Home
Cover-up
Garry Guzzo
Institutions
Leduc Trial
Media
Of Interest
Perry Dunlop
Questions
Red Flags
The AG
The Clan
The Diocese
The Inquiry
The Scandal
The Trials
The Victims
cornwall

the inquiry


Cornwall Public Inquiry

Abusers who breach trust get shorter sentences, study shows

Toronto Globe and Mail

 

29 October 2008 at 10:47 PM EST

 

KIRK MAKIN

 

Pedophiles who are familiar to their victims walk away with significantly lighter prison sentences than strangers who sexually abuse children, an extensive study conducted by the Cornwall pedophile inquiry has found.

 

The finding surprised researchers, turning on its head an accepted theory of sentencing under which offenders who breach a child's trust – such as babysitters, family friends or teachers – warrant particularly harsh punishment.

 

Colleen Parrish, director of policy for the inquiry, said the trust issue jumped out for her researchers, since they had anticipated finding the opposite pattern.

 

“It may still take a while for society to realize the incredible change that it causes in someone, when a person who cares for them and should be looking after them breaches that trust,” Ms. Parrish said in an interview.

 

“We are still coming to grips with the profound damage this can do. Many individuals who have experienced a breach of trust speak quite movingly of how terrible it was to have it happen because it really destroyed their ability to trust other people.”

 

The commission's research encompassed more than 768 non-familial child sexual abuse cases that were resolved in the court systems of Alberta, Ontario and Quebec from 1969-2008. Ms. Parrish said the study will be released in the near future, after a final revision.

 

In Alberta, the average sentence in a trust scenario was 36.5 months, compared with 48 months for a non-trust scenario. The average sentence in Ontario for a breach-of-trust assault was 25 months, compared with 37 months for cases involving strangers. In Quebec, the average in trust scenarios was 28 months, compared with 33.5 months for non-trust cases.

 

“We wonder whether there is a tendency on the part of everyone who touches the justice system – Crowns, defence and judges – to think that a breach of trust is somehow less bad than cases where a person has been snatched off the streets,” Ms. Parrish said.

 

“The justice system reflects social values,” she added. “We think that we may be seeing a persistence of social attitudes.”

 

The study also found that pedophiles are sentenced to significantly longer prison terms in Alberta than in Ontario or Quebec.

 

The finding highlighted an anomaly of Canadian sentencing practices: While consistency is meant to be a hallmark of justice, sentencing patterns can vary sharply from province to province.

 

“Given that criminal laws in Canada are under federal jurisdiction and apply across the country without variation, this type of wide disparity in sentencing appears unwarranted,” observed the authors of the Cornwall inquiry study, analysts Angela Long and Louise-Michelle Tansey-Miller.

 

“The justice system exists within a social milieu,” Ms. Parrish said. “You may be seeing different social attitudes in different provinces.”

 

However, she noted that the sentencing gap between the three provinces appears to be narrowing. Simultaneously, Alberta appellate courts are causing sentences to slowly come down in length, while appeal courts in Ontario and Quebec are causing them to gradually climb.

 

Other findings included:

 

– While the majority of child victims in Alberta were female, the majority in Quebec were male. In Ontario, the victims' gender is evenly split.

 

(Specifically, the totals were: Alberta, 64 per cent female; Ontario, 48 per cent female; Quebec, 35 per cent female.)

 

– Contrary to common belief, offenders whose victims were male were given sentences roughly equal to those whose victims were female.

 

– Sentences in Ontario are higher than in the other two provinces for so-called “historical abuse,” in which victims do not report their allegations until many years later.

