Quebec Judge strikes down all conditions on Holmolka's release from prison.
http://tinyurl.com/bhe83
http://tinyurl.com/bhe83
Holmolka's Release Now Complete
- Thread starter #juan
- Start date
RE: Holmolka's Release No
Well as evil as she is, she should never had those conditions on her in the first place. The crown made a deal with her to testify against Bernardo, and she served her full sentance. Unfortunatly you can not change deals made 12 years after the fact.
Well as evil as she is, she should never had those conditions on her in the first place. The crown made a deal with her to testify against Bernardo, and she served her full sentance. Unfortunatly you can not change deals made 12 years after the fact.
No conditions = No protection.
Can't wait until she comes to Ontario. It'll be her last trip anywhere I'm sure. Heehee
Can't wait until she comes to Ontario. It'll be her last trip anywhere I'm sure. Heehee
RE: Holmolka's Release No
From National post
A teaser:
One of the cornerstones of due process in law is that a person cannot be denied liberty once a sentence has been completed, even if in hindsight that sentence is considered inadequate. No matter what we might think of it, Homolka has fulfilled her end of the bargain. [/teaser]
I think section 810 should be challenged and thrown out. We have dangerous offender status and if they meet dangerous offender criteria, then they can keep them locked up indefinatly. The teaser above says it all.
The Government should not be able to add conditions to sentance after sentance is complete, like Karla's. It should be brought up at sentancing.
I too think she should be locked up for life. She recieved a very sweet deal from the crown unfortunatly, but she did her time (full time as well) and she lived up to her deal and so should the crown.
If they add conditions long after the fact, how many people are going to make deals with the crown, knowing there is a possibility their deal may be modified after they are done their time?
If they start doing that people may be less inclined to make a deal with crown so crown can get larger "fish" and thereby allowing dangerous criminals to remain free
and for people who plead guilty after making a plea with crown for a slightly reduced sentance, may be reluctant to make a deal and thereby it could really bog the courts down.
From National post
A teaser:
One of the cornerstones of due process in law is that a person cannot be denied liberty once a sentence has been completed, even if in hindsight that sentence is considered inadequate. No matter what we might think of it, Homolka has fulfilled her end of the bargain. [/teaser]
I think section 810 should be challenged and thrown out. We have dangerous offender status and if they meet dangerous offender criteria, then they can keep them locked up indefinatly. The teaser above says it all.
The Government should not be able to add conditions to sentance after sentance is complete, like Karla's. It should be brought up at sentancing.
I too think she should be locked up for life. She recieved a very sweet deal from the crown unfortunatly, but she did her time (full time as well) and she lived up to her deal and so should the crown.
If they add conditions long after the fact, how many people are going to make deals with the crown, knowing there is a possibility their deal may be modified after they are done their time?
If they start doing that people may be less inclined to make a deal with crown so crown can get larger "fish" and thereby allowing dangerous criminals to remain free
and for people who plead guilty after making a plea with crown for a slightly reduced sentance, may be reluctant to make a deal and thereby it could really bog the courts down.
The deal was made,she served her full sentence and thus managed to avoid the weekly drug testing,parole visits,"high risk team " visits,etc.,etc.
And,oddly,before the conditions were lifted,just who approved of her Roma hardware job?? The manager there was one very odd duck,taping her conversations,leaving his children alone with her(when he seemed clear that was one of her "conditions") and then acting like he was protector of the public from her???
Lots of strange people in this country.
And,oddly,before the conditions were lifted,just who approved of her Roma hardware job?? The manager there was one very odd duck,taping her conversations,leaving his children alone with her(when he seemed clear that was one of her "conditions") and then acting like he was protector of the public from her???
Lots of strange people in this country.
RE: Holmolka's Release No
I think judges are allowed to impose restrictions on those they feel are dangerous and may offend again, time served or not.
I think judges are allowed to impose restrictions on those they feel are dangerous and may offend again, time served or not.
I'm with /no1important/ on this one. Section 8-10 is a clear infringement on fair treatment under the Charter and would likely get shot down on challenge. It has been rarely used. The Dangerous Offenders Act may have been used but it would have had to have been invoked in connection with the sentencing (as a separate hearing). That would have made the 'deal with the Devil' an obvious bad move. It probably would not have held up as she did not have a long history of violent offending.
She was smart in getting a release to a different Province. A judge from another venue is far less likely to make a 'life sentence' out of a time-limited sentence. I never thought she was dumb, just a murderer who got away with the help of the Ontario Attorney General. He must have a thing for killer blondes.
She was smart in getting a release to a different Province. A judge from another venue is far less likely to make a 'life sentence' out of a time-limited sentence. I never thought she was dumb, just a murderer who got away with the help of the Ontario Attorney General. He must have a thing for killer blondes.
I heard today on CBC Radio 1 that part of her deal was that she would not be classified a dangerous offender once her time had been served. That is probably part of the reason the conditions were dropped.
RE: Holmolka's Release No
Well they lost the appeal today.
Court rejects Crown appeal of Homolka conditions
A teaser:
MONTREAL — Ontario is urging Quebec to go to the Supreme Court of Canada to appeal a court ruling that will allow schoolgirl killer Karla Homolka to go where she wants and meet with anyone she pleases without any restrictions.
A source in Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant's office said Bryant spoke at length with his Quebec counterpart, Yvon Marcoux, after he had an opportunity to review the Quebec Court of Appeal decision handed down earlier Tuesday.
The source told The Canadian Press that Bryant "is urging Quebec in the strongest possible terms" to appeal to the highest court in the country[/teaser]
I wonder if the Supreme Court of Canada will hear it? If they rule in Holmolkas favour (like last two courts) will it be the death of section 810?
Well they lost the appeal today.
Court rejects Crown appeal of Homolka conditions
A teaser:
MONTREAL — Ontario is urging Quebec to go to the Supreme Court of Canada to appeal a court ruling that will allow schoolgirl killer Karla Homolka to go where she wants and meet with anyone she pleases without any restrictions.
A source in Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant's office said Bryant spoke at length with his Quebec counterpart, Yvon Marcoux, after he had an opportunity to review the Quebec Court of Appeal decision handed down earlier Tuesday.
The source told The Canadian Press that Bryant "is urging Quebec in the strongest possible terms" to appeal to the highest court in the country[/teaser]
I wonder if the Supreme Court of Canada will hear it? If they rule in Holmolkas favour (like last two courts) will it be the death of section 810?