Karla Homolka
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore
That's true, but with the charges "Stayed", it would have given new meaning to those tapes when they appeared........IF and when they ever did. It's always "a crap-shoot" with plea bargains and nobody ends up getting what they justly deserve. Having been involved with the law at one time, I know from personal experience that after those things are agreed upon, I always felt that true justice had been thwarted somehow and that the perpetrators and defense counsel were smirking too much for my comfort level. The toughest part was always explaining, what it was felt had to be done to get a conviction, to the victims families. It made me want to rip someone's face off.
-
costermonger
- Rank 8
- Posts: 881
- Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 7:52 pm
-
Driving Rain
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2696
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:10 pm
- Location: At a Tanker Base near you.
- Contact:
[quote="LH"]Once upon a time, not that long ago in Canada, there existed something called "A Governor-General's Warrant". If the authorities felt that a criminal might commit a crime again or was not fit to mingle with the populace because of their past crime, they could keep said prisoner in jail until forever if they so desired. It was replace by the "Habitual Criminal Act" that allowed the crown to do the same to those who had a long and lengthy record of crimes and it was considered that they would re-offend once again.
Please tell me you are joking with your desire to return to the habitual criminal act LH.
I had a great uncle that spent most all of his adult life in Kingston under that draconian piece of legislation.
His first offence was stealing cigars out of a derailed train car at 14 with a bunch of friends. At 16 he was busted again for protecting my grandmother from a violent drunk grandfather and his 3rd strike was stealing food to feed his family of 7 when that same grandfather abandoned them and shacked up with his girl friend in the depression. Life in prison for stealing food to feed his family! How compassionate! He was paroled in 1968 into his sister's arms (my mother) and died 2 years later. He spent 35 years at hard labour locked up on the tax payers hook for protecting his family. He was only 50 years old! He moved in with us and I'll never ever forget his nightmares and screams while he tried to sleep.
The US has adopted a similar law called three strikes. It was meant for violent offenders but in reality it snares lots of minor offenders too.
I'm all for locking up the violent ones forever. Maybe if we weren't afraid to use the violent offender provisions 4 mounties would be alive today and Karla Homolka would be a forgotten footnote for a Max Haines to dust off.
Please tell me you are joking with your desire to return to the habitual criminal act LH.
I had a great uncle that spent most all of his adult life in Kingston under that draconian piece of legislation.
His first offence was stealing cigars out of a derailed train car at 14 with a bunch of friends. At 16 he was busted again for protecting my grandmother from a violent drunk grandfather and his 3rd strike was stealing food to feed his family of 7 when that same grandfather abandoned them and shacked up with his girl friend in the depression. Life in prison for stealing food to feed his family! How compassionate! He was paroled in 1968 into his sister's arms (my mother) and died 2 years later. He spent 35 years at hard labour locked up on the tax payers hook for protecting his family. He was only 50 years old! He moved in with us and I'll never ever forget his nightmares and screams while he tried to sleep.
The US has adopted a similar law called three strikes. It was meant for violent offenders but in reality it snares lots of minor offenders too.
I'm all for locking up the violent ones forever. Maybe if we weren't afraid to use the violent offender provisions 4 mounties would be alive today and Karla Homolka would be a forgotten footnote for a Max Haines to dust off.
Driving Rain ----- please re-read what I stated. I said I'd even entertain that idea again with regards Karla Homulka. You have also used the term "habitual criminal" and I'm sorry to inform you that the "Govenor-General's Warrant' was replaced with a somewhat "toned-down" Act and that Act is called "The Habitual Criminal's Act" and does not all, but many of the same things that the former did. It's just harder to get it enforced or used, that's all. I didn't vote for it and neither did anyone else.......they just changed it all by themselves and if you and I don't like it....then "tough bananas on us". So could the same thing happen again to someone else like you stated.........you betch'em big guy.
