nucklehead Posted October 19, 2013 Share Posted October 19, 2013 Yea, that's horrible...'good behaviour' or whatever in jail will easily reduce his sentence and will probably let him out a lot earlier...disappointing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down by the River Posted October 19, 2013 Share Posted October 19, 2013 Take someone's life and you're out in 7 years - talk about illogical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down by the River Posted October 19, 2013 Share Posted October 19, 2013 Because of time served, he will be released before 2020. Still 7 years is nothing considering his age when he gets out. He will only be in his twenties. He committed the crime before 18, so 7 is the max. For people who commit 2nd degree murder after 18, the sentence range from 10 to 25 years. So much for justice Canadian style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down by the River Posted October 19, 2013 Share Posted October 19, 2013 I am sure he is already getting double time served plus a day. He will be out by 2020. I agree, life should equal life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonLever Posted October 19, 2013 Share Posted October 19, 2013 No. He was sentenced as an adult. If he was sentenced as a youth, max would be seven years. Under the YCJA, committing a presumptive offence (variations of murder, aggravated assault, sexual assault) and over the age of 14 can allow Crown to apply to have the youth sentenced as an adult. In the hearing today, the judge ruled that he could be sentenced as an adult. So, he received a life sentence with possibility of parole after 7 years. That doesn't mean he will get paroled after seven years. Given the lack of remorse he has shown during the case as well as two of three psychiatrists indicating that he is a high risk to re-offend, it is highly unlikely he will be given parole in seven years. The victim's father is apparently associated with HA. The offender will have a very very rough time in custody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kakanucks Posted October 19, 2013 Share Posted October 19, 2013 i don't even understand why someone convicted of murdering another human being can be given a chance of parole...... they took away someone's chance of a future in life, why should they be given a chance for a future.... and someone under 18 convicted of murder should have the same punishment as anyone over 18......the killer being under 18 doesn't make the victim any less dead...... don't get me started with rapists and sex offenders..... how many times have we seen these POS be "rehabed" and then let out only for them to claim yet another victim..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-DLC- Posted October 19, 2013 Share Posted October 19, 2013 I won't comment on this case cause i don't know all the details. But I believe in certain cases rehabilitation is possible. For example, when a vet who is suffering from PTSD that is never treated, snaps and kills someone. Although their actions are reprehensible, they have a mental disorder that caused them to do it. With treatment they can become functioning members of society again. In cases of mental disorder, society needs to point the finger at itself for letting people like that fall through the cracks IMO. I tend to agree...especially with someone young, who may have never had any sort of intervention or attempts at addressing his issues. A horrible thing...to think of this girl screaming in terror as he attacked her. I'm torn, part of me says let this guy rot in a cell but the other part says he is so young and it's tragic for two lives to be lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down by the River Posted October 19, 2013 Share Posted October 19, 2013 According to Wikipedia, that is not the case. Offenders who commits 2nd degree murder under 18 faces maximum 7 years in prison. While he may be tried as an adult he is still subject to sentencing guidelines. Otherwise he would have gotten 10 to 25 years life without parole. http://en.wikipedia....r_(Canadian_law) The link you provided doesn't say they face a max 7 years in prison. It says that 7 years is the max that a judge can give before a youth convicted as an adult of 2nd degree murder can become eligible for parole There isn't such a thing as trying a youth as an adult in Canada. The YCJA eliminated the process of transferring young persons to adult court. Instead, the YCJA established a process whereby the youth court first determines whether or not the young person is guilty of the offence and then, under certain circumstances, the youth court may impose an adult sentence. http://www.justice.g.../back-hist.html If a young person is 14 years of age or older and is charged with a serious violent offence, the prosecutor must consider applying to the court for an adult sentence. If the prosecutor decides not to apply for an adult sentence, the prosecutor must advise the court. A province may decide to change the age at which this obligation is triggered from 14 to 15 or 16.A court can impose an adult sentence only if (a) the prosecution rebuts the presumption that the young person has diminished moral blameworthiness or culpability; and (b a youth sentence would not be of sufficient length to hold the young person accountable.A young person under the age of 18 who receives an adult sentence is to be placed in a youth facility and may not be placed in an adult correctional facility. Once the young person turns 18, he or she may be placed in an adult facility. http://www.justice.g.../back-hist.html To understand the law in more simple terms; yes, this youth was under the age of 18 at the time of the offence. However, because he committed such a heinous crime, the court can determine that a youth-length sentence would not be appropriate to address YCJA sentencing purposes. So, a person under 18 can receive an adult length sentence. The same thing happened here: Kruse Wellwood and Cameron Moffatt were both under the age of 18 at the time of their offence, but their sexual homicide against Kimberly Proctor was obviously horrific and so the judge determined that the two should be sentenced as an adult because a youth-length sentence would not be appropriate. http://monctonnews.n...e-for-10-years/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down by the River Posted October 19, 2013 Share Posted October 19, 2013 i don't even understand why someone convicted of murdering another human being can be given a chance of parole...... they took away someone's chance of a future in life, why should they be given a chance