Winnipeg police warn of pedophile’s release


tay
+1
#1
Police are warning the public about the release of a convicted pedophile considered to be a high risk to re-offend.



Ryan James Gabourie, 32, will be released from Headingley Correctional Institution Thursday after serving sentences for breaching the conditions of his release from a federal prison after serving seven years for offences including molesting five boys between the ages of 5 and 11.


Gabourie has also been convicted of possession of child pornography.


His latest conviction came in November 2012 when he was found using a computer and the Internet, contrary to his recognizance order, one day after his release. Gabourie's previous convictions stem from the sexual molestation of five young boys ages five to 11 after entering their homes through unlocked windows or doors and assaulting them in their beds while their families were sleeping nearby.




more






Sex offender deemed high risk to reoffend released from jail - Winnipeg Free Press
 
taxslave
+3
#2
IF he is a high risk to reoffend why on earth would they release him? Shouldn't kids right to safety trump some kiddiddler's right to run loose?
 
EagleSmack
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

IF he is a high risk to reoffend why on earth would they release him? Shouldn't kids right to safety trump some kiddiddler's right to run loose?

Because having a low prison population is a good statistic to have?
 
SLM
+2
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

IF he is a high risk to reoffend why on earth would they release him? Shouldn't kids right to safety trump some kiddiddler's right to run loose?

Kids don't vote.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
+2
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

IF he is a high risk to reoffend why on earth would they release him? Shouldn't kids right to safety trump some kiddiddler's right to run loose?

His latest conviction was in 2012 and he got just over 1 year? Somebody should also post who the judge was.
 
B00Mer
#6


Might as well paint a bulls eye on the guys back, because if he were 500 feet from my kids (if I had kids) I'd kills his ***..

 
Retired_Can_Soldier
+2
#7


I guess when he kills a kid they will lock him up for good.
 
BornRuff
+2
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

IF he is a high risk to reoffend why on earth would they release him? Shouldn't kids right to safety trump some kiddiddler's right to run loose?

One of those "downsides of a free society" things. Without a dangerous offender designation, they can't keep anyone locked up longer than the time they were sentenced to.

It might make more sense to treat these guys more like someone who is mentally ill. At least in that case you could keep them separated from society indefinitely until they are deemed safe.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
+1
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by BornRuffView Post

It might make more sense to treat these guys more like someone who is mentally ill. At least in that case you could keep them separated from society indefinitely until they are deemed safe.

Really, how would you suppose that we would keep them separated from society with a mental illness designation? There are tons of people with mental illness out on the street, some violent.

I wonder how many children you have to rape to be considered a dangerous offender. Obviously five is too low of a number.
 
eh1eh
+2
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Because having a low prison population is a good statistic to have?

No but...
America has the highest prison population in the world. Wooo, you're number one..
How's that crime treating you now?
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
+3
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by eh1ehView Post

No but...
America has the highest prison population in the world. Wooo, you're number one..
How's that crime treating you now?

In all fairness that's due to ridiculous mandatory minimums on drug offenses.
 
karrie
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_SoldierView Post

I guess when he kills a kid they will lock him up for good.


No, when he reoffends he will be locked up for good. He'll have proven he can't be rehabilitated.

On a sidenote, what the hell is with chinless guys and pedophilia? He's a dead ringer for my pedo ex-brother-inlaw.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by B00MerView Post

Might as well paint a bulls eye on the guys back, because if he were 500 feet from my kids (if I had kids) I'd kills his ***..

You must be the bravest man on the internet.
 
BornRuff
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_SoldierView Post

Really, how would you suppose that we would keep them separated from society with a mental illness designation? There are tons of people with mental illness out on the street, some violent.

I wonder how many children you have to rape to be considered a dangerous offender. Obviously five is too low of a number.

The current NCR protocol wouldn't necessarily fit, but it could be similar to that.

In cases where someone commits a crime, but it is determined that the individual did not understand what they were doing or did not know it was wrong because of mental illness, they are ordered into a secure mental health facility. There, they receive treatment and are not discharged until they are found to not pose a significant risk to society.

The current system wouldn't fit because I imagine that most of these sexual offenders do know that what they are doing is wrong. I feel that these sexually motivated crimes are very different from other violent crimes or things like theft or drug dealing though. You are not going to punish someone's sexual desires out of them.

We need some sort of system that can make sure that people work out whatever it is that made them do what they did, and ensures that their release is linked to some type of determination that they are safe to be out in society again.
 
Sal
+4
#15  Top Rated Post
Not "only" is he a pedophile, he targets, hunts, breaks and enters to get at his prey.

He is not even an opportunistic pedophile, he is a hunter; a successfully proven hunter. So, is there anything more dangerous than this type of offender? No.
 
eh1eh
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_SoldierView Post

In all fairness that's due to ridiculous mandatory minimums on drug offenses.

