Most people who are aware of the Graham James sexual assault cases likely know he received a fairly light sentence yesterday for sexually molesting two teenage boys, by all accounts hundreds of times, when they played minor hockey under his supervision and tutelage many years ago. He’s done jail time before, for similar crimes against other boys.
Yesterday in court in Winnipeg, James was sentenced to two years in jail. But Bruce Owen of the Winnipeg Free Press reports James’s two-year sentence is “actually two two-year sentences, to be served concurrently;” meaning the two sentences are rolled into one two-year sentence. Thus, although we can infer James technically got four years, he does not have to serve the two year sentences consecutively.
Victims Teen Hockey Players
This latest sentence for James was “for repeatedly and systematically sexually abusing former NHL star Theoren Fleury and Todd Holt, Fleury's younger cousin, when he coached them as teenagers during the 1980s and early 1990s” (Bruce Owen, Winnipeg Free Press). James was released from prison in 2000 after his first conviction for similar offences against former NHL player Sheldon Kennedy--when Kennedy, like Fleury and Holt, was a teenager under James’s supervision and control in minor hockey.
Kennedy was the first one to blow the whistle on James several years ago. His enormous courage undoubtedly made it easier for James’s other victims, such as Fleury and Holt, to speak up and reclaim their own dignity and lives. In the case involving Kennedy, James served about 18 months of a 3 1/2-year sentence.
Latest Sentence Appalling
According to the Winnipeg Free Press, as a result of yesterday’s sentence James “is eligible for day parole in September, when he will have served six months. He's eligible for full parole when he serves one-third of his sentence, meaning he could be released in November.” The Crown had asked for a six-year sentence, while James’s defense lawyer asked for a conditional sentence with no jail time.
From the outside looking in, James’s latest sentence could be interpreted as one year in prison per boy: one year for scores of sexual assaults on each of the two victims. To me, this concurrent sentence, especially for James, a repeat sexual predator and sexual assaulter of vulnerable and helpless teen boys in his care and control, is an abomination.
From the outside looking in, James’s latest sentence could be interpreted as one year in prison per boy: one year for scores of sexual assaults on each of the two victims. To me, this concurrent sentence, especially for James, a repeat sexual predator and sexual assaulter of vulnerable and helpless teen boys in his care and control, is an abomination.
The Crown has 30 days to decide on appealing the sentence. Considering James's notorious status as a repeat sex offender against young boys, I suggest the Crown should appeal yesterday's sentence as vigorously as possible.
Sympathy for the Devil
To the casual observer, James seems to have gotten quite a break from Provincial Court Judge Catherine Carlson. I was not in that courtroom for any of the proceedings, but her priorities during sentencing seem seriously skewed. Yet, in fairness, maybe she saw something from the bench, not perceived by anyone else, that justified her lenient sentence for James. Or maybe she didn’t see or perceive enough.
James's sentence yesterday seems to reflect Carlson's lack of appreciation and understanding about the well-documented negative effects of sexual assault on James’s victims; despite her articulate description of what James actually did to Fleury and Holt. She reportedly said James is a master manipulator who preyed on Holt and Fleury, coercing sex from them in exchange for keeping alive their dreams of playing professional hockey.
"If they said anything about the assaults, they believed, and in fact it was so, that Mr. James could have put an end to their hockey aspirations. Mr. James could essentially do what he wanted to do to them and could rely on their compliance and silence because he controlled whether they would get the chance at what they really wanted or would have their dreams crushed. And so Mr. Fleury and Mr. Holt became mired in putting up with Mr. James' sexual assaults on them, and not saying anything about them to anyone, in the hopes that they could just keep playing hockey and maybe, one day, reach the National Hockey League," the judge is quoted as saying.
Even so, sadly, Carlson seemed to sympathize more with James, the widely-reviled repeat sexual predator and sexual assaulter of teen boys, than she did with his helpless victims. She seemed bamboozled by James’s apology. With his history as a manipulator, is it not possible he apologized--perhaps on the advice of his lawyer--merely to manipulate the judge into sympathizing with him and getting a lighter sentence?
Even so, sadly, Carlson seemed to sympathize more with James, the widely-reviled repeat sexual predator and sexual assaulter of teen boys, than she did with his helpless victims. She seemed bamboozled by James’s apology. With his history as a manipulator, is it not possible he apologized--perhaps on the advice of his lawyer--merely to manipulate the judge into sympathizing with him and getting a lighter sentence?
Predator Became Victim?
Clearly, Carlson seemed to have some insight into James’s character, deviant sexual behavior and untold numbers of sexual assaults on vulnerable teen boys in his care and control. Yet, she seems to have allowed the predator to become the victim in her courtroom. She indicated she had to consider James’s personal discomfort and misfortunes; including the "relentless" media scrutiny he’s had to endure since being charged and convicted.
"Mr. James has experienced an extreme degree of public humiliation,” said Carlson. “Indeed, Mr. James' career and reputation have been ruined. He is, of course, the author of his own misfortune. But while publicity and stigma are ordinary incidents of the criminal justice system and are not always cause for mitigation of sentence, the fact that the intense media scrutiny of Mr. James has lasted for such a prolonged period of time and has been relentless is a factor to consider," the judge is quoted as saying at James’s sentencing.
