Toronto Star Doesn't Shineby Uriel Wittenberg (uw@urielw.com)March 3, 2005
A recent Toronto Star story about a murderer's sentencing just didn't make sense. I emailed the reporter ... and her response didn't make sense. I emailed the paper's ombudsperson ... and he/she ignored me.* The correspondence is shown here. You may want to read the published article first. It's reproduced on this webpage, below the correspondence.
*UPDATE: See subsequent correspondence from Janice Richardson below.
Correspondence
From: Uriel Wittenberg Dear Rosie, I spent an hour arguing with a friend about what the following passage in your story in yesterday's Star -- "Gotta kill somebody. No time to check I.D." -- could mean:
And there is no down time to be translated into time served - routinely double the period spent in pretrial custody - upon a murder conviction. The sentence for murder, life imprisonment, begins at the time of arrest, not when it's imposed. If the sentence begins at time of arrest, then surely that means that "down time" IS translated into time served. It finally dawned on me that you meant: There is no down time to be MANUALLY translated BY THE JUDGE into time served -- because the rules for murder convictions effectively do an AUTOMATIC translation (by starting the sentence at arrest time). For example: 2 years pretrial custody, murder conviction, judge imposes 20-year sentence. The rules dictate that the 2 years of "down time" get translated into 2 years time served, so the prison term is for a further 18 years from time of sentencing. But I'm still puzzled. What is the significance of your observation in the above passage? What difference does it make whether the down time translation is manual or automatic, as long as it normally gets done anyway? Also: The "And...." with which the passage begins suggests it's a continuation from "Wrong again, peckerwood," and that you are rebutting Largie's misconceptions. But what misconception does the passage rebut? The implication is that Largie was incorrect in speaking of "dead time." But the passage states that down time is recognized and effectively deducted from murder sentences. I'm further puzzled by the sentence immediately after the passage above: "Nor is the length of pretrial custody taken into account in determining when parole may be granted." The preceding passage just said that the length of pretrial custody IS taken into account in determining how much more time, after sentencing, the sentence will run. So shouldn't the above be: "However, the length of pretrial custody is not taken into account in determining when parole may be granted"? Also: In light of this fact, Garvie is ineligible for parole for the next 15 years. So how can you write: "Gavra Largie, now 24, will be in his mid-30s when he's eligible for parole"? He'll be 39. I'd be grateful for your comments. Sincerely,
Uriel
From: Uriel Wittenberg Dear Rosie, I'm afraid I'm back to supplement my earlier letter, since there's still another puzzle in the sentence: "The sentence for murder, life imprisonment, begins at the time of arrest, not when it's imposed." What's the difference WHEN a life sentence begins? The sentence suggests these are rules that specifically apply to all murder convictions: 1) life sentence; 2) sentence begins at time of arrest. But rule #2 would be completely superfluous in light of rule #1. Why would lawmakers enact such rules? I also have to wonder why the length of pretrial custody would not be taken into account in determining when parole may be granted. Why wouldn't it be? If a judge rules that a criminal should be imprisoned 15 years with no parole, why should that period be arbitrarily lengthened by the time spent in pretrial custody? "Down time" is jail time, after all. Why shouldn't it be taken into account? You imply that down time is also not taken into account in the case of non-murder sentences (which the quoted sentence above implies begin at time of sentencing). Again, I wonder what the rationale for this would be. Again, I'd appreciate your clarification. Sincerely, UW
From: Rosie DiManno
So many questions. And some of them so pedantic!
From: Uriel Wittenberg >If you're still befuddled, I'm sorry, but I don't have any further information from you. I'm going to summon my faith in humanity and assume that doesn't mean you'll ignore any followup from me. You write: >He's 24 now and would be 39 15 years hence, as you note, but he might actually be around 36 if he'd been arrested at the same time as his brother. Follow? This indicates that the 15-year no-parole period begins at time of arrest, not sentencing. But your article indicated otherwise: "Nor is the length of pretrial custody taken into account in determining when parole may be granted." You also write: >Gavra's sentence of life with no possibility of parole is measured from the time of his arrest. I understood that before. But you don't answer my question: "What's the difference WHEN a life sentence begins?" (The sentence and the length of time before parole eligibility are different issues.) You confuse me further with: >On a murder conviction, the sentence starts ticking retroactively, to the time of arrest. There is no 2-for-1 equation because there is assumed to be no "dead time". I just can't make sense of this. Nowhere did your article define "dead time." I'd have guessed that "dead time" refers to pre-trial custody time which is "dead" because it's ignored when deciding how long to make a sentence. But from the above you seem to have some different meaning in mind. What could it be? Still befuddled, Uriel P.S. One could also ask, how can *questions* be pedantic? But I won't.
From: Uriel Wittenberg I write to complain about sloppiness, confusion, and apparently inaccuracies, in "Gotta kill somebody. No time to check I.D.," by reporter Rosie DiManno, Toronto Star, Feb. 19 issue. I first inquired of Ms. DiManno herself. Her dashed-off reply makes little sense, and she has ignored my followup. Below is my side of the correspondence, which explains the problems with the story. I haven't included her reply because I'm unsure of the propriety of doing so, but can forward it if she permits. I'd appreciate your response. Sincerely, Uriel Wittenberg
From: Uriel Wittenberg I've had no followup .......
