Karla Homolka

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Sat Jun 04, 2005 4:24 pm

Okay, we probably all think she should have got life. Or a bullet to the head. And she may yet. BUT, like it or not, whe WAS sentenced to a period of time. By the courts of our land. She served her full sentence. She didn't get out early for any reason. She behaved herself in prison, getting a degree from Queen's University!
Now, when she's about to be free, the courts have changed the rules. And I think it's WRONG! Maybe it's just me.....but who gives our legal system the right to change the rules in mid-stream??
Thoughts?

hazatude · Post by **hazatude** » Sat Jun 04, 2005 4:37 pm

True evil trancends the laws of the land and needs to be snuffed out.

swede · Post by **swede** » Sat Jun 04, 2005 4:41 pm

I'm not so sure about Homolka behaving herself in the slammer, apparently she was carrying on a lesbian relationship. On top of that she had a sexual relationship with some freak who brutally strangled his ex girl friend. This does not bode very well for someone who is supposedly being rehab'd. That is one of the reasons why they rejected her parole application. I think when the tape evidence came to light after her arrangement with the crown the whole thing should have been revisited. There should be exceptions in extreme cases of perjury (which is basically what she did) where a persons true involvement in capital crimes is proven, even after sentencing.

LH · Post by LH » Sat Jun 04, 2005 6:28 pm

She got a degree from Queen's University did she? I have to believe then that I was one of the taxpayers who supplied the monies so that she could accomplish that feat. Therefore, as a Canadian taxpayer, I'll grant the vaunted Canadian justice system the legal Right to change any law they wish to make some sort of amends for the @#$!-up that they were party to when she came to trial. I beleive my meager contribution to paying for her increased education allows me that Right. That's about all I can do as it stands. If I had my way, a whole lot of other Canadian laws would also be changed to make damn sure that such a mockery of supposed "justice" never ever happened again.

Dex · Post by **Dex** » Sat Jun 04, 2005 7:37 pm

It would seem some lack the capacity to understand the implications.

It is wrong. For reasons far beyond Homolka.

. . · Post by **. .** » Sat Jun 04, 2005 8:05 pm

Doc, I've seen you in a lawn chair reading by the plane before. Your next stop at a book store pick up Invisible Darkness: The Strange Case of Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka. After reading that book tell me that you feel the same way. That chick should never see the light of day again. We're talking about someone who drugged, raped and allowed her husband to rape the unconsious body of her sister who died from her poisioning. We won't even get into the other horrors she comitted.

LH · Post by LH » Sat Jun 04, 2005 9:11 pm

Oscar Wilde said it best for me......"sometimes the law is an ass".

Although I cannot contemplate her doing so, Karla Homulka ALSO has the Right under Canadian jurisprudence and Bill of Rights to move into an apartment or other dwelling next door to the McHaffey family upon her release. She also would have the Right to smile at Mrs. McHaffey each time she passed her on the street. Whether the Canadian justice system should enact or change some laws to prevent that is best left up to the McHaffeys to voice their feelings on that subject. I have no doubt that there would also be some Canadians who would feel that that is Karla Homulka's Right to do so and no laws whatsoever should be changed to prevent that. They would also feel that doing so would be an infringement under law and would also protest that.

......and if it makes any difference Doc, I have been a member of the legal profession in my past, studied it, wrote exams on it and practiced it.....so "yes", I understand fully the "implications" you speak of and you are entitled to your OPINION......as I am entitled to mine.......without it being inferred that me and those that hold the same OPINION, do not understand the "implications". Then again, I'm really just "blowing hot air" because my daughter wasn't raped and murdered by her and her husband and I didn't have to witness how my daughter's Rights were wiped out forever.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Sat Jun 04, 2005 9:15 pm

endless...I agree with you...100%. That's just not the point. She served the sentence as handed down by a court of law...the fact that the sentence was a joke, dosen't even enter into it. If the courts are allowed to change the sentence after the fact, where will it end?

Sheila · Post by **Sheila** » Sat Jun 04, 2005 9:48 pm

Grrrr, She wasn't even charged for some of the crimes, and they were heinous crimes. Doc , if she's a mental, psycho , you think she should be out on the street? You know she is only thinking of HERSELF right now, and all the time shes been in prison, they said she made friends right away with the Leader in the prison, which means shes not that dumb

Adanac · Post by **Adanac** » Sat Jun 04, 2005 11:06 pm

She did her time so she goes free. Her life of torement will now begin as the public will keep her from living a normal life. The best justification I can accept is that her time on this earth is limited and she will have to deal with the man upstairs in due time. May she try to make the best of what time she has left.

Adanac

costermonger · Post by **costermonger** » Sat Jun 04, 2005 11:30 pm

Sheila wrote:Doc , if she's a mental, psycho , you think she should be out on the street?

