NationStates Jolt Archive

I chose..... option 3. :D

She's currently being held in the prison where I have worked for 2 summers...
LOL it's just so weird.
For those who have read my previous posts about this place... it's where they make psychological evaluations and sometimes use the pletysmograph (to evaluate physical response to hard-core porn... on a voluntary basis).

Well if she passed through this evaluation (whatever the devices they have used on her), she's probably 100% clean.
They really, really don't joke with sex offenders.

She's currently being held in the prison where I have worked for 2 summers

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

seriously?

Yep. Max security in Sainte-Anne-des-Plaine.
It's also the regional sorting/evaluation center. Every time a new *dangerous* prisoner integreate the system, he/she is evaluated here. Everytime a sex offender is about to be released, he/she is re-evaluated there. They also hold the national database of sex offenders (project PERICD -- unless they have changed the name during the last 8 years).

I've worked there in summers 1996, 1997 as a computer analyse/programmer/all-around security geek. Got my background checked by the RCMP. Obtained federal clearance level Confidential (Security 3), then got further clearance and worked as Secret level (Security 4). Sorry, can't give any detail about that work, it's too sensible.

Well if she passed through this evaluation (whatever the devices they have used on her), she's probably 100% clean.
They really, really don't joke with sex offenders.


Just as a curious-george, but why would she need to pass through any sort of testy-westy given that she has completed the full term of her sentance?

I mean, if they wanted to renegy-weggy on the deal they would have. Trying to back-door that through a dangerous offender hearing would have been awfully-doodly transparent.

Not saying that she wasn't evaluated. Just that it was generally irrelevant when it came time to decide about her release. The political decision to uphold their little dealy-wheelie with Satan-ette had been made.

Mister Flanders:

PRISONER RELEASE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH POLITICS IN CANADA.

Parole board members are usually retired criminologists or prison administrators with decades of experience.

NO POLITICIAN has the power to have a prisoner released.
We don't have any friggin' state governor.

PS: If she has served her sentence but is still considered a moderate risk, dispositions can be taken so that she's bound to a "day center" with a curfiew and limited liberties.

PS: There is such a day center at the Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines complex.

This rather large complex contains multiple installations, from day center to maximum security, including a provincial medium security prison (Archambeault) and very high security measures on the outside. For instance, max- and hi-sec employees aren't allowed to have lunch outside. They work their whole work day inside the fence.
I wonder if anyone has ever escaped from SADP. It's got the best defenses/triple-fences/bunkers/trenches/roof heliport I've ever seen in a Canadian prison.

Mister Flanders:

Parole board members are usually retired criminologists or prison administrators with decades of experience.


PS: If she has served her sentence but is still considered a moderate risk, dispositions can be taken so that she's bound to a "day center" with a curfiew and limited liberties.

Yet, they still can't stop her from being released unless they renege on the 12 year deal and if they did that, they'd be hard pressed to ever be taken seriously again if they offer up a deal. I personally think my province dropped the ball. She should of been given the same sentence as her sicko ex-husband.. but that's not what happened and they have no choice but to release her.

For those of you picking the send her to the states option, that's never going to happen, first of all, the USA has no jurisdiction and never did. Second, Canada does not subscribe to the death penalty. In fact if an American from the US were to enter Canada as a wanted killer and faced the death penalty, Canada would refuse to turn them over to the USA unless they made a deal that they would not give him the death penalty.. it's happened more than once.

For those you are interested in *huge* prison complexes, here's SADP in all its glory:

http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=45.749903,-73.857801&spn=0.010294,0.019834&t=k


PS: Max security is the little group of white buildings organized in a star. The center is a highly-fortified rotunda, which has control over all movements in that section. The rotunda can shut the who;e max sec prison down, and guards can hold siege in that bunker for days without external help if it's necessary. They can also be evacuated from the roof. The rotunda's walls are equipped with pivoting gun holes and can hold explosive/mortar fire. Quite important when you have prisoners from the mafia or from the Hells Angels.

Mister Flanders:

PRISONER RELEASE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH POLITICS IN CANADA.

Parole board members are usually retired criminologists or prison administrators with decades of experience.

NO POLITICIAN has the power to have a prisoner released.
We don't have any friggin' state governor.

PS: If she has served her sentence but is still considered a moderate risk, dispositions can be taken so that she's bound to a "day center" with a curfiew and limited liberties.

