Covicted FENTANYL Dealer gets probation

[LordEd]

It is my understanding that sentencing is supposed to achieve some goals.

56] In R. v. Priest, supra, [(1996), 1996 CanLII 1381 (ON CA), 110 C.C.C. (3d) 289 (Ont. C.A.)] the trial judge sentenced a youthful first offender to a custodial term on the ground that a custodial term was required for the purpose of general deterrence in light of the prevalence of the offence of break and enter in the community. Rosenberg J.A. held, at 294-295, that the trial judge had erred by over-emphasizing general deterrence:

The primary objectives in sentencing a first offender are individual deterrence and rehabilitation. Except for very serious offences and offences involving violence, this court has held that these objectives are not only paramount but best achieved by either a suspended sentence and probation or a very short term of imprisonment followed by a term of probation.

Also reauired to meet the below to go outside the range.

Exceptional circumstances may include a combination of no criminal record, significant and objectively identifiable steps towards rehabilitation for the drug addict, gainful employment, remorse and acknowledgement of the harm done to society as a result of the offences, as opposed to harm done to the offender as a result of being caught. This is a non-exhaustive list, but at the end of the day, there must be circumstances that are above and beyond the norm to justify a non-custodial sentence. There must be something that would lead a sentencing judge to conclude that the offender had truly turned his or her life around, and that the protection of the public was subsequently better served by a non-custodial sentence. However, Parliament, while not removing a non-custodial sentence for this type of offence, has concluded that CSO sentences are not available. Thus, it will be the rare case where the standard of exceptional circumstances is met.

[dogspoiler]

I stand corrected, the objective of coddling has been achieved.

[the truth]

Bring back the lash. If these leftist bleeding heart do-gooder judges are so concerned about overcrowded jails, let's just have a sentence administered, and in public, too. A few lashes when he begins his probation.

yup

[the truth]

Throw the lame judge in jail for stupidity.

this judge should be fired

[LordEd]

Well since it's clear nobody likes the direction taken by the judge, the next step is to contact your MP and ask that a mandatory minimum sentence be added to this crime.

Point to this case.

[Queen K]

Here's the decision: http://canlii.ca/t/h8z30

Basically 19 year old, no other criminal record.

What if that same 19 year old had been responsible for dealing the drugs where 5 people died on one night in Abbottsford? Does death make a difference or as long as no one dies?

[Bsuds]

How would they even determine if the drugs he sold killed someone?

Dealing drugs needs to be considered manslaughter no matter what.

[LordEd]

My thoughts are it would be an additional crime, but I'm not sure.

http://canlii.ca/t/gx85h
In this one here, they got 14 years. Significantly larger operation than the discussed case here. Also indicated there was no evidence of deaths resulting from these deals.

An interesting point inside though:

[63] The scourge of recent deaths in the community cannot help but lead to anger and emotion. I have a role to play in addressing the harm that comes from fentanyl, but my sentence must be focused on Mr. McCormick’s moral culpability, as opposed to a reaction based on vengeance. Vengeance plays no role in the criminal justice system. In R. v. M. (C.A.), 1996 CanLII 230 (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500, C.J. Lamer said the following:
Vengeance, as I understand it, represents an uncalibrated act of harm upon another, frequently motivated by emotion and anger, as a reprisal for harm inflicted upon oneself by that person. Retribution in a criminal context, by contrast, represents an objective, reasoned and measured determination of an appropriate punishment which properly reflects the moral culpability of the offender, having regard to the intentional risk-taking of the offender, the consequential harm caused by the offender, and the normative character of the offender's conduct. Furthermore, unlike vengeance, retribution incorporates a principle of restraint; retribution requires the imposition of a just and appropriate punishment, and nothing more.