I think it’s very unlikely she even wants to “Get away with” the same thing.
Homolka is a sociopath, or what used to be called a psychopath; she’s devoid of guilt, remorse, or empathy. Her behaviour is wholly self-serving, and she will rationalize anything she does. She’s probably not capable of an advanced level of foresight.
While it’s true she was not abused and timid in the face of Paul Bernardo as she claimed at the trial, it’s pretty likely that without Bernardo, she’s not going to have any interest in raping teenaged girls. It’s very clear from the evidence that it was Bernardo getting his sexual jollies from their victims, not Homolka. In all likelihood, she participated because it pleased Bernardo and she wanted him for herself; participating in the crimes allowed her to both impress the man she wanted and not allow him to be alone with the girls, which she’d probably perceive, at some reptilian level, to be a threat to her. However, SHE at heart is probably not a sex maniac. She’s just a psychopath, and was willing to plan out rapes to get what she wanted, e.g. Bernardo. If she’d married a bank robber she’s probably have gone to prison for robbery. If she’d married a contract killer she’d probably have helped him with that.
Absent a psycho rapist as her husband, she’ll probably revert to the sort of low-level psychopath behaviour most psychopaths are into - lying, lying some more, using people, failing to hold down jobs, exploiting the system, and petty theft.
She’s sure more dangerous than anything in this thread, but we can’t go around diagnosing people as psychopaths and locking them all up.
I remember the trial when it took place. I remember the OUTRAGE when it was discovered that she basically lied for her plea bargain… but it was too late. I don’t know how much of a danger she remains today - I sure as hell know I’d rather not have her in my community.
Unfortunately, the case was poorly handled initially, and there’s nothing we can do about it now. Hopefully she will just “disappear” from public view and become a crazy cat lady…
Mr. Blue Sky, doing a little research, it appears that there have been proposals for legislation to prevent criminals from profiting from/exploiting their crimes. I don’t know if they have been passed or not - anybody have any info on that?
Oh, my. That was rather morbid of me. I vaguely remember when this entire thing first started. I was a little girl and I was reading the newspaper because my mother thought it’d be good for me to know what was happening in today’s world. I didn’t read the actual article about her, but I saw her picture in the paper and she looked scary.
Anyways, to the OP, I hope she voluntarily stays in prison. I doubt she’ll kill again with her husband in prison, but you just never know. I mean, my friend lives in Scarborough, where Karla Homolka used to live. I doubt it’s the actual same neighbourhood, but it’s the same region, so it makes me uneasy knowing that. And besides, the lady has entire websites where people bet on her death date. If I knew that, I’d like to stay in prison. Unfortunately, she’s done her sentence, which was given to her in a legal court and trial. I really hope the police monitor her and keep in under surveillance very closely.
Well, she’s out, and her first stop was to an interview on French Radio to try and defend herself. :rolleyes: blech
I also remember when the case was happening I was taking a freshman law course and the prof used the case for a lot of fodder. It made what would have been a very dry course on contract law (which she eventually got around to) a lot more interesting.
Finally, while I’m inclined to agree that Homolka probably won’t offend in the same manner on her own, I totally believe that she will choose to associate with, seek out, and be sought by men who would. In that circumstance, I firmly believe that she would reoffend. Really - what sort of guy is going to want to date her? nice wholesome guys with family values, or sick fucks?
She’s served her time but this statement from her struck me as distinctly ironic:
Vulnerable to being “relentlessly pursued, hunted down and followed” makes her fear for her life. Her victims faced a lot worse, with absolutely no reason.
So she won’t feel all comfy and be able to disappear into obscurity. Tough shit. I’m only passingly familiar with the case but I wouldn’t bet a whole damned lot on her level of rehabilitation. Maybe she’s seen a better way. Good, if so. But she got off easy–very easy–for a truly heinous crime. People have a right to a degree of caution and skepticism. Not retroactive vigilante justice, but some due caution.
I haven’t even been able to imagine what will become of her. She’s the ideal target for any nutjob and even if she can be kept safe, I think she’ll go crazy sooner or later. She spent half her life the center of attention with an inhuman amount of power and I can’t imagine she could live like a normal person. Normal people can barely stand it, how could she? I think she’d wind up unable to function before long and I think even if she tried to hurt herself, she would wind up in psychiatric care. Maybe it’s just wishful thinking, but I can’t see her living the quiet life.
I agree that the deal was done and it’s too late to change that. I don’t feel that she won’t hurt anyone because I think the situation is that there are plenty of people in the world who wouldn’t hurt an innocent person but would hurt her. Anything like that happens and that’s another tragedy for another family and innocent people are hurt. It would be better if she were locked away where she couldn’t inspire violence or hatred or any more ugliness. But that’s just not what happened and there’s no sense in thinking about how things should be. Everyone knows how they should be.
