Quote:
Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!
It sounds like you're just defending the lawyers, judges and jury here from the typical criticism that judges should be held accountable for their lenient sentences etc. I don't think that's what most people are upset about. And by exact definition in your own paragraph, aboriginal sentencing guidelines is exactly a free pass. Is it better to offer it up as a federally mandated PARLIAMENTARY free pass? Rather than a judge or jury being too lenient? Either way, most opinions, educated or not will suggest knocking two years off an already ill conceived sentence is offensive.
Psychologically how is an abused aboriginal criminal different from a white guy with a 'bad childhood'? Are we adjusting sentencing because of the mountains of evidence showing abuse creates criminal patterns of behavior and thought? Or is it apart from that and because in this case "we" are the abusers?
In north America this guy gets anywhere from death to life without parole to a few years depending on jurisdiction. I'm not sure ours is this most sound judgment out there.
|
Not intending to be dismissive, you can read it in the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R v Ipeelee:
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/sc.../8000/index.do
It is a bit of a long read, but I promise if you take the time you will be much better informed. You can still disagree with the concept if you wish, but the statistics overwhelmingly support the conclusion that we systemically over charge and over punish aboriginal offenders as compared to non-aboriginals.
So in reality, the 'free pass' that actually exists in our system is that many of the 'white guy' you speak of will just not get arrested in the first place or will have deals done that lead to no jail when the same circumstances put the aboriginal offender behind bars.
What is important to note is that while Gladue factors are required to be considered, they are not required to reduce a sentence. It is still for the judge to determine whether the factors present are relevant and can properly reduce the sentence. Without knowing how horrific the factors may have been in this particular case, it is hard to really say that the reduction applied by the judge was not warranted.
Regardless, other than you just saying so, I do not see how you have in any way backed up the assertion that specific consideration of an aboriginal person's circumstances is a 'free pass'.