I'm not satisfied with him just serving a jail sentence - which he certainly should - I want our money back. His sentence can end when the defrauded taxdollars are returned. His sentence should be indefinite - until that occurs.

Tom,

I think you should of used a more violent criminal like a murderer or a rapist to make your point about deterrence because those are the people who should be put behind bars for the rest of their lives.

Gilles-André Gosselin probably won't even serve two years and what time he does serve will be in some country club prison as for us getting our tax dollars back, I'm not holding my breath.

Sam,

The type of crime here is irrelevant. The point is the statement about deterrence. We have a judge — not a right-wing politician trying to score political points by getting "tough on crme" as the Jones crowd purports — making a statement in law that deterrence is efective.

The John Howard Society says deterrence doesn't work, although they won't demand that Ottawa remove it from the CC. They say people are being misled that deterrence as a sentencong principle is effective.

This judge — not forced by Parliament — says it does work. I wonder why the John Howard Society doesn't publicly excoriate judges like this one for "misleading the public?"

Jones? You guy going to go after this judge? If so, I have a long list of other cases for you to read where the judge emphasizes the sentencing principle of deterrence and denunciation. If the JHS was consistent, which they're not, they would go after all those judges. But because the JHS is a walking contradiction, they won't do that.


- Brodbeck

Speaking of deterrence - it was also great to read about the recent case whereby the judge addressed the game of adjournments (o spend as much time at Remand as possible), with the reward being that the guilty usually go home from there with a time-served (double-time credit) conviction sentence. Nice to see that tactic back-fire for a change - seeing the criminal serve the extended Remand - and the jail-time. This game has been allowed because we have full jails - despite the fact that we've seen a huge increase in conditional sentences. This all clearly points to the fact that we need more jail space. That can't be ignored forever - especially now that the system seems to be turning back to real justice. That's a shovel-turning ceremony that I would attend.

Everybody knows that compared to our neighbours to the South, Canada is soft on crime. Americans have locked up 1% of their population, but their crime rates are much higher than in Canada.

The threat/likelihood of incarceration for white-collar crime would likely be a deterrent in the short term, but being the shady characters that they are, in the end, we would probably end up with white-collar criminals who are just as hardened as the average criminal.

I favour public floggings of corrupt politicians in the public squares. Historically, this has been the most successful method of dealing with criminals and corrupt rulers. Citizens are the ones being directly affected by crime so they shouldn't be surprised when judiciaries removed from society render judgments that are out of touch with reality.

Tom,
The reason you do not use an example of a violent crime to make the point about deterrence is because you cannot find one. Judges do not use deterrence in the case of violent offenders that is why we have so many violent offenders walking the streets.

Dick,
I would take public floggings one step further and use them against violent criminals as well as corrupt politicians, in those societies there is virtually no crime.

Why do people not see the way government is going in this country? Politicians, once voted in don't give a rats behind for the people that vote them in. Government is made for getting rich on the backs of the tax paying lower class of people. All levels of government are in there for one thing, to get as much money as they can then get out while the getting is good and collect their fat pensions after doing as much damage as they can. Our government has become a big business of making the ones that get in fat thieving liars, while the over burdened tax payers get poorer. Remember what Chretien said about campaign promises, "You don't expect us to keep all our promises, do you?" I have yet to see a politician keep any promise after elected.
Also as Sam says criminals are in the same league as most politicians. Because of our lax laws and deterrence rules all politicians and violent criminals know and feel they are beyond or above the law that is made to police the general public. The violent criminal steal our lives from us and the politician steals our hard earned money from us. It is hard to tell the difference when surrounded with both these criminals types. As long as we Canadians let these politicians and criminals think they can get away with it, they will keep doing it. That's why I say that both these types of criminals need to understand the responsibility of their actions is going to lead to not only deterrence but punishment of the most severe amount in jail time. If you steal from people or kill people, even be dishonest in your public office, then you are a criminal. I put politicians on the same level as murderers and sex offenders, because we put them in with our trust and they rob us blind. Then expect to get away with it.
Look at what Mulroney did, hundreds of thousands of dollars taken illegally and he got away with it. That crook should have been in jail for years now, but no, lax laws and judges with out morals let him go. Mulroney is just one of hundreds of crooked politicians caught red handed and let go with out paying for his crimes. If I was to break the law in any form and because I am a law abiding citizen, I would go to jail for a long time, but these high level politicians and violent criminals play their games and get away with money and ruined lives. These criminals need not only held accountable but also held responsible for their crimes, no matter if it is white collar crime, or a crime of violence. They should all have to pay their debt to the people they affected.

Sam,

You're wrong. I spend a lot of time in courtrooms and reading decisions. Deterrence is used a lot in sentencing, including for violent crimes. The problem is that many judges give it short shrift when weighing sentencing principles.

By contrast, other judges get it and do give deterrence and denunciation the proper weight they deserve.


- Brodbeck

Tom,

You are unable to give an example of deterrence being used in a violent crime such as assault, rape or murder, what that tells me is that you are lying.