PS: There is such a day center at the Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines complex.

This rather large complex contains multiple installations, from day center to maximum security, including a provincial medium security prison (Archambeault) and very high security measures on the outside. For instance, max- and hi-sec employees aren't allowed to have lunch outside. They work their whole work day inside the fence.
I wonder if anyone has ever escaped from SADP. It's got the best defenses/triple-fences/bunkers/trenches/roof heliport I've ever seen in a Canadian prison.


Thanks for the civics lesson on parole in Canada.





And It would matter ............................IF SHE WERE BEING PAROLED!



She served her complete sentance did she not? So this represents a release - NOT a parole. Indeed, what few conditions are being putty-wutty on her are really extrordinary for a person who has completed their time. Serving the mandatory time is not the same as serving full time, and NO-ONE has ever been restricted to a Day center after serving their full time in Canada to my knowledge. Especially since almost no-one ever DOES serve the complete sentance.


(BTW, I hail from Springfield ONTARIO, so I really don't need to you to operate under the assumption that I mistakey-wakey Candian jurispridence for that used in other jurisdictions. The politcal decision to which I refered was that made not to revoke their deal after the tapes came out, which WAS such a decision by the prosecuters office.)

Flanders, you are a pain in the ass.

PS: Why are you being so rude with everybody? What's the purpose?

Flanders, you are a pain in the ass.

PS: Why are you being so rude with everybody? What's the purpose?


Just curious, but is "pain in the ass" some new euphemism for "right"?


And, errr.... not trying to be rude at all. Excuse the hecky-wecky me for having different opinions, or, gish-golly permit.... some actual input from time to time... :rolleyes:

OK. Oh well. I guess I just can't stand that simpsonesque flanderstalk. But still, we can keep this debate to a more pleasant level.

Forget the stuff about the parole board. It's just that -- it's important to tell to our American readers that in Canada, it doesn't work the same way as in the US. In other threads some guys keep asking how people can be released for political reasons (such as a governor who's about to be thrown out of office). There's no such thing in Canada, I have to stress that.

Still, when a sex offender is released, he/she can get a different kind of liberty depending on the evaluation. If he/she is unstable, not totally "reformed", or not 100% trusted... he/she will be in a day center, and the he/she will have to report for periodic checkings for a while. Not to mention the zero tolerance policy. You get back in quite easily when you're in that category.

And I'm still baffled that she didn't get a longest sentence.
But I have a higher respect for the Canadian justice system since I have workd "inside" and seen how it works, and the data too. Scary data, encouraging data... depends on the database.
So if they release her... oh well...

aww... c'mon ppl, vote option 3. lol :D

In other threads some guys keep asking how people can be released for political reasons (such as a governor who's about to be thrown out of office). There's no such thing in Canada, I have to stress that.

Well, that's note entirely true. In the states they call it something else.. but in Canada you can receive a pardon from a political source, such as the provincial government for summary convictions and from the federal government for indictable offences. It happens all the time. I believe it's 3 years for summary convictions and 5 years for indictable.

Flanders, you are a pain in the ass.

PS: Why are you being so rude with everybody? What's the purpose?

Might be Asperger Syndrome.

Liverbreath']Might be Asperger Syndrome.


Low-gradey-wadey Rain Man syndrome?


Sheesh.... hate to think what that makes my neighbour! lol.



Lighten up Homer. Have a donut.

Low-gradey-wadey Rain Man syndrome?


Sheesh.... hate to think what that makes my neighbour! lol.



Lighten up Homer. Have a donut.

Figured that might make you think for a second.

Liverbreath']Figured that might make you think for a second.



Well, someone seems to be in a baity-waity mood today.....


You know - dropping in to a thread just to make personal slights is not, I believe, deemed to be in terribly-werribly good form 'round here.

aww... c'mon ppl, vote option 3. lol :D

sorry good neighbour. Can't.



Partly-wartly because - given her history - I'm not entirely-wirely sure that she would deem that as punishment.....

Hey Ned, why are u talking in a weirdly-wordedly way? lol

*I'm not criticising you, just curious. :D

Hey Ned, why are u talking in a weirdly-wordedly way? lol

*I'm not criticising you, just curious. :D


Well hi-ho-diddly-doh neighbour!