for a future.... and someone under 18 convicted of murder should have the same punishment as anyone over 18......the killer being under 18 doesn't make the victim any less dead...... don't get me started with rapists and sex offenders..... how many times have we seen these POS be "rehabed" and then let out only for them to claim yet another victim..... In this case, the person under 18 did receive the same punishment as someone who was over the age of 18 would have received. Sexual recidivism (re-offending) is very very rare. The situation you are talking about rarely ever happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonLever Posted October 19, 2013 Share Posted October 19, 2013 In this case, the person under 18 did receive the same punishment as someone who was over the age of 18 would have received. Sexual recidivism (re-offending) is very very rare. The situation you are talking about rarely ever happens. I still don't understand the maximum of 7 years. If it is 2nd degree murder, the sentencing is for 10 to 25 years for adults. So why did he not get more than 7 years? Like 10, 15, or 25 years? Or is it 7 years WITHOUT parole the maximum? Maybe he could have gotten a longer sentence but WITH parole? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offensive Threat Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 Skip all the proceedings. he's guilty, he's been tried as an adult. I can clear the mess up for 48 cents a shell. No waste of tax dollars or time for this piece of filth. You do not rehab a predatory animal like this, same goes with rapists child molesters and the child abusers. Personally i'd just take em out back shoot em mulch them and redistribute them across barren soil in hopes that they might actually contribute to the world one day, much like compost I do think that rehabilitation is possible for some who commit terrible acts and if it is possible for some it should be attempted for all. The thing I dont agree with is that even if he hasnt been rehabilitated in those 7 years, even if he is a potential threat still, they will let him out at or very close to the 7 year minimum if all he does is keep out of trouble. If he isnt rehabilitated dont let him out. They act like the minimum of 7 years is how long he serves period. They can keep him longer, until he is no longer a threat to society. But they usually dont do that it seems. They stick to the minimum. Makes the suits all look good. They can tick a little box for another successful rehab and reintroduction to society. Even if hes a ticking timebomb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down by the River Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 I still don't understand the maximum of 7 years. If it is 2nd degree murder, the sentencing is for 10 to 25 years for adults. So why did he not get more than 7 years? Like 10, 15, or 25 years? Or is it 7 years WITHOUT parole the maximum? Maybe he could have gotten a longer sentence but WITH parole? So the kid was sentenced as an adult, however, there are rules that even if a youth was sentenced as an adult, their chance of parole should be earlier than for other adults. So, giving this guy a life sentence with no chance of parole for seven years was the maximum that the judge could give. He will not be out in seven years. He can be eligible for parole, but there is every reason to believe he is still at risk to re-offend and so will not likely be released for a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canazzy Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 What the above said isn't technically correct, as the first paragraph is completely wrong. Just to clear things up. He received life in jail with CHANCE of parole after 10 years. BUT since he has already been in custody for 3 years that 10, is now 7, because 3 years have already been served. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonLever Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 What the above said isn't technically correct, as the first paragraph is completely wrong. Just to clear things up. He received life in jail with CHANCE of parole after 10 years. BUT since he has already been in custody for 3 years that 10, is now 7, because 3 years have already been served. Now I am more confused. You contradicted what Down By The River said. Where is Wetcoaster, now that we need you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down by the River Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 What the above said isn't technically correct, as the first paragraph is completely wrong. Just to clear things up. He received life in jail with CHANCE of parole after 10 years. BUT since he has already been in custody for 3 years that 10, is now 7, because 3 years have already been served. No, it is correct. I wish people could at least try to provide some sources before coming in and giving misinformation. 745.1. Persons under eighteen 745.1 The sentence to be pronounced against a person who was under the age of eighteen at the time of the commission of the offence for which the person was convicted of first degree murder or second degree murder and who is to be sentenced to imprisonment for life shall be that the person be sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole until the person has served (a) such period between five and seven years of the sentence as is specified by the judge presiding at the trial, or if no period is specified by the judge presiding at the trial, five years, in the case of a person who was under the age of sixteen at the time of the commission of the offence; ( ten years, in the case of a person convicted of first degree murder who was sixteen or seventeen years of age at the time of the commission of the offence; and © seven years, in the case of a person convicted of second degree murder who was sixteen or seventeen years of age at the time of the commission of the offence. http://laws-lois.jus...t=745.1#s-745.1 http://yourlaws.ca/c...-under-eighteen Now, someone will come in and say "no, what you quoted is in relation to youth, but this youth was sentenced as an adult". My response - yes, but this statute is designed specifically for youth sentenced as an adult. If they were sentenced as a youth, they could not receive a life sentence to begin with. This is how we deduce that this specific section if for youth aged 16-17 who were sentenced as an adult for second degree murder. Under s. 745.1©, we can see that seven years parole is reserved for youth aged 16-17 who were sentenced as an adult for second degree murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.