Close Menu
    Politik

    Richter hebt Haftstrafe für Métis-Cree-Frau wegen sexuellen Übergriffs auf 15-Jährige um ein Jahr auf

    Share.
    View 15 Comments

    15 Kommentare

    1. Ordinary_Narwhal_516 on

      Sometimes you read the title and you think “oh NatPo is making it much worse than it is”. Nope. The woman who sexually assaulted a child did have sexual assault history of her own, but that’s a footnote in this judges ruling. The judge pretty much says that her background is a mitigating factor. If there are issues, there are appropriate places to seek help, especially for indigenous people. You don’t get to cry foul when you get charged with sexually assaulting a child.

    2. Radix838 on

      This case is a perfect illustration of the crisis of underincarceration and race-based justice in Canada.

      If you hate the National Post, read the whole decision here: https://canlii.ca/t/khzk7

      This 32-year old criminal groomed and forced oral sex onto a 15 year old. This soft-on-crime, racially obssesed judge explicitly reduced the sentence by 1.5 years. Why? Because of the criminal’s race.

      There is no ambiguity here. No „it’s about social conditions, not race.“ Here is what this judge said:

      > When the accused is an Indigenous female, we need to stop and think twice before we potentially effect the rest of her life. On the surface, this approach may look like that would be giving Indigenous women special treatment in the sentencing process. I am fine with that – and I would say it is about time.

      Judicial independence should not immunize judges who engage in race-based rulings. The BC Legislature should remove this judge from office.

    3. the_normal_person on

      From the decision:

      „When the accused is an Indigenous female, we need to stop and think twice before we potentially effect the rest of her life. On the surface, this approach may look like that would be giving Indigenous women special treatment in the sentencing process. I am fine with that – and I would say it is about time. On a deeper level, it is not really a preferred treatment, but rather a recognition of the Gladue [Indigenous Female Sentencing Considerations/factors] that are specific to being an Indigenous woman in this country.“

      Quite the mask off moment. I personally believe it is morally repugnant to have a system where people are given different justice treatment based on their race. I challenge anyone here to claim this is not what the judge is saying/doing here.

    4. toilet_for_shrek on

      Yeah I’d like us to do away with this whole two-tier justice system thing that we’ve gotten ourselves into. Ethnicity and immigration status should have **zero** consideration when it comes sentencing. 

      Growing up with a rough childhood shouldn’t lead to sentencing discounts. Plenty of people grew up having it rough and still managed to be decent human beings. 

    6. indentation-matters on

      The two-tiers justice system that should receive attention is the one about wealthy people. Way more destructive to society as a whole.
      Why this obsession about race?

    7. KingRabbit_ on

      >“We know that as a Métis-Cree woman that Ms. Dodding has a greater chance of being physically, violently, emotionally and spiritually victimized. The information I have confirms that she has experienced incredible trauma in her life, which is not her fault,” Judge Alexander Wolf wrote in a recent decision out of Port Alberni.

      But what about the young boy who was raped…

      >“It concludes that Ms. Dodding’s personal Indigenous sentencing factors, as well as all the other sentencing considerations in general, support (a) four-year sentence. However, I believe the sentence does not adequately address concerns particular to her circumstances as an Indigenous, or in this case, Métis-Cree, woman. In my view, after having considered all the circumstances of this case, I conclude that a three-year sentence of jail is appropriate.”

      Oh good, I’m glad the court was able to help the real victim in all this.

      >The judge quoted an earlier decision he made about another Indigenous female offender.

      >“On the surface, this approach may look like that would be giving Indigenous women special treatment in the sentencing process. **I am fine with that — and I would say it is about time,” Wolf said.** “

      Straight up racial preferences being not just admitted to, but trumpeted by this fucking judge.

    8. Expert_CBCD on

      It seems many people here are assuming that the justice system dolled out consequences equally prior to taking race and other factors into consideration. We know that’s not true. We know disparities exist in sentencing as well as other parts of the justice system. That’s why these considerations exist. They are not popular, and people are understandably outraged but let’s not pretend the prior system was remotely equal.

    9. BirdRevolutions on

      The judge is indigenous himself

      > Judge Wolf is one of six judges in the BC Provincial Court as of May 2024 who self-identifies as an Indigenous person. He is a member of the Kwikwasut’inuxw Haxwa’mis First Nation

      https://provincialcourt.bc.ca/news-notices-policies-and-practice-directions/enews/judge-brings-wide-ranging-experience-court

      So glad we have race-based sentencing being decided by people of that race. How is this not a conflict of interest?

    10. danielhandley on

      I’ll go a bit against the grain here.

      1. The Crown asked for 3-5 years in this case and the offender received a 3 year sentence. You can disagree with the judge’s reasons behind the sentence, but the reality is the judge gave the Crown what they were asking for.

