Sadist, at 18, raises disturbing issues
Warning: This column includes graphic details that may offend some readers.
A courtroom official tells the sadist to get rid of his chewing gum.
Mummy straightens the sadist’s sweater, pats him on the leg.
Out of the judge’s earshot, the sadist whines about how long this is all taking. The sadist is 18 years old. He has just been forbidden from accessing any websites that depict bondage, necrophilia, sadism and masochism. Smut is also a no-no, though Justice Joseph De Filippis wonders aloud if Canada’s Criminal Code contains a working definition of pornography. “Go to the . . . Toronto Sun and flip to page 3. Many people in the community would consider that pornographic.’’
That would be the tabloid’s signature Sunshine Girl, who actually has now been relegated — in all her concupiscent splendour — to the paper’s second-last page, page 3 only a demure teaser.
After consulting on the matter, De Filippis includes a prohibition against any websites wherein the content’s “dominant characteristic is undue exploitation of sex . . . or sex and crime or cruelty and violence.’’
The sadist’s creepy viewing pleasure has thus been curtailed for at least the probationary period of three years, which is the sentence the teenager received Thursday in a GTA courtroom, following his earlier conviction on one count of threatening bodily harm. He will also be required to receive 18 months of counselling via an Intensive Support and Supervision Program.
This order is well received by the sadist’s lawyer, who notes that her client had previously sought help through a similar program for sexual offenders but was deemed ineligible because he hadn’t yet committed an offence. The sadist had no criminal record before last month’s finding of guilt on the threatening charge.
A courtroom observer wonders if this is what a blossoming sadist looks like — the “before’’ picture of a Paul Bernardo or Col. Russell Williams, though neither of those sexual deviants looked the part of a diabolical predator even in their wretched adulthood. Psychopaths rarely do present to the world as what they are inside. This sadist is a handsome, strapping young man, in his neat navy trousers and cardigan, nicely groomed. The observer imagines a teenage girl would be quite chuffed to receive a Facebook overture from so pleasant-seeming a boy. Except this sadist wrote: “I wanna cut ur stomach open and stick my d--k in it.’’ From her end of the online chat, the girl responded blandly: “OK.’’ Sadist: “Break ur legs and (obscenity deleted) on ur face.’’ Girl: “k calm down.’’ That, De Filippis concluded, constituted the bodily harm threat, rejecting the defence’s argument that the Facebook conversation utterances were merely desires, not intended action.
This sadist is a handsome, strapping young man, in his neat navy trousers and cardigan, nicely groomed
The judge acknowledged the distinction and further speculated Thursday that the violent fantasies may have been an exaggeration — “that exaggeration is obviously a plea for attention.” In his written judgment, De Filippis stated: “The fact the defendant is sexually aroused by thoughts of causing bodily harm does not end the matter. His desire, however, distressing, is not a crime. He can only be condemned if he acts upon his thought.’’ Then De Filippis took a direct route from thought to intended consequences, in that the girl did feel threatened, albeit not until after she got off the computer. “I find that the defendant is a sadist,’’ the judge wrote. “The Facebook conversation reflects his need to cause bodily harm as a source of sexual gratification. He described the violent nature of the acts contemplated and sought the complainant’s submission to his desire. He also said he did not care if she consented. “I have no doubt these words were meant to be taken seriously and that they intimidated the complainant. Indeed, I am confident he derived pleasure from the threats themselves.’’ The teenagers had known each other only three days, having met at school. Yet they plunged into a chat about violent sex. She tells him she’s had an abortion, but “I’m not like every other girl ud date I don’t do anything sexual big until . . . we’ve been dating a while . . . sorry.’’ Sadist: “U see that’s where ur wrong . . . I don’t care if u want it to happen or not.’’ At that point, the boy says, “I don’t wanna hurt u so bye,” as if warning her off. Yet she won’t let him get away. “Stop — I do have feelings for you . . . but u can’t force me into s---. . . . I’m not like that. I don’t want to lose what we have but if u can’t respect me then . . . maybe we should just stay friends.’’ Three days they’ve known each other, and she’s working on some fantasies of her own. “If I hurt u, but not badly, are u okay with that?’’ he asks. “Like if cut u? . . . Bruise u . . . I want to cut u.’’ Uh-uh, she wants no part of that. “No u can kiss me and u can only slap my a--.’’ It was entirely a “reciprocal’’ conversation, court heard, and the girl laughed when the youth said he’d masturbated over a picture of her. The sadist, after announcing he’d been expelled from another school for sexual assault and had spent four months in a psychiatric facility, also sends the girl a web link to his blog, wherein he claimed a doctor had diagnosed him with “necrophilia and sadism.” Included in the blog were photos of famous serial killers, mutilated women and a brief video clip of a woman’s breasts being sliced with a razor.
Rereading the exchange the following morning, the girl became frightened and reported it to her teacher. Police were called and the boy was arrested at school. In his backpack, cops found a handwritten note. In block letters: “KILLER RAPE DEATH”. The note also detailed fantasies of cutting, beating, raping and breaking a girl’s legs. “I can only get pleasure, sexual pleasure, if the female is undergoing extreme pain, being raped, abused tortured or simply crying.’’
He spent 77 days in pre-sentence custody.
A psychiatric report — entered into evidence but denied to the Star, under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (which also protects the offender’s identity) — found that the boy had attempted suicide in the past, was (as distilled by the Crown attorney) “alone, depressed and addicted to certain Internet sites,” with “unhealthy obsessions that put both him and the public at risk.’’
De Filippis was deeply concerned with the youth’s “very disturbing obsession with violence and necrophilia.’’ The judge noted the teen’s “deep-rooted’’ psychological problems and the requirement — as legislated in the act — that “reintegration must be incorporated into sentencing.’’
“If he doesn’t get over these issues, he will be a grave risk to public safety. Rehabilitation offers the best route for him to live a happy life.’’
He will do it, these next three years, without access to social media, including cellphones and text messaging. He can use a computer only for the purpose of school work, subject to periodic monitoring by police.
De Filippis said the law prevented him from issuing an order to have the youth’s DNA entered on a police data bank, for forensic identification in the event he commits a crime in the future.
That is: If the boy sadist becomes a man sadist.