I suppose it was inevitable but I doubt many of us really saw it coming. Karla Homolka, the estranged wife of serial rapist and murderer Paul Bernardo, is eligible to apply for a full pardon this year. And because we now know that 99% of all people who apply for a pardon get one, that means that the woman who is largely believed to have orchestrated the murders of three people [including her own sister] can get one, too.
This seriously disturbs Prime Minister Stephen Harper but, he says, the government is powerless to stop it. Mr.Harper said the news that murderer Clifford Olson receives a government pension behind bars, while hockey coach Graham James received a pardon for sex abuses of junior players, has highlighted the need to get tougher on criminals.
“For many years, the vast majority of Canadians have found this deeply offensive. Now, they find it unacceptable,” the Prime Minister told a victims’ rights conference.
“Yet, for now, the law remains. And the law will allow Karla Homolka to apply for a pardon this year.”
The Conservatives are looking at legislative reform to make it more difficult for sex offenders to be granted pardons, but any reforms would come long after Karla got hers. It’s particularly despicable, in that Homolka and Bernardo sexually tortured their victims on videotape before they murdered them.
The Conservatives should go ahead with their plan to implement legislation to make pardons difficult or even impossible for sex offenders to receive. It should have unanimous consent in the House of Commons. And if it doesn’t, there will be political hell to pay for the party that opposes it.
Under the current law, any offenders can apply to the National Parole Board for pardons within three to five years of completing their prison sentences, although it often depends on the severity of the crime. At issue isn’t the fact that the Parole Board grants 99% of pardons because it wants to, but because it says it has no discretion to refuse pardons so long as the offenders meet the specific criteria.
Although experts have noted that pardons don’t erase a criminal record, offenders who have been pardoned would not pop up on a routine criminal background check. They do show up, however, if the person is a former sex offender applying to work with children.
Let’s not bicker and argue over who killed who. We should rejoice in Karla Homolka’s rehabilitation into a fully accepted member of our tolerant and liberal society.
And while we’re at it, perhaps we could rehabilitate her victims. What? They’re no longer around?
______________________________________________
That Karla walks the streets a free women must be daily torture for those girls’ families. My definition of “civilized” appears to be at odds with our politicians’.
In the mid 90′s I was actively involved with Child Find and for a period of time ran the regional “Green Ribbon’ campaign that was specifically designed to honor these cherished daughters. As a consequence I became far more informed of this despicable event than an average Canadian. I think of these girls probably once a day, still.
The idea that Karla Homolka got the deal initially was bad enough but to have her pardoned and walking freely as though none of this ever happened is such a stain on our legal system.
We can’t change the lunacy that has already transpired but we can leave her unpardoned, to walk daily with her conscience and her reality.
As those who’s lives and family she helped destroy, live with theirs.
It’s worth noting that she got that deal because prosecutors didn’t think they could make their case without her cooperation.
The reason they thought this is that they didn’t yet have the videotaped evidence that would have convicted Bernardo without Homolka’s testimony.
The reason they didn’t have this evidence is that it HAD BEEN REMOVED from the house by Paul Bernardo’s lawyers at his request.
To put it briefly, Paul Bernardo’s lawyers hid evidence from the police. As a result, Karla Homolka is free today.
It astonishes me that the lawyers did not go to jail for this. Ken Murray (one of the lawyers) was charged as a result, but was acquitted. He went far beyond providing an honest defense for a client and well into the territory for obstructing justice.
Our legal system has VERY serious problems.
“The reason they didn’t have this evidence is that it HAD BEEN REMOVED from the house by Paul Bernardo’s lawyers at his request.”
You missed a very important step. The police had already searched the house and failed to find the tapes. The reason the lawyer was able to go into the house in the first place was because the police had concluded their search. They were not going back.
