Colby Cosh: Wie der Oberste Gerichtshof leichte Strafen für impulsive Teenagermörder garantierte

> I’d like to declare it for the record: I’m not *happy* that chronicling unnatural judicial outrages has become a full-time job for several National Post writers. But, dammit, the judges just keep serving them up hot and fresh.

> In the precedent-setting I.M. case, two judges filed a dissenting opinion, and NP readers will hardly need to be told that these two judges were Justices Suzanne Côté and Malcolm Rowe. The pair pointed out that Parliament, in updating the YCJA in 2010, had specifically contemplated adding a “reasonable doubt” standard to the adult-sentencing analysis — and had, in the end, rejected that language in committee. The Supreme Court wrote it into the law anyway. As a result, the teen defendants in the earlier Prestbakmo slaying weren’t given the benefit of a “reasonable doubt” trial of their moral bona fides, and their life sentence now has to be chucked out.

The courts had been set up to usurp legislative power and serve the few – often criminals – at the expense of the many

So I lost my nephew to a stabbing murder. The offender had 30 plus priors. Nobody seems to care about him or the impact his murder had on the family. But judges left and right consistently thought about the „rights“ of his murderer leading up the event.

Some people are beyond redemption, and they don’t deserve second, third, or 30 chances. The judges that participate might not be responsible for the crimes committed by their „catch and release“ criminals, but they are complicit in the impact.

If you are a judge reading this, you should know that you and your profession are despicable when it comes to bail and sentencing. Sure, your job is to interpret the law, but you are given a great deal of latitude in doing so. „We were just following orders“ is the excuse given by generations of cowards…