there’s good news and bad in a recent ruling by the supreme court of canada.
the bad news first: the court showed remarkable disdain for the will of the people, ruling that mandatory minimum sentences for child luring are too broad and can result in sentences that can result in “cruel and unusual punishment.”
ruling on two cases from the quebec court of appeal, the supreme court judgment said mandatory periods of incarceration “apply to such an exceptionally wide scope of conduct that the result is grossly disproportionate punishments in reasonably foreseeable scenarios.”
the good news is that, in both cases brought to the supreme court, those convicted of preying on young people were given sentences longer than those originally handed down to them.
all the same, this points to a growing judicial activism that takes away the rights of government to set punishments as it sees fit.
in the first case, a 22-year-old man met a 13-year-old girl and sent her a friend request through facebook. he remained friends with her for two years and met and had sex with her on four occasions. upon sentencing, he successfully appealed the mandatory one year minimum sentence and that appeal was allowed. he was sentenced to five months.