A man who sexually assaulted his teenage daughter for three years was sentenced to an eight-month sentence to be served at home.
Another who molested his intellectually disabled daughter for more than a year and even got her pregnant was sentenced to 18 months in prison ‘so he wouldn’t lose his apartment’.
So, is incest serious or not?
If it’s serious, would you mind telling me why these two monsters got such light sentences?
A COMPLEX EXERCISE
I understand that judges have to take all sorts of criteria into consideration when determining what sentence to give a convicted person.
Mitigating factors, aggravating factors, the individual’s history, the offender’s situation, his risk of recidivism, his degree of dangerousness, the circumstances surrounding the crime, case law, etc.
“Sentencing is a complex process and the judge must assess the situation on a case-by-case basis,” reads the Éducaloi website.
“The sentence must be proportionate to the seriousness of the crime committed. It must be proportional to the degree of responsibility of the offender. It must be fair. It must resemble that received by other offenders who have committed a similar crime, in similar circumstances.
“The judge also takes into account the consequences of the crime on the victim…”
And it must be determined whether, at the time of committing his crime, the offender was able to tell the difference between right and wrong.
The famous clause of “non-criminal responsibility on account of mental disorder”, which gives rise to interminable debates of experts.
In short, it’s super complicated.
Just because fifteen people committed the same crime does not mean they will all receive the same sentence.
I understand all that.
But how can bastards who have committed such serious crimes obtain such lenient sentences?
Where is the justice in such cases?
No wonder, after that, that victims hesitate to file a complaint! Or that people want to take the law into their own hands!
- Listen to Richard Martineau’s program, every day from 8:30 a.m., on QUB-radio :
BROKEN LINK OF TRUST
The vast majority of people who read trial reports in newspapers are scratching their heads, “WTF?”
When cardiologist Guy Turcotte was found not criminally responsible for the murder of his two children, Quebec judge at the Supreme Court of Canada, Richard Wagner, said that “to avoid slippages in the public square and the incomprehension of the population , it is essential that the justice system be well explained to citizens. Because if they no longer trust the courts, it is the beginning of the end of democracy.”
Twelve years later, the words of Judge Wagner are still valid.
The problem is that even former magistrates or former lawyers hired to comment on judicial news in the media sometimes wonder themselves why individuals who committed such serious crimes received such light sentences!
Themselves are scratching their heads!
So imagine how Mr. and Mrs. Everybody feel!
It’s all well and good, giving sentences. But explain them!