 Ontario offenders averaged 10 months longer in prison in these cases than offenders in Quebec did.
Comments on above article posted on Toronto Globe and Mail website
  1. m a from Toronto, Canada writes: Duh... They were really surprised? When strangers molest kids they get sent to jail, when parents do it they get sent to therapy. There are many children in foster care whose parents' have abused them but who still retain parental rights because our society seems to think that maintaining this relationship is of paramount importance. Obviously more important than a child's safety. The length of the average sentence, even for a stranger, says it all. 3 years for sexually assaulting a child. Is there a worse crime? These people should be put away for life. The rate of recidivism is high, they can't be rehabilitated. Molesters should all be sent to jail and kept there. It's worth however much it would cost, because I firmly believe that children who were molested grow up to be molesters. Not all of them obviously, but I seriously doubt that any child molester out there was not also abused as a child. Time to stop this.
  2. Anne Smith from Canada writes: m a - I do not believe the numbers would necessarily bear your statement out that the abused become abusers. in fact, quite the opposite. we grow up to understand all too well the damage that can be wrought. It's a poor excuse in many cases. The miracle is how many of us grow to be kind, caring adults who cannot imagine doing to others what was inflicted upon us.
  3. Alberta Marlowe from Canada writes: Absolutely, Anne. People who were sexually abused as children tend, I think, to be more protective of children and more aware of what can happen to them - they want the harm that was done to them to stop with them.

    Wasn't there a study done in Ontario a few years ago which showed that a large percentage of convicted child abusers who claimed to have been sexually abused themselves were actually lying in order to get more lenient sentences? I remember reading about that - I've been trying to track it down. Does anyone out there know about it?
  4. Concerned For The Planet from Fredericton, NB, Canada writes: I think the sentence of a pedophile who breaks a trust should be just a harsh or more so than that of a stranger. It's one thing to be brutalized by someone you don't know but to be harmed by someone you trusted to protect you carries with it a sense of evil. This should be considered during sentencing.
  5. Pan de Monium from Montreal, Canada writes: If it matters with with regards to the age of consent for sexual activity whereas the law will 'not criminalize consensual sexual activity with or between persons 14 or over, unless it takes place in a relationship of trust or dependency' it should certainly matter when the victim is younger than the age of consent, and by that I mean sentences should not be more lenient for those who have a relationship of trust or dependency.

    Source: http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb993-e.htm
  6. Dragline 62 from GTA, Canada writes: One glaring reality that doesn't get pointed out in this story. The sentences for both categories of offenders if far to lenient.
    If our children are supposed to be our most precious asset then why don't the laws and punishment for pedophilia reflect that?
    Or child abuse or infanticide for that matter?
  7. Eric Martin from Canada writes: This article ignores the type of offense. The criminal code distinguishes assault with physical coercion and improper physical touching. These are different offenses and they result in different sentences.

    It could be that 'breach of trust' situations tend to involve less coercion than stranger situations. Even within 'breach of trust', one has to distinguish a person in a position of authority and control from a casual friend with no authority. Judges are in a position to assess how much coercion or authority was actually used.

    Statistics that compare sentencing while ignoring the nature of the offense are meaningless.
  8. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: Trusted abusers are often 'upstanding' community members. Priests, coaches, teachers and so on. Then there is the issue of parental 'rights', as noted by m a.

    The stranger who kidnaps and abuses a child is, more often than not, a recluse and / or 'weirdo' who doesn't 'contribute to society'. This is a root cause of why there is such a discrepancy between the length of sentences in the two groups of offenders.

    It doesn't help that the trust breachers often have better financial and social network support resources than the stranger group does. Especially in the case of coaches and priests.

    The fact of the matter is that in both cases, the sentences are far, far too lenient.

    This is where the CPC and RRW should really be getting tough on crime. And treatment.

    But then, gun violence is so much simpler and more palatable for the RRW to deal with because dealing with gun violence apparently doesn't need to include the really messy aspects of sex and psychology.

    Simplistic answers to complex problems usually result in a bigger and even more complicated mess.

    Unfortunately, the extremists are unable and / or unwilling to provide anything other than simplistic approaches and solutions to complex problems.

    Oh yeah, which group is a core supporter of the CPC?

    That would be the religious fundamentalists.

    Funny how that group produces so many of the trust breacher child abusers, isn't it? Not to mention all the adult level sex scandals - especially homosexual ones - that make the news. Why is that?

