Ludicrous situations continue in courts


Re: “Toughen penalty for trafficking fentanyl: judges,” March 15.


The article declared that the appeals court thought tougher sentences were required for trafficking in the deadly opioid fentanyl. But two out of three of those judges still upheld a sentence of six months.

Apparently, they eventually agreed that a more appropriate sentence might have been 18 months to three years. With statutory time off and time-served credit, that really means about three to 18 months.

On page A5 there was a story about a theft of 10 pails of ice cream, which noted the culprit could be sentenced to up to two years in jail.

A few days ago, a judge was admonished for being biased and apparently not knowing the law concerning sexual assault and rape, while today there was a story about an appeal of a sexual-assault conviction based on the premise that the judge had studied the law surrounding sexual assault and rape and was prejudiced by what he found.

What’s wrong with this picture? And whose fault do you think it is that such ludicrous situations could exist? Hint: It’s not the governments’ nor a shortage of sheriffs.


Jack Trueman

Brentwood Bay


© Copyright Times Colonist

Source link