      2. I have some research being (hopefully) published soon (currently in peer review) on sentence durations for sexual interference/assault of children in BC. Relative to sentencing precedents, this is actually a very typical sentence. A 3 year sentence is bang-on the median for all offenders, even including non-Indigenous offenders.

      3. Another point from my research is that the data shows offences involving only a single instance of sexual offending, as is the case here, receive considerably lower sentences (contrary to *R v Friesen* but that’s another can of worms). In those cases, the median is only 14 months‘ custody, again including non-Indigenous offenders. Receiving a 3 year sentence here is considerably above that.

      4. Do I agree with the sentence? No, I think it should be higher. But the reality is that this judge, particularly at the BCPC level, was very constrained by sentencing precedents. Crown and defence together submitted 20 cases for the judge to consider, and in light of those cases this would be a very reasonable sentence even if this was a white male.

      5. Speaking of sentencing precedents, the 3 year custodial sentence is wildly over-used in BC, to the point where you have cases with far more violence and disturbing facts receiving an identical sentence to this. See, for example, *R v B.T.* 2021 BCSC 948, *R v B.D.M.* 2021 BCSC 1738, and *R v. D.O.* 2021 BCPC 171. Again, the solution is to increase the sentences for those kinds of cases instead, but until that happens, this judge is constrained by previous sentencing decisions.

      There’s been a significant uptick in Canadian media outlets across the political spectrum reporting on individual sentencing decisions from across the country with sensationalist headlines and quotes designed to rage-bait for clicks. Remember that despite popular opinion neither judges nor Crowns are idiots and both are undeniably experts in Canadian law. It’s incredibly rare that a judge’s decision is actually unreasonable for people who are fully apprised of the facts and law surrounding an offence; if you think a judge is being an idiot, there is a chance that’s the case, but it’s far more likely that both the media (not legal experts) and you (probably not a legal expert) simply don’t know what you’re talking about. If the judge is actually being an idiot, the Crown will appeal it. Let the experts do their jobs.

      If you disagree with sentencing practices for Indigenous offenders, remember that judges are bound by the laws Parliament passes and so long as section 718.2(e) of the *Criminal Code* exists, that is what judges are required to do. If you want things to change, talk to the politicians, don’t blame the judges.

    11. UrsaMinor42 on

      The Supreme Court has said numerous times that Gladue reports are not race-based or create an unfair system. Why? Because non-Indigenous Canadians‘ lawyers can ask for court reports that cover much of the same topics.

      The justification for Gladue Reports actually comes out of English law and history. When democracy and fair courts were on the rise in England, the grassroots English argued that it was wrong for the elites (read: monarchy) to act as judges in the courts, because the elites were not subject to the same governance as the grassroots. The elites had no idea how the weight of government rested on the grassroots. So, judges that came from the public were created. Judges who had an idea of the weight of government and how that impacts the lives of people in that system.

      Now, First Nations in Canada are under a stand-alone, Canadian-defined governance system…that grassroots Canadians do not experience. The Indian Act creates a three-level, decision-making system with democracy only at the very bottom level. Unelected-by-the-people-they-govern Canadians undemocratically hold the top two decision-making levels. Just like England’s elites did not feel the weight of the system of government on the English grassroots, Canadians do not feel the weight of the Indian Act and the history under that governance system. And so Gladue Reports are created to educate Canadian judges on how this separate governance system (and its history) may have impacted an individual’s life. The logic that holds them up is the exact same logic that English grassroots used to fight back against a system controlled by elites who had little idea how grassroots Englishmen actually lived. It should also be noted that Indigenous rights were not created in Canada, but were brought over within English Law. The logic behind „Indigenous rights“ is the exact same logic the English culture uses to hold on to its homelands. If that legal system moves, it is not „racist“ to recognize the Indigenous Rights of the new hosts. In fact, it becomes a legal and cultural imperative.

      So Gladue reports are not race-based, but are rather history-based. If by some weird twist of history, First Nation just happened to „white“ at First Contact, the Indian Act and Gladue Reports would still exist.

    12. Standard_Program7042 on

      Precisely why we need manditory min sentances. I don’t care if your Prince Andrew or you were raised in the hood and the posted child of marginalization, your victimization doesn’t allow you to victimize others and touching a child sexually should be min 20 yrs..

    14. Neat_Let923 on

      They’ll be able to apply for:

      * **Day Parole** after only **6 months** served (1/6 of sentence)
      * **Full Parole** after only **1 year** served (1/3 of sentence)
      * **Statutory Release** after only **2 years** served (2/3 of sentence)

      Our judicial system is hilariously stupid! Who thought it was a good idea that if you get denied Full Parole you should just automatically be released early and not serve the full sentence you were given!?!?

    15. AnAntWithWifi on

      Plenty of Indigenous people live hard lived under systemic racism and oppression. They don’t turn into rapists.

      This undermines the progress we have made on such issues, and our future attempts at rectifying the past.

    Leave A Reply