St. Lca: Does the judge have a weakness for pedophilic perverts?

Compare this story with the previous one.

Williamson Celestine, 48, alias Blackboy of Praslin, has been found guilty of indecency with a 12-year-old girl. The incident occurred at the victim's home on August 28, 2000.

Celestine was represented by Shawn Innocent. He was sentenced on Monday by Justice Indra Hariprashad-Charles who had presided over the three-day trial.

"The law prescribes a maximum of ten years for this type of offense," said the judge. "I cannot go above ten years. I must go into the mitigating and aggravating factors and do an evaluative process. There were reports from probation officer Mrs Myers and Mrs Matthews, a counselor. There were challenges to both reports from Mr Innocent who said the reports were not done by a qualified doctor as to the mental state of the complainant after the incident."

Justice Hariprashad-Charles said there were no reports from psychiatrist alleging that the complainant had suffered psychological trauma.

"I have to accept Mr Innocent's objections. I would have been happier, if she suffered so traumatically, to have had a psychiatrist's report, not a report from a family case worker. Therefore, I must not use the state of mind of the complainant as an aggravating factor. The Court of Appeal has laid down guidelines. I am left with no alternative but to impose a five-year prison sentence."

This judge needs her head examined. Does she really need a psychiatric report to tell her that a child is certainly harmed by sex with an adult? Is she of the NAMBLA school of thought which argues that adult-child sex is a positive and beneficial thing for the child? A 48-year old man has sex with a 12-year old, and he gets only five years! Five years!

If, in the case of Felix Dominique, Justice Hariprashad-Charles found that the age of the child was aggravating factor enough to sentence Dominique to 12 years with hard labor, but no cat, is not the age of the child also in play here in the Celestine case?If the law prescribes a maximum of ten years for adult-child sex, then why was the pervert Dominique given 12 years? Does Justice Hariprashad-Charles want St. Lucians to believe that a 12-year old child is an adult? Is that the reason for the measly 5-year sentence, minus the cat?

Justice Hariprashad-Charles appears to be dispensing arbitrary justice.