A Black Mark

[M Feetham]

Everybody keeps saying that this guys name should be posted but nobody has yet. Post it and be done, it's in the papers so its not like you are violating any gag orders from the courts, and before anyone says anything to me, I havn't read the article in the paper yet. I do however think he should be taken far away and dealt with more severly than the courts have done. I have two young children and if I thought someone was harming them in any way there would be a very large target painted on that someone's forehead. The cure for perverts like that 5.56mm taken at speed.

 

[043]

I have two young children and if I thought someone was harming them in any way there would be a very large target painted on that someone's forehead. The cure for perverts like that 5.56mm taken at speed.

Hmmmmmmmmmm and do you think you did well on the psych testing for CSOR?

 

[Trinity]

Everybody keeps saying that this guys name should be posted but nobody has yet. Post it and be done,

If its such a burning issue for you.. why don't you do it.

and before anyone says anything to me, I havn't read the article in the paper yet.

Oh, I see.  You haven't bothered to take time to read or rectify the situation, just enough time to complain.

I have two young children and if I thought someone was harming them in any way there would be a very large target painted on that someone's forehead. The cure for perverts like that 5.56mm taken at speed.

What if your thought was wrong and you hurt/killed an innocent person.  I've been involved in  one case where
a child molestation allegation was false, but according to you solution, we should kill them if we even suspect
something is awry?  Even my opponents on this site which are for the death penalty for child molesters would at least
say someone should be proved guilty first.

 

[M Feetham]

It's not a burning question to me, cause until I read this thread I didn't even know about it. I'm not usually one for current events in the newspaper and I watch the news irregularly at best. My testing for the CSOR will be just fine, I'm not crazy I just pretend to be. I would do anything to protect my kids or wife, that's part of the job. I was simply stating that people seem to tiptoeing around their morality. Post the guys name or don't but make a decision., don't debate it to death.That's all I'm saying. I'm not even trying to get anyone pi$$ed off or anything. The guy is sick, we don't need that in the forces, get rid of him.
Marc.

 

[orange.paint]

It doesn't really matter posting his name on this site or explaining what you would do to him etc.
Basically he got off very easy with a slap on the wrist for in my opinion a major major crime.If you guys really want to know where he lives he is the only one listed in the oromocto phone book.It however does not list his address but if you put it into 411.ca it has his address listed as a postal code.Which narrows it down to a couple blocks.I suggest if you live in the area and are concerned to do so.It is narrowed down due to the fact part of that postal code includes the Oromocto First Nation's which I highly doubt he lives on.

Maybe if you are a concerned parent in this area pass it up your chain of command,CFHA,etc that you are uncomfortable with this member living in your area.Who knows it may add to his problems and actually hurt his pocket book a little more.I know if it was my block I would have been bringing this up.

Also some of our policemen on this sight may be able to tell us isn't there a law against moving pedophiles into areas with schools?As Oromocto is full of them in the PMQ area.

cheers

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Also some of our policemen on this sight may be able to tell us isn't there a law against moving pedophiles into areas with schools?As Oromocto is full of them in the PMQ area.

cheers

I'm not aware of any specific law.  Sounds like a good idea, though.
Sometimes you see court imposed conditions when a case is pending or a conviction is registered that read "Not to be in the company of persons under the age of 14 without their parent or legal guardian.  Not to be found in or around any area that persons under 14 are likely to be found".  If a diddler wants to get arrested constantly (and we are always happy to oblige) they would live close to a school, park, community center etc.  Of course, some do anyway, so they can get closer to the kids, or just sneak pictures of them as they are walking to school. 
Parole could probably impose some conditions like that, or an 810 order under the Code.  Hard to say.  As a generality, trust your instincts. 
Just by way of contrast, check out this web site:

http://www.nsopr.gov/

Just another thing our American friends have over us.

 

[S McKee]

Unfortunately dealing with child porn cases is new territory for the military courts. And they have (and I could be wrong) no power to impose probation conditions such as limiting movement and access to children against convicted sex offenders. I know they cannot impose treatment. As the Inmate Rehabilitation Coord at the DB I dealt with one inmate who was caught with thousands of child porn images, he showed no remorse and in my opinion will likely re-offend. The courts did not even send him for an assessment prior to his sentence. I had some very interesting conversations with the JAG and Mental Health services about this fellow and his likelihood to re-offend.  It is my opinion that the military courts system should not be hearing these cases until our judges are suitably educated and the system has been tailored to impose proper sanctions and restrictions on these people. Once again the military courts have taken on something that they are not set up deal with.

 

[dapaterson]

Jumper - I agree that CMs are not appropriate for such offenders, but I don't think mere education will make a difference,

Miltiary Judges are limited in their sentencing to the punishments prescribed by the NDA.  In these cases, they are further hamstrung:  they must abide by the Criminal Code, inasmuch as those punishments are permitted under the NDA.

So, in the case discussed on this thread, the judge found the member guilty under section 130 of the NDA.  He could only impose punishments permitted under the Criminal Code (s. 163.1(4.1) CCC)).  Those punishments do not include reduction in rank or dismissal with disgrace.

The selection of charges vests in the military prosecution office - it's those charges that dictate the possible punishments.  This isn't a case of a judge screwing up; it's the prosecution that created this situation.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Interesting,
So, in your opinion, this would have been better served in a civilian court?

...and then a "conduct" charge after?