I have no problem whatsoever with the California law for one. As far as the 4 RCMP Members are concerned, they died because some senior NCO or Officer (not onsite) put them "into harm's way" when they didn't have the experience to handle it. Some senior Member needs a severe kick in the gonads, unless they are going to enact a law against stupidity and "dereliction of duty". I was once an RCMP Member in the old, antiqated RCMP of days gone by and if that would have taken place then, there would have been a lot of butts up in Service Court, careers stunted and a few ushered out the door.......but the NEW RCMP is not like the old, so they wouldn't dream of doing that nowadays (dripping sarcasm intended).
I have no problem whatsoever with the California law for one. As far as the 4 RCMP Members are concerned, they died because some senior NCO or Officer (not onsite) put them "into harm's way" when they didn't have the experience to handle it. Some senior Member needs a severe kick in the gonads, unless they are going to enact a law against stupidity and "dereliction of duty". I was once an RCMP Member in the old, antiqated RCMP of days gone by and if that would have taken place then, there would have been a lot of butts up in Service Court, careers stunted and a few ushered out the door.......but the NEW RCMP is not like the old, so they wouldn't dream of doing that nowadays (dripping sarcasm intended).
How sad and twisted we have become that we allow the murder of thousands of innocent babies in the womb,and yet are so timid when it comes to people who need terminating for the protection of society.
Judges and politicians who play King Lear .they want to be leaders without having to do their duty.How nice it must be for Judge to say that they never had to hang someone in all their career ,but some poor policeman has to carry a gun to protect us .
If you hang-em good they cannot reoffend...
Judges and politicians who play King Lear .they want to be leaders without having to do their duty.How nice it must be for Judge to say that they never had to hang someone in all their career ,but some poor policeman has to carry a gun to protect us .
If you hang-em good they cannot reoffend...
bumffs ------- where did you ever get the idea that police forces are in place to "protect us". They are in place to solve the crimes AFTER they have been committed, gather the evidence and put the offenders behnd bars until trial.
There's no policeman following me around all the time so that he can "protect" me against assault, murder, robbery, B & E, etc. The few times that they do get lucky and stop a crime before it gets started are in the minority and any police force will tell you so. So don't take that "To Protect and Serve" too literally sir. In an ideal world, that's the way it should be, but in my hamlet the ratio of policemen to the populace is 700:1, so they are much too busy to "protecting" me every moment of every day.
The subject of abortion I will not touch because people start the subject using their brains and shortly afterwards start using the hearts to present their arguments.
Until there is a 100% guarantee that the person convicted of murder(s) is guilty, based on sound evidence, I will be against Capital punishment. We have seen too many cases in recent years where innocent people would have died and been found innocent later. In the meantime, I'll ask that we have Life Imprisonment (not 25 years) and for that period of time to be for the life of that person.....and that sir, comes from an ex-policeman. I've seen "the Law in action" in courtrooms and don't have the trust in that hallowed institution I once had because those with the deepest pockets get more "justice" than those that don't.
There's no policeman following me around all the time so that he can "protect" me against assault, murder, robbery, B & E, etc. The few times that they do get lucky and stop a crime before it gets started are in the minority and any police force will tell you so. So don't take that "To Protect and Serve" too literally sir. In an ideal world, that's the way it should be, but in my hamlet the ratio of policemen to the populace is 700:1, so they are much too busy to "protecting" me every moment of every day.
The subject of abortion I will not touch because people start the subject using their brains and shortly afterwards start using the hearts to present their arguments.
Until there is a 100% guarantee that the person convicted of murder(s) is guilty, based on sound evidence, I will be against Capital punishment. We have seen too many cases in recent years where innocent people would have died and been found innocent later. In the meantime, I'll ask that we have Life Imprisonment (not 25 years) and for that period of time to be for the life of that person.....and that sir, comes from an ex-policeman. I've seen "the Law in action" in courtrooms and don't have the trust in that hallowed institution I once had because those with the deepest pockets get more "justice" than those that don't.
-
Nightshiftzombie
- Rank 5
- Posts: 325
- Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:23 am
- Location: The Dark
Gentlemen, this is a subject that is akin to that on abortion, so I'll make one final comment and then desist.
