During final arguments in the Kim Madsen case, defence attorney Dave Rusnak made an interesting comment. In arguing for a 90-day intermittent custodial sentence for his client who was found guilty in March of aggravated assault, he said the public would not understand, but that it was incumbent upon the court to consider it.
He is right on both counts.
The judge must, according to Section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code take into consideration, “all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders.”
And no, the public generally does not get it. Anything short of hard prison time in a case where the victim was left paralyzed is going to seem lenient.
For Dennis Peepeetch’s mother, anything short of the maximum (14 years) will never be enough and the Crown is only asking for five.
Judges must also consider the impact on public trust in the administration of justice. It is a difficult balancing act.
Last week, there were a couple of other very high profile cases in Saskatchewan that are going to prove problematic for judges.
Both involve adult males, who pleaded guilty to first-degree murders they committed when they were youths.
The first was the Lac La Loche school shootings in January 2016. The shooter in that case was just shy of 18 when he killed four people and wounded another seven.
The second was the January 2015 murder of 16-year-old Hannah Leflar in Regina by a then-16-year-old male.
In both cases, the Crown is seeking adult sentences. If sentenced as youths the maximum is 10 years with a maximum of six of those in custody. As an adult they would automatically receive life sentences with no chance of parole for 10 years.
These are disturbing cases.
In the Leflar case, the Court heard last week from a youth worker, who wrote the pre-sentence report and assessed the killer as having a 54 per cent chance to re-offend.
The provincial coordinator for the Intensive Rehabilitative Custody Supervision program, a federally funded program for youths with diagnosed mental illness also testified. She said the young man is not eligible for the program because he is too old, has no diagnosed mental illness and his treatment needs are too great.
One child psychiatrist testified the youth had “psychopathic tendencies” and was unremorseful. Others said he had expressed remorse, but that is something that some psychopaths are particularly good at imitating.
In the Lac La Loche case, dozens of people showed up to enter victim impact statements. Earlier in the hearing, a worker at the youth centre where the killer has been incarcerated, testified he had asked if staff were going to buy him a present for the anniversary of the shootings.
Of course, even though coverage has been extensive, it is impossible to do justice to either of these cases in the media. Both of the hearings went on all last week and are ongoing this week. There is going to be reams of material the judges will have to evaluate.
And at the end of the day, Section 718.2(e) will apply and the Courts may determine something well short of adult life sentences are appropriate.
Anything short of that outcome, on the other hand, is going to be unpalatable to the general public. I can’t even begin to imagine the outrage and hurt to victims and their families.
I do not envy the heavy responsibility judges bear in these difficult deliberations.
