Deplorably broken

Share Button

Two years and bit for molesting five children.  And a court ordered publication ban on his name to boot!!

25 November 2009:  Former cadet officer gets more than two years on sex charges (access link via Of Interest page)

 It speaks well  does it not for the import our legal system places on the sexual abuse of children?

Two years and bit!! 

With ‘good behaviour’ Molester  X will probably spend about as much time behind bars as Perry Dunlop.   That’s equality for you.  Equal  time behind bars for those who molest and those who try to protect children from molesters.

Ah but yes,  .. for the paedophile/pederast/ephebophile/child molester /child sexual predator/ sexual pervert there are mitigating factors, and I quote:

Mitigating factors in the sentence included, but aren’t limited to, the historical nature of the offences, the offender’s lack of criminal record, and relatively favourable probation and sexual assessment reports.  According to a hospital report, the former cadet officer is rated a medium-low risk to reoffend.

Some comments and questions re Molester X’ mitigating factors :

(1) The historical nature of the offences

So if Molester X murdered one or more of his poor victims twenty or more years ago, because the murder was way back then it should now be labelled historical, and because it’s historical it’s not reflective of the wonderful human being Molester X is today, and also because it’s historical it just isn’t as big a crime now as it would have been if he’d been caught back then?  Is that it?  If not, why not?

I am so tired of this.  Why does ‘the system’ insist on minimizing the horror and nature of these horrific crimes of child sexual abuse by designating them  “historical’?    And why in so doing does it insist on portraying pedophiles and all manner of sexual perverts who prey on children as nice guys who made a little mistake or two a few years ago?

(2) His lack of a criminal record

He didn’t get caught!  But, he sure does have a criminal record now doesn’t he? 

This is so silly.  Such malarkey!!   About three years ago Molester X had no criminal record because, and only because, he had not been caught. 

Ten years he had no criminal record – because and only because he had not been caught.

Even I can figure that one out 🙂

(3)  He had a “relatively” favourable probation report

Relatively favourable?  What does a “relatively” favourable probation report mean?  Does it mean that Molester  X didn’t molest anyone while he was on probation?  or simply that he wasn’t caught molesting anyone while on probation?

I don’t know.  What does it mean?

(4)  He had a “relatively” favourable sexual assessment report, i.e., he is rated a medium-low risk to reoffend 

Who concluded Molester X is a medium-low risk to reoffend? 

What constitutes a “medium-low” risk to reoffend?  What, for example, is the gap between “low” and high”?

And, a thought:   how many potential victims  might fall under the radar of a “low” risk to reoffend convicted molester?  And how many potential victims might fall under the radar of a “medium” risk to reoffend convicted molester?

Final question:  Why is even the possibility that one more child may be scarred for life by this man not suffice for the judge to trump every single one of his “mitigating” factors? 

We’re talking about children.  And men who get their jollies by molesting children. 

And a Crown asks for a paltry three years. 

And a judge grants a publication ban on Molester X name and then allows him to roam the streets in blissful anonymity pending sentencing. 

Then the judge rattles on about mitigating factors which are enough to spin the head.

And then, ….two years and a tad for molesting five children!

God help us!  The entire legal system is so sadly, sorely and deplorably broken.  

Enough for now,

Sylvia

(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *