Graham James Pleads Guilty to Sex Assaults (again)
- Thread starter cw
- Start date
Boston Leaf
New member
the look of that guy makes me want to vomit
Capn_Crunch
New member
Jesus when is someone just simply going to drag this piece of human crap out back, beat his ass and put a couple of bullets in the back of his head. He has long ago given up any rights as a human being. The fact that we let him continue to abuse anyone let alone children is simply disgusting.
Heroic Shrimp
Active member
Cap'n Crunch said:
If you read the article this is a new conviction on charges related to crimes from decades ago. This isn't about him reoffending since release.
I am really kinda mixed on this one. On the one hand this scum should pay for such gross crimes yet on the other hand Fleury was well aware of james charges when they were going on years ago from Sheldon Kennedy yet he stood by and watched and did not publicly support Kennedy and refuted claims that he was a victim. Since his incarceration I am not aware of any bad stories about James and thus see no reason to re-punish someone for the same crimes. Had Fleury joined Kennedy in first trial sentence would not have changed significantly and James would be where he presently is, hopefully a contributing member of society???
L K
Well-known member
Bates said:
That a massive problem with the perception of abuse victims, the notion that they should follow the schedule of the general public and the perpetrator. There is a massive effect on the emotional and mental well being of an individual when they are faced with a situation like this. Fleury could have been repressing the events, he may have been afraid of facing James, he could have been fearful of admitting his abuse to the public, etc.
Pretty much every review of sexual crimes links the recidivism rate to # of offenses, so I'm having a hard time sympathizing for James under the circumstance, and to be honest, I think the bigger problem is the lack of proper punishment (and rehabilitation) that happens regardless of the number of victims, so him getting additional punishment for more acts, well, good.
Kin
Active member
Bates said:
I think it's pretty clear from Fleury's life that he had a very tough time coming to terms with what was done to him. I don't think he should be criticized for not doing it quickly enough.
Bates said:
He's not being re-punished for the same crimes. These are different crimes that weren't prosecuted and deserve to be. There's no way to know what might have happened if prosecutors had this information back then or how it might have affected their stance in a plea bargain.
Given the nature of these crimes I'm more than comfortable with James being in jail for the rest of his life rather than him being free and us crossing our fingers that he doesn't re-offend.
I would doubt in his first prosecution if 2 other victims had come forward the sentence would have channged much as the sentences for church priests around same time were also very lenient. My thought is that everyone has known for years that Fleury was a victim and I would suspect the police and prosecutor also knew this. When he refused to be a part of that case and now that many trouble free years for James have passed(Iassume)?? there really is no point to useing tax dollars to re-try him.
Take the obviously disgusting charge of child abuse out and make this a series of robberies where a victim would not cooperate with authorities and I doubt a second prosecution ever occurs.
And for the record Moon I am with you 100% on your idea. I would enjoy my peace in my 8x10 after settling my score with Graham.
Take the obviously disgusting charge of child abuse out and make this a series of robberies where a victim would not cooperate with authorities and I doubt a second prosecution ever occurs.
And for the record Moon I am with you 100% on your idea. I would enjoy my peace in my 8x10 after settling my score with Graham.
GhostofPotvin29
New member
Bates said:
If there were a series of robberies which occurred in the past, and there was no evidence at the time to prosecute, and then in present day evidence came to light where they could prosecute the person - I'm pretty sure they would be doing so.
What kind of message would it send to not prosecute James for EVERY crime he committed? Seriously, you're arguing about waste of taxpayers dollars for the prosecution of a known sex offender so that he is answerable for all of the crimes he committed? I'm fairly sure most people would be okay with their tax dollars going towards legitimate prosecutions of crimes, especially ones with such a community safety aspect to them.
