Law 12Ms. Ripley

R. v. Grundy (2002), Alta. Q.B.
Robert Grundy was employed by Yorkton Securities Inc. from 1986 to 2000. From October 1997 to September 1998, Grundy, acting as a registered representative, made unauthorized discretionary trades in several client accounts. These unauthorized trades resulted in shortfalls of cash and securities in the accounts. To cover the losses, Grundy misappropriated cash and securities from unrelated client accounts and directed stolen cash and securities to accounts of five of his friends, who remitted cash back to him. The company was required to make cash settlements and make corrections to the affected accounts, thus losing $217 749.85.
Grundy was charged with fraud over $5000 in June 2000 and pleaded guilty to the charge in November of that year. Grundy received a sentence of two years less a day with the following conditions: conditions of probation—240 hours’ community service within the first 18 months, taking counselling and treatment for stress and depression; residing only where approved by his supervisor; and remaining in his residence or on its grounds between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., seven days per week. He was allowed to go directly from his home to his work and was ordered to pay restitution of $218 700 to Yorktown.
The Crown appealed the sentence, believing that it was too light and failed to meet the need to deter others from similar acts. The appeal was allowed and Grundy’s sentence was changed so that he was confined to his residence 24 hours a day and could only leave to complete the 240 hours of community service. In essence, he was under 24-hour house arrest.
1. This case involved fraud, which is similar to theft. According to the Code of Hammurabi, what would the penalty be in such a case?
According to the Code of Hammurabi, “If anyone steals cattle or sheep, a pig or a goat, the thief shall pay tenfold.” Since this case involves personal property (money), the sentence would likely be to pay tenfold the amount taken.
2. What is the penalty for theft of property under Mosaic Law?
The Mosaic Law sets out penalties or restitution similar to the Code of Hammurabi. The Mosaic Law states that “If a man steals an ox or a sheep and kills it or sells it, he shall restore five oxen for an ox and four sheep for a sheep.” Since this case involves the theft of property the individual would be required to pay four or five times the value taken.
3. According to the Code of Hammurabi, what would happen to a thief who could not pay? What would happen if someone in Canada could not pay all of a restitution order at one time?
According to the Code of Hammurabi, if a thief is unable to pay restitution, that person would be put to death. Under Canadian law, if someone could not pay all of a restitution order at one time, the courts would establish a schedule for payments.
4. The Code of Hammurabi has very strict sentences that were meant to deter people from committing crimes. Do you think that strict sentences are a good way to deter crime? Why or why not?
Student opinions will vary. Some students might argue that strict sentences do not deter criminals for reasons such as the following:
• Strict sentences would not stop someone from committing an impulsive crime (e.g., a crack addict in need of money for drugs would not think about the consequences of his or her actions).
• The death penalty has not lowered the homicide rates in American states that have capital punishment; in fact, states without capital punishment have lower murder rates than those states that still impose the death penalty.
Others might argue that strict sentences establish strong consequences for criminal actions and force individuals to consider the implications of their actions (e.g., some believe that if penalties were harsher for youths under 16 years of age, the incidence of crime in that age group would decline. Lenient penalties cause youths to believe that they can “get away” with committing crimes).