Karla Homolka

[August1991]

I have several questions about this case, and I'm curious.

First, is our criminal system about rehabilitation or deterrence? Do we send criminals to prison to change them or, to send a message to other potential criminals of the consequences of their actions?

Second, are women genetically better than men? Some feminists argue that women are "gentler and kinder" than "Alpha Men". In response, I have used the examples of Elizabeth I, Jeanne d'Arc and Margaret Thatcher. Was Karla Homolka nice? Gentler and kinder?

Third, should the State respect agreements? Why not simply tell Homolka that she's in prison for life? (PM PM/Layton are doing the same for the rest of us when the federal government raises spending - after all, this new budget means that we'll have to pay higher taxes now or assume more debt in the future. Why not tell Homolka she'll have more time too?)

Fourth, should the government announce where ex-prisoners are intending to living? In principle, ex-criminals did their time and "paid their price" to society. Should we punish them further? - I happen to know people living in NDG, where Homolka with her dyed black hair, says she wants to live. But she may change her mind. Should a bureaucrat have the power to make many people worry? If Homolka changes her mind and decides to buy a house beside yours, should the government tell you?

Fifth, should Homolka own the intellectual property rights to her story? (Hugo: How should we decide ownership?)

[Melanie_]

When asking about the purpose of incarceration, you left out one option - punishment. I believe many Canadians are not interested in the rehabilitation of Karla Homolka, and while deterrence of others may be a side benefit of her time in jail, it is not in and of itself the reason she was imprisoned.

As for whether the agreement she signed should be honoured, I think not. I am reacting as the mother of teenagers, and I don't want Homolka out on the streets ever again. Rationality is not part of my thinking; I have no forgiveness, no desire to see her rehabilitated, no sympathy for her to get a chance to lead a "normal" life. She blew any chance she ever deserved.

[August1991]

No replies? Here's an easy one.

Sixth, was Karla Homolka a victim? Now there's a Leftist argument.

[Riverwind]

Ok, I'll bite:

I have several questions about this case, and I'm curious.

First, is our criminal system about rehabilitation or deterrence? Do we send  criminals to prison to change them or, to send a message to other potential criminals of the consequences of their actions?

The purpose of prison depends on the crime and the criminal. In many cases, there may be reasonable prospects for rehabilitation. In others, deterance is the main motivation. However, in Holmoka's case pushiment should be the primary objective.

Second, are women genetically better than men?  Some feminists argue that women are "gentler and kinder" than "Alpha Men".  In response, I have used the examples of Elizabeth I, Jeanne d'Arc and Margaret Thatcher.  Was Karla Homolka nice? Gentler and kinder?

Women live in a society where men are not only physically larger and stronger they also generally have more economic and political power. So many woman have learned to must less obvious when to comes to getting want they want. Female bullies in the schoolyard exist and can be more vicious than the males because they victimize someone by turning others against them rather than simply punching them in the face.

Third, should the State respect agreements?  Why not simply tell Homolka that she's in prison for life?

The system needs deals to function effectively. The prosecuters dropped the ball in the Homalka case so we should be angry at them. Unfortunately, a deal is a deal. However, she could be prosecuted for other crimes.

Fourth, should the government announce where ex-prisoners are intending to living?  In principle, ex-criminals did their time and "paid their price" to society.  Should we punish them further? - I happen to know people living in NDG, where Homolka with her dyed black hair, says she wants to live.  But she may change her mind.  Should a bureaucrat have the power to make many people worry?  If Homolka changes her mind and decides to buy a house beside yours, should the government tell you??)

I don't see Holmolka as a repeat offender. She sounds like someone who is glorifies in her image as a bad girl but without Bernardo she is likely more talk than action. That said, if she hooks up with another psychopath then there could be trouble so the public should know where she is.

Fifth, should Homolka own the intellectual property rights to her story? (Hugo: How should we decide ownership?)

Absolutely not. Any profits from her story should be seized as proceeds of crime.

Sixth, was Karla Homolka a victim? Now there's a Leftist argument.

