Pierre and Dr. Arnold break down about the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in the matter of R. v. Sheppard. The Doctor and I have followed the Sheppard case and podcasted about it in the past. Now that we have a decision by the nation's highest court. We talk about the Court's findings and legal reasoning. The ruling was clear in its purpose and intent. Sheppard was reincarcerated and the Court sent a message to all the provinces: sexual violence is not to be trifled with when making sentencing decisions. The Friesen case toughened the standards: Sheppard reinforces it. Sheppard is now precedent. We end this presentation by asking "What's up with the convicted pedophile's perjury in his trial?" Sheppard never disclosed a 1987 Ontario conviction at his Alberta trial. (Chief Justice) Wagner: "You ask him the question — he's the one who knows — he said no. Is that perjury?"Beresh (Sheppard's attorney) replied, "I suggest it isn't," saying he also didn't know about any prior criminal record.

Pierre and Crazy James talk about recent civic activities, including upcoming local elections in October where James is running for city council again. Pierre shared his reappointment to the Library Commission for another four years. Pierre and Crazy tried to discuss Dungeons & Dragons, and James explained the significance of rolling a natural 20. Things go downhill from there.

Pierre and Doctor Arnold talk about the Sheppard case after having some time to reflect about its importance in Canadian jurisprudence. The Canadian Supreme Court's decision to uphold the original sentence of 6 years for sexual assault was meant to send a strong signal about their expectations - specifically around the Friesen case, which tries to make sure that sentences are fair and reflect current understanding of crimes, rather than what might be a more lenient past. Enjoy.