Did his 'status' play a role in his sentencing?

[v_tofu]

Article:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2009/11/05/mb-brock-golden-sentence-reduced-winnipeg.html



A Winnipeg man convicted of making child pornography and internet luring has had his sentence reduced.

Brock Golden, 28, son of former city councillor Al Golden, had his 30-month prison sentence shortened to 18 months by the Manitoba Court of Appeal on Thursday.

However, Justice Martin Freedman rejected the plea for a sentence to be served in the community.

Golden pleaded guilty in 2007 — and was sentenced in November 2008 — to luring two teenaged girls to a hotel room using the internet.

He contacted three girls — two 14 years old, one 15 — in an online chat room in 2005, saying he was looking for amateur models. He later met the girls in the middle of the night at a Winnipeg hotel room.

It was alleged he paid two of the girls $500 each to pose nude and perform sex acts on him. Police recovered 200 pictures of the incident from Golden's laptop.

At the sentencing, judge Ken Champagne noted Golden had been in therapy and that by pleading guilty he spared the girls from having to testify. But he still imposed the lengthy sentence, citing the seriousness of the offences.

In his appeal, Golden's lawyer, Saul Simmonds, said the punishment wasn't fair and that Champagne made errors in arriving at his decision. Simmonds also offered a glowing psychiatric report and said Golden was remorseful.

Golden, who was campaign manager for his father's failed bid to become Winnipeg's mayor in 2004, has been out on bail and attending school in Ontario pending the Appeal Court ruling.

In August, the Manitoba Court of Appeal granted him permission to move to the Kitchener-Waterloo, Ont., region to attend school while the matter was still being decided.

After Thursday's ruling, Golden was immediately placed in handcuffs and taken into custody.


So here you have a typical wealthy caucasian male. Very rich family, dad owns lots of businesses in the city, was a city councillor, part of the elite few in small city.. lures two minors and videotapes them performing sex acts, and gets a total of... (drum roll please)....18 months in prison. Thats right, 1.5 years. It could of been 18 months house arrest, but at least they rejected that...



So what do you think? did his "status" play a roll in his sentencing? I have a feeling that Mr. Chen from Lucky Moose might be in jail even longer than this dude.

[Jay Hova]

That's why I only read the sports when I get the paper...too much crap out there for me to digest, already have enough in my life.

[stealth]

I dunno, I guess it depends on what the usual sentence is for that sort of crime in that region.
And I have no idea.

[akosh]

Article:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2009/11/05/mb-brock-golden-sentence-reduced-winnipeg.html




So here you have a typical wealthy caucasian male. Very rich family, dad owns lots of businesses in the city, was a city councillor, part of the elite few in small city.. lures two minors and videotapes them performing sex acts, and gets a total of... (drum roll please)....18 months in prison. Thats right, 1.5 years. It could of been 18 months house arrest, but at least they rejected that...



So what do you think? did his "status" play a roll in his sentencing? I have a feeling that Mr. Chen from Lucky Moose might be in jail even longer than this dude.

Had he not paid them and taken pictures, it would have been perfectly legal back then.

[ullyeus]

I think the sentence is fair.

[ShadowVlican]

u can bet he has strings to pull in the background..

[corrupt123]

Did he know how old they were?

While I don't condone his actions (and at 14/15, he should have been able to tell or at least wanted to see ID) but I can't say I don't see a billion other posts on craigslist looking for chicks to pose naked.

[v_tofu]

I dunno, I guess it depends on what the usual sentence is for that sort of crime in that region.
And I have no idea.

Not sure what the usual sentence is, but I would have imagined internet luring AND having sex with minors would be alot more than 1.5 years.

[Emancipated]

Is statutory rape and 'regular' rape carry the same severity?

His initial sentence was 30 months and had a year knocked off probably for his plea bargain and yeah, you can never say a person's name or status has nothing to do with the treatment they get.

[Shaner]

I'm curious to hear from Nikita to see if his original sentence seems appropriate for the offence he was convicted of. Also, I'd like to know if it's common for a short sentence, such as the one he was originally sentenced to, to be reduced even further for the type of offence he was convicted of.

If this is a common practice in court for similar situations, then there's absolutely no proof that his status played a role whatsoever.

With that said though, a persons status almost always plays a role. If a person has a good job waiting for them and/or a wealthy family member or other wealthy connections in the community, then they are more likely to receive a sentence in the community, receive early parole, receitve a shorter sentence, etc. It's not so much due to that status, but it's due to the higher likelihood of successful rehabilitation.

[Shaner]

Is statutory rape and 'regular' rape carry the same severity?

