Obligatorische Mindeststrafen für Kinderpornografie sind verfassungswidrig, urteilt der Oberste Gerichtshof
Mandatory minimum child pornography sentences unconstitutional, Supreme Court rules
Obligatorische Mindeststrafen für Kinderpornografie sind verfassungswidrig, urteilt der Oberste Gerichtshof
Mandatory minimum child pornography sentences unconstitutional, Supreme Court rules
10 Kommentare
It’s insane that something like sexually abusing children can’t have a mandatory minimum sentence.
And yes, simply possessing this material is sexually abusing children.
As if there wasn’t already plenty of justification for Parliaments to say enough is enough, and finally amend the Constitution to bring these activist judges under control once and for all, or simply start overriding and ignoring them using any means necessary (including the Notwithstanding Clause, or going further if needed).
Use the notwithstanding clause!!!
How is it cruel and unusual punishment to force people who view children being raped to spend at least 12 months somewhere where they a) Can’t do this b) Can’t rape actual kids because obviously they would like to c) can think of their life decisions and be forced to get some kind of treatment.
The SC is an absolute joke. These kinds of rulings are so far beyond the intended scope of the Charter and it’s literally ruining the country and the SCs own credibility.
Generally most mandatory minimums over the last 15 years have been found unconstitutional. That’s probably right. What could change is sentencing guidelines. Light sentences shouldn’t be the norm for these types of crimes but the courts have to have some discretion in our legal system.
It would have been nice if the article linked to the decision or even gave a summary of the reasons. This was the deciding factor:
> For the purposes of the instant appeal, the reasonably foreseeable scenario chosen is that in which an 18‑year‑old receives on his cell phone, from his friend of the same age, a “sext” originally from the friend’s girlfriend, who is 17 years old. This individual keeps the image on his cell phone and looks at the photograph during a brief period of time, knowing that it constitutes child pornography. In the age of digital communication, it is not far‑fetched that an 18‑year‑old receives from a friend an image corresponding to the definition of child pornography. The fact that the representative offender is 18 years old and has no criminal record is also foreseeable. Concerning the first stage of the constitutional analysis, although the acts committed by the representative offender are serious and deserve to be denounced, they fall at the lowest end of the gravity scale for the crimes of accessing and possession of child pornography. Furthermore, the offender’s youth and the absence of a criminal record invite restraint. Concerning the second stage, imposing a sentence of one year’s imprisonment on the young 18‑year‑old representative offender when a fit sentence would be a conditional discharge with strict probationary terms would be grossly disproportionate.
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2025/2025scc33/2025scc33.html
I think we can all agree that mandatory minimums are not ideal as there are always fringe cases where they would be going to far (one comment outlines an 18 year old getting a text from a friend involving a 17 year old). The thing is they are a symptom of the greater problem. The problem is the judiciary consistently handing out extremally lenient sentencing. How the hell do we convince the judiciary to do their jobs properly?
We need more conservatives judges at the SCC. We only get that with conservative governments. And we’ve basically had mostly progressive governments. Not commenting about this specific case, just talking about the system generally.
It’s pretty frustrating the court creates a s.12 hypothetical case like this to test the proportionality
>For the purposes of the instant appeal, the reasonably foreseeable scenario chosen is that in which an 18‑year‑old receives on his cell phone, from his friend of the same age, a “sext” originally from the friend’s girlfriend, who is 17 years old. This individual keeps the image on his cell phone and looks at the photograph during a brief period of time, knowing that it constitutes child pornography. In the age of digital communication, it is not far‑fetched that an 18‑year‑old receives from a friend an image corresponding to the definition of child pornography. The fact that the representative offender is 18 years old and has no criminal record is also foreseeable. Concerning the first stage of the constitutional analysis, although the acts committed by the representative offender are serious and deserve to be denounced, they fall at the lowest end of the gravity scale for the crimes of accessing and possession of child pornography. Furthermore, the offender’s youth and the absence of a criminal record invite restraint. Concerning the second stage, imposing a sentence of one year’s imprisonment on the young 18‑year‑old representative offender when a fit sentence would be a conditional discharge with strict probationary terms would be grossly disproportionate.
Yet the two cases where the original trial judge stated that 1 year is too much…
Case #1
>He admitted having been in possession of 475 files, including 317 images of children constituting child pornography. Of those images, 90 percent were of young girls between 3 and 6 years of age
Case #2
>He admitted having been in possession, for 13 months, of 531 images and 274 videos of child pornography, most of which were of children from 5 to 10 years of age
Some how those two above 1 year in jail was too much time for the original trial judge, w.t.f.
That’s because mandatory minimums are unconstitutional. The courts have said this over and over, yet politicians trying to copy the U.S. keep trying.
I don’t even understand the need for mandatory minimums either, let the judges sentence the crimes, not grandstanding politicians.
It almost seems that common sense has left the building. These are the judges that don’t know how to read the room. And then we ask – why has crime spiked and gone out of control in Canada.
The Govt should have the power to enact laws. This should be under the purview of the people’s representatives. We are talking about child rapists not chain snatchers.