In some cases.......and they are very few in number........there is "100% proof" AT THAT TIME that someone committed a crime. For all the rest, the guilt or innocence of the person is basically determined by the skill of the legal counsels on both sides. There are "Wayne Gretsky's" in the legal profession, the same as there were in the NHL and other trades and professions. Those with those skills get to score more "goals" and defeat their opposite legal counsel. In this "game" however, a life is forfeited by the looser and they don't get to "play another game" sometime in the future with the same person involved.
As a substitute and a guarantee that an innocent life is not taken AGAIN, I will be more than happy to be part of a system that incarcerates that person for ALL of their natural life and make it so that we never see that person again. I'm sorry to all those offended by what I state now, BUT to me 25 years is not a whole life, is not adeqate for having taken another life and I do not wish to have that person allowed to see freedom again for a period much longer than 25 years. Seldom does the 25 years get invocked anyway and the normal sentence heard in courtrooms is "you are sentenced to Life, with no chance of parole for 10 years". So in many cases a penalty of 10 years is imposed for taking a Life?........sorry, but that is not sufficient for this person and makes a mockery of the word "justice"..
In some cases.......and they are very few in number........there is "100% proof" AT THAT TIME that someone committed a crime. For all the rest, the guilt or innocence of the person is basically determined by the skill of the legal counsels on both sides. There are "Wayne Gretsky's" in the legal profession, the same as there were in the NHL and other trades and professions. Those with those skills get to score more "goals" and defeat their opposite legal counsel. In this "game" however, a life is forfeited by the looser and they don't get to "play another game" sometime in the future with the same person involved.
As a substitute and a guarantee that an innocent life is not taken AGAIN, I will be more than happy to be part of a system that incarcerates that person for ALL of their natural life and make it so that we never see that person again. I'm sorry to all those offended by what I state now, BUT to me 25 years is not a whole life, is not adeqate for having taken another life and I do not wish to have that person allowed to see freedom again for a period much longer than 25 years. Seldom does the 25 years get invocked anyway and the normal sentence heard in courtrooms is "you are sentenced to Life, with no chance of parole for 10 years". So in many cases a penalty of 10 years is imposed for taking a Life?........sorry, but that is not sufficient for this person and makes a mockery of the word "justice"..
When high court Judges were polled most were in favour of the death penalty.When asked if they would pass a sentance of death most said that under the present Rules of evidence they would not.
If they fear sending an innocent person to death because of the rules of evidence why not change the rules of evidence so that an innocent person is not convicted of a crime they did not commit.
A wrongfull conviction is an injustice to all .
Does anyone doubt what that monster done ?
Do you need to see the video?
Do you have any doubt that it will happen again?
She may have the montreal pyschobablers fooled .but what will happen when she does it again,who will be responsible then.
As for abortion it is as close to murder as you can get.except that professional medical staff are asked to do what we would not do to some monsters that are a threat to society.In an underpopulated country like Canada why are there not more homes for the unwanted babies.
If they fear sending an innocent person to death because of the rules of evidence why not change the rules of evidence so that an innocent person is not convicted of a crime they did not commit.
A wrongfull conviction is an injustice to all .
Does anyone doubt what that monster done ?
Do you need to see the video?
Do you have any doubt that it will happen again?
She may have the montreal pyschobablers fooled .but what will happen when she does it again,who will be responsible then.
As for abortion it is as close to murder as you can get.except that professional medical staff are asked to do what we would not do to some monsters that are a threat to society.In an underpopulated country like Canada why are there not more homes for the unwanted babies.
-
Driving Rain
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2696
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:10 pm
- Location: At a Tanker Base near you.
- Contact:
I agree LH . Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't a life sentence also come with an expectation that they will be on parole for the rest of their natural life.LH wrote:Gentlemen, this is a subject that is akin to that on abortion, so I'll make one final comment and then desist.
