Both accused got the same sentence . There was no reduction in sentence . He was given credit for time served , which is extremely common for everyone regardless of ancestry . I haven ' t taken a course on sentencing , so I don ' t really know why this is , but it ' s common practice . Your assertion that he only got extra credit because he is Aboriginal is not based on anything found in the case . One accused got time served at 1 . 0 he got time served at 1 . 5 . . which is why he got the same sentence . Ultimately he did not due to enhanced credit for time served . No , the judge explicitly says he doesn ' t want to focus on it . There ' s a difference between focusing on an issue and not discussing it in detail . As I already said , it isn ' t necessary to focus on something in a written decision in order to consider it . And , again as I already argued , sentencing in the Canadian judicial system although not the Aboriginal system is primarily concerned with the state ' s exercise of coercion over the convicted person . He doesn ' t want to focus on it because any discussion of the impact of crimes makes Judges uneasy . It reminds them of the job that they do not want to do . Instead the judge ' s focus on the criminal and how hard done by they are for having murdered someone . You are right the court is concerned entirely with the criminal . It could not care less about the victims or about society . Moreover , your argument that the judge doesn ' t care about the victim is entirely conjecture . An equally plausible conjecture is that the judge didn ' t want to make the horror that the victim ' s family is going through a matter of public record and discussion , thereby retraumatizing them . That is , if we ' re going to make unwarranted assumptions based on the mere fact that the judge didn ' t discuss the harm to the victim ' s family in detail , we can just as easily guess that this was for the benefit of the victim ' s family . Except this is how all Judges respond . The impact on the family is never something they wish to discuss or consider . In fact many dislike the fact that they ' re expected to consider it at all see the recent case where the judge refused to allow the victims statements to be read . Judges are not required or expected to give any weight or consideration to the victim or to society . What they are expected to do is to give all attention towards how hard done by the criminal is for having been caught . The person had a rough childhood ? Failed a grade ? Violated his bail by going out and committing another crime ? Could not be bailed given the heinous nature of the crime ? Extra time off . Then once they ' ve served part of their sentence they ' re paroled even if they have made no attempts at reform or rehabilitation . Mostly because Parliament has a tendency to violate the charter every time they tell judges what to do . Except they don ' t violate the charter . The judge ' s decide that any sentence is a potential violation in a hypothetical case that they are not considering and strike it down and hand out a lighter sentence . Parliament should just use the notwithstanding clause , or better yet , simply remove Judges who prove themselves incompetent . I agree that the parole board probably made a mistake here . But I don ' t think you can use the word gleefully unless you ' ve read the decision and they actually say they ' re happy about his release . They put 11 stringent conditions on his parole , it ' s not like the just shoved him out the door after 30 years and said see you later . Again , you ' re making serious assertions based on no factual evidence . He violated parole the last time he was released , he admitted he wants to reoffend , he is a repeat offender who caused lasting trauma . The parole board feels he is at a high risk of reoffense . They released him anyways because fuck it they ' re sure nothing could go wrong . The parole system is just a means for violent criminals to serve even less of their minimal sentences . That looks like a job for parliament , seeing as it isn ' t judges who make decisions about parole . It ' s judicial activism which has led to lower sentences , mandatory minimums are being overturned , Parliament had to fight in order to get the automatic credits reduced , it was Judges who pushed parole earlier . This is entirely on our shit judiciary and the fact that they are hell bent on releasing violent criminals . Again , you ' re welcome to think that judges don ' t try , but you have yet to back it up with anything like proof . You think two or three years is an acceptable sentence for sexually assaulting a minor ? Of which the person is eligible for release after half and will be guaranteed for release after two thirds ? That when Parliament tried to increase that sentence it is inherently unconstitutional because the judge thinks that there are acceptable circumstances for someone to sexually assault a minor and Parliament shouldn ' t be restricting that ?