The Enigma & Conundrum of Canadian Judas-Prudence

I may have figured out the mystery behind Canadian judges' unwillingness to hand out just sentences to criminals.

A couple of outrages off the top of my head:

A year or two ago in Windsor, Ontario a man who was convicted of sexually assaulting a woman was given a sentence of thirty days house arrest. The victim in the case said the rights and feelings of the accused were at the forefront of the court's priorities at all times, while hers were ignored across the board. Now we have Yonge Street shot up by criminals, one of whom was just released from thirty days in jail for his role in a convenience store robbery.

Who in the world thinks such sentences for such crimes are just?

Which led me to wonder, Who benefits from crime?

Criminals do -- in Canada, at least. But who else? Security companies. I think a special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate how many Canadian judges hold investments in security companies. This is a clear conflict of interest, releasing repeat, violent criminals upon society, the reports of which send the sales of security-related items shyrocketing.

Are Canadian judges profiting from crime in this way? Someone should investigate.

In the highly unlikely event that such a conflict of interest is not proved, I think a further investigation should be made into Canadian judges: Do they tend to reside near chemical plants? Are they all emotionally remote sociopaths? Is there an inordinate amount of drug use in the histories of Canadian judges, accounting for their skewed and often dissociative response to real life and real events that enter their courts on a daily basis? Are Canadian judges brought into this reality from another realm through some weird membrane? If so, we must close that hole.

Is there any answer to why Canadian judges refuse to hand out just sentences to criminals?

Ask the Canadian Department of Justice