The Supreme Court in Canada on Friday decided mandatory minimum sentences for child luring are too wide-ranging and might lead to punishments that go against the Charter of Rights, which safeguards people from cruel and unusual punishment."The mandatory periods of incarceration apply to such an exceptionally wide scope of conduct that the result is grossly disproportionate punishments in reasonably foreseeable scenarios." the ruling said.In a decision of six to one, Justice Suzanne Côté dissented, the court ruled on two cases from the Quebec Court of Appeal.Both cases found the mandatory minimum sentences of one year for an indictment and six months for a summary offence to have violated Section 12 of the charter."Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment,” says Section 12.Even though the court made that decision, both cases still ended up with the individuals found guilty receiving longer sentences.Maxime Marchand lured a 13-year-old victim when he was 22 through a Facebook friend request and spent two years in contact with the victim. On four separate occasions, they had “illegal sexual intercourse.”Marchand received a one-year mandatory minimum sentence when he pleaded guilty to one count of child luring and one count of sexual interference. He fought the one-year sentence, saying it violated Section 12 of the charter.Marchand successfully argued against the one-year sentence and was sentenced to five months.The second case is covered by a publication ban to shield the victim’s identity. 'HV' pleaded guilty to one count of child luring because they sent sexual text messages over 10 days to the victim.HV challenged the mandatory minimum sentence as being unconstitutional and the judge agreed, giving a sentence of 150 hours of community service and two years probation.The judge on appeal found the mandatory minimum sentence unconstitutional and changed it to a four-month prison sentence.In their ruling, the Supreme Court explained striking down mandatory minimum sentences was due to the fact the law was too wide-ranging."The broad reach and range of the offence means a defined minimum period of imprisonment in all cases will sometimes produce results so excessive as to outrage standards of decency," said Justice Sheilah Martin writing for the majority."Invalidating the mandatory minimums does not mean that child luring is a less serious offence. Based on the distinct and insidious psychological damage luring generates, in some cases, the appropriate penalty for child luring will be imprisonment for a period equal to or longer than that set out in the unconstitutional mandatory minimum sentences.”The Supreme Court changed Marchand’s sentence to one year and to be served after the sexual interference sentence instead of concurrently.HV’s sentence stayed at four months.Justice Côté said mandatory minimums are “rarely” disproportionate to the mandatory minimums for child luring.