STOPWATCH - October 1993

Justice in Jeopardy

by Priscilla de Villiers

On August 9th, 1991 my daughter Nina disappeared. She had been jogging on the sidewalks around the racquet club to which our family had belonged for ten years. Nine days later her body was discovered in a marsh off the 401 Highway. She had been executed: shot in the head. Her killer was identified as Jonathon Yeo, a man with a history of violence against women who had gone on to rape and kill Karen Marquis in New Brunswick and then commit suicide.

Grave questions were asked about why a man accused of a vicious sexual assault on a stranger, in which he had used two weapons and uttered death threats, was freed on bail without a weapons restriction placed on him. He had tried to leave the country, been turned back at the border by the U.S. Immigration officials, and had subsequently been allowed to go on his way with a suicidal note, the same gun he had used in the sexual assault, live ammunition, and his bail release.

There was a massive search for Nina. Five thousand people turned out to find my daughter. There was also extensive media coverage of my appeal to the nation to look for my child, and of Canada's response. From across the country we received letters, phone calls and gifts. Friends, acquaintances and complete strangers gave us love and comfort; but they also expressed fear and a deep concern that the very fabric of Canadian society was changing. The safe, peaceful country that has lured immigrants from around the world is showing an alarming rise in incidences of violent behavior, in the use of guns, and in a contempt for law and order which has begun to threaten our security.

At the time I was bewildered by this litany of hopelessness and fear. I was emotionally crippled and barely functioning, 'Why tell me? Tell your government.' Then it became clear to me that they couldn't tell their government and if they could, their elected representatives were not listening. That was why we started our petition: a simple document which could be understood by anyone who could read English or French.

In it we asked the Government of Canada to recognize that crimes of violence against a person are abhorrent, and to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act and the Bail Reform Act. In addition to a number of other clauses, we asked that agents of the Crown be held accountable for their actions. This is a simple document that has gathered at least two million signatures. We will present it to the new government after the elections as a mandate from a significant percentage of the voters of Canada. The petition is still running and the final count will be made shortly after the election.

As a citizen I had never spent much time with the police. In one brief moment my role had changed from law-abiding citizen to victim. I now spent many hours dealing with the police and realized with an awful clarity just how far the rights of the offender outweigh the rights of the rest of society to protection, and how difficult we have made it for the police to enforce the law.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is supposed to protect the 'life, liberty and security of person' of all Canadians, but in reality the majority of challenges are made to protect the rights of the offender. The enormous cost involved in a Charter challenge prohibits most victims from establishing their rights. Victims are not afforded legal aid, a service which is, ironically, paid for by our taxes. The offender, quite rightly, is guaranteed legal aid. The Charter Challenges Programme was dropped by the Federal Government. This made it almost impossible for most advocacy groups to mount a challenge in landmark cases on behalf of innocent victims. This programme was reinstated just prior to the election campaign and hopefully will be continued to restore some of the balance.

CAVEAT grew out of this demand for a voice, for information about a justice system that many Canadians are woefully ignorant about, and from a need to start taking an active role in maintaining the peaceful society which has been a haven to so many people. We have organized many Forums so that legal experts can give a judicious, informed picture of the different roles of a complex system. We nationally publish the CAVEAT three times a year to extend this information across Canada and now we will be putting out STOPWATCH on a regular basis to give a more in-depth look at some of the justice issues of the day.

We believe that to legislate is only part of the equation. If we can continue to press for straightforward and stringent sanctions that adequately express society's rejection of violent crime, we must also mount an intensive educational campaign at the same time. Every person in this country must be made aware of the enormous human and financial cost that violent crime exacts, and that it is socially unacceptable to resort to violence in the home, in entertainment, sport or on the street. Our health care alone would be relieved of a large part of its extremely costly trauma load and be able to concentrate more on dealing with diseases which are not preventable.

Our purpose is not vindictive. We strongly believe that if offenders are held accountable for their actions, and made to take responsibility for the results of these offenses, that this, in itself, will have an inhibiting effect on crime.

Because we are determined to protect their rights we, as Canadians, appear at times to condone the actions of persons convicted or accused of violent crime. This is confusing both to society and to the criminal. While we recognize that many violent offenders have themselves been victims of abuse, we dare not give them the license to continue that cycle of hurt and horror.

