Canada: Man Faces Life in Prison Based Only on Testimony

A "life" sentence in Canada is not really life. It's 25 years (with parole eligibility usually set fairly low. Commonly 10 years). The only condition which can cause a prisoner to be detained beyond that point is is if the Crown Attorney successfully seeks a Dangerous Offender designation for the convicted. This is a complicated process and the Crown is not often successful. You pretty much have to be Paul Bernardo or likewise to get dangerous offender status here. Very few men (under a dozen I believe) will actually serve out the rest of their lives behind bars without chance of parole in Canada.

Now that that is cleared up - life does not mean life in Canada - he'll likely only get a couple years anyway.

Not that I agree with the idea that anyone should be sentenced to a single day of prison on word alone with no corroborating evidence. No one knows other then these three people what went on between them and that is not the standard I feel comfortable with as the standard for conviction.

I have watched this case since he was first charged and it would seem that he was convicted on loose morals more then anything else. The jury did not like him and sympathized with the two accusers. The Crown painted him as the stereotypical black 'playa' type. The problem is no one knows because the only evidence is what these two women said.

Just how much responsibility and risk should the adult victim be required to assume in having unprotected sex in the first place?
Oh, I forgot. The victim's here were females therefore they have automatic diminished responsibility just like children when it comes to anything sexual with an adult male.

Than a woman not telling the truth about taking birth control when she is not, or having sex when she knows she is in her most fertile time of the month?

Its not.

Its just that women can't be held accountable...because they have a uterus.

oregon dad

I definitely see where you're coming from O.D., but I'm not sure the two are the same.

I'm not sure purposely trying to infect some one with an incurable disease is the same as a woman lying to entrap a man into supporting a child he never chose to have.

Keep in mind here, I'm not saying he did purposely attempt to infect these two women, I'm just talking hypothetically based on your comparison. I don't know what happened with these people and I am not going to agree with the courts that when it's 'he said, she said' believer her by default.

I'd say intentionally trying to infect a person with a life threatening incurable disease is more akin to poisoning some one or exposing them to a toxic substance resulting in perminant debilitation.

Child support only lasts 18 years, HIV never goes away and you could very well be dead in 18 years even with treatment. I know it's more survivable now then it was 20 years ago but it's still incurable and a potential death sentence.

Given the choice, be entrapped by a woman who I don't love who's biological clock got the better of her and have to support a kind I didn't want or repeatedly have unprotected sex with an HIV positive person and hope for the best, I'd take the kid with the woman I didn't like.

I believe both of you are right.

While the potential consequences of lying about HIV may be more worse than the potential consequences of lying about birth control, it is only a matter of degree. Just because murder is more significant than robbery, doesn't mean that robbers shouldn't be punished.

The law isn't being applied consistently in these situations. Women are allowed to lie about birth control because they are women.

That's it exactly.

The only thing that raised concern to me about what O.D. wrote was that his comment implied that the two crimes are not different, or that they are the same.

I like reading O.D.'s comments very much and I respect his opinions greatly.

But, I don't agree that the crime in this case is equal to paternity fraud.

I completely agree that women need to be held accountable for lying about birth control or paternity fraud, or any of the hundreds of other crimes that they have a golden pussy pass for. I am 100% in favor of revoking the pussy pass.

But just as I do not think robbery is the same crime as murder I do not think infecting some one with a deadly incurable disease is the same as lying about birth control resulting in an unwanted pregnancy. They are both crimes of deception, but I think it is precisely because the potential consequences are very different that the two crimes are also different.

Again, I'm not saying the guy in this case is guilty because I am not comfortable with the evidence against him being sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt, I am just talking hypothetically.