Because The Examiner does not publish graphic details of crimes, only those
who were in court could fully appreciate how inhuman the attacks were. Foreign
objects were used during rapes and the child was left with permanent physical
scarring and damage, in addition to the inevitable psychological effects. During
the sentencing hearing this week some spectators left the court, unable to
stomach the details.
With all that as background for their negotiation, the attacker’s lawyer and
the Crown attorney recommended a sentence of seven to 10 years.
Justice Whetung saw things differently. He said he was “deeply troubled” by
the recommendation and instead imposed a 14-1/2 year sentence.
We agree with the judge’s view. Given the circumstances, justice would not be
served by putting this man in jail for potentially as little as 2 1/2 years –
the minimum he would serve on a seven-year sentence – and no more than 10
years.
The defence’s position on behalf of the plea-bargain sentence was a
boilerplate response: by pleading guilty the attacker spared his victims the
anguish of having to testify and relive their horrific experiences in public;
and he was anxious to get treatment in prison.
The “spare-the-victims” argument is largely self-serving in most cases, and
seems particularly so in this one when the man’s past treatment of at least
one victim was so vicious. And, as Justice Whetung pointed out, the man had
years to seek counselling between committing the crimes and being charged. He
never took that opportunity.
An argument against lengthy sentences is that prison should be seen primarily as
a way to rehabilitate offenders so they are no longer a danger when released.
The counter argument in this case is that someone who committed such perverse
sexual crimes against children may not be capable of changing. When a definitive
answer is not available, protection of the public from potential danger must get
high priority. And this man, who cannot be named in order to protect identity of
his victims, will get a chance to prove he is no longer dangerous. If parole
officials feel treatment has worked, he could be free in five to 10 years.
The other main component of the sentencing decision is public denunciation of
the crimes and deterrence for those who may prey on children in the future. It
is generally accepted that the more violent a crime, the more weight is given to
denunciation and deterrence. That would seem to be what Justice Whetung was
thinking, and what the Crown and defence lawyers failed to adequately recognize.
Any judge who orders a sentence much more severe than was recommended in a plea
bargain risks having his decision appealed and overturned. In this case, Justice
Whetung made the right call and we hope it stands.
613-797-3237