The real scary thing is that the only unusual aspect of this situation is the public awareness of it. I have seen a number of really dangerous people being released from prison and disappearing back into society because they completed their maximum sentence (I’m sure Qadgop could concur based on similar experiences).
Homolka’s new boyfriend, Jean-Paul Gerbet, is serving a life sentence for murdering his ex-girlfriend. He will be eligible to apply for full parole in 2008.
If he turns out to be a repeat offender before Homolka, that will solve the Homolka problem.
I hope that she is closely watched, and tossed back in the can if she breaches in the slightest (some of the terms for the next year include not contacting violent criminals, and not being with people who are under 16). I expect that she will keep her nose clean for the year, but I also expect that she will eventually repeat, particularly if she tags up with another sicko, so I hope that she is always watched.
This isn’t the first time that a s. 810 application has been made for a person just out of prison. There was one about a year ago when a Very Bad Dude got out. The Crown made a similar application, supported in part by the testimony of VBD’s own mother, and got a series of restrictive conditions placed on him. He breached within a couple of weeks, if I recall correctly, and got jugged for two years. I’m afraid I can’t remember VBD’s name to do a google search, but he had the kind of record that even make John Howard Society folks think about the utility of life imprisonment…
With respect to dangerous offender status for Homolka, yes, that ship has sailed. The dangerous offender provisions are an alternative form of sentencing - the Crown can argue in the sentencing stage of the trial that the accused meets certain strict standards and should be designated a dangerous offender, which is essentially a life imprisonment, rather than the usual range. It’s a more nuanced (and in my mind defensible) version of “three strikes” laws. However, the time to do it is at the sentencing phase of the trial, not 12 years later - it’s just not available.
By the way, Qadgop, I’m not sure I would agree with your characterisation that Homolka was the “primary instigator” of the crimes. It’s clear that the videos showed her to be a much more active participant than originally thought, but I don’t think anyone’s gone so far as to characterise them as showing that she, rather than Bernardo, was the primary instigator of the crimes.
With respect to staying in prison, although it’s now moot, I don’t think that’s an option. No one’s got the right to stay in a prison (although I don’t think the issue would have come up often ) - when the sentence expires, you have to leave.
The police have said that they will provide protection to her if any threats appear likely to be carried out, just like they would for any other citizen being threatened, but they’re not providing her with 24 hour protection, apparently.
I’m not aware of any federal laws on this point, but Ontario has passed such a law under its jurisdiction over “property and civil rights.” It’s got the clunky title of the Prohibiting Profiting from Recounting Crimes Act, 2002. It doesn’t prohibit anyone from writing about their crimes (a prohibition of that sort would obviously raise free speech issues). Instead, it provides that if someone does write about their crimes, the Attorney General can begin an action to have the profits seized and used for programs to benefit victims of crimes.
Section 1 of the Act summarises its purposes nicely:
However, since it’s a provincial statute it only applies in Ontario. I don’t know if Quebec has passed a similar law.
We could read this to the French and Mahaffy families. Probably ease their minds.
“Hey, sure she’s getting out, but you know, she’s served her sentence, yadda yadda yadda, it’s been 15 years, get over it, shit happens, that’s the way the cookie crumbles.”
We all know there is nothing that can be said to the French and Mahaffy families (and the Bernardo and Homolka families, too, for that matter) that will change anything for them. We all know that this was a horrible thing, and Karla and Paul are horrible people. That isn’t what this thread is about, though. RickJay’s attitude is somewhat cavalier, but he isn’t wrong. The ship has sailed. No amount of hand-wringing can change that.
Homolka has said she plans to move to the U.S. She apparently thinks this will get her some anonymity. Ha! She’d become an instant media sensation as soon as she tried to move into an American community. The woman will never be free from her past. Nor should she be.
I’m not advocating hand-wringing. But I would advocate that it’s never forgotten what those two things did to those girls. And I’d add that we never be cavalier about sexual predators and their victims. To do so is dangerous in the case of the former, and absolutely disgusting in the case of the latter.
Nothing to add to the already-ongoing commentary. I’ll just respond to Qadgop’s question.
She’s served her time to the day, and there’s nothing we can do about that. She has satisfied the terms of her contract with the authorities and can no longer be prosecuted for her crimes.
But in the eyes of the citizenry (at least myself, my mother and my sister), she has come nowhere near to paying for her crimes. I don’t wish her dead. I wish her in a dead end job with a fleabag apartment in an area where everyone knows her and what she did. And I hope her neighbours (poor unfortunates!) will do their best to remind her that they remember, and they’re nowhere near as forgiving as she’d like them to be.
From all accounts I’ve seen, her time in prison was not the hardest time possible. As such, I’d like her to serve that hard time now.
I agree with all conditions the courts are putting on her release, and if she gripes about the fact that that isn’t part of the prior arrangement, I will remind her that she was not particularly forthcoming herself about her role in the entire disgusting affair.
) - when the sentence expires, you have to leave.