Pig Farmer Serial Killer verdict

[Guest American Woman]

A pig farmer accused of being Canada's worst serial killer was found guilty Sunday of six counts of second-degree murder, which carries a mandatory sentence of life in prison.

How could he possibly have been found guilty of second degree murder? Surely a killer who kills multiple times 'premeditated' murdering.

The verdict ended the trial of Robert 'Willie' Pickton on the first six of 26 murder charges in the deaths of women, most of them prostitutes and drug addicts from a seedy Vancouver neighborhood.

So he received a mandatory life in prison, and won't be up for parole for at least ten years. How a serial murderer could be up for parole ever is beyond me.

Link

[Riverwind]

How could he possibly have been found guilty of second degree murder? Surely a killer who kills multiple times 'premeditated' murdering.

Reasonable doubt about whether he acted alone. The judge told the jury they could convict on a lesser charge if they felt he was an active participant but not alone. There will be an appeal because the defence objected to this.

So he received a mandatory life in prison, and won't be up for parole for at least ten years. How a serial murderer could be up for parole ever is beyond me.

Those are the mandatory minimums. The judge can increase them. Unfortunately, the Canadian system does not allow for consecutive sentences and counts time in jail before trial as two years for every one. This means that Pickton could, in theory, apply for early parole in 2 years if the judge gives him the minimum. Edited December 9, 2007 by Riverwind

[Guest American Woman]

Why would someone get a lesser sentence for not acting alone? They still committed murder. As for "mandatory minimums,"I have to wonder why there aren't mandatory maximums-- like no possiblity of parole. Seems to me that would be the appropriate sentence for a serial killer. Why would one even entertain the possibility of him ever getting parole?

Just read your edit. It did answer a question for me. I was wondering about the 'consecutive sentence' thing, which of course we have in the States. As for the 'counting time before the trial' and counting it two years for every one-- that sure makes no sense to me, either. That he could even in theory apply for parole in two years is mind boggling to me. How do you feel about that?

Edited December 9, 2007 by American Woman

[Riverwind]

Why would one even entertain the possibility of him ever getting parole?

Because the Canadian justice system puts the rights of the criminals ahead of everyone else's rights.

That said, the US system is a bit absurd in the other direction. I have heard of people getting life in prison for murder because they drove the getaway car after a bank robbery where someone else killed someone.

Edited December 9, 2007 by Riverwind

[Guest American Woman]

Because the Canadian justice system puts the rights of the criminals ahead of everyone else's rights.

That said, the US system is a bit absurd in the other direction. I have heard of people getting life in prison for murder because they drove the getaway car after a bank robbery where someone else killed someone.

I agree. It is absurd. But I think I'd rather have people who participated in a murder in any way locked up for too long than have serial killers up for parole.

[Carinthia]

Because the Canadian justice system puts the rights of the criminals ahead of everyone else's rights.

You nailed it!!

Hopefully, the Crown can appeal the sentence and they should. I knew of someone years ago who was convicted of rape and was sentenced to 2 years. The Crown appealed and won. They tacked an additional year on to his sentence. I don't know the circumstances of the Crown being able to do this though. Perhaps public outcry would help? Where do I sign up?

[Riverwind]

Hopefully, the Crown can appeal the sentence and they should.

The sentance has not been handed down yet. The judge could still give him life with no chance of parole for 25 years. This case is unprecendented so the judge should not be bound by prior decisions for 2nd degree murder. Edited December 9, 2007 by Riverwind

[Guest American Woman]

The sentance has not been handed down yet. The judge could still give him life with no chance of parole for 25 years. This case is unprecendented so the judge should not be bound by prior decisions for 2nd degree murder.

I still don't get the second degree murder thing.

Last week, Judge James Williams reviewed the transcript of a videotape in which Pickton is heard telling an undercover police officer that he had planned to kill one more woman before stopping at 50, taking a break and then killing another 25 women.

"I was going to do one more; make it an even 50," Pickton told the officer, who had been planted in the accused killer's cell and gained his trust.

"He planned to kill," so whether he acted alone or not, it was premeditated. Can't more than one person partake of a premeditated murder? If two people kill someone instead of one, that's somehow a lesser crime? That makes absolutely no sense to me.

Edited December 9, 2007 by American Woman

[Riverwind]

"He planned to kill," so whether he acted alone or not, it was premeditated. Can't more than one person partake of a premeditated murder? If two people kill someone instead of one, that's somehow a lesser crime? That makes absolutely no sense to me.

It has nothing to do with the rational. It is something the jury decided to do because they could not find him guilty of first degree murder *beyond reasonable doubt* and going with 2nd degree was better than letting him go free.

This is an issue that came up in the latimer trial. The jury was stuck because they did not want to convict him of murder but they did not want to let him off with no punishment. Unfortunately, they were not told by the judge that they could convict of latimer of a lesser charge.

The net result is that pickton could, in theory, spend less time in jail than latimer. Talk about a screwed up justice system....

