Current Events > Supreme Court of Canada rules 1 year min. for CP charges unconstitutional

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/a/aed4470c.jpg

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

Somebody check the computers of those judges

ShineboxPhil posted...

Somebody check the computers of those judges

Exactly what I was thinking

Right wing rot truly is settling in everywhere.

The only way this can make sense to me is if Canada as part of their constitution doesn't allow any crime to have a minimum sentence.

bfslick50 posted...

The only way this can make sense to me is if Canada as part of their constitution doesn't allow any crime to have a minimum sentence.

Yeah otherwise this is sus

Because they think the minimum should be much higher... r-right?

Umbreon posted...

Because they think the minimum should be much higher... r-right?

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/c/c6b85570.jpg

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/f/f3df9786.jpg

I don't actually know what our charter says in regards to stuff like this. Really hope this isn't just pedo protection.

The top court was asked to weigh in exclusively on the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentences and not whether the sentences imposed on the two men were appropriate.

The majority narrowly affirmed a ruling of the Quebec Court of Appeal, which said the mandatory minimum sentences violated the Charters protection against cruel or unusual punishment

Writing for the majority, Justice Mary Moreau argued theres a range of circumstances that could lead to convictions of possession or access to child pornography.

They capture both the wellorganized offender who, over the years, has accumulated thousands of files showing prepubescent victims, and the young 18yearold offender who, one day, keeps and views a file showing a 17yearold victim that was sent to the offender without them having requested it, the decision read.

Moreau wrote that in the age of digital communication that last scenario is not uncommon.

I wonder if all mandatory minimum sentences laws will be ruled unconstitutional in Canada.

mybbqrules posted...

Right wing rot truly is settling in everywhere.

No this is Canada, it's the other end of the horseshoe.

It looks like the argument they used was that since there is at least one silly loophole like teens sharing pictures, the minimum sentence is thus unconstitutional because it would be cruel to imprison a teenager for a year in that situation

Also featured recently, a court ruled that the first nations actually own a large chunk of land in BC that has long since been sold to homeowners.

Our courts are profoundly stupid and are probably the only thing that would improve if the US invaded.

Frostshock posted...

Our courts are profoundly stupid and are probably the only thing that would improve if the US invaded.

I, uh.

I have some bad news about our courts, my dude.

The logic the court used is sound if you ask me.

They capture both the wellorganized offender who, over the years, has accumulated thousands of files showing prepubescent victims, and the young 18yearold offender who, one day, keeps and views a file showing a 17yearold victim that was sent to the offender without them having requested it, the decision read.
Moreau wrote that in the age of digital communication that last scenario is not uncommon.

I probably agree that a mandatory minimum sentence of a year in prison is not justified in the case of an 18 year old who has a picture of their 17 year old partner.

This is the problem with mandatory minimum sentences, there's no discretion in sentencing allowed.

Sure when you think of somebody who has child pornography you're typically thinking of some fully grown ass adult having images and video and shit of children. You don't tend to think of some 18 year old who has a picture of their 17 year old partner.

Isnt this easily fixed with some verbiage so there is a minimum sentence so long as there is a certain age gap between the parties, and within a certain age gap, it is to the discretion of the court?

i'd argue mandatory minimum in general is a bad idea, i'd much rather see a broad reaching decision to just ban the practice universally.

The_Popo posted...

Isnt this easily fixed with some verbiage so there is a minimum sentence so long as there is a certain age gap between the parties, and within a certain age gap, it is to the discretion of the court?

If the law is written in a manner that doesn't allow for any such discretion then it's still correct for the courts to strike down the unconstitutional law. Politicians are free to go back and write new legislation that will pass the scrutiny of the courts.

That results in of course really ridiculous laws being passed and that still may miss things. It's far preferable to just not do mandatory minimums in general.

monkmith posted...

i'd argue mandatory minimum in general is a bad idea, i'd much rather see a broad reaching decision to just ban the practice universally.

I use this example:

In the US, the federal mandatory minimum sentence for dealing heroin (resulting in serious injury or death) is twenty years.