I'd like you to point out where he said that. That's not the issue at all. The issue is that regardless of almost unanimous disdain for the sentence she recieved, she has served that full sentence. As pitiful as that sentence was, and almost everybody will agree that it was indeed pitiful, she has served it in full. That's how the system works.

Unless she's declared a dangerous offender, which she has not, there is no legal way to keep that woman locked up, whether or not she deserves to die in a jail cell.

bumffs · Post by **bumffs** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 1:39 pm

CNS or CBS perhaps an irrellevent debate if you can double-tap.
Manilla or Nylon the best debate for capital punishment.
If they had of hanged them both there would be no chance of them repeating the offence's again.
She may even join a cult like charles manson and claim her religious freedom to kill are being discriminated against ,by all those white mans laws.

... · Post by **...** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 2:26 pm

How many think she will be "off'd" by someone once she is out?

shitdisturber · Post by **shitdisturber** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 2:27 pm

Actually, the restrictions on her aren't the result of the government changing the law to suit their needs. The law has been in existance for a long time; it just hasn't been used very often. That being said, my feelings wouldn't be hurt if one of the restrictions was to confine her to Ellesmere Island with a twig for her to use in self defense when the polar bears are looking particularly hungry.

For those of you who might find this to be a bit harsh; understand I am against cruelty to animals, but giving one bear food poisoning to improve the human race is a fair trade in my book.

costermonger · Post by **costermonger** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 2:30 pm

I am Birddog wrote:How many think she will be "off'd" by someone once she is out?

I'd say it's about a 50/50 chance.

Johnny · Post by **Johnny** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 8:45 pm

Doc wrote:endless...I agree with you...100%. That's just not the point. She served the sentence as handed down by a court of law...the fact that the sentence was a joke, dosen't even enter into it. If the courts are allowed to change the sentence after the fact, where will it end?

Doc, as much as I hate to support cutting her loose, I agree with you that changing the rules is a dangerous precedent as it undermines two things:

a) the value of the plea-bargain, an important tool in many cases... too all of the nay-sayers; remember, when Karla signed her deal, the Crown did not have the tapes - they NEEDED her, and;

b) the straight value of the contract as understood and interpreted by our legal system. The contract, beit between two private parties or one or more parties and the State, is the underpinning of our legal system and it should not be tampered with.

That having been said, the terms of her plea bargain simply stated that Homolka was required to serve the 12 years as a sentence for pleading guilty to the manslaughter charges for which she was convicted. There was no stipulation in the plea stating that after her sentenced was served she would be free and clear of any future obligations, the agreement simply states that after she has served her sentence, she has served her time for her transgressions of the Criminal Code of Canada as it applies to the crimes for which she was convicted.

Basically, it's a convention in practice that after you serve your time your are free and clear, not a legal requirement.

As long as the Crown doesn't go back on their word and, say, charge her for Tammy Homolka (which they agreed in the original plea bargain not to do), they won't undermine the legal credibility of their bargain, just its implications and limitations as perceived by those bargaining in the future.

I humbly suggest, though, that most criminals (drug dealers, car theives, etc) would understand the post-sentence monitoring conditions being sought in the case of such a heinous and devious criminal.

hz2p · Post by **hz2p** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 9:25 am

The legal system, despite it's protests to the contrary, suffers from heavy political influence (interference).

The government made a deal with Karla that is wishes it hadn't. Not because of the travesty of justice, but because the government looks incompetent in the newspaper.

So, the government illegally discriminates against Karla.

I'm not sure whom I find more revolting: Karla, or the government illegally abusing their power to harass her.

Our legal system is a complete joke. Air India, anyone? Another incompent, bungling waste of the taxpayer's money. At the end of the day, the murderers walk free.

I am so proud to be Canadian - NOT.

LH · Post by LH » Mon Jun 06, 2005 11:58 pm

Johnny ------- the further potentiaql charges that were pending against Karla Homulka were "dropped"......not "stayed. Once they are "dropped" she nor anyone else can be charged again with those offenses. IF the charges had bee "stayed", then based on some further possible evidence, she could have agin been charged........regardless of any "plea bargain" agreement. Part of a "plea bargain", in that case and others past and present, is to have all potential further charges relating to a particular given crime "dropped". So she is free and clear forever of any further charges concerning those events. So whenever you hear the word "stayed", concerning a court case, understand that that is the Crown basically saying that they do not have enough evidence at present, BUT they may in the future and at that time they will charge that person again with that given crime. It's a real important word because once a person is charged, tried and pronounced "Not Guilty", they can never be charged or re-tried for that crime again........and that defined in law as "Double Jeopardy".......and "stayed" leaves a "back door" open for the Crown to lay charges later-on at some point before any Statute of Limitations prevents that.......and murder has none.

Nightshiftzombie · Post by **Nightshiftzombie** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 1:03 am

Our legal system is a complete joke. Air India, anyone?

