Public Safety or Civil Liberties?

[Agathon]

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

Nope. That'd be great. I could take nudie pics of her through the curtains and sell them to the Toronto Sun.

I don't care what she does. It's extremely unlikely she'll ever reoffend.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by 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.

The courts knew all about her before she was sentenced. The time to change the deal was then.

What is happening now is entirely based on a lynch mob mentality. It has nothing to do with impartial justice.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by notyoueither
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.

Section 810 is most often used to restrict the movements of pedophiles upon release (Budreo took this to the SCC). Do you favour its application to these offenders?

General Ludd - I do understand your point. You seem to subscribe to the 'Karla as victim' (to some extent) train of thought. I do not know how to impress upon you the nature of this particular evil (those of us that lived through the events and subsequent trial have a perspective unavailable to those joining the debate this many years later). For example: Karla was pissed off at her parents for not giving the attention to her upcoming wedding that she thought she deserved. What were her thoughtless and neglectful parents doing? Arranging for the funeral of their daughter Tammy (Karla played a prominent role in her death). I repeat: This woman is evil.

Agathon - That was the attitude that got Karla the deal she got. Poor victim of Bernardo. Keep in mind, Bernardo was not a murderer until he met Karla. He was a serial rapist but not a killer. Perhaps she had more control than you wish to believe?

[Agathon]

Agathon - That was the attitude that got Karla the deal she got. Poor victim of Bernardo. Keep in mind, Bernardo was not a murderer until he met Karla. He was a serial rapist but not a killer. Perhaps she had more control than you wish to believe?

Bernardo wasn't someone who killed for fun, he was a rapist who killed to prevent his victims identifying him. That's a big difference. He didn't set out to kill anyone, but, as a psychopath, killed when it was in his interest.

Homolka was a very strong-willed and bright woman before she met him. He was, to put it mildly, "controlling" – determining what she wore, whom she spoke to, etc. He regularly beat the **** out of her, and it got worse as their relationship progressed.

The Brady/Hindley case is rather like this one. You have an apparently normal person who just falls under the spell of a more dominant personality. This happens more often than people think. I guess Homolka was a bit like Patty Hearst. Even John Douglas, the FBI profiler, agreed with this assessment IIRC. None of this means that she shouldn't have been punished, but it probably means that she won't reoffend.

Part of the problem with her public profile is that she's such an obvious *****. If she'd never met Bernardo, she would have just been another insufferable and self-centred woman.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Agathon
Bernardo wasn't someone who killed for fun, he was a rapist who killed to prevent his victims identifying him. That's a big difference. He didn't set out to kill anyone, but, as a psychopath, killed when it was in his interest.

Simply NOT TRUE. As the Scarborough rapist he killed no one (perhaps Elizabeth Bain - but not proven). Worry of being identified didn't lead him to kill the dozens of women he raped. In fact, there was a relatively decent composite put together by his victims. He only killed AFTER he linked up with Karla although he had been a rapist for some time.

Homolka was a very strong-willed and bright woman before she met him. He was, to put it mildly, "controlling" – determining what she wore, whom she spoke to, etc. He regularly beat the **** out of her, and it got worse as their relationship progressed.

When you swim with sharks....

The Brady/Hindley case is rather like this one. You have an apparently normal person who just falls under the spell of a more dominant personality. This happens more often than people think. I guess Homolka was a bit like Patty Hearst. Even John Douglas, the FBI profiler, agreed with this assessment IIRC. None of this means that she shouldn't have been punished, but it probably means that she won't reoffend.

I WILL NOT subscribe to the Karla as victim belief.

Part of the problem with her public profile is that she's such an obvious *****. If she'd never met Bernardo, she would have just been another insufferable and self-centred woman.

No, she would have met another to fulfill her urges. Look at her current boyfriend.

[Agathon]

Wezil: why don't you read about the cases?

Bernardo's motivation for killing French and Mahaffy was to shut them up. There's no evidence that he derived any pleasure from the killings or viewed them as anything other than means to a utilitarian end.

Who said Homolka was a victim? She was mentally dominated by Bernardo, just as Hindley was dominated by Brady, and the homosexual Leopold by Loeb. When there are two killers one is usually dominant and the other compliant. In some cases the dominance and compliance are extreme – the Homolka case is one of those. Go through the literature – you will find other examples.

