Sunday, December 04, 2005
JUSTICE FOR KARLY-CURLS
Despite, and not because of the fact that I'd desperately like to have the most degrading sex possible with her, I've been championing the cause of Canadian schoolgirl rapist and murderer Karla Homolka of late.
For those unfamiliar with the history, I'll relay it here. Homolka and her then-husband, Paul Bernardo, savagely raped and murdered at least three teenage girls in the early 1990's. These girls included Homolka's own sister, Tammy. At least two others were drugged and raped by the pair. None of the victims was over the age of sixteen.
As a means of preversing their incredible debauchery for posterity, the Bernardos videotaped their horrific crimes. The transcripts of same are widely available online and in several books about their terrible spree. They make for chilling reading which I do not recommend to anyone.
When Paul was arrested in February of 1993, his wife, Karla, went to the police and offered to testify in return for a reduced sentence. Due to police incompetence and Karla's own duplicity, the existence of the videotapes were not revealed until well after Karla entered into the deal of the century - 12 years in prison for two murders and at least one negligent homicide. Had the tapes been in police custody sooner, both would currently be sentenced to life in prison without the possibilty of parole for 25 years.
Bernardo and Homolka were particularly clever in committing their crimes. Putting aside the tapes, there was very little evidence linking them to the St. Catherine's victims. Without Homolka's testimony, it might've been impossible to convict Bernardo for the St. Catherine's murders. And Tammy Homolka's death was believed at the time to be accidental.
No Karly-Curls, No Paul. It was that simple and that stark. And the conventional wisdom at the time was that Bernardo was the greatest monster amoung us.
I'm a decided minority in this belief, but I don't think that Paul Bernardo actually murdered anybody. There's nothing in his history to suggest that he did. In fact, his spree of rape, violence and general mayhem began years before as the Scarborough Rapist.
In the mid-1980's, there were a rash of particularly brutal rapes in the Scarborough (where, in the interest of full disclosure, Bernardo attended Sir Winston Churchill High School with one of my cousins) area of Toronto. There was a manhunt that had lasted for years with no result. There was a composite drawing relased that matched Bernardo almost exactly. Indeed, Bernardo actually submitted a DNA sample to investigators. Then suddenly, almost as suddenly as they started, the Scarborough rapes stopped. By this time, Paul Bernardo had met Karla Homolka and moved to St. Catherines in South Western Ontario.
It is important to note that no one had died before Bernardo met Homolka.
Bernardo, who confessed to not only the Scarborough Rapes, but the kidnappings and assaults on Leslie Mahaffy, Kristen French, the rape and accidental death of Tammy Homolka and the assault on Jane Doe, but not to the actual murders themselves. He still contends that he was out of the house getting food when both Mahaffy and French died.
Why would he do that? Given the circumstances and notoriety of the crimes he confessed to - the Scarborough Rapes - it was a certainty that he would be sentenced to life and declared a dangerous offender, which effectively removes any posibility of parole. He was well and truly fucked, even if aquitted of the murders, so why not cop to them?
I believe, and the physical evience seems to support, that Karla Homolka alone murdered Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy. And I still think that she's been unfairly fucked over by the governments of Ontario, Quebec and Canada.
The Crown entered into a deal with Karly-Curls (so named by Bernardo after her cunt), which allowed for the deal - and the lenient sentence of 12 years - to be rescinded if it turns out that she mislead investigators in commission or omission on any material fact of the case. And she never mentioned the crimes against Jane Doe until she was presented with the videotape of the assault. But the Crown needed her testimony so they stuck with the deal.
Once sentenced, Homolka was bounced around the prison system whenever her name came up in the press, which was often. And she served every minute of her twelve years, something that almost never happens in Canada. The overwhelming majority of convicts, even murderers, are relaeased on mandatory supervision after 1/3rd of their sentence is completed. Upon her release, the government of Quebec, where she declared her intention to live - hundreds of miles and over a decade removed from the scene of the crime - petitioned that the lunatic provisions of Section 810.2 of the Criminal Code of Canada be imposed on her.
Even though I've written about the lunacy of 810.2 before, I should do so again. The conditions imposed on her were egregious indeed, particularly when one considers that she served every last second of her prision sentence. As I've already observed, this is notable for its rarity in Canada. These included;
1. She was to tell police her home address, work address and whom she lives with.
2. She was required to notify police as soon as any of the above changes.
3. She was likewise required to notify police of any change to her name.
4. If she planned to be away from her home for more than 48 hours, she had to give 72 hours notice.
5. She could not contact Paul Bernardo, the families of Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French or that of the woman known as Jane Doe (see below), or any violent criminals.
