Victim baffled by court ruling

[Hassel99]

Punishment would be a conviction.

She was convicted of assault, You don't get probation if you are acquitted.....

[Ken7]

You also missed the point. The article you attached summarizes all the type of hate crimes. That's not on point.

The point is and was that the accused was given probation for an assault, where there was evidence that it was motivated by racial bias. Thus according to Sect 718 of the Criminal Code of Canada a sentence should be increased to account for any relevant aggravating circumstances.
?

Prosecutor Karuna Ramakrishnan had tried to put Crowchief behind bars for 12 to 15 months by arguing that the indigenous woman's "unprovoked" actions represented a hate crime, the paper reported. But Judge Harry Van Harten of the provincial court strongly disagreed.

It would appear some believe this is a hate crime, that was my point. As some have no understanding of law, they too missed the point..... FIDO!

[JagXKR]

So Mr Van Harten is not wrong? I guess we don't need an appeals court. Well that should lessen the tax burden on the average citizen. Great knowing if a judge makes a decision that it's final. Good to here. Very glad the judges we have are infallible.

Or maybe he made a mistake in his ruling and has opened the door for hate crimes to avoid conviction due to this poor decision. Ahh no that's not right, it's like I said at first. Judges are infallible.

[fvkasm2x]

the person did do jail time so there was infact a punishment .

Not the point

[my5cents]

Prosecutor Karuna Ramakrishnan had tried to put Crowchief behind bars for 12 to 15 months by arguing that the indigenous woman's "unprovoked" actions represented a hate crime, the paper reported. But Judge Harry Van Harten of the provincial court strongly disagreed.

It would appear some believe this is a hate crime, that was my point. As some have no understanding of law, they too missed the point..... FIDO!

I've always said it wasn't a Hate Crime according to the definition of Hate Crime in the Criminal Code of Canada. I did say that it was an assault that contained relevant aggravating evidence that the assault was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate.

The judge got the sentencing wrong.

Ok let's break this down. For starters we are basing our arguments on what the press have said about the trial, that's always dangerous.

We can probably get some facts though....

I believe two charges were laid. (from the Calgary Herald) "judge Harry Van Harten did not buy the Crown's theory that the attack was a hate crime, clearing Crowchief of that charge....... Chrowchief was convicted of the assault and released on probation"

Now you illustrate that the prosecutor "tried to put Chrowchief behind bars for 12 to 15 months by arguing that the indigenous woman's unprovoked actions represented a hate crime....but ... Harten... strongly disagreed"

The order of events :
- Crowchief is is cleared of the charge of a hate crime
- Crowchief convicted of assault
- Prosecutor asks for 12 to 15 months (the media says) "calling it a hate crime"
- Judge doesn't buy hate crime, give probation

Crown speaks to sentencing, at what point in a trial ? After the accused is convicted.

What was the accused convicted of ? Assault.

The accused has been acquitted of the Hate Crime, so what's this about the prosecutor asking for 12 to 15 months for Hate Crime ? He's not, the reporters got it wrong, he's talking about Section 718 that covers more severe sentences for crimes (not hate crimes) where there is evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate.