‘Collateral victim’ of residential schools gets 15 months for burning child 27 times with cigarette, - Polidicks

[url]http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/collateral-victim-of-residential-schools-gets-15-months-for-burning-child-27-times-with-cigarette-lighter[/url] [quote]MONTREAL — A Quebec aboriginal man who repeatedly burned a five-year-old girl with a cigarette, leaving permanent scars on her face, arms, legs and genitalia, has been given a lenient sentence after a judge determined he is a “collateral victim” of residential school abuse. Alain Bellemare, an Atikamekw from Wemotaci, Que., about 270 kilometres north of Montreal, was convicted of aggravated assault last June, and Crown prosecutor Éric Thériault sought a four-year prison term on the grounds that serious crimes against children have to be forcefully denounced. He noted that the 2011 assaults caused 27 third-degree burns — 25 from a cigarette and two from a lighter. The victim, who cannot be identified, was left to suffer without medical treatment. But in sentencing Bellemare to 15 months on April 1, Quebec Court Judge Guy Lambert said the lingering effect of residential schools had to be taken into account under federal sentencing guidelines. [/quote] [quote]Bellemare, who was 21 at the time of the assaults, is too young to have attended a residential school, as are his parents. But he grew up in an abusive household that the court heard was a legacy of residential school abuse suffered by his grandparents. All four of his grandparents were removed from the community to attend residential schools. The judge said Bellemare is among the “collateral victims of residential schools and of the cultural genocide that the Atikamekws of Wemotaci experienced.” He agreed that the violence inflicted by Bellemare was “serious, revolting and must be denounced to protect other children who are victims of violence.” [B]But he concluded that the four years sought by the Crown was excessive in light of the accused’s aboriginal heritage.[/B] [/quote] [quote]The defence had asked for a suspended sentence and three years probation. The judge said the fact that Bellemare denied in court that he burned the child, even though he earlier confessed to police, was cause for concern. Bellemare, who admitted to heavy methamphetamine use at the time of the assault, claimed that he thought the girl’s scars were from chicken pox. A pediatrician testified that the scars were clearly caused by a cigarette and a lighter and that they would never disappear. The trial heard testimony from the victim identifying Bellemare as the attacker. The girl said she “screamed and cried, because it hurt,” Lambert noted in his ruling finding Bellemare guilty. “She does not know in how many places the accused touched her with his cigarette.” [/quote]

What the fuck.

That's some white ass apologetic bullshit right there

What the fuck is wrong with this person? That's fucking child abuse. Why would you even consider putting a lit cigarette out on a child's body? Let alone her genitalia? That's fucking sick.

[QUOTE=mugofdoom;50103306]What the fuck is wrong with this person? [/QUOTE] [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_school_system#Lasting_effects_of_residential_schools]That's an amazingly loaded question.[/url]

[QUOTE=pentium;50103359][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_school_system#Lasting_effects_of_residential_schools]That's an amazingly loaded question.[/url][/QUOTE] It's sad but it's not an excuse nor does he deserve a lighter sentence just because he is aboriginal. Furthermore [quote]Bellemare, who was 21 at the time of the assaults, [B]is too young to have attended a residential school, as are his parents.[/B][/quote]

[QUOTE=Thlis;50103464]It's sad but it's not an excuse nor does he deserve a lighter sentence just because he is aboriginal. Furthermore[/QUOTE] Did you read past the snippit you're quoting? Like, the next sentence?

[QUOTE=Duck M.;50103482]Did you read past the snippit you're quoting? Like, the next sentence?[/QUOTE] How does it justify what he did to the child or make it any way empathetic? A Jewish/Roma person that is born a generation after the holocaust doesn't justify them abusing a child or make it any less heinous a crime. It is irrelevant to the issue. And consider the livelihood of the child that had been scarred for life, does she not deserve justice? This abuser, that lied during testimony, is getting off on a lighter sentence because of his race.

