http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/29/magazine/the-serial-swatter.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fmagazine&action=click&contentCollection=magazine®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0
This is just completely nuts. The fact that this little anti-social psycho basically gets a slap on the wrist is astounding.
What about whatever adults enabled him? Who paid for his internet and ignored what he was doing?
These guys are costing tax payers millions and creating serious public safety concerns that could, and probably have, lead to death and injury. Eventually something is going to be done about it and then we will all suffer.
This particular case does illustrate a serious problem though - how do you deal with this kind of international crime?
This asshole was in Canada (typical Canadian), and look how hard it was to do anything about it.
What if he was in Russia? Or China?
Quote from: Berkut on December 04, 2015, 11:41:58 AM
This particular case does illustrate a serious problem though - how do you deal with this kind of international crime?
This asshole was in Canada (typical Canadian), and look how hard it was to do anything about it.
What if he was in Russia? Or China?
Oh a solution to this problem will eventually be reached. And we will not like it. This is how psychopaths ruin it for everybody else.
Yeah I agree with Valmy. The most likely long term outcome, to me, will be the end of any anonymity on the Internet.
It sounds like reckless endangerment. That's like a one year sentence. 16 months seems appropriate.
Wow, it's amazing no one got shot given how many people he swatted.
Quote from: Martinus on December 04, 2015, 11:57:45 AM
Yeah I agree with Valmy. The most likely long term outcome, to me, will be the end of any anonymity on the Internet.
Maybe there will be some good in that. Anonymity has certainly played part in a lot of deleterious effects of the Internet age on society.
For the Canuck lawyers (or CC, if no lawyers care to respond): can the US victims of this guy sue under Canadian law? Could they sufficiently prove their case if the evidence in the story is accurate?
Almost certainly judgment proof.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 04, 2015, 12:47:59 PM
Almost certainly judgment proof.
Really? Just how much do the parents make, and what is the upper limit of worth that qualifies as judgement-proof in Canada/his jurisdiction?
All I can say is: Holy Shit.
Wasn't there a Twitch streamer who was swatted while live?
Quote from: Syt on December 04, 2015, 01:30:26 PM
Wasn't there a Twitch streamer who was swatted while live?
Wasn't that one fake? I don't remember.
Quote from: grumbler on December 04, 2015, 12:43:18 PM
For the Canuck lawyers (or CC, if no lawyers care to respond): can the US victims of this guy sue under Canadian law? Could they sufficiently prove their case if the evidence in the story is accurate?
I would imagine they could. The Canadian courts would have jurisdiction over this guy and his harassment has a jurisdictional nexus with Canada, as well as where his victims lived. He's carried on malicious acts that deliberately caused trauma and so damages to his victims as well as costs to the first responders (assuming, as stated, the accuracy of the story), so it shouldn't be too hard to find a tort theory that would fit.
Another possibility is suing the fellow in the home state of the victims, then seeking recognition and enforcement of those judgment(s) in Canada. That has become much easier in recent years under Canadian laws. That has the benefit, as far as the victims are concerned, of putting the onus and expense on this guy to try and defend the action(s) in another country (nowadays you can't sit back and ignore a foreign proceeding against you - Canadian courts will enforce them here if you do, and you will be fucked).
Whether this guy has assets that would make suing him anywhere worthwhile is of course another story.
Quote from: Martinus on December 04, 2015, 11:57:45 AM
Yeah I agree with Valmy. The most likely long term outcome, to me, will be the end of any anonymity on the Internet.
When I read stories like this I wonder if that isn't the best solution. People clearly can't handle it.
Quote from: Liep on December 04, 2015, 01:46:29 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 04, 2015, 11:57:45 AM
Yeah I agree with Valmy. The most likely long term outcome, to me, will be the end of any anonymity on the Internet.
When I read stories like this I wonder if that isn't the best solution.
Some small minority of people who can cause outsized damage
clearly can't handle it.
FYP
Thanks, Ank.
