Canada: Supreme Court rules minimum mandatory sentences in child pornography cases are unconstitutional
The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that imposing a mandatory minimum sentence of one year in prison for individuals caught with child pornography is unconstitutional. In a 5-4 decision, the court said the minimum sentences remove judges’ discretion to impose sentences other than imprisonment when appropriate.
The Criminal Defence Lawyers Association of Manitoba was quoted as saying, “The system of laws that govern our society are designed to deal with all individuals fairly and provide just sentences that take into consideration a variety of competing interests in how they’re meted out.” In the case, Quebec (Attorney General) v. Senneville, the defendants argued that the one-year minimum for possessing child pornography was unconstitutional, on the grounds that an 18-year-old who received a “sext” from his friend’s 17-year-old girlfriend could theoretically be subjected to the penalty.
This ruling underscores a principle that the U.S. justice system has too often ignored: that context matters. Mandatory minimum sentences that exist in most sex crimes, strip judges of the ability to consider the unique circumstances of a case or the individual before them. A person with autism who struggles with social awareness, someone with diminished mental capacity, or even a young adult whose cognitive and emotional development lags behind their chronological age may be treated no differently than a seasoned predator. By removing judicial discretion, these laws trade fairness for uniformity — and the result is frequently injustice.
In cases where intent, awareness, or comprehension are in question, a one-size-fits-all penalty not only punishes more harshly than justice demands but also erodes public confidence in the system itself. True justice requires consideration of who the defendant is, not merely what statute they violated. Canada’s recognition of this principle should prompt reflection in the United States, where mandatory minimums continue to fill prisons with individuals whose circumstances cry out for understanding rather than automatic condemnation.
You can read the decision here: https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/21250/index.do
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hilarious that the U.S created the original offender registries, but the other countries who have copied us, seem to have a more sensible registry with the judges having a bit more discretion instead of blanket sentencing people to prison or life on the registry.
Kudos for having a lick of sense!!!
What people need to also be aware of is that some men may be falsely accused of having CP, when it’s really not CP at all. For example, there is a subReddit called [moderated]. This is an NSFW subReddit. There are very graphic sexual photos of women on that platform. These women have made themselves look like minor girls – because it’s the role they are playing – naughty little girls. It’s a public online forum. Anybody can access it.
The point is that it is very easy for law enforcement to be using such photos of grown women and putting those online for men to click on or have on their phones, and then they falsely accuse those men of possessing CP, when in reality, it is not an actual child. It’s a fully grown adult woman pretending to be a kid, just like they do in the online sting operations where decoys pretend to be a minor who is seeking a sexual hookup with an adult man. It had nothing to do with real children and there are no real children involved. It’s adults pretending to be minors, and they do this for their own sexual purposes. They want to be treated like they are kids in adult sexual scenarios.
That’s what it’s really about. It’s about their own sexual preferences, and then they drag men into those sexual scenarios to then falsely accuse them of viewing or having CP or of trying to solicit a minor online for s3x. In CP cases, it’s not like they’re going to show the pictures to the judges or the juries and ask them to determine if that is a real child or an adult playing the role of a minor in a sexual scenario. I think it should be a requirement for police to identify a real child victim in those photos.
We are living in a very scary world for men right now because it’s very easy for law enforcement to create a fake CP case or an online solicitation of a minor case against just about any man.
To clarify, you are saying that someone has been required to register for adult pornography (only)?
But those elected officials (who are not appointed/elected judges and justices) know better than anyone else based upon studies, data, and voices they chose to validate their narrative to rule their areas of responsibilities with an iron fist.
Good on the Great White North in keeping with the idea of judicial restraint in allowing the system to work as people believe it should. Judge Persky, et al thank you too even though it is too late for their judicial careers.
Great ruling