Notorious child killer Paul Bernardo transferred to Quebec institution

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
36,308
3,102
113
Liberal policies and incompetence led to Bernardo transfer

Author of the article:Brian Lilley
Published Jul 20, 2023 • Last updated 2 days ago • 3 minute read

The review of the transfer of Paul Bernardo from a medium security prison and the changes that are coming out of that are nothing but an attempt by the government in Ottawa to cover their own butts.


The review found the transfer of Bernardo followed all laws but there needs to be better communication with the Public Safety Minister’s office going forward.


Anne Kelly, the Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada, released the findings of the review into Bernardo’s transfer during a Thursday afternoon news conference in Ottawa.

“The review committee concluded that the decisions to reclassify Paul Bernardo to medium and transfer him to La Macaza were sound, and followed all applicable laws and policies,” Kelly said.


The executive summary of the report noted that reviews of prisoner transfers are taken under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Section 28 of that law, as passed by the Trudeau Liberals in 2019, states “the Service shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the penitentiary in which they are confined is one that provides them with the least restrictive environment for that person.”



That’s the policy passed by the Liberals, make sure inmates have the least restrictive lifestyle possible while in jail. If you remember back to when news of Bernardo’s transfer happened, Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino was outraged at this move.


“The Correctional Service of Canada’s independent decision to transfer Paul Bernardo to a medium security institution is shocking and incomprehensible,” Mendicino said at the time.

Hmmmm, seems their independent decision was crafted by the government he is a part of and the legislative record shows he voted for this change.

Did he not read the legislation giving CSC this guidance? Did he not understand what the end result of passing this legislation would be? Was he drumming up false outrage when the news broke to cover his own butt?

A wise person would go with the fact that Mendicino was generating false outrage to cover his own butt.

Mendicino has maintained he did not know about the transfer until the day it happened, even though his office was first informed on March 2, 2023, that the transfer could happen and then on May 25 that it was happening. Mendicino’s top political staffers were informed as was the most senior bureaucrat in his department Deputy Minister Shawn Tupper.


We are supposed to believe that none of the people around Mendicino bothered to tell him that a notorious serial killer and rapist was being transferred and no one gave him a heads up. No one who has worked in the upper levels of politics at the federal or provincial levels, regardless of party, finds this credible.

If Mendicino wasn’t told it means that all of his senior staff are incompetent and should be fired. But none of them have been, nor has the minister. That could change soon given the ongoing rumours of a cabinet shuffle in Ottawa and the answer Trudeau gave when asked Thursday if he had confidence in Mendicino to do the job.

“Anyone in my cabinet, by definition, has my confidence,” Trudeau said.



He had to be asked twice about his confidence in Mendicino to get that sad show of support. Which likely means the minister will be gone shortly, but not Anne Kelly, the head of CSC, who was only following Liberal orders.

Part of those new orders will include briefing the minister directly about such transfers instead of following the long-standing protocol of informing his senior staff via official channels. New directions will also require CSC to “consider victim information at the outset” of any transfer request process as well as other policies on notifying victims.

What won’t change is the Liberal policy passed in 2018, the one Trudeau and Mendicino voted for saying that inmates needed the least restrictive conditions on their incarceration.

Sadly, that policy is staying put, at least until we have a new government in place.

blilley@postmedia.com
 

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
36,308
3,102
113
Monster Paul Bernardo's transfer should never have happened
Yet a review of the shocking decision to move the schoolgirl killer to medium security found the Correctional Service of Canada followed the rules


Author of the article:Michele Mandel
Published Jul 20, 2023 • Last updated 2 days ago • 3 minute read

The outrageous move might have followed all the rules and guidelines, but transferring heinous serial rapist and schoolgirl killer Paul Bernardo to medium security was still horribly wrong.


But that would only be the opinion of most of Canada — not that of those who conducted an internal review of the shocking decision by Correctional Service Canada (CSC) and found it perfectly “sound.”


