No Nail in the Coffin

Advertising executive Paul Coffin -- one of the people charged and convicted in the "sponsorship scandal" -- has been sentenced to a conditional sentence of two years less a day, to be served in the community, for defrauding Canadian taxpayers of $1.5 million. How did Justice Jean-Guy Boilard of Quebec Superior Court arrive at this extraordinarily light sentence? Via clarvoyance (Justice Boilard looked into the future and ascertained that Mr. Coffin was not likely to reoffend), and by taking into consideration that Mr. Coffin is incapable of time-travel (saying "Mr. Coffin is genuinely contrite but unfortunately he cannot turn the clock back"). Is this what budding lawyers are taught in law school? Also taken into consideration was the fact that Mr. Coffin has repaid $1 million to the federal government -- enjoying a $500,000 profit for his misdeeds -- and the fact that he feels bad about having been caught.

Would it be asking too much of the Canadian justice system to have made Mr. Coffin pay back all of the money he earned fraudulently, and possibly pay a fine on top of that? The vengeful side of me would love to see this white collar criminal go to prison, but I believe non-violent criminals should be sentenced in alternative ways. However, I don't believe criminals such as Mr. Coffin should be spanked with feather dusters. There is nothing about his "sentence" that suggests punishment or justice. This sentence suggests only that the case against Mr. Coffin is closed, and he will be inconvenienced no further. We should expect much from our judicial system than this -- if only it were up to the task.