Quote from: Berkut on December 04, 2015, 01:52:18 PM
Quote from: Liep on December 04, 2015, 01:46:29 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 04, 2015, 11:57:45 AM
Yeah I agree with Valmy. The most likely long term outcome, to me, will be the end of any anonymity on the Internet.
When I read stories like this I wonder if that isn't the best solution.
Some small minority of people who can cause outsized damage
clearly can't handle it.
FYP
Sure, but aren't most laws based on that? If we were all sensible beings who could see the consequences of our actions we wouldn't need so many rules.
Quote from: Liep on December 04, 2015, 01:57:13 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 04, 2015, 01:52:18 PM
Quote from: Liep on December 04, 2015, 01:46:29 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 04, 2015, 11:57:45 AM
Yeah I agree with Valmy. The most likely long term outcome, to me, will be the end of any anonymity on the Internet.
When I read stories like this I wonder if that isn't the best solution.
Some small minority of people who can cause outsized damage
clearly can't handle it.
FYP
Sure, but aren't most laws based on that? If we were all sensible beings who could see the consequences of our actions we wouldn't need so many rules.
Yeah, your right about that.
I often despair about what a high percentage of human activity and productivity is dedicated to keeping other humans from fucking with, stealing, or destroying the stuff we create.
Oh man, this is unreal. I've heard of this stuff before too. I would think just one case of intentionally calling in a serious fake report is enough to warrant an arrest. Like calling in a bomb threat; I'm sure that just one gets a person in serious trouble. It's amazing the hassle the cops had to go through, and even though it was in Canada I'd think police there would want to take a serious look and investigation into it with US cops.
Quote from: Malthus on December 04, 2015, 01:45:24 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 04, 2015, 12:43:18 PM
For the Canuck lawyers (or CC, if no lawyers care to respond): can the US victims of this guy sue under Canadian law? Could they sufficiently prove their case if the evidence in the story is accurate?
I would imagine they could. The Canadian courts would have jurisdiction over this guy and his harassment has a jurisdictional nexus with Canada, as well as where his victims lived. He's carried on malicious acts that deliberately caused trauma and so damages to his victims as well as costs to the first responders (assuming, as stated, the accuracy of the story), so it shouldn't be too hard to find a tort theory that would fit.
Another possibility is suing the fellow in the home state of the victims, then seeking recognition and enforcement of those judgment(s) in Canada. That has become much easier in recent years under Canadian laws. That has the benefit, as far as the victims are concerned, of putting the onus and expense on this guy to try and defend the action(s) in another country (nowadays you can't sit back and ignore a foreign proceeding against you - Canadian courts will enforce them here if you do, and you will be fucked).
Whether this guy has assets that would make suing him anywhere worthwhile is of course another story.
Second option would be much better although, I am not sure what time period anyone could sit back and simply ignore proceedings against them in the US. We have had a reciprocal enforcement treaty with them for quite some time. You must be much older than you look Malthus. :P
Anyway, I am off to enjoy my non lawyer lifestyle.
Guys aren't we missing the wood for the trees, isn't this simply Terrorism?
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 04, 2015, 02:52:09 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 04, 2015, 01:45:24 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 04, 2015, 12:43:18 PM
For the Canuck lawyers (or CC, if no lawyers care to respond): can the US victims of this guy sue under Canadian law? Could they sufficiently prove their case if the evidence in the story is accurate?
I would imagine they could. The Canadian courts would have jurisdiction over this guy and his harassment has a jurisdictional nexus with Canada, as well as where his victims lived. He's carried on malicious acts that deliberately caused trauma and so damages to his victims as well as costs to the first responders (assuming, as stated, the accuracy of the story), so it shouldn't be too hard to find a tort theory that would fit.
Another possibility is suing the fellow in the home state of the victims, then seeking recognition and enforcement of those judgment(s) in Canada. That has become much easier in recent years under Canadian laws. That has the benefit, as far as the victims are concerned, of putting the onus and expense on this guy to try and defend the action(s) in another country (nowadays you can't sit back and ignore a foreign proceeding against you - Canadian courts will enforce them here if you do, and you will be fucked).
