# Canada stands by torture of child **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 16, 2008, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-stands-by-torture-of-child/456682 "2008-07-16T14:24:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![cowgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8c91f0/32.png) [@cowgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cowgirl)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2008, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-stands-by-torture-of-child/456682/41 "2008-07-16T19:47:09Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] Your clarification is appreciated… if a bit late, since the title to the freakin’ THREAD is: “Canada stands by torture of child.” I think it’s a remarkable oversight to have not realized that a thread thus titled would veer in the direction of discussing torture. [/quote] It was not an oversight, it was the deliberate selection of a word which I felt to be perfectly appropriate to the situation. However, argument about my word selection distracted from what I feel to be the main point of the OP, so I changed it. That does not mean that I feel my original word selection to be in error. > [@](#): > > I am [okay with Khadr’s treatment]. Fair enough. With that I can agree to disagree. However, we cannot yet say that > [@Bricker](#): > > The individual in question committed an act that should be a punishable as a crime. He is ALLEGED to have committed that act, which is what the trial is for. > [@](#): > > assuming, of course, that such tribunal meets the due process requirements defined in Boumediene. That’s probably the crux of it. I have no faith that he will experience due process. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2008, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-stands-by-torture-of-child/456682/42 "2008-07-16T19:48:48Z")
[QUOTE=cowgirl] From [here](http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/346020). This certainly introduces reasonable doubt into the process, which we could evaluate if there was a fair trial. We’ve been through this already. [U.S. treatment of Khadr may have exceeded military’s own guidelines](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080711.KHADRFLYER11/TPStory/National) I have acknowledged that whether or not that counts as “torture” is a question of judgment and I was hoping we could agree to disagree on which side of the line it sits on. Once we figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, then perhaps we can agree on whether any given act of abuse and humiliation counts as torture. It is chilling to discover how many of us are tolerant of child soldiers being treated this way, apparently because we are too busy fiddling on about what counts as torture. Give him a trial. If he is guilty then convict and punish him. If there is evidence that his family is treasonous, they by all means we should give them a trial too and punish them if guilty. [/QUOTE] Well, I don’t differentiate this man from the others. They all should have had either full and proper treatment under the Geneva Convention or they should have been tried in our courts. If the man was innocent, he should have had a chance to prove it, but if guilty I don’t see where the 15 year old should have been treated much different from the others imprisoned in these (to me) illegal camps. I do not consider a 15 year old combatant to be a child and I do not support is long term imprisonment without a trial and due process or full treatment under the Geneva Convention. I said as much I believe in my first post. I do object to your title that puts this in the worse light possible. Now I only head this story on NPR and I have not studied it, but this does not appear to be an innocent child but rather a teen that was following his Dad’s lead in combat against his own country and his country’s close ally. My sympathy for him as a child is non-existent. He was a full fledge enemy combatant despite his age. I hope he gets his trial soon and I hope he is treated as an enemy soldier. If this means he should be released, so be it. If it means they should continue to hold him but treat him as a proper POW that is also fine. I think you went too far in calling this torture and may have missed the bigger issue at the same time. The US is not holding him and his fellow prisoners in a way that is acceptable! Jim ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2008, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-stands-by-torture-of-child/456682/43 "2008-07-16T20:03:30Z")
[QUOTE=cowgirl] Fair enough. With that I can agree to disagree. However, we cannot yet say that He is ALLEGED to have committed that act, which is what the trial is for. That’s probably the crux of it. I have no faith that he will experience due process. [/QUOTE] Of course. He is alleged to have committed the act. If this had happened in, say, Billings, Montana, then there’d be no question that his detention before trial was appropriate: it’s a long-settled rule that bail may be denied for capital offenses. Your concern about his getting due process is not crazy, but at the same time, I think it’s premature, since he has yet to be tried. ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2008, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-stands-by-torture-of-child/456682/44 "2008-07-16T20:07:22Z")
