Canadian Judas-Prudence and its very real P.R. problem

My good friend, Pryvett Rawgers, recently said to me in reference to himself: "I do not court popularity." The same could be said for myself.

I recently posted a blog about my disgust and disappointment (and unabashed bewilderment) with the Canadian justice system -- which I refer to as "Judas-Prudence", an expression I got from Archie Bunker -- and posted a link to it on Reddit.com. The specific case I commented on involved a man who got high one night and in a fit of rage, set fire to his apartment, leading to the destruction of the entire building in which he lived. No one was killed, or even injured from what I know. For this act of arson, the man was sentenced to 30 days in jail and two years probation. This struck me as very, very light. Nowhere in my blog did I suggest the man be flogged or killed or jailed for 100 years. But for endangering the lives of numerous people, for the massive destruction of property he caused, it's my opinion the man should have been given at least a few years in prison.

Posting this on Reddit.com, I got what I was hoping for -- other opinions. And man, these were other opinions. Only five or six people read my blog and commented on it, but 100 percent of them sided with the arsonist and vilified me to varying degrees -- one going so far and delving so low as to suggest I read a social science book. The name-calling aside, and the questions about my intelligence and comments about my "high horse" aside, one thing remains clear: Canadian Judas-Prudence has a severe P.R. problem -- there are people like myself who do not feel well-served by our justice system.

My detractors in the Reddit.com post surmised that I have never "heard submissions" or "heard arguments made at the trial", both of which are true. I don't claim to be a lawyer or a judge, but I'd love to have heard the submissions and arguments in this arson case. I imagine Canadian judges existing in a parallel reality not unlike Jim Carrey's in the film The Truman Show, where everyone is polite and gracious and good; where people excuse themselves for farting even if they're alone in the house. And these judges are brought into our reality to hear cases and pass judgment.

I imagine defense lawyers going before these judges with expressions of gravity and sincerity, arguing and submitting, "Your Honour, my client had no choice in the matter of getting high on the night in question -- his girlfriend had recently left him, and the library was hounding him about late books that she had taken out on his card. While high, my client received a call from the library -- well, actually, he hallucinated a call from the library, but that's immaterial. And this call caused him great distress, distress to the point where my client believed -- actually believed that Satan Himself was in the room with him. Well, my client merely fell back on age-old wisdom he'd heard since he was a child: 'Fight fire with fire.' Since Satan's home is Hell, and Hell is fire --"

Crown Attorney jumps to his wing-tipped feet. "Objection your Honour! Hell is fire and brimstone. Let the record reflect that is not just fire!"

"It shall be so noted," the judge intones. To the defense attorney, the judge says, "Please continue."

"Thank you your Honour. As I was saying, my client believed he was being confronted by Satan Himself and sought to battle the Prince of Darkness with fire -- by burning up all of the underwear that his former girlfriend had yet to come back and claim. My client then sought to flee Satan and the fire, and the apartment unit became a conflagration, spreading to the rest of the building . . . I won't bore you with the details."

To which the judge finally passes judgement: "Although the defendant was battling Satan Himself while already suffering great emotional strain, I cannot overlook the loss of property, the endangerment of citizens and fire personnel. For this reason, I have no option but order the defendant be confined to a penal institution for a period of thirty days, as well as two years probation." After which the judge shakes with the adrenalin rush of wielding such god-like power.

The point of my blog was that as a layman, Canadian judges' handling of criminals does not make sense to me. I understand mitigating circumstances, I don't propose that defendants in court be given ten-minute trials and then be thrown in front of firing squads. I can understand everything about the trial process (as I demonstrate above) -- except the sentences judges hand out to criminals.

Some examples of what I'm talking about (by no means complete or exhaustive; it's the merest smattering):

Meet Pedophile DALE OSWALD

Ontario a man who was convicted of sexually assaulting a woman was given a sentence of thirty days house arrest

Out-of-touch Judges are to Blame for the Toronto Shooting?

A woman who admitted to concealing her pregnancy and later placing her newborn baby in a garbage bag was spared further jail time Thursday.

Canada Judas-prudence is based on clairvoyance

I don't live and work in a vacuum. When I'm curious about something, I ask others what they think about it. Everyone and anyone I've personally spoken to about Canadian court cases in the news, especially when a sentence has been announced, has expressed the opinion that the sentences are not only weak and lacking, but grossly lenient. Among the people I've spoken to are street cops. These are the people who catch the criminals, and often at great personal risk. Yeah, it's their job; they knew what they signed up for.

Law and order, a justice system, is the foundation of society. If people don't have any satisfactory recourse when crimes are committed against them, great roads, titanium sewers and world class schools don't mean much. Humanity has proven the honor system is dead. Fine. That's why we have laws. The laws are great. I remember taking a high school law class and hearing the maximum penalty for breaking and entering was life in prison. I thought to myself, Holy shit! I guess I won't be breaking and entering anywhere! Laws are great, but they're useless if they are not enforced, or are enforced in the most weak-kneed, wincing, hand-wringing way.

The startling thing I learned today was that there are people who are not only satisfied and happy with laughably lenient jail sentences, they're quite willing to defend the seemingly indefensible. As mentioned above, I do not court popularity. Clearly, my ideas about right and wrong and the need for deterrence in a judicial system are completely out of step with some of my fellow Canadians.

It would be interesting to put all these lofty, philosophical social science adherents to the test. I wonder how magnanimous they would be if the deities deigned that I stay in the same hotel in which they were staying one night. And if I were to get high at some point during the night -- not only high, but also very angry. And, if I somehow set fire to the hotel with such proficiency that everyone had to flee and all of their possessions were burned up (though with no one being harmed). And if I received 30 days in jail for my efforts. As a writer, I'd almost consider that a working vacation, though I'd insist on paying for my meals in jail so that I could claim them on my income tax.

Who needs the Magna Carta or the Code of Hammurabi when we've got social science books?

Update

After reading the comments posted on my Reddit.com link about the 30 day jail sentence given to a Canadian arsonist, not a single commenter offered a coherent justification for such a lenient sentence. Commenters offered insults, but no reasoned arguments why a person who purposely burns down an apartment building received a month in jail. So, I'm left to conclude that it was only a gaggle of cranks who fell upon my post; people who root for criminals. Which they're free to do, but Canadian Judas-Prudence's PR problem remains. Cheering for criminals is not the same as explaining or justifying the noxiously lenient sentences Canadian judges hand out.

I believe the most insulting commenter is either a pimpled 19 year old idealist who thinks the world has been explained in his first sociology class, or he's a 45 year old anal retentive who irons his underwear. Either way, he was uninteresting and gave no evidence to being the least bit informed about anything. But that's the Web.