GayandRight

My name is Fred and I am a gay conservative living in Ottawa. This blog supports limited government, the right of the State of Israel to live in peace and security, and tries to expose the threat to us all from cultural relativism, post-modernism, and radical Islam. I am also the founder of the Free Thinking Film Society in Ottawa (www.freethinkingfilms.com)

Wednesday, November 30, 2005

More on Homolka...

Now, here's a judge that should be fired. Quebec Superior Court Judge Brunton lifted ALL restriction on Homolka saying there was NOT ENOUGH evidence to justify them.
"The possibility that Ms. Teale (a surname Homolka has gone by) might reoffend one day cannot be completely eliminated," wrote the judge. "However, her development over the last 12 years demonstrates, on a balance of probabilities, that this is unlikely to occur. She does not represent a real and imminent danger to commit a personal injury offence."
This should be appealed, and is there anyway to remove this judge from the bench?

9 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Judges should be elected
This would solve alot of problems

10:48 PM  
Anonymous Stephen said...

We each have a right to disagree with this decision, but the law clearly was violated in applying these standards to Homolka. When she made her deal, (which should never have been made), she agreed to serve 12 years. The prosecutors did not levy other restrictions upon her, nor did the sentencing judge.

When they then decided to limit her ability for 12 months, like it or not, it violated the terms of the agreement she completely fufilled. A deal is a deal, period, and when we stop honoring our deals, no matter how distasteful, then we become a society that will lie, abuse, and corrupt the authority of government because we don't like it.

In other countries they call such situations anarchy, and that's exactly what it would be.

We don't have to like this situation, I don't, but we do have to honor the agreement we, (the people represented by the prosecutors who gave her the deal), made. That's the long and short of it, and thats the pill we have to swallow

9:07 AM  
Blogger Road Hammer said...

Hold on, Stephen. Refer to section 810 of the Criminal Code. Judges are free to designate offenders as dangerous and subsequently impose conditions.

Based on the info placed before him, the judge in the lower court did just that. The superior court judge then revoked the conditions - not on a legal basis, but on the opinion that the evidence heard to support the "dangerous offender" designation was not strong enough.

Putting conditions on statutory releasees is totally legal and codified in law.

9:13 AM  
Blogger Stephen said...

Constitutionality of the Dangerous Offender Provisions

In Regina v. Lyons (1988), 37 C.C.C. (3d) 1 (S.C.C.), the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the constitutionality of the current Dangerous Offender provisions. The Court held that the provisions did not violate the guarantees of sections 7 (fundamental justice), 9 (arbitrary detention) or 12 (cruel and unusual punishment) of the Charter. Writing for the Court, La Forest J. found that indeterminate sentences, designed primarily to prevent the occurrence of future offences, were not contrary to the principles of fundamental justice. La Forest J. characterized the Dangerous Offender provisions in Part XXIV of the Code as a rationally and proportionately designed scheme targeted at a very small group of offenders, and noted the following safeguards in the legislation:

• the procedural rights available to an offender under Part XXIV;

• the discretion of the sentencing judge to impose a fixed sentence if justified in the circumstances; and,

• the availability of parole reviews to tailor the sentence to the circumstances of an individual offender.

In light of these safeguards, particularly the availability of parole reviews to tailor the sentence to the offender, La Forest J. found that sentences of indeterminate detention under Part XXIV did not violate the guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment.

The relevant portion of 810 is this: the ability to establish a FIXED sentence. Because Homolka received, and served a FIXED sentence, 810 does not apply.

I recognize your point Road Hammer, but the law is the law.

10:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Two things:
First, elected judges do not work, and evidence of this is the incredibly politicized and corrupt system in the US. Unless you really want decisions being made with thought given to their reelection, rather than the letter of the law...
Second, I am fully in favour of placing restrictions on Homolka. She is a darkly intelligent and deceitful person who committed the most obscene violations of trust possible. If the law does not support these restrictions, and there seems to be debate on this matter, then the law should be explicitly changed to allow for them.

10:19 AM  
Blogger Road Hammer said...

Respectfully, I think you are mistaken, Stephen. 810 is included in the Code to apply to those who have received a fixed sentence, have served it, and are about the enter the community.

Upon release, under an 810 order, the Crown may apply to the court to apply conditions to the offender up to a period of 12 months after that release. These 12 month periods can be renewed.

They are a preventative tool designed to help prevent criminal acts from being carried out by those who are on statutory release.

10:43 AM  
Blogger Stephen said...

Road Hammer,

Sadly, you are mistaken, constitutionally, a fixed sentence, by definition, is a sentence for a period of time, including Statutory Release, if included in the sentence. Homolka recieved an unconditional release by completing her sentence as it was ordered by the courts at the time of her sentencing. 810 does not apply because she served her entire sentence behind bars.

The iffy part of 810 was added to the law AFTER Homolka was sentenced, and was not RETROACTIVE, therefore, she can not be held to 810 specifications. I think the judge in this ruling sidestepped the constitutional issue and simply said that the crown had not proven she posed a risk justifying the restrictions imposed upon her.

Having said that, I don't think it's fair that she got such a light sentence anyway, but after the fact we can't change it. She made her deal, she complied with her deal, and in spite of all the evidence against her, she did what SHE AGREED TO DO, and what was OFFERED TO HER BY THE CROWN.

We should not now, be able to go back in and change the rules. It's tantamount to you buying a home, and upon payment of the last note, finding out that they changed the rules without telling you, and that you owe another 30 years of payments, and have no equity in the home.

Rules are rules. Unless we want them applied to us unfairly, we have to apply them to the least deserving of society in the manner in which they were established, like it or not.

11:50 AM  
Blogger Road Hammer said...

My understanding is that in the ruling, the appellate judge said that although he was not issuing a ruling on 810.2, he would have ruled it constitutional.

(Not being a lawyer, I should probably butt out here.)

Cheers!

12:46 PM  
Blogger Stephen said...

I'm not strickly holding to the constitution here, or the constitutionality of the law. It most likely is constitutional, however, applying the restricitons to movement and other "after the fact punishments" is imho unconstitutional.

It is punative, and the fact remains that Karla Homolka served her twelve years without complaint, without causing trouble and without making herself an issue. We, the people, by our embracement of her deal, saddled ourselves with an issue that bit us on the tookas.

We didn't plan for her release, we planned for her participation against Paul Bernadino, and we rewarded her cowardice with a lenient sentence that NOW we want to change.

She should have been punished until all the cows come home, but that's not the way it is, and my point here, is not that she should be in the position that she is in, but rather, that now we have her in this position through our own failures, it is not reasonable, valid, incumbant, or morally correct to go back and change the rules. The "do over" clause, if you will.

We lose far more by lowering ourselves to this standard out of fear, than we do by watching her, even seripticously in the hopes that we can find her in a situation that leads to her opening herself to monitoring and control for life.

As it stands, she can do whatever she wants. Hopefully what she wants is to vanish into the population, safely, and without contact with another wacko like Bernadino

1:32 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home