A reasonable question 12 years ago. Now given her complete lack of remorse, it is clear that she was as guilty as bernardo.

[August1991]

I felt uncomfortable starting this thread but I did because of a conversation this afternoon with friends. I don't know enough about any of this but I will answer as my reason tells me. I stand to be corrected.

When asking about the purpose of incarceration, you left out one option - punishment.

Punishment, "justice" if you think about it, is about setting a standard for other criminals:

This is what will happen if you do what this person did.

Justice cannot replace what is lost - that is sometimes impossible. Punishment (justice) will not bring anything back. Justice serves at best to mean another person may not suffer our loss.

Justice is our gift to the future.

[August1991]

Spar, IMV, good replies. Let me think further.

[Adelle]

First, is our criminal system about rehabilitation or deterrence? Do we send criminals to prison to change them or, to send a message to other potential criminals of the consequences of their actions?

Rehabilitation would be great, if our system did more than talk about it. Sure there are some head-spacing programs within the corrections system but they are not for everyone and are not always or very effective. How about reprogramming, wiping the offending identity or psychological triggers, and replace it with a more 'people friendly' program. There was a good treatment of this on Bab-5 (we have the entire series) where a Berardo type sexual abuser/killer was punished not by putting the body to death but by putting the identity to death. Not a new concept (I think) but political death to anyone who tried to make it happen. Besides, we don't have a death penalty (even if the body lives on to become a contributing member of society).

[PocketRocket]

Pretty concisive opener in this thread.

But as thorough as you were,AUGUST, there's another option which I am surprised you missed.....

Protecting society by taking a dangerous offender off the street.

That is, after all, what probation hearings are all about; determining whether a convict is any longer a danger to society.

I think this is a prime concern when considering a convict for release.

Although upon further thought I suppose it fits under your category of rehabilitation.

Interesting thread...

[The Terrible Sweal]

First, is our criminal system about rehabilitation or deterrence? Do we send  criminals to prison to change them or, to send a message to other potential criminals of the consequences of their actions?

If you are askng a technical question, there are many available sources which will outline the prncples of sentencing and corrections in Canada.

Third, should the State respect agreements?

Yes, except for cases where the outcome would be calamitous. Trust in the state by individuals in their private capcity is essential to the state's ability to function.

Why not simply tell Homolka that she's in prison for life?

Why not tell that to you, me, Maher Arar or Gilles Duceppe? We all have rights. We are a society of laws.

Fourth, should the government announce where ex-prisoners are intending to living? 

Persons on parole, perhaps, but persons who've completed their sentence fully? I'd say not.

Fifth, should Homolka own the intellectual property rights to her story?

She should be free to sell her story or not, but it should be understood in advance that any and all commercial proceeds from the story would be confiscated.

[I miss Reagan]

Good topic August. It seems everyone has brought up valid points to consider. I think everyone on both sides can agree that keeping society safe is important. Does everyone think this is the most important issue with respect to our justice system? It doesn't appear that way because Holmoka isn't an isolated case, it's just in the spotlight. It seems Judges are more concerned with giving the benefit of the doubt to the criminal. Canada's view of crime is that alot of blame lies with society rather than the criminal. (Go figure that thinking in a nanny state like ours where you almost have to try to fall through the air tight safety net.) As usual, taking away accountablity from the individual. How many times do we have to hear about repeat offenders getting out and committing crimes not just one more time but 3 or 4 more times. From drunk drivers to child rapists. And as for murders, I'll never understand how a life sentance equals 25 years. That is not justice.

[Black Dog]

First, is our criminal system about rehabilitation or deterrence? Do we send criminals to prison to change them or, to send a message to other potential criminals of the consequences of their actions?

Well, if deterrence is the goal, it doesn't work. There doesn't seem to be any correlation between harsh punishments (even death) and decreasing crime rates. So its mostly about changing those who can be changed and punishing those who canot. I'm perfectly willing to admit there are some people (Clifford Olson, Cliffors Sleigh, Bernardo) who I don't think can be rehabilitated and who pose a danger to society. But for anyone to take these extreme examples and hold them up as evidence of the need for harsher prison sentences is specious reasoning.