When the executives of one of the opiate companies were charged over the widespread addiction/injury/loss of life caused by their shady-ass business practices, about 7 or 8 people got actual sentences (I cannot remember the specific company, I've tried before and it's difficult to find the source I used earlier).

All of them together did not reach 20 years, and these people caused more damage than a thousand street-level dealers could cause in a century.

One thing a some of you should probably consider? Look at who's outraged. It's a Stephen Harper era bit of legislation and the people upset are the likes of Poilievre and the other Maple MAGA.

This is just "tough on crime" nonsense. I highly doubt there was some epidemic of pedophiles being given nothing sentences in Canada before Harper came in with this legislation, it's just legislation that plays well to the base but doesn't actually fix a real problem.

Enclave posted...

If the law is written in a manner that doesn't allow for any such discretion then it's still correct for the courts to strike down the unconstitutional law. Politicians are free to go back and write new legislation that will pass the scrutiny of the courts.

That results in of course really ridiculous laws being passed and that still may miss things. It's far preferable to just not do mandatory minimums in general.

Fair

Enclave posted...

The logic the court used is sound if you ask me.

I probably agree that a mandatory minimum sentence of a year in prison is not justified in the case of an 18 year old who has a picture of their 17 year old partner.

This is the problem with mandatory minimum sentences, there's no discretion in sentencing allowed.

Sure when you think of somebody who has child pornography you're typically thinking of some fully grown ass adult having images and video and shit of children. You don't tend to think of some 18 year old who has a picture of their 17 year old partner.

Yeah, I think this is more a case of their CP classifications being ridiculously broad rather than the idea of minimum sentences for CP being too cruel. Stuff like two teens and Im assuming fiction being classified as CP is probably what led to this. imo they should work on those instead.

Snip-N-Snails posted...

Yeah, I think this is more a case of their CP classifications being ridiculously broad rather than the idea of minimum sentences for CP being too cruel. Stuff like two teens and Im assuming fiction being classified as CP is probably what led to this. imo they should work on those instead.

The issue is that mandatory minimum sentences always have issues in niche situations. It's far better to just do away with mandatory minimums, have sentencing guidelines and to then leave the rest to judges.

Mandatory minimums exist purely to let a politician pretend to be tough on crime.

Enclave posted...

The issue is that mandatory minimum sentences always have issues in niche situations. It's far better to just do away with mandatory minimums, have sentencing guidelines and to then leave the rest to judges.

Mandatory minimums exist purely to let a politician pretend to be tough on crime.

I think its better for niche situation to not be classified with heinous crimes to begin with.

Enclave posted...

I probably agree that a mandatory minimum sentence of a year in prison is not justified in the case of an 18 year old who has a picture of their 17 year old partner.

This is the problem with mandatory minimum sentences, there's no discretion in sentencing allowed.

Sure when you think of somebody who has child pornography you're typically thinking of some fully grown ass adult having images and video and shit of children. You don't tend to think of some 18 year old who has a picture of their 17 year old partner.

Yeah. This is a reasonable ruling but sadly it probably won't last. The opponents are already whipping up hysteria about this ruling meaning depraved pedophiles will be let off with a slap on the wrist when those people were already getting lengthy sentences and will keep getting them under this ruling. In reality the ruling is about unusual cases where most people would agree the perpetrator should be shown leniency but the overly strict law prohibited judges from granting it.

Snip-N-Snails posted...

I think its better for niche situation to not be classified with heinous crimes to begin with.

It's impossible to avoid at times, thus why sentencing guidelines and judges having discretion exists.

The legal system already figured this shit out without mandatory minimum sentences. No need to reinvent the wheel.

Enclave posted...

It's impossible to avoid at times, thus why sentencing guidelines and judges having discretion exists.

The legal system already figured this shit out without mandatory minimum sentences. No need to reinvent the wheel.

In this case it still feels like they're prioritizing the wrong things first. Does premediated murder not have a mandatory minimum sentence? iirc it's actually harsher than the US's.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/8/8ca12930.jpg

With this reasoning, I think that's a fair assessment. They're not gauged in the maximum penalty levied, just the minimum mandatory sentencing.

