"...the mandatory minimum sentences of one year for an indictment and six months for a summary offence were found to have violated Section 12 of the charter.
Section 12 states that "everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment."
For luring a child into sex 1 year or 6 months was "cruel and unusual"
You know, this just further confirms my assumption in u/brain_dead 's thread from yesterday about the online privacy crackdown (a must-read🔺) They do this same tactic with theft, battery etc. and the Soros DA's not punishing criminals. Then they turn around and introduce more tyranny "in response" to the uptick in crime, and the people welcome it because they're tired of all the crime! Such an obvious bullshit by now
This case was brought on by Bertrand Marchand who was sentenced to a year. The court decided the mandatory minimums are cruel for many of the cases they get which are practically nothing.
But Marchand himself was sentenced to another year on top of what he got by that same court. Here is the last paragraph of the article below. .
In the case of Mr. Bertrand Marchand, the Court increased his sentence to one year’s imprisonment, emphasizing the harm caused to the victim and the seriousness of the luring offense. This sentence is to be served separately from his sentence for sexual interference.
Now you might think that luring a 13 year old and having sex with her is a huge crime but its not as huge as you think. The girl was quite willing so basically they had sex that is against the law.
The court doubled his sentence because he had sex with her. He did not rape her he had sex with a willing partner the only crime here is her age.
Canada is done.
Fuck these people...pedos get the rope, minimum!
They should shorten the sentence to 3 minutes in the woodchipper.
Aren't YOU just the bleeding heart!
They keep telling us we need to offer a compromise now and then. Just trying to appease the left.
https://archive.ph/7zAkg
Ahem...
"...the mandatory minimum sentences of one year for an indictment and six months for a summary offence were found to have violated Section 12 of the charter.
Section 12 states that "everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment."
For luring a child into sex 1 year or 6 months was "cruel and unusual"
You know, this just further confirms my assumption in u/brain_dead 's thread from yesterday about the online privacy crackdown (a must-read🔺) They do this same tactic with theft, battery etc. and the Soros DA's not punishing criminals. Then they turn around and introduce more tyranny "in response" to the uptick in crime, and the people welcome it because they're tired of all the crime! Such an obvious bullshit by now
Lol. Wonder why....
what the wait no makes perfect sense
STOP SPREADING BS PLEASE AND READ THE ARTICLE.
This case was brought on by Bertrand Marchand who was sentenced to a year. The court decided the mandatory minimums are cruel for many of the cases they get which are practically nothing.
But Marchand himself was sentenced to another year on top of what he got by that same court. Here is the last paragraph of the article below. .
In the case of Mr. Bertrand Marchand, the Court increased his sentence to one year’s imprisonment, emphasizing the harm caused to the victim and the seriousness of the luring offense. This sentence is to be served separately from his sentence for sexual interference.
Now you might think that luring a 13 year old and having sex with her is a huge crime but its not as huge as you think. The girl was quite willing so basically they had sex that is against the law.
The court doubled his sentence because he had sex with her. He did not rape her he had sex with a willing partner the only crime here is her age.
Thank you
Archived
"He did not rape her he had sex with a willing partner the only crime here is her age."
Who's gonna say it?...
He did not rape the child he had sex with? FOH pedo.