'tis just the way I've talked forever. Some people blame it on a small tumor... some on my neighbours.... hey, if you'd had to live next to Homer, Marge, Bart, etc - you'd have gone a little batty by now too!

Well, someone seems to be in a baity-waity mood today.....


You know - dropping in to a thread just to make personal slights is not, I believe, deemed to be in terribly-werribly good form 'round here.

No personal slight at all. I couldn't tell if you were intentionally being a little prick toward everyone, or you were being a little prick because you had a medical condition that displayed symptoms such as your need to make childish rhymes when you speak and the inability to interact socially in an effective manner.
Once you replied, it was obvious that you were acting as a little prick because you enjoy acting as a little prick. You see, not a personal slight at all. I am sure that if you choose to you can be a decent individual.

Liverbreath']No personal slight at all. I couldn't tell if you were intentionally being a little prick toward everyone, or you were being a little prick because you had a medical condition that displayed symptoms such as your need to make childish rhymes when you speak and the inability to interact socially in an effective manner.
Once you replied, it was obvious that you were acting as a little prick because you enjoy acting as a little prick. You see, not a personal slight at all. I am sure that if you choose to you can be a decent individual.

OR

Maybe he just has a sense of humour! You should try it sometimes.. no slight of course. :)

Liverbreath']No personal slight at all. I couldn't tell if you were intentionally being a little prick toward everyone, or you were being a little prick because you had a medical condition that displayed symptoms such as your need to make childish rhymes when you speak and the inability to interact socially in an effective manner.
Once you replied, it was obvious that you were acting as a little prick because you enjoy acting as a little prick. You see, not a personal slight at all. I am sure that if you choose to you can be a decent individual.


Likewise I'm sure.

Do like the muslims do and give her a female circumcision.

Then stone her after ripping out all her hair, fingernails, toenails, eyelashes, and breaking all the teeth out of her mouth with a hammer and having a bull rape her till her pelvis is crushed.

Likewise I'm sure.
Without a doubt.

Yep. Max security in Sainte-Anne-des-Plaine.
It's also the regional sorting/evaluation center. Every time a new *dangerous* prisoner integreate the system, he/she is evaluated here. Everytime a sex offender is about to be released, he/she is re-evaluated there. They also hold the national database of sex offenders (project PERICD -- unless they have changed the name during the last 8 years).

I've worked there in summers 1996, 1997 as a computer analyse/programmer/all-around security geek. Got my background checked by the RCMP. Obtained federal clearance level Confidential (Security 3), then got further clearance and worked as Secret level (Security 4). Sorry, can't give any detail about that work, it's too sensible.

Sorry, but I couldn't resist. :p

Yet, they still can't stop her from being released unless they renege on the 12 year deal and if they did that, they'd be hard pressed to ever be taken seriously again if they offer up a deal. I personally think my province dropped the ball. She should of been given the same sentence as her sicko ex-husband.. but that's not what happened and they have no choice but to release her.

For those of you picking the send her to the states option, that's never going to happen, first of all, the USA has no jurisdiction and never did. Second, Canada does not subscribe to the death penalty. In fact if an American from the US were to enter Canada as a wanted killer and faced the death penalty, Canada would refuse to turn them over to the USA unless they made a deal that they would not give him the death penalty.. it's happened more than once.

That is not true. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that just because someone faces the possibility of the death penalty, that is not guranteed. This was based on the Charles Ng case. The last thing Canada wanted was for US murderers to flee to Canada to avoid the death penalty.

Oops a correction, I was unaware of the more recent ruling (9-0) in favor of not extraditing killers who would be facing the death penalty if convicted.

BTW-Way to go Canada, you can keep our scum locked up and I hope for your sakes you don't let these people out one day.

:mad:

I'm really unimpressed.

Do like the muslims do and give her a female circumcision.

Then stone her after ripping out all her hair, fingernails, toenails, eyelashes, and breaking all the teeth out of her mouth with a hammer and having a bull rape her till her pelvis is crushed.You are one sick fuck. I'm so glad you're a right-winger, but I'm sure some of them aren't.

As for this woman Karla Homolka, a link would be appreciated. I don't know the details of the case.

Well hi-ho-diddly-doh neighbour!



'tis just the way I've talked forever. Some people blame it on a small tumor... some on my neighbours.... hey, if you'd had to live next to Homer, Marge, Bart, etc - you'd have gone a little batty by now too!

