Freed Serial Killer

[AdamGarou]

*shakes head*

I don't know what to say about this... other than it shows that the real world can be much stranger and more frightening than anything we can make up.

Anyone might find the link below interesting... our Canadian friends near Montreal especially.

*shakes head again*

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8464813/

[Corrupted_Loremaster]

Trust me, I well aware of this. It's one of those things that is rather hard to escape unless one stops watching and reading mainstream news sources entirely.

I'm not quite old enough to remember the trial, but from what I heard, it was something of a joke.

[Joël of the FoS]

Indeed, it makes Canadian newspaper cover news since 2 or 3 weeks now. We can't escape it !

The big point that stinks in this release is that the police found videos with proof of her involvement in the torture/rape/murders of the girls after the court made an agreement with her for a lighter sentence in exchange of her testimony against her ex.husband in these horrible crimes.

She got ten years, her husband life (without a chance to get out).

Is it fair? Most have a strong "no" opinion.

Joël

[Joël of the FoS]

In fact, the trial for this case was in the same era as the gut shaking "Dead man walking" movie with Sean Penn.

There were interesting discussions about the movie and the trial back then.

Jo

[Jester of the FoS]

Indeed, it makes Canadian newspaper cover news since 2 or 3 weeks now. We can't escape it !

The big point that stinks in this release is that the police found videos with proof of her involvement in the torture/rape/murders of the girls after the court made an agreement with her for a lighter sentence in exchange of her testimony against her ex.husband in these horrible crimes.
She got ten years, her husband life (without a chance to get out).
Is it fair? Most have a strong "no" opinion.

It's more complicated then that. They had nothing on her husband for the longest time but knew he was dirty. They didn't think she was involved as she was so they cut her a plea bargain so she would testify and they could nail Paul for as many crimes as possible. They made a legally binding contract for her to get ten-years or a general reduced sentance. THEN they found the tapes. The result: they could have crucified BOTH but missed their chance and had to let her out.

Honestly, she's going to be watched and monitored and living in a bubble the rest of her adult life. There was a TV movie made about her, her face has been plastered over every newspaper in the country. She's never going to lead a normal life again, and if she ever dissapeares there's only like a thousand reporters desperate to 'reveal' her locations. She's no threat.

I'm much more worried about uncaught and unidentified serial killer in my home town:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s ... 114435488/

[maraudar]

Climbing up on my soapbox


No offense to all you Canadians but the you really should look into instituting the death penalty for certain crimes.. As an officer I can tell you that people like this are the equivelant to rabid animals. Now you dont imprison mad dogs do you? No, you kill them. A person like this will commit further crimes, they have to feed the animal in them. Canada fought the US in the courts for years over returning Charles Ng because he was facing the death penalty. And he and his partner were responsible for a multitude of deaths, torture, rapes and sickeningly enough infantcides before they were stopped, if even by accident. High ideals are a wonderful thing.. But how many lives will those same ideals cost your country..

Now one last thing.. This isnt a slam at anyone here who is Canadian its directed at your government and its justice system. We see the same thing here in the US, sadly enough with our own criminals. Everyone wants to reform and rehabilitate them. I ask the same questions of them.. How many lives will it cost, before people wake up and decide that the people who prey on the weak and defenseless are not worth saving.

Climbs down from the soapbox

Maraudar

[Joël of the FoS]

That's highly controversial, maraudar ... First, I'm against death penalty because mistakes can happen a lead an innocent to death. Second, most studies I saw make no link between lower criminality and the presence or absence of death penalty in an area.

However, this said, I could be for it in the rare cases where accused persons are beyond doubt guilty (i.e. DNA analysis, etc) like in the case of the infamous sadistic Charles Ng, or Bernardo & wife.

Joël

PS: advance warning - you all know this is a highly controversial & emotional issue, so keep it cool in this discussion.

[maraudar]

That's highly controversial, maraudar ... First, I'm against death penalty because mistakes can happen a lead an innocent to death.

Excellent point Joel. To often these mistakes are made by lazy cops and or lazy prosecutors. People who will take the easy way out on a case instead of doing the job they are employed to do. We know this has happened in the past. Unfortunately those terrible events cant be unmade. Hopefully we can attempt to weed these idiots out one day and find others who will go the extra mile for justice and not just a stat.. Idealistic I know but we all need something to believe in no matter how far fetched it might be.

Second, most studies I saw make no link between lower criminality and the presence or absence of death penalty in an area.

Again another excellent point as far as it goes. One of the main reasons that the death penalty does not seem to have the effect it was intended to on the criminal element is due to its lengthy process and erratic use by the courts and the states. Even in cases where there is a clear cut picture of guilt a death penalty can take years to enact due appeals filed by the convicted to legal fillings from various groups who oppose it and fear by the politicians who support it but could also face an adverse reaction from the voters.

If the death penalty was imposed the way it was meant to be I.E. as a punishment for a terrible crime that met all its intended criteria and there was clear cut finding of guilt then it would become the deterrent that it should be. Sadly that will not happen any time soon. The average length of time a covicted criminal spends on death row is approx 15 years. Even in cases where there is no shadow of doubt of their guilt. The why is beyond me. They are allowed to live, while their victims families suffer.

However, this said, I could be for it in the rare cases where accused persons are beyond doubt guilty (i.e. DNA analysis, etc) like in the case of the infamous sadistic Charles Ng, or Bernardo & wife.

