|
Post by homolka on Jun 2, 2005 13:32:55 GMT -5
I've just recently been searching for the Karla Homolka Death Pool and see you've quashed it. Now this is a bit of a violation of freedom of speech. The purpose of the pool was not to incite the murder of Karla Homolka.
Irregardless, that's fine. I can even tolerate your replacement propaganda. To be honest, I am very opposed to the Death Penalty, I just disagree with your methods. They're very reminscent of more extremist campaigns like that of pro-life/anti-abortion.
Anyway, my main issue comes with none of the aforementioned, rather with the fact that you attack the death penalty but fail to even comment on equitable justice or the failure to achieve it. I raise this here, because this was certainly not the case in Karla Homolka's plea bargain. I believe the witholding of imperative evidence by Bernardo's lawyer (the videocassettes) was beyond evidence enough to nullify her plea and result in trial for first degree murder.
Yet you make absolutely no mention of the subversion of justice on the re-worked "Death Pool" website, nor do I see any strong critique present on the CCADP website. If you are to advocate the complete elimination of the death pentalty, then it seems you must also advocate equitable justice. Failing to do so is like promoting the abolition of government without any plan as to how to properly re-structure society. As you fail to do this, I find your argument slightly narrow-minded and very inadequate. You must attempt to address the shortfalls of the current legal system that fail to provide equitable sentences (for example, the life sentence that Bernardo received) so that without the death penalty we will still have a respectable (and safe) legal system in Canada.
If you are touchy about the Homolka case, then we can use another as the case study. Do you agree that a legal system that allows a drunk driver found guilty of manslaughter allows them to retain their license and kill again (at which point they still did not receive and equitable sentence for causing the death of two human beings) needs to be restructured as much as the death penalty needs to be abolished?
So, have you made any such plans on restructuring the current legal system? Have you petitioned the government to address these shortfalls? Do you support life without parole? Do you rally to have murderers provided this sentence in lieu of the death penalty?
Thanks,
"Homolka"
|
|
|
Post by CCADP on Jun 2, 2005 15:16:58 GMT -5
Yes we do support LWOP (life without parole) and 'rally for murderers to get that punishment instead of the DP" We are not 'touchy' about the Homolka case (tho; sure; we could get into a whole bunch of things the justice system did wrong leading to Homolka being freed in 6 weeks and the public anger in this case. I'm all for adjusting the problems in the justice system that allowed all that to take place. We can get into a whole debate on all those issues one day; and how the Bernardo Homolka case is actually a great case study on why we SHOULDN'T have the DP in Canada... As far as 'quashing' anything - that wouldn't be possible. The previous owner allowed it to run out; and no one bought it for several months so we bought it to make clear that Canada has no death penalty and vigilante justice; and left it blank for more than a year; until the Toronto Sun looked into who owned it and wanted to know why Canada's national anti death pen. org had a 'Kill Karla' URL; so we posted that info thats currently at www.byebyekarla.com to avoid confusion. No one quashed free speech. The guy didn't renew his website; I guess it wasn't important enough to pay 15 bucks for; so he quashed his own speech; and I bought it. Whats the problem? You could have bought it first if you wanted to continue taking bets on when a woman will get murdered. "If you are touchy about the Homolka case, then we can use another as the case study. Do you agree that a legal system that allows a drunk driver found guilty of manslaughter allows them to retain their license and kill again (at which point they still did not receive and equitable sentence for causing the death of two human beings) needs to be restructured as much as the death penalty needs to be abolished?" YES. "So, have you made any such plans on restructuring the current legal system? Have you petitioned the government to address these shortfalls" - Sure; as soon as I get the government to stop killing people; I'll get to that. In the meantime I am devoting all my time to this issue; however if you want to start such a group; we'd be glad to help and throw our support behind it. So let us know when you are starting it; and we'll be glad to help.
|
|
|
Post by mikebook on Jun 2, 2005 15:20:30 GMT -5
Is this the Carla that was married to Paul Bernardo or something, killed her own sister with him?
|
|
|
Post by CCADP on Jun 2, 2005 15:21:50 GMT -5
thats her....being released in 6 weeks thanks to the governments idiocy and ineptitude (they made an unnecessary deal with her in exchange for testimony against her husband; that allowed her to get out in 12 yrs (thats now) before they found the tapes proving her involvement in the sex murders.
|
|
|
Post by CCADP on Jun 2, 2005 15:23:07 GMT -5
Also for some stupid reason they never charged her with the killing of her sister (rape killing). She was convicted for two other teenage girls. I don't know why she was given a pass on her sister's death.
|
|
|
Post by CCADP on Jun 2, 2005 15:26:20 GMT -5
PS we don't make any comments about the case because "we don't have a horse in this race"... She didn't get the DP; and to comment on an unrelated issue in this forum or to take up the cause or the issue of non death sentenced prisoners is outside of the mandate of the CCADP. Our only interest is in the vigilante justice issue - outside of that; we do not wish to be part of everyone and their dog getting on TV and other media to give their two cents worth about the case.
