The Judge Superthread- Merged Topics

[zipperhead_cop]

I recently picked up on this link from a very frustrated San Francisco Police Association President Gary Delagnes.  Despite the fact that he is clear across the continent, his words echo the feelings of law enforcement officers everywhere. 

http://www.ktvu.com/video/9591734/index.html
(be warned:  the video seems to take a horribly long time to load up, so be patient)

So what is the solution?  My feeling is that voting for judges would make a whole bunch of sense.  The socialist sect will starts howling about "well, if you vote for judges and they get private funding then they get corrupt and then they take care of their buddies and they don't do their job right and they will be mean and blah blah blah..." and so on. 

However, I cannot be more sincere on this point:  Judges no longer serve the public interest. 

Bad case law, socialist perversion, arrogance and knowing there is no way to oust them has caused the legal system (police don't call it the "justice" system generally) to become a horror show.  When it was a donkey show, it was at least tolerable.  Time and again we see decisions that only benefit the criminal and embolden them to greater excess.  Crack cocaine and methamphetamine (herein called "meth") corrode the brain and cause people to operate at a sub human level, yet judges think they are capable of making rational decisions and have a sense of consequence. 

And even if we wanted to do something about it, who would forward the cause?  The MP's?  Pretty much a big bunch of lawyers.  "But Zip, if the people really want it, they can get it because we vote for our MP's".  I don't believe the average citizen realizes what is going on in the court rooms.  There would need to be a pretty big bunch of noise from the citizenry, and since we didn't hear a peep after the Toronto terrorists were let out, I don't expect much.  And I think most of us can predict what sort of leadership role the media will take in this matter, given their leftward leanings. 

And suppose we actually got a bill through the third reading.  Who gets to rule on the legality of new legislation and ultimately strike it down?  DING DING DING!  The JUDGES!  And then we are right back to where we started. 

I have every belief that the big brains will be able to crush me with constitutional debate and all kinds of book learnin' that they have plenty of.  But I am not talking about the difficulty of implementation or the challenges of how an electoral system would be introduced (although I would support the funds for a judges bid to be elected come from the pay surplus that would stem from wiping out the House of Lords Senate, but that would likely be a whole other thread  ;D).
I'm just talking about helping our country get right again.  I feel like we are about ten years away from being a drug and gun ridden mess in our large urban areas just like the USA is in theirs.  We can avoid it, if we take action soon. 

I hope Canadians can get interested in their legal system before it comes to the point where everyone will know someone who is a victim of crime.

 

[17thRecceSgt]

I hope Canadians can get interested in their legal system before

Zip

This IMHO is the problem....too many "sheep" in our society that won't do what I quoted from your post...

Until it is too late, of course...

:-\

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Zip

This IMHO is the problem....too many "sheep" in our society that won't do what I quoted from your post...

Until it is too late, of course...

:-\

I don't totally disagree, but I don't blame the average citizen either.  They are insulated from the truth by the media, and even if the media wanted to publish what a bag the criminal was, the criminal can go crying to............A Judge and sue the paper for slander.  So you see things like "was known to the police" and "had previous contacts". 
Also, there is a seditious thing that I have seen in the way pre sentence reports are handled.  PSR's are supposed to take into many factors to present to a judge in order to "help" them make a fair decision.  In reality, all it provides is a creative writing forum for the asshat to spew out tripe like "I'll lose my job if I go to jail" or "my family/mother/wife/cat is so sick and no one else takes care of her".  All that crap gets thrown out to provide the illusion that if Billy Crackerjack goes to jail, he will be so harmed by the fall out of his incarceration that it will be counter productive to his "rehabilitation".  The old "do crime, do time" addage is non existant. 
However, that isn't the seditious part.  Where it gets shadowy, is what happens when they ask for the report.  Remember, it is requested as a result of a conviction, either from a trial or a guilty plea.  On that trial day, you have the police that were involved, plus any civilian witnesses/victims.  What the PSR does is sets the sentencing to a different date.  Guess who is in the room on that new date?  The defence (lawyer), the Prosecutor (lawyer) and the judge (lawyer).  Nobody generally gets to see the pathetic sentences in the more serious cases.  And for the most part, the media don't hang in there that long. 
I would like to think that if Canadians really knew what was going on, they would be outraged.  Once they realized what was going on in Afghanistan, they got behind it.  I have to imagine a bit of harsh light shone on this would go a long way.  However, in the absence of mainstream media cooperation, what are we left with? 
Guys like me spouting off on a blog. 