Whether this guy has assets that would make suing him anywhere worthwhile is of course another story.
Second option would be much better although, I am not sure what time period anyone could sit back and simply ignore proceedings against them in the US. We have had a reciprocal enforcement treaty with them for quite some time. You must be much older than you look Malthus. :P
The real change came with Beals v. Saldhanha, that finally established the basis for recognition and enforcement in Canada along modern lines. That was in 2003 ... which yes, was a long time ago now. :(
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2003/2003scc72/2003scc72.html
In that case, the Ontario defendants specifically asked an Ontario lawyer if the judgment in Florida could be enforced against them, and were told that if they didn't attorn to the Florida jurisdiction, it could not. The SCC held that the courts in Ontario should recognize and enforce the default judgment, applying the "real and substantial connection test". So they were fucked.
Presumably, prior to 2003, it would have been a possible strategy to just ignore (and so not attorn to) a foreign proceeding; certainly, after 2003, it is not. The SCC expressly ruled that the old rules about attornment should no longer apply to international recognition and enforcement.
I don't think this has anything to do with a treaty. Certainly the Supremes don't mention any.
QuoteAnyway, I am off to enjoy my non lawyer lifestyle.
:D
Quote from: mongers on December 04, 2015, 03:11:07 PM
Guys aren't we missing the wood for the trees, isn't this simply Terrorism?
He certainly terrorised these women, but doesn't that make him a terroriser and not a terrorist?
Naw, prior to 2003 I was enforcing judgments from American Courts in Canada with no problem at all. In BC it was done pursuant to legislation which recognized the reciprocal enforcement treaty. The only way to avoid the enforcement was if the judgment of the US court applied a legal principle foreign to Canadian law - the test was more nuanced but that was, and is, the gist of it. The real and substantial connection test for registering a foreign judgment absent a treaty has always been the test iirc. Not sure why it was an issue in that case.
Quote from: Valmy on December 04, 2015, 11:50:14 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 04, 2015, 11:41:58 AM
This particular case does illustrate a serious problem though - how do you deal with this kind of international crime?
This asshole was in Canada (typical Canadian), and look how hard it was to do anything about it.
What if he was in Russia? Or China?
Oh a solution to this problem will eventually be reached. And we will not like it. This is how psychopaths ruin it for everybody else.
I don't think the base problem here is anonymity. Once the police took the case seriously, they managed to find him pretty quickly.
The problem that arose were:
a) The cops didn't take the matter seriously
b) Once a cop started taking the matter seriously, he found the guy, but he was in another country
c) The cops from country b) did not take the matter seriously given that no offense were committed in their jurisdiction and cyber-crimes are still a huge Terra Incognita and harrassment in general is not taken seriously enough.
d) The judiciary system from country b) does not believe in punishing criminals, only rehabilitating them
See, if you had lots of cops working from a), things would have gone faster, but it was only one local officer with no technical knowledge and he had very poor support from the FBI until the number of cases rose pretty high and only after he himself methodically reported each incident to the FBI.
Quote from: Liep on December 04, 2015, 03:16:12 PM
Quote from: mongers on December 04, 2015, 03:11:07 PM
Guys aren't we missing the wood for the trees, isn't this simply Terrorism?
He certainly terrorised these women, but doesn't that make him a terroriser and not a terrorist?
I don't see that distinction, her terrorised society, however you may wish to define that, the online community they played on or the sections of society like the police officers called out to deal with these intense events. You don't think many of those cops/first responders didn't feel fear as they went into situation they believed to be very dangerous.
Quote from: grumbler on December 04, 2015, 01:12:48 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 04, 2015, 12:47:59 PM
Almost certainly judgment proof.
Really? Just how much do the parents make, and what is the upper limit of worth that qualifies as judgement-proof in Canada/his jurisdiction?
Can't enforce a judgment against the child on the parents. Big stores tried in shoplifting cases - was resoundingly shot down in the courts.
