Protection for Homolka?

[Melanie_]

What do you think? She has been denied extra protection, but I think there is still a push from her lawyers for it to be provided. With her release either today or tomorrow, do you think she needs extra protection from the public, and should it be provided? (NO advocacy of vigilante action, please!)

[Riverwind]

What do you think? She has been denied extra protection, but I think there is still a push from her lawyers for it to be provided. With her release either today or tomorrow, do you think she needs extra protection from the public, and should it be provided? (NO advocacy of vigilante action, please!)

She can have all the protection she needs paid for by the state if she goes back to jail. That said, there should be a media ban - provided it is automatically lifted if she commits any crime.

[cybercoma]

She served her time, regardless of whether anyone agrees with the sentence, it was handed down by a judge and prosecuted by a crown attorney. How much time she should've spent in jail is another argument, hopefully this discussion doesn't get into that mess of the deal.

Now that she's out, she should get the same protection as anyone else.

[Melanie_]

Yes, Cybercoma, the same protection as everyone else. But my question was should she have extra protection, because she thinks the general public is a threat to her? And a further thought, if your answer is yes, how long should that extra protection last?

[cybercoma]

Yes, Cybercoma, the same protection as everyone else. But my question was should she have extra  protection, because she thinks the general public is a threat to her? And a further thought, if your answer is yes, how long should that extra protection last?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Would police offer you extra protection if your life is being threatened on a near constant basis? If the answer is yes, then I say she should be afforded the same protection as any other citizen. If the answer is no, then she shouldn't.

My point is that she's paid her price by serving the sentence handed to her by the courts. If that sentence is not long enough or harsh enough, then the problem is with the courts and not Homolka herself. She didn't choose her sentence, the courts did. So, she comes out of prison with the right to live as an ordinary citizen, the same as any of us if we were to go to prison, serve a sentence and be released.

[Advocat]

It's extremely rare for police services to give 24/7 protection to anyone other than a politician or a witness to a case before the courts. No police service in Canada has the manpower to assign 2-4 officers per shift (needed to cover a building), 3 shifts per day, 7 days a week for an unlimited period, to a single person, just because they've received death threats; you have no idea of just how many people receive death threats daily. The cost of 6-12 officers a day would have to be carried by the local municipality (i.e. the taxpayers), and these officers wouldn't be available for their normal duties, causing an extra burden on the service in question.

Normally, rather than guard the person in these cases, the police go after those making the threats, since "Uttering death threats" is a chargeable offense under the Criminal Code.

Quite often a person receiving serious threats is simply told to move to a different location and to change their telephone and other contact info while police attempt to track/catch the threat makers; if there's enough reason there are actions the courts/government can take to help the person relocate under an assumed name/identity until things cool down. If long term protection is needed, suggestions to threat recipients include hiring professional security companies; of course, the person in question has to pay for this service themselves.

[cybercoma]

It's extremely rare for police services to give 24/7 protection to anyone other than a politician or a witness to a case before the courts.  No police service in Canada has the manpower to assign 2-4 officers per shift (needed to cover a building), 3 shifts per day, 7 days a week for an unlimited period, to a single person, just because they've received death threats;  you have no idea of just how many people receive death threats daily.  The cost of 6-12 officers a day would have to be carried by the local municipality (i.e. the taxpayers), and these officers wouldn't be available for their normal duties, causing an extra burden on the service in question.

Normally, rather than guard the person in these cases, the police go after those making the threats, since "Uttering death threats" is a chargeable offense under the Criminal Code.

Quite often a person receiving serious threats is simply told to move to a different location and to change their telephone and other contact info while police attempt to track/catch the threat makers; if there's enough reason there are actions the courts/government can take to help the person relocate under an assumed name/identity until things cool down.  If long term protection is needed, suggestions to threat recipients include hiring professional security companies;  of course, the person in question has to pay for this service themselves.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Then this is exactly what should be done; however, according to the news reports, in Quebec if you change your name it has to be published in the newspapers. If Karla Homolka were to legally change her name everyone would know anyway. Regardless, she should only be afforded the same protection the average "high risk" citizen would get. I would suggest as you have said that she flip the bill for a private security service to protect her. Of course, Homolka will probably argue that it's the media that created this frenzy and they should be forced to pay. To Ms. Homolka I would suggest that it was her actions in murdering 3 people that caused this frenzy and she has only herself to blame.

[Riverwind]

Of course, Homolka will probably argue that it's the media that created this frenzy and they should be forced to pay.  To Ms. Homolka I would suggest that it was her actions in murdering 3 people that caused this frenzy and she has only herself to blame.

