When I read crime news and lawyers go into courts asking for leniency towards first time offenders and the youth, YES it’s understandable if it was something like small theft, simple assault or other small crimes, but causing mass destruction???. Being a youth does not discount intelligence and what one is capable of doing, and it’s obvious this youth knew what he was getting into and what his intentions were. To cause as much harm to as many people as he can, and at the end of the day being Osama Bin Ladins hero..but he failed.
They’re only remorseful when they can’t handle prison, when someone executes a plan to blow up and kill as many people as they can, there’s no remorse.
How many other “first time offenders” should be given a second chance? hmm..Jeffrey Dahmer, Timothy McVeigh, and all those child molesters, killers and first timers that terrorizes neighbourhoods, bombed a building, killed and ate his victims. Maybe we should of given them all a second chance for being first time offenders, give them a few years in jail and say “you’ve been a bad boy”.
This “youth” was the mastermind of a bomb plot in Toronto, but they caught him and his taliban friends before it could even happen.
And they want leniency??
Until that day will come, when something so tragic of huge magnitude happens, maybe, just maybe the courts will wake up and say “gee, let’s change our sentencing guidelines for terrorists”. But fortunately Canada has never had any terrorist attacks and courts will continue letting terrorists out of prison, youths and first time masterminds of plotting destruction free.
Let’s say if those mastermind terrorists that brought down the Twin Towers failed and it never happened because their plan didn’t workout. Do you think the courts in the USA would of let them free because their plan failed and oh, they were first time offenders?
The mastermind of a bomb plot that targeted downtown Toronto should not have been given a life sentence because he was a youthful and remorseful first-time offender, Ontario’s top court was told Tuesday.
Zakaria Amara, the ringleader of the Toronto 18 terror cell, should have instead received a sentence of between 18 to 20 years, defence lawyer James Lockyer told the Court of Appeal for Ontario.
Lockyer argued the sentencing judge allowed the seriousness of the crime to overwhelm his analysis and unfairly discounted mitigating factors such as Amara’s guilty plea, his age, his status as a first-time offender and his expressions of remorse.
A life sentence should be reserved for a “hardened and committed individual who has not renounced his conduct as (Amara) has,” he told the judges, who reserved their decision.
Lockyer also argued Amara was 20 when he plotted to detonate truck bombs, and said his youthfulness can help explain his lack of judgment and gives him greater prospects for rehabilitation.
But Crown prosecutor Nicholas Devlin said a life sentence is reasonable for anyone who plays a significant role in plotting a major terrorist attack.
Devlin pointed out Amara planned to “decimate” the downtown core and said the mere existence of the plot, which was foiled in June 2006, was an “attack against our entire society” because it rattled people’s sense of security. He also noted Amara’s renunciation of jihad was “very recent.”
Amara was sentenced in January after pleading guilty to participating in the activity of a terrorist group and intending to cause an explosion that was likely to cause serious harm or death.
At the sentencing, Amara told the judge he was sorry and deserved nothing less than “absolute contempt” from the Canadian people, whose trust he vowed to regain.
It was the stiffest sentence ever given under the Anti-Terrorism Act. He is eligible for parole in 2016. If granted, he is subject to a lifetime of monitoring.