2 Calgary brothers charged with sex attack on teen

[Amethyst]

I understand where this point is coming from. Two people who commit similar crimes should not be treated differently because one victim is a better speaker than the other.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by AcGold

No. No. I suggest she can't accurately give a description of events because emotion clouds judgement and thusly nobody should be giving victim statements as they are inherently exaggerated. Where did I compare rape to former bosses? Learn to read, stop being pedantic.

I would think that she could probably give a pretty accurate portrayal of events, however at this point the events are fairly irrelevant as victim impact statements come during sentencing, and the emotional or physical costs to the victim should be considered in sentencing.

For example some guy runs a Ponzi scheme and bilks a bunch of retirees out of their pensions, shouldn't that have some bearing on the sentencing?

Or a guy jumps another guy and beats him within an inch of his life, and leaves him mentally debilitated or crippled, shouldn't the judge need to balance that against the sentence?

We talk about the right to a fair hearing for the accused, and their day in court, doesn't the victim deserve that as well, and shouldn't it absolutely have a bearing on the sentence. Shouldn't the judge absolutely see the human cost of the crime and its effect on the victims?

[Hack&Lube]

There's two things going on in this thread.

One is the Trump-like rage against the other ethnicity and culture that's viewed as backwards and leeching off our society (while accepting that there are endemic problems of that culture that were the making of our nation's past).

The other is pure rage at the crimes these people have committed. They may not have stood a chance at life with their upbringing and the apparently sh*t values of their own parents but justice still needs to be done because of the remorseless scumbag harm they have brought upon another person.

We need to look at these things as exclusive. Once this trial is over there will be more incidents, more crimes, more trials, more social issues, etc. until we figure out a way to stop throwing money at the problem just because of the treaty and reserve system and really integrate the aboriginal cultures into the Canadian dream. There needs to be a point where you say enough is enough and stop funneling money to corrupt chiefs and breeding grounds for fetal alcohol syndrome, degenerate violence, and a culture of dependency.

[Sainters7]

Haha I actually forgot about how many lawyers are on this site when I posted that, shortly after when I remembered I figured I was going to get a long post in return. Yes I get the function defense attorneys play in society, and I respect the law process. I'm sure there's plenty of good defense attorneys representing innocent people, which obviously is important. But there's also a bunch representing guilty scummy types, probably on the reg, and they know it. It's not something just anyone would be comfortable doing.

I probably painted it with too wide a brush, I'm just saying specifically in a lot of these high profile cases over the years, the defence attorney usually comes across as some smarmy Dbag to me. Even in the recent Saints Will Smith shooting which I was keeping up with, the guy the shooter hired was wearing a chrome, pinstriped suit Al Capone would've been proud of, with pretty much the largest diamond studs in his ears I've ever seen (the NOLA media referred to it as "oysters in his ears"), and he was so smug with the media. It was sickening. You could just tell he was greasy. Plenty of those types as defense attorneys in these larger cases, I could never do it. You need to be a certain kind of person to be comfortable representing people like that.

I don't want to bog down this depressing thread with this kind of sidetracked stuff though, just thought I'd clarify what I meant.

[calgarywinning]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

That is the way the system worked for centuries, yes. Victim impact statements are a recent thing (introduced in Canada in 1988), an attempt to have the justice system serve a social role it was never intended to serve. How the victim feels about the crime was never taken into account, because you can get into dangerous territory when you make criminal justice about the victim and not the perpetrator and crime.

Well put, can appreciate this reasoning, in terms of impact on retribution.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by Sainters7

Haha I actually forgot about how many lawyers are on this site when I posted that, shortly after when I remembered I figured I was going to get a long post in return. Yes I get the function defense attorneys play in society, and I respect the law process. I'm sure there's plenty of good defense attorneys representing innocent people, which obviously is important. But there's also a bunch representing guilty scummy types, probably on the reg, and they know it. It's not something just anyone would be comfortable doing.

You might have read MBates' response, but you did not understand it.

