• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

A Black Mark

Status
Not open for further replies.

043

Sr. Member
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
260
No jail for soldier in porn case

By DON MACPHERSON The Canadian Press

GAGETOWN, N.B. — A soldier from Nova Scotia who used computers at a New Brunswick military base to secretly view child porn received a suspended sentence during a court martial held Wednesday.

Master Cpl.                             , originally of Glace Bay, pleaded guilty to the National Defence Act charge of accessing child porn.

He looked at the images in October 2004 at computers in a classroom at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown.

A suspended sentence means                               doesn’t have to serve time behind bars as long as he commits no further offences in the next year.

He will pay a $2,500 fine over the next year.

                   , an instructor with the school of Military Engineers, admitted at a court martial Wednesday that he had viewed the images.

Assistant prosecutor Maj. Jean Caron said no images were retained on the computer, located in a classroom at the military engineering school, and that’s why                  faced the charge of accessing child porn rather than possessing it.

Caron said a soldier with the Canadian Forces computer incident response team in Ottawa received an alert unauthorized websites were being accessed.

That technician discovered someone using                     user login "accessed unauthorized websites containing child pornography," Caron said.

The web surfing sessions totalled about 2 1/2 hours between Oct. 21, 2004, and Oct. 25, 2004.

Caron noted                        co-operated fully with military police during the course of their seven-month investigation and has shown remorse for his actions.

Patrick Hurley, a Fredericton civilian lawyer who served as                           defence counsel, called no witnesses during Wednesday’s sentencing hearing, but submitted a package of letters of support, from                        wife and fellow soldiers.

They all expressed their continued support for the soldier in those letters, Hurley said.

The prosecution and defence submitted a joint proposal for sentence, suggesting that the case law indicates a 10-day term of imprisonment and a $2,500 fine would be appropriate.

                      , who has no children, has served in the Canadian Forces for nine years and had an exemplary record until this offence.

He has served three tours of duty, in Bosnia in 1999, Eritrea in 2000 and Haiti in 2004.

Hurley said his client has a stellar reputation in both the military and general communities.

"He is a soldier at heart," the defence lawyer said.

Commander Peter Lamont, the judge who presided over the court martial, said it is his duty to impose the least severe sentence that will still maintain discipline in the military.

"I consider that (                          ) has demonstrated real remorse," Lamont said, noting the letters of support indicated the offence was out of character and unlikely to be repeated.

Speaking with reporters following the court martial, Caron said                       future in the military is up to others to determine.

Now, here is the burning question....................Should he be retained?


 
No.  I also think that a suspended sentence sends the wrong message.  Just like retaining him does.  I would waver on this if he went into some kind of counselling. 
My question is that your article seems like an open source yet it is edited.
 
Yeah, it is open source, I just took his name out of it. He is going to have a hard enough go of it. People know who it is anyways but I am not going to advertise it.

I think he should be let go................although it is hard to know if it is a sickness or just a one time deal with him. I say let the doctors make the call. Would be hard to hide him in the corps though.
 
I dare say that the Canadian Press is open source; therefore, I am not sure the need to edit the name of the offender.
 
Sorry, we cross posted.

2.5 hours on the site does not constitute an accidental trip to a kiddie porn site. 

I am not sure why he should not be dismissed from employment.  No doubt DND has a Internet User Policy and I suspect that such actions violate the policy.  I know that viewing kiddie porn at most civilian work sites would be cause for dismissal. 

 
2023 said:
Yeah, it is open source, I just took his name out of it. He is going to have a hard enough go of it. People know who it is anyways but I am not going to advertise it.

I think he should be let go................although it is hard to know if it is a sickness or just a one time deal with him. I say let the doctors make the call. Would be hard to hide him in the corps though.

I don't know about that. The whole "sickness" line...really doesn't float with me. Or a lot of other people, for that matter.

