The question before the Supreme Court was whether the one-year prison sentence for accessing and possessing child pornography set out in the Criminal Code violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects against cruel and unusual punishment.
The top court said it was only weighing the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentences, and not whether the sentences imposed on the two men were appropriate.
But there’s so much misinformation among conservatives… They’re obviously going for the headlines, and low information voters.
I’ll also add (for the people that aren’t going to read the article) that they decided the one-year minimum was harmful because in a situation like an 18-year-old receiving an unrequested nude from a 17-year-old, the 18-year-old would get a year in prison.
God he’s an asshole. I’m not happy with the ruling but I’m no conservative cry baby.
Emphasis my own.
But there’s so much misinformation among conservatives… They’re obviously going for the headlines, and low information voters.
I’ll also add (for the people that aren’t going to read the article) that they decided the one-year minimum was harmful because in a situation like an 18-year-old receiving an unrequested nude from a 17-year-old, the 18-year-old would get a year in prison.
this would be true if they were both 17, even.
All our sentences should have context, that’s why minimums don’t make any sense.
Exactly. Blanket rules have NEVER made sense.
but “common sense”???
/s
As is tradition.