Take some time to consider the society you would live in, if lawyers refused to act for those who did do the crime, on the grounds they are guilty. Or, partway through a case, the lawyer "discovers" their client is guilty, and then just withdraws from the case.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I think a lot of people hate that because everyone knows the person is guilty, but they get off. The committed the crime, but due to some police screw up, or whatever else they are "technically" innocent, even though they did the crime. For examples, see most white collar crime. It's also becuase if you can afford it, you can buy your way out of prison with really good lawyers. Justice ends up not being evenly applied across society. The wealthy go free, while the poor get locked up becuase they can't afford lawyers to get them off on "technicalities".

Well, we could always properly fund our legal aid system to attempt to address this problem. However, I doubt that is a very popular idea on this forum.

[troutman]

I posted this in the Ghomeshi thread, and it bears repeating:

THE ROLE OF THE DEFENCE COUNSEL IN CANADIAN SOCIETY
Edward L. Greenspan, Q.C.
http://speeches.empireclub.org/60446/data?n=4

[I am always asked how can you defend "those people." How can you act for a guilty man? And not just non-lawyers ask but, sadly, law students, indeed other lawyers, ask].

[Cecil Terwilliger]

I am fine oversimplifying this whole defence lawyer thing.

We want guilty people to get punished. We want innocent people to go free.

When disgusting guilty people get off or get light sentences or their lawyers push for lighter sentences, we think they are scum.

When people who we aren't sure are guilty get off or get light sentences or their lawyers push for lighter sentences, we say "hey that's the justice system, must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt".

When people who we believe are clearly innocent and wrongfully accused are found guilty or get harsh sentences or the prosecution asks for harsher sentences, we think it is the cops/prosecution/"legal system" that are scum. When innocent people go free, then it is "hey! The legal system works!"

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by troutman

I posted this in the Ghomeshi thread, and it bears repeating:

THE ROLE OF THE DEFENCE COUNSEL IN CANADIAN SOCIETY
Edward L. Greenspan, Q.C.
http://speeches.empireclub.org/60446/data?n=4

[I am always asked how can you defend "those people." How can you act for a guilty man? And not just non-lawyers ask but, sadly, law students, indeed other lawyers, ask].

He says it almost as well as our own MBates

[Sainters7]

Originally Posted by Delgar

You might have read MBates' response, but you did not understand it.

Take some time to consider the society you would live in, if lawyers refused to act for those who did do the crime, on the grounds they are guilty. Or, partway through a case, the lawyer "discovers" their client is guilty, and then just withdraws from the case.

Of course. I'm not debating the importance of a defence attorney in a democratic society. I respect the law, and those who represent it. It's one of the world's older professions for a reason. All I'm saying is being able to represent someone who you know is guilty is something a lot of people would struggle with and couldn't do, myself included. It's definitely not for everybody.

But I'm stopping with this here, don't want to derail this any further. I said my piece, he said his, no point going around and around with it.

[troutman]

Moral judgments by the lawyer are frequently wrong and he learns not to make them. No lawyer can assume the character of a judge. - E. Greenspan

[AltaGuy]

Defending people who are guilty is absolutely imperative. The State has to prove it every single time beyond a reasonable doubt, and if they didn't our society quickly goes down a dark path. Defence attorneys defending people who they know are guilty are doing us all a favour because even a Ted Bundy does far, far less damage than a State apparatus run amok.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Well, we could always properly fund our legal aid system to attempt to address this problem. However, I doubt that is a very popular idea on this forum.

Hell, I think I'm the only one on this forum who gave a crap when the Conservatives scrapped the Charter Challenge program and thought it should have been a campaign platform for the Liberals (I believe it was for the NDP).

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by troutman

I posted this in the Ghomeshi thread, and it bears repeating:

THE ROLE OF THE DEFENCE COUNSEL IN CANADIAN SOCIETY
Edward L. Greenspan, Q.C.
http://speeches.empireclub.org/60446/data?n=4

[I am always asked how can you defend "those people." How can you act for a guilty man? And not just non-lawyers ask but, sadly, law students, indeed other lawyers, ask].

That was an exceptional read. Thank you for sharing.

