What legal basis do you suggest the police can monitor a citizen who is not suspected of having committed an offence and is not subject to any probation restrictions? We normally don’t want the police to monitor citizens unless they have a reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed. That rule doesn’t change because of a police screw-up 20 years ago.
“Who the Hell makes and shrink-wraps a ‘Serial Murderer Kit Basket’, complete with knives, rope, duct tape, and lye… and gives it to the school for the ‘Tricky Tray’?”
Wikipedia says that Quebec Children’s Aid apparently determined that her custody would not be automatically placed at issue, even though she participated in the killing of several victims who, while older, were still children. Whatever the justice of maintaining scrutiny upon Homolka herself, presumably the state has an independent and ongoing interest in the safety of the children. Even if removing them from her custody would not necessarily be warranted, it surprises me a bit that they would not be monitored.
My heart hurts for those children. How will they not be negatively affected by the actions of their mother? There is no way they can live any kind of a normal life.
Depending on the age of my own children, I would have a pretty comprehensive talk with them about this family and their situation. I would encourage them to not participate in any shaming of the children (and I’m sure there will be plenty of that, sadly), but I would also strongly state that my own children would not be allowed to visit that house - at no time and for no reason.
Hopefully there will be opportunities for those children to interact positively with other children through public activities outside of the school and neighborhood, where people wouldn’t know who they were.
A great deal more would be required than to simply not let your children in her home. Your teenage daughter would not be safe walking home from school.
Re. 15 yr old Kristen French (her body dumped on my running route):
Your teenage daughter would not be safe in her own yard.
Re. 15 yr old Leslie Mahaffy (a kid from who lived between my place and the high-school that we attended at different years):
The hell of it is, her own children are probably only comparatively safe because they are under the eyes of the public school officials. If her children were made miserable at school until they withdrew, they’d be in graver danger.
That said, I’d move myself rather than let my own children hang out with her children.
It blows my mind that “mother is a serial killer who slaughtered her own sister” is not grounds for removing the children in Canada.
Whilst it is admirable to the loopier Canadian liberals that they were willing to take a chance with her and not keep her caged up like an animal; I feel I should point out that of those I mentioned above, Mr. Christie ( of Rillington Place ) went for the long drop, but this wasn’t an option for those later due to the abolition of the death penalty.
However, both Fred West and Harold Shipman did the right thing and swung themselves, despite being alone in their cells, under close observation by prison guards, and without the proper equipment.
This had nothing to do with liberals. The prosecutor cut a deal with Homolka to get her to testify against Bernardo. The degree of her complicity in the murders was only discovered after Homolka was sentenced, and due to the principle of double jeopardy she couldn’t be re-tried or given a longer sentence.
[QUOTE=Wikipedia]
As a result, using section 810.2 of the Criminal Code, certain restrictions were placed on Homolka as a condition of her release:
She was to tell police her home address, work address and with whom she lives.
She was required to notify police as soon as any of the above changed.
She was likewise required to notify police of any change to her name.
If she planned to be away from her home for more than 48 hours, she had to give 72 hours’ notice.
She could not contact Paul Bernardo, the families of Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French or that of the woman known as Jane Doe (see above), or any violent criminals.
She was forbidden to be with people under the age of 16.
She was forbidden from consuming drugs other than prescription medicine.
She was required to continue therapy and counselling.
She was required to provide police with a DNA sample.[5][49]
There was a penalty of a maximum two-year prison term for violating such an order. While this reassured the public that Homolka would find it difficult to offend again, it was felt by the court that it might be detrimental to her as well, because public hostility and her high profile might endanger her upon release.[50]
On 10 June 2005, Senator Michel Biron declared that the conditions placed on Homolka were “totalitarian”,
[/quote]