Edited December 9, 2007 by Riverwind

[capricorn]

Excellent discussion here.

After sentencing comes the question of whether Pickton will be tried for the other 26 murders. I heard some commentators say "why bother?" Excuse me! I think absolutely he should face a second trial. Each of the victims and their families are equally entitled to justice. This should be a no-brainer.

I suppose it could be concluded that in a second trial the same verdict would result, i.e. second degree murder but so what. If there was a second conviction, would he not have to serve these 2 sentences consecutively? If so, this is another valid reason to hold a different trial for the other victims. I have a feeling the crown prosecutor will try to strike a deal for a guilty plea on the other murders but personally, I want to see him face another trial.

Edited December 9, 2007 by capricorn

[Carinthia]

Excellent discussion here.

After sentencing comes the question of whether Pickton will be tried for the other 26 murders. I heard some commentators say "why bother?" Excuse me! I think absolutely he should face a second trial. Each of the victims and their families are equally entitled to justice. This should be a no-brainer.

I suppose it could be concluded that in a second trial the same verdict would result, i.e. second degree murder but so what. If there was a second conviction, would he not have to serve these 2 sentences consecutively? If so, this is another valid reason to hold a different trial for the other victims. I have a feeling the crown prosecutor will try to strike a deal for a guilty plea on the other murders but personally, I want to see him face another trial.

I would rather see him plea, providing he gets life of course. Why should he spend almost a year in a court room all day when he should be spending the time in a 6' x 8' cell? And less money for the tax payer to spend on this piece of crap.

[jdobbin]

How could he possibly have been found guilty of second degree murder? Surely a killer who kills multiple times 'premeditated' murdering.

So he received a mandatory life in prison, and won't be up for parole for at least ten years. How a serial murderer could be up for parole ever is beyond me.

It is easier to get a conviction for murder in Canada because of the instructions the judge can give a jury on the degree of guilt they can choose when it comes to the crime. To be honest, the judge's extra instructions possibly stopped a hung jury or an acquittal. No one will ever know though because the jury can never talk about what happened behind closed doors in regards to the case.

It was a difficult case. The Crown seem happy that they got the conviction. More trials are to follow. Some of those might be more difficult because they lack clearer forensic evidence.

The Crown also says that Pickton is likely to serve the full term in prison and ever after that, the court has many options in terms of letting him go. If he is declared a dangerous offender, he never gets out.

Edited December 9, 2007 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

Because the Canadian justice system puts the rights of the criminals ahead of everyone else's rights.

That said, the US system is a bit absurd in the other direction. I have heard of people getting life in prison for murder because they drove the getaway car after a bank robbery where someone else killed someone.

I think you mean the system is supposed to protect all citizen rights.

One of the things that turned the tide in Canada on the death penalty was the execution of a youth for a bank robbery in Manitoba where someone was killed. He was the lookout.

[Fortunata]

Because the Canadian justice system puts the rights of the criminals ahead of everyone else's rights.

It has appeared to in some instances but, but I think if you examine all the cases and all the sentences the victims are satisfied with the results. We hear about the ones that have gone awry of public opinion though.

I still don't get the second degree murder thing.

"He planned to kill," so whether he acted alone or not, it was premeditated. Can't more than one person partake of a premeditated murder? If two people kill someone instead of one, that's somehow a lesser crime? That makes absolutely no sense to me.

Obviously the jury didn't see completely believable evidence that his videotaped conversation was truthful (was Pickton bragging just because?) and a couple of the witnesses had credibility problems. Nevertheless, there was enough circumstantial evidence that got him at least second degree.

I would rather see him plea, providing he gets life of course. Why should he spend almost a year in a court room all day when he should be spending the time in a 6' x 8' cell? And less money for the tax payer to spend on this piece of crap.

I'd rather him plea as well, however, I doubt that he will. He's already in prison for the rest of his life, with a small chance of parole. If he plea's there will never be a successful appeal or any chance of parole.

I predict he will get maximum sentence. It will be at least 25 years before he is eligible to even apply for parole and, unless something monumental comes up that shows innocence, he will never be paroled.

Now that he has been found guilty the Crown will be able to apply to have him declared as a dangerous offender. Anyone know this?

[jdobbin]

Now that he has been found guilty the Crown will be able to apply to have him declared as a dangerous offender. Anyone know this?

They just said that this is a possibility over the duration of his sentence.

The reason they didn't initially charge him as a dangerous offender (as they can do under the law) is that it muddied the water on the murder charges.

There is a repeat drunk driver who has killed three people in Alberta who they are trying to also convict as a dangerous offender. In that case, there is a lot more evidence that the person is indeed a dangerous offender.

It is a good day after a long and painful investigation and trial.

Edited December 10, 2007 by jdobbin

[Carinthia]

They just said that this is a possibility over the duration of his sentence.

The reason they didn't initially charge his as a dangerous offender as they can do under the law is that muddies the water on the murder charges.

