Judges gives youth open custody and community service for first time youth offender- - A move in the right direction

'It boggles the mind' - - Judges awards open custody for unprovoked beating

A 17-year-old male has been sentenced to 10 1/2 months custody and community supervision for his part in a vicious, unprovoked attack on a 45-year-old man.

The victim was walking home with his 22-year-old son when he was swarmed by the accused and five other youths underneath the Osborne Street bridge, shortly before midnight, July 3, 2009.

The man was punched, kicked and beaten with a wooden stick before being robbed of his wallet and car keys, court was told.

He suffered three broken ribs, two black eyes and cuts and bruises to his face and head.

“It’s inexplicable, the violent and unprovoked nature of the attack,” said Judge Carena Roller. “It boggles the mind.”

The boy — who was 16 years old at the time and had no prior record — pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated assault.

The maximum sentence under the Youth Criminal Justice Act is two years custody and community supervision.

The victim’s son flagged down police officers who arrived at the scene to find the accused still standing over the victim.

The boy admitted to beating the victim with a stick but claimed he had no memory of the attack because he was drunk.

Roller allowed the youth to serve his sentence in open custody, meaning he is eligible for temporary absences.

Crown attorney Lisa Carson argued the severity of the attack didn’t justify open custody.

“The criminal culpability and moral culpability here is high,” she said.

The boy will serve seven months of his sentence in custody and the balance under community supervision.

Roller sentenced him to an additional 12 months supervised probation.

First of all, by saying 'it boggles the mind', implies that this was the wrong decision to "award" open custody, when really, it's a move in the right direction. This wil give the public the distorted perception that we need harsher penalties, when they aren't even given the other side. This is a biased article.

I definitely agree with this sentence, compared to the alternative of the maximum 2 years custody and community supervision. He is a first time offender and admitted to the attack, but was intoxicated which would have impaired his judgment. Therefore, he should not be sentenced harshly, especially under the YCJA which focuses upon rehabilitation and reintegration of youths.  

Teen girl with role in killing gets another chance at freedom

Young killer gets chance at freedom

Killer teen allowed to live in group home again

Runaway killer deserves fourth chance: Judge

- One of the youngest killers in Winnipeg will be getting another chance at freedom.
- The 16-year-old girl -- who was 12 when she participated in the October 2006 killing of Audrey Cooper -- was released from jail Thursday afternoon despite recently running away from her court-ordered treatment centre.
- She had previously been convicted of manslaughter last summer and received the maximum sentence of 3 years custody and supervision under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
- She was arrested and taken into custody last October after she repeatedly ran away from a group home for troubled youth.
- Rejected Crown's argument to have her held behind bars until she turns 18 but warned this will be her final chance.
- Her probation officer believes she has learned her lesson.

- She is willing to attempt to make it work
- At the hearing yesterday, Crown argued that the girl showed no respect for court orders and should serve the remainder of her sentence in custody at the MB Youth Centre.
- The Judge ruled that the girl be released from custody and live at the group home, where she can get the help she needs.
- He said, “I believe the four months in custody are sufficient to show her what will happen if she does it again"
- Earlier this month, two now 17-year-old girls pleaded guilty to second-degree murder for their parts in the killing. A sentencing date is expected to be set next month.
- The maximum youth sentence for second-degree murder is seven years, of which three years or more must be served under community supervision.
- The girls have already spent nearly 31/2 years in custody.
- A now 18-year-old male co-accused is set to stand trial in June.

- The teen was sentenced last year to the maximum three-year sentence under the Youth Criminal Justice Act for her role in Cooper’s death. Queen's Bench Justice assigned her seven 1/2 months of pre-trial custody as credit, then filled out the rest of the term with 28 1/2 months of community supervision, which takes the girl to her 18th birthday.

- She was ordered to live at a local group home under 24-hour supervision until she is no longer a youth. She was warned that any breaches means the rest of her sentence could be converted to jail time.

- She fled the facility and escaped on three different occasions, the final time happening in October when she was caught hiding in a closet at her parent’s home, court was told. She has spent the past four months in custody.

- This was a breach of her court ordered conditions. 

- Defence told court the group home is supporting her release from jail and has a bed available for her. They plan to tighten supervision of his client and limit her contact with her family, who raised her in a climate of abuse and neglect which included being taught how to snort cocaine by her mother.