I'd say it at least proves you can get a fair trial in Canada on even the most horrible charges. Better that some guilty people go free than innocennt people get locked up.

costermonger · Post by **costermonger** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 9:18 am

hz2p wrote:Our legal system is a complete joke. Air India, anyone? Another incompent, bungling waste of the taxpayer's money. At the end of the day, the murderers walk free.

If there was sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were responsible for it, they'd be in jail. That's how the system works. It sounds to me like you'd be happier if our legal system relied on proof of innocence rather than proof of guilt.

Hot Fuel · Post by **Hot Fuel** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 10:05 am

Doc the crown has not changed the rules, they are in fact using them to public’s advantage, and in this case I think it’s appropriate. The legal tool being used by the Crown is Section 810 of the Criminal Code, it only applies to individuals who may commit another offence or be a danger to the public. The restrictions are for a period of 12 months, it’s also my opinion that it’s not long enough.

LH · Post by LH » Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:21 am

Once upon a time, not that long ago in Canada, there existed something called "A Governor-General's Warrant". If the authorities felt that a criminal might commit a crime again or was not fit to mingle with the populace because of their past crime, they could keep said prisoner in jail until forever if they so desired. It was replace by the "Habitual Criminal Act" that allowed the crown to do the same to those who had a long and lengthy record of crimes and it was considered that they would re-offend once again.

The former was replaced because there were those that felt that it was a "trampling-on of Rights" and it was therefore replaced by the latter. In Karls Homulka's case, I would appreciate a return of the "Govenor -General's Warrant".

Personally, I am not the slightest bit interested in the "Rights" of one Karla Homulka, but I am very interested in the "Rights" of the victims and their families. I am fed up to the teeth with the the protestations about the "Rights" of the those that have been convicted and seldom or nary a word or assistance of ANY sort for the victims or their families. Familes have been devasted with marriage break-ups, suicides, various resultant health problems and also problems with sons and daughters who harbour resentment against the law and the assistance given to those who have taken away their loved ones. The very fact that the absolute maximum sentence she could have received was 25 years is a joke onto itself. "Life" in the US of A is 99 years and let's see them "plea bargain" that down to 12 years..........fat bloody chance.

swede · Post by **swede** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 12:21 pm

Homolka gave up all rights when she committed the rape, torture and murder of those girls. She is not rehabilitated by most measures or she would not have been consorting with a murderer while in prison. She hasn't shown remorse and is a menace to society. Her arrangement with the crown should have been overturned when the video tapes surfaced. At least then she would have had 12 less years in which to reoffend.

LH · Post by LH » Tue Jun 07, 2005 9:58 pm

Swede....... I would dearly love to agree with you, but I can't......and here's why.

Homulka or anyone else looses certain, but not all Rights, when they commit a crime. They are still entitled to retain certain basic Rights and I find no fault with that. She was sentenced to serve a penalty and loose those certain Rights while serving that sentence. She has done so and now those certain Rights taken away from her are and should be returned.

She was in a prison and consorting with others who committed all sorts of violent crimes is to be expected. She wasn't sent to a cloistery of Nuns.....she was sent to where those that have committed serious crimes are sent to also serve out their sentences. She did not show remorse, but she is not the first violent criminal to do so either.

The tapes appeared AFTER the "plea bargain" was signed and agreed to and after that point "there was no going back". To do so would have been a contravention of the law in itself and used from that point on by defense attorneys. They would have used that instance and Case Law to negate any further attempts by the Crown anywhere, to offer a "plea bargain" in order to get testimony from one criminal against another. That, in effect, would have seen many criminals walk away without enough evidence being available to charge them.

I have a fault with "plea bargaining" in any case and in this one I would ahev rather seen them "Stay" the case and let her walk away scot free. Once further good evidence appeared at some point, then she could have been charged again with the same crime. In this case, it would have been the tapes that probably appeared at some point and those would have sent her away for possibly 25 years. I'm sorry, but that is not good enough for me because I wouldn't want to see her back out in public in 25 years either. "Life" to me is life.....not 25 years..... and she should have been allowed to die in prison for what she did and never see freedom or liberty again.

costermonger · Post by **costermonger** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 10:24 pm

Once that plea bargain was signed, if the judge threw it out and sentenced her to longer than laid out in the agreement based on the evidence on the tapes, she would've had one hell of a case for an appeal. Would've cost the taxpayers a whole lot of money for the exact same result. Even if it got as far as the Supreme Court she would've won the appeal eventually and got her 12 years, as specified in the plea bargain.

LH - if they'd let her walk away until they found the tapes, there would've been a chance that Bernardo's case would've lacked a smoking gun, so to speak. I think the prosecution thought 12 years for Holmolka was a neccesary evil in order to make sure Bernardo dies in a jail cell.