[andyt]

I have no problem with this sentence. He didn't mean to kill or seriously harm her. He could not foresee the result of his actions. As I say, when we give probation to people who did mean to seriously harm their victim and could have foreseen their death, this sentence is actually harsh. Go after people who are likely to repeat their crimes and had the intention to harm. That's not this guy.

[Goober911]

andyt andyt:

I have no problem with this sentence. He didn't mean to kill or seriously harm her. He could not foresee the result of his actions. As I say, when we give probation to people who did mean to seriously harm their victim and could have foreseen their death, this sentence is actually harsh. Go after people who are likely to repeat their crimes and had the intention to harm. That's not this guy.

I agree

[Freakinoldguy]

andyt andyt:

I have no problem with this sentence. He didn't mean to kill or seriously harm her. He could not foresee the result of his actions. As I say, when we give probation to people who did mean to seriously harm their victim and could have foreseen their death, this sentence is actually harsh. Go after people who are likely to repeat their crimes and had the intention to harm. That's not this guy.

Next time someone gets convicted for driving drunk and killing someone I'll remember you said that.

I'm sorry but, there have to be consequences for peoples actions based on both outcome and intent, not just intent. Alot of crimes end up with unintended consequences, robberies gone wrong, drunk driving and other sundry acts that end up with someone getting killed or maimed.

So what do we do, give them all probation because none of them intended to kill or maim anyone or do we make them take responsibility for their actions based on both intent and outcome like the courts should have done for this guy?

[Strutz]

If someone else had done this to his daughter, without meaning to cause her death of course, I bet he would be demanding that the assailant do time, ACTUAL time.

[stratos]

Well I'm kind of shocked at all the people here. No one seems upset that an adult male slapped a 13yr old girl so hard that he killed her. Now this male is going to do a total of 79 days in jail and 2 years probation. So much for women's rights

[2Cdo]

Stratos, our system is a fucking joke. It's not a justice system, it's a legal system. This kind of sentence is not uncommon here.

[stratos]

$1:

Stratos, our system is a fucking joke. It's not a justice system, it's a legal system. This kind of sentence is not uncommon here.

With people saying this

$1:

I have no problem with this sentence. He didn't mean to kill or seriously harm her.

I can see why.

[Goober911]

stratos stratos:

Well I'm kind of shocked at all the people here. No one seems upset that an adult male slapped a 13yr old girl so hard that he killed her. Now this male is going to do a total of 79 days in jail and 2 years probation. So much for women's rights

I see this as a terrible accident. No marks on her from the 2 slaps. A freak way her head turned from the slaps.
Now in Canada how many parents do the same thing, slap their kids. I am not agreeing with it. I am saying it is common as daylight.

[Goober911]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Justice is Blind but, apparently in Canada it's also become mentally handicapped.

We've become such an enlightened society that we apparently don't need any archaic hindrances from the past like basing sentences on the crimes committed. All we need now to ensure justice is carried out is a quick review of a persons, age, race, culture and future family references. No muss, no fuss, no unsightly punishments that could hurt our chances of overtaking Disneyland as the Happiest Place on Earth.

After rulings like this I can see why the Canadian Judiciary doesn't want to follow Government sentencing guidelines. It'd make people accountable for their actions, which apparently isn't a Canadian value anymore.

Harper's Man Mins in many cases are playing to a small crowd.
Did you see any Man Mins for Drunk Driving causing death
Oh look at the Min for child porn

[andyt]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

andyt andyt:

I have no problem with this sentence. He didn't mean to kill or seriously harm her. He could not foresee the result of his actions. As I say, when we give probation to people who did mean to seriously harm their victim and could have foreseen their death, this sentence is actually harsh. Go after people who are likely to repeat their crimes and had the intention to harm. That's not this guy.

Next time someone gets convicted for driving drunk and killing someone I'll remember you said that.

I'm sorry but, there have to be consequences for peoples actions based on both outcome and intent, not just intent. Alot of crimes end up with unintended consequences, robberies gone wrong, drunk driving and other sundry acts that end up with someone getting killed or maimed.

So what do we do, give them all probation because none of them intended to kill or maim anyone or do we make them take responsibility for their actions based on both intent and outcome like the courts should have done for this guy?

Getting behind he wheel drunk is like randomly shooting a pistol and claiming you didn't meant it when you kill somebody. The outcome is foreseeable. It was not in this case. Same with robberies gone wrong. There is no such thing - you bring a gun and use it, you meant to do harm. He didn't. He slapped her twice, not hard enough to leave a mark. If she hadn't died he'd likely get no jail time at all, just a stern warning from social services.

[andyt]

Strutz Strutz:

If someone else had done this to his daughter, without meaning to cause her death of course, I bet he would be demanding that the assailant do time, ACTUAL time.

And the assailant would not, in all likelihood. We don't send people with no history of violence to jail for slapping someone and not even leaving a mark.

[Goober911]

andyt andyt:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

andyt andyt:

I have no problem with this sentence. He didn't mean to kill or seriously harm her. He could not foresee the result of his actions. As I say, when we give probation to people who did mean to seriously harm their victim and could have foreseen their death, this sentence is actually harsh. Go after people who are likely to repeat their crimes and had the intention to harm. That's not this guy.

