Supreme Court striking down 1-year mandatory sentence for child porn possession

[The Oracle]

'' The majority ultimately found the one-year mandatory minimum sentences for the crimes to be unconstitutional on the basis that the crimes themselves cover a variety of circumstances, which could cross the Charter-protected right that guards against cruel and unusual punishment ''

Supreme Court striking down 1-year mandatory sentence for child porn possession prompts calls for Liberals to overrule

Canada's top court has struck down the one-year mandatory minimum sentence for the possession and access of child pornography.

nationalpost.com

'' A spokeswoman for Attorney General and Justice Minister Sean Fraser said the federal government was reviewing the decision. ''

Let's see what the Carney Liberals do about this one...

 

[squeezer]

On the face of it, it sounds wrong, but imagine an 18-year-old being hit with a one-year sentence for having consensual naked pics of his 17-year-old old GF. Judges do need some leeway for certain situations that arise.

 

[nottyboi]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-child-pornography-9.6961728

To me the decision is well reasoned. I don't understand why it offends people that we cannot rely on a highly qualified judge to assess the circumstances of the crime and deliver a sentence that is appropriate vs some law that ties his hands. To me the risk of injustice is higher with minimum sentences then with a judicial error. Of course PP is braying away as usual.

 

[Birf]

Liberals don't want jail for anyone, prove me wrong.

 

[Birf]

On the face of it, it sounds wrong, but imagine an 18-year-old being hit with a one-year sentence for having consensual naked pics of his 17-year-old old GF. Judges do need some leeway for certain situations that arise.

Liberals always give an example of a fictional scenario. This might happen 1 in a million situations.

 

[mandrill]

Liberals always give an example of a fictional scenario. This might happen 1 in a million situations.

Or 1 in 20.

Imagine being the 18 year old kid who got jailed for that?!

Possession of a firearm used to carry a 1-year minimum and the court struck it down using the example of an 18 year old kid who borrowed an illegal gun from a buddy and took a couple of selfies with it and then gave it back.

Importing a narcotic used to carry a 7 year minimum and the court struck it down with the example of a guy who forgot he had a joint in his pocket when he crossed the border.

What Notty said. A judge is the most appropriate person to assess a penalty. Not rightie fuckheads like PeePee who - of course - is ranting about Libs being "soft on crime" and yelling about the notwithstanding clause.

Hats off to the Supreme Court for this brave decision.

 

[SaulGoodman777]

'' The majority ultimately found the one-year mandatory minimum sentences for the crimes to be unconstitutional on the basis that the crimes themselves cover a variety of circumstances, which could cross the Charter-protected right that guards against cruel and unusual punishment ''

Supreme Court striking down 1-year mandatory sentence for child porn possession prompts calls for Liberals to overrule

Canada's top court has struck down the one-year mandatory minimum sentence for the possession and access of child pornography.

nationalpost.com

'' A spokeswoman for Attorney General and Justice Minister Sean Fraser said the federal government was reviewing the decision. ''

Let's see what the Carney Liberals do about this one...

Sounds like the perfect formula to create repeat offenders.

 

[mandrill]

Sounds like the perfect formula to create repeat offenders.

In which case, the judge gives the recidivist 3 or 4 years Pen time on the 2nd offence. Just like it's done on other offences out there in the big, bad world of judges and lawyers.

 

[Knuckle Ball]

The hysterical, pearl-clutching headlines in conservative media make it sound like sexual offenders will no longer go to prison.

smh…go breathe into a paper bag.

 

[Frankfooter]

Liberals always give an example of a fictional scenario. This might happen 1 in a million situations.

You think that could never happen?

 

[Butler1000]

On the face of it, it sounds wrong, but imagine an 18-year-old being hit with a one-year sentence for having consensual naked pics of his 17-year-old old GF. Judges do need some leeway for certain situations that arise.

I don't agree. I think there needs to be very public deterent for this type of thing. And taught in schools as part of sex education. Even asking for naked pics over texts should be considered soliciting a minor.

It's time to put shame and consequences back on the menu. And at that age I sure as fuck knew not to take naked pics.

 

[Birf]

Trump is slowly fixing the world, hope he has enough time or Vance and Rubio get to continue God's work.

