Public Safety or Civil Liberties?

[General Ludd]

I don't see where the threat to public safety is.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by General Ludd
I don't see where the threat to public safety is.

She is evil Ludd. Hooked up with the 'right' person in the future she will be very dangerous.

Apparently her current boyfriend is serving time for killing his girlfriend. Let's hope he will be a repeat offender...

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Wezil


She is evil Ludd. Hooked up with the 'right' person in the future she will be very dangerous.

That "right" person would be the real threat to public safety then, wouldn't it? And he's already a part of the public.

While she certainly has alot of issues, I don't know if she is evil or just criminally naive and insecure. She only played a role of support in the rapes. Paul was the predator, not her.

In many regards she was another one of Paul's victims only that she apparently enjoyed it, or atleast got something out of it - enough to encourage him, and even help him in doing it, because she wanted to make him happy. Like a willing slave - certainly accountable, but not neccisarily dangerous.



Either way... how is this any different than any other criminal being released from prison. Is every person that's done there time and released a threat to pbulic safety? Should we keep everyone in prison untill they die... or better yet, just kill anyone accused of a crime, so that they will never again be a "threat to public safety"?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by General Ludd


That "right" person would be the real threat to public safety then, wouldn't it? And he's already a part of the public.

While she certainly has alot of issues, I don't know if she is evil or just criminally naive and insecure. She only played a role of support in the rapes. Paul was the predator, not her.

In many regards she was another one of Paul's victims only that she apparently enjoyed it, or atleast got something out of it - enough to encourage him, and even help him in doing it, because she wanted to make him happy. Like a willing slave - certainly accountable, but not neccisarily dangerous.



Either way... how is this any different than any other criminal being released from prison. Is every person that's done there time and released a threat to pbulic safety? Should we keep everyone in prison untill they die... or better yet, just kill anyone accused of a crime, so that they will never again be a "threat to public safety"?

We could do a good job by eliminating proven killers.

[KrazyHorse]

Re: Public Safety or Civil Liberties?

Originally posted by notyoueither

[notyoueither]

Re: Re: Public Safety or Civil Liberties?

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


She "paid up" only because prosecutors botched and made a deal before they found all the relevant evidence in the case.

Given that her deal was premised on the flawed notion that she was an abused victim somewhat forced to participate, and the evidence recovered after the deal showed she was a full and willing accomplice, it doesn't seem like much of an "abuse" of the existing law to impose conditions on her which are far milder than either remaining in prison, being strapped to a gurney, or the kinds of restrictions imposed under most US state laws on registered sex offenders.

To me, it's hard to argue these are vindictive measures as opposed to a rare use of relatively mild protective measures, given the magnitude of her crimes, and the false premises of her culpability which led to her far too mild sentence under a plea deal.

Yes, but...

The representatives of the Crown made decisions about how to proceed and the book on Karla was closed. If they wanted a longer term, they should have gone after that at the time and it would have been argued in front of the judge at that time.

What we have here is a later government using... worrying provisions of the Criminal Code to specifically target unpopular people. That doesn't jive with justice being blind in my book.

[notyoueither]

I wonder if she would have qualified for dangerous offender status had that been available when she was convicted.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So Quebec made a 'deal' with her and now is regretting their part in the deal? Yeah, when you reduce someone's sentance to testify against someone else, they get released early! SHOCK!

I know you don't like us, but the original deal wasn't made in a Quebec court.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

This chick is no more naive then anybody else. she knew exactly what she was doing... For the courts to decide oh poor thing was under some dumb ass dudes spell is ridiculous. She claims she did the horrible ats she did cause of her choice in men how is that she can be trusted again?? she is still a danger to society in my opinion cause her whole defense rests on she cant think for herself.

[DinoDoc]

Is the person who negotiated that deal still with the government? It seems poorly negotiated if her lieing didn't render it void.

[Ben Kenobi]

While she certainly has alot of issues, I don't know if she is evil or just criminally naive and insecure. She only played a role of support in the rapes. Paul was the predator, not her.

How do we know this? Perhaps it was her who spurred Paul on, and because they needed her testimony to get Paul, we are now letting out the catalyst. I don't think it is acceptable to blame someone else for your own failings, and I don't think we should be letting her out, especially since the new evidence that has been uncovered has shown precisely how she had been involved. At the time of her arrest, they didn't know what we know now about her role, and there has been great outcry over commuting her sentence in order to secure her testimony in the first place.

She has shown no remorse for her victims, nothing to indicate that her time in prison has changed her mindset in any way.

We are more concerned with civil liberties for those who are a threat to society than we are for those who actually want to contribute to Canada. When a young woman can get arrested for 3 months just for praying near an abortion clinic, without any outcry from those who claim to protect civil liberties, and then the same folks say we should let Karla Holmolka out now, it makes me wonder what value is there of civil liberties here in Canada.

[notyoueither]

No, Ben, this did not just dawn on the government of Ontario and the Canadian public.

Knowledge of her involvement preceded her being sentenced. The Crown left the deal stand.

What has changed is that several inflamatory books have been published, and spokespeople for victims families have had twelve years to work themselves and the public into a lather.

Now, I agree that the feelings of the victims should be taken into account in sentencing. However, I strongly disagree that victims should be allowed to influence the courts into forcing an individual to carry a scarlet letter until they die.

You get sentenced and you do your time. In Karla's case she did it all, since the uproar of the victims would not allow the possibility of parole. That's it. She got sentenced and she did her time.

There is little difference from wanting a court to slap on additional proscriptions in this case at this point from wanting a court to agree that someone who had committed no crime at all was 'a threat to public safety.' In both cases a government would be targetting unpopular individuals with penalties based on public pressure, not justice.

[Agathon]

She "paid up" only because prosecutors botched and made a deal before they found all the relevant evidence in the case.

Both the police and the leading author on the case (who is no friend of the police) have stated that they needed her testimony no matter what, and that they already knew about the tapes and their contents before she got the deal. Your story is just a rabble rousing tabloid version and was refuted again in the Toronto Star this very weak.

I think it is fine to require that very dangerous criminals submit to restrictions on release. Punishment is about lowering the risk to the general public. Only a fool would let out a person with a terrible compulsion to commit rape without any form of restriction.

But Homolka in all likelihood is not dangerous. Sure, she's a pathetic self-centred ***** and she would have been even if she had never met Bernardo. But he abused her and beat her into submission so that she would do anything he said. From all accounts she used to be a dominant personality herself, until she met him. It's like he put her under a spell and was able to control her whole life, what she wore, who she spoke to, etc. Just like Myra Hindley in fact.

[Agathon]

Double Penetration.

[Ben Kenobi]

NYE:

The charges would not be based on public sentiment, but rather on the evidence convicting Holmolka that has been uncovered after the deal which cut short her time in jail. I see nothing wrong, given the increased evidence, for the courts to extend her prison time. For once it would be a proper sentence rather than the laughable wrist slaps handed down by most of the Canadian courts.

As for Agathon, if you feel that Holmolka is not a threat then you should have no problems having her as a neighbour.