Sins Of Homolka

[Guest]

I assume you noticed that there was a question mark after that statement.

I participate on these boards in an effort to solicit some different, randomly selected views from individuals who are prepared to share them under the cover of anonymity. I am already pretty sure of what my views are and seek arguments to test my position. Sometimes, when I sense that someone is seriously asking my opinion then I will share it.

There are too many participants who hunt the postings looking for reasons to crap on some target. I try to avoid giving these bottom feeders an excuse to insult Big Guy.

What rights do you think a community has as to the police sharing their information about previous convicted criminals settling into that community?

I think it should be on a case by case basis, the decision made by a judge, who has instructions to err on the side of caution.

[Big Guy]

I think it should be on a case by case basis, the decision made by a judge, who has instructions to err on the side of caution.

Thank you for your response. I still have friends in law enforcement who struggle with their expected obligation to the community. One of the conditions of parole to in form the local police force when someone convicted of a crime is let back out into the community - especially in convictions of violent, sexual and/or child molesters. The police are often expect to "keep a special eye" on individuals who have served their time but still considered dangerous.

Child molesters have a recidivism rate of about 40%. Therefore, 4 out of every 10 people convicted of child molestation can be expected to re-offend within a few years. Should the local community be warned that there is someone living in their community has a 40% chance of being a predator hunting their children?

If the parent knows nothing of their community then they would have to assume that someone in their community is a child predator and supervise their children accordingly. Or would they?

If the police are given that information, do they have the right to withhold it from parents in the area?

[Guest]

Thank you for your response. I still have friends in law enforcement who struggle with their expected obligation to the community. One of the conditions of parole to in form the local police force when someone convicted of a crime is let back out into the community - especially in convictions of violent, sexual and/or child molesters. The police are often expect to "keep a special eye" on individuals who have served their time but still considered dangerous.

Child molesters have a recidivism rate of about 40%. Therefore, 4 out of every 10 people convicted of child molestation can be expected to re-offend within a few years. Should the local community be warned that there is someone living in their community has a 40% chance of being a predator hunting their children?

If the parent knows nothing of their community then they would have to assume that someone in their community is a child predator and supervise their children accordingly. Or would they?

If the police are given that information, do they have the right to withhold it from parents in the area?

I think, given a 40% recidivism rate, that erring on the side of caution would see the community informed.

[cybercoma]

I actually know a great many people who are/were in foster care - they're all better off than they were before.

And, to drag her kids through the inevitable displays exactly what kind of mother she is.

I love how you constantly bring up anecdotes as if they're evidence of anything.

[cybercoma]

I assume you noticed that there was a question mark after that statement.

I participate on these boards in an effort to solicit some different, randomly selected views from individuals who are prepared to share them under the cover of anonymity. I am already pretty sure of what my views are and seek arguments to test my position. Sometimes, when I sense that someone is seriously asking my opinion then I will share it.

There are too many participants who hunt the postings looking for reasons to crap on some target. I try to avoid giving these bottom feeders an excuse to insult Big Guy.

What rights do you think a community has as to the police sharing their information about previous convicted criminals settling into that community?

You still didn't answer the question.

[cybercoma]

I think, given a 40% recidivism rate, that erring on the side of caution would see the community informed.

And what about the adverse effects like vigilantes harassing people who are trying to turn their lives around? Are you prepared to deal with the fallout of some of these people never being able to reintegrate and the increased crime as a result?

[Guest]

And what about the adverse effects like vigilantes harassing people who are trying to turn their lives around? Are you prepared to deal with the fallout of some of these people never being able to reintegrate and the increased crime as a result?

I don't have to deal with it. I just have to read about it in the newspapers. I remember reading about a fellow released recently who killed three women. I wished they had known he was coming. If something bad was going to happen, I'd rather it had happened to him.

[Hal 9000]

I love how you constantly bring up anecdotes as if they're evidence of anything.

Peter gave an opinion, then I gave an opinion - is there something wrong with giving opinions on a forum board?

I could look for a cite to prove that fostering works - and works pretty well in Canada, but I won't - mainly because if it didn't work, we'd scrap the system.

I'm sure you'd be shocked at the amount of money that is spent on fostering in Canada.

[Big Guy]

You still didn't answer the question.

I shall as soon as everybody has had a chance to air their point of view.

[GostHacked]

I shall as soon as everybody has had a chance to air their point of view.

Why wait?

[Big Guy]

Why wait?