Next time someone gets convicted for driving drunk and killing someone I'll remember you said that.

I'm sorry but, there have to be consequences for peoples actions based on both outcome and intent, not just intent. Alot of crimes end up with unintended consequences, robberies gone wrong, drunk driving and other sundry acts that end up with someone getting killed or maimed.

So what do we do, give them all probation because none of them intended to kill or maim anyone or do we make them take responsibility for their actions based on both intent and outcome like the courts should have done for this guy?

Getting behind he wheel drunk is like randomly shooting a pistol and claiming you didn't meant it when you kill somebody. The outcome is foreseeable. It was not in this case. Same with robberies gone wrong. There is no such thing - you bring a gun and use it, you meant to do harm. He didn't. He slapped her twice, not hard enough to leave a mark. If she hadn't died he'd likely get no jail time at all, just a stern warning from social services.

Good post

[Freakinoldguy]

andyt andyt:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

andyt andyt:

I have no problem with this sentence. He didn't mean to kill or seriously harm her. He could not foresee the result of his actions. As I say, when we give probation to people who did mean to seriously harm their victim and could have foreseen their death, this sentence is actually harsh. Go after people who are likely to repeat their crimes and had the intention to harm. That's not this guy.

Next time someone gets convicted for driving drunk and killing someone I'll remember you said that.

I'm sorry but, there have to be consequences for peoples actions based on both outcome and intent, not just intent. Alot of crimes end up with unintended consequences, robberies gone wrong, drunk driving and other sundry acts that end up with someone getting killed or maimed.

So what do we do, give them all probation because none of them intended to kill or maim anyone or do we make them take responsibility for their actions based on both intent and outcome like the courts should have done for this guy?

Getting behind he wheel drunk is like randomly shooting a pistol and claiming you didn't meant it when you kill somebody. The outcome is foreseeable. It was not in this case. Same with robberies gone wrong. There is no such thing - you bring a gun and use it, you meant to do harm. He didn't. He slapped her twice, not hard enough to leave a mark. If she hadn't died he'd likely get no jail time at all, just a stern warning from social services.

So let me get this straight. You're equate drunk driving to randomly shooting a pistol but, have no problem with someone committing aggravated assault causing death because as you claim it didn't leave a mark and they didn't know what the outcome of their actions would be?

Apparently I was wrong because, I honestly didn't think we could pick or choose what crimes warranted punishment based on intent since neither the drunk drivers nor this clown ever intended the end result of what their actions would be.

So, if we're gonna let this guy off with nothing, I'd suggest we start letting everyone off who didn't "intend" the unforeseen outcome of their actions because, by using intent as the basis for punishment rendered, half the criminal code becomes redundant.

[andyt]

He committed manslaughter. Sentences range from probation to life. He could not reasonably foresee the result of his actions unlike the drunk driver. He didn't get nothing, he got 79 days in prison and 2 years probation, that's more than some people have gotten for intending to seriously harm their victim. So if someone can't reasonably foresee the result of their actions and and didn't intend to cause harm, then yes, they should get a sentence at the low end of the scale.

[Freakinoldguy]

andyt andyt:

He committed manslaughter. Sentences range from probation to life. He could not reasonably foresee the result of his actions unlike the drunk driver. He didn't get nothing, he got 79 days in prison and 2 years probation, that's more than some people have gotten for intending to seriously harm their victim. So if someone can't reasonably foresee the result of their actions and and didn't intend to cause harm, then yes, they should get a sentence at the low end of the scale.

I agree. Far to many people have walked when they should be in jail but that just shows the systems failure and this case is just another shinning example of what's going wrong with our justice system.

Just because you can't foresee the outcome of your actions doesn't mean you shouldn't be punished appropriately for that result of those actions especially when those actions are illegal and you'll never convince me that the punishment met out in this case was in any way shape or form fair for the victim even if his initial intent wasn't to kill her. He caused her death and intent should have nothing to do with the sentencing.

$1:

Causation in Homicide[edit]

Homicide is defined in s.222(1) as occurring where a person "directly or indirectly, by any means, ... causes the death of a human being.". Culpable Homicide (i.e. murder, manslaughter, or infanticide) is defined in section 222(5) as "when [a person] causes the death of a human being...by means of an unlawful act".

Causation is explicitly identified as existing where the death might have been otherwise "been prevented by resorting to proper means"(s. 224) or where the immediate cause of death is proper or improper treatment applied in good faith (s.225) or where the victim is already suffering from a terminal condition. (s 226)

The "Smithers test" for causation applies to all types of homicide. The test requires that the accused's act be a "significant contributing cause" of death beyond something trifling or minor. Thus, the unlawful act remains the legal cause of death even where the act by itself would not have cause death as long as it was beyond the de minimus. [1]

The only consolation is the fact that he's going to have to live the rest of his life under the shadow of having killed an innocent child and I hope he lives everyday regretting the mistake he made.