1997-10-31 - Re: The reason we need to give up our rights…

Header Data

From: mskala@swindle.csc.UVic.CA
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: bd712f26e3e95c78040e3190f0e55206e02b05ca999dcb2e9f599cef142eacaf
Message ID: <Pine.A41.3.96.971031103924.8758B-100000@swindle.csc.UVic.CA>
Reply To: <2d531f1a3bd67fb025b10fe779f2bd10@anon.efga.org>
UTC Datetime: 1997-10-31 19:00:41 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 03:00:41 +0800

Raw message

From: mskala@swindle.csc.UVic.CA
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 03:00:41 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: The reason we need to give up our rights...
In-Reply-To: <2d531f1a3bd67fb025b10fe779f2bd10@anon.efga.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.A41.3.96.971031103924.8758B-100000@swindle.csc.UVic.CA>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



On Fri, 31 Oct 1997, Anonymous wrote:
> Recently, a Canadian man was charged with 572 instances of having
> individual and group sex with pre-teenage boys. He was sentenced to
> a 'duece-less' (two years less a day), which is 'soft time' in Canada,
> and is served in a provincial jail instead of a federal institution.

It's also the longest sentence they can give with no possibility for
parole.  You neglected to mention that, and I think it's highly relevent. 
I'm not familiar with the particular case you describe, but I used to know
a man who ended up going to jail for two years less a day for raping his
daughter, and in the decision, the judge said he really wanted to give him
a much longer sentence, but considered it more important to be certain
he'd be kept away from the family as long as possible.






Thread