Was Canada right to grant asylum to a U.S. sex offender?

[19Yzerman19]

What if we made the standard for asylum somehow Charter dependent? Particularly where the Charter refers to "everyone", i.e.,

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

Those doesn't say "every citizen of Canada", as some sections of the Charter do (i.e. s.3, s.6) - they say "everyone". If we as Canadians truly feel, to the extent of enshrining the same in the constitution of our country, that everyone, regardless of nationality, has certain rights, protecting those rights seems to me a legitimate basis for granting someone asylum.

In this case, I would suggest that the sentence in question offends the principles of fundamental justice, and constitutes cruel and unusual treatment, given the nature of the offence.

[Cuz]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

What if we made the standard for asylum somehow Charter dependent? Particularly where the Charter refers to "everyone", i.e.,



Those doesn't say "every citizen of Canada", as some sections of the Charter do (i.e. s.3, s.6) - they say "everyone". If we as Canadians truly feel, to the extent of enshrining the same in the constitution of our country, that everyone, regardless of nationality, has certain rights, protecting those rights seems to me a legitimate basis for granting someone asylum.

In this case, I would suggest that the sentence in question offends the principles of fundamental justice, and constitutes cruel and unusual treatment, given the nature of the offence.

Hmm, interesting argument, and you are correct that those sections of the Charter protect anyone within the borders of Canada.

[CaptainCrunch]

I guess the legal question is can we apply the Canadian Concept of cruel and unusual punishment to every case.

I agree in this case 30 years is really excessive, but I don't think that there can be a blanket statement on this.

If the State has lets say the three strikes rule like California I believe has it, do we accept a triple time violent offender because our sensibilities say that life without parole is cruel and unusual punishment.

Or lets say a terrorist facing a death penalty in a middle eastern country shows up here after bombing the crap out of a market full of kids, do we send him back?

I think that right now the thought of how this effects our relations with the U.S. is irrelevant, frankly our relations with the American's are at the lowest point since Trudeau was in office, and this isn't going to change that.

I do think that in terms of the 30 year old having sex with the 16 year old which is defined as a criminal activity in the states is punishable, but not by 30 years.

But it wasn't too long ago that we had an escaped sexual offender show up in the States and they refused to send him back.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

If the State has lets say the three strikes rule like California I believe has it, do we accept a triple time violent offender because our sensibilities say that life without parole is cruel and unusual punishment.

Or lets say a terrorist facing a death penalty in a middle eastern country shows up here after bombing the crap out of a market full of kids, do we send him back?

In both of your examples, you are citing things that are also indictable offenses here in Canada.

Let's use a different example. What would you think about a woman who was in Canada, facing charges of adultery in her home country? In that she left her husband, and found a new boyfriend before her divorce was completed. (I'm getting this example from an episode of "Locked Up Abroad"- in case anybody is wondering.)

[puckluck2]

At 16 I was just starting grade 12. How many people felt that in grade 11 or grade 12 they couldn't have made a proper decision with who to sleep with?

And why are we treating sex like it's some terrible emotional event? The kid was 16. 16 year olds like having sex and there is nothing wrong with that.

Edit: I guess I should add that with a 30 year old, it is morally wrong, but still doesn't deserve jail time unless she was in a position of trust (which she wasn't).

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

At 16 I was just starting grade 12. How many people felt that in grade 11 or grade 12 they couldn't have made a proper decision with who to sleep with?

And why are we treating sex like it's some terrible emotional event? The kid was 16. 16 year olds like having sex and there is nothing wrong with that.

Edit: I guess I should add that with a 30 year old, it is morally wrong, but still doesn't deserve jail time unless she was in a position of trust (which she wasn't).

From the article she is 47 now. Incident happened in 2008, so she was 41ish at the time.

She could have been his mother FFS.

Sex isn't a horrible emotional event, it is awesome. Sadly, when predator's like this make it into something terrible. IMO, she took advantage of him of a sexual immature individual.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

From the article she is 47 now. Incident happened in 2008, so she was 41ish at the time.

She could have been his mother FFS.

Sex isn't a horrible emotional event, it is awesome. Sadly, when predator's like this make it into something terrible. IMO, she took advantage of him of a sexual immature individual.

I would be swayed if there is a victim in this case. Was the boy victimized? Does he afterwards feel manipulated into it or was it something that he is proud of, or is it somewhere in between.

If the Boy now looks back as this being the defining moment of how he can't trust women and have a real relationship then a crime was likely comitted. Although even in legal consenting relationships you can be emtionally destroyed so even that might not be a good test.

Even still is 30 years a reasonable punishment? I can't see it being as worth a life sentance.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by ken0042

In both of your examples, you are citing things that are also indictable offenses here in Canada.

Let's use a different example. What would you think about a woman who was in Canada, facing charges of adultery in her home country? In that she left her husband, and found a new boyfriend before her divorce was completed. (I'm getting this example from an episode of "Locked Up Abroad"- in case anybody is wondering.)

But what she did in the States, is an indictable offense in Canada

The punishment is screwed, but under your example we're now saying that what you did was a crime in both countries but we don't like your system of punishment.

Like I said I don't have a real problem with what happened in terms of them fleeing to Canada, but its more due to the length of sentence, but it suddenly isn't as clear in terms of passing the smell test.

And we don't know the specifics of the victim in this case in terms of mental state. did he testify against her? did he feel used or molested?

[undercoverbrother]

Even still is 30 years a reasonable punishment? I can't see it being as worth a life sentance

In my first post I said i thought the sentence was too much

Originally Posted by GGG

I would be swayed if there is a victim in this case. Was the boy victimized? Does he afterwards feel manipulated into it or was it something that he is proud of, or is it somewhere in between.

