Trusted officer pleads guilty in child molesting case

"MacCallum initially faced 25 sex-related criminal charges but pleaded guilty to the 10 counts. Another 10 counts of sexual assault were among the charges withdrawn."

"He'll be sentenced by Justice Peter Wilkie on Nov. 25. Crown Toni Skarica is seeking a jail sentence of two years less a day."

"A sergeant in Toronto's 22 Division, he was suspended with pay until he retired."

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/701450

The crown is seeking a 2 year less a day sentence only. This guy should also have to pay back all the money that he was paid during his suspension up to the day that he was charged. I don't understand why does the law forbid murders from writing books and profiting and yet officials in authority are allowed to do whatever they want and get to keep their pay as a bonus? Where is the justice?

Stories like that make me ill.

2 years? RUIN HIS LIFE.

Suspended with pay until retirement? That sounds like winning the lottery, not a punishment.

Originally Posted by deep

Stories like that make me ill.

2 years? RUIN HIS LIFE.

Suspended with pay until retirement? That sounds like winning the lottery, not a punishment.

+1 wtf?

Originally Posted by 13sundin

+1 wtf?

Fricking despicable - what do you have to do these days to get fired and lose your benefits etc ? Be a mass murderer?

Canada is such a soft society it sickens me

wow.… that is ridiculous. Does anyone know what the max and min penalties for this sort of thing is? I'm curious as to why they are only pushing for 2 years

Originally Posted by deep

Stories like that make me ill.

2 years? RUIN HIS LIFE.

Suspended with pay until retirement? That sounds like winning the lottery, not a punishment.

Originally Posted by Frankie3s

This guy should also have to pay back all the money that he was paid during his suspension up to the day that he was charged. I don't understand why does the law forbid murders from writing books and profiting and yet officials in authority are allowed to do whatever they want and get to keep their pay as a bonus? Where is the justice?

Are you really that dense that you don't understand basic employment law? The reason people get suspended with pay it because they are, just like you, innocent unti proven guilty in a court of law. If you take their pay away before conviction, they can sue their employer for not paying the salary they are obligated to pay.

It is a whole lot cheaper for the taxpayer just to pay until conviction and then terminate employment rather than suspend without pay, incurr the cost of a legal fight and lose a civil suit (with costs awarded).

Originally Posted by ghostryder

Are you really that dense that you don't understand basic employment law? The reason people get suspended with pay it because they are, just like you, innocent unti proven guilty in a court of law. If you take their pay away before conviction, they can sue their employer for not paying the salary they are obligated to pay.

It is a whole lot cheaper for the taxpayer just to pay until conviction and then terminate employment rather than suspend without pay, incurr the cost of a legal fight and lose a civil suit (with costs awarded).

Are you really that dense not to be able to read what I had posted? I said they should now go back to the day that he was charged and recover the money that was paid to him during his suspension (implied, now that he has been convicted). Please don't tell us that you went to public school.

Originally Posted by mojook

wow.… that is ridiculous. Does anyone know what the max and min penalties for this sort of thing is? I'm curious as to why they are only pushing for 2 years

Sexual interference

151. Every person who, for a sexual purpose, touches, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, any part of the body of a person under the age of 16 years

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of forty-five days; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of fourteen days.


Sexual exploitation

153. (1) Every person commits an offence who is in a position of trust or authority towards a young person, who is a person with whom the young person is in a relationship of dependency or who is in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of the young person, and who

(a) for a sexual purpose, touches, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, any part of the body of the young person; or

(b) for a sexual purpose, invites, counsels or incites a young person to touch, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, the body of any person, including the body of the person who so invites, counsels or incites and the body of the young person.

Punishment

(1.1) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of forty-five days; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of fourteen days

Definition of “young person”

(2) In this section, "young person" means a person 16 years of age or more but under the age of eighteen years.

Originally Posted by Frankie3s

Are you really that dense not to be able to read what I had posted? I said they should now go back to the day that he was charged and recover the money that was paid to him during his suspension (implied, now that he has been convicted). Please don't tell us that you went to public school.

And he could still sue since he is not guilty until the date of acutal conviction. From other news reports I have read it seems this guy is already retired.

Is it really cost effective to get into a protracted and costly legal battle that you (the employer) is most likely going to lose?

Originally Posted by deep

Stories like that make me ill.

2 years? RUIN HIS LIFE.

Suspended with pay until retirement? That sounds like winning the lottery, not a punishment.

Read the sentence closely. Until he retired, meaning past tense, as in he retired. He was suspended while they investigated, and he opted to take retirement, so his pay ended the day he retired, which just happens to be while he was still being investigated.

As someone going into Policing, this is definitely incredibly disturbing.

I've always been very critical of the situations that Police are faced with throughout the course of their career and how that may manifest into something dangerous. Ultimately, I'd like to see regular psychological evaluations mandatory for officers.

At the same time, many people go into a particular field for a reason -- sometimes based on past negative experiences. I always found a sense of irony in that many Police, psychologically disturbed themselves, are meant to help others. It's similar to how most Psychologists are crack pots (stereotype).

More-so than the cops actions (as wrong as they are) I'm more miffed at the parents that didn't report it.

This guy is sick. what is disturbing is/was the parents were scared to report to police. This should not happen in Canada.

Originally Posted by RiCHC3

As someone going into Policing, this is definitely incredibly disturbing.

I've always been very critical of the situations that Police are faced with throughout the course of their career and how that may manifest into something dangerous. Ultimately, I'd like to see regular psychological evaluations mandatory for officers.

At the same time, many people go into a particular field for a reason -- sometimes based on past negative experiences. I always found a sense of irony in that many Police, psychologically disturbed themselves, are meant to help others. It's similar to how most Psychologists are crack pots (stereotype).

More-so than the cops actions (as wrong as they are) I'm more miffed at the parents that didn't report it.

Yeah, I feel very sorry for the victims - and in some way, for the Police Officer too. I don't think he became a Police Officer so he could "get away" with things like that, I think as life progressed things just got bad for him.

As bad as the situation is, I do think the Police Officer himself had some problems that should've been addressed - and you're entirely right, they should have recurring psychiatric evaluations - they do deal with alot of trauma, e.g domestic disputes, dead bodies, close friends dying, etc, etc. This probably could've been prevented.

Originally Posted by ghostryder

Sexual interference

151. Every person who, for a sexual purpose, touches, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, any part of the body of a person under the age of 16 years

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of forty-five days; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of fourteen days.


Sexual exploitation

153. (1) Every person commits an offence who is in a position of trust or authority towards a young person, who is a person with whom the young person is in a relationship of dependency or who is in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of the young person, and who

(a) for a sexual purpose, touches, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, any part of the body of the young person; or

(b) for a sexual purpose, invites, counsels or incites a young person to touch, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, the body of any person, including the body of the person who so invites, counsels or incites and the body of the young person.

Punishment

(1.1) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of forty-five days; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of fourteen days

Definition of “young person”

(2) In this section, "young person" means a person 16 years of age or more but under the age of eighteen years.

The minimum's may not apply as they are recent amendments to the code. From reading the article, it appears the offences occurred prior to the minimums.

"Her parents never reported it to police for "fear of their safety," Thomson said. He said a mother of one of his 12-year-old victims also didn't report the assault because she "didn't want to ruin his career.""

Didn't want to ruin his career????? Wtf????

If anyone laid a finger on my baby, I'm ruining his f-kin face and his life, without skipping a heartbeat.

And the crown is looking for a 2yr sentence, to which the defence will argue its too harsh and he'll get half that.