- Cooper was beaten until she was unrecognizable, stripped and then urinated on by a group of laughing teens who tossed loose change on her body as they fled. She was chosen randomly. 

- Suffered 64 separate injuries in the unprovoked attack, including seven broken ribs, a lacerated liver, swelling that shut both of her eyes and bleeding on the brain. Police arrested four suspects -- the 12-year-old girl, two 14-year-old girls and a 15-year-old boy. Three of the suspects remain before the courts.
- A report prepared for the 16-year-old girl’s sentencing last summer described her as “remorseless” and “entrenched” in the gang lifestyle.
- Court heard the girl’s mother and father — both residential school survivors — provided her with no parental guidance and that her mother showed her how to smoke crack. 

It's a horrible tragedy that this 34 year old woman was killed. But they key word in this case, is that this teen played a ROLE in the killing, but did not directly kill this woman, as the headline of this newspaper story suggests. I believe that with tighter supervision, this girl can obey the rules and be rehabilitated and helped through the treatment centre. I have sympathy towards her as she was raised in an abusive and neglected family life, where her mom demonstrated to her how to use cocaine. With such a family life, it's no wonder that this girl started hanging out with the deviant crowd of teens that obviously had a poor influence on this teen girl. 

She is not dangerous and did not attempt to even commit an offence when she fled. She was hiding. By being in prison, she would just be exposed to more pro criminal teens with their attitudes and behaviours, which is not trying to remove her from the lifestyle in which facilitated this incident in the first place. She needs to removed from pro criminal people (who are in prison) and placed in the group home, where she can get help, meet new people and try to change the conditions of her lifestyle to become more positive (not abusive). 

From the comments on the WFP website, people are outraged and are wanting capital punishment and life sentences. This will not fix anything and is inhumane and barbaric. This teen needs help, not more pro criminal people surrounding her. They have good reason to be upset though, because the media is probably the only source of their criminal justice system knowledge and many media articles display bias in favour of a certain side leading individuals to believe a certain idea. They also only report on when the system malfunctions, such as someone getting a shot at freedom and not when everything works out fine, which is the majority of the time.

I agree that these teens should have known the difference between right and wrong, but I believe that this 12 year old girl, could have been influenced or pressured by the others, and may not have known.    

Crown seeks custody for young killer after escape and Defence seeks another chance at freedom

Crown seeks custody for young killer after escape

- A 16 year old girl, who was 12 when she participated in the killing of Audrey Cooper in October 2006, was recently caught hiding inside a closet in her parents' home after running away from her court-ordered treatment.
- Crown is seeking to have her kept behind bars until she turns 18. 
- Defence wants his client to be given another chance at freedom. 
- Queen's Bench Judge is expected to rule on the case today.

- Cooper was a random target. She was beaten until she was unrecognizable, stripped and then urinated on by a group of laughing teens who tossed loose change on her body as they fled.

- The 34 year old suffered 64 separate injuries in the unprovoked attack, including seven broken ribs, a lacerated liver, swelling that shut both of her eyes and bleeding on the brain. Police arrested four suspects -- the 12-year-old girl, two 14-year-old girls and a 15-year-old boy. Three of the suspects remain before the courts.

- The teen girl was sentenced last year to the maximum 3 year sentence under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

- She received 7 and a half months pre-trial custody as credit with the remaining 28 and a half months of her sentence served under community supervision, which would lead up to her 18th birthday.

- She was ordered to live at a local group home under 24-hour supervision until she is no longer a youth. She was warned that any breaches means the rest of her sentence could be converted to jail time.

- Defence said that the facility is supporting her release from custody. His client grew up in a climate of abuse and neglect and was even taught how to snort cocaine by her mother.

I think that this teen should be given another chance at freedom. I agree with the Defence in that she comes from a difficult background of abuse and neglect and should be given another chance at rehabilitation. These factors could have been part of the cause of the crime she helped to commit. She was probably influenced by the teens she was with and her background probably lead to her gravitate towards those "type" of peers, who shared similar circumstances. She did not do anything dangerous after she escaped and I support rehabilitation and feel she should continue to serve her time in the community with conditions.