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?
posted by GayandRight @ 9:11 PM
6 Comments:
Judges should be elected
This would solve alot of problems
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
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.
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.
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.
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!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home