More like battybwoi. Like Buju Banton says: Hang dem battybwoi pon dem tree. Your peculiar syntax has to be one of the most annyoing idiosyncracies I've encountered on a message board in 10 years I've been on the net. How can you possibly expect anyone to take you seriously when you talk like that. At least be original for crying-out-loud.

You are one sick fuck. I'm so glad you're a right-winger, but I'm sure some of them aren't.

As for this woman Karla Homolka, a link would be appreciated. I don't know the details of the case.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/bernardo/index_1.html

She's a verry unpleasant person...

This is a sick thread.

Option 3 and the opinions of Paternia and The Chinese Republics are simply disgusting.

Ms. Homolka was a victim as well as a perpetrator. She suffered severe, severe domestic violence. She was diagnosed by multiple independent psychiatric professionals and by the Canadian authorities as having batter woman's syndrome and being a "compliant victim."

She cooperated with the authorities and testified against her husband. As part of a plea bargain, she pled guilty to two counts of manslaughter. Her original deal had her sentenced to 10 years, but she was then sentenced to an additional two years. She has served her full sentence. She has been a model prisoner. She has shown copious remorse and actively sought to reform.

Even now -- after she has served her complete 12-year sentence -- she is being released under an extraordinary set of conditions restricting her activities, requiring her to report regularly to law enforcement, etc.

One could well argue that Ms. Homolka was as much a victim of, as she was a corroborator with, her husband. She had no prior offenses and no independent criminal activity. The abuse she suffered is well-documented. As is her mental state. On those grounds alone, her sentence is more than fair.

Moreover, her sentence can be justified completely on the grounds of her cooperation with authorities and her plea bargain. Those are common reasons for a reduced conviction/sentence.

She has been severely punished for her crimes. She suffered for them long before the authorties got involved. She has done everything she could do to show remorse and rehabilitation.

Those of you that want a piece of flesh should be ashamed of your selves. Simple bloodlust. No moral reason justifies it.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/bernardo/index_1.html

She's a verry unpleasant person...

<sigh>

So are those with an infatuation with serial killers. Or that equate her with one.

This is slightly more objective. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karla_Homolka

More than 12 years ago, under the violent thumb of her husband, this young woman did some very horrible things.

You have no idea what kind of person she was before or is now.

<sigh>

So are those with an infatuation with serial killers. Or that equate her with one.

This is slightly more objective. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karla_Homolka

More than 12 years ago, under the violent thumb of her husband, this young woman did some very horrible things.

You have no idea what kind of person she was before or is now.
I suppose it iss very hard to regard one person both as a perpetrator of crime and its victim, although it is almost for certain that if she had married another man, she would not have become an abetter in killings.

Personaly I find her to be the Canadian equivilent of Charlie Manson. She simply disguts me. Personaly though she should just be thrown back into that cell of hers for another 12 years to let her think about what she did. The fact that she could have easily just called the cops and ended it all in a single action but she didn't.
Though the part that gets to me the most is that she suddenly says she is terrified of what could happen when she is released. Well maybe she should have called the cops before when her and her then husband had the first girl. If she wants to say she is terrified maybe she should think of how her sister felt when she helped murder her.

Personaly I find her to be the Canadian equivilent of Charlie Manson. She simply disguts me. Personaly though she should just be thrown back into that cell of hers for another 12 years to let her think about what she did. The fact that she could have easily just called the cops and ended it all in a single action but she didn't.
Though the part that gets to me the most is that she suddenly says she is terrified of what could happen when she is released. Well maybe she should have called the cops before when her and her then husband had the first girl. If she wants to say she is terrified maybe she should think of how her sister felt when she helped murder her.

You have no clue about battered woman's syndrome or compliant victim syndrome do you?

Someone partially responsible for the death of 3 people, who has shown remorse, etc., is the equivalent of Charles Manson? Your moral scales need re-adjustment.

If you knew much about the case, you would know she has spent alot of time thinking bout how her sister felt and apologize for it. Beyond the torment she suffered from her husband and her full punishment at the hands of the authorities, no doubt her guilt is tremendous punishment.

But, screw the facts. Screw that she has been punished, shown remorse, sought help and been rehabilitated. Some of us just like to lust for a pound of flesh. :(

Chinese: This has to be, bar none, the singlemost offensive thing I've ever seen on NationStates.