Snip-N-Snails posted...

In this case it still feels like they're prioritizing the wrong things first. Does premediated murder not have a mandatory minimum sentence?

That has a mandatory minimum I think, though you're going for a crime that is by its nature hyper specific.

Are you suggesting they should create a fucking million different laws to cover every single possible situation? Explain how that's better than sentencing guidelines and judges having discretion.

Alucard188 posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/8/8ca12930.jpg

With this reasoning, I think that's a fair assessment. They're not gauged in the maximum penalty levied, just the minimum mandatory sentencing.

The issue is why is that a CP charge to begin with.

Enclave posted...

That has a mandatory minimum I think, though you're going for a crime that is by its nature hyper specific.

Are you suggesting they should create a fucking million different laws to cover every single possible situation? Explain how that's better than sentencing guidelines and judges having discretion.

I feel like CP should be hyper specific as well.

Snip-N-Snails posted...

The issue is why is that a CP charge to begin with.

Because a nude picture of a person under the age of consent is by definition child porn. The difference at play is just the context. Literally the whole point of why mandatory minimums are typically bad as they strip out context in order to throw red meat at conservative bases.

I feel like CP should be hyper specific as well.

One picture that would be morally fine for an 18 year old to have of their 17 year old partner is suddenly child porn if it's instead had by some 40 year old pervert. You can't make that hyper specific like you can with 1st degree murder, thus you come to sentencing guidelines and judges having discretion.

Enclave posted...

Because a nude picture of a person under the age of consent is by definition child porn. The difference at play is just the context. Literally the whole point of why mandatory minimums are typically bad as they strip out context in order to throw red meat at conservative bases.

Is that true? Stuff like Nirvana's cover is considered porn in Canada? If that's the case then yeah that is absolutely the root problem here. And that's why nonsense like teens having pictures of themselves can be classified as CP. That's the realm of broad red state laws.
Enclave posted...

One picture that would be morally fine for an 18 year old to have of their 17 year old partner is suddenly child porn if it's instead had by some 40 year old pervert. You can't make that hyper specific like you can with 1st degree murder, thus you come to sentencing guidelines and judges having discretion.

Yes you can, measuring intent and mitigating factors is how premediated murder works too.

Seems like measuring the age difference and context would be reasonable.

Snip-N-Snails posted...

Is that true? Stuff like Nirvana's cover is considered porn in Canada? If that's the case then yeah that is absolutely the root problem here. And that's why nonsense like teens having pictures of themselves can be classified as CP. That's the realm of broad red state laws.

And shit like that is something that can come about from poorly written laws.

What are you struggling to understand here? Everybody else seems to get it pretty easily.

Enclave posted...

And shit like that is something that can come about from poorly written laws.

What are you struggling to understand here? Everybody else seems to get it pretty easily.

I'm saying they should focus on their poorly written laws first before just removing the minimum for one of the most heinous crimes.

Like I fail to see how this actually really helps anything. The teens are still charged with CP and have that on their record. It's just that now CP can have a severely reduced sentence or outright have no consequences at all if it "wasn't that bad". This doesn't really help anything.

Snip-N-Snails posted...

I'm saying they should focus on their poorly written laws first before just removing the minimum for one of the most heinous crimes.

Like I fail to see how this actually really helps anything. The teens are still charged with CP and have that on their record. It's just that now CP can have a severely reduced sentence or outright have no consequences at all if it "wasn't that bad". This doesn't really help anything.

Judges don't write laws, the legislative branch writes laws.

Additionally, can you show an epidemic of people getting a slap on the wrist for serious child pornography charges in Canada before this 1 year mandatory minimum sentence was passed?

Enclave posted...

Judges don't write laws, the legislative branch writes laws.

Additionally, can you show an epidemic of people getting a slap on the wrist for serious child pornography charges in Canada before this 1 year mandatory minimum sentence was passed?

Ok fair on the former but would this mean premediated murder would also have its mandatory minimum taken away? I fail to see how "hyper-specific" prevents something from being cruel and unconstitutional and I think CP should be hyper-specific as well, being specifically about pornography of minors.

