BRAMPTON, Ont. - An Ontario judge sent out a warning Thursday that the playing field is not a "criminal law-free zone" as he convicted an 18-year-old rugby player of manslaughter for a violent sucker-tackle that caused a rival's death.
Sports fields not law free zones.
Discuss.
I guess I could add that I like this decision.
Next we can eliminate hockey fighting although I wonder if hockey fighting would fall under "implied consent."?
Yeah, hard to know, Caissa. And where do you draw the line between actions to which players have implied consent, and actions to which they have not?
It seems so simple to me. Assault is assault. Don't do it. Period.
What a frightening decision. We encourage our children to get involved in dangerous competitive activities, in this case a British colonial rite of passage, and egg them on to win at all costs. We tell them that rugby is a "manly" sport which doesn't require helmets or pads. We don't lay down clear guidelines - such as, "the first time you assault another player, you will be banned from this sport for life" - not even close. Then, when one child goes too far and another one dies, we don robes, glower at them severely, sanctimoniously lecture them they have committed an "unlawful act", and are guilty of manslaughter.
What is there to like about a decision which attacks the victims that we ourselves have created?
So how would you have addressed the case if you were the judge, Unionist? I must admit I am very conflicted given the diverse testimony in this case.
So how would you have addressed the case if you were the judge, Unionist? I must admit I am very conflicted given the diverse testimony in this case.
Oh, I'm not saying the judge handled it wrong. He did his job - shut his eyes, held his nose, and said: "This was an unlawful act. It caused a death. Hence, guilty of manslaughter." Assuming he read the evidence right, it's probably the right decision.
But a courageous judge (a little like Robert Sansfaçon in the Villanueva inquest) might have stepped out of his judicial box and called for a full public inquiry before making any decision. He might have said that without looking at root causes and the entire context, he couldn't appropriately evaluate mitigating factors in one particular case. He might have mused publicly as to what preventive and corrective action had been taken by the authorities to protect players, prevent and punish previous "unlawful acts" (they must happen in every single game, but who cares unless someone dies, right?), and so on. He might have asked where all the other prosecutions were.
I'm not suggesting the verdict would have been different. But, as it stands, it blames a single 16-year-old for the reckless indifference and negligence of many.
I agree with unionist here.
Had this occurred within the context of fair game play I might be inclined to think that it's one of those risks one takes. But my understanding is that this player didn't have the ball, the ball was in fact nowhere near him, and the referee had blown the whistle to indicate play had stopped. Assuming those are the facts, this wasn't a "rugby" incident, it was just plain old violence.
I recall a similar case in hockey from several years back, here in Ontario. After the play had stopped, one teenaged player slammed another into the boards so hard that he ripped his spinal cord and ended up a quadriplegic. Similar arguments at the time ("Checking is part of the game! Hockey is a contact sport!!") but of course missing the point that that hit had nothing to do with hockey, other than occurring at a hockey rink. You don't need to body check an opponent if they don't have the puck and if game play has been stopped.
And I really can't agree with any argument that by encouraging competitiveness in sports, it's somehow US who are encouraging young athletes to assault each other BETWEEN PLAYS. Seriously. What part of organized sports is supposedly teaching them that if they feel like it, they can just assault each other for the fun of it?? If they waited and assaulted each other in the locker room, would we then understand that it has nothing to do with the sport?
And if this young killer's lawyer feels that there's some kind of "culture of retribution" that influenced his client, or somehow it was incumbent on the organizers of the game to monitor his client for any signs of being about to slam a competitor's face into the ground, I suppose it would have been that lawyer's job to introduce evidence of this at trial.
First question for snert:
If exactly the same incident had happened while the ball was still in play - just before the whistle went - would your conclusion be different?
If exactly the same incident had happened while the ball was still in play - just before the whistle went - would your conclusion be different?