We definately agree on this one..


Maraudar

[Drinnik Shoehorn]

I lost faith in British justice when Venables and Thompson were released. Those two little bastards should have rotted in jail until the day they died.

[Jester of the FoS]

Canada had the death penalty but it was removed. Partly because of the hyporcricy of the State saying murder is wrong and then killing, partly because it was cruel and unusual punishment and partly because it served no function in preventing crimes.

As for Carla herself I'm not overly concerned, men in recent history are predominantly serial killers, there are very few women who fit the role. It's unlikely she'll be a repeat offender without her husband as a motivating factor.

[Wiccy of the Fraternity]

I lost faith in British justice when Venables and Thompson were released. Those two little bastards should have rotted in jail until the day they died.

Agreed, they should've rotted in jail all their lives, not released, given new names and put into protection. It makes me sick that the justice system goes much further toward protecting the guilty than the do the innocent. And don't get me started on them not notifying the naighbourhood when a child-sex offender moves into the area (like I have, one repeated (child) sex offender lives not 200 yards from me! and we weren't notified!!!! ).

[Blackpaws]

In my opinion I think life sentences are crueler than death. I would take death over a 20 year sentence, and would have to think about it for a 10.

Man is but an animal, caging them doesn't reabilitate them.

...but then again I feel the same way about working.

[AdamGarou]

Canada had the death penalty but it was removed. Partly because of the hyporcricy of the State saying murder is wrong and then killing, partly because it was cruel and unusual punishment and partly because it served no function in preventing crimes.

Interesting opinions, whether they're yours or the Canadian government's.

Hypocrisy is in the eye of the beholder, but I can see the point you're trying to make. However, I personally feel more comfortable living in a country where "the State" can execute criminals proven guilty than where our tax money is used to pay for their room and board for the remainder of their lives (or 10-15 years, whichever comes first ).

The health care company I work for actually specializes in providing care to jails and prisons, so I've had the opportunity to visit some of these institutions (in about 10 different states). While most of them aren't the Hilton Hotel, neither are they the rotting cess-pools some movies and television shows make them out to be. Yes, the inmates are confined and their freedom limited, but they have 3 square meals a day, clean clothing, a warm place to sleep, exercise equipment and dietary consultants to ensure that they remain in good health. I'm not sure that's sufficient punishment for someone who took another person's life--particularly an innocent's or a child's.

As far as cruel and unusual punishment goes, I have trouble seeing the death penalty issue that way. If you kill someone, and the State can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did it, then you die. What's cruel and unusual about that? It seems rather like justice to me--though I recognize that it's not necessarily always that cut-and-dried.

And as far as it having "served no function in preventing crimes", I have to outright disagree. When capital punishment is used, there are no repeat offenders--period. We haven't heard about Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy killing anyone recently. Why? Because they're dead. In their cases, the death penalty certainly prevented them from committing future crimes--I don't think anyone could argue with that.

I also happen to agree with maraudar's point about why the threat of the death penalty doesn't seem to deter other criminals from committing the same acts. Partly, I think this IS because it takes so long to arrive--10 to 15 years of appeals, further appeals, other legal motions that must be reviewed and denied, etc.--that the threat diminishes somewhat. Of course, I also think that most criminals don't really expect to be caught at whatever they're doing--part of what makes them what they are is the arrogance to believe that what they're doing is okay and that they'll never be caught because they're too smart.

As for Carla herself I'm not overly concerned, men in recent history are predominantly serial killers, there are very few women who fit the role. It's unlikely she'll be a repeat offender without her husband as a motivating factor.

I can see some truth in this--from what I've read of serial killers, they ARE typically white males. And I'm honestly glad that locals in Montreal can draw some comfort from that. Of course, it's also possible that her supposed fear of her husband was just the story she gave the police, and she's just as demented as he was. I guess time will tell.

I also agree with what Wiccy said about notifying neighborhoods when a child molester/sex offender moves in. I happen to care a lot less about the civil rights and privacy of a rapist/molester (and whether they're comfortable in the community) than I do about the safety of my family and friends. I have two nieces (ages 10 and 3), a nephew who's only a month old, and another niece on the way, so this is a VERY serious issue for me.

As a side note to Wiccy and Drinnik, who are Venables and Thompson? I'm not familiar with their story--what'd they do?

[Blackpaws]

If you kill someone, and the State can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did it, then you die.

Thats where it's tricky though. Beyond reasonable doubt for one person may be different than to another person. Even the techniques (such as DNA testing) that we rely much on are falliable as nothing is perfect.

I don't think the modern death sentence has much bearing at all on crime rates. Canada has much lower crime rates than the States, even factoring in the lower population the %'s are lower.

Now if you want to go in the past to civilizations that used death and immediate punishments with no form of jail time as their legal systems, I can guarantee that would lower the crime rate but I don't see anyone reverting back to that anytime soon.

All this may seem a bit weird for me to state after my previous comment, but that was in reference to what I would want if I was found guilty, not how I feel other people should be forced into.

What sets one human above the other to where they can judge innocence, and decide if another lives or dies? I don't see much difference between that and a truly guilty murderer.

[Drinnik Shoehorn]

As a side note to Wiccy and Drinnik, who are Venables and Thompson? I'm not familiar with their story--what'd they do?

They did this.

It's not something I like talking about, but it was a dark day in Liverpool and I'll never forget what the city was like at that time.