Our message must be both clear and unequivocal. The protection of society must be the overriding principle. It is imperative that in our zeal to protect the rights of an individual, we remember the rights of all the other individuals who make up society at large.

The de Villiers Petition gave Canadians a voice. It was that voice, speaking from every part of the country, which gave CAVEAT the authority to make presentations to the House of Commons Committee on Justice, and to be represented on several Federal Justice committees.

Now every voter in this country can influence the attitudes to law and order in the new government. In this edition of STOPWATCH we highlight a few of the many issues which illustrate the attitudes and the complexity of our justice System. The most alarming trend which we have seen is the growing dissatisfaction and loss of confidence in a system which costs Canada $7.7 billion annually. We urge you to be aware of Justice issues, to ask candidates specify questions on law and order, and to demand a personal commitment from every elected official to the protection of society. Any ordinary citizen today can find oneself a victim tomorrow.

Pornography: is this your 'Community Standard'?

The following are excerpts from 'Ontario Film Review Board' in Canadians for Decency Newsletter, Summer 1993:

Former Chairman of the Ontario Film Review Board, Mary Brown, stated in a Toronto Star article on May 22nd, 1985, 'violent pornography has become public enemy #1. A whole generation of Canadians is growing up exposed unguided to violent and pornographic material. It is a generation that increasingly accepts anti-social strategies to solve problems.'

At about the same time, the Fraser Commission on Pornography and Prostitution recommended that the Criminal Code be amended to reflect the nature of the new pornography. It suggested any material containing scenes of physical harm, including murder, assault, bondage or self-infliction of physical harm depicted for the apparent purpose of causing sexual gratification be subject to criminal prosecution.

In September 1990 the Ontario Film Review Board under chairman Robert Payne made a decision to allow general distribution of unedited scenes of explicit sexual activity.

On May 6, 1993, the Ontario Film Review Board voted to further loosen the guidelines on adult sex films. This is the recommendation initially put forward by the Policy Committee:

"that the Board allow, in adult sex videos, bondage, the insertion of foreign objects, double penetration and ejaculation on the face, provided they are not in a context that is verbally or physically coercive and do not cause physical harm, and provided that foreign objects are not weapons (such as guns, knives, or razor blades) or other potentially injurious objects, such as bottles."

Because of the tremendous pressure placed upon the Ontario Government by concerned citizens, the guidelines will be reviewed again at an unknown date.

The following are excerpts from Reality, July/August, 1993:

With the one exception of child pornography, Canadian law prohibiting pornography is confusing and confused.

In the first place, the word 'pornography' does not even appear in the Criminal Code. Instead the Code uses the word 'obscene' which is defined as: '...the undue exploitation of sex, or of sex and any one of the following subjects, namely crime, horror, cruelty and violence.'

In determining the meaning of 'undue exploitation of sex' the courts have concluded that it must be determined by applying national standards of tolerance or 'community standards.'

Canadians cannot remain neutral any longer. We must express our views on what is acceptable in our communities.

Our silence signifies acceptance of violent sexual images as a form of entertainment. By extension we condone what is readily available in the marketplace, under the guise of entertainment, as permissible behavior.

We are giving mixed messages. Our children are being told on the one hand that one may not make a sexually inappropriate remark or gesture, at the same time they are being fed an unrelieved diet of degrading and violent images.

Since the definition of 'obscenity' and the test of contemporary standards are so imprecise, judges will consider our very silence as an endorsement of the steady disintegration of statements of principle such as that made in 1985 by the Fraser Commission.

As a nation we must draw the line.

Killer Trading Cards

Excerpts from a speech by Debbie Mahaffy

Series III of 'True Crime Killer Cards' is expected to be in Canada by mid-December. Orders can be taken by your credit card and a 1-800 number! This set, the California editor-in-chief promises, will have the Karla Homolka (Bernardo, Teal) card. Other cards you may have missed from Series II include a hologram-electric-chair card and a Rodney-King-beating card. What's next? Gang rape cards?

After 15 months of petitioning, these cards still remain available to enter our country as they have been declared 'not obscene' by our outdated 'Obscenity Clause 163 (8)' of the Criminal Code. These cards, and at least three other sets, are readily available to anyone of any age in Canada. Glorification and commercialization of crime presents violence as an acceptable form of entertainment, often allowing criminals to profit from the pain and suffering of others.

