- Joined
- Jan 14, 2013
- Messages
- 37,916
- Reaction score
- 32,792
Welcome to Canada folks.
A man pleads guilty to possession of child pornography. As part of the guilty plea, the judge was presented with a detailed written description of what each of the images contained.
Following the guilty plea, the next step is sentencing, for which the judge has significant discretion.
The crown (prosecution) demanded that the judge needed to look at the images in question in order to understand the gravity of the apparent depravity in the images. The accused, perhaps unsurprisingly, took the position that the judge didn't actually need to look at the actual images to fulfill his sentencing obligations.
The judge ultimately sided with the defence, noting that over his career, he'd already looked at way too much child pornography in his capacity as a lawyer and judge in his life, and that he didn't need to look at any more. This is an actual quote:
"10] In our case, in terms of the probative value analysis, first, there is no dispute about the facts underlying the offence; a typed Agreed Statement of Facts has already been marked Exhibit 1. Second, there is no dispute about what is depicted in the representative sampling of the child pornography material – a typed document containing descriptions of more than thirty images and videos has already been marked a sealed Exhibit on the sentencing. Third, the said document is very detailed; each and every item is described most thoroughly. Fourth and finally, this Court, like the judge in P.M., supra, has extensive experience with child pornography both (i) as a lawyer [(a) trial counsel for a Children’s Aid Society, with several cases involving child pornography, (b) certified specialist in criminal law, with numerous cases as defence counsel involving child pornography, and (c) agent for the Federal Department of Justice, as it was then called, and part-time prosecutor with the Ministry of the Attorney General in Grey, Bruce, and Huron Counties, with several cases involving child pornography] and then (ii) as a judge for thirteen years, having presided over many, many cases of child pornography. Regrettably, this previous experience has had me view numerous images and videos of child pornography, and I am confident that I have an appreciation for its truly shocking and grotesque nature."
What say you? Should judges in these cases be required to actually look at the images for the purposes of sentencing offenders?
