There are certain crimes that are so repugnant to society that they are never forgiven.
The most obvious example is possession of child pornography. Someone convicted of that crime -- indeed even someone accused of that crime -- can never be rehabilitated.
A murderer can, after time, be re accepted back in society but not someone convicted of possessing child porn.
Now one can debate if this makes sense -- are there really good reasons to treat possession of child pornography so differently from other crimes -- but it is the reality. And recognising the reality we have to be specially careful not to rush to judgment in child pornography cases.
Here, of course, I am thinking of the Nova Scotia bishop.
He's been charged and accused -- but before he is labelled guilty let's have a trial. Perhaps the laptop seized was shared by several people -- the laptop I have at work is used by anyone in my office who has to travel. Perhaps there is some other explanation.
Let's see if we have a conviction before we conduct sentencing.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
1 comment:
Trial by media is nothing new, and frankly I would be quite content to see an overall ban on the publication of the names of ANYONE accused of any crime. Unless the person is wanted by police, I really don't see any pressing need for a person that is presumed innocent under the law, to be 'outed' to the public. Does it serve the public good to identify the accused? I think one could have a good debate on that subject.
You will never see the media cover a story with the same zeal when someone is found not guilty. What was headline news when a person was arrested, becomes page 12 of section H when they are found not guilty.
To me the story with the bishop is troubling, not necessarily because of the content he supposedly had on his laptop, but because his laptop was screened and then he was allowed to leave. Surely if he had prohibited content on his machine they should have arrested him right then and there. Either the content is child porn, or it is not.
It's like screening someone at the airport, finding drugs in their bag, and then giving them back the drugs and sending them home - only to put out an arrest warrant later.
The fact he was allowed to leave suggests reasonable doubt right off the top. (In my opinion anyway.)
Post a Comment