- December 04, 2011 - 14:07
In a modern crucible of "senseless acts", sentences will have to be tough to be a deterrent..right now, they obviously aren't. Newfoundland has an epidemic of petty, selfish, cowardly crimes carried out by a growing number of cowardly, selfish, anti-social misfits. We need to ignore the watered-down, Toronto-centric views on sentencing here....the critical mass of that society has an entirely different outlook and expectation of its citizens. Of course, we do not have the kinds of heinous crimes they do in bigger metrolpolises....but there is a very real risk here that the basic tenets of civilized living are fast being eroded by more and more people acting out on entirely selfish impulses, knowing they will either never be caught or will not be appropriately punished. No, Newfoundland doesn't have a headline-grabbing homicide problem. But the rapidly rising groundswell of "senselss acts" is taking a big toll here, and 'death by a thousand cuts' is slower, more painful, and eventually leads any society to a very similar place --- anarchy.
- Seriously Though
- December 03, 2011 - 09:08
"The totality of 11 1/2 years is substantially above the normal level," the judge said. "(It's) exceptionally heavy." - Excuse me, Judge, but isn't 11 1/2 years the combined total of his sentence for two separate crimes - the robbery in 2007 and the home invasion with personal injuries in 2009. Sorry, but this does not make any sense to me - this man is getting a "reduced" sentence because the Judge thinks the totality of 11 1/2 years is above the normal level! Perhaps it may be above the normal level for one or the other, but it fits the bill for a combined sentence. Tell me Judge, was Mr.Seers operating on a "normal level" when he participated in bludgeoning an elderly man with a hammer and holding a gun to the head of the man's wife and manhandling that woman by dragging her by her hair around her home. This report says in the past Mr. Seers has been a non-violent criminal (yet still a criminal) - but we're not dealing with his past record this trial was about the recent home invasion and personal injury to two seniors and Mr. Seers should be expected and required to serve his full sentence for this violent crime. To say that Mr. Seers lost his mother and therefore deserves special treatment just doesn't cut it with me - he should have thought of that when he was terrorizing two seniors who have a family that loves them and I am sure are heartbroken that they could have been endangered in such a callous manner!! Sorry Judge Thompson, you showed a complete lack of judgment on this sentence!
- December 04, 2011 - 00:27
Seeing rational, well-articulated comments like yours on this forum, Seriously Though, is a rare treat. Kudos. I'm 90% sure I agree with you on that stance--sentences should not be curtailed just because you're already serving for something else--if anything, that should make sentencing STRICTER. My 10% of doubt on that comes from the fact that everyone is different, and you really never know: there's always the potential that a criminal can be rehabilitated and could really benefit from a bit of a break. I don't know if Seers is one of those or not. But chances are, probably not.
- December 05, 2011 - 04:21
I believe you have interpreted this incorrectly. Seers committed two separate crimes, the robbery and the home invasion. The robbery was dealt with in a separate trial, and he was sentenced to 3 years. Separately, he went to trial for the home invasion. The judge is saying that 11 1/2 years is high for the home invasion, so he reduced the home invasion sentence to 8 1/2 years, which he will serve concurrently with the robbery sentence. In total, he will serve 10 years, 8 1/2 years plus the 1 1/2 years he has already served for the robbery. Simply, there is no reduced sentence for the home invasion. Concurrent jail time is a common practice for these types of cases, and jail time will not make sure he does not reoffend.