Sam,

This is really basic law. You should do a bit of homework on sentencing principles before you weigh in. Deterrence, both general and specific, are used regularly in courtrooms for many types of crimes, including violent offences.


• On Aug. 21, 2009 Queen’s Bench Justice Marc Monnin ensured justice was served when he gave an ex-cop 15 years in prison for brutally raping and assaulting his ex-wife.
He cited deterrence and denunciation as important principles in his sentencing.

• The Manitoba Court of Appeal upheld a 17-year sentence for Stanley Alan Beaulieu in September 2007, convicted on two counts of manslaughter for stabbing his step-father then stabbing Julian Otcheek. The court cited deterrence as an important sentencing principle in the case.


Just two quick examples I came up with in five minutes.

So yes Sam, you are wrong.

The real problem is that many judges don’t emphasize deterrence and denunciation enough.


- Brodbeck

I'm tired of our elite (i.e. political, religious, social leaders) who figure, expect and get their sentences reduced because of who they are and what they are in society. I want bail options removed. I don't believe bail works in our best interest. It is a door that those that can afford it will use it whether they should or not is irrelevant. A good portion of society don't have that option because they can't afford it. I believe if no one got bail then everyone would end up being treated equally as even the elite would be treated to the same denunciation, deterrence and hotel accommodations for the entire duration of their stay.
I believe that all sorts of changes to the remand centers, and the jail systems would happen if the elite got treated as the commoner. Maybe even hire more guards, judges, lawyers and clerks, have more facilities to process them all. But one thing would be for certain, they would all be treated equally. Then.... We'd see how the politicians and white collar criminals deal with the humiliation, the loss of respect and place in society. Then maybe we'd see some integrity, balance and moral ethics come back to a portion of society who figure the taxpayer is their piggy bank and the percentages they steal really do mean something.
I have said before that people report things in percentages because it looks better, if it came to actual numbers... let’s say instead of .0001% the value of GDP. That sounds small, but in actual fact it in 2008 our Canadian GDP was $1.4 trillion dollars. .0001% of that is $140million. Yet when argued as a percentage, denunciation and deterrence can be skewed as either too hard or out of line, especially when highlighted to the general taxpayer. I used an extreme example but take 5 million and pop it into the same equation, that’s a ½ million dollar embezzlement or misappropriation.
We wonder why our children attempt all the criminal activity that they do. We bemoan the state of decay in our society and in our schools. We mourn the societal, cultural and moral deaths of our hopes of a better environment to life and raise our families in. Yet we do NOTHING about the corrupt politicians, religious and social elite. We watch aimlessly as they get away with the moral ethics and integrity of the swine flu, and we still do NOTHING.
How many of you have written your MLA's, senators, parliamentarians, Mayors, Premiers, PM etc? I don't care the political leanings because in the end... they are all the flippen same. But to create change we must take part. To whine and not even send a letter for heavens sake. We can even EMAIL them, so you don't have to worry about the spelling or grammar, spell check will help you out.
We can do much if we just do something other than whine. Our best of intentions mean NOTHING... if we do NOTHING...
I make sure my representatives know my concerns, politely and respectfully. I also make sure they know when I think they may have overstepped or if in fact I concur with their more important stances. I am not their best friend, I am the constituent that they represent whether I voted for them or not, makes no difference, they now represent me. And they must do so with my support and values. They don't know if you voted for them or not... there's no way they know, but they do know what you think when you write, call or meet them face to face.

Sam,

Here's a case the Manitoba Court of Appeal upheld earlier this year. It's an outrageously horrible case of sexual assault that netted nine years in prison for the scumbag. Deterrence and denunciation were cited as primary sentencing principles by the appellate court in major sexual assault cases like this.

Check out point No. 4.

More evidence that you are wrong when you claim that deterrence is never used in violent crime cases:

CHARTIER J.A. (for the Court):

1 The accused was convicted by a judge after trial of sexual assault, uttering threats, sexual exploitation and procuring to become a prostitute. These offences were committed against his stepdaughter over an approximate 10-year period when she was between 10 and 20 years old. He received four years on the sexual assault, one year concurrent on the uttering threats, five years consecutive on the sexual exploitation and two years concurrent on the procuring offence, for a cumulative sentence of nine years. He now appeals that sentence, arguing that it is harsh and excessive.


2 The sexual assault conviction includes a number of incidents that occurred when the stepdaughter was between 10 and 14 years old. These incidents consist of kissing, touching her breasts and an incident of forced vaginal intercourse. There can be no doubt that this was a major sexual assault. Following the intercourse incident, the accused threatened to kill the stepdaughter and her mother if she revealed it to anyone. This resulted in the utter threat conviction.


3 The facts with respect to the sexual exploitation are even more shocking and deplorable. When the stepdaughter was between 14 and 18 years old, the accused repeatedly had vaginal intercourse, fellatio and cunnilingus with her. He even impregnated her. She subsequently suffered a miscarriage. Again, this is clearly major sexual abuse. The accused also forced the stepdaughter to work as a prostitute when she was between the ages of 18 and 20. As a result, the accused was convicted on the procuring charge.