[QUOTE=ivan astikov] [del]I can’t help but notice that all through his wailing, he never once seemed to say, **“Help me…Allah!”**? Does that sound like your typical fanatical Muslim to anybody else?[/del] [/QUOTE] Stricken from the record. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2008, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-stands-by-torture-of-child/456682/45 "2008-07-16T20:24:42Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] Your concern about his getting due process is not crazy, but at the same time, I think it’s premature, since he has yet to be tried. [/QUOTE] Yeah, I mean he’s only been detained for six years now. It’s not like he’s been held for, like, a third of his life, or anything. And that “concern about due process” stuff is zany. I mean, if he hasn’t had a trial, then he can’t have had an _unfair_ trial, can he? Silly goose. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2008, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-stands-by-torture-of-child/456682/46 "2008-07-16T21:35:44Z")
[QUOTE=Antigen] I’m not saying he should be released, charges dropped, brought back to Canada for a parade, or anything. The charges are pretty serious, and I don’t know the details of the case. But this whole “we’re going to hold you here forever without a trial” is kind of ridiculous. [/QUOTE] Prisoners awaiting trial IN CANADA frequently wait years for their trials; there are people in detention centres in Toronto who’ve been there five years and more. The ugly truth is that we can’t criticize someone else for pulling the same shit we do. And there’s no evidence Khadr has been tortured, so the title of the OP is deliberately misleading. ---
**Author:** ![BlimeyORiley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e0b2c6/32.png) [@BlimeyORiley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlimeyORiley)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2008, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-stands-by-torture-of-child/456682/47 "2008-07-16T22:36:03Z")
[QUOTE=RickJay] And there’s no evidence Khadr has been tortured, so the title of the OP is deliberately misleading. [/QUOTE] There is public information that he was a member of the “frequent flyer program”, whereby he was over a period of many weeks never in the same room for more than 3 hrs, and thus was sleep deprived prior to interviews. [www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080716.EKHADR16/TPStory/Comment](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080716.EKHADR16/TPStory/Comment) It seems sleep deprivation is a somewhat grey area, verging on torture, but may not be accepted as torture. To quote an online piece about SD “It has been known for a long time that sleep has a detrimental effect; something used to good effect by the military for generations. The ancient Romans, for example, used tormentum vigilae (waking torture) to extract information from their enemies.” Torture maybe, and he was just 16 at that time ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2008, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-stands-by-torture-of-child/456682/48 "2008-07-16T22:50:14Z")
[QUOTE=RickJay] And there’s no evidence Khadr has been tortured, so the title of the OP is deliberately misleading. [/QUOTE] Sleep deprivation of a young offender for the purpose of questionning is nicely summed up as being torture. My bolding: > [@](#): > > [Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment](http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm) > > 1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term \*\*“torture” means \*\* any act by which **severe** pain or **suffering** , whether physical or **mental** , is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as **obtaining** from him or a third person **information or a confession** , punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2008, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-stands-by-torture-of-child/456682/49 "2008-07-16T22:58:37Z")
And whether or not sleep deprivation is torture, it certainly fits somehwere under cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment: > [@](#): > > [Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment](http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm) > > Article 16 > > 1. Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article I, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to torture of references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2008, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-stands-by-torture-of-child/456682/50 "2008-07-16T23:26:32Z")
[QUOTE=Muffin] Sleep deprivation of a young offender for the purpose of questionning is nicely summed up as being torture. My bolding: [/QUOTE] I protest your use of the loaded term “young offender” - Khadr wasn’t stealing cars in downtown Toronto - he was lobbing grenades at American soldiers in Afghanistan. I don’t think his age should be taken into account here, either - at 15 he was old enough to kill two American soldiers. Maybe the person who should have taken his age into account was his own father who put him in this position. His father knew that the consequences were death or indefinite imprisonment by the Americans they were fighting - the Americans haven’t exactly been keeping the Patriot Acts and Guantanamo Bay a secret. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2008, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-stands-by-torture-of-child/456682/51 "2008-07-16T23:30:44Z")
