2013 MBPC 34, 2013 MBPC 34

Cite: 2013 MBPC 34 THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF MANITOBA BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen ) Wendy Friesen, ) for the Crown - and – ) ) D.V.J.S., Young Person ) ) Jay Prober and Bradley King, for the Accused ) ) Judgment delivered: June 6, 2013 ) R.L. POLLACK P.J. Introduction [ 1 ] On May 15, 2011 D.V.J.S. was 15 years old. He armed himself with an axe and, with an 18 year old accomplice, set out to rob a business known as Pizza Hotline. In doing so, he killed 56-year-old Gerald Crayford, a delivery driver who happened upon the scene of the robbery.

He was soon arrested and charged with murder in the second degree. [ 2 ] On October 15, 2012 a preliminary inquiry commenced before me. On October 18, 2012, having heard part of the evidence for the prosecution, D.V.J.S. indicated through counsel that he wished to re-elect to be tried in Provincial Court. On behalf of the Attorney General, the prosecutor indicated that she was seeking an adult sentence pursuant to the Youth Criminal Justice Act (“ YCJA ”), s. 64.

The defence acknowledged that proper notice had been given and, after a comprehension inquiry, the plea of guilty to second degree murder was accepted. [ 3 ] This is my ruling on whether D.V.J.S. is liable to be sentenced as an adult. The prosecution application was vigorously opposed by the defence. Statutory Provisions [ 4 ] The YCJA provisions governing this proceeding changed within a week of the guilty plea as part of an omnibus act known as the Safe Streets and Communities Act , S.C. 2012, c.

Section 195 of that recent legislation makes new wording in YCJA , s.72 applicable.

Section 72 now states: 72.

(1) The youth justice court shall order that an adult sentence be imposed if it is satisfied that (

a) the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness or culpability of the young person is rebutted; and (

b) a youth sentence imposed in accordance with the purpose and principles set out in subparagraph 3(1)( b )(ii) and

section 38 would not be of sufficient length to hold the young person accountable for his or her offending behaviour.

(1.1) If the youth justice court is not satisfied that an order should be made under subsection (1), it shall order that the young person is not liable to an adult sentence and that a youth sentence must be imposed.

(2) The onus of satisfying the youth justice court as to the matters referred to in subsection (1) is on the Attorney General.

(3) In making an order under subsection (1) or (1.1), the youth justice court shall consider the pre-sentence report.

(4) When the youth justice court makes an order under this section, it shall state the reasons for its decision. [ 5 ] Therefore, while the YCJA is intended to operate on the presumption that D.V.J.S. is guilty with diminished moral blameworthiness or culpability, the prosecution can rebut that presumption with evidence satisfying the Court that his moral blameworthiness or culpability is undiminished.

At the same time, the Court must consider the sentencing principles in YCJA , s.38 and whether the prosecution has demonstrated, on the evidence, that the application of those principles would lead to a sentence of insufficient length. [ 6 ] I use the phrase “at the same time” (in the preceding paragraph) because subsection 72(1) criteria are applied to all of the evidence: the facts of the case, the pre-sentence material and the victim impact information. It is not a two-stage process and, in that regard, I adopt the logic of my colleague Martin P.J. who recently decided the case of R. v.

K.H ., 2013 MBPC 31 under the former legislation. At paragraph 8 she wrote that: …the s.72 test is a blended consideration of all relevant factors, not a two-part test that would require the Crown to first rebut the presumption of moral blameworthiness before satisfying the Court that a youth sentence would not be long enough to hold the youth accountable for his or her offending behaviour. [ 7 ]

Section 3 of the YCJA is captioned “Policy for Canada with respect to young persons” and the presumption aforesaid is set out this way: 3.

(1) The following principles apply in this Act: (

b) the criminal justice system for young persons must be separate from that of adults, must be based on the principle of diminished moral blameworthiness or culpability and must emphasize the following: (ii) fair and proportionate accountability that is consistent with the greater dependency of young persons and their reduced level of maturity, . . .

I emphasize “accountability” because it is the first principle in youth sentencing and, against the background of the aforesaid presumption, Parliament’s wording in subsection 38(1) follows logically: The purpose of sentencing under s.42 (youth sentences) is to hold a young person accountable for an offence through the imposition of just sanctions that have meaningful consequences for the young person and that promote his or her rehabilitation and re-integration into society, thereby contributing to the long-term protection of the public. In R. v.