There was plenty of evidence at the time that Fleury was a victim. He was asked by Police and reporters and denied that he was a victim. There is only a community safety aspect to this if James is thought to be re-offending. There is nothing to be gained from this unless James is now suspected of doing similar acts. It's kinda like trying Robert Pickton for the rest of the murders he commited on pig farm. Everyone knows he did them and he will never see the light of day again so why waste all that money to really accomplish nothing. If James is now suspected of still being that monster then yes go ahead and use Fleury case to get him off the streets but if he really has "reformed" then keep these charges in your back pocket in case they are needed. The message to the public would be a prudent use of tax dollars for prosecutions that make sense from a financial and legal point of view.
GhostofPotvin29
New member
Bates said:
There is certainly something to be gained. You are seeking just punishment for the crimes he committed. If Robert Pickton was seen to get any less than the absolute maximum penalty he could get, then any other evidence of his murders would be worthwhile to pursue in order for him to be punished fully for his crimes.
Sex crimes against youth by people in authority need to be deterred and denounced in the harshest possible terms. I imagine that if the original trial had included 3 further victims that the judge would have taken that into account in sentencing, and likely resulted in a harsher sentence. These types of crimes shake community confidence in safety, and it is important that offenders see the lengths that will be gone to in order to do justice.
I have absolutely no problem in ensuring the just punishment of someone like this.
Kin
Active member
Bates said:
It has nothing to do with what they "knew" it has to do with what they could prove in court. It wouldn't take the world's best defense attorney to punch a hole in a prosecution where the victim wouldn't even say the crime occurred. There's a reason they didn't prosecute then and there's a reason they're prosecuting now and it has everything to do with evidence.
Bates said:
Well, they're not using tax dollars to re-try him. A) He's not going to trial now and B) he didn't then. He plead guilty both times. Negotiating a plea bargain doesn't add any extra expense to a crown prosecutor's office, it's what they're paid to do rain or shine. It's not like they get bonuses for sending people to jail. There's no extra tax expenditures here outside of the cost to imprison him which I'm guessing most people would agree is a cost they can live with if it means he's off the streets.
Bates said:
And if it was jaywalking he wouldn't go to jail at all. What's the point here? The seriousness of the crime determines not only the community response but also things like the idea of a statute of limitations. It's because we're dealing with such a terrible crime that prosecutions for offenses committed 20 years ago or more are not only possible but deemed to be in the public's best interests.
Theo Fleury deserves a sense of justice here. The person who abused him deserves to answer for that crime. Not years from now, not when you decide it's appropriate but as soon as possible. He's the victim here. It doesn't matter how long it takes him to come forward if what he comes forward with is true. Anyone who has this happen to them deserves whatever peace or closure they can get from their abuser facing justice for what they did.
But, hey, ultimately his sentence is up to the judge here. Maybe he or she will agree with you that Graham James shouldn't go to jail for these charges. If I were a betting man I'd call that a longshot but I guess we'll see.
Sheldon Kennedy came forward in 1996. Fleury was in the middle of his NHL career. If James elected to go to trial, that could take years. In 1999, a civil lawsuit was filed against James that didn't get settled until 2003.
At every NHL city Fleury played in during those years as the cases evolved, the media would be asking questions of him and distracting from what his team was trying to do on the ice.
I don't fault his decision for waiting until his career in hockey was over. James was being prosecuted. Why should Fleury's career in hockey be damaged more than it already was with a media circus?
At every NHL city Fleury played in during those years as the cases evolved, the media would be asking questions of him and distracting from what his team was trying to do on the ice.
I don't fault his decision for waiting until his career in hockey was over. James was being prosecuted. Why should Fleury's career in hockey be damaged more than it already was with a media circus?
This case is not about justice. Justice would have been for james to be sent to prison for life in the 90's. And for those who have written that it's about a full prosecution for his crimes and that all his accusers deserve their day in court and justice I wonder where the outrage is for Mr. Gilhooly and his lack of justice. These charges were only made because Fleury has been in the spotlight for awhile now. If James is not sentenced to jail and gets what some think will be a conditional sentence what have we really gained here. Plenty of dollars and resources have been spent to do nothing about a crime everyone knew he was guilty of 15 years ago.