Killer trading cards, killer board games, electronic computer killing games, and slasher videos are all examples of an ever-expanding market. Entertainment violence leads to desensitization and the acceptance of violence as mainstream. Violence tolerated is violence condoned, and corresponds with a rise in violence committed.

The Obscenity Clause 163(8) has to be amended to address the issue - 'that horror, crime, cruelty and violence are obscene.'

Depictions of gratuitous violence often portray the degradation and humiliation of women and children, thereby contributing to gender inequality and the glorification of violence. The obscenity clause must reflect that degradation and dehumanization, even without a sexual element involved, are abhorrent.

What you can do:

• Sign the petition to the Federal Government to amend the Obscenity Clause of the Criminal Code. Available from ACTION phone (905) 336-8317
  
  
• Cam Jackson, Ontario MPP for Burlington South has tabled a Private Members' Bill (#85) 'An Act to Prevent Unjust Enrichment Through the Proceeds of Crime'. Sign and circulate his petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario by calling (905) 639-7924 or Fax (905) 639-3284.
  
  
• Make enquiries about the film review board in your province and the 'community standards', that your provincial government espouses.
  
  
• Write, phone or fax your M.P.P. In Ontario, Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, Marilyn Churley.
  
  
• Ask your federal M.P. and other candidates what they will do to amend the Obscenity Clause.

The Death of Christopher Stephenson

by Scott Newark,
President of the Canadian Centre for Victims' Resources

On June 17th, 1988 an eleven-year-old boy was abducted at knifepoint from a Brampton shopping mall as he waited for his mother outside a fabric store. He was taken to a nearby apartment and brutally, continually raped over the next twelve hours. Finally he was taken to an abandoned field and repeatedly stabbed and left to die. His parents, who had frantically called the police, learned that their son's killer was named Joseph Fredericks and was on a type of early release from prison called mandatory supervision. His previous crime was for the violent homosexual rape of a twelve-year-old boy. That offense was itself committed while on early release from other previous child rapes.

Fredericks was a child rapist with a history which spanned three decades. Incredibly, his earlier offenses had not been prosecuted as crimes but 'handled' by the Ontario mental health system. As a result, when the criminal process was finally invoked in the 1980's, he was deemed a first offender and thus sentenced more leniently. Each time he has been granted early release from jail he has abducted and raped another child. Nevertheless the Crown Prosecutor decided not to pursue the only available method of indefinite detention and have Fredericks declared a Dangerous Offender.

Instead of this, a deal was made whereby he was sentenced to five years imprisonment. After serving a portion of that, Fredericks was released early from prison. Officials at Correctional Services of Canada (C.S.C.) were of the view, as they are today, that they cannot tell such an offender where he is allowed to live while on early release. As well, the same officials never bothered to use a procedure known as detention to keep Fredericks in custody for the last one-third of the sentence. Instead, they let him loose on an unsuspecting community. That decision cost Christopher Stephenson his life.

The Chief Coroner of Ontario ordered an inquest into the question of how the young boy was murdered. It focused on the actions and inactions of various state agencies. All had taxpayer funded legal counsel. The victim's family did not, and were forced to hire their own lawyer.

Mounting public concern finally persuaded the Solicitor General of Canada, Doug Lewis, to back down and pay a portion of the bill. Despite much talk of reform, no laws or policies were changed, and none of the people involved in this disgraceful episode were held accountable. There is only one tiff difference.

After being convicted of the first degree murder of the young boy and sentenced to life imprisonment with a review of parole eligibility in fifteen years, Fredericks was murdered in prison after allegedly making homosexual advances on a young inmate.


The Issues

• At present, all Federal inmates are legally entitled to be automatically released from custody after two-thirds of their sentence. This used to be called 'mandatory supervision' but is now called 'statutory release'. Should this practice continue, or should the parole board decide whether the inmate merits early release based on past performance? (S127 Correction and Release Act)
  
  
• Are supervision levels of violent offenders adequate? Should prisoner advocate societies (John Howard Society and Elizabeth Fry Society, for example) continue to be hired to supervise violent offenders according to current practice?
  
  
• What, if anything, has happened to the case management personnel of C.S.C. who did not try to have Fredericks kept in custody for the last third of his sentence?
  
  
• Should there automatically be an inquiry where an inmate at large causes the death of another person?
  