His initial sentence was 30 months and had a year knocked off probably for his plea bargain and yeah, you can never say a person's name or status has nothing to do with the treatment they get.

There is no such charge as "rape" or "statutory rape." There's the charge of sexual assault, which includes rape, but actual penetration isn't required for this charge. Then there's numerous other charges in the Criminal Code which would be appropriate for having sex with a minor, although sexual assault could come into play as well, though not in this case as it appears it was consensual.

[Dash]

meh. 30 months seems relatively reasonable. It's not right what he did, but at the same time, the girls aren't incredibly young or naive. they should know better than to do what they did, and he should know better as well. It got reduced because he plead guilty, and showed remorse. His status "could" have made a difference, but then I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't. It depends on the precedent.

[Shaner]

It got reduced because he plead guilty, and showed remorse. His status "could" have made a difference, but then I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't. It depends on the precedent.

Reduced sentences for showing remorse is such a load of BS. Of course people are going to claim their remorseful if it gets them a lighter sentence, it doesn't mean they actually are. It's not hard to pretend to be sad for a couple hours while in court, it's just a shame that educated judges buy that crap. Many criminals aren't remorseful at all, they only regret that they got caught.

[Dash]

Reduced sentences for showing remorse is such a load of BS. Of course people are going to claim their remorseful if it gets them a lighter sentence, it doesn't mean they actually are. It's not hard to pretend to be sad for a couple hours while in court, it's just a shame that educated judges buy that crap. Many criminals aren't remorseful at all, they only regret that they got caught.

I don't disagree with that. but that is one of the factors in his reduced sentence, that has nothing to do with his "status". and something that could have been a set precedent in cases similar to his.

[Shaner]

I don't disagree with that. but that is one of the factors in his reduced sentence, that has nothing to do with his "status". and something that could have been a set precedent in cases similar to his.

True, wasn't arguing with you by any means, it just so happened I quoted your post.

[Nikita]

I'm curious to hear from Nikita to see if his original sentence seems appropriate for the offence he was convicted of. Also, I'd like to know if it's common for a short sentence, such as the one he was originally sentenced to, to be reduced even further for the type of offence he was convicted of.

If this is a common practice in court for similar situations, then there's absolutely no proof that his status played a role whatsoever.

With that said though, a persons status almost always plays a role. If a person has a good job waiting for them and/or a wealthy family member or other wealthy connections in the community, then they are more likely to receive a sentence in the community, receive early parole, receitve a shorter sentence, etc. It's not so much due to that status, but it's due to the higher likelihood of successful rehabilitation.

I'm not at all surprised with the 18 month sentence, especially in this country. And no I don't think it had anything to do with his status, except that that probably helped him get a good expensive lawyer. Most of those factors you mention in your last paragraph are exactly the type of mitigating factors that go into a sentence determination. And IMO it's entirely appropriate. Other important factors I'm sure the court considered would include that there was no violence involved, the complainants didn't have to testify, they likely weren't traumatized...at least it appears there was no evidence of trauma (hell let's be honest, girls that age have sex, not all, but these days most), he's likely not a threat to society, not likely to repeat this behaviour, not likely to engage in other criminal activity, his reputation is likely trashed already so he's already being punished in that way...and many other factors. So no, I'm not surprised, offeneded that this is pretty well the norm, but not surprised.

Reduced sentences for showing remorse is such a load of BS. Of course people are going to claim their remorseful if it gets them a lighter sentence, it doesn't mean they actually are. It's not hard to pretend to be sad for a couple hours while in court, it's just a shame that educated judges buy that crap. Many criminals aren't remorseful at all, they only regret that they got caught.

Well, Judges aren't stupid and they know that just saying "I'm remorseful" doesn't mean much. They don't just take an offender's word for it. Likely the Judge accepted his remorse based on the evidence, his actions he's taken since, the fact that he got therapy, the fact that he pled out, the fact that a shrink gave evidence of his remorse, not just him.

Though I may be offended at such lenient sentencing for these types of crimes, 18 months in jail is still going to be a living hell for him, a lifetime criminal record, being on the sex offender registry....all of that is part of the punishment aspect of the sentencing considerations. And he is doing all the right things to be a useful contributing member of society. IMO it's better to give this guy a second chance at being just that by having him spend 18 months in a provincial correctional facility than having him spent 2 and 1/2 years in a penetentiary among hardened criminals, which IMO lessens his chances of coming out a better person.

All of that said, yeah, I think the guy is scum when it comes to his sex life and his treatment of women (girls actually), but I don't see any good coming out of that defining the rest of his life when there is a very good chance of him never having another encounter with the criminal justice system.