Where are the vigilantes when you need em?

Leslie

Communistrator
Staff member
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Law/2005/04/11/991993-cp.html
The Ontario government wants all provinces across Canada to impose severe restrictions on schoolgirl killer Karla Homolka once she's released from prison this summer, Attorney General Michael Bryant said Monday.

Bryant said his province will first ask a Quebec provincial court judge for an order imposing "the strictest conditions possible" on Homolka, set to be released July 5.

"The recognizance, if ordered will contain various conditions that are designed to help prevent the commission of another offence," Bryant said.

The province will seek the order using Sec. 810 of the Criminal Code, which allows the courts to impose curfews and other methods to curtail social interactions where there are reasonable grounds to fear a person will commit a criminal offence.

Bryant said he would then try to get a similar court order in every province to restrict Homolka's movements wherever she moves in Canada after getting out of prison.

In a decision made public last December, the parole board noted that while Homolka has made some progress toward rehabilitation, there are still concerns that justify keeping her in prison.

Homolka was convicted of manslaughter and handed a 12-year sentence in 1993 for the brutal murders of Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French after testifying against her husband, Paul Bernardo.

On July 5, Homolka will be released from the Joliette Institution in Quebec having served her full sentence.

There's speculation that Homolka will reside in Quebec, given she learned to speak French while in prison.

Tim Danson, the lawyer for the French and Mahaffy families, has also vowed to bring Homolka before the courts if provincial officials fail to do so.

Homolka's 12-year sentence also reflected her involvement in the Christmas Eve 1990 drug-rape death of her sister Tammy, 15, at her family's bungalow in St. Catharines, Ont.
They never should have made this "deal". She was a full and equal partner through the whole thing. And now she's getting out. I don't think this bid will succeed. She has finished her sentence, after all. *puke*
 
In the U.S. aren't convicted felons ,prohibited from owning/possessing firearms? Kinda goes against your "right to bear arms"don't it.Convicted sex offenders must also register their whereabouts .so I wouldn't think the Canadian rules would be much different,
 
Seems to be a far cry between don't buy a pistol & you can't live here. With the possible exception of violent offenders, I don't much care for relinquishing rights after a sentence has been fulfilled.
 
She is a violent offender,that is if you consider multiple rape/murders including that of her sister,to be violent .
 
A.B.Normal said:
In the U.S. aren't convicted felons ,prohibited from owning/possessing firearms? Kinda goes against your "right to bear arms"don't it.Convicted sex offenders must also register their whereabouts .so I wouldn't think the Canadian rules would be much different,
I think the law was changed on that right before this last election.
I not sure though, but I think there were felons allowed to vote.
It used to be 7 years from the conviction until you could reinstate your rights.
 
Gonz said:
I suppose we need to define
What does a Section 810 mean for Karla Homolka?

According to Toronto criminal attorney Ray Boggs, of Boggs & Levin Barristers & Solicitors, it could mean limits on her contact with other people, where she’s allowed to go, and a curfew.

What is a Section 810?

A Section 810 is a form of peace bond. A peace bond is an order of the court that imposes conditions, the breach of which is a violation of a court order. It can or may include a bond that is posted or a surety that is assigned although that’s rarely done, Boggs says. A violation could forfeit the bond.

What would a breach mean?

A breach of a court order is fairly serious in the normal scheme of things, Boggs says, because it normally demands time in jail. In Homolka’s case, she’s already done time in jail, so the breach wouldn’t necessarily mean incarceration.

Is a Section 810 common?

"It’s fairly rare that they impose a peace bond after sentence although that is a growing thing," Boggs says. "I’ve never heard of it imposed after someone getting out before. Normally it’s imposed when there’s really not enough evidence to convict, and rather than the Crown just letting you go they would make a plea bargain where the Crown would withdraw the charge but you’d enter into a Section 810 peace bond."

Why would one be assigned in Homolka’s case?

A Section 810 would likely be imposed not only because of the high profile nature of the case, but because of a risk of recidivism (repeat behaviour), Boggs said. "Particularly after the videotapes. She'd already cut her deal before they found out that she was involved as much as she was. They got caught on that, they couldn’t go back on the deal but they want to do everything possible to keep her tied up."
there.

Not severe enough.

link
 
catocom said:
I think the law was changed on that right before this last election.
I not sure though, but I think there were felons allowed to vote.
It used to be 7 years from the conviction until you could reinstate your rights.
Convicted felons can apply for the right to vote as soon as their sentence is complete. Apply. Doesn't mean they'll get the right again, although I think most do that apply. Also, that also means the end of the sentence, have to complete any parole or probation that was ordered as well.
 
it could mean limits on her contact with other people, where she’s allowed to go, and a curfew.

Not clear enough but a start. If you want to kill your bad guys, go ahead. If you don't & they get 12 years for murder & rape, live with it. The punishment, set out in the court, should not be allowed to go on & on & on & on.... I would suggest firing/impeaching the DA though.

The only crime that should never be forgivable is child molestation. The effects are too far reaching & the recidivism rate is way too high.
 
PT said:
Convicted felons can apply for the right to vote as soon as their sentence is complete. Apply. Doesn't mean they'll get the right again, although I think most do that apply. Also, that also means the end of the sentence, have to complete any parole or probation that was ordered as well.

No more calls please, we have a winner!

Personal experience: About one in every 50 ask about getting their voting rights back at the conclusion of their supervision. Of those, maybe one in another 20 will actually seek it. In almost seven years of work as a probation/parole officer, I know of exactly one who followed through.

On the other hand, about one in 15 will ask about gun rights being restored. I try not to think about the number of folks I supervise who own guns anyway.

Kinda shows where the priorities lie, doncha think?
 
Hey, c'mon. Who here can honestly say they never considered drugging, raping, and murdering a young, nubile teenage hottie?
 
Professur said:
Hey, c'mon. Who here can honestly say they never considered drugging, raping, and murdering a young, nubile teenage hottie?
:twitch:
 
Professur said:
Hey, c'mon. Who here can honestly say they never considered drugging, raping, and murdering a young, nubile teenage hottie?

Specifically how "nubile?" :lol2:
 
Gonz said:
Not clear enough but a start. If you want to kill your bad guys, go ahead. If you don't & they get 12 years for murder & rape, live with it. The punishment, set out in the court, should not be allowed to go on & on & on & on.... I would suggest firing/impeaching the DA though.

The only crime that should never be forgivable is child molestation. The effects are too far reaching & the recidivism rate is way too high.


I heavily disagree with the last statement. I feel rape and homocide are unforgivable as well
 
Back
Top