O(A) , 2007 ONCA 144 the panel encapsulated these provisions (in paragraph 42): The combined effect of ss. 72, 3 and 38 is to identify accountability as the purpose that the youth court judge must consider when deciding an application to impose an adult sentence on a young person. Accountability is achieved through the imposition of meaningful consequences for the offender and sanctions that promote his or her rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

The purpose of accountability in this context would seem to exclude accountability to society in any larger sense or any notion of deterrence. [ 8 ] The evidence must be examined to determine whether the prosecution has satisfied me that accountability cannot be achieved within the YCJA sentencing regime. That regime requires a sentence that will not exceed, from the date of sentencing, four years of custody followed by supervision for three years; at the end of seven years no YCJA or other provision mandates any kind of supervision.

Because D.V.J.S. was fifteen at the time of the second degree murder, the Criminal Code makes a life sentence mandatory with eligibility for parole between five and seven years after the date of apprehension (see YCJA , s. 42(2); Criminal Code , ss. 235(1), 745.1(1) (a)). D.V.J.S. has now been detained for 25 months. The robbery, the killing and the proceeds [ 9 ] Byron Bushie was the accomplice. At about 1:43 a.m. he remained outside the Pizza Hotline location while D.V.J.S. entered and purchased a soft drink from Joseph Passawe, an employee who was alone in the store.

For some reason, D.V.J.S. shone a flashlight in Mr. Passawe’s eyes. Then he left for home accompanied by Mr. Bushie. There they obtained what they needed to hide their faces and returned to Pizza Hotline at 2:10 a.m. At that time Mr. Passawe was serving two youths. Gerald Crayford, who was between deliveries, was at the back of the store out of sight. [ 10 ] With clarity, the store security camera recorded D.V.J.S. walking in first, hiding his face with a black toque and a bandanna. Over his shoulder, requiring two hands to hold it, was an axe. Mr. Bushie was wearing a hood and he was carrying a knife.

They came in quickly, demanding to know where the money was. When Mr. Passawe ran toward the rear, the youths ran out the front door, crossed the street to a hospital and called 911 to report the robbery.

[ 11 ] D.V.J.S. and Mr. Bushie caught Mr. Passawe before he could escape. D.V.J.S. held the axe in a threatening manner and demanded that the man open the till. He went through his pockets and took his phone, headphones, a bank card and some change. Then the robbers moved toward the front of the store. [ 12 ] Mr. Passawe was able to run out through the back door and hide. Heading toward the front of the store, D.V.J.S. came upon Mr. Crayford and demanded his phone. Mr. Crayford struggled with him, trying to get the axe.

He was able to pull the toque off during that struggle, during which he was punched by D.V.J.S. When the attacker cried out for help, Mr. Bushie provided help by pulling Mr. Crayford off D.V.J.S. That is when D.V.J.S. struck Mr. Crayford with the axe, raised it again and hit him a second time. Both blows were with the blunt end of the axe to Mr. Crayford’s head. [ 13 ] After that, neither gave Mr. Crayford so much as a glance as they struggled with the cash register. Because they were unable to get it to open, they just picked it up and left with it. [ 14 ] Mr.

Passawe heard the men yelling and screaming as they left and he ran in to find Mr. Crayford. He called 911 and followed their instructions to do everything he could for Mr. Crayford but he was beyond recovery. At the hospital he presented with no brain function. Gerry Crayford was an organ donor and he was kept on life support to enable that last good deed to be completed. [ 15 ] D.V.J.S. and Mr. Bushie tried again to open the cash register in the back lane, using the axe without success. They went to the home of a friend, Tyler West, and paid him for the use of his garage.

There they were able to get into the till and obtain about $2,000.00, $675.00 of which was this offender’s share. [ 16 ] Later in the day D.V.J.S. and Mr. Bushie were sitting around with some friends enjoying some marihuana. Using the stolen cell phones, they made videos of each other, holding up their loot and talking about the robbery. Still later D.V.J.S. visited a female friend and told her all about the robbery, acting it out and laughing as he described what happened.