I suppose it would depend on where the ball was, or specifically, the relationship of the two players in question to that ball. If the ball were 100 feet away, being contested by other players, it wouldn't really change my thinking. But if this tackle were in any way reasonably related to the ball and to game play then I would definitely see it differently. I accept that contact sports have risks, but I don't think that being injured or killed outside of game play is a legitimate risk.
We tell them that rugby is a "manly" sport which doesn't require helmets or pads.
One of my daughters played rugby on her high school team. And the absence of helmets and pads usually means you can't hit as hard. In football, helmets and pads are mostly weapons.
I think the judge made the right call, so to speak. One has to take into account what players consent to, which is illustrated by the rules of the game, with an eye on conventions of the game, such as hockey fights. It would seem from eyewitnesses that the tackle violated the conventions of the game, and wasn't part of what the victim consented to.
This morining on CBC radio, the knee jerk reaction from the Toronto Board of Education is to "re-examine contact sports."
While I agree with the judge in this case, I really detest the kind of thinking the Toronto Board seems to be embarking on.
There are also more and more serious studies looking at head injuries and concussions in contact sports and the relation of those injuries to permanent harm to the players. This is outside criminal prosecutions, but it is interesting and somewhat related. The NFL was mocked by one commentator today, who compared the League to the tobacco industry for trying to deflect criticism of their approach to this problem by making reference to all sorts of other possible causes of harm to the players, just as the tobacco industry tried to connect the cancers and health problems of smokers with other causes.
My guess, with football and some other sports, notably boxing and martial arts, that most concussion damage comes not from games but from practices. All the injuries I ever saw when I played high school football were on the practice field, not the playing field.
Perhaps what they should be looking at is training the coaches at all levels in how to conduct practices in a better way. Football in particular has an ethic that dictates designing practices so they are more demanding than game conditions. Not necessarily a bad idea, proabably a desirable idea, but I suspect that they go too far.
In football, helmets and pads are mostly weapons.
If fighting or any form of gratuitous hit earned a lifetime suspension from the sport, then helmets and pads could be used to protect against accidental injury, right? Because there wouldn't be any other kind.
[b][i]Would you (and snert) favour lifetime suspensions for all participants in any physical altercation and all gratuitous hits?[/i][/b]
I have no problem with competition, contrary to snert's slight distortion of my post. I have a problem with (as I said) encouraging victory at any cost. I also have a problem (as I said) with officials condoning assaults and then looking innocent when someone gets killed.
It would seem from eyewitnesses that the tackle violated the conventions of the game, and wasn't part of what the victim consented to.
So that rather subjective analysis makes the difference between "not guilty" and "manslaughter"? See why I said the decision was scary? Ban assaults, and you would rarely if ever have to make these scary distinctions.
Would you (and snert) favour lifetime suspensions for all participants in any physical altercation and all gratuitous hits?
I can't tell who's asking this, but personally, I'd favour proportional penalties for minor actions (eg: smacking the other player's shin with your stick) and immediate bans for any action with a reasonable potential for serious, permanent or fatal injury. And I would agree with Unionist that enforcement has to be consistent -- no "looking the other way". I also favour (and believe this to be the case) stricter rules around contact for younger participants. If a game simply cannot be played without, say, flying body slams, then let kids wait, like they're supposed to with liquor or driving.
So that rather subjective analysis makes the difference between "not guilty" and "manslaughter"? See why I said the decision was scary? Ban assaults, and you would rarely if ever have to make these scary distinctions.
Well, ya. It's very subjective-- and in this case and many others, it comes down to "you had to be there." It's why judges get the big bucks, and why a few of them probably have insomnia.
Of course, assault on and off the playing field are "banned". I think maybe what you are saying is that we should re-define what constitutes assault?
If fighting or any form of gratuitous hit earned a lifetime suspension from the sport, then helmets and pads could be used to protect against accidental injury, right?
Being a Leaf fan, I go back to Marion Hossa blinding Bryan Berrard with an "accidental" high stick. I think Hossa should have been banned or suspended, maybe even charged. But then, I liked Berrard. Two things meet my mind over that incident. One, no matter if it's "accidental" or not, a player is supposed to be responsible for his stick. Clearing shots wth an extreme follow through was, in the best light, irresponsible. The other thing is that I think many players practice "accidental" high sticks. I deeply suspect Hossa is one of these.
