Public Safety or Civil Liberties?

[Agathon]

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

I'm sorry you feel that way, but it isn't my fault you aren't making sense.

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

Has anyone any proof that Homolka killed them? You are just speculating. All the evidence points to Bernardo killing them, and all the evidence suggests he was the dominant partner who made it happen.

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?

He killed those he thought would be able to identify him. Leslie Mahaffy had seen him in broad daylight at his house, knew what kind of car he drove and could describe him and his wife. Note that they didn't kill one of their other "slave" victims because they were pretty sure she wouldn't talk (she had been drugged). The rape victims in Scarborough were not murdered for reasons of simple convenience. Bernardo could not remove the bodies and dispose of them where and when he wished, and would have had to leave them on the streets of Scarborough. That would attract major heat.

The killings were wholly utilitarian. No-one has produced any evidence that Bernardo is anything like a Ted Bundy, for whom the killing was the sexual thrill. For Bernardo, killing was just a way of getting rid of "slaves" he no longer had any use for.

You do in your next line.

No I don't. Please read more carefully. I don't class Homolka, Leopold or Hindley as victims. If Homolka was a victim, it was of Bernardo's physical and mental abuse. But I did not say her being found guilty made her Bernardo's victim or that she did not deserve her punishment because he "controlled" her.

But the fact remains that he did, and that is relevant to her being a danger in future.

Again, wo was wearing the pants in this relationship?

All the evidence points to Bernardo.

(a) Who underwent the massive personality change from dominant to submissive after they met? Homolka – she started doing everything Bernardo told her and allowed him to engage in extremes of controlling behaviour.

(b) Who used their sexual dalliances with others to manipulate the other? Bernardo.

(c) Who physically abused the other? Bernardo.

(d) Who had a history of sexual deviance before they met? Bernardo.

(e) Who used psychological manipulation to get the other to engage in unwanted anal sex? Bernardo.

(f) Who used their friendly relationships with the other's family to manipulate the other? Bernardo.

(g) Who is agreed to be a diagnosed psychopath by all the experts? Bernardo. (Homolka is not a diagnosed psychopath)

These are all facts that are not disputed by any of the major writers on the case. The massive personality change undergone by Homolka is on its own sufficient to prove that she was the submissive.

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.

Her supposed new boyfriend.

Your argument doesn't hold water. If we demanded the degree of proof you want, no-one would ever be let out of jail. That probably appeals to you, but it is completely unreasonable and silly nonetheless.

All the facts point to Bernardo being the catalyst for Homolka's criminal behaviour. All the precedents (like Brady/Hindley) point to her being mentally dominated by him, as does all the evidence that we actually have. Remove him from the equation and she's just another selfish *****.

Park Dietz (I take it you know who he is) was on the CBC today and he expressed my view – the only way Homolka is likely to reoffend is if she becomes submissive to another Bernardo. The solution to that is obvious: put conditions on her release.

[Agathon]

It is a shame that they screwed up the original case though.

They didn't. Even with the tapes, they needed her testimony to put Bernardo away permanently. He is the dangerous one. If he got out he would unquestionably do it again – that is the considered view of every professional I have read on the case.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

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.

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.

Unfortunatly you are very corret on this issue. I guess the goverment was weighing the lesser of two evils. I still think the girl will fall back into old patterns. Im dont buy into this **** you can be emotionaly controlled by a man. She knew what she was doing and participated. I have had a bf that beat the crap out of me when i was younger i didnt stay with him soon after he beat me sensless i left. sure he tried to come back but i knew once he did it the first time there would be another. he tracked me but everytime he did i called police and soon he grew tired of bothering cause he would be hassaled by the cops after he tried to contact. so the she was an abused woman excuse doesnt work for me.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by St Leo

Originally posted by Wezil
He reads the Toronto Star.

You read the Toronto Sun.

Low blow.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Wezil
Our socialist gov of the day bought her 'abused spouse' story.

The decision was made by the Crown counsels, not the politicians.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


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.

Paul was raping and abusing women before he met Karla, and I don't believe Karla has ever been suspected of doing anything previous to meeting Paul. She did "spur him on" in that she enjoyed his abuse, and helped him rape other women in an effort to please him... but that is a far cry from being a predator.

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

Just a quibble, but supposedly she did cry during the hearing or whatever a couple days ago while talking about the rape and death of her sister.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Wezil

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.

Lots of people are completely self-absorbed and oblivious to other people's needs and emotions. just look at Bay Street, for example. Are they evil? Well, yes... so maybe you have a point.

[embalmer42]

Originally posted by General Ludd

Just a quibble, but supposedly she did cry during the hearing or whatever a couple days ago while talking about the rape and death of her sister.

True, but was it genuine remorse at what she did or was she feeling sorry for herself she was having to listen to it again?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Wezil
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?

Good question. I am in favour of some provisions to protect society from people with some condition, disease (or what have you) and to protect them from themselves.

If kiddy fiddlers have some condition that is not curable and it is likely that they will reoffend (both are true for the average subject, AFAIK) then yes we should have some provision to allow the justice system to deal with that class of offender and protect society at large at the same time.

The problem with 810, as I think you agree, is that it is being arbitrarily applied to an individual at the whim of a politician to sooth the mobs. That ain't justice, and it is somewhat worrying both that the law exists as it does and that more people don't see a problem with it.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by 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.

She falls under the application of a different law that applies to just about anyone ever convicted of a serious offence, but that law is not normally applied to people outside of certain classes of offenders. In this case its overly broad provisions are being invoked arbitraily because of public anger. That is not a recipe for justice.

Her civil liberties are involved since her ability to travel, work, and associate with others are all being cutailed by the decision that the judge in Quebec just handed down.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Good question. I am in favour of some provisions to protect society from people with some condition, disease (or what have you) and to protect them from themselves.

If kiddy fiddlers have some condition that is not curable and it is likely that they will reoffend (both are true for the average subject, AFAIK) then yes we should have some provision to allow the justice system to deal with that class of offender and protect society at large at the same time.

The problem with 810, as I think you agree, is that it is being arbitrarily applied to an individual at the whim of a politician to sooth the mobs. That ain't justice, and it is somewhat worrying both that the law exists as it does and that more people don't see a problem with it.

I would prefer that the FULL sentence be given at the front end (sentencing) rather than the back end when the offender is released after serving the sentence that was imposed. If they are to be paroled early I see no problem with conditions, but not after having served the FULL sentence.

Additionally, our "deal" with Karla implied we would not do this sort of thing to her. McGuinty is apparently not happy only breaking his own promises, now he seems content to break promises of earlier governments.

She has 30 days to appeal.