  
• At such an Inquiry should the victim's family have a right to standing and be afforded publicly funded counsel?
  
  
• Should offenders on ANY form of release be subject to residency restrictions? (S133 C.R.A.)
  
  
• Where do the candidates stand on these issues?

A Family Tragedy

by Scott Newark,
President of the Canadian Centre for Victims' Resources

In late 1990 Michele Edwards started dating George Lovie, a man she had recently met. She quickly realized that something was not right and attempted to end the brief relationship. George Lovie disagreed. On February 19th, 1991 he arrived at her home in Woodburn, Ontario. He held her hostage at knife-point and repeatedly sexually assaulted her over a six hour period. When he finally left, perhaps secure in the terror he had inflicted, the young woman phoned the police and Lovie was arrested.

Despite having three previous convictions for assault causing harm including assaulting a peace officer, Lovie was not even held in custody for bail to appear before a judge. Instead, he was brought before a non-legally trained justice of the Peace and, with the police (instead of a Crown prosecutor) conducting the hearing, he made bail by entering into a recognisance not to contact the victim. A recognisance is, in effect, a promise. As events will show, promises are easily made but require enforcement if they are to mean anything.

There weren't any restrictions placed on Lovie's ability to own or purchase firearms, so he was able to obtain them. Within a week of the assault, the victim saw Lovie driving around her neighbourhood and again called the police. When confronted, Lovie made up a story about visiting relatives in the area. Nobody checked his story. As a result, he was allowed to remain at large and carry-out what he had planned.

On March 21, after buying a rifle and ammunition (which necessitated him producing the Firearms Acquisition Certificate (F.A.C.) which he had not been ordered to surrender at his arrest), Lovie arrived in the early morning hours at his victim's home, hid under her porch and waited. At about 7:00 a.m., as she left her home, Lovie attempted to abduct Michele. She fled across the street to her parents' home for refuge. Lovie pursued her and was met by Michelle's mother Donna, whom he shot to death. Michele's father Arnold attempted to protect his daughter and in doing so was fatally stabbed by Lovie. In the space of five minutes, Lovie had murdered both of Michele's parents in front of her. Due to her parents' valiant efforts, Michelle was still alive as neighbours arrived. After a brief struggle, Lovie fled in a stolen car. He was arrested a short time later.

Lovie was convicted of two counts of first degree murder and one count of attempted murder on May 19th, 1992. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with no parole eligibility for twenty five years. Advised that this was in effect the maximum sentence in Canada, the victims family began to probe further into exactly what that means. They were shocked to discover that:

• Lovie was entitled to apply for 'review' of parole eligibility after only 15 years,
  
  
• the calculation of time-served begins from the date of his
  arrest and not from the date of his conviction,
  
  
• he was eligible, without notice to the victim's family, for an escorted temporary absence any time from the day of his conviction onward (which in fact occurred when they met their parents' killer out of custody at a local hospital) and,
  
  
• parole eligibility is not in any way reduced by the fact that there had been two deaths and two sentences imposed.

The victim's family are like an increasing number of Canadian crime victims: they have decided to fight back. With the help of Hamilton-West M.P. Stan Keyes, a Private Members Bill was drafted and introduced into Parliament. The Bill addressed all of the issues described above, including the question of bail for violent offenders. For a Private Member's Bill to go to Committee (to have the topics at least discussed), unanimous consent of those present in the House of Commons is required. On a cold November day in 1992, with the victim's family in attendance, the Bill was called and the question put as to whether this could go to Committee. One voice said no. It belonged to Monique Tardif, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government Minister responsible for such topics. The Bill is dead.


The Issues

• Should escorted temporary absence be available immediately to all inmates, regardless of the nature of their offenses or their past performance on previous conditional release (including bail)? (S17 C.R.A.)
  
  
• Should victims have the right to be notified, and have input when temporary absence is being considered? Equally, should there be a corresponding duty for correctional officials to notify victims of such decisions? (S26 C.R.A.)
  
  
• Should 'life' mean life for first degree murder
  
  
• Should there be a statutory difference for parole eligibility where multiple homicides are involved? (S747 (1) C.C.)
  
  
• Should the Federal Government enact national standards for the enforcement of criminal procedure (e.g. bail hearings)?
  
  
• Should bail provisions be amended (S515 C.C.) to make bail less available to those charged will crimes of violence where there is a record of violence?
  
