two years.
//Justice Martin increased the sentence from five months’ to one year’s imprisonment and said it should be served after rather than at the same time as his sentence for sexual interference.//
What the judge intended was to preserve the right to fit sentences to the level of the offence.
It still opens the door for judges to let egregious offenders walk.
I think the normalization of sex with youngsters is primarily to protect senior Liberals from prison sentences, if their past actions see the light of day.
Kids Stuck on Arizona Metro With ‘Pantsless’ Adults in Fetish Gear
https://rumble.com/v47k9t3-kids-stuck-on-arizona-metro-with-pantsless-adults-in-fetish-gear-tipping-po.html
The comment that … “Kink” belongs in the Pride parade, and I want my kids to see it” reminds me that THIS is where it is all headed (pun too gross to intend) …
YOU’VE BEEN WARNED !!!
https://www.zombietime.com/folsom_sf_2007_part_1/
If you’ve never wandered the pages of Zombietime … have a look at our near future … if not present
Basically undoing the law made in 2012.
If PP gets in, what are the chances he’ll make gender re-assignment surgery or prescribing puberty-blockers to a minor a form of sexual assault, because in the end, that’s what it is, and a much more grave form assault than that committed by your average diddling perv.
There have been so many prosecutions downgraded prior to trial, one wonders if they’re serious. 1st and 2nd degree so often is reduced to manslaughter because it’s easier to gain a conviction and the bad guy might just roll over.
Sex crimes are fundamentally different than regular violence. Mandatory minimums on manslaughter, negligent homicide, murder, assault, etc, are a very bad idea.