In some cases.......and they are very few in number........there is "100% proof" AT THAT TIME that someone committed a crime. For all the rest, the guilt or innocence of the person is basically determined by the skill of the legal counsels on both sides. There are "Wayne Gretsky's" in the legal profession, the same as there were in the NHL and other trades and professions. Those with those skills get to score more "goals" and defeat their opposite legal counsel. In this "game" however, a life is forfeited by the looser and they don't get to "play another game" sometime in the future with the same person involved.
As a substitute and a guarantee that an innocent life is not taken AGAIN, I will be more than happy to be part of a system that incarcerates that person for ALL of their natural life and make it so that we never see that person again. I'm sorry to all those offended by what I state now, BUT to me 25 years is not a whole life, is not adeqate for having taken another life and I do not wish to have that person allowed to see freedom again for a period much longer than 25 years. Seldom does the 25 years get invocked anyway and the normal sentence heard in courtrooms is "you are sentenced to Life, with no chance of parole for 10 years". So in many cases a penalty of 10 years is imposed for taking a Life?........sorry, but that is not sufficient for this person and makes a mockery of the word "justice"..
I know of one federal parole officer that comes to Kenora once a month to interview and visit with 2 paroled murderers and he told me that that neither of them to his knowledge has commited a crime of any kind since 1965. He said they will recieve his or his alternates visits even when they go in the old folks home thereby completeing their life sentence provision.
-
Nightshiftzombie
- Rank 5
- Posts: 325
- Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:23 am
- Location: The Dark
So how about someone like Robert Latimer. He killed his own daughter, he admits to it, but in his mind it was an act of mercy. Do you figure he needs to die? Is he a great risk to reoffend? Do you kill him just for the sake of revenge?But if you have unequivocal proof, ie. video tapes, then " An eye for an eye!"
What is uneqivocal proof? A video can be altered, a photo can be doctored, an eye witeness can make mistakes. Finger prints and DNA can only tell you so much about a crime.
How about the problem of immplimenting the death penalty. Crown Prosicutors are normal people, some are going to want to throw the book at everyone, some wouldn't even consider asking for a death sentence. Is it really fair that the same crime gets you hung in Ottawa but only 25 years in Hull?(example only. I don't meen to slag anyones hometown.)
Karla Homolka is a twisted bitch, and the world would probably be better off without her. The government made a crappy deal with her and now they have to live up to it. Now given that from time to time the government makes stupid mistakes, do you figure they should make a habit of killing people?
"Thats what the Internet is for stupid. Slandering others anonymously."
re latimer. He should not get the death penalty, just the same - if we do not want to end up like Holland where euthanasia is an accepted practice, people like him have to be dealt with accordingly. Someone like Clifford Olson should be in solitary for life, the death penalty would be too good. I don't know what they can do with Homolka, they screwed the case up and now we are stuck with her. Chances are she will fade away, if not and she tries to keep up the ruse of being some sort of a victim in all of this, she may end up getting victimized for good.
I'm givin er all she's got..
From http://www.dictionary.comWhat is uneqivocal proof?
unequivocal
adj 1: admitting of no doubt or misunderstanding; having only one meaning or interpretation and leading to only one conclusion; "unequivocal evidence"; "took an unequivocal position"; "an unequivocal success"; "an unequivocal promise"; "an unequivocal (or univocal) statement" [syn: univocal, unambiguous] [ant: equivocal] 2: clearly defined or formulated; "the plain and unequivocal language of the laws"- R.B.Taney [syn: definitive]
If I killed your mother and said that it was an act of mercy and I really believed it what would you want? That said I'm not familiar with said case.So how about someone like Robert Latimer. He killed his own daughter, he admits to it, but in his mind it was an act of mercy. Do you figure he needs to die? Is he a great risk to reoffend? Do you kill him just for the sake of revenge?
Also "An eye for an eye" doesn't necessarily mean death, it means equal retribution, which could just mean when taking someones life then they should loose rights to there's ie. life in prison(whole life), please note that this doesn't mean that I'm against capital punishment, just another way for those without enough proof.
