I agree with everyone here that this crime is particularly heinous, but does no one think that 9 years is a very long time?
Had he raped and killed his daughter, he'd get 25 years, that is the maximum. If the rapes involved overt physical force, he'd probably have gotten 15 years, maybe 12 on the low end. That is not to diminish the psychological force here, but there is some difference.
Now, give the girl's mother a gun and a moment alone with the er, and I'll agree real justice will likely result, but still, 9 years is no cakewalk, this guy will probably do time that is so difficult he'd wish he was dead.
A poster above asked 'why give double credit for time served'. The answer is, it is a compromise--- nobody can be punished without having been proved guilty. But for some crimes it is a danger to release them into the public, and so even though the offense has not been proved, they remain in jail despite their Charter rights. But when they get convicted, time spent is counted 2 to 1. I think that is a decent compromise.
If this guy gets released after 1/2 of that time, I'd be pretty pissed, but I think 9 years is a very very long time. His daughter will never be, psychologically, what she should or could be, but I think 9 years is appropriate here, however unpopular that opinion may be.
|