    The other relevant observation about the religious fundamentalists is to note what they see as the place of women and children. The short version is that women and children are chattel.

    But in those cold, hard facts is a root cause of why we see that horrific discrepancy in sentencing child abusers.
  9. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: @ Eric Martin: The law assumes that any adult has some authority over a minor, even if it is to a limited degree. Why is that? It has something to do with why there is such a thing as 'Age of Majority'. So much for your distinction between an adult trusted person and a casual friend.

    That trusted authority thing gets really interesting in the context of the medical and legal professions. There are some pretty strict rules about relationships - especially intimate ones - between the professional and their clients. Which can lead to some very interesting 'disciplinary' decisions when two consenting adults meet in a business relationship and happen to fall in love. Messy, messy, messy doesn't even scratch the surface.

    The critical difference here being that the penalties imposed on the 'authority' figure in the adult scenario are frequently harsher than in the case where a child is abused. What's wrong with this picture? And why is the adult authority 'breach of trust' so much worse than when a child is abused?

    If you think abuse of authority and trust between adults is bad and messy, make no mistake about it, it is far, far worse when the abused individual is a child. Especially when the abuser is a trusted individual. And the sentencing for such child abuse should reflect the severity of the consequences to the child.

    Regardless of whether or not the abuser was abused as a child themselves. No excuses accepted. The only proviso being that such abusers should be given treatment as dangerous psychiatric offenders - which is what they are.
  10. Rachel F from Ottawa, Canada writes: m a - While I understand and empathize with your views.. they are not necessarily pertanent to this article and the studies' conclusions since it clearly states: 'The commission's research encompassed more than 768 [*]non-familial [*]child sexual abuse cases that were resolved in the court systems of Alberta, Ontario and Quebec from 1969-2008.' In other words cases not involving family members.

    I do however agree with the overwhelming opinion that these sentences are disgustingly low. Destroying a child's faith in people has a ripple affect. I knew of a family whose child was abused by a sports coach... in the end approx 50 kids came forward... but only after one shot his mother to death for sending him to practice....the offender served 2 yrs less a day... the bulk of the kids were in therapy for more than five years (some are still many many years later) and the kid who shot his mom was institutionalized.... hardly seems just or fair.
  11. Eric Martin from Canada writes: @Orest Zarowsky. I agree with your statement that sentencing should reflect the severity of the consequences to the child. This is why this article is misleading. It ignores the fact that there is a wide variety of sexual offenses - from the extremely harmful (violent rape) to the benign (a 25 year old who caresses sexually a willing and eager 15 year old).

    This is not far fetched. Recently a 25 year female teacher, having a loving relationship with a 15 year male student, was convicted of a sexual crime. She was in a position of authority; he did not have the 'age of majority'; but was any harm done?

    If we dare to open our eyes, we would see that many teenagers have a strong sexual desire towards older people. Not long ago, marriage at 13 was not unusual. The obsession with age is a recent phenomenon. For thousands of years, serious sexuality started at puberty, as happens with all other mammals.

    We should recall that 'breach of trust' applies all the way to the age of 18. So the fact that sentencing for 'breach of trust' cases is less severe than for the 'stranger' cases might simply reflect that many such cases are less harmful.
  12. Warren Asweater from Canada writes: The sentencing and vicitm gender data is consistent with RC priests getting an easier ride for their 'indiscretions', while others are more appropriately sentenced for their 'crimes'.

    Perhaps the Cardinals' lobbying efforts to limit civil exposure spills over into the criminal side of the court system?
  13. Alberta Marlowe from Canada writes: 'This is not far fetched. Recently a 25 year female teacher, having a loving relationship with a 15 year male student, was convicted of a sexual crime. She was in a position of authority; he did not have the 'age of majority'; but was any harm done?

    If we dare to open our eyes, we would see that many teenagers have a strong sexual desire towards older people. Not long ago, marriage at 13 was not unusual. The obsession with age is a recent phenomenon. For thousands of years, serious sexuality started at puberty, as happens with all other mammals.'

