Once his years of voyeurism confessed, Simon Lamarre risked a sentence varying from little to almost nothing.
The man is a candidate for rehabilitation, and the public prosecutor requested a simple “suspension of sentence”. The defense pleaded for a “conditional discharge”.
There was therefore no question of this former elementary school teacher going to prison for filming under the skirts of girls – many, many girls.
On Monday, judge Jean-Jacques Gagné granted him an absolution, conditional on 150 hours of community service and the continuation of his therapy.
This is not so far from what the lawyer for the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions (DPCP) demanded. With this detail: the 40-year-old man will have his criminal record officially erased from the registers if he complies with these conditions. That’s absolution.
It’s more than a detail, in fact. Without an official criminal record, the 40-year-old could technically find a teaching post.
It wouldn’t really make sense.
It is true: absolutions are often pronounced for delinquents without precedent; in the case of relatively minor offenses, or mishaps. A “second chance” which prevents the expulsion of people without status, the loss of a job for people who have to cross borders, and so on.
When the particular interest of the offender so requires, and the public interest would not be affected, the judge may occasionally pronounce such a discharge.
The problem in this case is that Prof. Lamarre’s deviance is not the result of a moment or two of bewilderment. Its actions are spread over at least three years. It looks like a way of life. His ex-partner had discovered a series of videos of girls’ under skirts on his computer – or rather that of his employer. The police organized a follow-up. And we quickly stopped him.
It systematically targeted teenage girls – especially 15-16 year old college girls. He followed them down the escalators, to the beach, etc. He managed to place his phone under their skirt and film their sex.
The judge noted, in terms of mitigating factors, that the acts “left no consequences for the victims”.
But by definition, an act of voyeurism that the victims are not aware of cannot leave them after-effects. Ask them what they think about it, if they know that their privacy has been violated, that a guy was getting excited while watching their sex in close-up …
Better yet: the judge noted that there was no “violence or threats against the victims”.
The argument does not hold water. If there had been acts of violence or threats, it would not have made voyeurism more serious; these would be additional crimes.
The fact of not committing other more serious crimes cannot be considered a favorable factor for an accused.
It is true that the man lost his job in an elementary school. He expresses remorse and is in serious therapy. According to psychosocial reports, it represents a risk of recurrence “between low and moderate”. There is no doubt that with a criminal record he could not find a job as a teacher. It is probably better this way …
One of the strangest aspects of this affair is that Lamarre was the subject of a long report by my colleague Marie-Eve Morasse, in June 2021, on one of his favorite subjects, which he explained brilliantly. : the importance of the presence of men in teaching for the academic success of boys.
PHOTO MARCO CAMPANOZZI, ARCHIVES THE PRESS
Simon Lamarre, photographed last spring in anticipation of a long report by Press
What we did not know at the time, but what he obviously knew, is that he was already accused in criminal court. He therefore exposed himself to a media outlet, knowing that he was facing these charges, to which he would plead guilty two months later.
The judge seems impressed that Lamarre obtained a doctorate in teaching. Lamarre’s knowledge should not be “neutralized” with a criminal record, he wrote.
Again, if it had been an isolated incident … But we are talking about actions repeated over the years. Which he tried to justify himself first by the attitude of his ex.
The judge does not want to “increase the isolation” of the ex-prof. But a simple suspended sentence, a fairly lenient measure proposed by the prosecution, would preserve his freedom and would not prevent him from reorienting himself, as long as he respected the conditions. We may be in favor of social reintegration, the public interest dictates removing this type of schools.
The judge recognizes his “disgust” at acts, but warns against his own repulsion. He does not “trivialize gestures”, he insists.
However, listening to his decision in full, he slips particularly quickly over the facts, their premeditation, their repetition, the age of the victims, etc. Which amounts quite perfectly to trivializing them by this absolution.