R V Paul Burke

1557 Words4 Pages

A criminal act is "a violation of societal rules of behaviour as interpreted and expressed by the criminal law, which reflects public opinion, traditional values, and the viewpoint of people currently holding social and political power. Individuals who violate these rules are subject to sanctions by state authorities, social stigma, and loss of status. 1. Paul Burke committed an act that falls under this definition. This legal proceeding took place in the Saskatchewan Provincial Court in 2015. The accused, Mr. Burke, amassed an extensive collection of violent pornographic material that would lead to him pleading guilty on November 26, 2015, to one count of possession of child pornography. In the case of R v Burke, the accused, Paul Burke, committed the criminal act of possessing child pornography. Mr. Burke was found to have a peer-to-peer sharing program on his computer to find and collect child porn materials, as well …show more content…

If principle (f), creating responsibility for offenders and accountability for their actions, were used to determine Paul Burke's sentence, it would have produced something different.14 A sentence that looks to create accountability would make the offender participate in mandatory attendance for treatment or counselling. I can see why this was not used for the type of criminal act in the case. In a lot of cases involving child pornography, the offender does not feel remorse, guilt, or see the bad in what they have done. So, most of the time, trying to create a sense of accountability will not work, and it is better used for other types of crimes. Another principle that would produce a different sentence is (d) assisting in rehabilitating offenders.15 Rehabilitating offenders would also include the use of programs or treatments, but with the point made earlier, these individuals committing sexual crimes have a hard time seeing their

Open Document