“Least restrictive” option, blah, blah. “Rehabilitation” blah, blah, blah. For 99.9% of the prison population, those remain lofty goals. But we’re talking about a 58-year-old psychopath who began as the Scarborough rapist terrorizing at least 14 women and went on to rape and kill two schoolgirls and his sister-in-law.

How can anyone, even CSC, ever imagine he can be reformed?

His trial judge, Patrick LeSage said it best: “You are a sexually sadistic psychopath. The likelihood of you being treated is remote in the extreme.”


“We do not accept that Paul Bernardo should have been transferred to a medium security facility on the basis of the reasons stated in the report and at today’s news conference. We believe that Paul Bernardo should be in a maximum security prison,” said Timothy Danson, lawyer for the victims’ families.



Even if the CSC decision followed all the current rules, then those laws and polices “must be changed,” he said in a statement issued later Thursday afternoon.


“As the government has already said publicly, the decision to transfer Paul Bernardo from maximum security to medium security was ‘shocking’ and ‘incomprehensible.’ The families accept this government’s position to be genuine and sincere.

“No law that is ‘shocking’ and ‘incomprehensible’ can stand and must be changed to address the specific challenges faced when dealing with Canada’s most dangerous offenders.”

The quiet transfer of one of this country’s most evil criminals sparked outrage across the nation — and understandably so. We naively assumed Bernardo would always do hard time after being sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years for kidnapping, torturing and killing Leslie Mahaffy, 14, in 1991 and Kristen French, 15, in 1992.

He was also found guilty of the manslaughter and sexual assault of his 15-year-old sister-in-law Tammy Homolka.


In 1995, he was declared a dangerous offender and shipped to maximum security in Kingston Pen. When that prison closed, Bernardo was moved to Millhaven.

Since 1999, Bernardo has tried to get out of maximum but his reclassification was overridden 13 times. In July 2022, he’d successfully “integrated” with other inmates and was reclassified in February 2023 to medium security. His transfer to La Marcaza near Mont Tremblant was approved a month later.

But no one bothered to tell his victims’ families. The review acknowledged they could have been told sooner.

You think? They were informed that after almost 30 years, their daughters’ remorseless killer was getting sprung from maximum on the morning of May 29, just hours before Bernardo was on his merry way to La Marcaza.


“Overall, the Review Committee concluded there was likely an option to have had more proactive and meaningful discussions with victims in a manner that still adhered to the Privacy Act and established protocols. The Review Committee felt this approach would have been in greater alignment with the spirit of the Canadian Statement of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime, including the principle that victims are to be treated with ‘courtesy, compassion, and respect.'”

Instead, it’s all about what’s best for a merciless murderer and not the people he’s destroyed.

CSC Commissioner Anne Kelly said she does feel for the families and has accepted the review panel’s recommendation to create a “multidisciplinary working” group to look into better informing victims. Why that requires a committee is another question.

She also assured the public that Bernardo won’t be serving lighter time — “He’s in a cell. It has the same perimeter controls, high fences, armed patrols” — and because he remains high risk, we don’t have to worry about him being transferred to minimum.

But then most of us never imagined this monster would ever get out of maximum. And if they haven’t suffered enough, Bernardo will be dragging his victims’ families to his new digs in November as he launches his third attempt at parole.

mmandel@postmedia.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ron in Regina

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
36,308
3,102
113
Liberal law allowing Paul Bernardo prison transfer part of a pattern
The safety and comfort of criminals is more important than the safety of the public for the Trudeau Liberals


Author of the article:Brian Lilley
Published Jul 22, 2023 • Last updated 23 hours ago • 2 minute read

What the review into the Paul Bernardo transfer should highlight for all Canadians is how ingrained the Trudeau government’s soft-on-crime approach really is.


As the review showed, the transfer followed all the laws and policies, especially those passed by Trudeau in 2019 to make life easier for inmates.