 

[17thRecceSgt]

ARGH!

OK

Fark me, lets STOP letting every a$$hat off.  My name is "Joe Voter".  I have many friends...

wait I just woke up from my dream.

KK.  Lets do it like where I grew up.

"drink beer.  punish the obvious a$$hats...beat the ones that are rude to females...shite-kick anyone who can't get it from there...yes.  we DO have bats.  Yes.  You DID call your mother a whore.  YES.  this IS her cottage on Mill River.  Yes...you ARE goin' to get an ass-kicking"

next!

 

[The_Falcon]

I think this fits in here

http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/Commentary/2006/08/18/1762498.html

Reproduced Fair Dealing...Copyright etc

EDITORIAL: Judge goes after the wrong guns

Great news: We finally have a judge who's willing to get tough on guns in this city! Let's hear it for Justice Melvyn Green!

Oh, wait a second ... let's check that story again ...

What's this? You mean, Judge Green didn't read the riot act to some punk gangster who waved his gun around like a toy and fired at innocent people?

He ordered a cop to take off his gun -- in court?!

What the heck was he thinking?
 

As the Sun's Alan Cairns reported yesterday, the judge ordered a Toronto police officer who was testifying in a routine drunk-driving case to "check (his gun) somewhere."

Somewhere, indeed. Even though the officer was in uniform, which means he is required to have his (holstered) firearm with him, he was forced to find a storage locker in the courthouse basement, then make his way back to court unarmed.

And here's the kicker -- the delay caused by this incident might push the impaired driving case back several months, to the point where the accused could go free because of unreasonable backlog! So much for getting tough on crime!

"It is a question of fairness and the appearance of fairness," Green said -- an argument we've heard before.

Green, who's been a judge for just nine months, has a long history as a defence lawyer, and we've heard lots of them argue over the years that the trappings of court -- the uniformed cops and security, the prisoner's box, the shackles that accused people often have to wear if they're being held in custody -- can give observers (especially juries) the impression that an accused might be guilty, even though he/she must be presumed innocent.

We get that -- and we think our courts take care to be fair. But a police officer wearing a gun? C'mon.

Everyone knows what police look like, and that they carry guns. And who does Green think would be influenced by the "appearance" of unfairness anyway? Himself? There was no jury in this case.

If Green is so concerned about guns, we suggest he not only walk the public hallways of his courthouse -- where he's sure to encounter dangerous young thugs up on shooting charges -- but get out more into gang-ridden neighbourhoods where fear rules because the shooters are treated so lightly by our justice system. Where's the "fairness" there?

Earth to all judges: We have a gun problem. Our cops ain't it.

Its dolts like these that make me question whether or not I should even bother becoming a cop.

 

[Gunnar]

Zip....on voting for judges....

It really would depend on how interested the public is in their legal system.  The appointment system is more resistant to change, as the "old boys" tend to like law and order...however...once the "new boys" who don't like to hear the word "punishment" get into the system, there is no getting them out.  That's t he problem we have today.

Voting in judges has its own problems:  the same people who vote in the liberals, time after time after time would now vote for judges.  There are more poor minorities (as an aggregate) in the country than there are rich majority folks.  What happens when some judge gets painted as "hard on the nnnn community" right around election time?  What happens when people who don't think about consequences to their actions, or punishment for crime are the ones who elect those responsible for dealing out consequences and punishments?

You have the same problem.  The inmates run the prison, or the crooks run the legal system.

I'm hoping that by championing elected judges you believe the silent majority of thinking, reasonable Canadians could get proper judges into the system and clean up some of the crap.  Problem is, that silent majority is usually SILENT.  And until they stand up to be counted, politically, I wouldn't want the justice system opened up to those who DO vote.

As far as I am concerned, booklarnin' has little to say on the selection method for judges...both ideas have merit.  They just have the same pitfalls as would exist in the political system.  A good king (appointment) can get good things done, a bad king can't be gotten rid of, and  usually makes life miserable for the citizens.  A good prime minister can be voted in (I think Harper qualifies, but not necessarily all conservatives), a bad prime minister is more often voted in (Chretien and Martin definitely qualify).

 

[1feral1]

Remember the good ole days when one was hung for stealing a horse, or sent to Australia for stealing a loaf of bread. If the crims of the 19th century only really knew that in the late 20th century, crime truly pays, and the crims get all the rights, while the victims are treated like the criminal should be.