She testified that she asked him what it felt like to kill someone and he answered that “it felt cool”. [ 17 ] At some point before he was arrested, his sister, mother, grandmother and a friend helped D.V.J.S. hide the axe. It was recovered by police when the friend decided to notify them. [ 18 ] D.V.J.S. was arrested the next day. He was brought to an interview room and had a video recorded conversation with police. He described his confrontation with Mr. Crayford as if the victim was the aggressor, trying to get the axe away from him, and actually hitting him with the axe. The officer noted no marks on D.V.J.S.

He described the help he received from Mr. Bushie and the axe attack that followed: Well, as he pulled him off of me, I punched the guy in the face, and I was like, ‘Ow, my hand’. And I guess he went down, and as he went down, I was like this and I hit him on the top of the head (demonstrating). A question or two later he was asked which end of the axe he hit the man with and he answered: I wasn’t too sure. I just swung. I just swung it and I seen blood. After admitting that he swung the axe “twice maybe”, he said that he only saw a tiny drop of blood and did not think that this would lead to a murder charge.

The officer asked him what happened next and D.V.J.S. stated that: He just laid there, and he’s not moving, so it’s time to turn around and get the register. I will be referring again to that comment. Offender’s criminal record [ 19 ] On January 22, 2009 D.V.J.S. was in a store and he became involved in an altercation with another youth. A clerk tried to calm him down when D.V.J.S. brandished a knife and stated “Get the fuck out of my way or I’m going to stab you”. Charged with possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace and uttering threats, he was released on an undertaking.

Between March 6 and 7, 2009 he failed to comply with its curfew condition. On November 19, 2009 he failed to attend for a court appearance. [ 20 ] On July 3, 2010, while those 2009 charges were still pending before the Court, D.V.J.S. and two other youths covered their heads with toques and their faces with bandannas and entered a Winnipeg convenience store. As D.V.J.S. again waved a knife, the three stole cigarettes and tobacco to a value of $105.00 and fled. [ 21 ] November 5, 2010 was the date of the first and only entry in the criminal record of D.V.J.S.

He was sentenced in this Court by Judge Heinrichs for armed robbery, possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, uttering threats, breach of an undertaking and failure to appear in court. One hundred and two days of time served was noted on the robbery count and he was released on 18 months of supervised probation. [ 22 ] Therefore, as he executed the robbery of Pizza Hotline and the killing of Mr. Crayford, D.V.J.S. was bound by a YCJA probation order after having spent 102 days in a youth centre.

That is how his criminal record stood until he entered a plea of guilty before me to second degree murder. Pre-sentence evidence

[ 23 ] In addition to the submissions by counsel I have had the opportunity to review substantial pre-sentence material, including: ▪ An October 25, 2010 Pre-Sentence Report and a November 2, 2010 Forensic Psychological Assessment which were prepared for the November 5, 2010 sentencing; ▪ An October 21, 2011 FASD Youth Justice Program Assessment by the Manitoba FASD Centre; ▪ A November 22, 2012 Pre-Sentence Report and a January 19, 2013 Forensic Psychological Assessment requisitioned for this application; ▪ Under date of February 20, 2013, a series of Agassiz Youth Centre

summary reports; ▪ An April 11, 2013 Individualized Intensive and Rehabilitative Treatment Plan, this province’s title for a YCJA , s. 42(7)(

d) intensive rehabilitative custody and supervision (“IRCS”) proposal. The IRCS document is certified by the Provincial Director as being available to the offender. It is signed by Brenda-Lee Johnstone, the Manitoba IRCS coordinator. Ms. Johnstone testified at the sentencing hearing. [ 24 ] During the preliminary inquiry I heard the evidence of Mr. Passawe, one of the youths who reported the robbery, Tyler West and the girl with whom D.V.J.S. spoke about his crimes. I also heard from several police officers involved in the investigation.

Antecedents of the offender [ 25 ] This offender will be 18 years of age on October 6, 2013. He has been diagnosed by experts as having an alcohol related neurodevelopmental disorder (“ARND”) as a result of being born to a mother who abused alcohol while pregnant. That mother was unable to care for him for several years and his grandmother took over that responsibility. Dysfunction at home is further illustrated by the fact that his father was incarcerated shortly after his birth and apparently remained a prisoner until D.V.J.S. was 12 years of age.