6. She was forbidden from being with people under the age of 16 and from consuming drugs other than prescription medicine.
7. She was required to continue therapy and counselling.
8. She was required to provide police with a DNA sample.
Essentially, what 810.2 allows for is a continuation of prison-like conditions for someone that the government has lost the legal right to detain. And as I noted in my March post, you don't necessiarily need to be convicted of anything for 810.2 conditions to be imposed.
Section 810.2 is aimed at persons whom it is feared may commit a serious personal injury offence. Because this provision is not based upon the fear of a particular victim, but rather on an abstract risk of offending, the types of "preventative" conditions will differ in nature from the limited conditions under s. 810. This will occur because the apprehended risk arises outside a specific and identifiable relationship. This result is apparent in the text of the section itself: e.g. s. 810.2(6) specifically requires a judge to consider whether, among other things, an individual should be required to comply with a program of electronic monitoring. Conditions under s. 810.2 will also differ in nature from the associational and geographical restrictions available under "sexual offences" peace bonds (s. 810.1). [The constitutionality of s. 810.1 was upheld in R. v. Budreo (1996), 104 C.C.C. (3d) 245 (Ont. Gen. Div., Then J.). The section was read down, however, to exclude the blanket prohibition on attendance at community centres, as this broad geographical restriction was not specifically tailored to the apprehended risk.
Although superficially similar in nature to the common law peace bond power, it is submitted that the proposed section 810.2 will in effect operate as a punitive provision. This submission is made for two reasons. First, it can be expected that applications under s. 810.2 can be expected to arise chiefly in two circumstances: on the release of an individual from prison, or following the dismissal of criminal charge. Only in these cases can the Crown be expected to have a sufficient evidentiary basis to put forward a prediction of future dangerousness. Such applications would raise serious double jeopardy concerns. Second, given the general nature of the fear that an offence may be committed by the individual, it will be difficult to design limited restrictions on liberty which will be preventative in nature. Indeed, the conditions proposed in section 810.2(6) are telling in this regard. Neither electronic monitoring nor reporting requirements can be properly characterized as "preventative" conditions designed to control the risk of a person reoffending; rather, they must be seen as punitive provisions which restrict an individual's liberty in order to assist the police in monitoring their movements. In particular, requiring an individual who has not been convicted of an offence to comply with a program of electronic monitoring is a highly invasive and stigmatizing restriction on liberty which would necessarily be experienced as punishment.
To anyone who feels anything at all about civil rights, Section 810.2 should be considered a slap in the face and a dangerous exercise of Orwellian state power. 810.2 not only doesn't require a criminal conviction, it doesn't even require proof beyond a reaonable doubt. All that is needed is a reasonable belief of an "apprehended risk."
In short, 810.2 is the most wonderfully Stalinist creation a supposedly "democratic" government can devise.
Finally, Quebec Superior Court Justice James Brunton heard Karla's appeal and said "enough." Unfortunately, Mr. Justice Brunton lacked the balls to rule 810.2 itself unconstitutional. That said, for Mr. Justice Brunton to stand up in the name of someone with such a demonstrated capacity for evil as Homolka is itself a profile in courage.
Certainly, wildly ignorant voices in both the federal and Ontario governments have called upon Quebec to appeal this ruling. But by the time such an appeal is heard, the conditions under which Homolka would live will have expired. This is yet another circumstance where everyone is stupid but me. Let it fucking go already.
Other than wanting to fuck her in the worst ways imaginable, I couldn't really give much of a shit if Karly-Curls lives or dies. I wouldn't have lost much sleep at all if both she and her erstwhile husband were sentenced to hang. But there's a larger principle at work here, that the government not arbitraily resort to unjust measures that circumvent constitutional guarantees to limit the freedoms of the people. It is unfortunate that the Canadian government has chosen to make someone like Homolka a standard bearer of civil liberties, but there you have it.
Of course, I couldn't let my latest musing on the Strange Case of Karly-Curls stand without directing you to the great Dr. Reverend's latest dark incantations of my relationship with Ms. Homolka. While less than wholly accurate (I have something far more utilitarian with which to "stab her cunt" than a serrated steak knife danging from my own midsection. And the Good Doctor does not address what I would like to do with the fabled ass of Karly-Curls.), it is fucking hilarious.
Sure, some of you can point out that Karla has a murderous boyfriend all of her own. But as I noted back in June, said boyfriend will never be able to fuck her.....and he looks a lot like me.
Things may very well be looking up.
Labels: I Fought The Law