I think the media frenzy is way out of control. The gov't could arrange for Holmolka to change her name without publicizing it since they do that for people in the witness protection program all of the time (not to mention wifes fleeing abusive husbands). However, the police still need to keep tabs on her and she should be prohibited from using the name Holmolka to make money in the future.

In fact, the police could give her a new identity and promise to reveal it to the press if she gets in trouble again. That would be a powerful incentive for her and protect society from her at the same time.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Melanie,

do you think she needs extra protection from the public, and should it be provided?

I suppose it would partly depend on whether or not she has been 'fully rehabilitated' in the eyes of the courts. I think it matters, though not fully, I concur she should be offered no more or less than any other citizen, but a factor to be considered is 'is she likely to reoffend'? I do not think that the same protection should be offered to 'non-rehabilitated offenders', as they likely aren't going to be 'valuable members' of society. Same goes for pedophiles. In some ways, what Homolka did was worse.

(NO advocacy of vigilante action, please!)

I'll bite my tongue and just hope, then.

[cybercoma]

Dear Melanie,

do you think she needs extra protection from the public, and should it be provided?

I suppose it would partly depend on whether or not she has been 'fully rehabilitated' in the eyes of the courts. I think it matters, though not fully, I concur she should be offered no more or less than any other citizen, but a factor to be considered is 'is she likely to reoffend'? I do not think that the same protection should be offered to 'non-rehabilitated offenders', as they likely aren't going to be 'valuable members' of society. Same goes for pedophiles. In some ways, what Homolka did was worse.

(NO advocacy of vigilante action, please!)

I'll bite my tongue and just hope, then.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Even as a non-rehabilitated offender, our court system allowed her to rejoin society. She's entitled to all the same rights as anyone else.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear cybercoma,

Even as a non-rehabilitated offender, our court system allowed her to rejoin society. She's entitled to all the same rights as anyone else.

I have to agree, because I respect the law. However, as an example, let's take Nelson Mandela, (I'm sure you'll see how the cases are similar, lol) and whether or not he should have been allowed to be 'persecuted by the press' for his past actions after release from prison. There is an innate sense of justice in people's minds, and in Mandela's case, justice was served (perhaps way overdone), by Mandela's prison sentence. I don't think the vast majority of people in Canada feel the same way toward's Homolka. She is afforded the same rights as anyone else mostly because that is the barest minimum we can give.

[kimmy]

Personally, I can't imagine a more fitting punishment for her than to spend the rest of her life looking over her shoulder and wondering if that day is the day that somebody finally goes vigilante-style on her. I hope she lives many, many years, and spends each day in pants-wetting terror.

I think she the police should secretly maintain a watch on her safety for a while after she's released. I do think it's reasonable to expect she'll be in danger during the initial period, and if the court believes it's reasonable too then they ought to (grudgingly) order protection. I would expect that after the circus of her release wears off, she won't be in need of protection. Later, I think she should only be provided with protection if specific incidents or threats become apparent.

-k

[cybercoma]

Personally, I can't imagine a more fitting punishment for her than to spend the rest of her life looking over her shoulder and wondering if that day is the day that somebody finally goes vigilante-style on her. I hope she lives many, many years, and spends each day in pants-wetting terror.

I think she the police should secretly maintain a watch on her safety for a while after she's released. I do think it's reasonable to expect she'll be in danger during the initial period, and if the court believes it's reasonable too then they ought to (grudgingly) order protection.  I would expect that after the circus of her release wears off, she won't be in need of protection. Later, I think she should only be provided with protection if specific incidents or threats become apparent.

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Canada is too apathetic for vigilantes. Once this is out of the news, people will forget she even exists.

[Big Blue Machine]

Why should she get protection when other criminals don't? She's not special like everyone else.

[kimmy]

Why should she get protection when other criminals don't? She's not special like everyone else.

She is different from other criminals in the amount of publicity and public outrage surrounding her case.

-k

[Big Blue Machine]

Serves her right for committing the murders in the first place.

[kimmy]

Serves her right for committing the murders in the first place.

Probably. But if our police and courts have reason to believe that someone is in real danger, they have to protect that person. Even if it's Karla. You can't do nothing if you believe that somebody's going to be hurt or killed. I believe that for a while following her release, it's reasonable to think that she will be in danger... so I believe that for a time, she should be provided with protection.

It's not that I like her or think highly of her. I would be tempted to smash her skull open with a brick myself, if I saw her on the street. However, as a society we believe in the rule of law and we expect our law enforcement agencies to act accordingly.