But then, everything in slow motion looks deliberate.
No matter where you draw the line, no matter how fine you draw the line, you'll always get something that manages to sit right on it.
Of course, assault on and off the playing field are "banned". I think maybe what you are saying is that we should re-define what constitutes assault?
Any physical hit deemed deliberate and gratuitous by officials earns a lifetime suspension. I'm not just talking about assault - that's a criminal matter.
Too harsh? It has the merit of clarity. And why would rugby not survive such a rule?
[url=http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/661599]A year's probation[/url]
Isn't that what you might expect for, say, joyriding your parents' car?
I think it's reasonable. I agree with this:
Duncan said this was one of those cases where a "finding of guilt" of manslaughter was enough punishment for the offender.
"He did not set out to commit a crime," Duncan told a Brampton court. He said the death occurred in the "heat of the moment" and was "fueled" by his "highly competitive instincts."
"The tragic consequences went far beyond what could have been expected."
Duncan said sentencing youths involves making them accountable for their crime.
"In some cases, accountability is largely achieved by guilt. This is one of those cases. I held him accountable when I found him guilty of manslaughter. It recognizes the harm done."
In deciding not to impose custody, Duncan said he still had some concerns about the defendants's "impulsivity and anger."
"The sentence was a fair one," defence lawyer Calvin Barry said outside of the courthouse. "At onset, the victim's family didn't want him charged."
I'm not even sure half of that makes sense. What does this mean?:
In some cases, accountability is largely achieved by guilt.
Really? Just by pronouncing someone guilty, they take accountability?
From what I read, this guy was in total denial. He can't even own up to what he did. Which was smash another person so hard into the ground that they died, outside of game play. In his version, he was just a poor victim defending himself.
Anyway, he's got the luck of the Irish. Not many people get to blatantly kill someone, violently, and escape any meaningful consequences.
What good would have been served by jailing him?
I think that sometimes it's important for the justice system to say "this is not OK", and to say it with some form of punishment. I'm not saying he should have been drawn and quartered, but something other than a year spent, well, doing pretty much the same as usual doesn't seem to me to acknowledge what he did. And, as I noted, it might be nice if HE could acknowledge what he did. If nothing else, double-jeopardy laws mean he could go ahead and be honest now, if he wanted.
But if he had instead driven his girlfriend's face so hard into the ground that he damaged her spinal cord, and ultimately killed her (say, for talking to another guy), would you see any good in jailing him? Would you think it better, in that case, for him to be sentenced to a year of playing Guitar Hero in his parents rec room, even as he maintains the fiction that it wasn't his fault?
I think that conflating domestic violence against women with violence between men while playing a sport is a non-starter.
But they weren't playing a sport. They were near a sport. They had been playing a sport. But they weren't playing. The ball was elsewhere.
And I'm not trying to conflate sports deaths as a whole with domestic violence as a whole. Certainly they're not the same social phenomena at all.
But in the specific, should it really matter if this guy slams a male victim into the ground hard enough to kill them or a female victim into the ground hard enough to kill them? Should one of those really carry (almost) no penalty whatsoever?
I mention a female victim because I'm really getting a general whiff of "boys will be boys" about this, up to and including the continued reference to the sport that THEY WEREN'T PLAYING when the killing happened. I'm betting that those who seem to think that dying at 15 is a natural part of manly sports wouldn't feel the same way if the victim were female.
I'm guessing that the example I gave, of a female victim, would have you livid if the sentence was a year of chillin'. Am I close? Am I wrong?
A better analogy to your original one comparing domestic violence between a boyfriend and girlfriend to a fight between two boys during an angry exchange on a sports field that got out of control would maybe be an angry exchange on a sports field that got out of control between two girls.