I too wonder the reasoning behind his retention. Solid community citizen? Significant contribution to the military and country? I don't think either of these things should matter, and the military should be the first to institute harsher punishments for crimes like these, regardless of what the civilian world will show within their judicial process. Children need to be protected, and a suspended sentence for a crime like this, even if it is a first time, should be dealt with more harshly, even if it consists of being discharged. Military computers will not be utilized to conduct crimes of this nature. Can't look the other way on this.

My 0.02.
 
Anyone who's been in the forces more than a week knows that DND computers are monitored, he should be released for being stupid, then beaten for being sick...

scoutfinch said:
2.5 hours on the site does not constitute an accidental trip to a kiddie porn site. 

+1
 
Retaining him after he has used DND computors to view any type of porn is hard to justify, but with all the caveats they are using I suppose that it could be justified if the punishment meted out were adequate, and if administrative action were also taken.  That said, the only grounds for retaining him if he is proven to have viewed kiddy porn on any medium, whether DND owned or not, should be in order to serve his prison time in a military jail - prior to releasing him with a 1(a) release item.  There is no place for him in the military - regardless of how good of a soldier he once was.
 
Mike_R23A said:
Anyone who's been in the forces more than a week knows that DND computers are monitored, he should be released for being stupid, than beaten for being sick...

+1

Thanks for the chuckle!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Mike_R23A said:
Anyone who's been in the forces more than a week knows that DND computers are monitored, he should be released for being stupid, then beaten for being sick...

+1

I don't mean to be dense (however, it won't be the first time and I am sure it won't be the last) but I did not understand the +1 reference?

Thanks
 
+1 is like a ditto --

in this case an agreement with the above poster.

I am more than a little disgusted by the lax sentence.


 
Got it.  Thanks for the clarification.  I thought I had somehow screwed something up!

SF
 
have a look at his pic:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/NovaScotia/490328.html

Left-Right Left
 
What difference would it make if he was surfing regular porn using
DND computers rather than child porn.  Should he also be released then?
 
Trinity said:
What difference would it make if he was surfing regular porn using
DND computers rather than child porn.  Should he also be released then?

Viewing *regular porn* (for lack of a better word) is not a violation of the Criminal Code. 

Wihtou greater knowledge of DND Internet Policy, I can only guess that viewing *regular porn* no doubt could be subject to discipline upto and including dismissal  -- like any  civilian job. 

Using a CF computer to perpetrate a criminal act should be cause for discharge.
 
Trinity said:
What difference would it make if he was surfing regular porn using
DND computers rather than child porn.  Should he also be released then?

One is a criminal offence to be affiliated with in any manner, while the other is not. There is a DEFINITE difference.

Why would he be released for the "regular" kind? Perhaps a warning, if there are specific regulations against accessing such sites.

 
The charges were:

1. (alternative to charge 2) S. 130 NDA, accessing child pornography (s. 163.1(4.1) CCC).
2. (alternative to charge 1) S. 129 NDA, conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline.
(taken from http://www.forces.gc.ca/cmj/calendarmar_e.asp )

While a sentence of dismissal with disgrace would be an option if found guilty under 129, it would not if he was found guilty under the 130 charge, as the Criminal Code does not include that penalty - generally, if you are charged under article 130 of the NDA for a Criminal Code offense your sentence must be aligned with the Criminal Code.

In this case, he was ordered imprisoned for 10 days, fined $2500, and then had the sentence of imprisonment suspended by the judge.

He could still be released on administrative grounds; that is an entirely different process and not part of the court-martial (though the judge may consider such possible action in determining sentence).
 
Mike_R23A said:
Anyone who's been in the forces more than a week knows that DND computers are monitored, he should be released for being stupid, then beaten for being sick...

I am horrified that he was not jailed and released from the CF.  He is sick and I wouldn't want him anywhere near me or my child.
 
beach_bum said:
I am horrified that he was not jailed and released from the CF.  He is sick and I wouldn't want him anywhere near me or my child.

Yup!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top