----- Original Message ----- [...]
From: Janice Richardson Thank you for your letter. Our ombud retired on Dec 31 and the new ombud - now Public Editor - will be starting effective Monday, March 7. I will forward your concerns at that time.
Janice Richardson
Gotta kill somebody. No time to check I.D.Toronto Star, Feb. 19, 2005 by Rosie DiManno
"Whatever." This was Gavra Largie's shrugging, tough 'bro response to the judge yesterday, when he was sentenced to life in prison for second-degree murder, with no possibility of parole for 15 years. On Dec. 15, 2001, Largie stood a foot away from Mohamoud Ahmed and shot the young man in the head. A "straight facial," in street argot, and how Largie described the shooting afterwards to an undercover officer posing as a drug dealer and wearing a body pack. Largie did not know his victim, had never before clapped eyes on the 20-year-old, who was confronted as he walked home with friends in Regent Park. It was, even within the loose rules of street thug culture, a complete cock-up of a crime: a case of mistaken identity. Largie, and the four men he was with -- including younger brother Karl -- were on the prowl, stoked for vengeance against another fellow, some "Regent Park n-----" who'd assaulted one of the group, Gangsta Lee, at a party in Malvern earlier that evening. "Yo, Park Boys, they punch me in my face, they rushed me!" Gangsta Lee had complained to his posse, as Largie recounted the genesis of the tragedy on the police tape. So naturally they had to pile into Largie's car -- his "whip" -- and head downtown to exact blood from the culprit. Killed the wrong man. But, hey, these things happen. Spontaneous retribution isn't a forensic science. A man's got his balls on the line and the testosterone percolates. Gotta whack somebody. No time to check his I.D. Homicides are not commonly the stuff of Law & Order. In motive, in execution, in flight and in captivity, killers are rarely notable for either craft or cunning. They're more often colossally stupid, like Gavra; little men with big struts, their profile enhanced by criminal records -- Gavra was a drug dealer -- and territorial imperative. They kill, increasingly, just because they feel like it. Because they've got a gun down their pants. To brag, to bolster their street cred, to avenge the slightest of perceived insults. And because life is so monstrously cheap within their degraded culture of violence. "That's why, when you go dirty, you have to finish everybody!" Gavra explains on the tape. "We just came for what we had to do and flew." Months later, after a re-enactment of the crime on TV, Largie discovered police were looking for someone with the street name "G." More boastful than worried, he told the undercover officer, ain't nobody else on the street with that handle. Somebody's gonna talk, somebody's gonna point the finger. "There's only one G that has beef with the (Regent) Park n-----s. Only one G, only one G crazy like everybody knows. Name another G that does that s--- I do." Even then, should he be arrested, Largie was professing confidence in beating the rap. He planned to run, but only because no way, uh-uh, was he going to do the down time, sitting in jail waiting for a trial. "Dead time is two years, you just have to sit in there for two years. ... Only thing I'm going to be doing is dead time, and I'm not doing dead time." Wrong again, peckerwood. As wrong as he'd been when he shot Ahmed, who came to Toronto from Somalia and dreamed of becoming a police officer, had planned to submit his application the week after he was slain. Largie shot Ahmed behind the right ear after another of his attackers had already struck the young man in the shoulder with a metal bar. "Mohamoud Ahmed was an innocent man who had nothing to do with the incident at the Malvern party," Justice Brian Trafford said yesterday, before delivering his sentence. "The cultural values that foster, and approve of, a grossly disproportionate, violent response to a trivial incident in life, like the one experienced by Gangsta Lee, are unacceptable to every right-thinking person in our country. ... This homicide was senseless in the extreme." And there is no down time to be translated into time served -- routinely double the period spent in pretrial custody -- upon a murder conviction. The sentence for murder, life imprisonment, begins at the time of arrest, not when it's imposed. Nor is the length of pretrial custody taken into account in determining when parole may be granted. Second-degree murder requires a penitentiary sentence of at least 10 years. But Trafford, taking into account the ruthlessness of the crime, set parole ineligibility at 15 years. "The murder was a callous act that was committed without any regard for the life of Mohamoud Ahmed. It was like an execution, in the rapidity with which the events unfolded once the perpetrators left the car," Trafford said. "Gavra Largie's moral culpability is very high in this case. There was nothing in the nature of provocation from the deceased or others with him. The use of the gun was not an impulsive act." Younger brother Karl -- who picked at his fingernails and scratched himself absent-mindedly as Trafford encapsulated the details of the case -- got off far more leniently. Though convicted of manslaughter, Trafford accepted that Karl Largie, 22, did not know his brother had a gun, nor did he aid or abet in the intentional killing of the victim. After taking into account 27 months spent in custody and the "oppressive conditions" at the Toronto (Don) Jail -- translating into credit for five years served -- Trafford sentenced him to two years less a day, which means he avoids federal penitentiary. Gavra Largie, now 24, will be in his mid-30s when he's eligible for parole. Time enough, still, for a whole life ahead of him, however he chooses to spend it. Unlike Mohamoud Ahmed, who never even knew why he died.
See correspondence between Uriel and the reporter.
Related: See Ratatouille #3 for some further developments.
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use," you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
|