Eagle Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 There is a bit of a furor in a part of Canada right now because the citizens have just found out that one of the parents whose kids attend the local elementary school is an infamous criminal. She was convicted of abducting, raping, and murdering two teenagers as well as her own sister. She entered a plea bargain to help convict her husband and received a reduced sentence of 12 years (video tapes surfaced later that proved her willing involvement but by then it was too late). In any event, she was released about ten years ago and has since changed her name and had three children. Do you think people in the community have a right to know someone with this type of criminal past is in their neighbourhood, or should the person have a chance at a new life once they serve their time? Would you feel comfortable knowing your children were friends with a convicted killer's children and perhaps had spent time at their house? Here is a link to the story: http://www.edmontonsun.com/2016/04/19/quebec-town-upset-to-learn-karla-homolka-living-among-them 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maize Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 Because of the nature of the crime, yes I think the community should know. There is nothing about serving time in the prison system that would rehabilitate a person who would commit such a crime. I wish real rehabilitation--backed by research and experience--were undertaken by the criminal justice system, but I am not aware of that being generally true in any country in the world. 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valley Girl Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 I remember the case you're referencing. Horrifying. You raise good questions. My feeling is that just because someone has served their time does not wipe the slate clean as if the crime never happened. Yes, people are entitled to rebuild their lives as best they can. But serving time does not mean one magically regains the trust of society. I wouldn't trust my children around a pedophile who'd served his or her time. I wouldn't trust my company's retirement fund to someone who embezzled. I'm truly, truly sorry for her children, but people are not obligated to put their family at risk by having them anywhere near this monster. Not sure how to reconcile the competing needs. But in the case of truly heinous crimes, yeah, I think people have the right to know. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurie Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 There is a bit of a furor in a part of Canada right now because the citizens have just found out that one of the parents whose kids attend the local elementary school is an infamous criminal. She was convicted of abducting, raping, and murdering two teenagers as well as her own sister. She entered a plea bargain to help convict her husband and received a reduced sentence of 12 years (video tapes surfaced later that proved her willing involvement but by then it was too late). In any event, she was released about ten years ago and has since changed her name and had three children. She sounds like a real sweetheart...when she changed her name she took the surname of a movie serial killer. The community should know...so they can avoid her. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean in Newcastle Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 I don't know what year it started, but here, a rapist, esp. of a teenager, would have their name on the sex offender registry and the community would be notified. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MistyMountain Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 (edited) I would not judge the kids because they did nothing wrong. I would not trust the adult who did that or feel comfortable letting my kids play at that house. Not all crimes can be rehabilitated and she did not serve enough time for what she did. She should not get to change her name and go on with her life like it never happen. I hope they are keeping a close eye on how those kids are being raised and what she is up to. Edited April 21, 2016 by MistyMountain 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hornblower Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 Ugh. I hate this case. I think there was miscarriage of justice with her plea. Generally speaking wrt your question - I think it should be case by case. As a rule, I think once you've served, you've paid your retribution to society and it should be over. But her? Jeeez, no. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravin Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 I think any kind of offender notification and registry process should be based on actual recidivism risk. I would want to know a lot more. I also think this sounds like a prime example of why plea deals for testimony can be a miscarriage of justice. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 I think any kind of offender notification and registry process should be based on actual recidivism risk. I would want to know a lot more. I also think this sounds like a prime example of why plea deals for testimony can be a miscarriage of justice. :iagree: People have a right to know if the offender is likely to be a danger in the future. As for the specific crime in the OP, it sounds like the person is a psychopath, and that's not the kind of thing that can be rehabilitated. So yes, I'd want to know, and no, I wouldn't let my kid within a mile of that person's house. To be honest, I'd give serious thought to moving out of town. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparklyUnicorn Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 Well right to know...you know and other people know. So the permission to know is obviously already there. Maybe they don't have a specific registry, but arrests and trial outcomes are generally public knowledge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparklyUnicorn Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 And wow that's barfy if 100% true. (That a person who did all of that only went to prison for 12 years.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gardenmom5 Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 yes, I would want to know. she wasn't convicted of something like embezzeling from her employer - but of murder. if it had been "just" her sister, that could be limited as fratricide, but it wasn't. the other parents deserve to know so they can have INFORMED choices for meeting their children's needs and potentially protecting them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 I would be furious if not told. However the world is a scary place. It is hard to keep our families safe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 Because I don't know about the case, I can say I am not sure. On one hand, knowledge is power. On the other hand, fear of something that may or may not (probably won't) happen doesn't seem productive. Obviously she can't be re-tried or re-sentenced for the same crime. One hopes that nobody wants her to re-offend so she can go back to jail. She has to live somewhere. Her kids deserve to be treated fairly. Making her a pariah won't make things better for anyone. Here, the sex offender registry comes with a comment that people on the registry should be treated just like everyone else, so they can rehabilitate themselves successfully. Can people be trusted to just say "I know this, I'll be careful of this person, but I will treat her with the same dignity and respect as everyone else"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gardenmom5 Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 one of the things that really bother's me about this is "volunteers at the school have to have a background check" . . . . is the fact she changed her name going to come up in a background check? is the fact she went to prision for murder going to come up in a background check when they don't have the name she was using when she was in prison? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaisyDay Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 A leopard capable of committing a crime such as this is not likely to change its spots. You can't rehab a psychopath. The community absolutely has a right to know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrie12345 Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 Do you think people in the community have a right to know someone with this type of criminal past is in their neighbourhood, or should the person have a chance at a new life once they serve their time? Would you feel comfortable knowing your children were friends with a convicted killer's children and perhaps had spent time at their house? The title had me thinking this would be about drug charges, teenage relationships, theft, or other things along those lines. Completely different ballpark, and I would most definitely NOT be comfortable with this!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abeille Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 Usually, I'm on the side of thinking that someone who has served their sentence deserves to live in peace but this case is different. I was still living in Canada when the arrests and trials for these crimes took place, and I remember all the horrific details coming to light. That plea deal was a travesty and Homolka should have been locked up for life and designated a dangerous offender like her husband was. I find it very telling that she's now using the last name of a serial killer, one that she and her murderous partner applied to change their names to before he was arrested. That seems like an odd choice of name for anyone who felt any remorse for her crimes. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 Generally speaking I don't think things like public sex offender registries are helpful in reducing crime. I also think that it is causing more problems if there is no way for past offenders to have something like a normal life. I think I prefer this kind of thing to be done on a case by case basis, looking at what experts think is the liklihood of this person offending again. I think that is really the only way it can be done well - the downside is that it is open to abuse. In this particular case, I think there are all kinds of reasons to think there could be further problems - but that is my own analysis based on the crime and her actions since - I'm no expert and of course know nothing about her personally. I'm not sure what the best way to deal with the situation is - in truth there are probably no good answers, especially for her kids. I don't blame her for changing her name though, even basic privacy would be impossible otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 one of the things that really bother's me about this is "volunteers at the school have to have a background check" . . . . is the fact she changed her name going to come up in a background check? is the fact she went to prision for murder going to come up in a background check when they don't have the name she was using when she was in prison? Yes, it will still come up. It is quite obvious if someone has changed their name. If they wanted to avoid that kind of detection they would have to take on a new identity which is illegal and much more complicated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.