If the Boy now looks back as this being the defining moment of how he can't trust women and have a real relationship then a crime was likely comitted. Although even in legal consenting relationships you can be emtionally destroyed so even that might not be a good test.

.

It is tough, if a 16 yr old isn't legally an adult, who it to say if a crime has been commited, his parents?

To me this type of incident is ridiculous, a 41(ish) yr old with a 16 yr old, to me it is disgusting and indefensible.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

But what she did in the States, is an indictable offense in Canada

I'm not going to look it up at work, but I was under the impression that what she did was not considered a crime here. The "victim" was 16, and she was not in a position of authority.

So if I'm wrong on the legality, that explains the difference in our opinions.

[CaptainCrunch]

Some more on the story, from the trials

http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2011/mar/...d-in-underage/

The boy worked against her with the prosecution

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/201...-supreme-court

She denied that she had sex with the boy, even though her dna was on a condom

She also was offered a plea deal for 15 years, and refused it.

She was sentenced on 5 counts of unlawful sex with a teenager as well that's why the 30 year sentence.

It sounds like she isn't the most upstanding citizen, from other reports, she had her families and friends lie under oath and tried to convince the boy to lie as well.

But I'm still stuck on the 30 years.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I'm not going to look it up at work, but I was under the impression that what she did was not considered a crime here. The "victim" was 16, and she was not in a position of authority.

So if I'm wrong on the legality, that explains the difference in our opinions.

this is the wording its fairly cloudy

The age of consent for sexual activity is 16 years. It was raised from 14 years on May 1, 2008 by the Tackling Violent Crime Act.
However, the age of consent is 18 years where the sexual activity "exploits" the young person -- when it involves prostitution, pornography or occurs in a relationship of authority, trust or dependency (e.g., with a teacher, coach or babysitter). Sexual activity can also be considered exploitative based on the nature and circumstances of the relationship, e.g., the young person's age, the age difference between the young person and their partner, how the relationship developed (quickly, secretly, or over the Internet) and how the partner may have controlled or influenced the young person.

The Grey area at the bottom is where the trouble starts, I believe because their age difference was greater then 5 years in Canada, then she would have committed a crime here. If he was 16 or greater the age difference wouldn't have mattered.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I'm not going to look it up at work, but I was under the impression that what she did was not considered a crime here. The "victim" was 16, and she was not in a position of authority.

So if I'm wrong on the legality, that explains the difference in our opinions.

Ken in the article it says:

Florida law makes it illegal for anyone over the age of 24 to have sex with someone 16 or younger, the Post noted. The age of consent in Canada is 16, unless the older person is in a position of trust or authority (such as a teacher or coach), when the age of consent rises to 18.

It would appear that at 41 yrs old she is too old.

[CaptainCrunch]

See the above UCB, for 16 the age of consent barrier is 5 years. so if she was 21 or under its ok under the law here, but anything older and its a felony.

So she broke the law under the definitions of both countries.

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

See the above UCB, for 16 the age of consent barrier is 5 years.

As far as I can tell you pulled this out of your ass. Pretty sure all it says is that whether something amounts to "sexual exploitation" is contextual and is decided on the particular facts. If they'd wanted a defined age barrier, i.e. 5 years, they would've written it into the statute. Without reviewing a bunch of case law as to how it's been interpreted I don't know how you can draw any conclusions in this regard.

EDIT: After actually looking into this for a second, the "close in age" provision is in fact a relieving provision - it provides an exception to "exploitation" where the parties are close in age and there is no relationship of trust. In other words, you still have to separately establish exploitation, and your inability to meet an exception doesn't impact that assessment because that simply isn't how statutes are interpreted.

In other words, age gap is a relevant factor (as are all contextual circumstances) but the "5 year close in age" thing isn't relevant here.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

As far as I can tell you pulled this out of your ass. Pretty sure all it says is that whether something amounts to "sexual exploitation" is contextual and is decided on the particular facts. If they'd wanted a defined age barrier, i.e. 5 years, they would've written it into the statute. Without reviewing a bunch of case law as to how it's been interpreted I don't know how you can draw any conclusions in this regard.

Got it right off the justice Canada site, where they talk about close in age and peer group exceptions.

[19Yzerman19]

I meant the five year rule. The justice.gc.ca summary just says that age difference is one of the factors that may be considered in a particular case to determine whether sexual exploitation took place. As far as I can see, "5 years" is not a relevant measuring stick in that analysis. So you can't say with any certainty that any particular age gap was illegal without analyzing the totality of the circumstances through the prism of the case law on this topic, which would give you a sense of what factors judges find more or less important and how they've looked at them in the past.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

In my first post I said i thought the sentence was too much




It is tough, if a 16 yr old isn't legally an adult, who it to say if a crime has been commited, his parents?

To me this type of incident is ridiculous, a 41(ish) yr old with a 16 yr old, to me it is disgusting and indefensible.

Yes, I know 18 is an adult and 16 is a child but even that distinction is in and of itself pretty arbitrary.

[CaptainCrunch]

Sure I can agree with it, but the debate is really would she be charged in Canada for the same offense? The provisions are there for it, so now we're down to is cruel and unusual punishment something that Canada is defining with our set of values and applying to U.S. law to determine her immigration status.

was responding to 19yzer

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Yes, I know 18 is an adult and 16 is a child but even that distinction is in and of itself pretty arbitrary.

I am note sure what the picture is for.......


To be clear, I think a 41 yr old married women hooking up with an 18 yr disgusting as well.