Canadian court reduced a sex offender’s jail time after factoring in race and an IRCA assessment, sparking criticism that restorative justice and DEI ideas are skewing punishment and leaving victims at greater risk.
Restorative justice and DEI principles are being used to justify lighter penalties for serious crimes, and that shift is now playing out in a Canadian case that has drawn bipartisan concern. The case involves Omogbolahan Jegede, who was convicted of sexually assaulting two women, and a judge who pointed to an Impact of Race and Cultural Assessment when deciding sentence length. Critics say this approach undermines equal treatment under the law and weakens deterrence for violent offenders.
Jegede, a 25-year-old former footballer, was accused of assaulting two women, one of whom he choked nearly to the point of unconsciousness. The court record shows his victims were overpowered by his size, and the conduct included forced oral sex, which the judge described as serious and deserving of denunciation. Despite that, the sentence handed down was shorter than what prosecutors sought.
Justice Frank Hoskins wrote, “It should be noted that, but for the contents of the impact of Race and Cultural Assessment (IRCA), the pre-sentence report and all the mitigating factors surrounding Omogbolahan (Teddy) Jegede, this sentence would have been much higher.” The judge also imposed three years of probation after a lesser custodial outcome than prosecutors asked for. Prosecutors had pushed for 36 months, while the defense sought a conditional sentence served in the community.
The IRCA reportedly concluded Jegede was “feeling intense pressure around the time of the assaults and did not have culturally appropriate support to turn to.” Justice Hoskins noted Jegede grew up in a “strong, church-going family with strict parents” who worked in professional careers, language that suggests socioeconomic disadvantage was not the central issue. Still, the IRCA appears to have carried weight when balancing mitigation against the need for punishment.
From a conservative perspective, this is a dangerous precedent: when a defendant’s race becomes a key factor in sentencing, equality before the law is compromised. The argument for equal application of penalties is not sympathy for offenders but protection for victims and public safety. When sentence length is adjusted because of group identity, it risks signaling that some offenders face lower stakes for violent behavior.
That concern is not theoretical. Recent violent incidents in U.S. cities are cited by critics as examples of what can happen when accountability softens. In Seattle, an elderly woman named Jeanette Marken was reportedly blinded after being struck in the face with a wooden board by a man identified as Fale Vaigalepa Pea, who had several prior assault charges. In Chicago, Bethany MaGee suffered severe burns after being set on fire on a commuter train, a crime attributed to Lawrence Reed, a repeat offender with dozens of prior arrests.
Conservative commentators tie these outcomes to a broader trend: judges, prosecutors, and policymakers adopting policies or practices that they say prioritize identity over behavior. They point to instances where magistrates explicitly mention race as a factor in release or sentencing decisions, and to policies in some school districts that treat misconduct by certain groups differently. The practical result, critics say, is unequal protection and diminished deterrence.
Supporters of restorative justice argue it helps rehabilitate offenders and address root causes, but critics counter that serious violent crimes demand clear, consistent consequences. When the legal system emphasizes cultural context over culpability for harm, the message to potential offenders becomes muddied. Victims deserve a system that centers their safety and delivers proportionate punishment, not one that risks leniency based on identity markers.
The core tension here is between tailoring sentences to individual context and maintaining uniform standards to protect society. This case has become a flashpoint because it explicitly links a reduction in sentence to an assessment of race and cultural pressure. For many conservatives, the right approach is straightforward: hold violent offenders accountable first, and use rehabilitative measures only when they do not undermine public safety.
