STOPWATCH - 1996, Volume IV

Multiple Killers Need Not Apply

On June 11, 1996, Justice Minister Rock finally announced his proposed changes to the infamous Section 745 of the Criminal Code which allows murderers to apply for a review of their parole eligibility status after serving 15 years of their sentence of "life imprisonment".

Instead of repealing the section as demanded by critics of the law, Rock has introduced several amendments. Serial or multiple murderers would no longer have the right to apply for a review hearing. Other murderers' right to apply would no longer be automatic. A judge would first screen the applications and allow only those to proceed that he feels have a reasonable chance of success. The judge determining this initial application would consider written submissions from the offender, the crown, victims of the crime, and the police. No oral evidence would be heard. If a hearing is granted, a jury's decision to reduce the offender's parole ineligibility period would have to be unanimous. At present only a two-thirds majority is required.

CAVEAT acknowledges that the federal government's amendments to Section 745 are a step in the right direction. At the very least the tabling of the proposed changes are an acknowledgement on the part of the government that Section 745 is flawed and that changes must be made to restore the credibility and integrity of the sentencing process in the Canadian criminal justice system. However, this proposed legislation is only the first step towards our ultimate goal of full repeal of Section 745.

Our reservations concerning Bill C-45 are numerous. Other than requiring a unanimous jury decision, there is no change to the review process itself. The hearing is still weighed heavily in the inmate's favour. The emphasis is still on the offender's behaviour while in prison and his/her questionable rehabilitation. The jury has to reach a decision with very little information about the original crime. The full details and impact of the crime are not presented for consideration.

Moreover, the provision of a screening process creates a new level of bureaucracy. Any judicial decision to reject an application may be appealed. Applicants' absolute right to a hearing has been replaced by an absolute right to apply for a hearing and to launch appeals of an unfavourable decision.

The distinction that is drawn between killers who have committed multiple murders as opposed to a single murder is offensive to the extreme. On June 11, 1996, Mr. Rock told the House of Commons that "the fact of the matter is that the sentencing policy for murder in this country should reflect a difference between those who take more than one life and those who take only one."

Mr. Rock is absolutely right! However, drawing that distinction at this point of the judicial process is inappropriate. The correct time to address the issue of multiple murders is at the time of sentencing. Consecutive sentences (consecutive parole ineligibility periods) would be the appropriate vehicle to reflect the number of murders. The possibility of early parole should not be seen as a reward for committing only one murder! To act upon his concerns Mr. Rock should be amending the sentencing provisions for murder in the Criminal Code, not tinkering with Section 745.

 


CAVEAT's 745 Press Release


Visit the CAVEAT web site at http://www.caveat.org/ for our June '96 press release on the proposed amendments to Section 745.


Justice Committee Transcripts


For complete transcripts of the June '96 Justice Committee hearings on Bill C-45 (meetings #32 through #35), visit this Internet web site:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/cgi-bin/committees352/english_archive.pl?jula

Priscilla de Villiers' speech can be found in Meeting #33.


Send Us Your E-mail Address


CAVEAT often issues press releases such as our June response to the Section 745 amendments. If you would like to receive future CAVEAT press releases directly via e-mail, send us a message at info@caveat.org containing your name, e-mail address and the text "Please add me to your e-mail mailing list."

 


We Remember...

On August 12, 1996, Clifford Olson will have the right to apply for a Section 745 hearing to reduce his parole ineligibility date. While we don't expect his review to be successful, the families of eleven murdered children will again face the dreadful consequences of his crimes.

We urge all Canadians, media in particular, to remember the victims while observing this, most extreme, example of why Section 745 must be repealed. Let us not give the murderer the satisfaction of vicariously reliving his crimes through the media attention, tormenting victims' families yet again.

We Remember the Victims of Clifford Olson and All Victims of Violent Crime.

Sigrun Charlotte Arnd, 18
Terry Lyn Carson, 15
Louise Chartrand, 17
Ada Court, 14
Colleen Daignault, 13
Daryn Johnsrude, 16
Raymond King, 15
Judy Kozma, 14
Simon Partington, 9
Christine Weller, 12
Sandra Wolfsteiner, 16



Where Is the Justice?

On May 6, 1991, Danielle Larsen's life was shattered forever at age 16. With one shot to her face from a .22 rifle, in a premeditated act of vengeance, Trent Wenzel left her for dead.

Five months prior to the attack, Danielle had broken off her relationship with Trent in an attempt to escape mental and physical abuse. Danielle survived the shot to her face. She survived the surgery to remove the bullet from just below the brainstem. However, she survives as a C1 level incomplete quadriplegic. Danielle has feeling in her limbs, hands and feet. She can move her toes and her hands. As yet, she cannot move her limbs.

Trent Wenzel was convicted of attempted murder in January 1992 and sentenced to 11 years. He became eligible for early release in November, 1995.
All of Trent's basic needs are being met. He has three square meals, a gym to work out in, and an education.

To date, Danielle's basic needs have NOT been met. She requires regular physiotherapy to ease the discomfort of immobility. Because she still has sensory nerves intact, she can feel her body like you and I. She gets very stiff and sore from sitting or lying in the same position, even in her sleep. She needs 24-hour-a-day care.