The pre-sentence report details half a dozen different schools in which he obtained part of a junior high school education. [ 26 ] This offender has aboriginal roots from Sagkeeng First Nation through his mother’s family and St. Theresa Point through his father. His father now lives in Calgary and apparently the two stay in touch with each other. [ 27 ] School years were characterized by disciplinary issues and absences when D.V.J.S. decided to run away. He experimented with drugs and alcohol to the point where, when at large, he was drinking to intoxication, using marihuana daily as well as prescription pills.

He has made it clear that he is unlikely to stop using marihuana. [ 28 ] More recently, he was described as a polite and respectful inmate of Agassiz Youth Centre. He apparently responds well to staff and is in fact responsible for maintaining some high standards for his group. Notwithstanding that, while in remand custody he has been involved in half a dozen incidents of assaultive behavior including identification with gang members. In the pre-sentence report he proclaimed gang membership at one time although now he denies a formal affiliation.

Assessments and risk measurement [ 29 ] Stepping back from the detail presented by probation officers, psychologists and correctional officers, one cannot help but be somewhat surprised that D.V.J.S. did not become in conflict with the law until 2009. The Pre-Sentence Report from his 2010 sentencing described “very early and very heavy use of marihuana and alcohol”. He told his probation officer that his crimes were motivated by the need to acquire more drugs.

The writer also identified easily triggered aggression and rated him as a high risk to re-offend. [ 30 ] The later Pre-Sentence Report and the IRCS report state that he is at a very high risk to re-offend. The probation officer identified his fragmented educational history, the fact that in grade four he was found to have a low Intelligence Quotient and he was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. [ 31 ] I am always guarded about considering allegations of gang membership and what they might imply.

The author of the Pre- Sentence Report wrote that he “meets the criteria consistent with gang membership although he denies current involvement” without specifying the criteria. The Agassiz Youth Centre classified him as “Gang Assoc./Membership” but they have documented some gang activity in their

summary reports. I consider facts to be more important than a label. [ 32 ] The Pre-Sentence Report writer also stressed a significant history of substance abuse and the fact that D.V.J.S. always rejected addiction counseling. [ 33 ] Similar risk factors were identified by a forensic psychologist in 2010. Dr. Miroslaw Grygo stated: From a community management perspective, (D.V.J.S.) will likely present as a significant challenge, as he already incurred the charges associated with failing to comply with conditions of his undertaking.

Furthermore, he comes with a number of factors associated with elevated risk for offending and violent offending, including history of violence; history of non-violent offending; early initiation of

violence; exposure to violence at home and in the community; father’s criminality; poor school-achievement; association with delinquent peers (gang membership); risk taking/impulsivity; substance use difficulty; anger management problems; low empathy/remorse; poor compliance; low interest/commitment to school. From the factors listed above, several are of particular significance from the community managed standpoint and would need to be addressed should the Court consider him for a community based sentence. [ 34 ] Judge Heinrichs attempted to comply with Dr. Grygo’s recommendations.

His probation order specified the Intensive Support and Supervision Program, anger management and substance abuse counseling as well as upgrading education or seeking employment. His order prohibited alcohol, non-medical drugs and offensive weapons. Those conditions applied to D.V.J.S. as he entered the Pizza Hotline store. [ 35 ] The 2013 Forensic Assessment was submitted by Dr. Garry Fisher, a psychologist with vast experience in youth forensic work. Not surprisingly, the report reflects the substance abuse and anger management issues previously identified as well as the ARND diagnosis.

The IRCS report refers to ARND as a “non-criminogenic” risk factor. This is what Dr. Fisher wrote about that disorder: These challenges likely affected several aspects of (D.V.J.S.)’s functioning, and more specifically, he has impairments in his ability to generate good problem-solving organizational skills, demonstrates limited capacity for working memory (keeping track of tasks as he completes them), in sequencing (organizing tasks into logical steps), and in his capacity to engage in shifting from one task or location to another.

Typically, similar individuals do well in environments in which adults provide good structure, organization, and prompting, but have greater difficulty in applying their abilities to an age-expected level and in an adaptive manner when they need to do so independently. [ 36 ] In commenting on the impact of the offence on the offender, Dr. Fisher wrote: He reported “I feel really stupid, seeing how I affected that family.

I can’t take that back now.” He further articulated some post- traumatic sequelae associated with the murder, indicating that he often has “flashbacks” of the event, and engages in reliving the moment cognitively (through his thoughts).