-k

[Advocat]

We should all note that Homolka herself is not asking for police protection, realizing she's not going to get it (almost no one does), but she is (through her lawyer, Christian Lachance) asking for a media ban on the reporting her whereabouts:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/04/ame....0704canada.php

Lachance argues that since Homolka’s safety cannot be assured by police, the media must be prevented from reporting on her whereabouts to protect her from numerous threats against her life, mostly by Internet bloggers

She's also requesting the media publicize the ban, which could then possibly be applied to the bloggers who are reporting on her, and where many of the death threats mentioned appear.

Just as an aside, if you or I saw web sites where someone was threatening us with death, the police wouldn't supply us protection either... they'd try to track down and arrest the author, and they'd certainly have the site pulled, but that's it.

[SirSpanky]

I was a little young when the incidents went down to remember anything of substance. I was under the impression she assisted her boyfriend, but didn't actually murder anyone herself.

Is that right?

[CrazyCanuck]

She did give her rapist-husband her sister as a Christmas present. Enough said. I wonder how many other stable countries in the world ever have to deal with the problem of what to do when one of their worst murderers gets out of jail.

[mcqueen625]

She served her time, regardless of whether anyone agrees with the sentence, it was handed down by a judge and prosecuted by a crown attorney.  How much time she should've spent in jail is another argument, hopefully this discussion doesn't get into that mess of the deal.

Now that she's out, she should get the same protection as anyone else.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes she sould get exactly the same protection as anyone else, which is none, unless an actual crime is committed. If what she wants is granted we could be saddled with a huge bill for something that is only hypothetical. Nobody has made any attempt on her life yet, and until they do she should not be entitled to a personal police guard. If she is then we need one for every potential victim. Of course on the other side of that coin, if that type of preventitive protection had been available 12 years ago, Karla & Paul would not have killed three innocent young women.

[mcqueen625]

She did give her rapist-husband her sister as a Christmas present. Enough said.  I wonder how many other stable countries in the world ever have to deal with the problem of what to do when one of their worst murderers gets out of jail.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now if this were say Egypt, she would have been executed long, long time ago. The problem of her release or the release of someone like Karl Toft simply would not happen. It also would not happen south of the border in the U.S.A. not even in states that do not have the death penalty. THey would have sentenced her to consecutive life terms. Life meaning natural life or 99 years. In Canada our justice system has lost all credibility. I do not condone the death penalty for serious crime, but when someone is sentenced to life, it should mean life, not a chance to be out in 15 years, that is not a life sentence. Jusat the same as sentencing someone to community time (House Arrest) is not incarceration, it is simply a way for government to cut the costs of running our justice system, but it certainly has not made society any safer, in fact just the opposite has happened. Canada's justice system has become a laughing stock, and it's time that some justice and punishment be put back into the system. Rehabilitation is for those that want it, and no amount of programs willcan rehabilitate a person, that has to come from within, and the fact that they simply do not want to spend their lives behind bars. Unfortunately in Canada we have done away with the concept of bars in many cases and the concept of being responsibe for stupid choices, we prefer to blame it on anyone but the person who committed the offence, usually that anyone is society.

[Melanie_]

Personally, I can't imagine a more fitting punishment for her than to spend the rest of her life looking over her shoulder and wondering if that day is the day that somebody finally goes vigilante-style on her. I hope she lives many, many years, and spends each day in pants-wetting terror.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Absolutely perfect. "The coward dies a hundred deaths, the strong man dies but once", or something like that. Let her live in anticipation of what just might happen.

[August1991]

You can watch the whole interview in French here. I have to say that it is truly bizarre. Someone (Christie Blatchford?) described Homolka as a "moral vacuum".

[I miss Reagan]

Personally, I can't imagine a more fitting punishment for her than to spend the rest of her life looking over her shoulder and wondering if that day is the day that somebody finally goes vigilante-style on her. I hope she lives many, many years, and spends each day in pants-wetting terror.

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not going to happen at all. Sociopaths do not experience fear. If anything Karla would experience a "rush" from the danger. She is in her glory, she's manipulated the system and is now free to drink her ice caps. What frightens me most is that the radical left will use her as an example that even psychopaths can be rehabilitated, as she will likely not be able to re-offend, being under the microscope for the rest of her life.

What I want to know is what the hell is wrong with Quebecers and their indifference and even acceptance of her. I'm all for the "Les Miserable" type of forgiveness but I figured even Quebecers would draw the line at serial killers. Oh well, they can have her.