We have not had a justice system since the 1950s, but a limp wristed legal system since, circumvented by a Corps of pi$$ weakjudges who don't care. The police must be so frustrated with the scum which spills back on the streets hours after an offence is comitted.

Bring back Division 21 of the NSW Police!


Shakes head,

Wes

 

[Gunnar]

Judge Learned Hand (what a great name for a judge, eh?):  You are hanged not because you have stolen a sheep, but so that others will not steal sheep.

 

[time expired]

Friends judge do not operate in a vacumn , the very same discusion is going on in the UK right now
and its the government that sets the guidelines within which judges operate therefore we are really
the problem . Missguided liberal attitudes left over from the 60s , the indivual is not responsible  , its
societies fault , you have all heard them before Im sure . dont forget most judges are products of
this generation . A wise man once said " the way into the hell is paved with liberal ideas" thats liberal
with a small L or large take your take pick .
                         Regards

 

[zipperhead_cop]

It really would depend on how interested the public is in their legal system.  The appointment system is more resistant to change, as the "old boys" tend to like law and order...however...once the "new boys" who don't like to hear the word "punishment" get into the system, there is no getting them out.  That's t he problem we have today.

Agreed.  And I like to think (kid myself?) that the people are interested in their law enforcement.  The currently appointed judges have jumped the rails of common sense (a generality, but a pervasive one).  The Liberals pretty much had a nice 25 year run of installing these clowns, and now we are reaping the benefits of a generation of criminals that know the system is a joke. 

Voting in judges has its own problems:  the same people who vote in the liberals, time after time after time would now vote for judges.  There are more poor minorities (as an aggregate) in the country than there are rich majority folks.  What happens when some judge gets painted as "hard on the nnnn community" right around election time?  What happens when people who don't think about consequences to their actions, or punishment for crime are the ones who elect those responsible for dealing out consequences and punishments?

If a judge didn't want to come off as "hard on the 'x' community" he could just be hard on every community.  Crime knows no racial boundaries.  I can honestly say that I have no prejudices towards any group anymore as a result of working the street.  Reason?  Every race has people who suck.  And down here in Windsor, the majority of crime is committed by good ole home grown white trash.  On a side note, there is also an high degree of racial harmony in criminals.  I frequently see criminals of all colours associating with each other and getting caught committing crimes together.  It's kind of handy, actually.  When you stop a group of kids on a side street at 4am, more often than not they are racially diverse.  No one can claim they are being picked on for colour.  Visitors from the GTA try it all the time, but the find out how far that flies here. 
As for worrying about the wrong people voting in a bad judge?  Won't happen.  Good, normal people have piss poor voter turn out.  Crack heads can't tell time, and generally don't know what day of the week it is.  They know "it's dark" or "it's light".  Getting to a polling station on a specific date during a set time frame is like asking them to prove a math equation.   
Another thing is many immigrants don't like the idea that our system is so soft.  Many come from countries that have brutal and absolute rules.  So when you go to their house, and tell them that the police cannot do x,y, or z because of the state of the legal system, they shake their heads and many comment "that isn't right".  And invariably, I agree.  I think you would see many of them ranging to the side of law and order. 

You have the same problem.  The inmates run the prison, or the crooks run the legal system.
I'm hoping that by championing elected judges you believe the silent majority of thinking, reasonable Canadians could get proper judges into the system and clean up some of the crap.  Problem is, that silent majority is usually SILENT.  And until they stand up to be counted, politically, I wouldn't want the justice system opened up to those who DO vote.

Again, we have started to see Joe and Jane Canada start to perk up and take a bit more ownership of their country recently.  I have said before, the only real outward expression of our culture you generally see is that Canadians fancy themselves a bit better than other countries.  "We're nicer, safer, and darn it, terrorists like us".  If we could get the media to show them what a horror show was going on all around them, they would realize that they are not safe and their country isn't going to be so sh*t hot in a few years. 
For what it is worth, seeing the add campaigns for judges in the US is usually pretty interesting.  They trot out all kinds of ills, and it is a big smear campaign from the get go.  However, if you don't want to be the guy on TV that they are saying "Judge Bloggins allowed seven high risk child molesters into your community, and five of them re offended within two months" then perhaps you won't be so quick to spring a diddler. 

As far as I am concerned, booklarnin' has little to say on the selection method for judges...both ideas have merit.  They just have the same pitfalls as would exist in the political system.  A good king (appointment) can get good things done, a bad king can't be gotten rid of, and  usually makes life miserable for the citizens.  A good prime minister can be voted in (I think Harper qualifies, but not necessarily all conservatives), a bad prime minister is more often voted in (Chretien and Martin definitely qualify).