    Thanks for your apologia, Eric, for abuse of a student by a teacher. As someone who lost their education because a teacher decided to have a 'loving relationship' with me when I was a teen-aged student, yes, I can tell you harm is done in any such relationship. Incredible harm, to the student, their future and their relationship with their family. A child has a right - a RIGHT - to an education without being viewed as a sexual object by teachers. As for teenagers having strong sexual desires toward older people - they're kids. They're stupid. Older people, especially those in positions of authority, should not be using that stupidity for their own purposes. It isn't 'love', Eric. The teacher was rightfully convicted and should be jailed and fired and should never work near kids again. And neither should you, with those views.
  14. Risto Richards from Tofino, Canada writes: If a teacher (who cares how old) fondles a 15 year old student, it is for power, not for love. It is especially heinous as a teacher can play on the low self-esteem of the student and make them feel 'special'. When the student finally learns that the teacher is a narcissistic monster, the special feeling evaporates and self-esteem drops even lower. The cycle is likely to be repeated for the victim in their life as there are lots of people who prey on and dominate (most often mentally) those with low self-esteem and self-worth.

    I would like these teachers to find someone in prison who can make them feel special. The predator becomes the prey. This is justice.
  15. Scrappy T from Canada writes: I would have to believe that to be abused by someone you trusted would be a lot worse than by a stranger.

    Obviously, both are horrible and the sentences should be life as that is what the abused suffers.
  16. Bad Lady from Canada writes: Eric Martin, please keep your admiration of pedophiles to yourself. It is offensive. Kindly get yourself some help as well, you sick, sick man.
  17. Bad Lady from Canada writes: Interestingly, we see the same kind of sentencing patterns in cases of adult sexual assault as well, although in that case I believe it is clear that breach of trust cases are broadly seen as less serious than assaults by strangers by many people.
  18. Robert Waddell from Canada writes: 'Anne Smith from Canada writes: m a - I do not believe the numbers would necessarily bear your statement out that the abused become abusers. in fact, quite the opposite. we grow up to understand all too well the damage that can be wrought. It's a poor excuse in many cases. The miracle is how many of us grow to be kind, caring adults who cannot imagine doing to others what was inflicted upon us. ' Studies have shown that there is a very strong correlation between being abused as a child and becoming an abuser when older. Certainly not all of those abused become abusers but it's very common with men. Women are very different. It's rare a woman who was abused to become an abuser. They are more likely to blame themselves for the abuse they suffered and tend to wind up punishing themselves through life with self-destructive behavior (ie drug abuse, prostitution, etc.) rather than abuse someone else. This is one of the reasons that female serial killers are virtually non-existent and why virtually every serial killer profile starts with Male/25-35. There will always be those who try to mitigate their actions and hopefully lessen their sentence (hopefully for them that is) by claiming childhood abuse but the percentage of abusers who were abused themselves is too high to ignore. It's a repeating cycle in men. Your dad beat you, you beat your child, and so on and so on. Unfortunately, without therapy or intervention people rarely break the cycle on their own.
  19. Normand LaBine from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Why wouldn't this study have noted the Judical comments as to why there is such a disparity of sentences? Secondly, why wouldn't an opinion have been sought from Federal Authourities about these discrepancies? We're all Canadians; we're mobile within the Nation; we need to know which regions are doing their best at managing these kinds of crimes that extend the plague to children's own lives.
  20. Non Partisan I AM Canadian from Canada writes: I expected this to be a piece on economic management, but I will still say this:

    Those who abuse should get punished big. Those who abuse TRUST should be punished MUCH more.

    Good article.

    Make a change.
  21. Non Partisan I AM Canadian from Canada writes: 'There are many children in foster care whose parents' have abused them but who still retain parental rights because our society seems to think that maintaining this relationship is of paramount importance'

    That is like saying that keeping a kids fingers on a hot stove is a good ida, so they learn consistency.

    THATS NUTS!!

    Maintaining a negative and harmful relationship, which spreas to behaviours which are very contrary to social good......is desireable!!??

    Man; how did the system get so wrong?