This is not an endorsement. I have seen offensive things before, many times in fact. Usually there's some redeeming quality, however minute, to offset the offensiveness.

Not in this case. So you don't like Karla Homolka? Fine, there's lots of people who feel as you, join a club. But instead, you serve up this poll. Whatever possessed you to come up with option 3? You're advocating having somebody raped. Hell, the preceding option implies you'd like the law bent and twisted to allow her to be put to death.

Thank God you presumably aren't involved in Corrections.

So who are YOU to deal out judgements of life and death, anyway? God? Caesar? And what on Earth are you doing advocating the rape of ANYBODY, let alone someone who has served their sentence and regained their freedom?

If this is an attempt at wit, it's fallen flatter than the first cake I ever baked.

Well, so far, 17% of NSers agree that she should be gang raped. A grizzly sense of justice, perhaps?

I think she should be let out and left alone. She served her sentence, just or unjust, and if the province should have prosecuted to full extent instead of offering a deal that's not her fault.

She has served her time, been evaluated, and found fit for release. Whatever your personal opinion of her is, she still deserves to be released according to the law.

More like battybwoi. Like Buju Banton says: Hang dem battybwoi pon dem tree. Your peculiar syntax has to be one of the most annyoing idiosyncracies I've encountered on a message board in 10 years I've been on the net. How can you possibly expect anyone to take you seriously when you talk like that. At least be original for crying-out-loud.


Well my-oh-middly my. You manage to state that I have acheived new heights of annoyance out of all the silly-dillies you have encountered in a whole decade (NOT that that is my intent), and then - on the flippy-wippy side - complain that I'm not original-wiginal.


Figuring out that odd juxtaposition of statements is quite a pickle!


But hey, nobody ever HAS taken old Neddy terribly seriously since my last Biblical Epic production in town, so I'm not terribly worried about that.



And Cat, while I agree in principle with your ideals in general, in this specific case the demon-spawn has been deemed likely to re-offend by at least one of her evaluaters, has never really expressed remoresy-worsey for her actions, and people DO have some justifiable concerns as to how her Hubby-wubby was a serial rapist for a long time before he met her but no-one died until she came along.

Which is to say, that there ARE female psychopaths - and that not every female accomplice is a victim, even if they always do get the benefit-wenifit of the doubt when they raise that as a defence.

I'm not stating that she is such, as none of here are in a position to know. However I find it a little-wittle telling that EVERYONE who ever saw the tapes has expressed a position that she was a VERY willing accomplice, going so far as to take the lead in the events on many-wany occassions, and that all of those people felt that she escaped proper punishment for her actions.

And Cat, while I agree in principle with your ideals in general, in this specific case the demon-spawn has been deemed likely to re-offend by at least one of her evaluaters, has never really expressed remoresy-worsey for her actions, and people DO have some justifiable concerns as to how her Hubby-wubby was a serial rapist for a long time before he met her but no-one died until she came along.

Which is to say, that there ARE female psychopaths - and that not every female accomplice is a victim, even if they always do get the benefit-wenifit of the doubt when they raise that as a defence.

Likely to re-offend by what evaluator? None of the official or independent ones.

Ms. Homolka has expressed remorse repeatedly -- in public, in private letters to families of victims, and to prison officials.

Actually, officials are rather certain her husband committed murders before he met her (when she was 17) and without her.

It has rather clearly been established by psychiatric professionals that Ms. Homolka is not a psychopath.

Ms. Homolka could be totally guilty, unremorseful, the true instigator, etc., and not be a psychopath -- that is a rather specific psychological term.

And, no, I don't think Ms. Homolka has suffered enough just because she is a woman. Her gender doesn't have a damn thing to do with it -- thank you very much. :rolleyes:

(BTW, I hope you get done proving the point about the swearing and stop with the act soon. It is totally within the rules (IMHO), but very annoying.)

I chose..... option 3. :D
Option 3 has been removed. Apart from being in more-than-questionably bad taste, the TOS doesn't like it when you encourage illegal activities. The grinning smilie does not make it witty or funny, either.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

(BTW, I hope you get done proving the point about the swearing and stop with the act soon. It is totally within the rules (IMHO), but very annoying.)


?????????


Not sure what you're on about, but ole Neddy has NEVER cursed! Such a terribly-werribly un-Christian thing to do!

