Wait, that would mean that someone convicted or murder couldn’t be declared a dangerous offender? What am I missing here?
Yeah, that’s my thought, too - who do you believe, the killer/rapist or the other killer/rapist? I don’t know, they’re both such fine, upstanding citizens, it’s not like they’d lie or something…:rolleyes:
I’m certain there must be all sorts of legal and lawful ways for a committed group of her neighbours to drive her out via protest, flyers, legal and lawful personal confrontation, and other expressions of dislike. After all if people can picket abortion clinics for weeks or months and not be hauled off to jail, I’m sure a flat or house can be picketed the same way. Until eventually she ends up living in a dumpster by a truck stop parking lot somewhere north of 70 latitude.
Actually, if she moved to the far north, she pretty much would be out of civilization. Nobody around for miles except the polar bears. Which is not to say that the Inuit deserve her; just that there’s very few people up there.
IIRC, the ‘dangerous offender’ categorization came about while Homolka hoodwinked the criminal justice system. When the legislators brought it in, their target was Bernado, and they never thought of making it retroactive to apply to little miss prom queen.
It was only when the videotapes were brought to light that everyone except the killer couple knew what Karla’s role was. Until that point, police and prosecutors were operating under the assumption that she was a battered wife and reluctant participant in her husband’s rape and murder schemes. The notion that she suggested drugging, torturing and raping her kid sister was nigh inconceivable.
Now she’s out, she’s served her time because of a sweetheart deal, and she’s calling herself Karla Teale. I bet she’ll let her hair go brown, cut it close, and end up diddling some 18-year-old fuckwit who isn’t aware of her history, or who doesn’t care.
That’s because the sentence for these offences already is life imprisonment (or 14 years maximum for one variant of treason). Those sentences are more severe than a dangerous offender sentence, since a d.o. has the theoretical possibility of being released from gaol, although in practice it rarely happens.
With a life sentence, even if you make parole (and there are periods of parole ineligibilty for life sentences, before you can even apply for parole), you are still under the jurisdiction of the parole board for the rest of your life.
See the Criminal Code, s. 47, for the punishments for high treason and treason; s. 235 for murder.
Parliament enacted the dangerous offender provisions in the mid-70s, long before Bernardo & Homolka came on the scene: Statutes of Canada 1976-77, c. 53, s. 14.
In any event, Parliament cannot pass more severe punishments retroactively, as you seem to suggest. The Charter prohibits it:
Sorry, I’m occasionally a little less than entirely clear because I lack the time to google the appropriate specific links.
I was referring to the mid-90s creation of the Long Term Dangerous Offender category which did come about in part because of Bernardo and Homolka.
The crown successfully applied to have Bernardo considered a dangerous offender after he was sentenced. It should have done the same to Homolka, using evidence from the (now-destroyed) videotapes showing she was not the victim the crown thought she was. I believe it can reasonably be argued that requiring Homolka to face a lifetime of strict supervision would not violate her charter rights. After all, the law requiring her to donate a DNA sample only passed in May of this year.
Bernardo’s been designated a dangerous offender, but that sentence wasn’t part of the conviciton and sentence for the Leslie/Mahaffey murders. After he was convicted and sentenced for those crimes, he was then charged with a variety of sexual assaults as the “Scarborough rapist,” and was designated a dangerous offender for those crimes, as set out in this article:
So yes, he was ordered a dangerous offender after his murder convictions, but that was because the Crown had additional charges against him. It doesn’t change the general rule that the Crown has to apply for a d.o. sentence at the close of the original trial.
However, you are right that the 1997 amendments gave a bit of discretion to the Crown to proceed after the original trial is over, but the Crown still has to give notice of its intention to do so before sentence is passed, and can only subsequently proceed if it uncovers additional new evidence against the accused in the next six months, as set out in s. 753(2):
How often that scenario would be satisfied is anyone’s guess.
With respect to long-term offender orders, the 1997 amendments clarified what the courts had already ruled. They had held under the old provisions that even when the trial judge designated the accused as a dangerous offender, the judge had a discretion not to impose indefinite incarceration, but instead give a definite sentence under the normal sentencing provision for the underlying offence. (I was involved in one case where the judge found the accused to be a dangerous offender but gave a definite sentence of 10 years. Guy’ll be out in a couple of years. Hope he doesn’t bear a grudge… :eek: )