I'm not sure what the point of your latter sentence is. Is there an epidemic of people getting a slap on the wrist for premediated murder? For people who get caught up in those niche situations still getting charged (as even in red US states that have such broad laws, most prosecutors simply don't pursue them)?
The issue is the messaging of the concept that CP could be something that isn't bad at all.

Snip-N-Snails posted...

The issue is the messaging of the concept that CP could be something that isn't bad at all.

I don't see how this is sending that message.
In the case of the teenager example, it seems like it would still be treated as a fuck up. Just that its a more forgivable fuck up, because they're still young and stupid and probably didn't consciously think about it like a middle aged adult would.

Snip-N-Snails posted...

Ok fair on the former but would this mean premediated murder would also have its mandatory minimum taken away? I fail to see how "hyper-specific" prevents something from being cruel and unconstitutional and I think CP should be hyper-specific as well, being specifically about pornography of minors.

I'm not sure what the point of your latter sentence is. Is there an epidemic of people getting a slap on the wrist for premediated murder? For people who get caught up in those niche situations still getting charged (as even in red US states that have such broad laws, most prosecutors simply don't pursue them)?
The issue is the messaging of the concept that CP could be something that isn't bad at all.

My point is that the legislation that put the mandatory minimum into place was completely pointless legislation that was only done purely to make Stephen Harper and the Conservatives look tough on crime for passing legislation that doesn't actually accomplish anything.

This is super typical legislation you see come out of "tough on crime" conservatives the world over.

There's absolutely no need for a mandatory minimum here, sentencing guidelines and judge discretion already solves the non-existent problem.

It's just a law that appeals to emotion rather than reality.

Any serious child pornography charges that somebody is found guilty of are already likely going to land them more than a year in prison, the mandatory minimum is almost designed to just be punishing niche situations like exactly the sort of situation the judges mentioned.

They're right, it should be 25 years minimum.

Yes I know that's not where they're going with this, let me believe.

Enclave posted...

My point is that the legislation that put the mandatory minimum into place was completely pointless legislation that was only done purely to make Stephen Harper and the Conservatives look tough on crime for passing legislation that doesn't actually accomplish anything.

This is super typical legislation you see come out of "tough on crime" conservatives the world over.

There's absolutely no need for a mandatory minimum here, sentencing guidelines and judge discretion already solves the non-existent problem.

Poilievre accidentally gets to this point when he said:

"Their conclusion actually should have been that the sentence should have been met much more than the one year and nine months that the two dirtbag offenders received"

Putting aside the fact that the court can only consider the questions put before it, ruling the mandatory minimum constitutional wouldn't have done anything here because one year and nine months is more than a year.

If you think one year and nine months wasn't long enough then the solution is clearly tougher sentencing guidelines but Poilievre wants to act the tough guy in front of the media so he immediately promises to overturn this ruling despite it not being the problem.

RasterGraphic posted...

I don't see how this is sending that message.
In the case of the teenager example, it seems like it would still be treated as a fuck up. Just that its a more forgivable fuck up, because they're still young and stupid and probably didn't consciously think about it like a middle aged adult would.

The issue is that this is CP in the first place. So if this is CP then there would be literally be instances of CP where it's "not bad" and just get a slap on the wrist. (of course it would still be on their record and makes them CP distributors on paper.)

Enclave posted...

My point is that the legislation that put the mandatory minimum into place was completely pointless legislation that was only done purely to make Stephen Harper and the Conservatives look tough on crime for passing legislation that doesn't actually accomplish anything.

This is super typical legislation you see come out of "tough on crime" conservatives the world over.

There's absolutely no need for a mandatory minimum here, sentencing guidelines and judge discretion already solves the non-existent problem.

It's just a law that appeals to emotion rather than reality.

Any serious child pornography charges that somebody is found guilty of are already likely going to land them more than a year in prison, the mandatory minimum is almost designed to just be punishing niche situations like exactly the sort of situation the judges mentioned.

How long ago was that? And what about minimum sentences or premediated murder or any other crimes with minimum sentences? I'm pretty sure I've heard about life imprisonment for being mandatory there for decades.