We are only making the point that we do not have the DP or vigilante justice in Canada....and like we say on the page; its part of our mandate to keep it that way! Other than that; I am certainly no advocate for Homolka or for the justice system's actions in the case.
|
|
|
Post by mikebook on Jun 2, 2005 15:28:21 GMT -5
I saw a documentary about the case, is why I asked.
|
|
|
Post by CCADP on Jun 2, 2005 15:30:15 GMT -5
So u heard about that case all the way down in Texas ? Good luck for her on going anywhere unrecognized! They are worried about her re-offending - I doubt she'll be able to pick up a carton of milk!
I feel so sorry for her parents; I can't imagine the nightmare of being the parents both of the victim and of the killer....
|
|
|
Post by mikebook on Jun 2, 2005 17:31:36 GMT -5
I saw the documentary on A+E Network. I hate sitcoms, reality TV, and game shows...Not much left to watch...
|
|
|
Post by mikebook on Jun 2, 2005 19:08:41 GMT -5
I forgot to ask...Can they still charge her for the cases that she did not get or is it too late...
|
|
|
Post by CCADP on Jun 3, 2005 8:44:46 GMT -5
they added Tammy (sister's) death - without charging her on it they added 2 years to her sentence. They would be able to but they made a deal with her that allows her to get away with it; though she broke part of the deal it appears she could be charged. There were also always rumors about them vacationing in Florida and Hawaii and I wonder if anything ever happened there that could be charged?
|
|
|
Post by mikebook on Jun 3, 2005 8:49:53 GMT -5
No idea about that.
|
|
|
Post by homolka on Jun 3, 2005 10:23:46 GMT -5
I'm all for adjusting the problems in the justice system that allowed all that to take place. We can get into a whole debate on all those issues one day; and how the Bernardo Homolka case is actually a great case study on why we SHOULDN'T have the DP in Canada... So what's wrong with today? Day in day out we're clearly demonstrated the inadequacies of our judicial system. I'm saying you need to consider both to have a rounded and appropriate argument here. Ok, apologies for this assumption. I read too far into what was written on the page. It wasn't specifically directed around murder. Many people bet on a natural death. Though murder may have been the way many people interpretted the website (just as you have), it was never alluded to. As I said, the site pointed out the illegality of 'rigging' the bet through murder, and refused to recognize anyone who killed her. And this comment is a bit personal, no? Expand your horizons then. I'm engaged in a number of campaigns. It's a bit short-sighted to only address one small fraction of legal systems. As I said, I just think you guys need to branch out a little bit more. You're nitpicking at one aspect of a legal system (albeit a very important one) when there are dozens, hundreds, possibly even thousands of other aspects that also need addressed. But I'm not advocating your fragment your campaign that much, I realize how damaging that can be. The point I advocate actually goes hand in hand with your argument. Advocate the abolition of the death penalty and offer an adequate substitute. Then you let governments know exactly what you're proposing. Your argument is simply incomplete without considering the world thereafter. They are not so seperate as you would make them out to be.
|
|
|
Post by homolka on Jun 3, 2005 10:32:17 GMT -5
PS we don't make any comments about the case because "we don't have a horse in this race"... She didn't get the DP; and to comment on an unrelated issue in this forum or to take up the cause or the issue of non death sentenced prisoners is outside of the mandate of the CCADP. Our only interest is in the vigilante justice issue - outside of that; we do not wish to be part of everyone and their dog getting on TV and other media to give their two cents worth about the case. Why (the hell) not? Look how opinionated you've demonstrated yourself to be? For a group with as much media coverage and clout as you demonstrate on this website, perhaps your weighing in would make a difference. Why not try to apply yourselves in such an appropriate case as this? It's not against your mandate, it wouldn't be advocating the death penalty for Homolka. In some aspects, it's actually exactly in line with your mandate. You're advocating a safer world without murder for all human beings. Are we that much safer with a murdered out on the streets? If she murders again, would you not wish that you had stood up and said something? I've got a great quote for you: "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crises maintain their neutrality" - Dante Alighieri. Stand up for what you believe in. It is never smart to limit yourself. To bring out one of the more infamous examples (and also one of the most widely abused), this is how things like the holocaust happened. People only focused on one very small thing and said the rest wasn't their problem or wasn't within their mandate (see the Nuremburg Trials). That just isn't good enough, not for me anyway. Mandates are never meant to be set in stone. When you fail to be progressive, you ultimately fail. Look at all the headway and attention you've gained against the death penalty. Perhaps now is exactly the time to start expanding your horizons?
|
|
|
Post by homolka on Jun 3, 2005 10:34:57 GMT -5
I forgot to ask...Can they still charge her for the cases that she did not get or is it too late... Very much my point. Why don't we? With the new evidence brought forward, I think this is great grounds for a retrial. Why not appeal the original sentence? It was clearly misinformed and malformed. As I've tried to outline, your group could have the very real potential to make some change here. Even documenting the failure of the initial trial on the byebyekarla website could exert an effective amount of pressure. Does it hurt to try it? What are you afraid of?
|
|