Yeah, but eventually the bad gets punted.  Now that the Conservatives are in, Canada can see the "OOOO, scary Tories" BS was just that.  A bias judge that was up for re-election that had a poor track record or had obvious leanings for a particular group could be outed in a public way, and then the voters could decide.  As it stand now, you have judges that say things like "there are only witnesses to a crime.  A so called "victim" is just a witness that has a personal interest in the case".  That is an actual comment from one of ours here.  I also had a judge dismiss a domestic assault case because he believed that the woman got backhanded in a cab and got her nose broken by her abusive boyfriend "as a result of provocation from comments that were made by Ms. XXX".  The judicial equivalent of "the bitch was askin' for it".  Funny thing was, even the counsel for the accused wasn't offering provocation as a defence.  Then I get to ride down in the elevator with the woman who asks me "what was the point of me going through all that?".  What am I supposed to say?
That same judge also routinely sleeps on the bench, but passes it of as "concentrating with my eyes closed".  Thank god he is semi retired and can only screw up cases part time now.

 

[couchcommander]

I am in no way a fan of our current sentencing practices, however I don't think politicising the judicial system is what we need to do.

You think it's a farce now, wait till they are vying to win the popularity conte... er I mean election.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

I'm not talking about every facet of the judiciary.  The Supreme Court of Canada should still be by appointment, as should the SC's of the provinces.  But for the Ontario Court of "Justice", the basic meat and potatoes, and the Superior and Federal courts, why not? 
Why shouldn't the administration of law reflect the will of the people?  We elect members to create and administer law, why not also be able to have a say in the enforcement of the law?
As for their conduct during an election, what does that matter?  It is how they conduct themselves while behind the bench that matters.  If someone is a discreditable jackass, the vote will apply accordingly.

 

[rz350]

I'm not talking about every facet of the judiciary.  The Supreme Court of Canada should still be by appointment, as should the SC's of the provinces.  But for the Ontario Court of "Justice", the basic meat and potatoes, and the Superior and Federal courts, why not? 
Why shouldn't the administration of law reflect the will of the people?  We elect members to create and administer law, why not also be able to have a say in the enforcement of the law?
As for their conduct during an election, what does that matter?  It is how they conduct themselves while behind the bench that matters.  If someone is a discreditable jackass, the vote will apply accordingly.

How about the election of Police chiefs, like in some US areas the Sherrif is elected. Would you support that too?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I don't want to see "elected" judges, but what I want are judges who answer to our elected officials, which is not the case now.

 

[couchcommander]

I want elected officials that provide firm sentencing guidelines and leave a lot less to "interpretation", as well as providing sufficient funding to correctional facilities so that a) there is actually space in the jails to keep the people who I think should be put there and never let out, b) actually provide meaningful rehabilitation to those who will eventually, after a long, long time, be getting out.

I don't mean "work experience," learning how to read, or developing skills, though those are helpful, I mean actually dealing with the sources of their criminality through an intensive, multifaceted process.

Finally, and importantly, c) be able to hold people in this system if one can reasonably conclude they will commit a grievous offence against another human being upon their release, until such time as experts involved in their rehabilitation are satisfied.

In the end, to me, I don't care if someone has spent 5 years or 30 years in jail, if one could reasonably conclude they are going to get out of jail and go rape another woman, they shouldn't be let out. If they are "cured" after 5 years, then so be it, if they are never "cured" (more likely), then so be it.

No, you can never be 100%, but with a recidivism rate of 61% over a few decades, you can make some reasonable assumptions.

But what am i talking about... that would involve revamping our archaic notions of "justice" to something far more realistic.... I should just be quiet.

*edit* I almost forgot the most important part. Spend a whackload of money and put a bunch of trained professionals throughout our school systems to help people deal with their issues before they become career criminals, as well as training teachers to better identify and deal with deviant behaviours (including those that result from shoddy parenting, and shoddy teaching at that - teachers should be on a very tight leash IMO), while at the same time reducing class sizes so they actually have the time to have one on one with their pupils... along with a whole bunch of other stuff in this area, but that is a different thread.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

How about the election of Police chiefs, like in some US areas the Sherrif is elected. Would you support that too?

I don't know that I would care either way.  As long as the requirement to be a candidate was that you were a sworn police officer.  (FYI, "sheriff")

I want elected officials that provide firm sentencing guidelines and leave a lot less to "interpretation", as well as providing sufficient funding to correctional facilities so that a) there is actually space in the jails to keep the people who I think should be put there and never let out, b) actually provide meaningful rehabilitation to those who will eventually, after a long, long time, be getting out.

