No justice for the innocent children

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 14/11/2006 (7167 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Although sporting eyes from across Canada may be on Winnipeg this week as we prepare to host the Grey Cup, legal eyes from across the country are also focused on our fair city – but for all the wrong reasons.Tuesday’s “slap on the wrist” sentences for a Winnipeg couple who ran an inner-city house of horrors – luring in naive, vulnerable teen girls with the promise of free booze and drugs and then savagley raping and torturing them – has unleased a tidal wave of anger.And it has got the country talking.By mid-afternoon today I had already done a live television hit with CBC Newsworld and a live radio hit with two stations in Saskatchewan. In both cases, the interviewers asked “What was the judge thinking?”Having sat through nearly every minute of this trial and sentencing hearing, I wish I could come up with a better answer then “I don’t know”.But it’s the truth. I really don’t understand what Justice Gerald Jewers is trying to do here.He gives Lynette Traverse her walking papers, telling her that two years of pre-trial custody is good enough for crimes which involved helping to bring these girls into her home – and then holding them down while her husband raped them.TWO YEARS???? This for a case which has drawn comparisons – from veteran police officers and justice officials – to Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka for the kind of vile, disgusting attacks on innocent children.Good thing for Traverse she was only involved in child sex abuse and didn’t rob a 7-Eleven at gunpoint (with nobody getting physically hurt), because Canadian law says she would be looking at a mandatory minimum four years behind bars for that crime. (Said with tongue firmly planted in cheek and eyes rolling)And Terry Ladouceur’s sentence is just as puzzling. He gets seven years, in addition to two years pre-trial custody, for the kinds of sadistic and degrading sex assaults you (thankfully) rarely seen.Vaginal. Oral. Anal. Girls tied to the bed. Girls threatened with death. In one case, he told one of the teens he’d “(expletive) your little one-year-old sister until her eyes come out” if she told anybody. He also promised to send the Hells Angels after her family (of which he has absolutely no connection and bikers won’t be very pleased to hear about).Put this in perspective – the Manitoba Court of Appeal has that cases of home invasion should attract sentences in the range of 7-10 years as a STARTING POINT.So what should be the sentence for invading every inch of these young girl’s bodies and, no doubt, minds?The Crown thought a sentence of 16-18 years was fit for Ladouceur, 6-8 for Traverse. But not Jewers, who inexplicably is giving both undeserved credit despite finding their conduct “appalling” and, I quote, “no mitigating factors”.And don’t think for a second Ladouceur isn’t laughing all the way to Stony Mountain. I watched him. This is all a big joke. He would flash obscene gestures to the Crown and smile and chuckle as these young girls were pouring their hearts out on the witness stand.He even got caught writing a letter to Traverse telling her how they could manipulate the system into delaying their sentencing, extending their double-time credit and reducing their ultimate penalties.And then, when they get out, they can start a rock band together and make beautiful music together, he suggested.Yep, sounds like the justice system is really showing him.How pathetic.And as you’ll read in Wednesday’s Free Press, folks are lining up to express their disgust – the victim’s families, the Crown, Manitoba’s justice critic and a prominent child advocate.Feel free to share your thoughts below.