Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
Abdication of responsibility via silence?
Is it wrong that I'm more upset that the Police covered this up for a couple of decades while this guy collected Public cheques and his victim got tossed aside?
|
If it's wrong, I'm right there with you. That's one thing I appreciated about Wyness's statement.
Regardless of what happens with Chu now, there should be an investigation into how an admitted sex-offender got off with nothing more than a note on his personnel file (in his own words, he has admitted to something that the criminal code says should carry a minimum of a year in jail). Then, he was able to parlay his record as a police officer (including wearing his medals during the debates last week) into a long-term career as a city councillor.
https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebs...s/201724E#a2-1
Quote:
2.2.2 Age of Consent Is 18
2.2.2.1 Sexual Exploitation (Section 153)
It is an offence for anyone who is in a position of trust or authority toward a young person, or is a person with whom the young person is in a relationship of dependency, or is in a relationship with the young person that is exploitative of the young person to commit acts amounting to either sexual interference (section 151) or invitation to sexual touching (section 152) against the young person. In section 153, “young person” means someone who is 16 or 17 years old.
The section states that a judge may infer that the accused is in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of the young person from the nature and circumstances of the relationship, including the age of the young person, the age difference between the accused and the young person, the evolution of the relationship, and the degree of control or influence by the accused over the young person.
This is a hybrid offence with a mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment for one year (upon indictment) or 90 days (upon summary conviction). The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for up to 14 years (upon indictment) or two years less a day (upon summary conviction).
|
Even if you believe his own statement that the CTV report is completely wrong and all that happened was some "under the clothes" groping, it would still fall under the offense of "invitation to sexual touching".