Thus, the only reason the tapes were discovered was because Bernardo sent his lawyer in to get them.
http://www.ottawamenscentre.com/news/20050705_bernardohomolka.htm
http://www.canada.com/national/features/homolka/story.html?id=bab9c4c1-d0ac-4bbe-bd54-abdcc4096051
Here is an article on the lawyer’s case. It was held that what he did was wrong, however he had an honest belief he could hold on to the tapes to use them in his client’s defence.
http://www.criminal-lawyers.ca/criminal-defence-news/the-ken-murray-case-defence-counsel-s-dilemma
Whether the Conservatives passed legislation governing pardons tomorrow or next year Homolka would still be exempt – she plead to manslaughter and not a sexual offense.
You are correct in that I didn’t mention that step Gayle. Of course it’s not relevent.
I suppose it’s possible that the police would never search a suspect’s house twice, but it seems unlikely. In fact, it seems boneheaded to think that they wouldn’t search his house again and again. Of course they wouldn’t find anything since Mr. Murray had already hid the evidence in his office.
My point was on the actions of the lawyers. The police search is not an indicator that it’s acceptable to actively conceal evidence from this point on. While I have reservations about the implications of a legal system that allows lawyers to keep absolute evidence of a crime to themselves, Mr. Murray’s actions go in farther than that.
He actively removed evidence from a crime scene. He wasn’t providing a legal defense. He was assisting in the cover-up of a crime.
As for his “honest belief” that the tapes would be useful for Bernardo’s defense….
Hey, I’ve got this awesome bridge you might be interested in buying.
Considering that the Harper government has, by proroguing itself twice (and once for three months!) has ensured that the “law’n'order” agenda won’t be passed. Makes for a good wedge when you can point at things like an upcoming hearing with Karla Homolka to make press, despite the fact it’s their own damn fault that none of the stuff they keep saying they want to do can’t get done because the keep closing the government down for political expediency.
Can y’all just skip ahead to where you blame the Liberals for the deaths of Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy? I don’t have all day.
Don’t worry,ti-guy, Bernardo/Homolka safely committed their crimes during the Mulroney era, as if that makes any difference.
Karly-curls is apparently studying law, so a pardon would mean she could someday qualify for admittance to the Ontario Bar.
Isn’t that a comforting thought?
Wow! Love this blaming the Libruls/Harpercon & Lyin’ Brian thing.
The answer is: none of the above.
This was the crown who didn’t do their jobs properly and rushed to make a deal with the devil herself, in order to guarantee a conviction for Homulka, quick to assume Homulka was herself, a victim of Bernardo’s. If investigators were a little more thorough, they would have found those videos showing Homulka to be as (if not more) an active participant in the sadistic murders of French & Mahaffey. They would surely have not made that sweetheart deal they made with her. In fact, we wouldn’t be having this discusssion: she’d still be doing hard time, where she belongs.
I just don’t like how the Harpercons, through the media are splashing her name all over the media; this has got to be painful for the victims’ families every time they hear it. It’s bad enough she’s walking the streets wherever as a free person. Do the Harpercons and the media need to turn the knife further? This coverage doesn’t do them any favours.
And honestly, let’s be logical; even if she was only convicted of manslaughter and she gets a pardon; with all the media coverage over the years, including clips from the damning video tapes that were shown countless times to the public; does it really make any significant difference whether or not she has this pardon?
From what I hear, she had managed to travel anyhow as well as change her name; I believe that name is Teale, now.
guarantee a conviction for Homulka
sorry about that: I meant guarantee a conviction for Bernardo
And Adrian, was it necessary to put up her picture? I mean, yuck!
Rabbit,
I don’t know how the families restrain themselves from going out and getting revenge on Karla. If it had been my girl tortured and murdered, I can say with near certainty that I’d be in prison right now for having found Karla and strangled her with my bare hands.
Bec,
The problem is that the prosecution totally botched the job with Karla. They made a deal thinking they would need her, but in reality they could have sent both into the dungeon for consecutive life terms.
True enough, Andrew. It is extremely troublesome to think the lawyers hid incriminating evidence of torture and rape from the prosecution long enough to get Karla off.
Also true. And this might be outrage for the sake of outrage, since it appears unlikely anything can be done to stop Karla from getting her pardon.
Don’t see where anyone was blaming any Liberals here. Can you point it out?