In my opinion, although (D.V.J.S.)’s uttered statements of internalized feelings of remorse seem quite genuine, his actions at that instance were also quite consistent with the presence of more ingrained criminalized aspects in his personality functioning and behavioural decision-making, and addressing this history with him needs to be considered in correctional program intervention. [ 37 ] I quote Dr.

Fisher extensively because this conclusion is the fulcrum of the defence position: In my opinion, based upon a psychological or clinical perspective (D.V.J.S.) presents as an appropriate individual for sentencing within a youth context. This is based upon an understanding of his functioning in the community (living at home), seeming good integration into a youth custodial facility, willingness and demonstration of his deriving gains from youth correctional programming, and I believe that continued placement in his current institution will appropriately meet his needs. [ 38 ] In preparing the IRCS Report, Ms.

Johnstone consulted with Dr. Fisher and her report, too, reflects optimism about a youth correctional program. Her report identified each relevant risk factor and the implications of those risks. The report outlines a program that takes a multidisciplinary team approach to customizing a program of rehabilitation and preparation for re-entry into the community. It is a thorough report and it includes reference to programs outside of IRCS such as the Provincial Special Needs Program and private therapy. The prosecutor challenged Ms.

Johnstone in this way: Q: Is it safe for me to say then that it is basically your belief in the program, not your actual knowledge or belief in (D.V.J.S.) himself that brings you to that conclusion? A: I am not sure how to answer that. I do – Q: Do you understand the question? A: I do. Q: Okay. A: I have a belief in the program that if additional supports are provided, that that provides youth with different opportunities to make better choices. I have belief in (D.V.J.S.), in that (D.V.J.S.) wants to make changes.

That answer arose from statements, made to her by the offender, that he desired to upgrade his education to enable him to become an underwater welder and to end his use of drugs and alcohol. He also told her that he values his family connections and part of the plan would address that desire. Relevance of circumstances of an aboriginal offender [ 39 ] Information about the circumstances in which this aboriginal offender finds himself is a necessary requirement in determining whether the YCJA , s. 72(1) criteria are met.

The prosecution take the position that these circumstances are not relevant because I have not yet decided whether they have shown that the presumption has been rebutted and whether a youth sentence would be of insufficient length. They say that it is only once I have made those determinations that this factor must be considered. I categorically reject that submission. [ 40 ] Although Jamie Tanis Gladue was an adult and the Supreme Court of Canada was considering Criminal Code , s. 718.2(

e) in her

case, what Cory and Iacobucci JJ stated on behalf of the Court is perfectly applicable to the task before me. Having considered sourcessuch as Manitoba’s Aboriginal Justice Inquiry report, they wrote for the unanimous panel: These findings cry out for recognition of the magnitude and gravity of the problem, and for responses to alleviate it. The figures are starkand reflect what may fairly be termed a crisis in the Canadian criminal justice system. The drastic over-representation of aboriginalpeoples within both the Canadian prison population and the criminal justice system reveals a sad pressing social problem.

It isreasonable to assume that Parliament, in singling out aboriginal offenders for distinct sentencing treatment in s.718.2(e), intended toattempt to redress this social problem to some degree. The provision may properly be seen as Parliament’s direction to members of thejudiciary to enquire into the causes of the problem and to endeavor to remedy it, to the extent that a remedy is possible through thesentencing process. R. v.

Gladue, (SCC), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688, para. 64 I have added emphasis to words that, in my opinion, are relevant to the proof burden on the prosecution found in subsection 72(2) of theYCJA. [41] Therefore one of the tasks of a judge hearing an application for a youth to be liable to adult sentencing is to inquire whether thesentencing circumstances of an aboriginal offender would satisfy the accountability requirement. This may lead a judge to conclude that,in a particular case, a sentence that would add to the disproportionate number of imprisoned aboriginal persons is unnecessary.

Such acase might be one in which a holistic community healing program was proposed or perhaps where an institution founded upon traditionalaboriginal core values was willing to accept the offender. Victim impact [42] Although my ruling cannot depend upon how beloved a victim Mr. Crayford is, I can include what I learned. And referringnow to the victimology is not a diversion from my present task. [43] I knew that Gerald Crayford was a hero before his wife, children and other family members read their victim impact statementsto me.

