To decide the appeal, the Supreme Court examined a scenario in which an 18-year-old receives an explicit photo of a friend's 17-year-old girlfriend.
Justice Mary Moreau wrote on the behalf of the majority that “in the age of digital communication” that last scenario “is not uncommon.”
She said while the actions of the offender in this scenario are serious, they fall on the low end of the gravity scale for crimes of possessing child pornography.
Imposing a sentence of one year's imprisonment on the 18-year-old representative offender — when a fit punishment would be a conditional discharge with strict probationary terms — would constitute a grossly disproportionate sentence, she said.
The top court said it was only weighing the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentences, and not whether the sentences imposed on the two men were appropriate.
Conservatives just want to hurt people. A young couple in "love" share nudes. Kid turns 18, is now an adult with childporn. Doug doesn't want judge's discretion, he wants to hurt people through the lens of black and white glasses.
He, and his voters are too stupid to understand nuance, or context.
His brother Rob loved to do drugs with his football kids. Where's the outrage Douggie?!?! Where's the mandatory minimums there motherfucker?!
The Premier was the Premiere hashdealer of Etobicoke. Where the mandatory minimums bitch!
Emphasis my own:
Conservatives just want to hurt people. A young couple in "love" share nudes. Kid turns 18, is now an adult with childporn. Doug doesn't want judge's discretion, he wants to hurt people through the lens of black and white glasses.
He, and his voters are too stupid to understand nuance, or context.
His brother Rob loved to do drugs with his football kids. Where's the outrage Douggie?!?! Where's the mandatory minimums there motherfucker?!
The Premier was the Premiere hashdealer of Etobicoke. Where the mandatory minimums bitch!
That's an extreme clickbait title
They know this is an issue that turns off people's critical thinking.
Wut