This is just sick!

[LittleRunningGag]

Re: RE: This is just sick!

FYI LRG - The Crown has disagreed with Justice Agrios's interpretation of the law and has appealed.

So, like i said, this is a different ball of wax and i certainly disagree with the judge's and your interpretation of this particular law!

Of course they disagree, you doughhead. If they agreed with the judge, they wouldn't have charged him with it in the first place.

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: RE: This is just sick!

So, like i said, this is a different ball of wax and i certainly disagree with the judge's and your interpretation of this particular law!

Click here to review the Criminal Code of Canada.

I have read through the Part V: Sexual Offenses, Public Morals and Disorderly Conduct, and I cannot identify any law which we could be "misinterpreting". There is no law, insofar as my understanding of the Statute would lead me to believe, which would restrict any persons (whether or not either of those persons has not yet attained the age of consent) which could be used to convict the person in question. I would invite you to review the Statutes and suggest under which section you would propose pressing (or even interpreting) any such breaches of the law.

:?: Sources
1. Click here for the Web site of the Department of Justice Canada.

 

[MagnoliaApples]

What are you talking about?
They appealed it meaning the case is going back to court!!
They're getting a different judge to preside over the case!
Doughhead!

 

[LittleRunningGag]

Re: RE: This is just sick!

What are you talking about?
They appealed it meaning the case is going back to court!!
They're getting a different judge to preside over the case!
Doughhead!

No, the appeal is not automatic. They must go in front of an Appeals Judge in order to determine if the origional Judge's interpretation was incorrect. My point is that just because they are appealing doesn't mean that they are right, it just means that they disagree with the judge. Which is obvious because the Crown wouldn't have charged the guy with what they did if they didn't think that the law applied. :roll:

 

[MagnoliaApples]

Okay, okay ... I hear what you're saying.

This bantering back and forth is starting to endear me to you. Stop it.

Thank you for helping me understand.

In the end, i hope that they get an appeal, which i'm thinking they might, considering how the judgement has been critisized across the country and has raised red flags for all Childrens Rights activists.

 

[LittleRunningGag]

Re: RE: This is just sick!

Okay, okay ... I hear what you're saying.

This bantering back and forth is starting to endear me to you. Stop it.

:lol:

In the end, i hope that they get an appeal, which i'm thinking they might, considering how the judgement has been critisized across the country and has raised red flags for all Childrens Rights activists.

Unfortunately not without legislative intervention. Judges cannot make law, they can only interpret it. As for public opinion, thats why they are appointed. They aren't at the whim of the Canadian people.

 

[MagnoliaApples]

Right but i do think that in light of this case they're going to look into the laws and see what they can do.

The Internet and Luring Law is still in it's infancy and it takes cases like to show the cracks in the foundation so to speak. It obviously needs some refining.

I just hope that this guy has learned his lesson and doesn't repeat this. If he does, hopefully the laws will be in place to put guys like this away.