It has been recognized by courts that child victims of sexual offences suffer from long lasting damage.<ref>
''R v DD'', (2002), 163 CCC (3d) 471, [http://canlii.ca/t/1db6b 2002 CanLII 44915] (ON CA){{perONCA|Moldaver JA}} (3:0){{atL|1db6b|36}}</ref>
They suffer from emotional trauma that is often permanent. As adults they "may become incapable of forming loving relationship, always fearful of re-victimization by sexual partners. Further, the matured victim may become a sexual predator himself. It is often that an offender will report being victimized by other sexual predators as a child."<ref>
{{supra1|DD}}{{atsL|1db6b|37| to 38}}</ref>
The judge should consider the "likelihood of psychological harm to the victim".<ref>
''R v Rosenthal'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gfv1q 2015 YKCA 1] (CanLII){{perYKCA|Schuler JA}} (3:0){{atL|gfv1q|6}} - the "likelihood is a reason that the principle of general deterrence is significant in sentencing for sexual assault"<br>
Historical Sexual Offences should not have their penalties reduced simply because of the time that has passed between the offence and sentence. The magnitude and culpability remain the same.
[1]
The importance of denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives are not diminished.[2]
However, the passage of time can show that the offender is a low risk to re-offend and that the offence is not in the character of the offender.