Kin
Active member
Bates said:
Of course it is. Because of these charges James will be held accountable for crimes he committed. That's about as textbook a definition of justice as we have.
Bates said:
Fleury finally admitted what happened. That's enough for most people.
Bates said:
Again, what additional resources? This is precisely why crown prosecutors get paid. If a judge sentences him to a conditional sentence then who knows what effect it might have. It might outrage people sufficiently to get sentencing laws changed. It may give some of his victims a sense of closure as it seems to have for Greg Gilhooly.
Seriously, you're arguing that a guy shouldn't be prosecuted for the sexual abuse of a minor. Give your head a shake.
Yeah Nik that's just what I am saying. You can be such a douche. I happen to live in the real world where police and the justice dept operate in a budget world that most seem to think is underfunded. In my real world there is also a backlog of present cases and taking resources from these investigations and prosecutions have a real effect on the present safety and security of all of us. I would assume when the police and prosecuter cherged James 15 years ago they were well aware that Fleury was a victum and went ahead with case while respecting the wishes of Fleury not to be involved.
Our justice system has a couple of purposes. It is to punish people who break the law and to rehabilitate those who have offended. Graham James has been punished for the crimes of pedophilia in the time frame that Fleury was molested(not enough really). There has been no alegations of abuse since that time that I am aware of so I think that the limited budget that the police and prosecutors have to use could be used for better causes than to rehash an old crime.
Our justice system has a couple of purposes. It is to punish people who break the law and to rehabilitate those who have offended. Graham James has been punished for the crimes of pedophilia in the time frame that Fleury was molested(not enough really). There has been no alegations of abuse since that time that I am aware of so I think that the limited budget that the police and prosecutors have to use could be used for better causes than to rehash an old crime.
Kin
Active member
Bates said:
I know. I'm surprised too. Or, you know, I would be if it were anyone else.
Bates said:
Again, this is just pure nonsense. This wasn't the result of a length police investigation or costly trial. This is a plea bargain. This is precisely what crown attorneys get paid to do.
Bates said:
Well, first off, there's absolutely no basis for that assumption. Regardless, I'll say it again, what they might "know" and what they can prove are two different things and it's what they can prove that informs their decision to prosecute. That they didn't prosecute 15 years ago is a good indication that they didn't think they had a strong enough case to go forward with, not that they decided, "Nah, we should only charge him with a few of the assaults".
These charges are not, no matter how many times you claim to the contrary, just about Theo Fleury. These are the results of multiple complaints by three separate victims. Regardless of what information crown attorneys had in the past do you actually believe that when three different people come forth with those kinds of allegations the crown should shrug their shoulders and say "nah, we got him for different assaults so we're good"?
Bates said:
Pedophilia is not a crime. It's a condition. The crimes were the sexual assault of a minor. Each and every case of that should be tried and prosecuted. That's why there is no statute of limitations on these acts. By virtue of that fact it's deemed that any prosecution of that crime is "timely". Nobody should get to skate on those crimes based on the passage of time or the convictions for any other separate crimes.
But, hey, crowd source it. Figure out the general public's appetite for a point at which these crimes can be swept under the rug as old news. See if they have the appetite for the government's attorneys prosecuting these cases.
Something tells me you'll find yourself on an awfully small island.
There was obviously an investigation by Winnipeg police as well as the Crown Attorney or the case would never have went to a plea bargain. And I would guess that the crowd source answer woulkd really depend on the question. If I asked if they would like to see a child molester cahrged and jailed for their crime I would assume every person asked would say yes. But if the question was would you like to see months of police investigation and prosecutors time used to charge a person who has apparently been rehabilitated only to have the person plead guilty and receive basicly no sentence the answer may not be as affirmative.
