Sentencing a
sex offender
The most horrendous forms of
sexual assaults are those where the offenders used violence on their victims.
However the next horrendous form of sexual offence is where an offender molests
his unconscious victim. This article is
about such a sex offender and his sentence.
Dr. George Doodnaught was an anesthesiologist at
North York General Hospital in Toronto, Ontario. He had been convicted of
sexually assaulting twenty-one female patients over a four-year period ending
in February 2010. His victims ranged in age from twenty-five to seventy-five.
The assaults were committed in operating rooms during surgery while the victims
were in a state of semi-consciousness and unable to offer meaningful
resistance.
He committed
the crimes while he was shielded from view behind draping that was separating
him and his victims’ upper bodies from the surgical doctors and nurses. He
knew when he could commit the brief sexual assaults without being seen, because
after twenty-six years at the hospital, he was well familiar with operation procedures
and practices during surgery.
Most of the 21 victims took the stand against Doodnaught.
They generally gave similar accounts of being kissed and fondled by him,
and of having his penis placed in their mouths or hands. The women testified
they were conscious enough to be aware of what was happening, but could not
move their limbs or speak. The trial judge hearing the case in November 2013, concluded
that the women were semi- conscious and aware enough during significant parts
of their surgeries, and were able to recall these shocking and abhorrent
events.
Dr. Robert
Michael Brock, an orthopedic surgeon, said an elderly woman complained to him
that she was fondled and kissed by anesthesiologist Dr. George Doodnaught. He testified
that he never acted upon the patient’s complaint of being sexually assaulted
during an operation because he thought it would be impossible for such an
incident to happen. He was wrong.
A scrappy
patient recalled telling Doodnaught to “Stop it! Stop it! Stop it” after he
sexually assaulted her during surgery. The witness, a nurse for more than 20
years, testified she was undergoing a hernia operation on December 19, 2006, at
North York General Hospital when she felt a penis being inserted into her
mouth.
In court while giving her testimony, she said in part; “I was in the
twilight state. But I was aware of the chatter in that operating room. My arms
were restrained by my side.” North York surgeon Dr. Stan Feinberg, who
performed the hernia operation, testified the patient said, “Take that thing
out of my mouth,” but the patient never repeated those words on the stand.
Feinberg asked Doodnaught to render the patient unconscious, which he did.
Doodnaught
maintained that the women were either having drug-induced hallucinations or
erotic dreams. His lawyer
argued that it was physically impossible for Doodnaught to have sexually
assaulted patients in busy operating rooms and that the patients were having
drug-induced hallucinations and erotic dreams.
Dr. George Mashour, an anesthetist who has researched
awareness of patients during conscious sedation, testified that the odds are
rare that the drugs administered by Doodnaught caused the patients to only
believe they were molested. If the drugs were to blame, one cannot expect all
the victims to relate to a single doctor and no other.
Justice David McCombs, the trial judge,
said “I conclude
that the Crown (prosecutor) has established the guilt of the accused on all 21
charges. The evidence supporting guilt is overwhelming. The multitude of
credible allegations against the same individual in similar circumstances
constitutes powerful circumstantial evidence of guilt.”
What kind of sentence would be appropriate in a case like this one? Doodnaught
was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment for sexually assaulting 21 of his female
patients. As to be expected, this sex molester appealed the sentence. The appeal was heard in the Superior Court in
March 2014.
