Here's a handy tip to carry in your wallet: if you are chosen 1343rd for anything, you are not a "budding star" in that field. Anyway, the guilty Mr. 1343 got 45 days in the hoosgow. The old "not really wrong" argument didn't seem to help:
Rhynes testified that he made a moral mistake, but not in his view a criminal one. This statement played a role in sentencing, as Judge Orr felt Rhynes did not show guilt or remorse, and was therefore a risk to re-offend. "Given that he doesn't believe he did anything wrong, it is a risk to be concerned about," Orr said during sentencing. "I am therefore satisfied that Mr. Rhynes would pose a risk to the community if he were to serve his sentence there."
More here and here on the case and CBC PEI's continuingly strange characterization of the young man who was sexually assaulting 12 year old girls.
[Soon thereafter: just as before at the time of the conviction in late October, the CBC PEI website is already undoing their URLs making the story unlinkable.]
Comments
Alan - April 23, 2004 5:19 PM
Good Lord. Read the appeal. Two more levels of appeal to go.
Alan - April 30, 2004 3:29 PM
..and we are off...
Alan - May 19, 2004 10:08 PM
...to another hearing...
Alan - June 30, 2004 11:35 AM
...which begins today...
Alan - August 11, 2004 1:33 PM
<p>The insanity continues.<p>To review: the first appeal court found that the case turned on the word "incite" as in did the adult male "incite" female children to have sex with him. The first appeal court found that this required persuasion, recommendation or active inducement and stated at paragraph 28:<blockquote class="smalltext">The evidence disclosed the arrangements for the encounter at G.O.'s house were made by T.M., not the appellant. There was little or no conversaiton between JJ and the appellant prior to the sexual act, The appellant permitted his vehicle to be used to pick up JJ and AA and participated in the sexual activity in that he made himself available for it. However, there is no evidence which shows he recommended or persuaded or actively induced JJ to engage in the sexual touching..."</blockquote>The PEI Appeal Division today found that there was no error made in this characterization of the meaning of "incite". It did so in paragraphs 37 to 54 of the ruling without reference to a dictionary. At paragraph 46 the Appeal Division states: "In other words, the allegation was that he urged or persuaded them to touch him". This statement is a different one that made in the lower court and mirrors a quotation in paragraph 42 from one text on criminal law on the meaning of counselling, a related concept to inciting, which states:<blockquote class="smalltext">The words or acts must have at least the element of advising or recommending and at most urging or persuading. Mere knowledge is not, in itself, an offence.</blockquote>What the Appeal Division seems to do is take a range of meaning of "counsel" and make the most extreme end the measure of meaning of "incite". That appears to be confirmed by the judge in the following paragraph 43. This is despite the quotation upon what this is based containing the sentence: "It is clear, therefore, that something must be said or done by the accused." As a result, the Court equates the adult male who picks up children to have sex with with a person who is aware of a crime being prepared but says and does nothing. It would appear that the act of driving and picking up and facilitating a child to have sexual activity on your corporeal form is not "doing". This is frankly bizzare. Setting up a circumstance of comfort or possibility can surely "incite" as much as giving a road map and set of instructions. That is also "doing" "something" - the latter word being that most technical term set out in one of the two sources of authorities relied upon by the Appeal Division in paragraphs 37 to 54. The other equates the something which must be done to incite as "encouraging". Again, this meaning within "incite" is entirely possible by setting the stage, by setting the trap, encouraging by making permissible. Why did the court determine these included meanings were not enough? No reason given.
While I am making a quick read of the ruling and frankly find the analysis made disgusting, I still think that this is a misapplication of the meaning of the word appears to my reading to be an error in interpretation of a section of the Criminal Code which is an error in law and appealable to the Supreme Court of Canada. I hope the Crown has the guts to do it.
SayNay? - August 12, 2004 12:49 PM
What is the old saying lawyers and judges have: "bad cases make bad law"? But was this really a "bad case"? ie. Did the trial judge make such unfavorable findings about the complainants, their "experience" or their "conduct" to allow the Appeal courts to basically treat them as "consenting adults" regardless of the fact they were under 14 (ie. did the defence successfully persuade the trial judge that the complainants were "may have been under 14, but they were going on 24", but regardless, the trial judge felt the "law" compelled her to convict the accused?) - because that almost seems to be the underlying theme here to this bozo's acquittal - a "bending over backwards" to find a basis to overturn the trial judge's application of the law. This seems especially so in light of the comments by defence counsel after the unsuccessful appeal by the Crown -it is hard to see this accused under any circumstances as morally blameless, but this is what his defence lawyer is suggesting.
Alan - August 12, 2004 5:45 PM
The more I think of it, I wonder whether the laying of the charge was messed up, too. I am almost speechless this thing ticks me off so much.