But the current judges ignore mandatory sentencing if they want.  And they generally ignore progressive sentencing, whereby when you keep getting caught, your sentence goes up.  That is not the case.  I agree, we need to double, if not triple the jails and make space.  But with anything, that requires money, and money needs peoples support.   

Finally, and importantly, c) be able to hold people in this system if one can reasonably conclude they will commit a grievous offence against another human being upon their release, until such time as experts involved in their rehabilitation are satisfied.
In the end, to me, I don't care if someone has spent 5 years or 30 years in jail, if one could reasonably conclude they are going to get out of jail and go rape another woman, they shouldn't be let out. If they are "cured" after 5 years, then so be it, if they are never "cured" (more likely), then so be it.
No, you can never be 100%, but with a recidivism rate of 61% over a few decades, you can make some reasonable assumptions.

That already exists.  It is the Dangerous Offender designation.  However, it is near impossible to get in place, and the individual would need to have done some horrifying things before they ever got to that point.  And if you are a property/drug criminal, you can pretty much re offend as often as you want, as long as three months of your time isn't a big deal to you. 

Spend a whackload of money and put a bunch of trained professionals throughout our school systems to help people deal with their issues before they become career criminals, as well as training teachers to better identify and deal with deviant behaviours (including those that result from shoddy parenting, and shoddy teaching at that - teachers should be on a very tight leash IMO), while at the same time reducing class sizes so they actually have the time to have one on one with their pupils... along with a whole bunch of other stuff in this area, but that is a different thread.

You are talking about policing the education system, and policing parenting.  Nothing I would object to, but you would probably take a lot of static from some of the kinder, gentler types.
Being a career criminal is not an education issue.  In fact, career criminals are quite aware and well educated on how the system works.  That is why they have no incentive to not be criminals.  Keep it simple:  you are as good as your last performance.  As you shall act, so shall ye be sentenced.

If we get hung up trying to do everything at the same time, nothing will get done.  IMO the broadest brush to get the most done would be deal with the judges. 
Bruce, how would you suggest making the judges answerable to the MP's?  At least we can get on them right now if we want to.

 

[couchcommander]

I don't know that I would care either way.  As long as the requirement to be a candidate was that you were a sworn police officer.  (FYI, "sheriff")

But the current judges ignore mandatory sentencing if they want.  And they generally ignore progressive sentencing, whereby when you keep getting caught, your sentence goes up.  That is not the case.  I agree, we need to double, if not triple the jails and make space.  But with anything, that requires money, and money needs peoples support.   

That already exists.  It is the Dangerous Offender designation.  However, it is near impossible to get in place, and the individual would need to have done some horrifying things before they ever got to that point.  And if you are a property/drug criminal, you can pretty much re offend as often as you want, as long as three months of your time isn't a big deal to you. 

Aware of both, but I, like you, am saying that needs to change. In the first, it's because there needs to be stricter legislation, as well as more space.

And re: dangerous offender status... I'm actually talking about changing the nature of criminal justice from "you did this crime, so you have to serve x amount of time", to "you did this crime, so now you're going to be taken out of mainstream society and not let back in until you are no longer a threat".

So, I mean in the end, I think we agree on many points.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

The only problem in your "out when you are fixed" idea is that if criminals are nothing else, they are cunning.  They have the ability to sniff out systemic weakness and exploit it to the max.  They are also quite good at passing along the info to their fellow degenerates.  The only true test of correction is how they conduct themselves once back in society.  I have a tool in my patrol district who is born in 1983.  He has been charged criminally 84 times, the majority being failing to comply with judicial orders, but the rest all fairly bothersome violent crimes, and serious property crimes ie) robbery, b&e.  Turns out he was breaching the orders intentionally, because the last three times he has a big "crisis of conscience" and turned himself in he had an arse full of crack and Oxycontin's.  He actually made a heap of money while he was in jail.  Like I said, cunning.  (he only got caught because on the third go he must have crammed in the pointy edged crack a little too hard and broke the condome with the oxy's in it.  Once the hospital figured out why he was having convulsions he caught a nice trafficking charge.  Oh, and that got him three whole weeks before a judge sprung him again) 
So who decides if they are "fixed"?  Or are you suggesting they "be taken out of mainstream society and not let back in until you are no longer a threat" by way of physically debilitating beatings, and electro-concussive shock treatment? (facetious)  Otherwise, they are going to be a threat until they choose to stop being criminals.

