quote:

---

Bedard was finally sentenced in November 2000 by Justice Lucy Glenn to an 18-month conditional sentence. This means he does not go to jail, but rather serves his time in the community, living at home. He was also ordered to pay $15,000.00 to the Chatham-Kent Sexual Assault Crisis Centre and will be on probation for three years.

The Centre refused to accept the "donation." Director Michelle Schryer said: "We don't want to live in a society where men who enjoy privilege have the ability to receive a more lenient sentence than someone who lives in poverty." Further, the Centre took the position "that a conditional sentence for someone who can repeatedly breach a position of trust is not acceptable."

---

full article

So much for principles.

Bedard's sentence is currently under appeal after a massive letter-writing and telephone campaign organized by the sexual assault centre."

This seems to be unfair to the defendent. Because of the publicity of the case, the centre felt the need to go back after him after he had been sentenced? This after they have said they would accepts donations from certain perpetrators under their own conditions?

"We don't want to live in a society where men who enjoy privilege have the ability to receive a more lenient sentence than someone who lives in poverty."

the conflict of interest that could be generated by the establishment of a direct connection between the Centre and the offenders
the possibility of the perpetrator using the payment to further abuse his victim(s), by saying, for example: "I fund the services you are receiving."
the injustice of those who enjoy privilege in our society having the ability to buy preferred sentencing, absolution or forgiveness
the possibility of such payments furthering the objectification of victims (as in, certain crimes carry certain price tags). "

--------------------------------------

He should be sent to jail, instead of being able to use $$$ to avoid a harsher penalty for the crime. It's long past time for those who have money to be able to pay their way out of their own misconduct.

It happens that certain people who get convicted of domestic violence can pay $$$ to a domestic violence shelter to avoid jail time. Is that fair, if another defendant doesn't have that money. Sorry dude, you go to jail BUT not because it's a horrendous crime, but b/c you don't have enough money to avoid it.

What's unfair about what's happening to this guy? Think of some other defendant who might be jailed instead, due to lack of funds. Or the victims who watch their assailments be sentenced in accordance to their finances rather than the crimes themselves.

quote:

---

---

quote:

---

---

quote:

---

---

quote:

---

---

quote:

---

---

[ 11 October 2003: Message edited by: Madame X ]

I've worked for volunteer service centers which provide those services to people convicted of domestic violence. That's how it goes.