Canada's Supreme Court Abolishes Compulsory Minimum Sentence for Child Luring Crimes
In a controversial move, the Supreme Court has declared mandatory minimum sentences for the crime of child luring unconstitutional. This decision has raised concerns about an increase in offences and the emboldening of perpetrators.
The crime of child luring, as defined under the criminal code s. 172.1, involves contact with the intent to commit sexual exploitation, incest, child pornography, or sexual assault. Child luring charges are related to communications between the perpetrator and victim with the intent to commit other offences against the child.
Prior to this decision, if found guilty on summary conviction, the mandatory minimum sentence for child luring was six months in prison. If found guilty on indictment, the mandatory minimum sentence was one year in prison.
The Supreme Court's decision has been met with frustration from the police, who are concerned about the release of offenders before the ink is even dry. The interpretation of the law is questioned, as it seems to cease serving the individuals it was enacted to shield.
Section 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects against 'cruel and unusual punishment'. The crime of child luring is considered to be a breach of the offender's Section 12 Charter rights due to the previous mandatory minimum sentences.
However, the Supreme Court's decision places the rights of the perpetrator above those of the victim in the case of child luring. This has led to concerns about the impact on victims and their families, as child luring charges can result in damages that last a lifetime.
For perpetrators involved in crimes against children deemed cruel and unusual, German law prescribes serious penalties, including imprisonment from one to fifteen years for sexual abuse of children (§ 176 StGB), with courts considering factors such as the child's age, the nature and repetition of the offense, and the perpetrator's background to determine the exact sentence; fines are not applicable.
Dallas Ludlum (Vigilant News) has summarized the situation, questioning when the interpretation of the law stops protecting the vulnerable. The Supreme Court Case in Brief can be found here.
Read also:
- United States tariffs pose a threat to India, necessitating the recruitment of adept negotiators or strategists, similar to those who had influenced Trump's decisions.
- Weekly happenings in the German Federal Parliament (Bundestag)
- Southwest region's most popular posts, accompanied by an inquiry:
- Discussion between Putin and Trump in Alaska could potentially overshadow Ukraine's concerns