My whole intent of posting this OP was because I was not yet sure of my position. I solicited other views so when I made my decision it would be based on looking at all the options.

[BC_chick]

My whole intent of posting this OP was because I was not yet sure of my position. I solicited other views so when I made my decision it would be based on looking at all the options.

When I first read your OP I couldn't wasn't sure what to think about the situation either and every post made by both sides of the coin had merit which didn't help me decide one way or another. I even thought of this thread when I wasn't online about how I like this forum for the reason of being exposed to various opinions.

Even though some of us thought it's cut and dry and their opinion was fact (sigh), I think the thread brought up some really valid yet opposing points of views.

[dre]

I think, given a 40% recidivism rate, that erring on the side of caution would see the community informed.

That number is a pretty big overestimate. 15% would be more realistic.

[Big Guy]

That number is a pretty big overestimate. 15% would be more realistic.

If you are referring to child molestation then I disagree:

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/chld-mlstr/index-en.aspx

[GostHacked]

My whole intent of posting this OP was because I was not yet sure of my position. I solicited other views so when I made my decision it would be based on looking at all the options.

My big question is, would you feel comfortable with her living in your neighborhood?

[overthere]

My big question is: are Homolkas children at risk? Given what she is, do Child Services in Quebec routinely enter her home and assess her domestic situation to ensure that her own children are safe? If not, why not?

The reasons for doing this are the facts : one parent has a demonstrated history of drugging, torturing, raping and murdering children.

[eyeball]

My big question is: are Homolkas children at risk? Given what she is, do Child Services in Quebec routinely enter her home and assess her domestic situation to ensure that her own children are safe? If not, why not?

Because the terms and conditions of her release back into society didn't call for this level of ongoing monitoring. Effectively speaking the questions you're asking have already been addressed.

The reasons for doing this are the facts : one parent has a demonstrated history of drugging, torturing, raping and murdering children.

As I've said the facts have been dealt with. History also demonstrates there will forever be people who are unable or unwilling to accept it when payment for a debt has been deemed to be received in-full by the authorities that represent society. How we help these people seems to be what's really at issue.

[Hal 9000]

Were clearly dealing with different questions here.

I think that there should be some type of "violent offender" registry. We have one for sex offenders, why not for purely violent people. Manslaughter doesn't always equate to violent behaviour, sometimes that is just negligent behaviour. I don't think you can mark every negligent incident as violent, and you can't/shouldn't report every crime of assault or threatening behaviour, but surely crimes involving weapons should be notable to the public. Any crime where a person uses a knife to sexually assault someone is considered for the sex offender registry, but someone who uses a knife to rob or physically assault someone is not on a registry. Although the crimes have different elements, fundamentally, you still have someone walking around and potentially harming people with a weapon.

Where to draw the line: I think any offences that include willful violence while using a weapon should be reportable to a registry and therefore to the public. Any offences for first or second degree murder as well as some cases of manslaughter depending on circumstance should be notable as well.

Manslaughter, in many cases (certainly for Homalka) is a charge that is plead down to from a more serious crime. And the down plea (again for Homalka) is clearly not meant to be simply a way of getting less jail time, but also helps the criminal in their life after prison (if there is even any prison time). This is where the system fails. A predator who lures children, rapes them and murders them gets the same treatment as someone who was reckless with their car.

* I think Homalka served her entire sentence because she knew that the justice system couldn't keep tabs on her after her release, but I could be wrong.

Now, as far as Homalka goes, she clearly got out before any registry was formed for any offenders, but does that make her less violent? Does the fact that she she served her allotted time mean that Canadians should forgive and forget? Hell No! She is what she is, and no time served will wash her clean of that. What she is; is a psychopath, a sociopath, a predator, a rapist and a murderer. That's the fact! Are her children in danger? We don't know that, but are they in more danger than typical kids? - Of course they are! You'd have to think that Karla Homalka is just the same as any regular soccer mom to believe different. This woman is more vile than OJ Simpson for heavens sake. Being released hasn't changed that - and never will.

P.S - As an edit: What she did to those girls before they murdered them is worthy of a life sentence.

Edited April 26, 2016 by Hal 9000

[Big Guy]

My big question is, would you feel comfortable with her living in your neighborhood?

My first reaction is no. I would not be comfortable with her living in my neighborhood.

At my age, I seek and retired to a quiet living space and am uncomfortable with what notoriety and disruption that her proximity might bring. From the reaction on this board, I can see some individuals egging her house or creating other problems for her and her family with the intent of forcing them out - I might get caught in that crossfire or be forced to get involved.