Second, are women genetically better than men? Some feminists argue that women are "gentler and kinder" than "Alpha Men". In response, I have used the examples of Elizabeth I, Jeanne d'Arc and Margaret Thatcher. Was Karla Homolka nice? Gentler and kinder?

I don't think for a second that any feminist would argue that women are nicer then men. Feminsism is the polar opposite of drawing conclusions based on gender lines.

Third, should the State respect agreements? Why not simply tell Homolka that she's in prison for life? (PM PM/Layton are doing the same for the rest of us when the federal government raises spending - after all, this new budget means that we'll have to pay higher taxes now or assume more debt in the future. Why not tell Homolka she'll have more time too?)

The State is suppossed to set the example. For example, I oppose capital punishment because I think it's hypocritical for the state to tell us murder is wrong even while sanctioning it. The same goes with contracts.

BTW, I think your reading of the budget is way off: there's no tax increases in it.

Fourth, should the government announce where ex-prisoners are intending to living? In principle, ex-criminals did their time and "paid their price" to society. Should we punish them further? - I happen to know people living in NDG, where Homolka with her dyed black hair, says she wants to live. But she may change her mind. Should a bureaucrat have the power to make many people worry? If Homolka changes her mind and decides to buy a house beside yours, should the government tell you?

It depends. What's the likliehood Homolka will re-offend? If it's low, then she should be allowed to live her life out in obscurity. If high, then people should be warned. I don't know enough about this case to make that call.

Sixth, was Karla Homolka a victim? Now there's a Leftist argument.

That's baiting.

[Melanie_]

Does Homolka's deal really deserve to be honoured? She lied, withheld evidence, portrayed herself as a victim in order to get the deal, and then later was found to have been a willing participant in the tortures and murders. If someone benefits from being dishonest to the courts, shouldn't the benefit received become null and void when the dishonesty is discovered?

[I miss Reagan]

Does Homolka's deal really deserve to be honoured? She lied, withheld evidence, portrayed herself as a victim in order to get the deal, and then later was found to have been a willing participant in the tortures and murders. If someone benefits from being dishonest to the courts, shouldn't the benefit received become null and void when the dishonesty is discovered?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No she doesn't deserve it but you have to keep the deal in order to maintain the integrity of law. Otherwise no one will be forthcoming in plea deals etc. because they have no way to know whether the deal will be honored. It sucks but that's the system. But from what I understand the crown didn't even need to make a deal with Karla to get Paul. According to the investigators they had plenty to nail him with out her testimony. The prosecutors should lose their jobs.

[August1991]

No she doesn't deserve it but you have to keep the deal in order to maintain the integrity of law. Otherwise no one will be forthcoming in plea deals etc. because they have no way to know whether the deal will be honored. It sucks but that's the system.

"A deal is a deal". But if that's the case, why can the premier of Ontario raise taxes after an election in which he said he would not raise taxes? Perhaps I'm being naive here but it seems odd that the government must respect agreements it makes to an individual but not agreements it makes to many people. If that's the case, then why is the government so respectful of native land claims and treaty rights?

Does Homolka's deal really deserve to be honoured? She lied, withheld evidence, portrayed herself as a victim in order to get the deal, and then later was found to have been a willing participant in the tortures and murders. If someone benefits from being dishonest to the courts, shouldn't the benefit received become null and void when the dishonesty is discovered?

Melanie, I think the argument is that if the government were to break the agreement and put her behind bars for life, presumably no future criminal would ever trust an agreement signed with the government.

But from what I understand the crown didn't even need to make a deal with Karla to get Paul. According to the investigators they had plenty to nail him with out her testimony. The prosecutors should lose their jobs.

It is easy to second guess someone else's work - but I also agree that government employees rarely if ever lose their jobs.

I don't think for a second that any feminist would argue that women are nicer then men. Feminsism is the polar opposite of drawing conclusions based on gender lines.