[QUOTE=Muffin] Sleep deprivation of a young offender for the purpose of questionning is nicely summed up as being torture. My bolding: [/QUOTE] You forgot your second cite – you know, the one that defines sleep deprivation as “severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental.” > [@](#): > > And whether or not sleep deprivation is torture, it certainly fits somehwere under cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment Does it? Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2008, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-stands-by-torture-of-child/456682/52 "2008-07-17T00:20:54Z")
[QUOTE=featherlou] His father knew that the consequences were death or indefinite imprisonment by the Americans they were fighting - the Americans haven’t exactly been keeping the Patriot Acts and Guantanamo Bay a secret. [/QUOTE] 😕 The first detainees weren’t sent to Guantanamo until 2002. Khadr was sent to Guantanamo in… 2002. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2008, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-stands-by-torture-of-child/456682/53 "2008-07-17T00:48:17Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] …Does it? Cite? [/QUOTE] Conscience? ---
**Author:** ![Apollyon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/apollyon/32/4238_2.png) [@Apollyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollyon)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2008, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-stands-by-torture-of-child/456682/54 "2008-07-17T00:54:10Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] If this had happened in, say, Billings, Montana, then there’d be no question that his detention before trial was appropriate: it’s a long-settled rule that bail may be denied for capital offenses. [/QUOTE] If this had happened in Billings, Montana, what would be the repercussions of six years detention before trial? ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2008, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-stands-by-torture-of-child/456682/55 "2008-07-17T01:26:38Z")
Cite **Bricker** , re. torture (Article 1) and re. cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 16)? Ask and ye shall receive: > [@](#): > > [United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Committee Against Torture:](http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/69b6685c93d9f25180256498005063da?Opendocument) > > Those methods include: (1) restraining in very painful conditions, (2) hooding under special conditions, (3) sounding of loud music for prolonged periods, (4) sleep deprivation for prolonged periods, (5) threats, including death threats, (6) violent shaking, and (7) using cold air to chill, and are, in the Committee’s view, breaches of article 16 and also constitute torture as defined in article 1 of the Convention. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2008, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-stands-by-torture-of-child/456682/56 "2008-07-17T02:07:53Z")
[QUOTE=RickJay] Prisoners awaiting trial IN CANADA frequently wait years for their trials; there are people in detention centres in Toronto who’ve been there five years and more. [/QUOTE] Please provide a cite for any young offenders who have been in pre-trial custody in Canada for five years due to systemic delay. I have never heard of any at all. As far as accused persons having lengthy pre-trial custody goes, please keep in mind the discretionary 2 for 1 reduction of sentence length typically made in consideration of pre-trial custody when the delay is not caused by the accused (meaning, for example, that if an accused spent a couple of years in jail waiting for a trial due to a slow process, and was sentenced to five years, he usually would only have to spend a further year in prison rather than five years). This leads to people who are facing time and have a poor defence playing the system as best they can to delay the trial, provided that they can stall without being called on it. That way when they go down, they will not end up spending as much time in the klink. Also please keep in mind that for a person with a poor defence, often it makes more sense to hang about in jail waiting for witnesses to wander off or for memories to fade, rather than to go to trial and go down in flames. Once you weed out cases where the accused is in a better position by sitting in pre-trial custody than going to trial, I think you’ll be very hard pressed to come up with any that spend half a dozen years honestly waiting for trial. [The Supreme Court of Canada on the discretionary reduction: _Wust_ (2000), 143 C.C.C.(3d) 129, 32 C.R.(5th) 58, 134 B.C.A.C. 236, 184 D.L.R.