Snip-N-Snails posted...

The issue is that this is CP in the first place. So if this is CP then there would be literally be instances of CP where it's "not bad" and just get a slap on the wrist. (of course it would still be on their record and makes them CP distributors on paper.)

I mean, do you legit want the teenager thrown in prison and treated like a predator over that?

Sounds like you're ignoring why CP is against the law in the first place. It's a form of child abuse. Who is actually being abused in this instance?

It's still bad. But for different reasons. It could fall in the hands of actual sexual predators or otherwise shared online (whether intentional or no).

If I was following the topic correctly (it might have been another user that said this), you mentioned you would rather have the flawed laws dealt with first ... which kind of implies it just wouldn't count as CP? That seems way way worse and open to abuse IMHO.

Lillymon posted...

Poilievre accidentally gets to this point when he said:

"Their conclusion actually should have been that the sentence should have been met much more than the one year and nine months that the two dirtbag offenders received"

Putting aside the fact that the court can only consider the questions put before it, ruling the mandatory minimum constitutional wouldn't have done anything here because one year and nine months is more than a year.

If you think one year and nine months wasn't long enough then the solution is clearly tougher sentencing guidelines but Poilievre wants to act the tough guy in front of the media so he immediately promises to overturn this ruling despite it not being the problem.

Fucking exactly.

Anyways I need to get to sleep (or at least try to) as I need to be up for work in 6 hours.

RasterGraphic posted...

I mean, do you legit want the teenager thrown in prison and treated like a predator over that?

Sounds like you're ignoring why CP is against the law in the first place. It's a form of child abuse. Who is actually being abused in this instance?

It's still bad. But for different reasons. It could fall in the hands of actual sexual predators or otherwise shared online (whether intentional or no).

I'm saying this shouldn't be CP at all in the first place. They shouldn't be getting charged for this at all. Canada's laws are the ones ignoring why CP is a crime and this is a half-assed mitigation that doesn't address the real issue while still giving horrible optics at the same time.
I can kind of understand if Canada's lawmakers are run by full conservatives and the judges doing this are the only ways to mitigate these niche situations until things get better but I don't think that's really the case.

Snip-N-Snails posted...

I'm saying this shouldn't be CP at all in the first place.

I think that might be a fundamental disagreement between us. It definitely is CP possession, at least on an objective level.

I feel like declaring that the image isn't CP due to the age of the possessor might open up a bigger can of worms.

At the very least It's still something that needs to be dealt with due to the risk of it getting leaked.

RasterGraphic posted...

I think that might be a fundamental disagreement between us. It definitely is CP possession, at least on an objective level.

I feel like declaring that the image isn't CP due to the age of the possessor might open up a bigger can of worms.

At the very least It's still something that needs to be dealt with due to the risk of it getting leaked.

Basing it on intent and context shouldn't be too big a can of worms. Again, it's how the various forms of homicide work. Pornography itself is based on intent and not just any nude picture.

Snip-N-Snails posted...

Basing it on intent and context shouldn't be too big a can of worms. Again, it's how the various forms of homicide work. Pornography itself is based on intent and not just any nude picture.

So, if I'm following. You're saying the image shouldn't be considered CP in the context of kids being stupid, but otherwise if it was a 40 yo creep?

I guess that makes sense, but I stand by that the the existence of the image itself is still problematic. It's still something the teen should get in trouble for, if only to discourage that behavior and mitigate the risk of such images leaking. Its just not exactly "spend 20 years in prison" bad, or even jail time bad.

RasterGraphic posted...

So, if I'm following. You're saying the image shouldn't be considered CP in the context of kids being stupid, but otherwise if it was a 40 yo creep?

I guess that makes sense, but I stand by that the the existence of the image itself is still problematic. It's still something the teen should get in trouble for, if only to discourage that behavior and mitigate the risk of such images leaking. Its just not exactly "spend 20 years in prison" bad, or even jail time bad.

I think that be easily rectified by having a lesser charge thats not CP

I stopped wanting to live on this planet ages ago but it keeps getting worse