I merely said there would be hell to pay if they held up reforms on pardons proposed by the govt.
dmorris, As I mentioned before, with all the media coverage and the public has seen video clips implicating Homulka as an active participant, do you honestly think there would be a law firm worth it’s salt that will hire her?
Think about this; the partners who would he hiring have staff and their families to think about and yes, may even lose some talented lawyers and support staff if Homulka were hired. Not to mention the media feeding frenzy!!
As I’ve said before, even Harper and his games of control with prorogation can’t be blamed for this specific case.
Blame is with the prosecutors and them alone for hastily putting together that sweetheart deal for Homulka
” Do the Harpercons and the media need to turn the knife further? This coverage doesn’t do them any favours.”
Heard the family lawyer on a NATIONAL radio station interview today and the comment above is so far from the truth that it’s laughable. What I heard puts trust and value in the Conservative govt position.
The ‘pardon’ may just be a non issue as this piece of ____ has lived outside of Canada and her behaviour in another country has had no scrutiny.
Ya gotta have hope and believe!
Now that Adrian is censoring posts, I do not know if this will get through, but here goes.
You might want to try reading the links. In it you would have learned the police searched the house for 71 days. 71 days.
While the police are conducting a search, no one is allowed to enter the premises. Clearly here the search was over, because the lawyer was able to enter and had the authority to remove property.
In short, the police screwed this up by failing to find the evidence during the 71 days they sealed the house and conducted their search.
If you had read the other links you would have learned the court agrees with you – it was wrong for the lawyer to hold on to the evidence. However, the law requires there to be intent in order to found a conviction. While your opinion on his intent is noted, I would also note that you have never spoken to this lawyer, nor have you listened to his testimony. The judge – the same one who said what he did was wrong – did listen to that testimony. I have no personal stake in this case, and I have no opinion on whether he was telling the truth or not. You know why? – because my opinion, and your opinion, are not relevant, nor can either of us base that opinion on anything but conjecture. The judge is the only one who was in a position to assess his evidence, and he did. No need for you to try to sell a bridge to me just because I am pointing that fact out.
Of course, aside from the evidence given by the lawyer, which was clearly believed by the judge, there is that little inconvenient fact that the lawyer did ultimately turn the evidence over to someone who turned it in. There is that other little inconvenient fact that Homolka and Bernardo were hardly on the same team by this point, and there was no reason for the lawyer to withhold the evidence to save Homolka, and since the plan was to use the tape in the trial, clearly he was not holding on to it to save Bernardo either.
It is hard when the facts get in the way of your opinion.
It would never happen. Someone tried that already in Quebec (I think) and also in Alberta. The law societies would not allow them to be admitted.
Gayle,
I do understand how the law works, don’t be condescending. It only makes you look petty.
Perhaps I should have made it more clear that I was saying that this law is an ass. I do know the police did not find the tapes. This is unfortunate.
Ultimately though, a failure on the part of the police, does not change the fact that the lawyer removed evidence from the house and concealed it. Removing and concealing evidence is quite different that providing a defense. It is an active move to hinder an investigation.
Handing tapes over to another layer much after the fact does not erase the harm. At the end of the day we have a lawyer that aided his client in covering up a crime.
I am fully aware that he was not convicted. I am saying that this indicates that our legal system has serious problems.
And Gayle, that last bit? You sound snippy.
Now that Adrian is censoring posts
Give your head a shake. I’ve never censored a comment that didn’t deserve to be deleted in my life. WordPress holds for moderation any comment with 3 or more links in it.
Hmm – someone who claims I am so gullible that you could sell me a bridge should perhaps not be so sensitive.
You got your facts wrong – twice. If you had read the links you probably would not have repeated your assertion that the evidence was hidden from the police and that is why they did not find it.
He did not remove the tapes to hinder the investigation. The investigation, insofar as the search of the house went, was OVER. He removed the tapes after the police searched the house for 71 days and failed to find it.
Besides, if he was withholding the tape to benefit his client, don’t you think he would have destroyed them? Isn’t destroying evidence a better way to make that evidence disappear?