I'm hardly an expert on feminism. It seems to me taht some feminists argue that women are different from men. I have also seen arguments suggesting that if more women were involved in politics, the world would function better.

Sixth, was Karla Homolka a victim? Now there's a Leftist argument.

That's baiting.

Yes, but in a worthy cause.

The Left frequently views itself as defending the little guy against the big [insert Name Here]. I'll even attempt to argue that people become Leftists because they view themselves as victims, or the unloved child in the family.

The viewpoint is self-serving. It also displaces the blame. And there are manipulative people who take advantage of Leftists. As they would say, through no fault of their own, people find themselves in a bad situation. "I had no choice."

Homolka seems to have done all of that. I could think of other interest groups in society who have done the same.

Fourth, should the government announce where ex-prisoners are intending to living?

Persons on parole, perhaps, but persons who've completed their sentence fully? I'd say not.

It seems the issue now is whether the government can impose restrictions on Homolka after her release.

[August1991]

Part II

First, is our criminal system about rehabilitation or deterrence? Do we send  criminals to prison to change them or, to send a message to other potential criminals of the consequences of their actions?

If you are askng a technical question, there are many available sources which will outline the prncples of sentencing and corrections in Canada.

Hardly technical.

I have argued that revenge (punishment) is really about setting an incentive for other future criminals. The notion of rehabilitation is new, but I guess it's an extension of the same logic. A criminal is given incentives to improve behaviour. Call it the good cop, bad cop routine.

Protecting society by taking a dangerous offender off the street.

That is, after all, what probation hearings are all about; determining whether a convict is any longer a danger to society.

I think this is a prime concern when considering a convict for release.

If prison time is supposed to be a deterrent, a future offender could be someone else or the same criminal today. Presumably after time in prison, people are not supposed to want to go back.

I guess there are dangerous lunatics who don't understand that if they commit an offense, they will have to go back to prison. In their case, I guess you lock them up for life.

The State is suppossed to set the example. For example, I oppose capital punishment because I think it's hypocritical for the state to tell us murder is wrong even while sanctioning it.

As Hugo would say, the State has coercive powers. I don't think it will ever be liked. BD, what exactly is the State supposed to be an example of?

IOW, I used to see it as you BD. Now I realize that a country is much broader than a government. If the Canadian government does bad things, that does not mean that Canada is a bad country.

[The Terrible Sweal]

"A deal is a deal".  But if that's the case, why can the premier of Ontario raise taxes after an election in which he said he would not raise taxes? 

That's sort of a two wrongs makes a right argument, isn't it? You seem to be saying that because on promise is breached this justifies breaching others.

[Ramesh]

It is not good that this girl is allowed to go free after she tortured and killed other girls. I'm am very concerned about justice system in our country, especially after Air India. It is not good for people to get away with murder.

[August1991]

Quote of the week from Homolka's lawyer:

" ... except for a very short period of her life, she has been a very obedient citizen, respecting all the laws of this country."

CTV

Maybe PM PM can try that line.

[mcqueen625]

With the revalation that Karla just had a sexual type relationship with another inmate and exchanged underwear with him, I would suggest that she is just as dangerous as she was the day she entered prison. She was told that she was to have no contact with this individual and she did anyway, just before going to court to have her lawyer plead for her release unencumbered by restrictions. I worked in the system for a nuber of years with youth. One of the youth at our facility a number of years ago was only 17 years of age but was already a sexual predator. He sexually molested a 6 year old boy, and the real disturbing part of it all was that he saw absolutely nothing wrong with what he did, and he talked quite freely about his crime, although he did not perceive it to be a crime.

Karla is a sexual predator and she along with another notorious sexual predator, the infamous Karl Toft, who is also schelduled for release shortly. Karl if you will remember is the former guard at the Youth Training Centre in New Brunswick who pled guilty to sexually assaulting over 200 young boys that were in his care.

