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

Somebody check the computers of those judges

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.

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

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.

Right wing rot truly is settling in everywhere.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

I feel like CP should be hyper specific as well.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.