Defence argues mandatory minimum sentence cruel and unusual because Nathan William MacKenzie, 39, of Geary, possessed few illegal images quite some time ago
Cruel and unusual punishment???? We're talking CHILD PORNOGRAPHY!!!! This lawyer is really scraping the bottom of the barrel for excuses to lessen this guy's sentence.
Such constitutional challenges have become common in such cases, so much so that it's really something defence lawyers need to examine so as to fulfil their duty to clients. In fact, if defence counsel didn't file this application, it's possible he could have faced disciplinary action for not representing his client's interests zealously.
Demonizing a lawyer for practising law properly makes no sense whatsoever. There's no need to extend one's disgust for someone guilty of objectifying children sexually to the professional tasked with ensuring the system operates within the strict confines of the law. This is also how the law evolves, but testing them and ensuring they conform to the principles of the Charter.
From the way this is playing out, the scenario I am envisioning here is as follows
- Man starts a collection of porn as a teenager.
- Said porn is what appeals to a teenager, and some of the girls may be under 18.
- Their actual age may or may not have been known by the man at this time.
- Man never cleans up his porn
- X years later, for some reason that is unclear, the police forensically audit his PC and/or cloud and discover said ancient porn.
I have zero facts to back this up other than the argument the defense just gave, which lines up with this idea. I wish we could learn more about the evidence presented.
I don't have any experience in this. I was surprised to learn the public can't even get a copy of the transcript without submitting a request and paying $3 / page, which seems ridiculous in an age where this is all automated and digital
Official transcripts of audio proceedings in court are not generated automatically. A stenographer has to transcribe it by listening closely to the recording, typing it as they go along. It's quite work intensive. The technology exists for a computer to generate the transcript automatically, yes, but it's not infallible, so to ensure accuracy, it's required to be done the old-school way. Which is work intensive.
Cruel and unusual punishment???? We're talking CHILD PORNOGRAPHY!!!! This lawyer is really scraping the bottom of the barrel for excuses to lessen this guy's sentence.
Such constitutional challenges have become common in such cases, so much so that it's really something defence lawyers need to examine so as to fulfil their duty to clients. In fact, if defence counsel didn't file this application, it's possible he could have faced disciplinary action for not representing his client's interests zealously.
Demonizing a lawyer for practising law properly makes no sense whatsoever. There's no need to extend one's disgust for someone guilty of objectifying children sexually to the professional tasked with ensuring the system operates within the strict confines of the law. This is also how the law evolves, but testing them and ensuring they conform to the principles of the Charter.
From the way this is playing out, the scenario I am envisioning here is as follows
- Man starts a collection of porn as a teenager.
- Said porn is what appeals to a teenager, and some of the girls may be under 18.
- Their actual age may or may not have been known by the man at this time.
- Man never cleans up his porn
- X years later, for some reason that is unclear, the police forensically audit his PC and/or cloud and discover said ancient porn.
I have zero facts to back this up other than the argument the defense just gave, which lines up with this idea. I wish we could learn more about the evidence presented.
I don't have any experience in this. I was surprised to learn the public can't even get a copy of the transcript without submitting a request and paying $3 / page, which seems ridiculous in an age where this is all automated and digital
Official transcripts of audio proceedings in court are not generated automatically. A stenographer has to transcribe it by listening closely to the recording, typing it as they go along. It's quite work intensive. The technology exists for a computer to generate the transcript automatically, yes, but it's not infallible, so to ensure accuracy, it's required to be done the old-school way. Which is work intensive.
Prosecution files aren't available to the public. Court files are -- to a degree.