My grandchildren do visit occasionally and I have no problems with her in regarding the possibility she might hurt them.

On the plus side, I would like to get to know her to a point where she might share with me the reasons for what she did. During the course of my career, I had the opportunity to work in a maximum security institution and was able to have candid conversations with people who had done some very bad things. I found it fascinating in hearing what their explanations and/or excuses were.

As to her guilt and/or appropriate punishment, I leave that to the courts. I have no control over the various reactions different people have for her. I believe that her husband knew what he was getting into when he married her. Her children were never consulted.

Her children had no say or any involvement in her "sins". They deserve the right to grow up normally and I would support both physically and financially their right to a normal upbringing.

[Hal 9000]

My first reaction is no. I would not be comfortable with her living in my neighborhood.

At my age, I seek and retired to a quiet living space and am uncomfortable with what notoriety and disruption that her proximity might bring. From the reaction on this board, I can see some individuals egging her house or creating other problems for her and her family with the intent of forcing them out - I might get caught in that crossfire or be forced to get involved.

My grandchildren do visit occasionally and I have no problems with her in regarding the possibility she might hurt them.

On the plus side, I would like to get to know her to a point where she might share with me the reasons for what she did. During the course of my career, I had the opportunity to work in a maximum security institution and was able to have candid conversations with people who had done some very bad things. I found it fascinating in hearing what their explanations and/or excuses were.

As to her guilt and/or appropriate punishment, I leave that to the courts. I have no control over the various reactions different people have for her. I believe that her husband knew what he was getting into when he married her. Her children were never consulted.

Her children had no say or any involvement in her "sins". They deserve the right to grow up normally and I would support both physically and financially their right to a normal upbringing.

Sure, they deserve the right to grow up normally, but they won't! Not now anyway. And it was her who is dragging them through this, it was her who brought all this on, not the parents who are against it. She is not a victim, her kids are in fact victims of her actions - no one else's...hers. If she had an ounce of decency, she would've stayed far far away from Quebec...and Canada.

P.S - An anecdote; I have a friend who has always wanted to have sex with her (and he's serious), he thinks she's repulsive, but it's kind of a bucket list thing for him.

Edited April 26, 2016 by Hal 9000

[overthere]

Because the terms and conditions of her release back into society didn't call for this level of ongoing monitoring. Effectively speaking the questions you're asking have already been addressed.

As I've said the facts have been dealt with. History also demonstrates there will forever be people who are unable or unwilling to accept it when payment for a debt has been deemed to be received in-full by the authorities that represent society. How we help these people seems to be what's really at issue.

She did not have children when she was released from prison, so that is not relevant. I'm not asking a question, I am pointing out that her children are at risk and that Quebec has a specific duty to those children.

You are arguing that she has paid her 'debt to society', which of course she has not since the deal she struck with the Crown was based on a very big lie. It pisses me off that she was permitted to get away with this lie. But so be it. What does that have to do with 3 children living with a homicidal pedoiphile rapist in their home?

Bernardo was then. This is now, right now.

[eyeball]

She did not have children when she was released from prison, so that is not relevant.

So is your concern because her potential to have children was not flagged as an issue upon her release. Relevance to everything you're pointing out ceased then.

You are arguing that she has paid her 'debt to society', which of course she has not since the deal she struck with the Crown was based on a very big lie. It pisses me off that she was permitted to get away with this lie.

It is a fact that she has paid that debt, as evidenced by her release. How pissed off that makes you is utterly irrelevant.

What does that have to do with 3 children living with a homicidal pedoiphile rapist in their home?

You're opinion has nothing to do with anything because as far as law is concerned they are living at home with their parents.

[Hal 9000]

So is your concern because her potential to have children was not flagged as an issue upon her release. Relevance to everything you're pointing out ceased then.

It is a fact that she has paid that debt, as evidenced by her release. How pissed off that makes you is utterly irrelevant.

You're opinion has nothing to do with anything because as far as law is concerned they are living at home with their parents.

Just to satisfy my confusion, are you saying that because she's been released from prison, that she is not a homicidal pedophile rapist?

[eyeball]

The law is saying she isn't otherwise she'd be under arrest.

[Hal 9000]

The law is saying she isn't otherwise she'd be under arrest.

The law has to release her - it's the law, however, that's not what i asked.

Are you saying that because she's been released from prison, that she is not a homicidal pedophile rapist?