Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctorfever
The hypothetical, made up scenario doesn’t really tell us anything. Like, what did the 18 year old do to have their phone gone through by police, where they found the images of their 17 year old boyfriend / girlfriend. It’s not like there are random searches of phones on your 18th birthday.
No one agrees that an 18 year old should serve a year for this. I understand that’s what the 5 judges based their decision on. But, the 18 year old would have to do something for their phone to be searched. We don’t know what that something would be.
To me, it just translates to lighter sentences for people who are exploiting you children, as young as three years old in the article I posted.
This may be one of many reasons why crime was lower under the Harper government than it has been under the Liberals.
|
Based on this post the position you hold is that mandatory minimums are not justified.
So it would follow that you would not support the use of the notwithstanding clause to enforce mandatory minimums because you would be concerned that a person ending up in this hypothetical would end up with to severe of a sentence.
I think your position is more likely the government needs to modify the criminal code in a manner that encourages judges to impose harsh but constitutionally compliant sentences for child pornogrpahy while making sure in edge cases like the hypothetical judges can use their discretion.
And the above position is one I would wholehardenly agree with.