With all the news, public opinions, and general discussion surrounding the sentences handed down to Ottawa's cutest couple, Antonio Comune and Caroline Budd, each convicted for crimes related to the repeated victimization and abuse of two female minors, it's clear there's much to be said on the subject.
Usually when something in the news gets this much attention, it tends to be over a polarizing topic, with opinions at each extreme end of the spectrum and peppered in between. Such is not the case with news about this case. The public stands in solidarity with a resounding "WHAT???", when they hear about yet another lenient prison sentence for one of the worst crimes present in society today.
It's easy to find a seemingly harmless minor drug offence which has an extremely harsh maximum sentence, like in the following: A first time offender who's been convicted of trafficking marijuana can receive a maximum sentence of no longer than five (5) years. This is on paper, and although possible, it's rare, however, abnormally high maximum sentences can indirectly influence a judge's decision when determining a fair punishment.
If we compare the maximum sentencing in Canada for different crimes and how they've changed over the course of history, we first started almost 60 years ago, and again a decade or so later, Realizing that we are currently being affected by an over-correction, from almost 40 years ago, when some made arguments exactly opposite of today's, back then many argued maximum punishments for rape likely led to unnecessarily long sentences, even when judges were "trying to land in the middle" between no punishment and the maximum.
After capital punishment saw the first steps towards it's removal in Canada during 1967, rapists and traitors could still be sent to the gallows. Also as late as 1980, corporal punishment had been entirely abolished with one exception: rapists could still be sentenced to receive lashings by the whip.
While nobody during either time received either of these maximum sentences, their presence on paper stood as a clear stance and sent a concise message.
Critics of maximum sentences argued that the maximum punishments for convicted rapists were so disproportionately high, that it made judges give overly harsh punishments and long sentences, and that sex offenders were rarely convicted of re-offending.
All this considered, I think everyone can agree, that at the very least, many laws and punishments in criminal justice court require prudent examination and re-evaluation, based on today's society's needs, because if not too lenient, they are out-of-date, and made effective during a time when people couldn't even imagine a society such as ours today.