Yes, poor Graham James.
The sentence and Carlson's comments suggest she perceived herself as a social worker or a nun out to save Graham James’s soul; not a jurist meting out a punishment to fit his crime of being a repeat sexual offender against children. The sentence suggests Carlson seemed more concerned about giving a figurative hankie to James to help him cope with all he’s been through after he sexually assaulted the teenage boys under his power. This is part of the reason the light sentence she imposed on him is so distasteful, to say the least.
In Carlson's apparent bid to sympathize more with James, the offender, than with the victims of his horrific crimes, she reportedly said he has made 'strides' since his first conviction in 1997, after Kennedy filed his complaint. In this context, Carlson noted James apparently has been learning to cope with his sexual deviancy--he's attracted to adolescent boys and has a foot fetish--since he was first released from prison. But in this case, what does ‘learning to cope’ mean? Maybe to James it means learning new ways to not get caught.
Published reports of the sentencing also indicate Carlson said James has stayed out of trouble since 1997 and found a job with a Montreal software company. But who said James has stayed out of trouble? If he said that, about himself, the judge might want to consider the source. It’s entirely possible James has not stayed out of trouble since 1997 as Carlson seems to blindly believe. Maybe he has offended again but just hasn’t been caught. Maybe there are new victims who just haven't come forward. Yet, I realize this is hypothetical, and the judge can deal with only what she knows with certainty, or with what she believes.
Published reports of the sentencing also indicate Carlson said James has stayed out of trouble since 1997 and found a job with a Montreal software company. But who said James has stayed out of trouble? If he said that, about himself, the judge might want to consider the source. It’s entirely possible James has not stayed out of trouble since 1997 as Carlson seems to blindly believe. Maybe he has offended again but just hasn’t been caught. Maybe there are new victims who just haven't come forward. Yet, I realize this is hypothetical, and the judge can deal with only what she knows with certainty, or with what she believes.
Victims ‘Only Boys?’
Since the present case is not James’s first conviction and prison sentence for crimes of this nature, we can reasonably wonder about the real reason for the judge's proverbial slap on the wrist for James and slap in the face for Fleury and Holt. Did Carlson—consciously or unconsciously—decide James’s crimes really weren’t that serious because his victims were ‘only boys?’ Did she decide that as athletic boys they should have somehow been able to ward off James’ sexual assaults, more so than girls of the same age might have been able to do if they were sexually assaulted?
If James’s victims were teenage girls, who were physically weaker than well-developed male teen hockey players, would his sentence yesterday have been more-severe? This is hypothetical of course, since James is apparently sexually attracted only or primarily to teen boys. But the question I raise about this is worth considering, nevertheless. I can’t be the only person in the country wondering about this.
Victim Critical of Sentence
One of James’s victims in the latest court case, Todd Holt, was critical of Carlson’s obvious sympathy and empathy for James: “Graham James once again…spread his sickness right through the courts of Canada. He conned the judge with his 'poor me' and 'I regret' statements. His lawyer defended the indefensible, and he's been rewarded for doing so…Graham James is laughing all the way back to the life he's always led knowing that justice for him is but a blip on the radar" (http://www.theprovince.com/news/Fleury+slams+James+sentence/6334953/story.html).
Pardon Me?
Astoundingly, Graham James was actually pardoned by the National Parole Board in 2007 for his first convictions involving Kennedy and another teenage boy, but news of the pardon became public only in 2010.
When James’s pardon became known two years ago, the Canadian Press reported that “Virtually any criminal can apply for a pardon--either three or five years after a sentence has been served, depending on the severity of the crime. The current law gives the parole board only a few grounds for rejecting the applications of ex-convicts. One reason would be if they didn't exhibit good behaviour after their sentenced ended. According to government records, James was one of 14,748 Canadians given a pardon in 2006-07, while 103 people were refused… A pardon does not erase a person's criminal record, but can make it easier for an ex-convict to get a job and travel abroad” (http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=316693).
Changes to System
Graham James apparently will have a harder time getting a pardon after his latest convictions and jail time for sexual assaults, according to Bruce Cheadle and Jim Bronskill of The Canadian Press on March 4, 2012 (http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/pricey-new-pardons-come-with-processing-wait-times-of-up-to-two-years-141343083.html).
Cheadle and Bronskill say Canadians seeking a criminal record suspension under a new, more expensive pardon system could wait two years or more for their application to be processed, and even then might learn they've been rejected. “Details published by the government this week show that…the Parole Board of Canada anticipates longer processing times and other changes to the system of granting pardons.
According to Cheadle and Bronskill the changes are part of reforms begun after Graham James was quietly issued a routine pardon in 2007. Parliament quickly agreed in June 2010 to ensure no pardon is granted that would bring the "administration of justice into disrepute"--meaning more intensive and time-consuming scrutiny of applications. Since then, the government has proposed that those such as James who are convicted of serious sexual offences are ineligible to ever receive a pardon. Under Bill C-10; lesser offenders will have to wait five years instead of three before they can apply; and those who have completed a sentence for an indictable offence will have to wait 10 years instead of five (http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/pricey-new-pardons-come-with-processing-wait-times-of-up-to-two-years-141343083.html).
No comments:
Post a Comment