    Is all this stuff I am reading here true?
  22. Non Partisan I AM Canadian from Canada writes: 'Regardless of whether or not the abuser was abused as a child themselves. No excuses accepted. '

    I agree.

    Excuses can always be found; the action, however, is also still 'the action'.

    The action or inaction IS the point at which a decision is made.

    Isn't this kind fo a no brainer? (or do humans want to put their moral superiority into the mix, and muddy the waters for self serving 'need to be God' reasons?)
  23. Robert Waddell from Toronto, Canada writes: 'Non Partisan I AM Canadian from Canada writes: 'Regardless of whether or not the abuser was abused as a child themselves. No excuses accepted. '

    I agree.

    Excuses can always be found; the action, however, is also still 'the action'.'

    Having been abused is not an excuse for the behavior but it is seen as a mitigating factor in sentencing because previous abuse has a conditioning effect that makes one more likely to do it themselves (ie they have less ability to control that kind of behavior through no fault of their own). Given the high correlation between being abused and becoming an abuser it needs to be considered, even if we don't like accepting the psychiatric reasoning as to why it's considered.
  24. BoB EmamE from Canada writes: ..//

    My compliments to the reporter Kirk Makin and to the Globe and Mail for bringing into the light the dark reality that abuse is prevalent in our places of trust and little is being done about it.

    It is in our public schools.

    It is in the child care facilities.

    It is in our homes.

    Those people who hide abusers in these places need to be sought out and prosecuted. The teachers union, if they defend an abuser, should be prosecuted.

    Thanks for doing something.

    ..//
 
  1. Kim Philby from Canada writes: Given the long-term consequences sexually abused children suffer (drug addiction being one of the prominent ones), the law needs to recognize that the penalties need to be harsher. These abusers are effectively destroying the lives of many of their victims.

    I, too, have heard that it is a myth that most abusers were themselves abused. Abusers make that claim to deflect some of the blame and as an argument for lighter sentencing.
 
  1. Dave LeBlanc from Canada writes: Female teachers who abuse usually only get house arrest, if that. Male teachers would get jail time.
 
  1. Peter The Not Quite Great from Canada writes: Orest Zarowsky and Next Campaign:

    How about sticking to the topic and not turning a study on sentencing pedophiles into an attack on the Conservative Party? We're all sick to death of you brainless partisans and would appreciate it if you would all shut up.

    And that slso goes for anyone thinking this board is a good opportunity to attack the Liberals, NDP or Greens.
 
  1. Antonio San from Canada writes: They even get re-elected!
 
  1. Mike Z from Canada writes: In Alberta, the average sentence in a trust scenario was 36.5 months, compared with 48 months for a non-trust scenario. The average sentence in Ontario for a breach-of-trust assault was 25 months, compared with 37 months for cases involving strangers. In Quebec, the average in trust scenarios was 28 months, compared with 33.5 months for non-trust cases.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The leniency of the sentences is unconscionable. These people have shattered the lives of the children they molested, and caused incredible grief and pain to everyone involved. That they average could be between 25 and 48 months is a travesty!

    These filthy people should be locked up for a heck of a lot longer than 2 - 4 years! Correct me if I'm wrong, but can people apply for parole after 1/3 of the sentence is served? Wouldn't that mean that pedophiles can apply for parole as early as 8 months into their sentence?
 
  1. J W from Canada writes: Mike Z-you're absolutely right! Is this the value our society places on a child's innocence and physical well being-two years?? It is especially unacceptable given that this is one crime where the risk of re-offending is particularily high. I think that judges and legislators should be made to listen to testamony from adults who were once the victims of paedophilia. Victim impact statements would surely demonstrate how severe and long lasting the effects of sexual abuse can be.
 