And yes, in that case, I would say the same thing, were the genders of both the perp and the victim reversed.
I don't believe the criminal justice system is well-placed to deal with situations where children assault and kill each other in (or near) sports activities where violence is condoned by the adults.
Ban assaults - lifetime suspension - and you won't have to worry about guilt and prison and long or short sentences. Do the adults have the nerve to do that? Or would they prefer to turn a blind eye until someone gets killed again, and fish around for some kid to blame and imprison?
I really don't see the problem with a consequentialist view by the law. If you kill someone, whatever the circumstances, then you should bear the consequences. It may not be 1st degree murder, but, as the judge initially said, the playing field is not a law-free zone.
Part of the thrill of "contact" sports is the possibility of severly hurting one of the other guys. Even death usually garners no more than a complicit "Aw, shucks!" Just try to take that toy away from the boys...
It may not be 1st degree murder, but, as the judge initially said, the playing field is not a law-free zone.
I heard the judge say that it's ok to maim and kill, as long as it falls within the "accepted standards" of rugby (i.e., the standards established by the alleged grown-ups).
Wanna hear what I hear?
Justice Bruce Duncan ruled the convicted athlete had no exemption to use deadly force simply because he was participating in [b]a sport known for its testosterone-fuelled aggression.[/b]
The judge didn't add, "it's not good to encourage kids to play sports known for testosterone-fuelled aggression."
But he went on:
"The defendant intentionally applied force that was [b]outside the rules of the game or any standard by which the game is played.[/b]"
Translation: Had he intentionally applied force that was within the rules of the game and the standards etc., and had he killed a 15-year-old, he would not have been guilty of manslaughter.
That's probably legally accurate. But why does such a decision give you comfort, N.Beltov?
Then it gets worse:
"Nothing suggests that the sort of conduct found here would be [b]within accepted standards of play[/b]. Accordingly, there could be no implied consent (by Castillo)."
In other words, had this aggression occurred in the course of play - in accordance with the "accepted standards" (i.e. accepted by the testosterone-inducers who run the sport) - the judge might well have found that [i]the victim consented to the assault, hence was responsible for his own death.[/i]
In short, the judge (at least from his quoted comments in this article) never condemns the nature of the assault itself - only its context. Had the context been different, he might have acquitted.
I see nothing to like in this decision.
I presume you are in favour of some negative consequences for the defendant.
I presume you are in favour of some negative consequences for the defendant.
Yes, but I don't like to see the real perpetrators (those who can actually make the game safer) get off the hook by overly concentrating on the criminal aspect of what took place. I more concerned with prevention than punishment.
I would like to see the competent authorities announce that henceforth, any proven deliberate gratuitous assault, as determined by the referees, will result in a lifetime ban from competition. Do you agree with that?
Well, I've already tried to defend a sort of consequentialist view. I'd like to stick to that. "Deliberate" as I think you know very well, is hard to prove. I think that's why we have "manslaughter", "2nd degree murder", and "1st degree murder" for such cases. A simpler remedy is ... if someone's career is ended, then the perpetrator's career should be ended too. That's a kind of an "eye for an eye" philosophy which, in the macho world of professional sports, is practiced at present anyway.
Of course, that would, practically speaking, make boxing and MMA illegal. And maybe a lot more professional sports would be simply put out of business. Hmm. Not a bad idea. I think I'll just slip quietly away, and hope no one notices ...
In this case the verdict was not unreasonable: manslaughter. It was the subsequent (non) sentence that seems a bit out of place. You kill someone using your bare hands and you're sentenced to pretty much nothing.
I held him accountable when I found him guilty of manslaughter. It recognizes the harm done."
If I'm not mistaken, this accountability will end in a couple of years when this man's record is cleared. So... two years of nebulous, wishy-washy "accountablity". Wow.
Will his record be cleared in a couple of years? How come?
His age when the offense was committed, I believe.
Oh, I see.
Well, I support young offenders getting a new start. I'm not really into punishment for life for young offenders. So that's okay with me.
