The photo, depicting one man having sex with Parsons as she vomited out of a window­–his hands held up with thumbs up­–should have been a prosecutorial gold mine, a practical no-contest for securing the penalty of life behind bars.

Parsons faced harassment and harsh criticism. She was blamed for her own assault. Parson’s was victim blamed in the all too typical “she must have been asking for it” sense. The limitations of the sentence of probation are horrifying.

How was this allowed to happen and more importantly, how will it impact similar cases?

If someone can so blatantly violate another human being and escape a meaningful conviction, then how can people who have suffered from sexual assault feel safe or protected? Sexual assault is stigmatized, and as indicated in part by Parsons suicide, light sentencing further propagates these negative personal attacks.

While the stigmas associated with sexual assault are hard to eliminate, institutions, such as the justice system, should be the leaders of a movement to change this sentiment

Victims of sexual assault, however deeply hurt and harassed, are at the very least deserving of solace in a meaningful conviction.

While this may not to change the way people treat them, it has the potential to set the tone for the way that victims of sexual assault should be treated. At the very least, it can assure them that they are not to blame for what happened to them and that society is invested in preventing sexual assault.

This case then represents far more than two men getting the proverbial “slap on the wrist” for a single rape, but rather a signal as to how our society as a whole treats sexual assault and its perpetrators. Ultimately, the perpetrators in this case were given incredibly light sentences and while that is an issue in and of itself, the message it sends is far more devastating. It now has unfortunately become up to us as a people then not only to erase stigma from a few bullies on the Internet, but now also within our legal institutions as well.

The wrongly accused officer was sent numerous credible death threats for something he did not do. Though the public now knows of his innocence, the blame that was forced upon this man cannot be excused. Online civilian driven “justice” cannot be substituted for actual justice in our society. This case explicitly shows that civilian “justice,” or civilians using the internet to essentially crowdsource criminal investigations, is not only inept at best, but at times, harmful.

Neil Boyd, a law professor at Simon Fraser University, said this perverted form of justice is “substituting the judgement of a mob or a couple of angry individuals for the judgement of a court.” It is vital to recognize the fundamental importance of our criminal justice system and rule of law. Yes, the justice system can be slow, and yes, it can make mistakes, but it can be held accountable. While online “justice” can do much to accuse, it can do nothing to correct its errors. After it was discovered that they had accused the wrong officer, online hacker group Anonymous could do nothing to aid or reverse the damage they had done.

While police officers can be held accountable for their actions, members of the online community are not held to the same standard. On Monday evening, Bob McCulloch, the St. Louis County prosecutor, announced the grand jury’s decision to acquit Officer Darren Wilson of any criminal charges for the shooting of Michael Brown.

While both justice systems can do great harm, police officers will stand trial for any wrongdoings or abuses of power. Civilian “justice” is also flawed, as it presents us with a case of two different groups of people: trained members of law enforcement and computer hackers, both trying to investigate criminal activity in our society. In a sense, technological advancement has given untrained individuals the ability to accuse whomever they wish, but not along the responsibility to ethically conduct this action.

We have a justice system that has the ability to ethically prosecute, yet we are far too ready to hand this responsibility over to faceless people behind computer screens who have a track record of poor. ineffective detective work. If I may close with a horrible cliché, technology has given us great power, but we clearly lack the great responsibility required for its use. Until online “justice”-seekers can be held accountable for their actions, we as a society cannot uphold their accusations. I believe this is reasonable and I believe that the falsely accused officer in Ferguson would agree.

‘The right to die,’ as advocates for the appeal call it, coincides with section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, guaranteeing the rights to their life, liberty and security. It protects a person’s independence and personal legal rights from the actions of the government. A consenting adult with irreversible illnesses, therefore, should be permitted to decide how and when they wish their life to end. If a person has a right to their life – as they should – then they should have the liberty of deciding how and when that life will end.

In making this choice it must be remembered that the patient not only chooses how and when to die, but also how they will be remembered and how they will say goodbye to the ones they love. This is not to say that all terminally ill people will choose to die, but it will give them the option they deserve to do so if they wish.

Twenty years ago, ALS sufferer Sue Rodriguez asked, “Whose body is this? Who owns my life?” She asked these questions as a plea, seeking to be given the right to own her own life and the ability to consent to its end. Now, these questions are being asked once more and the Supreme Court should respond accordingly with respect to an individual’s right to die with dignity, free of suffering. The Supreme Court should enforce Canadian values that support those who wish to die with dignity rather than those who would see the ill rendered unable to make decisions regarding the circumstances of their lives and deaths. If a person wishes to end their suffering and die in the arms of loved ones with dignity and acceptance, there is no reason why the Canadian government should continue to hold that out of their reach. All Canadians are promised this in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and I hope that soon the Supreme Court delivers on that promise.