I am sure there will be outrage in some circles that Melvin Koroluk was sentenced to two years in prison for abducting a child from the Yorkton Exhibition two years ago.
There is no doubt, it was an egregious crime. I've already heard comments to the effect that "they should have locked him up and thrown away the key," and "typical that the courts are so soft on criminals.
I am disinclined to agree.
I suspect when people make sweeping moral judgments like this, it is because they do not understand the justice system and/or are not familiar with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Thankfully, we do not live in a country that dehumanizes individual persons by equating them with the abstract concept of their crime-although that is slowly changing with Stephen Harper at the helm.
It is one of the hallmarks of an advanced society that we do not lock people up and throw away the key.
As Madam Justice C.L. Dawson wrote in her decision in R. v. Koroluk, Judges are obligated under the Criminal Code and the Charter to determine whether there are less restrictive sanctions than imprisonment that could accomplish the objectives of sentencing.
Those objectives are clearly laid out in Section 718 of the Criminal Code with an emphasis on fairness, i.e., proportionate to the gravity of the offence and similar to sentence imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances.
In this case, a maximum sentence would be five years. The case law indicates that sentences range from six months to two years and nine months.
The defence made a strong plea that a conditional sentence should be on the table, but Dawson dismissed that.
"As to the submission that a conditional sentence is merited, I consider that to be inappropriate as I am of the view that a conditional sentence would not adequately reflect deterrence and denunciation in this matter," she wrote.
"In these circumstances, the principles of denunciation and general deterrence must outweigh the principles of rehabilitation."
There were numerous mitigating circumstances, but the judge still put Koroluk in jail for a significant amount of time.
And I suspect, at 59 years old, having never spent a day in prison in his life and with a conviction for child abduction, he won't fair well in a setting with hardened criminals.
I would say the Justice Dawson pretty much nailed the sentencing.
It could have been much less though. It has been my experience that judges do not look kindly on lack of insight. Although she said she was satisfied Koroluk was remorseful, Dawson listed lack of insight among the aggravating factors toward sentencing.
At no time, not with the police, not with the probation officer who prepared the presentence report, not during the preliminary nor sentencing hearing did Koroluk offer an explanation for his actions.
Either he really doesn't know, or he refuses to confess what he was really doing out there with that little girl, and that just does not sit well.
The defence may have also made a couple of tactical errors as well by not pleading guilty earlier and by allowing the version of events as told by the victim at the preliminary hearing to be filed without offering any evidence to refute, in particular, the contention that Koroluk offered the girl money "if she was nice" and that he hit her.
"While the accused did not admit the evidence of S.A. taken at the preliminary hearing, the accused called no evidence at the sentencing hearing to refute the evidence of S.A.," Dawson wrote.
I can't guarantee these things would have made a difference in the sentence, but they would have gone a long way to moving them from the aggravating column to the mitigating column.
In any event, if you still have a problem with the sentence I would suggest your quibble is not with the courts or the justice system, but with the Criminal Code and the Charter.
If you want to see those change, keep voting for Harper.
