One of the concerns I think you're raising is part of why we recommended different levels of sentencing, whether it be for possession, distribution, or making, because there is some differentiation in what the guy or woman actually did. We recognize that in some cases a guy might be caught with 100 images, although I think the majority of guys that get caught have thousands, if not millions, of images. Our recommendation takes this into account.
You also asked about the deterrents. I don't know that we consider the mandatory sentencing issue from the perspective of deterrence. I'm not sure it does deter. I have no evidence to say whether it does or doesn't. You mentioned that some say it doesn't. I don't think it's a matter of deterrence as much as protection of the innocent. That has to be our prime consideration. We have an obligation, as a society, to protect those who can't protect themselves. Clearly, every child who is abused is totally defenceless, whether the perpetrator is an uncle, an aunt, or a stranger.
I agree that judges should have some latitude, but I think the latitude has to have a baseline. In fact, we have a case in Winnipeg, Manitoba, where the guy was sentenced to 30 months in jail by the first judge. He appealed, saying the sentence was much harsher than that imposed on most other people for committing his crime. He won the appeal and it was reduced to 18 months. This was based on a precedent. The precedent has been set that it shouldn't be this harsh. So I think we have to be careful on that front too. If we have a standard, it has to be met.