Hai Allah, leave the woman be. She wants to move like 10 minutes away from my house but I'm not complaining. Let her do whatever the hell she wants to in peace. She's paid her time and there's no sense in punishing her for what she hasn't done yet.

Release her, she's done her time. I can't see how one would justify keeping her longer...
Much less torturing her. All of you who want her raped should be ashamed. Bloodlust is NOT justice.

The only unfortunate thing about releasing her is that I fear someone might decide to 'take justice into their own hands', so to speak, and kill her.

I was being sarcastic in my previous post.

I was making fun of TCR's third option, although I guess it wasn't that obvious and was in bad taste.

I think it was a little much on behalf of the mods to destroy my nation. I understand Dobbs reported the thread, and I'm not angry about that, but I think that if I was banned for what I said, then CTR should be banned for making the thread in the first place. I think Fris went overboard in general though, then again I am but a worm to the supreme might of the moderators.

I was being sarcastic in my previous post.

I was making fun of TCR's third option, although I guess it wasn't that obvious and was in bad taste.

*snip*

We didn't catch your sarcasm. If it were not for others with sentiments like those, it might have been more obvious.

Complaints about Mod actions should be taken to the Moderation Forum.

The woman killed her own sister, the woman sawed another woman's legs off while she screamed for death. I don't find myself moved very much by this-and-that-syndrome, and how a cold-blooded dismemberer of fellow human beings is really "a victim". If I ever come back as such a "victim" and tear other innocent human beings apart, I would expect to bear responsibility for that. It is complete and utter bullshit.

Alas, our prosecutorial team decided in its wisdom to offer her what is a really shitty deal for society, and we are now bound to its terms.

I was serious on the matter that she should be put to death, however. Preferably a very painful way.

I believe the "oh she was really a victim, just because she was a woman" argument is bullshit.

She initiated several of the murders, including the murder of her own sister, which I believe was because she wanted to "give" her to the husband.

Absolutely sickening.

Do like the muslims do and give her a female circumcision.

Then stone her after ripping out all her hair, fingernails, toenails, eyelashes, and breaking all the teeth out of her mouth with a hammer and having a bull rape her till her pelvis is crushed.
All your suggestion does is lower yourself down to her level when she committed those crimes.

I was serious on the matter that she should be put to death, however. Preferably a very painful way.

I believe the "oh she was really a victim, just because she was a woman" argument is bullshit.

She initiated several of the murders, including the murder of her own sister, which I believe was because she wanted to "give" her to the husband.

Absolutely sickening.
Well, according to the experts who have examined her, it was due to some sort of spousal abuse that she became a willing victim. I'm not sure how it works, but basically, she wasn't a victim because she's a woman, she's a victim because her husband abused her.

Just because she was also a victim of spousal abuse doesn't mean that any crime she's commited doesn't count anymore.

It's likes saying "Satan made me do it."

Well, obviously it still counted, she did go to jail.

It's kind of like killing people when not in one's right frame of mind. I'm not a psychologist, nor am I an expert in spousal abuse or for that matter, the specifics of the situation, I do know that several people who are experts have examined her and determined that it is the case that she is very unlikely to reoffend and that it was her husband's influence that caused her to go along with the whole thing.

I was serious on the matter that she should be put to death, however. Preferably a very painful way.
Catholic huh? Which Bible do you use? The one edited by Marquis de Sade?

I was serious on the matter that she should be put to death, however. Preferably a very painful way.

The Pope would disagree.

I believe the "oh she was really a victim, just because she was a woman" argument is bullshit.

No one else believes that either. Nice strawman.

She initiated several of the murders, including the murder of her own sister, which I believe was because she wanted to "give" her to the husband.

Bullshit. Now you are just making stuff up.

Absolutely sickening.

Yep. Torturing her to death would be.

In any event, she has served her sentence and she now should no longer be under intense public scrutiny. She has passed rigorous evaluations that Sarkasis detailed earlier in this thread, and it is public knowledge that she is not considered likely to re-offend.

I've said this before in previous threads regarding Ms. Homolka: If you're honestly upset with the deal the Crown struck with her, take it up with the Crown. If you want to re-instate capital punishment, petition your member of Parliament.