Mr. Justice Coombs said when considering the appeal;
“George Doodnaught
betrayed the extraordinarily high degree of trust accorded to him. As the
anesthesiologist, he was charged with the responsibility of controlling the
level of sedation of his patients, and monitoring their vital signs and levels
of consciousness while they lay helpless on the operating table covered only by
a surgical gown. The power imbalance between himself and his victims was
absolute. He exploited the trust he was given and used it to enable him to
commit his crimes. He paid no heed to the harm it was doing to his victims, who
were sedated but aware of what was happening to them and unable to fight
back. By his actions, George Doodnaught betrayed his victims, his
colleagues, his hospital, the medical profession, the community, and his own
family.” unquote
He also said; “The
victim impact statements presented to the court at the sentencing hearing have
shed further light on the devastating effect the crimes have had on their
lives. The profound psychological impact of the physical violations has
been compounded by the victims’ deep feelings of betrayal—that these offences
were committed during surgery, by a medical doctor, in an operating room, a
place of ultimate vulnerability and trust. Some of the more tragic
consequences for George Doodnaught’s victims include sexual dysfunction,
inability to form intimate relationships, family disharmony, distrust of the
medical profession, sometimes to the extent of being unable to seek appropriate
medical treatment, loss of feelings of self-worth, panic attacks, feelings of
shame, humiliation and embarrassment, and in some cases, debilitating feelings
of anger and bitterness.” unquote
He also said; “George
Doodnaught has no prior criminal record. He is sixty-five years
old. From a modest background, he was able to obtain an excellent
education and achieve high standing in his chosen field. The defence has
filed forty-nine letters of support on his behalf. They have been written
by members of his family, former colleagues, patients, and long-term
friends. They are uniformly shocked that the man they know has been found
to have committed these crimes. His family members and supporters describe him
as a modest, caring, and loving person, and a supportive and generous mentor,
who took great pride in his work as an anesthesiologist and most of all, in his
family. The letters also provide insight into the effect that his public
disgrace has had on him and his family. Not surprisingly, he is described
as being in a state of anguish, a shell of his former self.” unquote
Determining
an appropriate sentence is an inexact and difficult process. Ultimately,
the decision is left to the discretion of the court, subject to a number of
guiding principles found in the governing legislation and in decisions of trial
and appellate courts. In determining an appropriate sentence, One has to keep
in mind the fundamental purpose of sentencing, which, in the words of the Canadian
Criminal Code, is “to contribute to respect
for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by
imposing just sanctions” with one or more of a number of objectives, including
denunciation of the conduct, deterrence of the offender and others,
acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and to the community, and
rehabilitation of the offender.
Further, in deciding
what constitutes a just sentence, the most important guiding principle is that
the sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the conduct and the degree
of moral blameworthiness of the offender. The sentence must take into account
both aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Aggravating factors include
abuse of trust or authority by the person committing the crimes along with
significant adverse effects on the victims. In imposing a sentence of
imprisonment for a first-time offender, the courts should not focus exclusively
on principles of denunciation and deterrence and ignore mitigating factors such
as the lack of a prior criminal record and evidence of prior good character.
Where
an offender has been convicted of several offences, the court may impose
consecutive sentences, but the combined sentence should be governed by the
principle of proportionality or totality, so that the resulting sentence does
not become overly harsh or excessive. In applying the principle of totality,
the court must first identify the core or gravamen of the conduct giving rise
to all of the criminal offenses, and then determine the total sentence to be
imposed. Once the appropriate total sentence is determined, the court
should impose sentences reflecting the seriousness of each offence and then
decide whether the sentences for each offence should be made concurrent or
consecutive to each other.
Both
the lawyers for the defence and the crown agreed that the overriding governing
principles in this case had to be the denunciation of the conduct of the
appellant and the deterrence of others. Both sides agreed that on the
facts as the trial judge had found them; a very substantial period of
imprisonment was required.
In my opinion, this former doctor’s moral
blameworthiness was at the high end of the spectrum of bad conduct. His conduct
did enormous damage and was reprehensible in the extreme. For this
reason, the former doctor’s conduct had to be condemned in the strongest of
terms and that would mean a very heavy sentence.
But I go back to my question,
was ten years imprisonment sufficient?
Mr. Justice Coombs, said at the end of hearing; “I
have concluded that the appropriate total sentence in this case is one of
imprisonment for ten years.”
He
also ordered a lifetime order under the combined operation of Criminal Code
ss. 490.012
(1) and 490.013(2.1),
requiring that the offender comply with the Sex Offender
Information Registration Act.
He,
like all doctors have insurance covering their mistakes but I am not sure if
their policies cover criminal wrongdoings. Probably not so if his victim’s sue
him, the claims will probably total millions of dollars. Further, he can never
ever be licensed to practice medicine again.
He will however be eligible to be released on parole after serving
two-thirds of his sentence which will be when he is in his early seventies. After
that, he will only be able to live on old-age pension and Canada pension which
the creditors won’t be able to touch.
All
of this is a fitting punishment for such a wicked man.
No comments:
Post a Comment