It’s right there at the top of the Executive Summary of the report released this past Thursday by Anne Kelly, Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada.

Kelly stated prisoners are classified by criteria set out in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and “Periodic security reviews are undertaken in adherence with the ‘least restrictive’ principle in section 28 of the CCRA.”

The review even spells out the criteria of section 28, which states, “the Service shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the penitentiary in which they are confined is one that provides them with the least restrictive environment for that person.”


When Kelly said Bernardo’s transfer followed the rules, this is what she is talking about, but the question should be, where did that rule come from?

Bill C-83 was passed into law by the Trudeau Liberals in 2019 and it amended section 28 of the CCRA to those exact words, “least restrictive environment.”



Kelly was following the law passed by Justin Trudeau and supported by every Liberal caucus member, including current Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino who called the transfer of Bernardo “shocking and incomprehensible.”


Mendicino voted for the law that let this happen, so he shouldn’t be shocked.

“Either the Trudeau government should issue a directive, which is currently in their authority, to require that all mass murderers stay in maximum security penitentiaries, or they should adopt Conservative bill C-423,” Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre said.

Poilievre said the proposed bill from the Conservatives would be legal because it wouldn’t target an individual inmate but would set guidelines for the Correctional Service of Canada on where and how certain inmates can and should be housed.

“When I’m prime minister, I will adopt a law keeping all mass murderers, just like Paul Bernardo, in a maximum security penitentiaries,” he said.


Don’t expect the Trudeau Liberals to follow the lead of Poilievre on this file, even though it would be completely legal and highly popular with Liberal voters. The Trudeau Liberals soft-on-crime approach is anchored in a belief that the justice system should never treat criminals harshly.

Around the same time they passed BillC-83, the Liberals also passed Bill C-75, which made it easier to get bail. It enshrined in law that when considering bail the “principle of restraint” needs to take priority.

The law spells out that in bail “a peace officer, justice or judge shall give primary consideration to the release of the accused at the earliest reasonable opportunity and on the least onerous conditions.”

The least onerous conditions for bail, the least restrictive conditions for those convicted, these bills, along with moves to reduce sentences for serious crimes – including gun smuggling and trafficking – show that for the Trudeau Liberals, the safety and comfort of the criminal is more important than the safety of the public.

blilley@postmedia.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ron in Regina

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
56,150
7,371
113
Washington DC
What level of misery do you want to impose (or have other people impose) on Bernardo?

That clearly being the goal of our commenters. "Security" is a lie. Y'all want torture.
 

55Mercury

rigid member
May 31, 2007
4,272
989
113
and oh, wouldn't that be such a shame if he finds his actions lead to his misery?
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
56,150
7,371
113
Washington DC
Shoulda hanged him long ago, but Canada has chosen not to do that. When you've decided that the limitations on freedom of prison is a sufficient punishment, deliberately making the conditions harsher than cost and security require is cheap and hypocritical. I'm perfectly OK with "hard labor" or "bread and water" or flogging, so long as you acknowledge what you're doing is punishment, instead of dressing it up a "security.".
 

55Mercury

rigid member
May 31, 2007
4,272
989
113
yeah well, in lieu of hanging, perpetual misery sounds just about right.

it's only torture if you also agree that incarceration is subjecting someone to a great chance of torture, i.e., getting beat up by a wide variety of bad actors in the prison population.
 

harrylee

Man of Memes
Mar 22, 2019
2,639
3,562
113
Ontario
What level of misery do you want to impose (or have other people impose) on Bernardo?

That clearly being the goal of our commenters. "Security" is a lie. Y'all want torture.
You know what they say...."An eye for an eye"

This piece of shit should receive the same as what he put those girls through.

Instead, he is sitting there laughing as once again he is in the public eye. He is a narcissist, much like that clown we have running the country.
 

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
14,697
2,434
113
Toronto, ON
What level of misery do you want to impose (or have other people impose) on Bernardo?

