Queens University business student and hockey player, Chance Macdonald assaulted a 16 year old girl at a party in 2015. However, his sentencing was delayed in order not to interfere with his internship with Deloitte.
His lawyer argued that without the paid internship, his client would be financially disadvantaged, affecting his ability to continue his education.
The judge, a Queens alum and hockey player sided with Macdonald and was impressed by his academic and extracurricular record. He waited until last week to begin the sentencing. Macdonald will serve 88 days of intermittent jail on the weekends and two years of probation. Read more here
- What do you monkeys think of this? Did he deserve to keep his internship?
- Is it fair that the judge was quite biased due to a similar background/interests? Should this have been looked into? Do you think the outcome would have been different if the judge was different?
intermittent jail? is that like intermittent fasting but with anal?
Why would they keep employing him? There's no way he's worth the PR nightmare.
Also, I'm not sure if you understand how the law works. Yes, there is a possibility of bias, however good academics and good prior reputation in the community have been used MANY times before to reduce sentencing. The Crown would have also had the opportunity to argue their case against the motion (and clearly failed), so it could be because of a poor Crown Attorney. Jumping on the SJW bandwagon of "fuck white people" and "male privilege" without evidence is a sad, pathetic reasoning and just shows the lack of critical thinking from some people.
Would it have been different if it were a different judge? Absolutely possible. Judges are human and use their discretion from past experiences to decide what actions are appropriate. Different judge. Different reasoning. Different result.
The judge delayed the whole process so that his employer (Deloitte) wouldn't find out until after the sentencing was complete. Immediately after Deloitte found out they put out a statement saying that he is no longer employed and likely would have revoked any full time offer.
Still seems kind of crazy. I'm very positive that even the judge knew that he'd get fired as soon as Deloitte found out.
I can already see his friends asking him every Monday morning, "so what were you up to this weekend?".
Not to legitimize assault, but I think the whole age of consent system needs to be revisited. I think we're too smart a society to base something so biologically important on an arbitrary number (i.e. age). There must be a better way.
I've always considered some of your comments a bit suspect.
This one takes the cake.
We could implement a three check system. A girl has had to have her period for at least 6 years, or she is over 5'8, or she was just asking for it. If anyone of these boxes is checked then I think charges shouldn't be brought upon the alleged party.
I know you say this in jest (I certainly hope so). But hope you will consider deleting this. Usually you add a lot of insightful things to this board.
I thought about your comment last night and then this morning. Yes, to your first comment it was made in jest.
So here is my thought on the comment. I am glad you consider most of what I write helpful to the board, and I sincerely try to help people while I can. While not my best joke but certainly not my most terrible ,the joke itself was supposed to make fun of "rape culture", so unless you are for rape culture I don't see the joke as being offensive. I could see how this could have been a little misconstrued, but from your comment you got the jest that it was a joke.
My second thought was because I didn't love the joke, if you had PM'd me I probably would have taken it down just because I failed to hit my mark comedicly.
I appreciate your honesty in the comment.
My wife has a friend who would go out and basically be on the hunt for older guys then lie about her age and hook up with them (this included a couple police officers and fire fighters). She was 'just into older guys.' I don't think in a case like that it would be considered statutory, but you never know. She admitted that she didn't realize how much trouble they could be in if they found out and that it was wrong.
Est corrupti modi a laudantium et omnis. Aut quaerat eos suscipit. Ad est recusandae rerum. Nulla accusantium iure eveniet et aspernatur distinctio quos et.
Adipisci neque et necessitatibus quia. Sed dolor illo aut autem.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...