as a youth, the maximum penalty for first-degree murder would carry a ten-year sentence, although an offender can only spend a maximum of six years in custody, with the remainder of the sentence to be served in open custody, meaning a halfway house or the offender’s own home. If sentenced as an adult under the YCJA, S.M. would serve ten years in jail (minus the time spent in pre-trial custody).
There is a very important difference between the two sentences, however. If charged as a youth, S.M.’s name would never be made public, and five years after the end of his sentence, the conviction would disappear from his record. If sentenced as an adult, the conviction would stay with him forever. He would remain on parole for the rest of his life, and his name would probably be made public.
The Sentencing Hearing
S.M.’s sentencing hearing began on January 28, 2009. As a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in The Queen v. D.B., the burden of proving that he warranted an adult sentence rested with the prosecution.
The prosecutor called four of Oatway’s relatives to deliver emotional victim impact statements. Then the parole officer discussed S.M.’s difficult childhood; his unsuccessful efforts to straighten out his life; and his manipulative, aggressive nature.
S.M.’s Sentence
On February 12, 2009, Justice Robert Maranger of Ontario Superior Court ruled that S.M. should be sentenced as an adult and that the seriousness of the crime warranted the lifting of the publication ban on his identity.
S.M., now identified as Shawn McKenzie, was sentenced to ten years in jail. He would be able to apply for parole in seven-and-a-half years, however, because of the two-and-a-half years spent in custody following his arrest. (With actual adult sentences, the minimum is twenty-five years behind bars before eligibility for parole.) He will remain on parole forever, and the conviction will remain on his record.
The judge took into account McKenzie’s difficult childhood and positive attributes, but added:
I can say that I found it troublesome that throughout the proceeding, he did not show any sign of remorse or regret for his actions. He did not even express remorse or regret when the victim impact statements were read in open court at the sentencing hearing.
It could be simply false pride, as described by his counsel, or frankly, it could be the emotional detachment of a very cold-blooded individual.
What may have tipped the scales for Judge Maranger opting for an adult sentence was the testimony of probation officer Andre Sarazin, who told the court that as a professional and private citizen, he would be more comfortable if McKenzie were supervised for a longer period of time.
The judge concluded, “I am not reasonably assured that Shawn McKenzie can be rehabilitated and reintegrated safely into society through a youth court sentence.”
Solutions to Youth Violence
Some criminologists who study youth crime believe that: (1) the worst offenders often come from the poorest families in the worst neighbourhoods; (2) they often have neglectful or absent parenting; and (3) the solution, if there is one, must come early, in the form of prevention programs.
Elliott Leyton, an anthropologist who has studied youth crime, believes that the solution to youth crime “lies in the reduction of unemployment, the increase in social programs and the use of punishment rather than prison.” He expresses concern, however, about “the generation of vipers … already created, those juveniles and young adults, some on probation, who have little if any feeling for others and are perfectly willing to slaughter the innocent.” And, he asks, “Why is the entire system focused so heavily on the needs and rights of violent men and women?”
Leyton sums up what a smart society and justice system would do: “Radically improve social conditions and economic opportunities. Ruthlessly repress violence” (Blatchford 2009a; 2009b; 2009e; Seymour 2008; “Teen Sentenced as Adult in Michael Oatway Murder” 2009).
An Adult Sentence for
a “Puppet Master” Killer
On New Year’s Day, 2008, fourteen-year-old Stefanie Rengel opened the front door of her Toronto home and faced a killer. She was stabbed six times and bled to death shortly after in the arms of a stranger who saw her staggering along the sidewalk.
Within hours, police arrested a seventeen-year-old male (identified as D.B.) and a fifteen-year-old girl (identified as M.T.) and charged them with first-degree murder. (Their identities were protected under provisions of the YCJA.) D.B. was alleged to have been the person who attacked Rengel. M.T., though not alleged to have been at the scene of the crime, was alleged to have been the “mastermind” behind the killing.
At M.T.’s trial, the court heard that she was obsessively jealous of Rengel, whom she had never met but regarded as a rival. For over eight months, through conversations, text messages, Facebook ramblings, and Internet chats, she used sexual blackmail to pressure D.B. to kill Rengel.
The jury considered thousands of pages of text messages between M.T. and D.B., including conversations that apparently detailed their plans for the murder. M.T., in explicit terms, threatened to cut off sexual relations with D.B. unless he killed Rengel. She warned him that she would break off with him completely. In one message, she had told him: “I want her dead.… We’ve been through this.” Later, she added: “If it takes more than a week, then we’re jus gonna be friends.”
The Jury Decides
The jury watched two videotaped statements given by M.T. to police just hours after being arrested. In both, she seemed emotionless. She acknowledged that, though D.B. was more violent, she was the one more committed to Rengel’s death. She was asked by police, “He wouldn’t have thought of killing her had you not been so upset about what you perceived as her interference in your relationship, right?” She answered simply, “Yes.”
Prosecutors relied on a well-established legal principle: Counselling others to kill makes a person guilty of murder. On March 20, 2009, the jury found M.T. guilty of first-degree murder. It was then up to the judge to determine whether M.T. would be sentenced as a youth or an adult.
The Media’s Response
Following the jury’s decision, the Globe and Mail published the following editorial:
Sentencing a 15-year-old girl to an adult penalty, even for first-degree murder, is a major step for Canadian justice. The adult penalty is a mandatory life term. But it is the right step in the case of the Toronto girl known as M.T., convicted last week and awaiting sentence for her role in the stabbing death of 14-year-old Stefanie Rengel.
Canada’s courts tend to look assiduously, as they should, for any hope of rehabilitation in the young. But the adult penalty for those 17 and under has a special parole clause. At age 15, M.T. would be eligible for parole after five to seven years, at the trial judge’s discretion. This is a built-in form of leniency, a promise that those who deserve a chance at rehabilitation can get that chance while they are still young. It is not really an adult penalty, but a hybrid of the adult and youth penalties. And it fits these circumstances.
The killing of Stefanie Rengel was not a crime of passion, a “mistake” in judgment which might be blamed on youthful immaturity. Its cold-bloodedness chills the spine. For months, over countless emails, text messages and cellphone conversations, M.T. urged her 17-year-old boyfriend to kill Ms. Rengel, a girl she had never even met, on the apparent basis of a grudge she had developed against her. (The boyfriend is about to be tried for first-degree murder.) When
