I definitely agree. Sociopaths tend to be very manipulative, and they know what people want to hear from them. Just look at all the other criminals out there who swear they’ve Found Jesus behind bars and they’re totally different people now. :rolleyes:
From the article about the verdict, it sounds like the kid is not even going to be in jail for a full ten years…six years at most, and then released “with supervision”.
She’ll still be a teenager when she’s out! Even teens raised in normal, healthy environments often haven’t gotten their act together by that age, much less someone who is this violent and disturbed.
I guess in one sense, if you believe in rehabilitation, it makes sense to let a young killer out early, so they do have a chance to rebuild their life. Being in prison for long stretches of time does tend to make it hard to make a clean start when you finally get out (and maybe has something to do with why so many people end up in a cycle of going back to prison, since so many people in law-abiding society don’t want to be around or employ an ex-con).
Personally, though, I would be in favor of locking up young killers for life, with no attempt at trying to “rehabilitate” them. Even if it may be possible to rehab some of them, I think the risk of letting them kill another person after they’ve proven they’re capable of it is unacceptable. Why do killers deserve a second chance at life when their victims don’t get that opportunity?
The act says that if once he is over 18 he can disclose his own youth record. Obviously he is refusing to do this, and there is nothing in the act that requires that he disclose his youth record.
Quite separate from the Act is a general rule of disclosure in civil matters (including family law matters) that says that that a party to a matter must disclose everything that is relevant to the matter.
If push comes to shove, I will argue that it is in his power and ability to disclose his record now that he is over 18, that the general rules of civil procedure require him to do so, and that in the custody matter it is in the best interest of justice that his record be disclosed.
I expect that his lawyer will argue that the general rules of disclosure in civil matters do not trump the very specific provisions of the YCJA, and that it is in the best interests of justice that the privacy provisions of the YCJA be respected.
Sometimes it sucks, but more often than not you do more good than harm. (And I can assure you, in the above matter I have other aproaches up my sleeve that will show to the court that the bio-dad is a sick fuck should I be blocked on the record disclosure issue – just don’t want to get into them here.)
Same can be said for social workers working with bad parents – some of the social workers must feel awfully helpless when they must follow their rules and the court’s rules despite what they feel in their hearts.
Maybe it’s the seemingly-arbitrary nature of the rules of the YCJA that is getting stuck in my craw - someone who is horribly messed-up at 17 isn’t likely to magically turn into a model citizen on their 18th birthday. I do see both sides of this issue; like someone mentioned, you can do things as a young child that you would never consider doing as an adult, but on the other hand, most of us make it out of childhood without sexually assaulting other children or killing our family. Removing the bad stuff from someone’s life history as an adult just doesn’t seem right.
Laws such as the YCJA are generally usefull for the average situation (e.g. kids shoplifting or breaking into cars), but unfortunately do not hold up too well for extreme situations (e.g. a 12 year old multiple murderess), and unfortunately do not predict all situations (e.g. a disclosure problem).
Could be worse – what if she had been 11 rather than 12 when she killed her family? The Criminal Code and the YCJA do not cover kids that young. Since she was not insane, she could have skated entirely had she only been a few months younger.
It is tough to be fair about cases like this. The kid was likely raised in ugly circumstances. But, there also is the fact that a kids brain is in the process of growing and changing. There are very good reasons to treat kids differently in court.
They require serious help. If they grow up in jail for the last few years of teenage maturity ,I thing you could predict trouble.
Although this is a reasonable expectation, in this matter there has been no indication at all of her growing up in ugly circumstances.
Then for first degree murder, don’t ever let them out of jail.
I realize that kids lack maturity – that goes along with being a kid, but if a person does not grok “Thou shalt not kill” by the time he or she is 12, then put the murderer in jail and throw away the key.
Muffin, have you considered making an application under s. 119(1)(s)(ii)?