 

[squeezer]

I don't agree. I think there needs to be very public deterent for this type of thing. And taught in schools as part of sex education. Even asking for naked pics over texts should be considered soliciting a minor.

It's time to put shame and consequences back on the menu. And at that age I sure as fuck knew not to take naked pics.

That's ridiculous and it's only because you are not a young dude looking to get laid or have a son who just because he and his GF are playing doctor, except now it's 2025 and cell phones exist, is possibly being jailed. You would change your tune very quickly.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

Liberals don't want jail for anyone, prove me wrong.

That should be simple.
Go commit a crime and see for yourself if you aren't sent to jail.

 

[Frankfooter]

I don't agree. I think there needs to be very public deterent for this type of thing. And taught in schools as part of sex education.

yeah!

Like maybe we should charge world leaders who are pedos and put them in prison!

 

[squeezer]

I don't agree. I think there needs to be very public deterent for this type of thing. And taught in schools as part of sex education. Even asking for naked pics over texts should be considered soliciting a minor.

It's time to put shame and consequences back on the menu. And at that age I sure as fuck knew not to take naked pics.

One more example, you have a son, who the ladies think is hot! NO, he didn't get his looks from Dad. LOL

He just turned 18, but of course, still has some 16 and 17-year-old girls who were part of the circle of friends. Most have the hots for him and send him raunchy pics, which he never asked for? Should he go to jail or should they arrest the young ladies for sending the pics and serve the one-year sentence because a lesson has to be taught?

 

[seat54]

What was the decision because there are 9 judges? Was is 9-0? 5-4, etc?

Anyone know?

 

[squeezer]

Liberals don't want jail for anyone, prove me wrong.

It was the Supreme Court, not any Liberal government, that made the decision.. I suspect you do not know the difference. Could you prove me wrong?

It was the same Supreme Court that struck down Harper's minimum sentences but hey, let's forget facts and run with assumptions.

R. v. Hills: SCC Overturns Harper-Era Mandatory Minimum Sentence (Part II) - TheCourt.ca

The Supreme Court of Canada struck down a provision requiring minimum sentence for the offence of intentionally discharging a firearm.

www.yorku.ca

 

[Butler1000]

One more example, you have a son, who the ladies think is hot! NO, he didn't get his looks from Dad. LOL

He just turned 18, but of course, still has some 16 and 17-year-old girls who were part of the circle of friends. Most have the hots for him and send him raunchy pics, which he never asked for? Should he go to jail or should they arrest the young ladies for sending the pics and serve the one-year sentence because a lesson has to be taught?

It's the ladies fault. As long as he doesn't ask. So if it comes to light, yes, they get charged under the YOA.

These lessons need to be taught. You can call it hijinks all you want but I consider it serious business. Put the laws in. Make sure you teach in school zero tolerance.

Take the other side. Unsolicited dick pics going to your daughter. She doesn't want them. What then? A whole team doing it every day as a "joke". Do you let it slide as "boys being boys"? Or sending them to a teacher, male or female, married, and career on the line. If the teacher reports it, are they bad people, or preventing work place harassment?

Why are photos fine, but a flasher would be charged? Would you feel the same if the pictures are of really ugly people?

My problem here is too many times people are now calling people who should know better "kids". They aren't. If you are going to hand them driver's licenses, allow them to emancipation, to chose where they live in a divorce, to work at various jobs involving responsibilities, then they should be considered as responsible for their actions. No different than a drunk driving charge, a workplace theft charge, or more.

I knew better, I assume you did. So do they.

 

[Butler1000]

That's ridiculous and it's only because you are not a young dude looking to get laid or have a son who just because he and his GF are playing doctor, except now it's 2025 and cell phones exist, is possibly being jailed. You would change your tune very quickly.

My point stands. Cameras did exist. We vetted picture taking at parties. Same with video cameras. Our motto was no evidence. And we sure a fuck would never have taken nudes pics and video.

So no, because MOST young people DON'T take nudes, send nudes. It shouldn't be condoned or shrugged off. It should be taken MORE SERIOUSLY now with digital proliferation and the internet.

Abd if I had taken nudes when I was 16 and distributed them you think nothing would have happened?

Done stupid.