Mother beat the pervert with a rifle until the stock of the gun broke.
DATE: 2004.07.07
CATEGORY: National general news
PUBLICATION: cpw
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An editorial from the Woodstock Sentinel-Review, published July 8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three court decisions over the past few days _ two here in Oxford County, one on the national stage _ have raised questions about the fairness of the justice system and its ability to protect the community.
When vandals get only marginally less jail time than sexual predators that prey on teenage girls, are sentences being properly tailored to fit the crime? When children are kept in cages and the captors get a slap on the wrist, are the courts doing their jobs?
On Monday, a 36-year-old Woodstock man (who's name cannot be released in order to protect the victim's identity) was sentenced after sexually assaulting his teenage stepdaughter for more than two years, starting when she was just 13 or 14. The details were gruesome and featured a kind of psychological manipulation, according to the Crown attorney that prosecuted the case. ``He would say `I thought you loved me' to make her feel guilty,'' Michael Carnegie told the court. ``The psychological damages will stay with the victim for the rest of her life.''
For this the man was sentenced to just eight months in jail.
That same day, in a case that received national media attention, the adoptive parents of two teenage boys were sentenced to nine months in jail for frequently keeping the brothers caged and tethered in their family home over a 13-year period. The judge said the treatment was horrendous, but ``underscored by good intentions.'' Reaction to this case has been visceral and an appeal of the sentence is expected.
Compare those sentences to the 90 days in jail given to a 20-year-old man Tuesday for breaking into an Ingersoll swimming pool and setting off some fire extinguishers. While the punishment might have been justified _ he should certainly have to pay for the damage he caused _ it's hard to believe that an act of relatively harmless stupidity is worth one-third the jail time given to those that sexually abuse adolescents or chain their kids to bedposts.
Something is out of whack here. If abusing kids is worth nine months in the can, a fire extinguisher in the pool is worth a fine and no jail time. On the other hand, if damaging public property is worth three months, then ruining the lives of family members too young to defend themselves is in the 10-year territory _ the punishment has to fit the crime. While giving jail time to those who get into mischief may act as deterrent to others, petty offenders also take up space that could be used to house criminals who truly deserve to be locked up.
Given the relative light sentence given to the fondling stepfather, the best bit of justice may have been handed out by the mother of the abused girl, who beat the pervert with a rifle until the stock of the gun broke. It's a wonder she didn't use the other end of the weapon and reintroduce the death penalty.
But if the courts can't find a way to ensure the worst offenders are serving the most jail time, that kind of frontier justice may just catch on. People need to believe that courts will punish criminals in a manner that justifies the crime or confidence in the system itself is lost. But the sentences handed down this week have done nothing but erode faith that the courts are making sure the worst elements of our society are getting the punishment they so richly deserve.
_ Drew Edwards
DATE: 2004.07.07
CATEGORY: National general news
PUBLICATION: cpw
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An editorial from the Woodstock Sentinel-Review, published July 8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three court decisions over the past few days _ two here in Oxford County, one on the national stage _ have raised questions about the fairness of the justice system and its ability to protect the community.
When vandals get only marginally less jail time than sexual predators that prey on teenage girls, are sentences being properly tailored to fit the crime? When children are kept in cages and the captors get a slap on the wrist, are the courts doing their jobs?
On Monday, a 36-year-old Woodstock man (who's name cannot be released in order to protect the victim's identity) was sentenced after sexually assaulting his teenage stepdaughter for more than two years, starting when she was just 13 or 14. The details were gruesome and featured a kind of psychological manipulation, according to the Crown attorney that prosecuted the case. ``He would say `I thought you loved me' to make her feel guilty,'' Michael Carnegie told the court. ``The psychological damages will stay with the victim for the rest of her life.''
For this the man was sentenced to just eight months in jail.
That same day, in a case that received national media attention, the adoptive parents of two teenage boys were sentenced to nine months in jail for frequently keeping the brothers caged and tethered in their family home over a 13-year period. The judge said the treatment was horrendous, but ``underscored by good intentions.'' Reaction to this case has been visceral and an appeal of the sentence is expected.
Compare those sentences to the 90 days in jail given to a 20-year-old man Tuesday for breaking into an Ingersoll swimming pool and setting off some fire extinguishers. While the punishment might have been justified _ he should certainly have to pay for the damage he caused _ it's hard to believe that an act of relatively harmless stupidity is worth one-third the jail time given to those that sexually abuse adolescents or chain their kids to bedposts.
Something is out of whack here. If abusing kids is worth nine months in the can, a fire extinguisher in the pool is worth a fine and no jail time. On the other hand, if damaging public property is worth three months, then ruining the lives of family members too young to defend themselves is in the 10-year territory _ the punishment has to fit the crime. While giving jail time to those who get into mischief may act as deterrent to others, petty offenders also take up space that could be used to house criminals who truly deserve to be locked up.
Given the relative light sentence given to the fondling stepfather, the best bit of justice may have been handed out by the mother of the abused girl, who beat the pervert with a rifle until the stock of the gun broke. It's a wonder she didn't use the other end of the weapon and reintroduce the death penalty.
But if the courts can't find a way to ensure the worst offenders are serving the most jail time, that kind of frontier justice may just catch on. People need to believe that courts will punish criminals in a manner that justifies the crime or confidence in the system itself is lost. But the sentences handed down this week have done nothing but erode faith that the courts are making sure the worst elements of our society are getting the punishment they so richly deserve.
_ Drew Edwards