And they're still not winning the war. Sad.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by BornRuffView Post

One of those "downsides of a free society" things. Without a dangerous offender designation, they can't keep anyone locked up longer than the time they were sentenced to.

It might make more sense to treat these guys more like someone who is mentally ill. At least in that case you could keep them separated from society indefinitely until they are deemed safe.

Like the crazy guy who was released on his own recognizance, stopped taking his pills and chopped up the guy on the greyhound in Manitoba? I think he is also now getting day passes again. We don't do a better job with the crazies as we do with the criminals.
 
Sal
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiingView Post

Like the crazy guy who was released on his own recognizance, stopped taking his pills and chopped up the guy on the greyhound in Manitoba? I think he is also now getting day passes again. We don't do a better job with the crazies as we do with the criminals.

s'cuse me?
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by SalView Post

s'cuse me?

If memory serves. There was a thread here on it I am pretty sure.
 
Sal
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiingView Post

If memory serves. There was a thread here on it I am pretty sure.

what you are saying is ludicrous..and....could well be true... but I hope it isn't
 
B00Mer
+1
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

You must be the bravest man on the internet.

No, but I'm not some Liberal douche bag who catches and releases these animals back to rape a possibly kill a child. They are incurable and should be locked up for life..
 
taxslave
+1
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by BornRuffView Post

The current NCR protocol wouldn't necessarily fit, but it could be similar to that.

In cases where someone commits a crime, but it is determined that the individual did not understand what they were doing or did not know it was wrong because of mental illness, they are ordered into a secure mental health facility. There, they receive treatment and are not discharged until they are found to not pose a significant risk to society.

The current system wouldn't fit because I imagine that most of these sexual offenders do know that what they are doing is wrong. I feel that these sexually motivated crimes are very different from other violent crimes or things like theft or drug dealing though. You are not going to punish someone's sexual desires out of them.

We need some sort of system that can make sure that people work out whatever it is that made them do what they did, and ensures that their release is linked to some type of determination that they are safe to be out in society again.

Ten feet of rope would work. The bonus is that it can be reused.
 
Goober
+1
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by BornRuffView Post

One of those "downsides of a free society" things. Without a dangerous offender designation, they can't keep anyone locked up longer than the time they were sentenced to.

It might make more sense to treat these guys more like someone who is mentally ill. At least in that case you could keep them separated from society indefinitely until they are deemed safe.

That would arrive with the death certificate.
 
SLM
+2
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by SalView Post

what you are saying is ludicrous..and....could well be true... but I hope it isn't

Yep. Supervised day passes. The latest info I could find was from May 2013.

Vince Li gets Winnipeg visitation privileges - Manitoba - CBC News
 
taxslave
#25
Too bad they couldn't supervise him a trip to the center of the local rifle range.
 
Sal
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

Yep. Supervised day passes. The latest info I could find was from May 2013.

Vince Li gets Winnipeg visitation privileges - Manitoba - CBC News



Quote:

low risk to reoffend.

yeah, until he goes off of his meds again....

this is beyond my ability to comprehend the injustice as well as the stupidity...

he cut off a person's HEAD

I do not believe our penal system should be about revenge as no purpose is served, but this is wrong in uncountable ways
 
Goober
#27
Does anyone here recollect Lieutenant Governors warrants?
Used for those deemed mentally ill. Up till the 70's or so.
 
SLM
+1
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by SalView Post





yeah, until he goes off of his meds again....

this is beyond my ability to comprehend the injustice as well as the stupidity...

he cut off a person's HEAD

I do not believe our penal system should be about revenge as no purpose is served, but this is wrong in uncountable ways

I don't think it's about revenge at all. It's about, or it should be about, an identifiable and very serious risk to the public should certain conditions (ie his medication) not be maintained. Therefore it's not about revenge or even really about punishing him (I think he was clearly insane and not aware of what he was doing) but it's about placing restrictions on an individual for the safety of the public.

Which is exactly as it should be with a convicted pedophile as far as I'm concerned.
 
Sal
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

I don't think it's about revenge at all. It's about, or it should be about, an identifiable and very serious risk to the public should certain conditions (ie his medication) not be maintained. Therefore it's not about revenge or even really about punishing him (I think he was clearly insane and not aware of what he was doing) but it's about placing restrictions on an individual for the safety of the public.

Which is exactly as it should be with a convicted pedophile as far as I'm concerned.

I think you misunderstood my post.
 
SLM
+1
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by SalView Post

I think you misunderstood my post.

I don't think I misunderstood. You were basically stating that, while revenge should not be the reason we restrict someone's freedom, given the horrendous nature of what he did he should not be allowed so much freedom, so soon. I agree with that. I was extrapolating beyond that.
 

Similar Threads

11
Thai police nab Canadian pedophile suspect
by Locutus | Oct 19th, 2007
no new posts