4 This court has repeatedly stated that the focus of sentencing for a major sexual assault or abuse incident involving a child is denunciation and deterrence and that the starting point to sentencing when it is committed in a trust situation or family relationship is four to five years’ imprisonment.


5 The sentencing judge chose to treat the sexual exploitation offence as being sufficiently distinct and separate from the sexual assault offence to merit a consecutive sentence. He therefore imposed two consecutive major sexual assault/abuse sentences on the accused.


6 We are all of the view that the sentencing judge was entirely correct to sentence the accused to a consecutive term on the sexual exploitation. It was at the beginning of the timeframe encompassed by that offence that the accused and the stepdaughter’s mother separated, with the 15-year-old stepdaughter remaining with the accused. It is also during that time period that there was a marked escalation in the nature and frequency of the sexual abuse committed against the stepdaughter.


7 We also note that the accused appropriately did not take issue with the consecutive nature of the sentence, only with the quantum of the sentence for each offence and the totality of the overall sentence.


8 As was stated recently in R. v. L.M., 2008 SCC 31 (CanLII), 2008 SCC 31, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 163 at para. 14, an appellate court must show “great deference” when reviewing a sentencing decision. Upon the granting of leave, an appellate court can only interfere with a sentence in two circumstances: when the sentence is “demonstrably unfit,” or it has been arrived at as a result of an error in principle. See R. v. Shropshire, 1995 CanLII 47 (S.C.C.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 227, R. v. M. (C.A.), 1996 CanLII 230 (S.C.C.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500, and R. v. Solowan, 2008 SCC 62 (CanLII), 2008 SCC 62 at para. 16.


9 Despite an able argument by Ms Inness, we are not persuaded that the sentencing judge committed an error in principle or that the cumulative sentence of nine years was unfit. The sentencing judge, as confirmed by his reasons, was aware of the totality principle and chose not to adjust the total sentence. In light of the gravity of the offences, the accused’s high degree of moral blameworthiness with respect to the crimes committed and the harm done to his stepdaughter, the sentencing judge was right, on these facts, not to adjust downward the total sentence.


10 While leave to appeal sentence is granted, the appeal is dismissed.




- Brodbeck

Tom
I Don't know why you waste your time explaing deterrence to a bunch of ignorant people.Your 100 % right.

Hi Tom,

This is a loaded question... What happened to the mother, anything?
I don't believe that a parent, especially a mother, doesn't know when something is going on with her children. I believe they ignore it or refuse to accept it because the consequences could mean they are out of a home, money or their view of a safe place. This I believe should be treated as a crime as well. If the mother or parent had stepped in or up to protect the child, the abuse may not have gone on for as long as it did.
Sometimes people turn a blind eye to that which they may feel will cause them undue stress, where they look at self preservation instead of protecting the innocent from the unjust.
I shake my head when I hear these stories because I believe it all boils down to a misguided idea of self preservation. They don't want to rock the boat because they aren't being personally injured. Yet each and every one will stand up and state "But I love my child. I am a victim too."
Sometimes doing the right thing means doing it even though there will be trials or tribulations to endure. It's amazing what we can live through if it means loving our family, children etc for all the right reasons.

Tom - I agree with you 100%. However, one of the problems we have in this (legal - not justice) system is that these high-priced lawyers can appeal, appeal, appeal a guilty sentence. There should be a limit on how often they can appeal and perhaps if they lose the first one, they should be cut-off the tax-payers gravy train. Of course, with all the bleeding heart, left-leaning people out there (especially in the east), we know things will never change in Canada.

Pat,

I don't know what, if anything, happened to the mother. I know the guy who repeatedly raped his stepdaughter got the book thrown at him and deterrence was one of the sentencing principles used.

Whether the mother was complicit or not I don't know. I agree, though, that in many cases like this the conspiracy of silence within a family can be deafening and extremely damaging.

- Brodbeck

Either way, I feel sooo horrible for the daughter. To either know that you are abused and cannot do anything about it, or to be brought up thinking this is normal.... helpless and horrific.
Dang parents... As a society, we are helpless and horrified, yet we can do nothing. Societies like the CFS, JHS and SA advocate putting the children back into these families because they don't want the child or family traumatized with seperation, yet separation and protection is what is required, in the best interests of all, especially the child.
I gave up a son at 18 knowing he was better off in a mature well rounded family. Not for my benefit for his. I can only hope he understands, but regardless it was in the best interest of the child. Why is it so hard for people to take their selfish self serving agendas out of the equation? I'll tell you why, because societies like CFS, JHS and SA and in particular grandparents etc, who advocate these children to keep children. Yet as a society we pay even more so to maintain these facades of family relationships so that the experimental results can be thrown back at us later as evidence.
Parents need a good swift kick and these social interfering groups need to take a good long lesson in tough love.
Dang nonsense.