I'm not, nor was I, terribly upset about the deal the Crown struck; it fully guaranteed the takedown of Paul Bernardo, one of the most ruthless sexual predators in Canadian history. That Homolka served a finite sentence rather than be incarcerated indefinitely, as is the case with Bernardo, matters little to me in my daily life. That she has rehabilitated herself and applied herself during her years spent in incarceration strikes me as valid acts of contrition for her role in the nightmarish sex slayings perpetrated by, with, or in the company of Mr. Bernardo.

Personally, I loathe the periodic calls for a return to the days of capital punishment in our country. There have too many cases of people serving long sentences falsely, for crimes they were later absolved of. Donald Marshall. Guy Paul Morin. David Millgard. Thomas Sophonow. The list goes on.

Capital punishment may satisfy the ugly, blackened little part of some human being's souls, but the bitch of it is, it's rather permanent. Sucks to be wrong about something as serious as somebody's continued existence on this planet. And how would society have bettered for the executions of Marshall, Morin, Millgard or Sophonow, anyway, if they weren't in fact the guilty parties? Answered simply, it wouldn't have. It would have been degraded. Lessened. Cheapened.

I am glad we no longer practice acts of state-sanctioned murder. As an aside, I will never take seriously any political party that seeks to 'turn back the clock' on capital punishment. Capital punishment isn't an issue. It doesn't exist here anymore - hence, there is no issue. Except for the usual gang of suspects, those who continue to surprise the rest of Canada with their increasingly hawkish, blithely unempathetic take on... well, on just about everything, the ReformaTories, everybody else is, more or less, quite satisfied with the status quo.

Give the past a slip, fellas. I'm sure you're all far too young to be sounding like reactionary old men already.

The Pope would disagree.

It is legitimate to disagree on the issue of capital punishment in the Church, as opposed to some other issues. Capital punishment can be justified.



No one else believes that either. Nice strawman.

It was exaggeration. You know like the Christian-bashing stuff you and other liberals spout out.




Bullshit. Now you are just making stuff up.

Bernardo and Homolka, dubbed "The Ken and Barbie" murderers by the press, were also responsible for the death of Homolka's younger sister Tammy. Homolka wanted to "give" Tammy to Bernardo as a Christmas present. Having been employed in a veterinary office, she drugged her sister with Halcion-laced drinks and then used a halothane-saturated cloth (an animal tranquilizer) to further sedate her. As a consequence of the drugs, Tammy choked to death on her own vomit.

Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bernardo



Yep. Torturing her to death would be.

There goes that nasty tendency of completely changing the meaning of what someone else said some liberals (especially those on SCOTUS) have.

It is legitimate to disagree on the issue of capital punishment in the Church, as opposed to some other issues. Capital punishment can be justified.

Oh, you get to pick-and-choose. How nice for you.

Regardless, killing someone painfully is not capital punishment. It is barbaric torture. It cannot be justified. Particularly not here.

It was exaggeration. You know like the Christian-bashing stuff you and other liberals spout out.

It was a strawman. But if it was an exaggeration, what was your point?

You don't agree with FBI, DOJ, and Canadian authorites -- not to mention the field of psychiatry and psychology -- about the existence of battered women's syndrome and compliant victims?

Or you just think one's intent and degree of culpability is irrelevant and we should just kill all criminals painfully?

Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bernardo

Um. I knew they raped her sister and she died as a result. Where does that say Ms. Homolka initiated the murders. That was your claim.

There goes that nasty liberal tendency of completely changing the meaning of what someone else said.

Nice ad hominem and flamebait. You said you wanted her killed painfully, did you not?

Let's get back to the nub of the matter, and leave the nastiness behind, shall we?



You don't agree with FBI, DOJ, and Canadian authorites -- not to mention the field of psychiatry and psychology -- about the existence of battered women's syndrome and compliant victims?

Or you just think one's intent and degree of culpability is irrelevant and we should just kill all criminals painfully?

Um. I knew they raped her sister and she died as a result. Where does that say Ms. Homolka initiated the murders. That was your claim.


I don't believe that compliance is a valid defence. I don't believe state-of-mind/insanity is a valid defence, either.

She initiated the murder by sedating her sister and bringing her home to be raped, even if he said he wanted to do it because she wasn't a virgin, it doesn't mean that if she didn't sedate her it wouldn't have happened. The fact she took part in the rape and murder herself adds to her guilt in my book.

Some call me radical, and I'm starting to like it.