  
• Where do the candidates stand on these issues?

Murder Under Supervision

by Scott Newark,
President of the Canadian Centre for Victims' Resources

Daniel Gingras should never have been granted a day pass. He was in jail for a brutal murder committed while he was unlawfully at large from a previous sentence, one which itself was imposed for a crime committed during previous early releases.

Gingras was also an informer inside the prison. In return for advising the staff at the Edmonton 'Max' about which inmates were dealing drugs in the prison, he received 'special privileges', such as unauthorized conjugal visits from a woman who did not meet the specified criteria which 'visitors' must meet. He and his associates were given a monopoly on the drug trade within the prison, as informed-on inmates found their sources closed.

This was only the beginning. In the spring of 1987 he submitted an application for a temporary absence for 'rehabilitative' reasons. The location was suggested and approved: a shopping trip to West Edmonton Mall for his birthday. Because of his status, the law (S747(2) Criminal Code) required approval of the National Parole Board. A case summary was prepared which indicated that the entire 'case management' team supported issuing a pass. Unfortunately no one realized at the time that the 'team' was only one person. A subsequent investigation into the affair concluded that this essential report was a 'factually misleading document.'

Acting on the case summary, and apparently ignoring Gingras' past, the Board approved the pass. Gingras was even allowed to pick his own guard. He chose the author of the favorable report in place of the 220 lb guard who had originally been assigned. With no restraints whatever, Gingras walked out of the jail on June 27th, 1987. The guards at the front gate were so sure that he was not coming back, that they refused to let him out until orders were received to comply. Even then, as he walked toward the van, they wrote the word AWOL to describe his status.

After a brief drive, Gingras overpowered his fiftyish, slight escort and escaped. He was not recaptured for approximately two months. While on the loose he murdered two individuals: Vital Pacquette and Wanda Woodward of Medicine Hat, Alberta. He is currently serving a 'life' sentence with review of parole eligibility possible in 2004. He is eligible for another escorted temporary absence today.

If the granting of the pass was a disgrace, the responses from Correctional Services of Canada (C.S.C.) and the Government were not much better. Initially, the warden who had sponsored the pass was simply transferred to headquarters, and ultimately promoted. None of the other correctional officials or Parole Board members were held accountable in any way. In 1989, when Gingras was convicted of both murders, the Woodward family started asking questions and demanding the truth. A huge outcry in Western Canada was the result.

The response was to convene an independent inquiry into the whole case and into C.S.C. The investigator, John Weir, concluded that the warden was 'wilfully negligent' and the official running the informers 'wantonly and wilfully negligent'. He went on to recommend that both men be 'shown the door' as it were. The warden was given a separation package which has never been disclosed. The separation package for the other official included an agreement that his personal file be purged of all references to his involvement in the case. Both of these comments were, however, blacked-out of Weir's report. The head of the institution made use of the Privacy Act to eliminate embarrassing references in his agency.

Fortunately, almost all the details have leaked out. Several actions have followed the release of Weir's report in December, 1989. The Justice Committee of the House of Commons was originally denied access to the unedited version when it tried to get at the truth. As well, the Woodward family, who have never even received an apology from anyone, launched a lawsuit for damages. Although approximately $250,000 of our tax dollars have been spent to pay the legal bills of corrections officials, the family has not received five cents. In its Statement of Defence, the Government of Canada denies that it 'owed a duty of care to...Wanda Lee Woodward.' C.S.C claim not to have been responsible for the actions of Daniel Gingras even though he had been delivered to their custody by virtue of his previous murder. The effect of this combined claim is that the people running our prisons and parole boards do not owe a duty of care to the people of Canada: and that even when inmates are in their custody as a result of a court imposed sentence, they do not view themselves as responsible for the actions of the inmate. This is the current position of the Government of Canada.


The Issues

• Should the entire process of information gathering, analysis and preparation continue to be done solely by C.S.C. officials or should there be an independent review of the quality of information supplied to the parole board?
  
  
• Should C.S.C. be permitted to edit reports on their own conduct? If not, how or by whom should such analysis be undertaken under the Privacy Act?
  
  
• Should M.P.s be authorized as matter of law to obtain unedited copies of all relevant material prepared by a government agency with respect to a matter which they are examining?
  
