It's been a couple of days and I still don't know what to write concerning the Graham James verdict.
I have never understood or will ever understand the bleeding heart mentality we have to perpetrators of crime in this country. How is this sentence rational? Judge Catherine Carlson had a chance to right a previous wrong. It was wrong that James got just 3 1/2 years (even more wrong that he served just approximately 18 months) for the sex assaults on Sheldon Kennedy and another former player. Carlson had a chance to send James away for quite some time and did not. Whether it is the law or not, it makes no sense to me that a judge can take into account the totality of the crime and rewind it to make it relevant to what he served for assaulting the victims in 1997 that were known at that time. James didn't come forward in 1997 and admit to further assaults. Had he done that, then I would be inclined to have a bit of sympathy towards him. Instead he hid it and got a light sentence for the Kennedy related assaults. Years later when the Fleury related ones come out, a judge can say, "Oh well, if we had known about them at that time, then we probably only would have added another two years." Hogwash.
Cowards. Judges in this country are cowards. What would be so bad about throwing the legal book at someone like Graham James, making the defense appeal, and then watching a panel overturn what is morally right? Do you really think a panel would do that? Instead, it's easier for a panel to look and say, "It is a lenient sentence, but it is not one that is something that should be overturned."
Here is something all defense lawyers, if they don't already, should use when making a sentencing argument for leniency: make sure your client expresses remorse, apologizes to the victims, and try to get the media and public to hound your client to the point that a judge will feel your client has experienced an extreme degree of humiliation. These are factors Catherine Carlson says warrants a reduction in sentence.
I wonder how lenient Carlson would be on one of James' victims if one of them decided to put a bullet in James. I wonder if that victim expressed remorse, apologized to James' family (does he even have one?), and dealt with scores of media who were opposed to vigilante justice, would be let off so easily. I bet not. The defense lawyer would even have an added argument for leniancy: mental turmoil from being molested by this sicko.
Judges get paid a lot of money to be cowards. I have respect for precious few of them. There was one judge in Yorkton that I used to sit and watch and he, literally, looked terrified of the criminals that were before him on a daily basis. And, he passed lenient sentence after lenient sentence. If you have never been in a Yorkton courtroom, you should go and see the over-the-top security efforts inside. If it's so dangerous for court officials to deal with these people, why do they turn around and set them loose on the public so easily?
When it comes to child molestation, this is a win for the predators. If I was someone considering speaking out against my assailant, I would quickly make sure I keep my lips zipped shut after seeing this verdict. What's the point? It's clear we don't take child sex crimes seriously. In fact, we are dangerously close to simply accepting this as a sickness and giving people like James a few pills and hoping it takes their urges away.
I should say, sadly, I wasn't surprised by the James sentence.
Here is the best article I've seen on this subject:
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/03/20/brodbeck-sentence-a-miserable-failure
No comments:
Post a Comment