(4th) 385 (S.C.C.):](http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?language=en&searchTitle=Federal&path=/en/ca/scc/doc/2000/2000scc18/2000scc18.html) > [@](#): > > I see no advantage in detracting from the well-entrenched judicial discretion provided in s. 719(3) by endorsing a mechanical formula for crediting pre-sentencing custody. As we have re-affirmed in this decision, the goal of sentencing is to impose a just and fit sentence, responsive to the facts of the individual offender and the particular circumstances of the commission of the offence. I adopt the reasoning of Laskin J.A. in Rezaie [(1996), 112 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (Ont.C.A.)], at p. 105, where he noted that: > > … provincial appellate courts have rejected a mathematical formula for crediting pre-trial custody, instead insisting that the amount of time to be credited should be determined on a case by case basis. … Although a fixed multiplier may be unwise, absent justification, sentencing judges should give some credit for time spent in custody before trial (and before sentencing). [Citations omitted.] > In the past, many judges have given more or less two months credit for each month spent in pre-sentencing detention. This is entirely appropriate even though a different ratio could also be applied, for example if the accused has been detained prior to trial in an institution where he or she has had full access to educational, vocational and rehabilitation programs. The often applied ratio of 2:1 reflects not only the harshness of the detention due to the absence of programs, which may be more severe in some cases than in others, but reflects also the fact that none of the remission mechanisms contained in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act apply to that period of detention. “Dead time” is “real” time. The credit cannot and need not be determined by a rigid formula and is thus best left to the sentencing judge, who remains in the best position to carefully weigh all the factors which go toward the determination of the appropriate sentence, including the decision to credit the offender for any time spent in pre-sentencing custody. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2008, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-stands-by-torture-of-child/456682/57 "2008-07-17T02:49:46Z")
[QUOTE=featherlou] I protest your use of the loaded term “young offender” [/QUOTE] Unless he is brought back to Canada as a prisoner of war, he can only be dealt with as a young offender under the [_Youth Criminal Justice Act, s. 14_](http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/y-1.5/whole.html). That is the governing legislation. It applies based on the age of the accused at the time of the commission of the offence, not on how vile the offence was. The loading of the term I used is in the word “offender”, for under the Act he is not a “young offender”, but instead is a “young person”. [YCJA s.2:](http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/y-1.5/sec2.html) > [@](#): > > “young person” means a person who is or, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, appears to be twelve years old or older, but less than eighteen years old and, if the context requires, includes any person who is charged under this Act with having committed an offence while he or she was a young person or who is found guilty of an offence under this Act. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2008, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-stands-by-torture-of-child/456682/58 "2008-07-17T03:09:20Z")
[QUOTE=Muffin] Please provide a cite for any young offenders who have been in pre-trial custody in Canada for five years due to systemic delay. I have never heard of any at all. [/QUOTE] I don’t recall saying “young offenders.” > [@](#): > > As far as accused persons having lengthy pre-trial custody goes, please keep in mind the discretionary 2 for 1 reduction of sentence length typically made in consideration of pre-trial custody… How does this help someone acquitted of the charges? It’s a disgrace. Now, I’m not defending the treatment of Omar Khadr, who no matter what he did or didn’t do deserves a trial, but let’s not pretend this is something it isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2008, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-stands-by-torture-of-child/456682/59 "2008-07-17T03:13:31Z")
Now let’s have a look at what would happen to Khadr if he were to be returned to Canada for a trial. I expect that he would be kicked loose for delay and/or mistreatment while in detention, but even if he were not and instead were convicted, he would end up with time served on the 2 for 1 plan or eligible for parole either immediately or shortly thereafter. Obviously it is not a simple matter, but given that there has been extreme delay particularly with regard to the accused’s age, and that the delay was used by the state to interrogate the prisoner using improper means considered to be torture by the UN (sleep deprivation), I think that there is a good chance that a Canadian court might toss the matter out for delay. If Khadr were brought back to Canada for trial, the following would apply: > [@](#): > > [R. v. Morin 1992 CanLII 89 (S.C.C.), (1992), 71 C.C.C. (3d) 1 (S.C.C.) Sopinka J.:](http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1992/1992canlii89/1992canlii89.html) > The