  
• Is the stated legal position of the Government of Canada, with respect to this case, shared by the candidates? If not, what specific steps would they direct in terms of the family's lawsuit?
  
  
• What has the M.P./candidate done personally in relation to these issues?
  
  
• (For Alberta M.P.s) What steps have they taken to address these issues and the Woodward family's efforts even if only to offer moral support?

Newswatch

"As victims what we are really requesting is simple justice, in the form of parity with the offender in the legal system. We expect nothing more and should have to accept nothing less."

(CAVEAT submission to the Standing Committee on Justice Administration, Ontario, on the Treatment of Victims, May, 1993)

"Sentencing attitudes and practices are central to the whole system of criminal justice. It is through the sanction that the offender ought to acknowledge the harm that they have done to the victims and the community and to take responsibility for the consequences of their behavior."

(Daubney Report, Canada, 1988)

"Recent changes by Corrections Canada are truly alarming. It has been suggested that prisons be 'de-institutionalised' by making them more like community facilities and replacing armed guards with employees in casual wear. The competence of Corrections Canada officials to handle dangerous inmates in this relaxed regime is questionable"

(Streets of Fear: The Failure of the Criminal Justice System, by Patrick Brode, publ. Mackenzie Institute)

On the television programme '48 Hours', broadcast on May 12th, 1993, the consensus of 'lifers' from across North America interviewed for the programme was that they would most like to spend their incarceration in Frontenac, a Canadian facility which they likened to a country club: no bars, gates or fences.




National Parole Board members are political appointees: there are no stated qualifications for the position. The NPB spends about four million dollars to pay its members: about $95,000 per year for a full-time member. There should be clearly defined criteria for appointment, more intensive training and more scrutiny. An external, independent audit of Parole board decisions is essential, as it is a mechanism for dismissal if the required standards are not met.




In the early 1980's, Illinois released more than 20,000 prisoners and thereby saved $60 million. The victims of the robberies, murders and rapes resulting from these releases sustained losses estimated at $304 million. California, on the other hand, built new prisons in the 1980's and the state's prison population quadrupled. The benefits showed themselves in a 24% decline in the murder rate, a 25% decline in rapes and a 37% decline in burglaries. It was estimated that 988 persons were alive in California who would otherwise have been murdered.




Montreal: The charge of sexual assault against a 22-year-old man was dismissed when the 17 year old victim of a gang rape refused to testify in open court. She was 16 when she was raped and sodomized by five men in April, 1992. She had already testified against four of the accused 'in camera', and was refused the right to present her evidence in privacy or on video. One of the accused was sentenced in Juvenile Court to a year in jail for his participation in the assault. Both he and the fifth accused, also a juvenile, could automatically be tried in camera under the protection of the Young Offenders Act. This protection does not extend to the victim, who is also a juvenile. - The Hamilton Spectator, 19.8.93




Statistics Canada announced amidst much fanfare on September 10th, 1993, that the crime rate fell by 3.2% for the first time in five years, and that violent crime had risen by 2%.

However, the accuracy of these statistics seemed questionable in the light of the admission that an estimated 69% of violent crime goes unreported. How can we possibly make any accurate assumptions with a variable like that?

A further wrinkle appeared the next day when the federal government admitted that the calculations for 1992 might have been skewed because of the implementation of a new reporting system last year. The dispute between Metro police and Statistics Canada began when the federal agency released figures that showed violent crime in Metro had fallen a dramatic 11.8% in 1992.

But Metro police calculations showed violent crime had risen 6.3% over the same period. Statistics Canada admitted there were problems comparing figures from its new Uniform Crime Reporting Survey and Metro police statistics. - Toronto Star, 10.9.93

CAVEAT asks: Will Statistics Canada rescind this report and produce one that accurately reflects the true state of crime in 1992 or will this continue to be cited both nationally and internationally as a measure of the success of justice initiatives and future planning?




'If I have one message for the judiciary, it's get real, and get it right' - Doug Lewis, Minister of Public Security, addressing the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police Conference, Halifax, 2.9.93




A 33-year-old B.C. man was given a suspended sentence for sexually assaulting a 3-year-old girl who was, in the judge's words, 'sexually aggressive.'

(Streets of Fear: The Failure of the Criminal Justice System, by Patrick Brode, publ. Mackenzie Institute)

Web Hosting by