That might be why the judge – you know, the guy who heard the evidence and who has the training to make these decisions – found that he believed he had a right to use the tapes the way he did.
The reason she got away with this is because the police screwed up.
Fair enough, and I apologize. For what it’s worth, there are people on other blogs who have said you are censoring your blog, and when my comment was held up I leaped to a conclusion that I should not have made.
I have deleted and banned some people, but only because they attacked me as a human being and not my ideas. You can’t get deleted or banned for disagreeing with me. Ever.
Gayle, you’re a grown adult and I don’t think you’re really offended by the bridge comment. I think that’s false victimhood. Still, if I’m wrong, I’m sorry. I should have picked a more sensitive way to say that I think it’s incredibly naive to think that the lawyer thought that those tapes were “useful for defense”.
I did not get my facts wrong. We disagree over the motivation. You have not established the lawyer’s motive. You have only established what he claims is his motive. Let me be clear. I think that lawyer is lying. After all, if he were to admit he was trying to actively hinder the investigation he’d have gone to jail.
And you keep repeating that the police made mistakes. Yes, of course. But that doesn’t mean that the lawyer didn’t ALSO conceal evidence. It can be more than one thing.
And of course you’re right, he could have destroyed the evidence. Of course there were other people aware that the tape existed and an action like that is even more risky than withholding evidence.
If you want to go with trusting that the judge in question didn’t make a mistake, that’s your call. That’s a logical fallacy called “appeal to authority” mind you.
It’s also beside the point. I didn’t say that the judge interpreted the law incorrectly. I said that my point here was that the law was an ass.
.
..
At the end of the day, we have a legal system that allows a lawyer to actively conceal evidence. It doesn’t just allow him to defend his client with facts or argument. It allows lawyers to take active steps to acquire, move and conceal evidence.
That is a serious problem.
“We disagree over the motivation. You have not established the lawyer’s motive.”
I am not trying to. Like you, I am in no position to evaluate his evidence or his intent, because, like you, I have no idea. The person who does have an idea came to a conclusion. You disagree with it, as is your right, however you have no basis to support your claim he was lying. The judge, at least, based his decision on evidence. You are twisting facts in order to support your conclusion.
“I did not get my facts wrong.”
Since you keep insisting the reason the tape was not available was because the lawyer hid it, you ARE getting your facts wrong. The tape would have been available had the police done their job properly.
“If you want to go with trusting that the judge in question didn’t make a mistake, that’s your call. That’s a logical fallacy called “appeal to authority” mind you.”
As opposed to you just making stuff upm right? You are prepared to conclude he was lying even though you have never spoken to him, or heard his evidence. As I said above, your conclusion regarding his evidence is based on your conclusion he was at fault. The normal way to do these things is to hear the evidence FIRST, and then reach a conclusion – not the other way around.
“And you keep repeating that the police made mistakes. Yes, of course. But that doesn’t mean that the lawyer didn’t ALSO conceal evidence.”
Except the evidence was disclosed – which is what the lawyer planned to do with the evidence at the outset.
“…he could have destroyed the evidence. Of course there were other people aware that the tape existed and an action like that is even more risky than withholding evidence.”
Once again you are making up facts to justify your theory.
“I didn’t say that the judge interpreted the law incorrectly. I said that my point here was that the law was an ass.”
So you think that intent should not be a required element in a criminal case? People should be convicted just because something happened, regardless of what they intended to happen? If that is the case, your complaint is not with the Canadian legal system. Your complaint is with virtually all legal systems.
I assume you cannot possibly be saying this because the judge said what the lawyer did here was OK, because of course the judge said no such thing.
How in the world she is walking alive is beyond my imagination? I know the Canadians are gentle and liberal but something is not right with the law and the people here. If it was one of my girl, I do not think I will strangle her. I will take off one of her pretty evil eye and chop out the tongue. Bit savage alright but oh well too gently given with she did with her husband. I do not buy the her moaning of her being of victim and the cry that the husband control her life..WTF