 

[S McKee]

Yes, the primary goal of the military courts is punishment, period. Surprisingly it was an initiative from the DB that incorporated inmate rehabilitation and treatment into the disciplinary program. However rehab is voluntary. Military courts are way behind. IMO this is and will become a liability issue for the military, if we start to regularly lock-up sex offenders and release them without making provisions for treatment, or issuing probation conditions after release, we are in fact releasing untreated sex offenders with no restrictions out into the community. (Think Globe and Mail test) Unfortunately my concerns to JAG have fallen on deaf ears.

 

[dapaterson]

Interesting,
So, in your opinion, this would have been better served in a civilian court?

...and then a "conduct" charge after?

Exactly - civilian court for accessing child pornography; court martial for misues of DND computers / violation of an order (ie the DAOD on acceptable use).

That does not constitute double-jeopardy, as the two items are very different.  To my mind, there are few situations that warrant charges under 130 of the NDA when in a domestic situation - we have civilian courts to deal with matters under the Criminal Code (or other Canadian laws).

 

[FateumetMeum]

Dishonourable discharge and jail time is the only thing a Canadian "soldier" should be given if admittingly viewing,using,selling or anything involving child pornography.
Give me a GOD DAMN BREAK, telling us his military history and his dedication....he through that in the shitter when he stuck his head into the computer monitor for "2 and a half hours" to view little kids being manipulated and assaulted. Sick, I am embarrassed for being a Cape Bretoner if indeed that ass was from Glace Bay, I wonder if he has ever been with other soldier's famalies and their children. I only hope it was a one time thing, let's not let him have another chance.
His only post now should be to Edmonton.

Pissed off maritimer

 

[orange.paint]

MCpl Winstanley CFB Gagetown, Building F-1, Oromocto, NB
Charges and results Charge 1: (alternative to charge 2) S. 130 NDA, accessing child pornography (s. 163.1(4.1) CCC).
Charge 2: (alternative to charge 1) S. 129 NDA, conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline.

VERDICT: Charge 1: Guilty. Charge 2: A stay of proceedings.

SENTENCE: Imprisonment for a period of 10 days and a fine in the amount of $2500. The carrying into effect of the punishment of imprisonment has been suspended.

There you have it.Name and public charge you can view it on the court martial site.Instead of mcpl_________ there you go.

Also can someone explain in normal english what the hell a stay of proceedings means? Is it like a not guilty?Not responsible for action?

 

[Armymatters]

It means that if the person is in military service or is within 90 days after termination of or release from military service and has received notice of a civil action or proceeding, the court may on its own motion and shall, upon application by the servicemember, stay the action for a period of not less than 90 days.
http://www.military.com/Resources/ResourcesContent/0,13964,31049--1,00.html
In short, this guy is hanging around the military for another 90 days, until he can represent himself in court, as his military responsibilites prevent him from showing up in court/or his current job prevents him from being removed from the military right away.

 

[aesop081]

It means that if the person is in military service or is within 90 days after termination of or release from military service and has received notice of a civil action or proceeding, the court may on its own motion and shall, upon application by the servicemember, stay the action for a period of not less than 90 days.
http://www.military.com/Resources/ResourcesContent/0,13964,31049--1,00.html
In short, this guy is hanging around the military for another 90 days, until he can represent himself in court, as his military responsibilites prevent him from showing up in court/or his current job prevents him from being removed from the military right away.

I hate to break it to you armymatters but your source is US law..........

This is a Canadian military case..........

 

[Armymatters]

I hate to break it to you armymatters but your source is US law..........

This is a Canadian military case..........

Whoops...

Did some digging into the National Defence Act, and this is what it says:

240.4 (1) The Court Martial Appeal Court may allow an appeal against an order made under subsection 202.121(7) for a stay of proceedings, if the Court Martial Appeal Court is of the opinion that the order is unreasonable or cannot be supported by the evidence.

Effect
(2) If the Court Martial Appeal Court allows the appeal, it may set aside the order for a stay of proceedings and restore the finding that the accused person is unfit to stand trial and the disposition made in respect of the accused person.

In short, he is appealing the ruling on the second charge, but not the first, or there was insufficient evidence to convict him on the second charge. I need to see the court transcripts to get heads or tails out of it first though.

 

[aesop081]

Whoops...

:

 

[Fishbone Jones]

It's what happens when the whole sum of your military knowledge comes from a book. :

 

[Cloud Cover]

was this a trial of first instance, or an appeal to the appellate court?

w601

 

[deh]

Whoops...

Did some digging into the National Defence Act, and this is what it says:

240.4 (1) The Court Martial Appeal Court may allow an appeal against an order made under subsection 202.121(7) for a stay of proceedings, if the Court Martial Appeal Court is of the opinion that the order is unreasonable or cannot be supported by the evidence.

Effect
(2) If the Court Martial Appeal Court allows the appeal, it may set aside the order for a stay of proceedings and restore the finding that the accused person is unfit to stand trial and the disposition made in respect of the accused person.

In short, he is appealing the ruling on the second charge, but not the first, or there was insufficient evidence to convict him on the second charge. I need to see the court transcripts to get heads or tails out of it first though.

Wrong.

The second charge was offered as an alternate to the first.  Meaning the court could try him on the catch all 129 if there was not enough evidence to support the primary charge, as the requirement to prove conduct prejudice to the good order and discipline is much easier to meet.  This has nothing to do with appeals.  Since he was found guilty on the first there is no need to try him on the alternate, simple enough?  Stop spouting off like you know what you are on about and put down the book until someone shows you how to use what is written inside.  Haven't you already been called out about this sort of thing?

Up the Guards!