There is no doubt that the bus crash that took the lives of the Humboldt Bronco junior hockey team was a tragedy. The 16 lives lost and the additional 13 lives forever altered by injury are a tragedy beyond words, and they elicit powerful emotional responses from anyone who hears about them.
If you, like me, were moved by the story, you’re not alone. More than 140,000 donors from more than 80 countries contributed to the second most successful GoFundMe campaign in history, raising in excess of $15 million in just 12 days.
This brings up some interesting questions about how we act and react to tragic events. Tragedy is a daily occurrence in this world; lives are lost needlessly every minute of every day. Yet how we react to an individual event varies greatly, from the outpouring seen for our Saskatchewan neighbours to complete indifference for countless others.
Let’s be clear: this is not to say that the disparity is either wrong or right, and it certainly doesn’t take away from the trauma so many of us have felt since the Humboldt tragedy. But we should simply be able to explore the question.
It is curious to wonder why certain events trigger such profound reactions while others don’t. We may feel worse when a child dies than when a senior citizen passes. Collectively, we donated large sums of money after the earthquake in Haiti, but we’ve virtually ignored the ongoing crisis in Yemen.
The Humboldt bus accident resonates with us for many reasons. Perhaps it’s the young age of many of those lost. Perhaps it’s the team aspect, or that they were a hockey team specifically, which we regard as our national sport.
This is not wrong. We are entitled to invest our emotions and care in whatever way feels right to us as individuals.
But should our courts be afforded the same entitlement? By nature of our judicial system, is there room for the courts to take into account the strong public emotional reaction the event has engendered? Should the judge in this case consider all these emotions when deciding on a sentence for the driver of the truck? Likely, that judge is not immune to the same thoughts and feelings we all have, and it seems sure that the intense public profile of this case has produced a political component that must weigh heavily on the judge.
This is where we tread into waters that may be uncomfortably cold.
The angel of justice, as depicted in Greco-Roman art, is often shown holding the scales of justice… but she is saddled with a blindfold. The idea here is simple: justice must be impartial and consider the facts of the case only. There is no room for emotion, only room for facts and the consequences; even the consequences take a back seat to the facts. This is fundamental when it comes to ensuring true justice in our system.
Few of us could envy the position of Judge Inez Cardinal, whose duty it is to impose a fair sentence on the driver, Mr. Sidhu. The concept of proportional sentencing means that the judge must take into account the impact of the action, but actions themselves are the charge. The judge’s decision, regardless of what it is, will likely be seen as too light by many, and too heavy by others.
For the public, we will view the sentence through the lens of our own emotions, as well as through our personal biases and experiences.
Though it will be difficult, I would encourage us all to read beyond the sentence itself and think upon the judge’s rationale in this case. This is important, because the integrity of our justice system is also at stake.
We have given our support and our prayers to the families of Humboldt. Perhaps it’s time to turn our support to Judge Cardinal and our prayers to her wisdom and discernment.
