Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
This is out of genuine curiousity, because I don't actually know if there's a statement out there saying they didn't, but (if not) what makes you think they didn't take a look at it?
Couldn't they have taken a look at the potential charges, the evidence available, and the likely outcome and decide that it wasn't beneficial in any way to pursue it?
|
I think it's pretty obvious that the government realizes the optics of letting someone(a minor no less) be tortured for ten years(max sentence length for a young offender at the time) without trial only to bring them back to Canada and sentence them to another 10'years in prison. The litigation costs of the trial and subsequent appeals can't possibly be justified for the sake of a "moral" victory.