Offered without further comment (because, really, what more could you possibly say?):
The Ontario Court of Appeal has upheld a five-year prison sentence for the instigator of a vicious, racial attack on a disabled, black man.
... “This was a senseless, brutal and racially motivated attack involving gratuitous violence in a public place against two strangers,” said Mr. Justice Karen Weiler, Mr. Justice Michael Moldaver and Mr. Justice Paul Rouleau.
“The physical injuries to the victim, Mr. Pitia, were very serious and the psychological damage to him is severe and continuing. In all the circumstances, even if the appellant should have received slightly more credit for pre-trial custody, the sentence, in our view, was fit.”
... Five of those involved in the attack were ultimately charged. Two were acquitted after a trial, and two others pleaded guilty and were received sentences of fifteen months and twelve months.
... Arguing before the Court of Appeal, defence counsel Tim Breen maintained that Mr. Bradley's sentence was badly out of proportion to those of his accomplices. He noted in particular that one of his client's accomplices had 26 criminal convictions on his record – a total that was not far off Mr. Bradley's total of 43 convictions.
Alright, one comment: forty-three previous chances to get it right, and they still manage not to give the guy a meaningful sentence?
"Alright, one comment: forty-three previous chances to get it right, and they still manage not to give the guy a meaningful sentence?"
And of course, it never seems to register with judges at sentencing to consider just how many other unsolved crimes someone that "busy" has committed, and never been caught for. I take that back. I expect most operate on the absurd premise that every offender brought before them has been apprehended and charged every time they break the law, and have gotten away with nothing.
Posted by: Mike H | February 27, 2009 at 05:42 AM