There is a repeat drunk driver who has killed three people in Alberta who they are trying to also convict as a dangerous offender. In that case, there is a lot more evidence that the person is indeed a dangerous offender.

It is a good day for a long and painful investigation and trial.

Agreed. You are the voice of good reason here. One way or the other he will never see the light of day again.

[gc1765]

Unfortunately, the Canadian system does not allow for consecutive sentences...

That sounds crazy to me. So, someone convicted of 10 murders could spend the same amount of time in jail as someone convicted of a single murder? I did a bit of research and found this:

The House of Commons has passed a bill that will allow judges to impose longer sentences on people convicted of multiple murders.

MPs voted 118 to 40 in favor of the bill, which still must clear the Senate before it becomes law. If it does, judges will have the option of handing out consecutive sentences for multiple murders or rapes.

Did this bill not pass the senate? Link

[luvacuppajoe]

Why would someone get a lesser sentence for not acting alone? They still committed murder. As for "mandatory minimums,"I have to wonder why there aren't mandatory maximums-- like no possiblity of parole. Seems to me that would be the appropriate sentence for a serial killer. Why would one even entertain the possibility of him ever getting parole?

Just read your edit. It did answer a question for me. I was wondering about the 'consecutive sentence' thing, which of course we have in the States. As for the 'counting time before the trial' and counting it two years for every one-- that sure makes no sense to me, either. That he could even in theory apply for parole in two years is mind boggling to me. How do you feel about that?

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding on mandatory minimums is that they were the trade off when we abolished the death sentence.

My understanding on "double credit for time served" (which I don't agree with) is that while a person is in jail awaiting trial, they are still technically innocent (innocent until proven guilty) so it is the court's way of acknowledging their former innocence...or some stupid thing. Insane, but that's the way we do things.

In all honesty, I'm just relieved he wasn't found guilty for manslaughter, which happens with alarming frequency even when first-degree intent is obvious.

Our justice system needs a serious overhaul but the jury did the best they could with what they had and ensured that he is going away. It's also interesting that they didn't exercise their right to recommend a sentence and instead left that to the judge. I would be shocked if he got anything less than 25 years, and even at that it means he's only eligible to apply for parole at that time, it doesn't mean he'll get it.

The dangerous offender designation was made for people like Pickton, I hope he gets that too.

[margrace]

My concern is not with Pickton per say but with the general attitude in our society that allows killers

such as he to operate under the cover of darkness in a desolate part of cities.

As is said often enough these sex workers are engaged in the oldest trade in the world. It can't be stopped but it should be acknowledged and some form of protection provided for these people.

The most outraged people usually are coverning up the fact that someone close to them may be using these people, hypoctites every one of them. These workers cannot operate without the other half, the users. But little is ever said about them, boys will be boys. It appears that men have a right to this business and we have no rights as women to be

protected because we chose this trade.

I have observed the overt condemnation of native women on this board, so its all right to get rid of them, they deserve it. Robert Picton only exemplifies the worst in all of us. Some of his victims were native, some were of other nationalities, and he operated since the middle 70's. We all are guilty, until we protect these people we bear the blame as well as him.

[capricorn]

Today, Pickton was sentenced to 25 years with no chance of parole. That should make him...mmm...80 some by that time. Plus, he may be tried for the other 20 murders down the road (I hope).

edit: the sentence was life with no chance of parole for 25 years, slightly different from what I posted above.

Edited December 12, 2007 by capricorn

[Wilber]

Today, Pickton was sentenced to 25 years with no chance of parole. That should make him...mmm...80 some by that time. Plus, he may be tried for the other 20 murders down the road (I hope).

edit: the sentence was life with no chance of parole for 25 years, slightly different from what I posted above.

Big difference I would think.

[Guest American Woman]

Today, Pickton was sentenced to 25 years with no chance of parole. That should make him...mmm...80 some by that time. Plus, he may be tried for the other 20 murders down the road (I hope).

edit: the sentence was life with no chance of parole for 25 years, slightly different from what I posted above.

It's good to hear that he got the harshest sentence allowable by Canadian law. I'm wondering how many years have already been applied to that 25 year sentence in light of the 'one year before trial/sentencing equals two years served.' Does anyone know?

As for being tried for the other 20 murders, from what I'm understanding, Canada doesn't have consecutive sentencing, so that really wouldn't make a difference in his sentence, would it? Also, if he's awaiting trial for those murders, is he still getting 2 years credit for each year served?

[margrace]

Canada does have another law that allows the courts or parole board, I am not sure which, to deem him a threat to society and make it impossible for him ever to get out of Jail. The other thing about him is that he probably will have to be kept in solitary confinement for the rest of his life because of the possiblility that the other inmates would kill him or at least beat him up. Bernardo has to be kept segregated as well.

[Carinthia]

other thing about him is that he probably will have to be kept in solitary confinement for the rest of his life because of the possiblility that the other inmates would kill him or at least beat him up. Bernardo has to be kept segregated as well.

Well, I suppose they have to do that but it is a shame.