Deal or no deal, sexual predator should never be released from prison as long as they pose even a remote chance that they will reoffend. Karla is one sick puppy and should be kept right where she belongs, in a cage. This isn't about rehabilitation or punishment, this is about the safety of society, especially our most vulnerable, children. Imagine, hat nut-case psychiatrist from Montreal, spending a measly 2 1/2 hours with Karla, and going to court to testify that she poses no significant threat to reoffend. I would sugget they lock up this nut-case with Karla and Karl. No wonder most people have no faith in psychiatry, with people like this with licences to practice.

[mcqueen625]

That's sort of a two wrongs makes a right argument, isn't it? You seem to be saying that because on promise is breached this justifies breaching others.

Tweal, if you like maybe we can arrage for Karla to move in next door to you. You'll probably be safe, but the young girls in your neighbourhood not be quite so fortunate, especially if she hooks up with another guy who likes what she likes, torturing, raping and killing young girls.

From my perspective, I am not comfortable at all with releasing violent sexual predator onto an unsuspecting society. Neither Karla Holmoka, nor Karl Toft should ever be allowed out of prison unless there can be a guarantee that these people won't again pray on our kids. If there is the remotest chance of reoffending, violent sexual predators should be kept locked up for the rest of their natural lives. That's just called the protection of society which is what our laws are supposed to accomplish. Rehabilitation is a vague concept, grasped by only those who are self-motivated by wanting to change theri lot in life. Made a mistake and changed their lives to become productive, law-abiding members of society. All the programs in the world are not going to do anything for career criminals except teach them how to manipulate the system to get early releases, so they can resume their life of crime. Success cases are those who rehabilitate themselves, leave incarceration, pick new friends, and get on with living. Those that leave jail and resume hanging out with the same types of people that they got into trouble with, will just lead to more jail-time.

[cybercoma]

Sexual predators shouldn't be allowed to fall in love.

[Melanie_]

No she doesn't deserve it but you have to keep the deal in order to maintain the integrity of law.  Otherwise no one will be forthcoming in plea deals etc. because they have no way to know whether the deal will be honored. 

I don't think we have any obligation to keep a deal that was made under these conditions. The integrity of law is compromised if we make deals in good faith and then have that good faith thrown in our faces.

[Fortunata]

I don't think we have any obligation to keep a deal that was made under these conditions. The integrity of law is compromised if we make deals in good faith and then have that good faith thrown in our faces.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly. If Homolka wasn't honest in her revelations then it should have negated the contract.

It is right that she have restrictions. She is a manipulative sociopath, if the experts are to be believed. Even the defense psychiatrist admitted that her companion could influence her behaviour, hence the provision that she not allow to associate with anyone with a criminal record. There are people out there that have the same tendencies as Bernardo, however, that do not yet have that criminal record. There is a definite danger to society in having Karla Homolka released. IMHO.

And as for murders, I'll never understand how a life sentance equals 25 years.

It doesn't. Life means life. The 25 years is the amount of time they will have to serve before being eligible for parole. Until the offender dies he/she is at risk of reincarceration for violations of the parole order. They could be recomitted for as little as being late for a meeting with their parole officer, not just recomitting the same crime as they were incarcerated for to begin with.

First, is our criminal system about rehabilitation or deterrence? Do we send criminals to prison to change them or, to send a message to other potential criminals of the consequences of their actions?

We talk about rehabilitation; we don't do rehabilitation. Some European countries have a very high success rate with this method. It has been proven that punitive does not equal deterrence. If that were so the USA would have the lowest crime rate in the western world. In fact it is just the opposite.

[Ramesh]

We talk about rehabilitation; we don't do rehabilitation. Some European countries have a very high success rate with this method. It has been proven that punitive does not equal deterrence. If that were so the USA would have the lowest crime rate in the western world. In fact it is just the opposite.

This is only because USA has more freedom than anywhere else. Canada has a terrible record for not punishing people. Karla Holmoka is just a well publisized example. This happens everyday. According to statistics Canada, 58% of people who murder have previous records of violent crime. People who should have been put away for much longer. Canada would rather create more victims because they feel sorry for criminals.

[Guest eureka]

What a ridiculous post!