On Feb. 8, Quebec City mosque shooter Alexandre Bissonnette was sentenced to life in prison without the eligibility for parole for 40 years.
Quebec Superior Court Justice François Huot declared that any sentence of 50 years or more would be unconstitutional because it could be considered cruel and unusual punishment under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Instead of the 150 years without parole suggested by the Crown, Huot imposed a life sentence on Bissonnette and made him eligible for parole after 40 years.
Huot’s reasoning was that by imposing a sentence that exceeds Bissonnette’s life expectancy, his chance at rehabilitation goes out the window.
Many of family members of Bissonnette’s victims were upset with the sentence, and rightly so.
A common criticism of the Canadian justice system is that it too often prioritizes the rights of offenders over the rights of victims.
By prioritizing Bissonnette’s rights, Huot disregarded the suffering he imposed – and will impose – on the victims of the mosque attack and their families.
With this sentence, the orphaned children of those who were shot and killed may have to go before a parole board hearing and lay out why they think Bissonnette should stay behind bars.
Most of us can’t imagine what they’ve gone through after that horrible experience, let alone the dread they must be feeling at the prospect of facing Bissonnette 40 years from now.
Canada imprisons people and takes away their most fundamental right – the right to freedom – in order to punish serious crimes.
Bissonnette’s was one of the most heinous crimes committed in modern Canadian history – and it should be punished as such.
The sentence is especially puzzling considering Justin Bourque, the man who shot five police officers in Moncton, got 75 years without parole.
Are the lives of police officers more valuable than Muslims?
Sure, many of those in the Canadian prison system ought to have a chance at rehabilitation. But some crimes are so egregious that the punishment should match the crime.
This isn’t advocating for the death penalty, but an actual life sentence.
Bissonnette snuffed out six lives for nothing more than belonging to the “wrong” religion in his eyes. He also tried to kill six more people for the same perceived “crime.”
Some people will say that Bissonnette clearly has mental issues, and those with mental health issues shouldn’t simply be locked away.
But at what point do the rights of the rest of us take precedence?
Bissonnette said he had been drinking the night of the shooting while on his anti-anxiety medication.
If simply drinking while on anti-anxiety medication is enough to cause him to kill six people and shoot six others, how can we trust that there won’t be another issue with his mental health medication if he is released?
If it’s true that there is a slim chance Bissonnette actually gets out on parole, why even put the victims through this nightmare in the first place?
These people will be forced to re-live their most painful experience all so the Canadian justice system can pat itself on the back for it’s dedication to the concept of rehabilitation. Despite the fact that Bissonnette will likely remain behind bars.
For some reason, the Canadian government is willing to give Bissonnette the second chance that he denied to those in the Quebec City Mosque that night.
Sorry, but the public’s right to safety and security outweighs the right to a second chance for someone convicted of one of Canada’s worst hate crimes.
Chris Lowrey