Given my own experience in youth court and the YCJA, I'm astounded this kid got 16 months custody. I would have expected a non-custodial disposition.
Quote from: mongers on December 04, 2015, 03:51:07 PM
Quote from: Liep on December 04, 2015, 03:16:12 PM
Quote from: mongers on December 04, 2015, 03:11:07 PM
Guys aren't we missing the wood for the trees, isn't this simply Terrorism?
He certainly terrorised these women, but doesn't that make him a terroriser and not a terrorist?
I don't see that distinction, her terrorised society, however you may wish to define that, the online community they played on or the sections of society like the police officers called out to deal with these intense events. You don't think many of those cops/first responders didn't feel fear as they went into situation they believed to be very dangerous.
He didn't set out to terrorise society, terrorists do. He might inadvertently have caused harm to more than these women but I'm pretty sure he didn't give a shit about that.
Quote from: Barrister on December 04, 2015, 05:40:55 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 04, 2015, 01:12:48 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 04, 2015, 12:47:59 PM
Almost certainly judgment proof.
Really? Just how much do the parents make, and what is the upper limit of worth that qualifies as judgement-proof in Canada/his jurisdiction?
Can't enforce a judgment against the child on the parents. Big stores tried in shoplifting cases - was resoundingly shot down in the courts.
Given my own experience in youth court and the YCJA, I'm astounded this kid got 16 months custody. I would have expected a non-custodial disposition.
:yes:
Case would have to brought directly against the parents
Here's the actual case decision, though in some ways the NYT article gives more detail.
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2015/2015bcpc203/2015bcpc203.html
Fun fact - the 16 months custody is actually the youth maximum, since the max is two years and only two thirds can be spent in detention (the remaining third must be in the community).
Also the judge references s. 39 of the YCJA, but he doesn't meaningfully address s. 39(1) which states a judge SHALL NOT sentence to custody unless he has committed a violent offence, or has failed to comply with non-custodial sentences (impossible, since he's never been before the courts), or in other exceptional cases. He was charged with extortion, so perhaps that's how they get the "violent offence" designation, but it might be a stretch.
Quote from: Martinus on December 04, 2015, 11:57:45 AM
Yeah I agree with Valmy. The most likely long term outcome, to me, will be the end of any anonymity on the Internet.
I doubt that. You just need one server inbetween the target and the perp that you can't access to lose a trail.
Quote from: Malthus on December 04, 2015, 01:45:24 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 04, 2015, 12:43:18 PM
For the Canuck lawyers (or CC, if no lawyers care to respond): can the US victims of this guy sue under Canadian law? Could they sufficiently prove their case if the evidence in the story is accurate?
I would imagine they could. The Canadian courts would have jurisdiction over this guy and his harassment has a jurisdictional nexus with Canada, as well as where his victims lived. He's carried on malicious acts that deliberately caused trauma and so damages to his victims as well as costs to the first responders (assuming, as stated, the accuracy of the story), so it shouldn't be too hard to find a tort theory that would fit.
Another possibility is suing the fellow in the home state of the victims, then seeking recognition and enforcement of those judgment(s) in Canada. That has become much easier in recent years under Canadian laws. That has the benefit, as far as the victims are concerned, of putting the onus and expense on this guy to try and defend the action(s) in another country (nowadays you can't sit back and ignore a foreign proceeding against you - Canadian courts will enforce them here if you do, and you will be fucked).
Whether this guy has assets that would make suing him anywhere worthwhile is of course another story.
The state courts should have personal jurisdiction over him, since he deliberately "reached into" the states. Minimum contacts.
International Shoe. Venue should be proper as well, because
lex loci delicti.
Unlike CC, I'm off to go suffer. :(
Quote from: Barrister on December 04, 2015, 05:40:55 PM
Can't enforce a judgment against the child on the parents. Big stores tried in shoplifting cases - was resoundingly shot down in the courts.
Given my own experience in youth court and the YCJA, I'm astounded this kid got 16 months custody. I would have expected a non-custodial disposition.