 

[couchcommander]

Otherwise, they are going to be a threat until they choose to stop being criminals.

Couldn't agree more.

Though the beatings and shock treatment DO sound appealing...(sarcasm), I think we do have methods of helping them reach that conclusion through various means that don't involve cruel and unusual punishment; they are just expensive, intensive and no, do not always work.

Ultimately who should decide how long you do spend in "rehabilitation", IMO, would be a group of your peers.

I don't expect them to be all knowing however, so I would have their decision based upon the professional opinion of both that particular criminals psychologist, instructors, etc (whatever we decide to give them access to)., as well as a reviewing psychologist.

On a side note, I would hold these people accountable for their opinions, i.e. if they let out more than their fare share of re-offenders, their job would be on the line.

And you are right, criminals are generally pretty smart, and there is the definite possibility that they could bullshit their way out of the system.

Few things to help that, firstly, it's been mentioned, holding the reviewers accountable for their opinions. Secondly though, there would be a mandatory minimum sentence to maintain an aspect of deterrence. Thirdly, I would recommend guidelines be set up for recommended rehab times (in no way mandatory, but to give an idea of what the averages are for that crime) based upon past successful trials.

As well, I'd bring in a three strike rule, though not three charges you're out, but rather if you are in incarcerated, then "rehabilitated" twice, on your third offense, it's bye bye for bonzo. Obviously, there is no hope for you.

In the end, though there would be the possibility of abuse by a criminal, they would still be forced to stay for a mandatory amount of time. Further, after some time, I'm sure the professionals involved would get pretty good at identifying who is at risk to re-offend, and even if they are not successful in that regard, a person is only really given two chances.

Of particular importance to me. is that with amazingly grievous offences, say first degree murder and aggravated sexual assault of a minor, etc., that the offenders never be let out.

To me, given the nature of the crimes, even the slightest possibility of re-offence is too much. IMO if someone committs these, and a select few other crimes, they have forfeited their right to live in mainstream society.

lol, another crazy idea. fire away!

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Now here is just something I stumbled on to show exactly why judges are the problem....

Chestermere man receives five-year sentence for repeated assaults on girl

By KEVIN MARTIN, CALGARY SUN

Robbing the childhood of a city woman by repeatedly raping her while she was under his foster care has landed a Chestermere man a five-year prison term.

But the abuse victim told the Sun no amount of punishment for her abuser will fix the psychological scars she must ensure.
"Ultimately there's never enough time that you could place on something like this," she said yesterday, moments after her tormenter was taken off to jail.
"I'm relieved that this is over and he's serving his sentence."

The now-19-year-old, who can't be identified, said despite her ordeal, which included airing her abuse through the judicial system, victims should not be afraid to come forward.
"I just want people to know, children should not feel shy about, or guilty about, coming forward," she said.

Justice Suzanne Bensler agreed with Crown prosecutor Joanne Durant a sentence of at least five years was warranted.


Durant, who suggested a range of five- to 61/2-years, said a major aggravating factor was the foster dad's minimization of his crime to a psychiatrist.
The 55-year-old -- who also can't be identified -- told Dr. Cynthia Baxter the victim was to blame for the sexual contact which occurred while she lived under his roof from age nine to 11.

"He minimized the extent of his sexual abuse and tended to characterize the victim as the instigator," Baxter wrote in a report to the court.
"(He) indicated that after she moved in, the nine-year-old girl was sexually provocative towards him," Baxter said.

Durant said the man's conduct, which included having intercourse with the victim the day she left his home to return to her father, ruined her youth.
"He was the adult, he made the choices," she said. "He took away any hope this complainant had of having a happy childhood."

Along with the abuse the foster father told the victim not to tell anyone or they could both go to jail.
Defence lawyer Alain Hepner said despite his client's comments to Baxter, he was truly remorseful for what he did.

And the offender himself told Bensler while he couldn't explain why he abused the girl, he was sorry for the pain he caused.
http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Alberta/2006/08/19/1764982-sun.html



So here we go, this slimeball totally destroys a 9 year old girls life and then BLAMES her for it.........and of course NOW THAT HE IS CAUGHT shows plenty of remorse. Where was the remorse for the last 10 years and why not really prove it by jumping off a bridge?


Now back on subject, the judge and the [cough] prosecutor both know this guy is living in a walk-out halfway house in less than one year and back home in less than two years  ...................thats what a life means to them, I guess.