Dan Knight- A Justice System That Hates Punishment Can’t Protect the Innocent
This week, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled—by a 5-4 vote—that handing a child pornographer a one-year prison sentence is cruel and unusual punishment. Yes, really. According to the highest court in the land, asking a man who hoarded videos of children—actual children—being raped… to serve twelve months behind bars… is too much to ask. It’s excessive. It’s unfair.
I agree that a one-year prison sentence is cruel though not unusual.
To the taxpayer.
My approach would take only a few seconds.
My understanding of what the Supreme Court decided was that “mandatory minimum sentences” are invalid application of sentencing. That doesn’t mean that Seneville didn’t deserve a harsher sentence. The original Judge (Bernard Tremblay) could have chosen to lock that guy up for a long time (longer than any mand. min) Instead, he chose to totally disregard the law at the time and issued a sentence below the mandatory minimum.
He, probably, did so to create the exact scenario and result that the Supreme Court just delivered (and returning more power back to the bench).
I think any animosity should be aimed squarely at Tremblay, who likely played politics with public safety to his own benefit. Of course, he personally met up with sexual misconduct accusations of his own, and is no longer a Judge.
Personally, I’m not a fan of mandatory minimum sentences. There could be situations where the law broken was done so for the common good. Few and far between, but ultimately possible.
The problem is that judges have taken it upon themselves to overriding the will of parliament, in deciding that any number of crimes is “not so bad” and these criminals don’t deserve years or decades in prison, because they don’t believe in punishment of the criminals for their transgressions against society.
They just can’t go and get rid of the complete law, but they can minimize it so it doesn’t matter any more. This includes the bullshit like the Gladau decision, and of course recently giving the immigrant criminals lenient sentences so they don’t “suffer” immigration consequences like deportation which will take decades anyway.
Heh,the Liberals and their Uni_party comrades appoint these judges..
keep that in mind.
When Perversion is the law of the land.
Perverts shall rule.
This “Supreme Court” that Canada claims..Supreme at what?
Confirming the rule of Fools and Bandits.?
These are the same creatures who “ruled” that “Truth is not a defence when facing a Kangaroo Court such as our Human Rights Tribunals”.
Supreme? Again..At what?
When your country has collapsed into a lawless shithole with some citizens being “More Equal than other citizens”,the highest courts become irrelevant rubberstampers of corruption.
What,if anything,would be a “fair sentence” for a convicted raper of children?
Do we get a chance to ask any of these 5 exhaulted idiots??
This Kleptocracy is collapsing,the Just Us System is profoundly corrupt and Can Ahh Duh responds with??
“What about them Blue Jays?”.
As we fade into bankruptcy.
Supreme at the perversion of justice.
2sLGBTQueer-Mutant-IA-MAP’s are people too. And Love is Love. So … what kind of equality have we been fighting for if it isn’t for FREEDOM from the repressive Puritanical Christian norms?
/hyper sarc.
Check the judges’ hard drives.
“Is that a hard drive, M’Lord, or have you just spotted an attractive child?”
I think at every mention of this SCOC decision it should be noted that the 5 judges appointed by The Turd™️ decided that a 1 year minimum sentence was too much, and that the 4 judges appointed by Harper decided that a 1 year minimum sentence should stand.
Always mention how those judges gained their seats on the bench.
The children in those photos, are victims of a crime, it’s not a “victimless crime” and those with the photos are the perpetrators sharing the guilt.
#Libranos
For maximum marxist effect these ghouls rendered their so-called judgement on Halloween, October 31st 2025, and reading it reveals their tangled arguments, for instance;
[34] “The crimes of possession of and accessing child pornography thus cause serious social harm and victimize the most vulnerable members of our society… the objectives of denunciation and deterrence… has the effect of limiting the discretion of sentencing judges”
[36] “It must also be remembered that criminal justice responses alone cannot solve the problem of sexual violence against children. The protection of children is one of the essential and perennial values of our society, but [there it is] it would be unwise to believe that the infliction of punishment, which occurs after the harm is done, can on its own protect children from the dangers of child pornography.”
Degenerates.
Everything Trudeau touched needs biocide.
Were those 5 also roommates of Trudeau at some point?
No they did NOT say that that handing a child pornographer a one-year prison sentence is cruel and unusual punishment. They only opposed a mandatory minimum sentence for ALL CP crimes. Under Section 163.1 of the Criminal Code and it is still punishable by up to fourteen years of imprisonment depending on the offence.