[taco.vidal]

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/c...test-1.3705851

The Crown is seeking 12 years for both brothers while their defence counsel is looking for a six-year sentence for Cody and two years, plus three years' probation, for Corey.

6 years for this????

The victim was grabbed from a bus stop in Taradale in November 2014 and endured more than eight hours of assaults, both near the bus stop and at the home of the assailants, before she escaped.

Corey and Cody Manyshots each pleaded guilty last October to sexual assault, kidnapping, robbery and uttering threats.

[CaptainCrunch]

To me whether these brothers have fetal alcohol syndrome or whatever, its pretty clear to me that people that have it in their mind to kidnap or rape or murder because of it, they're too dangerous to be on the streets, even to me, 12 years isn't enough, because if this is engrained behavior are they not a danger to society?

With Crimes like this, I honestly think that there should be an automatic dangerous offender tag put on them and there has to be definite proof that they are no danger to re-offfend and when or if they are released they have to live up to a strick set of guidelines and be monitored electronically.

[taco.vidal]

http://www.calgaryherald.com/gerson+...010/story.html

Read the whole article at the link. This story is terrible. Hug-a-thug in action by our Canadian justice system.

Jen Gerson: If this is what happens in the worst sex assault cases, how can any rape victim expect justice?

JEN GERSON 08.16.2016

When women envision their worst nightmares of rape, this is the type of extreme and rare horror they imagine: in November 2014, a 17-year-old girl was standing at a bus stop in Northeast Calgary when she was approached by two men. They were carrying shovels.

They asked her for directions before forcing her into an alley. There, she was repeatedly raped, sodomized and forced to perform oral sex.

The men, who were brothers, told her to come with them, threatening to kill her if she didn’t. They took her to their nearby home where the raping continued for eight hours. The girlfriend and child of one of the brothers were in the house during the ordeal. So was their father. After taking drugs, believed to be crack, the Grade 12 student managed to escape the home. She wrote on her hand the address and the name of one of her attackers.

She later took police to the address and identified the faces of her attackers in a photo.

Last October, Corey and Cody Manyshots pleaded guilty to a series of crimes, including uttering threats, kidnapping, sexual assault and robbery. A charge of sexual assault causing bodily harm was withdrawn.

There is no disputing the brothers’ guilt. They admitted to the crime. The credibility of the witness was not in question and the evidence was clear.

This is a horrific and unambiguous case of brutal sexual assault. As many experts will attest, it is particularly exceptional for its horror; most rapes are conducted by acquaintances, not strangers, although they are often no less traumatic for this fact. Although it fits a stereotype, stories of strangers jumping out of bushes are rare.

Because of the intimate and sometimes he-said, she-said nature of sexual assault allegations, these types of crimes are difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. And that’s when victims report them at all — police hear about only six to eight per cent of sexual assaults.

It’s instructive, then, to look at what happens in a case that has been stripped of any ambiguity.

Since their plea last year, sentencing has dragged on for months as the Manyshots’ lawyers asked for more and more time to consider the brothers’ mental health conditions — mitigating factors that could lessen their sentences.

Cody Manyshots suffers from fetal alcohol syndrome and Corey Manyshots from schizophrenia. Astonishingly, these entirely distinct conditions may reduce their culpability for committing the same crimes. And the brothers were dealing with addiction issues and had a poor upbringing — as if this behaviour were common in well-adjusted men.

The Crown is seeking a sentence of 12 years.

The defence for Cody Manyshots has requested a six-year term, less credit for time served.

The lawyer for Corey Manyshots suggested a sentence of two years and probation, given he has already served the equivalent of more than two years in custody. Both brothers are considered high risks to re-offend.

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by taco.vidal

http://www.calgaryherald.com/gerson+...010/story.html



Read the whole article at the link. This story is terrible. Hug-a-thug in action by our Canadian justice system.

Did you read the article? The sentence hasn't even been determined. That is just what the lawyer is asking for. He's just doing his job.

[Coach]

Is that the most they can be charged with? Because I am not ok with that.