You all seem to be quite convinced that minimum sentencing plays an important role in deterring individuals with pedophilic tendencies from acting on those tendencies.
You mentioned comparisons between Canada and other countries. The Department of Justice conducted a study showing that none of those countries saw any effect on crime, in general, when minimum sentences were imposed. I saw the study, but I do not recall whether it even mentioned sex crimes.
Do you have any documentation or meaningful research to show that minimum sentences are indeed effective? I always come back to one question: Once the individual has served their minimum sentence, what happens to them when they are released from prison, with no job or prospects?
With conditional sentencing, as my colleague mentioned, the judge does not impose the sentence he could. However, he informs the accused of the sentence he is allowed to hand down. The judge imposes conditions, and in less serious cases, he can impose conditions that ensure that the individual will be able to reintegrate into society, while continuing to hold a job and taking care of his family.
By taking away someone's job for a year or a year and a half, you completely disrupt their life, and it seems to me that the person would then be more likely to cling to their vice rather than pursue something else.
With suspended sentencing, the judge states that if the individual does not respect the conditions imposed, they will have to return to court, where the judge can then hand down the stiff sentence authorized under the law.
We have seen over time that this has been an effective way of dealing with many other crimes. Do you not think this could also be an effective way of dealing with offenders who are not yet very involved in pornographic activities?