primary purpose of s. 11(b) is the protection of the individual rights > of accused. A secondary interest of society as a whole has, however, been > recognized by this court… > The individual rights which the section seeks to protect are: (1) the right to > security of the person; (2) the right to liberty, and (3) the right to a fair trial. > The right to security of the person is protected in s. 11(b) by seeking to > minimize the anxiety, concern and stigma of exposure to criminal proceedings. > The right to liberty is protected by seeking to minimize exposure to the > restrictions on liberty which result from pre-trial incarceration and restrictive > bail conditions. The right to a fair trial is protected by attempting to ensure that > proceedings take place while evidence is available and fresh. > The secondary societal interest is most obvious when it parallels that > of the accused. Society as a whole has an interest in seeing that the least > fortunate of its citizens who are accused of crimes are treated humanely and > fairly. In this respect trials held promptly enjoy the confidence of the public. … > There is, as well, a societal interest that is by its very nature adverse to the > interests of the accused. In Conway, a majority of this court recognized that the > interests of the accused must be balanced by the interests of society in law > enforcement. This theme was picked up in Askov in the reasons of Cory J. > who referred to “a collective interest in ensuring that those who transgress > the law are brought to trial and dealt with according to the law” (p. 474). > As the seriousness of the offence increases so does the societal demand that > the accused be brought to trial. … > > . . . . > > …it is now accepted that the factors to be considered in analyzing how long is too > long may be listed as follows: > l. the length of the delay; > 2. waiver of time periods; > 3. the reasons for the delay, including > (a) inherent time requirements of the case; > (b) actions of the accused; > (c) actions of the Crown; > (d) limits on institutional resources, and > (e) other reasons for delay, and > 4. prejudice to the accused. > … > The judicial process referred to as “balancing” requires an examination > of the length of the delay and its evaluation in light of the other factors. A > judicial determination is then made as to whether the period of delay is > unreasonable. In coming to this conclusion, account must be taken of the > interests which s. 11(b) is designed to protect. Leaving aside the question of > delay on appeal, the period to be scrutinized is the time elapsed from the > date of the charge to the end of the trial: … this period may be shortened by > subtracting periods of delay that have been waived. It must then be determined > whether this period is unreasonable, having regard to the interests s. 11(b) > seeks to protect, the explanation for the delay and the prejudice to the accused. Usually (but not always) a convict is credited with pre-sentence time on a 2 for 1 basis, so in this instance in which the accused has been in custody for 6 years, 12 years would normally be knocked off the sentence. Even if the accused were found guilty of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment such that the 2 for 1 plan would not be applicable, he would likely eligible for parole either immediately or shortly thereafter, for parole eligibility begins after five years (or up to seven years if so ordered by a judge) if the crime was committed by a person under 16 [(C.C. s. 745.1 and s. 746.1(3))](http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?language=en&searchTitle=Federal&path=/ca/sta/c-46/). In other words, if the Court did not buy the argument that his pre-trial confinement was excessive and in violation of our Charter of Rights, and if the Court did not buy the argument that he was brainwashed by his parents, there would still be a probability that if he were convicted he would either be out on 2 for 1 time, be eligible for parole, or shortly be eligible for parole. When one considers that the American military tribunal is suspect in its impartiality and is not applying young offender type law, one realizes why Khadr has better odds in Canada. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2008, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-stands-by-torture-of-child/456682/60 "2008-07-17T03:23:15Z")
[QUOTE=RickJay] I don’t recall saying “young offenders.”. [/QUOTE] Yo9u didn’t, however, we are discussing a person who if he were brought back to Canada would be tried as a young person. [QUOTE=RickJay] How does this help someone acquitted of the charges? It’s a disgrace. [/quote] The 2 for 1 ploy is not used by people who have much of a chance at being acquitted. It is used by people who expect to be going down but who wish to minimize their time in custody significantly. Other than people who have had their cases tossed for delay or for lack of witnesses, please provide me with cites setting out people who have been acquitted after five or more years of pre-trial custody. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-stands-by-torture-of-child/456682.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-stands-by-torture-of-child/456682.md?page=4)