[QUOTE=Thlis;50103499]How does it justify what he did to the child or make it any way empathetic? A Jewish person that is born a generation after the holocaust doesn't justify them abusing a child. It is irrelevant.[/QUOTE] I mean you're just asking me to reiterate the article. [QUOTE] he grew up in an abusive household that the court heard was a legacy of residential school abuse suffered by his grandparents. All four of his grandparents were removed from the community to attend residential schools. The judge said Bellemare is among the “collateral victims of residential schools and of the cultural genocide that the Atikamekws of Wemotaci experienced.”[/QUOTE] The court clearly thought that the scientifically demonstrated effects of the Residential Schools program that his grandparents were forcibly coerced into led to an abusive environment that explains and "justifies" his behavior and thus warrants a lighter sentence. It's all there in black and white. [editline]9th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Thlis;50103499] [B]It is irrelevant to the issue.[/B] And consider the livelihood of the child that had been scarred for life, does she not deserve justice?[/QUOTE] Apparently the ones deciding his sentence didnt think so. And your second point in here is just an empty appeal to emotion that means nothing.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;50103529]Apparently the ones deciding his sentence didnt think so. And your second point in here is just an empty appeal to emotion that means nothing.[/QUOTE] Yes I admit it, the well being of an abused child is an empty appeal to emotion that means nothing. Because having that kind of horror forced upon you and having the judicial system bend over backwards for the abuser totally isn't going to instill problems. What if this was murder, does his upbringing that was over a generation after residential schools justify a lighter sentence?

[QUOTE=Duck M.;50103482]Did you read past the snippit you're quoting? Like, the next sentence?[/QUOTE] I did. I also read the part where he admitted to smoking fucking [b]meth[/b] during the time he did this to her. I can't emphasize that enough, and you can't hide behind the the fact that you were abused either. Abuse is abuse, and if you perpetuate such a thing when will the cycle end? But no, please retort with that fact the he was a victim of the very thing he kept going. As if that of all excuses makes it okay to commit the same acts towards another human being, especially a child. Seriously are you kidding me man, 21 is too young to know that burning children with cigarettes and lighters is wrong? Really now?

[QUOTE=Duck M.;50103529]I mean you're just asking me to reiterate the article. The court clearly thought that the scientifically demonstrated effects of the Residential Schools program that his grandparents were forcibly coerced into led to an abusive environment that explains and "justifies" his behavior and thus warrants a lighter sentence. It's all there in black and white. [editline]9th April 2016[/editline] Apparently the ones deciding his sentence didnt think so. And your second point in here is just an empty appeal to emotion that means nothing.[/QUOTE] Dude. He burned a child with a lighter. Why are you defending this. [editline]10th April 2016[/editline] Thats like saying "oh its fine, he got beat as a kid, its fine if he shot that dude, its fine"

[QUOTE=Duck M.;50103529]I mean you're just asking me to reiterate the article. The court clearly thought that the scientifically demonstrated effects of the Residential Schools program that his grandparents were forcibly coerced into led to an abusive environment that explains and "justifies" his behavior and thus warrants a lighter sentence. It's all there in black and white. [editline]9th April 2016[/editline] Apparently the ones deciding his sentence didnt think so. And your second point in here is just an empty appeal to emotion that means nothing.[/QUOTE] We can "explain and justify" most criminals behavior. But we don't decide whether or not to put them in jail because they grew up in an abusive household, what the fuck, that doesn't serve the purpose of justice, punitive action, OR rehabilitation. But seriously, his grandparents? Not him, not his parents, his grandparents?

[QUOTE=Duck M.;50103529]The court clearly thought that the scientifically demonstrated effects of the Residential Schools program that his grandparents were forcibly coerced into led to an abusive environment that explains and "justifies" his behavior and thus warrants a lighter sentence. It's all there in black and white.[/QUOTE] You need a restraining order against any child. How the fuck can you justify cigarette burns to a fucking little girl, especially on her GENITALIA. Fucking disgusting mindset, please reevaluate your life.

Four years isn't even close to the maximum sentence for aggravated assault, which is 14 years. 15 months is actually short of the average minimum for the charge which usually starts at 16 months. The whole "collateral victim" thing is nonsense. If he was actually abused in one of these residential homes he should absolutely serve a lengthy sentence for what he did, let alone the grandchild of someone who was. An abusive childhood is shitty but at 21 years old you absolutely have no excuse for torturing a child with a lighter.

No words. No fucking words.

[QUOTE=Dauge;50103875]You need a restraining order against any child. How the fuck can you justify cigarette burns to a fucking little girl, especially on her GENITALIA. Fucking disgusting mindset, please reevaluate your life.[/QUOTE] I don't agree with him at all but he's laying out the case from what the courts decided, he's not justifying the attacks, Jesus. Don't attack people like that for just offering a viewpoint(He needs a restraining order because he thinks the person was psychologically damage so he shouldn't have the maximum sentence? really?), it stifles discussion like crazy. He wasn't saying that the attacker did nothing wrong, eh wasn't justifying the attacks, he wasn't doing any of that.

