|
Post by Admin on Oct 25, 2005 9:57:11 GMT -5
You know even though I hate this woman, i think the conditions should be trown out. I thought the defence ;awyers gave a persausive argument. The conditions are a violation of her rights and the deal she originally made with the crown. I really hate to say it but to preserve our system these conditions should be toosed.
|
|
star
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by star on Oct 25, 2005 10:16:24 GMT -5
I really don't agree glen. I think that conditions such as these should be placed and enforced of offenders like herself. she got away with murder, litterally and should be closely watched. one year isn't a long time. if it were up to me, she'd have those conditions for the rest of her pathetic life.
it wouldn't be fair to a person who didn't have such a horrific past with the crimes but with karla's past crimes, i think they should stick to keep the public a little safer if nothing else.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 25, 2005 11:38:19 GMT -5
When you are convicted of a crime you are suppose to comply with the plea bargain and obide by the rules set out by Corrections Canada. In all fairness she did it. Not one write up in 12 years, I've been there that's almost impossible. The defence argument that the crown didn't think she was a dangerous criminal 12 years ago what has changed NOTHING!! Take the person and the emotions out of it, the conditions should be tossed. the crown didn\t prove their case. IMO
|
|
star
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by star on Oct 25, 2005 11:48:56 GMT -5
maybe so but, what i'm trying to say here is that perhaps for criminals like karla (in the same crime category), these conditions should be law to help protect the public.
Fact is (and i'm not stating law fact here) that she is a dangerous person, an eveil one with sick wants and needs. she's a time bomb waiting to go off. she can go out there today and meet paul number 2 and we have more young girls dead because of her sick actions. I think she should have conditions on her for the rest of her life because of her past. Truth is if she wasn't so lucky, she would never be out of prison, just like paul. I would feel the same for paul if he was the one out there. anyone as a matter of fact that do these sick types of crimes and walk back into society.
perhaps it's time for them to either revise that law or put out a new one that are for criminals like karla.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 25, 2005 11:58:13 GMT -5
ahh but what everyone forgets is that she could go out and meet Paul #2 tomorrow and those conditions would do nothing to protect the public. Paul bernardo had no criminal record.
That law should be used for what it was intended for. If the crown can prove that that person is dangerous then conditions should be placed. If they can't it should be voided. Once you start going down the road of grouping offenders where does it stop.
alot of canadians are to quik to give up their rights.
|
|
|
Post by andrea on Oct 25, 2005 12:00:05 GMT -5
I originally had the same thought as Glenny, the charges should be thrown out because I don't think she is stupid enough to reoffend, but then I was reminded that she did have that killer boyfriend in prison and she really did show poor judgement in choosing him and refusing to end the relationship. (she must really be in love with him). Anyways, the best thing I can think of concerning their relationship is that HE WILL REOFFEND and kill her when he is freed.
|
|
bert
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by bert on Oct 25, 2005 12:16:46 GMT -5
You know, Glenny, I agree with you and I don't. In the first place, that plea bargain should never have gone through. There was enough evidence on the tapes and also the Jane Doe case, that dhe did not live up to the conditions there, that she did not stop the breath of the victims. If they would have thrown it out, she would be where her dear hubby is now. They are trying to clean up after the fact. She did serve her time, much as we dislike that fact. But I do believe that she should be monitored in some way.
|
|
star
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by star on Oct 26, 2005 7:56:30 GMT -5
I firmly believe that she must be monitored in some way too. if it means with the conditions, then so be it. It's only for the first year anyways. you're right glenny. whether the conditions are in place or not, it won't stop her from re-offending but, it will make her feel restricted.
maybe they should create a new law for people like her. something that sticks for life. she got away with so much and that deal should've been nul and void. it wasn't and now it's the public and the victims that are paying for it having her out there free as a bird.
this relationship that she refused to let go of with this convicted murderer speak loud and clear about who she is.
|
|
bert
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by bert on Oct 26, 2005 15:34:04 GMT -5
I definitely believe there should be a law, that sex offenders and violent offenders are tracked for the rest of their lives. I think the safety of society must take precedence over the rights of individual offenders. You should lose certain rights once you have broken the law in such a way. I also believe in capital punishment.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 26, 2005 15:50:25 GMT -5
I don't agrre with you Bert. I'm an ex violent offender. no way in hell should I be monitered for mistakes I made 12 years ago. As far as the death penalty goes, what do we do when an innocent person is killed, do we arrest the cops, the crown, the government and the guy that flips the switch. They have all conspired to kill this person or do we let them get away with murder?
Star even though I hate to say this but she done it, all of it. She plead then stayed out of trouble inside for 12 years. She's not a convicted sex offender, these conditions are unlawful.
|
|