Thursday, February 6, 2014

CANADA - Convicted sex offender sues for brutal jailhouse attack at Calgary Correctional Centre

Original Article



Staff at the Calgary Correctional Centre failed to adequately protect a convicted sex offender who was swarmed by fellow inmates, a $300,000 lawsuit claims.

_____ was serving a nine-month sentence at the Calgary jail in June, 2012 when he says he was attacked.

His claim alleges those in charge of the institution didn’t ensure his safety while he served his time.

They failed to intervene and protect _____ when the assault took place,” his lawsuit, which lists the jail’s director among the defendants, says.

They failed to sufficiently supervise the serving prisoners at the CCC, such that an assault against a fellow prisoner would not have taken place,” his statement of claim alleges.

They knew, or ought to have known, that as a serving prisoner he would likely suffer an assault at the hands of fellow prisoners, yet took no pro-active steps to ensure _____’s safety, or to isolate them from him.”

_____ was jumped by a group of four other prisoners on June 23, 2012, his claim states.

Court records show he was handed a nine-month jail term plus 18 months probation 22 days earlier in Edmonton, on a charge of sexual touching.

His lawsuit says _____, 50, suffered multiple injuries in the attack, in which he was struck several times in the head, chest and back area.

At one point during the assault he was held down by some of his assailants while others punched him, it says.

Because of his wounds _____ has been unable to work and now lives on Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, the claim says.

Statements of defence disputing the unproven allegations haven’t been filed.


Mark said...

If one reads this tortured case closely, it will reveal that this court utilized the doctrine of "CONSTITUTIONAL AVOIDANCE" to uphold the registration law. And by 2009 Louisiana enacted their version and adoption of the ADAM WALSH act and then applied retrospectively to this petitioner.

Anonymous said...

Is La compliant with the Adam Walsh Act, or did they just decide on their own to toughen registration? I don't know. Courts, including the US Supreme Court, issue these decisions that retroactivating sex offender laws is okay because registries are "civil or regulatory and not punitive" all the time. Even if you buy into the BS that registration is not punishment, how is retroactivating civil or regulatory laws even consitutional? It's not like anybody would argue it would be consitutional to retroactivate tax laws or building codes, and stuff like tax laws and building codes is a classic example of civil, regulatory laws.

Anonymous said...

Since the Adam Walsh Act is probably the most vaguely written statute in US history it's not really clear whether the AWA outright requires states to retroactivate their registries or if it merely gives states the option of doing so. Either way, the AWA seems to at the very least encourage states to retroactivate registries.

Mark said...

And the states read it this way because there is no "CLEAR INDICATION" from Congress instead, it was Janet Reno who said "go ahead," it is okay to run the registration schemes retrospectively, in 1994, so the states jumped on the bandwagon!