Whether that provision applies or not would depend on the length of time since the disposition of the last case, as set out in sub-section (2), but it might be worth exploring. I would argue that if one parent has a criminal record relating to child abuse, it’s in the “interest of the proper administration of justice” that the civil court know about it. Mrs. Piper has had some success with that type of argument in a similar case.
Alternatively, there’s the young person’s right of access, which you mentioned:
Since he’s got an unfettered right of access, can you argue that either he should disclose his record as part of the civil proceedings, or risk the Court making an inference against him? There’s no prohibition in the YCJA that says a lawyer in a civil case can’t even ask about the other party’s youth record, is there? (Provided your client is willing to answer the same sort of questions from the other side.)
It’s a bit more complicated than that. Here’s what I posted a year ago in the earlier thread that Cunctator started, in response to a question from Ginger:
Muffin, Mrs. Piper has asked if Ontario has passed an OC under s. 119(1)® expanding the class of persons who are permitted access to records. Saskatchewan has passed an OC of that sort, allowing child protection workers access. Might be worth exploring.
Also, federal Justice lawyers have been able to get access to very old records under this section, for the numerous residential schools cases, so there might be some case-law out there.
Yes, I have a s. 119(1)(s)(ii) application ready to go. I succeded in one last year in another civil matter. It got rather unplesant, and included going over the heads of a couple of judges to the regional senior justice.
I don’t know one way or the other, but I expect that Ontario has, since I know that the child protection workers do have his record. The hitch is that they are not permitted to disclose it. My clients made an unsupported allegation of the convictions in a motion without notice for interim custody. CAS (the child care services folks) provided a letter saying that if the fellow got the child, as per the order he had at the time, then it would apprehend the child. That was enough for the judge in my motion to read between the lines and give my clients interim custody, and the judge at a subsequent conference was already aware of his record, so he hasn’t tried to remove the interim custody order. Unfortunately, that sort of thing will not suffice at trial.
That’s why I put him through an exam for discovery, where he admitted under oath to the convictions and undertook to produce his CAS file (which contains his record) before his lawyer shut him up. It will be interesting to watch his lawyer argue that his admission and undertaking should not stand, given that the Act specifically permits him to disclose now that he is over 18.
Aside from the sexual assault convictions that were admitted to, I will be calling a victim to testify to having been molested as a young boy by the fellow, without the molestation having ever been reported to the police. Since there is no police or judicial record of that molestation, there can be no objection by the fellow based on the Act.
My general concern with the privacy provisions of the Act is that none of this tussling about should have to take place, and that parties should not have to worry about what the judge had for breakfast due to the very high degree of judicial discretion. I think that a record should be public, regardless of the person’s age.
I know three jackasses who committed a horrendous double murder when they were children. (One of them was good friends with my little brother. They killed the Toopes in Montreal). All three went through Canada’s youth criminal justice system, and for two of them, it had no effect. They got picked up and tossed in the slammer within a few months of their release for drug running, and they’ve been recidivists ever since.
The third has apparently managed to amend his life and live on the straight and narrow.
I’m not impressed by that ratio. I know it’s just hearsay, not data, but still. Yuck.
I have been tired of your dismissive posting style for a long time now. Guess that finally came to a head.
Muffin, do you think that there are changes that could be or should be made to the YCJA that would treat cases like the multiple murderer and the child molester applying for child custody differently than a kid who shoplifted a lot as a youth? Is there any reasonable way to differentiate levels of seriousness of crimes? I still think that treating a multiple murderer the same way as a shoplifter is ludicrous. Rehabilitation, hell - she killed her whole family. You don’t just counsel that away.
I once worked for the ministry of community and social services. It was once explained to me that I could, as a public citizen (obviously not being employed by said ministry), attend a Young Offenders trial and tell everyone I knew about it and who he or she was. Again, obviously being in a public courtroom.
However, media and any one involved in the courts could not say or print that information.
I cannot provide a cite however it was explained to me by someone in a position I trust would know.