[QUOTE=phygon;50103959]I don't agree with him at all but he's laying out the case from what the courts decided, he's not justifying the attacks, Jesus. Don't attack people like that for just offering a viewpoint(He needs a restraining order because he thinks the person was psychologically damage so he shouldn't have the maximum sentence? really?), it stifles discussion like crazy. He wasn't saying that the attacker did nothing wrong, eh wasn't justifying the attacks, he wasn't doing any of that.[/QUOTE] Seems like Duck was blindly defending the courts just because they were courts, or did I miss something? Point is I disagree with the courts, and it seems Dauge does too, therefore we disagree with Duck M. Maybe they were a bit vulgar in their post but I don't blame them. I know it's a touchy subject, courts versus the peoples opinions and all, but you can't deny this guy got off easy on something he clearly knew was wrong, considering he tried to lie about it and all.

I don't know whether to be shocked more by the crime or that there exist people trying to unironically sympathise with the accused in this thread, I'm in bizarro world.

What a degenerate shit bag. He deserves a much longer sentence, but I'll be surprised if he makes it 15 months without getting the piss kicked out of him, when the other inmates find out what he did.

There has to be some behind-the-scenes work at play here. I refuse to believe that you can sweep the child's suffering under the rug and excuse this kind of behavior in this manner while seriously believing that it's the right thing to do.

[QUOTE=imperialrock;50104069]What a degenerate shit bag. He deserves a much longer sentence, but I'll be surprised if he makes it 15 months without getting the piss kicked out of him, when the other inmates find out what he did.[/QUOTE] I would be surprised if he lives at all. My father when he did time in prison he told me a story of what they do to child abusers, a bunch of in mates found out a dude raped a 7 year old little girl and beat her to a coma was in their wing. They managed to get a hold of him and smothered a pillow on his face while he was sleeping and poured boiling water through the pillow and the guy actually died of a heart attack as a result. The guy didn't last 2 weeks before getting killed.

-Snip-

[QUOTE=AnonymaPizza;50104192]That's pretty metal. But I assumed this was only a thing that happened in the U.S.?[/QUOTE] Nope it was here in Canada.

[QUOTE=Dauge;50103875]You need a restraining order against any child. How the fuck can you justify cigarette burns to a fucking little girl, especially on her GENITALIA. Fucking disgusting mindset, please reevaluate your life.[/QUOTE] Relax bud, the part you're quoting me on is just me explaining the Judge's mindset and decision, like the article did. Are you going to give him a restraining order too? Like Christ, way too over-react. Where did any of you get out of my post that I was excusing his behavior? [editline]10th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=LSK;50103982]Seems like Duck was blindly defending the courts just because they were courts, or did I miss something? Point is I disagree with the courts, and it seems Dauge does too, therefore we disagree with Duck M. Maybe they were a bit bit vulgar in their post but I don't blame them. I know it's a touchy subject, courts versus the peoples opinions and all, but you can't deny this guy got off easy on something he clearly knew was wrong, considering he tried to lie about it and all.[/QUOTE] To be entirely fair I think the sentencing is a bit light as well, but the courts decision wasn't entirely baseless, which is what I was trying to argue.

While the individual is definitely dangerous, notably to children, and thus should be held imprisoned for an indefinite amount of time so that we can determine if he's ever safe to be released, I'm kinda more interested in these "Residential schools" which seem to be...horrible? What's up with them, do they still exist today?

[QUOTE=Bat-shit;50104569]While the individual is definitely dangerous, notably to children, and thus should be held imprisoned for an indefinite amount of time so that we can determine if he's ever safe to be released, I'm kinda more interested in these "Residential schools" which seem to be...horrible? What's up with them, do they still exist today?[/QUOTE] I don't know all too much about them, I've just read the Wikipedia artcicle about them that Pentium posted ([url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_school_system#Lasting_effects_of_residential_schools[/url]). If you wanna learn more about them then this seems like a good place to start. They dont operate anymore, obviously.

If a person has a fucked up background it should absolutely factor into whether or not they're afforded leniency but 15 months for such a heinous crime is pretty bullshit. I suspect there's more to the case and the suspect's background than we know about.

Nevermind 15 months, give that sick fuck 15 years.

I think the real question to ask is this: if the kid grows up and burns [b]other[/b] kids with lighters and cigarettes, will [b]she[/b] be given a lighter sentence because she's a "collateral victim" of residential schools? I mean, if the accused here was able to get a lighter sentence for being a "collateral victim" of abuse, then surely the victim should be able to get the exact same treatment, for the exact same reason. I'm not quite sure what the court was thinking when they decided on setting this absurd precedent. Where does it stop?