I'm know this post will just beg to be flamed

Although Karla Homolka/Teale's crimes are repugnant and she is deserving of a longer sentence, the Appeals Court judge did not error in his ruling.

We have to remember that most of what is in the public domain about Karla Homolka is inadmissable in this case. She has never been charged with a sex crime, therefore there is no obligation for her to register with the Sex Offenders Registry.

Homolka is not on parole. She served her sentence and based on the reports of prison officials (the only reports that count in this matter), she was a relatively model prisoner, and Section 810 restrictions are unwarranted.

Most on the board would argue that Section 810 restrictions were created for convicts like Homolka. What a lot of people don't understand is that if 810 was subjected to a Charter challenge, the Supreme Court would likely overturn it. It's a punitive measure that violates our right against unlawful imprisonment and cruel and unusual punishment.

The question that critics of this ruling (almost everybody)should be asking, is why has Attorney General Michael Bryant refused to prosecute Homolka on the outstanding charges related to her sister's death? Yes, the plea agreement protected her against prosecution for further crimes, however there is no law that prevents the Crown from opening this case up again.

Legal convention is the hurdle in this case because of the difficulty in obtaining cooperation in future major investigations. The public interest however, should justify further prosecution. If Homolka were to be convicted again, there is no doubt that she would be declared a Dangerous Offender and imprisoned indefinitely.

I'm know this post will just beg to be flamed

Although Karla Homolka/Teale's crimes are repugnant and she is deserving of a longer sentence, the Appeals Court judge did not error in his ruling.

We have to remember that most of what is in the public domain about Karla Homolka is inadmissable in this case. She has never been charged with a sex crime, therefore there is no obligation for her to register with the Sex Offenders Registry.

Homolka is not on parole. She served her sentence and based on the reports of prison officials (the only reports that count in this matter), she was a relatively model prisoner, and Section 810 restrictions are unwarranted.

Most on the board would argue that Section 810 restrictions were created for convicts like Homolka. What a lot of people don't understand is that if 810 was subjected to a Charter challenge, the Supreme Court would likely overturn it. It's a punitive measure that violates our right against unlawful imprisonment and cruel and unusual punishment.

The question that critics of this ruling (almost everybody)should be asking, is why has Attorney General Michael Bryant refused to prosecute Homolka on the outstanding charges related to her sister's death? Yes, the plea agreement protected her against prosecution for further crimes, however there is no law that prevents the Crown from opening this case up again.

Legal convention is the hurdle in this case because of the difficulty in obtaining cooperation in future major investigations. The public interest however, should justify further prosecution. If Homolka were to be convicted again, there is no doubt that she would be declared a Dangerous Offender and imprisoned indefinitely.

Sorry everyone for posting 3 times... my browser was having problems processing the post

quote:

Originally posted by tatgirl + 1,000,000,000. Any other two-bit criminal spends more time on probation for lesser crimes. She should at least be forced to register as a sex offender. This is a travesty.

she doesnt have to. nothing in what she was charged with had anything to do with sex, which is TOTAL bullshit, but thats the deal with the devil that we gave her so we could get bernardo behind bars

she got charged with manslaughter. she did every day of her sentence, so there would be no things that they coudl put on her. if she got out on parole, THEN they could have put some restrictions, but now they are facked. they have to do what they said they would do, and cant really put restrictions after the fact. if they do, everything will go to shit even more for future times when we want to get the "bigger fish", because then the crimals wont come forward with information even if we give them a baby sentence like karla, when they know they will eventually get facked over in the end.

dont get me wrong here though. she should get everything thats fuckin coming to her, i dont believe she should have any rights at all, shes fucked. this is our system though