The problem with your analysis is that you come up with no facts other than your claim that Homolka was a psychopath who just looked for someone like Bernardo. This does not fit the facts of the case – she underwent a complete personality change when she met him: he'd been a notorious pervert for years (as those who worked with him at camp related).

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Agathon
Wezil: why don't you read about the cases?

Your implication is insulting. I did read the cases. Even better - I lived through them while you were still in Kiwiland.

Bernardo's motivation for killing French and Mahaffy was to shut them up. There's no evidence that he derived any pleasure from the killings or viewed them as anything other than means to a utilitarian end.

First - Did he kill them? Perhaps Karla did. He was convicted of murder on her testimony (the tapes did not show the murders).

Second - If he did kill them, why did he not kill his earlier victims? Why only when he met Karla? And how does this make HIM the dominant one?

Who said Homolka was a victim?

You do in your next line.

She was mentally dominated by Bernardo, just as Hindley was dominated by Brady, and the homosexual Leopold by Loeb. When there are two killers one is usually dominant and the other compliant. In some cases the dominance and compliance are extreme – the Homolka case is one of those. Go through the literature – you will find other examples.

Again, wo was wearing the pants in this relationship?

The problem with your analysis is that you come up with no facts other than your claim that Homolka was a psychopath who just looked for someone like Bernardo. This does not fit the facts of the case – she underwent a complete personality change when she met him: he'd been a notorious pervert for years (as those who worked with him at camp related).

I can't prove she is still a danger, just as you can't prove she isn't. You ask for facts but you ignore those that don't jibe with YOUR analysis. ie - her new boyfriend.

[embalmer42]

And the trolling continues. Unless Agathon really is stupid enough to actually believe his own uninformed drivel.

[Wezil]

He reads the Toronto Star.

[PLATO]

It seems to me that there are two issues here:

1.) Her sentence is complete under the plea agreement and she is being released per that agreement.

2.) She falls under the application of a different law and the government is choosing to enforce it.

Where is the denial of civil liberty? These are two different issues stemming from the same cause.

[Wezil]

The 2nd point is the contentious one.

s. 810 is intended to protect the public and as I mentioned earlier is most often used to restrict pedophiles upon release.

I tend to agree with NYE in that her sentence is done and these measures, as applied to her case, are punitive in nature. If that is so then s.810 is wrong (or being wrongly applied).

Of course the argument being made today is that the 810 measures are necessary to protect the public but in this case I believe the Ontario AG is simply bowing to public pressure to DO SOMETHING and that the attempt is more for punative reasons.

That said, I obviously believe Karla is still a danger. I just don't think any measures that may be imposed under this section will truly prevent her from reoffending if that is her destiny.

[PLATO]

So what you are saying then is, It is contentious wheather or not 810 applies? Perhaps this is why there is to be a hearing then? Seems all is in order from my point of view.

It is a shame that they screwed up the original case though. She should never have been allowed out into society again, but she was subject to due process and the public must hold up their end of the bargain. That the AG is looking for laws that would be applicable to protect that public is applaudable.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Wezil
He reads the Toronto Star.

You read the Toronto Sun.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by PLATO
So what you are saying then is, It is contentious wheather or not 810 applies? Perhaps this is why there is to be a hearing then? Seems all is in order from my point of view.

I think it is contentious whether 810 should be considered Constitutional. I would argue no, but our courts disagree.

It is a shame that they screwed up the original case though. She should never have been allowed out into society again, but she was subject to due process and the public must hold up their end of the bargain. That the AG is looking for laws that would be applicable to protect that public is applaudable.

It is a shame. You are right in that the problem originated many years ago.

I think the AG is engaging in optics.

Leo - Among others. The mouthpiece for the Liberal Party is far down my credible news source list.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Wezil


I think it is contentious whether 810 should be considered Constitutional. I would argue no, but our courts disagree.

But that is a different issue. Can't say that I agree that it is a good law to have in general, but the majority of the people must support it or it would not be on the books (or at least the majority don't object to it). It does seem that the current application meets the needs and desires of society to be protected. The courts should rule on the merits of wheater or not the law is applicable and leave the constitutional issue for review (assuming there is one)