  1. BoB EmamE from Canada writes: ..//

    Google this:

    sexual abuse teacher professionals

    ..//
 
  1. Joanne Hurley from Canada writes: Despite being a true heart-bleeding liberal most of the time the one crime I think should be treated with the harshest of penalties is child sexual abuse whether it is perpetrated by someone known to the child or not. Put them all on an island somewhere so they all abuse each other. They are surely the lowest form of life on the planet and that goes for people who look child pornography. Let them rot somewhere and not at the taxpayers expense. They are vile, vile creatures who get off on abusing babies, children and young teens or watching it happen. We do not want them in our society and any child who has parents who have abused them is much better off knowing that society has stepped in make sure it doesn't happen again.

    The worst thing about these people is that they even join charities and other international groups so they can prey on children who have been hard hit by crisis such as floods or famine. These heartless, disgusting animals have then gone on to sexually abuse the children. They are absolute monsters. And there is no defense.
 
  1. J Critten from Canada writes: This is directed to Eric Martin.

    ' Recently a 25 year female teacher, having a loving relationship with a 15 year male student, was convicted of a sexual crime. She was in a position of authority; he did not have the 'age of majority'; but was any harm done?'

    Beyond any psychological affects, I think we can at least agree that this relationship is inappropriate and unfair to other students as well. I think we can ask teachers to conduct themselves professionally, just as we ask store clerks not to steal goods or landscapers not to damage properties. Any of these actions would result in conviction -- why should this not?

    'If we dare to open our eyes, we would see that many teenagers have a strong sexual desire towards older people. Not long ago, marriage at 13 was not unusual. The obsession with age is a recent phenomenon. For thousands of years, serious sexuality started at puberty, as happens with all other mammals.'

    Right. Besides how creepy that sounds, I think it's very rarely true. It is also the rationale used by child molesters. I can only speak for myself, but when I was 15, my 17-year-old crush was 'older people.' What you say about marriage is true, but there is a reason why we stopped the practice of marrying young. I have personal insight on this because my grandmother in Italy was married off at 15 to and older man (25). To this day she is bitter and angry that one day she was playing with dolls, as she says, and the next was thrust into this marriage. Just because it is the accepted practice of the time does not mean it is right or good or healthy. I think the shop-worn 'hey that's what other mammals do' defence needs to be put to rest.
 
  1. Kim Philby from Canada writes: What makes this sadder is that most child abuse is perpetrated by those in positions of trust. Abuse by total strangers is quite rare (according to Dan Gardner's book Risk: The Science and Politics of Fear, kids in Canada have a virtually negligible chance - about one in five million - of being abducted by a stranger).

    So, the vast majority of molesters are getting off with those lighter sentences.
 
  1. Roman Spears from St. Catharines, Canada writes:
    A very complicated issue but one that needs our attention.

    Sexual abuse is more likely to be a repeat behaviour for both individuals in a 'trusted' environment, strangers presumably being more likely to be a single incident. This, combined with the high rates of recidivism amongst sexual abusers suggests that short sentences are not a deterrant.

    On the other hand, punishment cannot be the only approach. I would like to see these acts stop. How do we 'cure' the monsters and drive their demons into extinction?
 
  1. Paul Thompson from Canada writes: I made an earlier joking comment about wishing I'd had a female teacher like that when I was 15. I didn't wish to make light of what can be a terrible problem, but the prissy moderator deleted it.
 
  1. BoB EmamE from Canada writes: ..//

    Kim Morton,

    That was an artless slam. Artless slams can be tolerable of they are factual. Turns out you are wrong.

    Ask yourself this... "what is appalling about sexual assault of children?"

    If you find the sexual exploitation of children appalling at all, then should you not want to see an end to it?

    Or do you just want slam the french or catholics?

    If you want to see an end to the sexual assault of children then you must want to see an end the source oF the abuse. By far most sexual assaults occur in the homes of children by people whom they trust. The next worse place are daycare and schools. What at the bottom is the Catholic Church. Now that may disturb your need to express hate to the church... but don't let it.. hate all you want. Only if you want to protect the children, you need to address the problem where it exists, in your home, your daycare and your school.

    ..//
 
  1. BoB EmamE from Canada writes: ..//

    If you want to find a child abuser... go to where there are children.

    ..//
   
 
The Inquiry
Advisory Panel