I also note that evil government morons could also abuse this, but I also believe that with harsher punishment maybe some would deter from crime
A life sentence in Canada is the rest of your natural life, and there are a number of offences that allow a life sentence. Murder, manslaughter, criminal negligence causing death, B&E to name a few. The 10 and 25 years is relates to parole eligibility for murders.
Second degree murder carries a minimum sentence of life with a minimum of 10, and max 25, years before parole eligibility. The courts normally go with 10, but I've seen cases with it set in the 15-18 year range.
First degree carries a mandatory sentence of life with a minimum of 25 years before parole eligibility. An inmate can apply for a judicial review to have the parole date reduced after serving 18 years. It is not normally granted.
In both cases, there is no guarantee you will get paroled at the minimum time, or at all, although most do. Once on parole, you remain under supervision for the remainder of your life and can be put back in prison by your parole officer for any violation of the terms of your release, where your status will be reassessed by the parole board.
As an example, Clifford Olson is serving life, minimum 25. It is highly unlikely he will ever be granted parole.
Second degree murder carries a minimum sentence of life with a minimum of 10, and max 25, years before parole eligibility. The courts normally go with 10, but I've seen cases with it set in the 15-18 year range.
First degree carries a mandatory sentence of life with a minimum of 25 years before parole eligibility. An inmate can apply for a judicial review to have the parole date reduced after serving 18 years. It is not normally granted.
In both cases, there is no guarantee you will get paroled at the minimum time, or at all, although most do. Once on parole, you remain under supervision for the remainder of your life and can be put back in prison by your parole officer for any violation of the terms of your release, where your status will be reassessed by the parole board.
As an example, Clifford Olson is serving life, minimum 25. It is highly unlikely he will ever be granted parole.
I know of a guy who walked into a bar in Ross R., Yukon ( this was in the late 70's), took out a 357 and point blank shot his business partner. He then casually walked over to the bar, put the gun down and told the tender to call the cops. He got 25 yrs for that. I think his crime was pretty heinous and was certainly murder 1. It just seems funny that he is going to serve the same time before parole eligibility as Clifford Olson, his likelihood of reoffending is pretty low, whereas Olson could potentially get out after 25 and start killing kids again. I just think the law is an ass and that the punishment in this country seldom seems to fit the crime, as per Homolka as well. Conversely, go to the states, they have something like 2 million people locked away down there, many of whom I would speculate are innocent of any crime, and you can do 5 yrs for possesion of MJ - go figure..
I'm givin er all she's got..
Wilbur ----while I trust that you mean well, I'm afraid that you are wrong or have been misinformed. The MAXIMUM sentence in Canada for a "Capital Offense" under the Canadian Criiminal Code is 25 years ......and that is what is defined in Canadian jurispudence and the Code as a "Life Sentence". You can only be held in gaol or confinement longer than that for TWO offenses.......under a National Security Certificate (the old Canadian Secrets Act)......or under the "Habitual Criminals Act".You cannot receive a sentence of Life for manslaughter, criminal negilgence causing death, B & E or any others. LIFE is the result of "taking another life with PREMEDITATION and is therefore Capital or 1st Degree Murder. If you took a life and you were judged not guilty of pre-planning the murder, then it is considered to be Non-Capital Murder or as they "Americanized" the term.....2nd Degree Murder. The next step down is Manslaughter and usually where any possible plea bargain will try to go........and the sentence for that offense is a MAXIMUM of 14 years.
Unless stated otherwise by the sitting Judge, a parole hearing WILL and SHALL be automatic after the prisoner sentenced to Life has served 1/8th of their sentence. They may or they may not get parole at that time, depending on their prison record, possible admittance to having committed said crime and/or the Parole Board feels that they deserve same for whatever reason they decide. Appoximately 65% of all parole applications are granted.