That clearly being the goal of our commenters. "Security" is a lie. Y'all want torture.
I don't support the death penalty. I think the punishment for first degree murder should be life in prison. But that life should be in a cell with some basic food thrown at you 2-3 times a day. Nothing else. He forfeited his rights to a normal life when he did those non-human acts on those girls.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
56,150
7,371
113
Washington DC
I don't support the death penalty. I think the punishment for first degree murder should be life in prison. But that life should be in a cell with some basic food thrown at you 2-3 times a day. Nothing else. He forfeited his rights to a normal life when he did those non-human acts on those girls.
So, deliberately inducing mental and emotional trauma? Well, at least you ain't killing 'em (quickly, anyhow).
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
56,150
7,371
113
Washington DC
You know what they say...."An eye for an eye"

This piece of shit should receive the same as what he put those girls through.

Instead, he is sitting there laughing as once again he is in the public eye. He is a narcissist, much like that clown we have running the country.
Have you read the rest of that verse?

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
--Matthew 5:38-39 (KJV)
 
Last edited:

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
110,250
11,771
113
Low Earth Orbit
Have you read the rest of that verse?

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
--Matthew 5:38-39 (KJV)
Do you get what it means?
 

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
14,697
2,434
113
Toronto, ON
So, deliberately inducing mental and emotional trauma? Well, at least you ain't killing 'em (quickly, anyhow).
The emotional tramma of being in a cell for the rest of ones life is the price for ending another person's life deliberately. That person has no more rights. The do support them having the right to terminate their life. I just feel the risk of finding out that someone is innocent after they have fried is too large to ignore. This is the only reason I am against the death penalty.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
56,150
7,371
113
Washington DC
The emotional tramma of being in a cell for the rest of ones life is the price for ending another person's life deliberately. That person has no more rights. The do support them having the right to terminate their life. I just feel the risk of finding out that someone is innocent after they have fried is too large to ignore. This is the only reason I am against the death penalty.
If he has no right to life, why not kill him? Torture (and what you propose is defined as torture) says more about the torturer than about his victim.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
56,150
7,371
113
Washington DC
What is the purpose of jails then? Obviously we should just stop putting people there and sentence everybody with sternly worded letters.
The purpose of jails is fourfold.

1. It protects the innocent for a time from a person who has a demonstrated propensity to victimise the innocent.

2. The limitation on liberty is an undesirable consequence (negative reinforcement) to disincentivise the offender from re-offending.

3. The potential limitation on liberty disincentivises some portion of potential victimisers.

4. The incarceration of the victimiser offers a chance to try various sporadic rehabilitation measures.

Do not for a moment engage in the false dichotomy that if I disagree with your proposal, that must mean I support the American or Canadian corrections regimes as they currently stand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ron in Regina

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
14,697
2,434
113
Toronto, ON
The purpose of jails is fourfold.

1. It protects the innocent for a time from a person who has a demonstrated propensity to victimise the innocent.

2. The limitation on liberty is an undesirable consequence (negative reinforcement) to disincentivise the offender from re-offending.

3. The potential limitation on liberty disincentivises some portion of potential victimisers.

4. The incarceration of the victimiser offers a chance to try various sporadic rehabilitation measures.

Do not for a moment engage in the false dichotomy that if I disagree with your proposal, that must mean I support the American or Canadian corrections regimes as they currently stand.
So what exactly is your objection to a convicted first degree murderer being confined to prison for life? Aside from point 4 where rehabilitation would be pointless, the other 3 still apply. And again, what I am proposing is not Canadian law by any stretch. Our max term is 25 years before chance of parole.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
56,150
7,371
113
Washington DC
So what exactly is your objection to a convicted first degree murderer being confined to prison for life? Aside from point 4 where rehabilitation would be pointless, the other 3 still apply. And again, what I am proposing is not Canadian law by any stretch. Our max term is 25 years before chance of parole.
I'm totally good with it, if you can't hang him. But that's not what you proposed, was it?