IN A RECENT ruling by an Ontario Superior Court of Justice judge, Leroy Schickle was saved from a three-year mandatory minimum sentence for gun possession. Schickle, who boasted an unblemished record prior to the conviction, was charged with possession of a handgun when he posted a Facebook profile picture of himself holding the weapon in his left hand. Judge Anne Molloy ruled that although Schickle was guilty of possession, applying the minimum punishment for such a minor infraction would amount to “cruel and unusual punishment.” Setting a significant precedent for gun possession laws and minimum sentencing in general, Molloy’s ruling could prove to be groundbreaking.
The possession of a loaded restricted firearm is illegal, and undeniably the defendant should be reprimanded for his actions. The question remains: How much is too much?
Judges have the opportunity of staking rulings on legal precedents and pointing out discrepancies in criminal laws that may run against our fundamental rights and freedoms laid out in the Charter. The question of whether something can be considered cruel and unusual punishment should bear in mind the consequences on the criminal, and more importantly, the greater repercussions on society.
Molloy was not hesitant in pointing out the “colossally bad judgment” made by Schickle, but the key aspect of this case is the cruel and unusual punishment that arises through the perverse conception of justice instilled through mandatory minimum sentencing requirements.
The notion behind mandatory minimum sentencing is to ensure that if you “do the crime, you do the time,” but when the sentence doesn’t fit the deed, our justice system is robbed of its unique power to pass fair judgment. In prosecuting an individual, the state has a responsibility to investigate the crime, the individuals involved, and the motivations of the suspects.
It is absurd to consider that someone fooling around with a weapon to look cool in a Facebook profile photo could be charged as severely as someone who violates the same law with far worse intentions. Such unreasonable sentencing would expose the rigidity of the rule of law and jeopardize the credibility of the Canadian judicial system.
Schickle has a stable job, fiancée, and young child. The consequences of three years imprisonment would not only be a detriment to him as an individual, but also those who rely on him.
There is a significant difference between the necessity of punishing a dangerous individual with access to weapons, and a man that simply needs to smarten up. Punishing two types of criminals with the same severity is cruel indeed.
—Graham MacVannel