Clifford Olsen was sentenced to "Life (25 years) with no chance of parole". Do your math on the year in which he was sentenced to that term, deduct the time he spent in incarceration before going to trial and that will tell you when he will be released......unless he dies in prison. When he and all other male prisoners are released, they have the John Howard Society (Elizabeth Fry Society for the females) to provide them with room/board, money and assistance until they can support themselves and in finding gainful employment. If they do not wish to avail themselves of this assistance, then they do not have to do so.
A "Life Sentence" in the US is 99 years and 2nd Degree Murder sentences run between 30-50 years on average.
Driving Rain ------- the parole conditions and length are set by the presiding Judge and are part of that courtcase, VUT separate from the sentence for that crime that they were convicted. That is where the confusion comes into the parole conditions for Karla Homulka. Once she was sentenced to whatever they would have decided, then the case that the court proceedings were all about has been satisfied AND THEN separately, they then imposed the parole conditions on her. The parole conditions can vary from case to case in different murders and depends on the presentations of the Crown, Defense Counsel and the fellings of the Judge after the first two have made their pleas/statements to the court. In otherwards, don't join the two together as ONE. Remember also, that Karla Homulka had the same Right as anyone else being charged with an Indictable Offense and that Right was the Right to choose a "Trial by Jury" or a "Trial by Judge" only. If one chooses "Trail by Jury", then one "roles the dice" that they might make a "reccomendation" for something more/less severe than a presiding Judge might decide.
ALL of the above happens only AFTER the two legal counsels have presented their cases to the best of their abilities........and as stated before, not all "abilities" are exactly equal in any profession or trade, including our own. You get what you pay for, so when hiring a lawyer, dig VERY deep if you want excellence. Whatever you do, DO NOT confuse "justice" with "right and wrong" or "what's fair".
Unless stated otherwise by the sitting Judge, a parole hearing WILL and SHALL be automatic after the prisoner sentenced to Life has served 1/8th of their sentence. They may or they may not get parole at that time, depending on their prison record, possible admittance to having committed said crime and/or the Parole Board feels that they deserve same for whatever reason they decide. Appoximately 65% of all parole applications are granted.
Clifford Olsen was sentenced to "Life (25 years) with no chance of parole". Do your math on the year in which he was sentenced to that term, deduct the time he spent in incarceration before going to trial and that will tell you when he will be released......unless he dies in prison. When he and all other male prisoners are released, they have the John Howard Society (Elizabeth Fry Society for the females) to provide them with room/board, money and assistance until they can support themselves and in finding gainful employment. If they do not wish to avail themselves of this assistance, then they do not have to do so.
A "Life Sentence" in the US is 99 years and 2nd Degree Murder sentences run between 30-50 years on average.
Driving Rain ------- the parole conditions and length are set by the presiding Judge and are part of that courtcase, VUT separate from the sentence for that crime that they were convicted. That is where the confusion comes into the parole conditions for Karla Homulka. Once she was sentenced to whatever they would have decided, then the case that the court proceedings were all about has been satisfied AND THEN separately, they then imposed the parole conditions on her. The parole conditions can vary from case to case in different murders and depends on the presentations of the Crown, Defense Counsel and the fellings of the Judge after the first two have made their pleas/statements to the court. In otherwards, don't join the two together as ONE. Remember also, that Karla Homulka had the same Right as anyone else being charged with an Indictable Offense and that Right was the Right to choose a "Trial by Jury" or a "Trial by Judge" only. If one chooses "Trail by Jury", then one "roles the dice" that they might make a "reccomendation" for something more/less severe than a presiding Judge might decide.
ALL of the above happens only AFTER the two legal counsels have presented their cases to the best of their abilities........and as stated before, not all "abilities" are exactly equal in any profession or trade, including our own. You get what you pay for, so when hiring a lawyer, dig VERY deep if you want excellence. Whatever you do, DO NOT confuse "justice" with "right and wrong" or "what's fair".
Then there's Steven Truscott....got to be the best argument against the death penalty in Canada's history?
Robert Latimer......The Canadian justice system should hang their heads in shame on that one.....of course, that's just one man's opinion.