Thanks. That's the sort of insight I was looking for.
It makes for an interesting legal dilemma, though. Should children get away with shit like this just because of the principal that the parent isn't responsible (in cases like this) for the child? Should parents be held responsible for the acts of non-adults in their control?
It seems unfair to the victims that, if their assailant isn't an adult and hasn't committed a felony, that they have no recourse under the law.
Calling a SWAT team on innocent people should certainly be a felony. Just one wrong move in the confusion and the victim could killed.
Quote from: Barrister on December 04, 2015, 06:05:50 PM
Here's the actual case decision, though in some ways the NYT article gives more detail.
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2015/2015bcpc203/2015bcpc203.html
Fun fact - the 16 months custody is actually the youth maximum, since the max is two years and only two thirds can be spent in detention (the remaining third must be in the community).
Also the judge references s. 39 of the YCJA, but he doesn't meaningfully address s. 39(1) which states a judge SHALL NOT sentence to custody unless he has committed a violent offence, or has failed to comply with non-custodial sentences (impossible, since he's never been before the courts), or in other exceptional cases. He was charged with extortion, so perhaps that's how they get the "violent offence" designation, but it might be a stretch.
Thanks. That's a lot more informative, and makes it clearer that this was no mere "slap on the wrist." Also, that the kid had appeared before courts before for this kind of behavior.
You da man.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 04, 2015, 08:44:49 PM
Calling a SWAT team on innocent people should certainly be a felony. Just one wrong move in the confusion and the victim could killed.
Agree. Now get the congress and Canadian parliament to agree.
Quote from: grumbler on December 04, 2015, 08:48:27 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 04, 2015, 06:05:50 PM
Here's the actual case decision, though in some ways the NYT article gives more detail.
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2015/2015bcpc203/2015bcpc203.html
Fun fact - the 16 months custody is actually the youth maximum, since the max is two years and only two thirds can be spent in detention (the remaining third must be in the community).
Also the judge references s. 39 of the YCJA, but he doesn't meaningfully address s. 39(1) which states a judge SHALL NOT sentence to custody unless he has committed a violent offence, or has failed to comply with non-custodial sentences (impossible, since he's never been before the courts), or in other exceptional cases. He was charged with extortion, so perhaps that's how they get the "violent offence" designation, but it might be a stretch.
Thanks. That's a lot more informative, and makes it clearer that this was no mere "slap on the wrist." Also, that the kid had appeared before courts before for this kind of behavior.
You da man.
Thank you for your kind words. It isn't often that the Canadian criminal justice system gets discussed on languish, so when it does I like to show off. :blush:
This kid though had never been before the court. See para 64.
This is the toughest sentence the court could impose. Doesn't mean I don't think it was a whole lot more than a "slap on the wrist" though. But there's a reason they don't send me to youth court... :ph34r:
He should be raped in kiddie jail.
There. Internet discussion complete. Your welcome.
Quote from: Barrister on December 04, 2015, 09:35:15 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 04, 2015, 08:48:27 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 04, 2015, 06:05:50 PM
Here's the actual case decision, though in some ways the NYT article gives more detail.
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2015/2015bcpc203/2015bcpc203.html
Fun fact - the 16 months custody is actually the youth maximum, since the max is two years and only two thirds can be spent in detention (the remaining third must be in the community).
Also the judge references s. 39 of the YCJA, but he doesn't meaningfully address s. 39(1) which states a judge SHALL NOT sentence to custody unless he has committed a violent offence, or has failed to comply with non-custodial sentences (impossible, since he's never been before the courts), or in other exceptional cases. He was charged with extortion, so perhaps that's how they get the "violent offence" designation, but it might be a stretch.
Thanks. That's a lot more informative, and makes it clearer that this was no mere "slap on the wrist." Also, that the kid had appeared before courts before for this kind of behavior.
You da man.
Thank you for your kind words. It isn't often that the Canadian criminal justice system gets discussed on languish, so when it does I like to show off. :blush:
This kid though had never been before the court. See para 64.