From the preliminary inquiry evidence I learned that he struggled to stop a man armed with an axe from robbing him and hisemployer. Then the victim impact statements arrived and they gave me a character sketch of what a hero he was in other ways. Butwhat stood out as I listened to some of the words being read was that I was hearing from angry people yet they were in anguish over thefact that they were so angry. Their anger gave them neither consolation nor respite and undoubtedly none relished the opportunity toventilate anger in the courtroom.

Their participation was an important component of the solemnity of the sentencing hearing. YCJA, s. 72(1) and the evidence adduced [44] Evidence that determines whether the application for an adult sentence succeeds comes from the offender himself. It is found intwo different media: video and audio. [45] The video evidence demonstrates of how this offender carried himself and conducted himself in the Pizza Hotline premises. With his axe on his shoulder, two hands holding it at the ready, he entered quickly and with confidence.

His rapid movement and hisclear focus on the task at hand as he confronted his victims, struggled with Mr. Crayford, summoned the assistance of Mr. Bushie andthen, having failed to open the cash register, removed it from the premises, all indicate that D.V.J.S. suffered neither failure to appreciatethe morality of the situation nor naiveté about the amount of mayhem he was creating. [46] That piece of video demonstrates sentencing risk factors. It begins with the decision to commit armed robbery with a willingaccomplice, just as he had done before.

Everything shown is purposeful and it demonstrates how 102 days in detention was aconsequence for armed robbery devoid of meaning for the offender. Consider him looking over the store while buying a drink,disguising his appearance, arming himself, moving with self-assurance. If the anger isn’t obvious from his aggression in entering thepremises, surely it manifests itself when he hits his victim with an axe to his head the first time; the second blow puts an exclamationpoint on his anger. [47] The next media is the sound track from his conversation with Detective Sergeant Pyke.

I have already cited the quotation thattells it all: He just laid there, and he’s not moving, so it’s time to turn around and get to the register. That matter-of-fact statement is consistent with the body language seen in the store video. The task of bludgeoning Mr. Crayford todeath was completed and it was time to leave that distraction and go after the cash - without shock, without panic and without hesitation. It was time to go for the crime’s proceeds. Here is clear evidence of someone whose moral blameworthiness or culpability wasunfettered and uninhibited by his youthful age.

There is no other way to say it than his intent and his actions are those of an adult. [48] In addition to those video and sound excerpts, there is expression of remorse that is hardly meaningful in Dr. Fisher’s opinion ifit reflects “ingrained criminalized aspects in his personality functioning and behavioural decision-making” at the time. And it is eclipsedby the evidence of D.V.J.S. excitedly leaving the scene of the murder, impressing friends with a rendition of how it happened, using thecell phones to make videos of each other and talking about how cool it is to kill someone.

I am left with a sketch of someone who is

capable of feeling pride in the accomplishments of the robbery and the homicide. That is such a distance from accountability, within the meaning of the YCJA , that accountability is not even in sight. [ 49 ] I have considered carefully Dr. Fisher’s opinion of the appropriateness of youth court sentencing and realize that he underlined his caveat “based upon a psychological or clinical perspective” because he is not called upon to apply the YCJA criteria.

He is not required, when he refers to the offenders home life, to consider that three generations of his family with whom he lived helped to hide the murder weapon. He may be quite right in saying that Agassiz Youth Centre can meet his needs – Ms.

Johnstone testified to that – but that fails to include factors like the offender’s threat to others whose needs the centre is trying to meet. [ 50 ] I am not at all satisfied that just sanctions carrying meaningful consequences exist today or are likely to exist within the next seven years such that D.V.J.S. will be rehabilitated and reintegrated into society “thereby contributing to the long-term protection of the public”. [ 51 ] The defence quite properly urged me not to lose sight of the fact that I can take into account two years of time served already as making the maximum YCJA time line nine years and not seven years.

That submission implies that four years from today the offender’s rehabilitation would be so complete, and he would be so prepared for re-integration into the community, that restrictions such as those found in his 2010 probation order would suffice to continue that rehabilitation and re-integration.

The evidence in this case fails to give me that confidence. [ 52 ] I am satisfied that the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness or culpability has been rebutted and that the principled application of the YCJA sentencing regime would not yield a sentence of sufficient length to hold D.V.J.S. accountable for the second degree murder of Gerald Crayford. Accordingly I am ordering that D.V.J.S. is liable to an adult sentence. “Original signed by” R. L. POLLACK P.J.