On the other hand.....we have to find a way around long jail terms. At least for non-violent crimes....I kind of think what happened to Michael Fey in Singapore (sp,,,I know, too lazy to look it up..hehe) would prevent a lot of petty crime?
Robert Latimer......The Canadian justice system should hang their heads in shame on that one.....of course, that's just one man's opinion.
On the other hand.....we have to find a way around long jail terms. At least for non-violent crimes....I kind of think what happened to Michael Fey in Singapore (sp,,,I know, too lazy to look it up..hehe) would prevent a lot of petty crime?
LH, recheck the CCC. Murder, manslaughter, att murder, accessory, and quite a few other offences all allow for a maximum sentence of life. Thats not to say our lame judiciary will ever impose a maximum. Murder carries a mandatory life sentence. For the remainder of the offenders life they will be in gaol or on parole; it does not end.
For murderers serving life min 10 or 25, full parole can not be granted before those dates. One exception can be made for a first time murderer serving a minimum greater than 15 years. They can apply to the court for an eligibility reduction after serving 15 years. In both cases they are not eligible for day parole or unescorted temporary absences until they have served all but 3 years of their full parole eligibility. Their life sentence begins on the date they were arrested, if they were held in custody awaiting trial.
The parole board automatically reviews inmates on their eligibility dates, however release is not guaranteed. Day parole is only a partial release. Inmates are allowed to go to work, school, or treatment programs during specified hours each day, but return to a community correctional centre or "halfway house" at other times. Full parole allows them to walk free, with conditions and supervision of a parole officer.
If memory serves me correctly, Olson was arrested in 1982 and will therefore hit the 25 year point in 2007. The judge recommended on the warrant of committal that he never be paroled. I don't expect he will hit the street in two years, or ever.
For murderers serving life min 10 or 25, full parole can not be granted before those dates. One exception can be made for a first time murderer serving a minimum greater than 15 years. They can apply to the court for an eligibility reduction after serving 15 years. In both cases they are not eligible for day parole or unescorted temporary absences until they have served all but 3 years of their full parole eligibility. Their life sentence begins on the date they were arrested, if they were held in custody awaiting trial.
The parole board automatically reviews inmates on their eligibility dates, however release is not guaranteed. Day parole is only a partial release. Inmates are allowed to go to work, school, or treatment programs during specified hours each day, but return to a community correctional centre or "halfway house" at other times. Full parole allows them to walk free, with conditions and supervision of a parole officer.
If memory serves me correctly, Olson was arrested in 1982 and will therefore hit the 25 year point in 2007. The judge recommended on the warrant of committal that he never be paroled. I don't expect he will hit the street in two years, or ever.
-
shitdisturber
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2165
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:38 pm
- Location: If it's Monday it's got to be somewhere shitty
Hell Doc, I bet Micheal Fay still gets the shakes whenever he walks past the spray paint aisle in Home Depot; and I for one, don't think that's such a bad thing.Doc wrote: On the other hand.....we have to find a way around long jail terms. At least for non-violent crimes....I kind of think what happened to Michael Fey in Singapore (sp,,,I know, too lazy to look it up..hehe) would prevent a lot of petty crime?
Wilbur ----- quote the Section and Sub-sections that say what you state. Please do not paraphrase and quote EXACTLY as it is written in the Code. I have both Snow's and Carwell's Canadian Criminal Code not less than 10' away from me so fire at will. My sources will be my experience using and laying charges from that Code and T.E Glowacki, presently a Judge of the Court of Queens Bench for the Province of Manitoba. Prior to that position he was the Cheif Justice for the Province of Manitoba.
Regards parole conditions and such, my daughter is presntly a Federal Parole Officer and since that is not and never was my forte, I'll be quoting her on that subject to make sure all the "I's" and 'T's" get crossed on that subject.
Regards parole conditions and such, my daughter is presntly a Federal Parole Officer and since that is not and never was my forte, I'll be quoting her on that subject to make sure all the "I's" and 'T's" get crossed on that subject.