This is the toughest sentence the court could impose. Doesn't mean I don't think it was a whole lot more than a "slap on the wrist" though. But there's a reason they don't send me to youth court... :ph34r:
Para 40 made me think the court had seen him before and that a reassessment was done, but I'll confess that I don't quite grasp the chronology, so yield to your expertise. In any case, you provided the missing link as far as I am concerned.
Does Canadian law have provisions in where the kid can't use a modem or x number of years?
Quote from: Razgovory on December 04, 2015, 10:05:38 PM
Does Canadian law have provisions in where the kid can't use a modem or x number of years?
Does Canada have the same kind of "clean slate" treatment of juvenile vs. adult criminal records as the US does? That would be one issue- upon reaching adulthood, how do you enforce the juvenile judgment? Also, the article mentioned he was already in the system and not supposed to be using the Internet without supervision (the more we put school- and work-necessary content online- and I'll bet Canada already puts more online than the US, the less likely we are to be able to put a blanket ban on its use).
Quote from: Barrister on December 04, 2015, 09:35:15 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 04, 2015, 08:48:27 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 04, 2015, 06:05:50 PM
Here's the actual case decision, though in some ways the NYT article gives more detail.
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2015/2015bcpc203/2015bcpc203.html
Fun fact - the 16 months custody is actually the youth maximum, since the max is two years and only two thirds can be spent in detention (the remaining third must be in the community).
Also the judge references s. 39 of the YCJA, but he doesn't meaningfully address s. 39(1) which states a judge SHALL NOT sentence to custody unless he has committed a violent offence, or has failed to comply with non-custodial sentences (impossible, since he's never been before the courts), or in other exceptional cases. He was charged with extortion, so perhaps that's how they get the "violent offence" designation, but it might be a stretch.
Thanks. That's a lot more informative, and makes it clearer that this was no mere "slap on the wrist." Also, that the kid had appeared before courts before for this kind of behavior.
You da man.
Thank you for your kind words. It isn't often that the Canadian criminal justice system gets discussed on languish, so when it does I like to show off. :blush:
This kid though had never been before the court. See para 64.
This is the toughest sentence the court could impose. Doesn't mean I don't think it was a whole lot more than a "slap on the wrist" though. But there's a reason they don't send me to youth court... :ph34r:
How long could the sentence be if he was tried if he was an adult? Or if he re-offends after he is 18?
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 04, 2015, 03:22:02 PM
Naw, prior to 2003 I was enforcing judgments from American Courts in Canada with no problem at all. In BC it was done pursuant to legislation which recognized the reciprocal enforcement treaty. The only way to avoid the enforcement was if the judgment of the US court applied a legal principle foreign to Canadian law - the test was more nuanced but that was, and is, the gist of it. The real and substantial connection test for registering a foreign judgment absent a treaty has always been the test iirc. Not sure why it was an issue in that case.
Clearly, that was something specific to that province. Each province did it differently.
The real and substantial connection test applied as between provinces. It was only assumed to apply internationally, until the Supremes said it did in this case. From the judgment:
Quote19 The question arises whether the "real and substantial connection" test, which is applied to interprovincial judgments, should apply equally to the recognition of foreign judgments. For the reasons that follow, I conclude that it should. While there are compelling reasons to expand the test's application, there does not appear to be any principled reason not to do so.
By the time of this case, the logic for using the test internationally was so strong, the parties conceded on this point. The Supremes confirmed it.
What that case did, was eliminate the need for local solutions (or presumptions) by dragging the whole country into the modern era - in 2003. That archaic stuff about "attornment" being the assumed state was discarded.
Quote from: Malthus on December 07, 2015, 11:44:54 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 04, 2015, 03:22:02 PM
Naw, prior to 2003 I was enforcing judgments from American Courts in Canada with no problem at all. In BC it was done pursuant to legislation which recognized the reciprocal enforcement treaty. The only way to avoid the enforcement was if the judgment of the US court applied a legal principle foreign to Canadian law - the test was more nuanced but that was, and is, the gist of it. The real and substantial connection test for registering a foreign judgment absent a treaty has always been the test iirc. Not sure why it was an issue in that case.
Clearly, that was something specific to that province. Each province did it differently.
The real and substantial connection test applied as between provinces. It was only assumed to apply internationally, until the Supremes said it did in this case.
What that case did, was eliminate the need for local solutions (or presumptions) by dragging the whole country into the modern era - in 2003. That archaic stuff about "attornment" being the assumed state was discarded.
Yeah, reading the case more closely it appears Ontario was going its own way prior to that decision.
Quote from: grumbler on December 04, 2015, 09:41:00 PM
Para 40 made me think the court had seen him before and that a reassessment was done, but I'll confess that I don't quite grasp the chronology, so yield to your expertise. In any case, you provided the missing link as far as I am concerned.
Para 40 talks about a pre-sentence report (PSR). It's a not uncommon procedure in our courts. Once a guilty plea has been accepted (or a finding of guilt after trial) the judge adjourns sentencing so the PSR can be prepared. It gives some background information about the offender, prepared by a probation officer.
So "the court" had seen this youth before on an earlier date, but on the same set of charges.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 04, 2015, 10:05:38 PM
Does Canadian law have provisions in where the kid can't use a modem or x number of years?
You can place the kid on probation and put almost any term you could imagine on there.
"no access to the internet" is pretty harsh both in terms of effect, and pretty tough to enforce, however.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on December 04, 2015, 11:54:13 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 04, 2015, 10:05:38 PM
Does Canadian law have provisions in where the kid can't use a modem or x number of years?
Does Canada have the same kind of "clean slate" treatment of juvenile vs. adult criminal records as the US does? That would be one issue- upon reaching adulthood, how do you enforce the juvenile judgment? Also, the article mentioned he was already in the system and not supposed to be using the Internet without supervision (the more we put school- and work-necessary content online- and I'll bet Canada already puts more online than the US, the less likely we are to be able to put a blanket ban on its use).
If you go conviction-free for a set number of years (depending on the types of youth charges) your youth record is expunged automatically. But if you get nailed with even a minor criminal offence, say shoplifting, then your entire youth record stays with you forever (barring a pardon).
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on December 05, 2015, 09:36:43 AM
Quote from: Barrister on December 04, 2015, 09:35:15 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 04, 2015, 08:48:27 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 04, 2015, 06:05:50 PM
Here's the actual case decision, though in some ways the NYT article gives more detail.
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2015/2015bcpc203/2015bcpc203.html
Fun fact - the 16 months custody is actually the youth maximum, since the max is two years and only two thirds can be spent in detention (the remaining third must be in the community).
Also the judge references s. 39 of the YCJA, but he doesn't meaningfully address s. 39(1) which states a judge SHALL NOT sentence to custody unless he has committed a violent offence, or has failed to comply with non-custodial sentences (impossible, since he's never been before the courts), or in other exceptional cases. He was charged with extortion, so perhaps that's how they get the "violent offence" designation, but it might be a stretch.
Thanks. That's a lot more informative, and makes it clearer that this was no mere "slap on the wrist." Also, that the kid had appeared before courts before for this kind of behavior.
You da man.
Thank you for your kind words. It isn't often that the Canadian criminal justice system gets discussed on languish, so when it does I like to show off. :blush:
This kid though had never been before the court. See para 64.
This is the toughest sentence the court could impose. Doesn't mean I don't think it was a whole lot more than a "slap on the wrist" though. But there's a reason they don't send me to youth court... :ph34r:
How long could the sentence be if he was tried if he was an adult? Or if he re-offends after he is 18?
Extortion carries a maximum adult penalty of life imprisonment.
HOWEVER...
when the maximum is life it's a practical impossibility to get it as a sentence for non-homicide cases. These are pretty unique and horrible facts - I have no idea what an adult in a similar situation would receive for a sentence. An adult would also have much greater incentive to fight these sorts of charges tooth and nail.