She has been housed in an Edmonton transition home for the last few years. This facility is understaffed and cannot meet Danielle's basic needs on a regular basis. Like her assailant, she also needs three square meals, but sometimes she has to wait until midday for breakfast, unable to reach her call button.

Danielle has been getting some funding from Crimes Compensation and Social Services, but in spite of many evaluations and consultations, no one can figure out how to care for this young victim of a senseless act of violence. She is a square peg that does not fit into the round holes devised to care for people in need.

We know very little about incomplete quadriplegia. The therapy is very expensive, and almost from the beginning, Danielle was written off based on administrative decisions. No one seems to care how far she might progress with therapy; no one seems to understand her need to be independent, earn a living, and have a life of her own.

Because of the imbalance between the rights of victims and the rights of offenders, this victim was left to deteriorate while the offender who put her there has no end of access to services that look after his basic needs, both spiritual and physical counselling, education, physical education facilities, and advocates who will make sure his rights are not stepped on!

Where is the compassion in our society for victims of crime?

When are we going to realize that the money that is spent in counselling and rehabilitation will ensure the return of victims to society as productive, healthy, survivors who can contribute positively to our communities?

Danielle wants to help prevent other young women from entering controlling relationships, from experiencing violence. She wants to speak in schools, tell her story and explain signs of control so young men and women can recognize them. She is motivated, bright and an asset to our community.

We only have to give her a chance.

 


Alberta's New Domestic Violence Bill

In Alberta, Liberal MLA Alice Hansen introduced Bill 214, the victims of Domestic Violence Act. It has passed two readings and will be discussed when the Legislature reconvenes in August. This bill is designed to supplement the criminal code and to protect victims of domestic violence at the time of crisis. If passed, it will do the following:

 

  • increase the length of a restraining order term up to three years. Restraining orders will be on CPIC
  • make it easier and faster to obtain a restraining order
  • protect the victim at home, work, school and on the street
  • protect the whole family, provide custody provisions
  • increase the fine and jail term for breaches
  • the presumption in the act is that children are better off with the non-violent person

These are some concerns with the act:

 

  • the police are concerned that there is no power of arrest on reasonable grounds and for breaches of the act
  • the definition of abuse needs to be expanded
  • maintenance enforcement has to have teeth
  • the term "bodily harm" should be replaced with "assault"
  • there has to be an education campaign following the act for judges, police, lawyers and the public
  • that parties with a vested interest have input into the rules and regulations governing the act.

Anyone who would like more information about Bill 214 can contact CAVEAT Alberta. Input and comments should be called in or sent to Justice Minister Brian Evans and to MLA Alice Hansen.

 


Ontario Announces Victim Notification System

by Ian Bulmer


In June 1996, the Ontario government released its plans on allocating the revenue collected under the Victims' Surcharge program. Currently, in Ontario all fines for provincial offences are subject to an additional fixed-rate victims' levy. Over the past year, this money has accumulated in the Victims' Justice Fund (the "VJF"), an account created pursuant to the provincial Victims' Bill of Rights, 1995. Under the government's recent proposal, the VJF will pay out $10.2 million over the next two years on new programs and services for victims of crime.

One important project that will receive this funding is the development of a new computerized telephone victim notification system (VNS). This system, when functional, will permit victims of crime to access various types of offender information. Specifically, trial dates and offender release information will be available to the victim at the touch of a button. The system will be modelled after a similar successful system, the VINE system, currently operating in the United States. It is anticipated that the new VNS will function like its American predecessor, allowing a victim to register with the system and receive ongoing information regarding the offender's status if and when it changes. The system, currently in the developmental stage, is slated to be on-line by early 1997.

While the addition of this notification system is a laudable step on the path towards the recognition of the victim as an integral component of the criminal justice process, it is apparent that some important concerns may not be addressed. Particularly, it is unclear whether the VNS will provide offender court appearance information or simply trial dates. Additionally, with regards to "release-date" information, the question remains whether the VNS will have the ability to notify the victim of the bail release of an offender. For example, instances where an offender is arrested and released the next day by a Justice of the Peace without the knowledge of the victim are all too common. Understanding that one of the major information sources of the VNS will be the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Service's Offender Management System database, it is difficult to see how information on an offender released on bail will fall into the VNS, since during this process he is in police, not Ministry, custody.

The inability of government agencies tasked with protecting public safety to coordinate and share information amongst themselves will no doubt continue to pose problems in the future. The planning and implementation of a Victim Notification System are indicative of the need for an integrated and holistic information dispensing system that will empower the victim and concurrently function to increase public awareness and safety. It is CAVEAT's hope that the government of Ontario's plan is simply the precursor to such a larger, fully integrated system.

On June 10, 1996, the Ontario government unveiled plans to spend $10.2 million to expand victim services programs, including a telephone service enabling victims to find out the status of their court case. On the same day, the family of Michael Amann-Ewaschuk, who was stabbed to death three days earlier, sat in a courtroom waiting for the man accused of killing their son to make his slated appearance. They sat and waited half a day before finally discovering, much to their surprise, that the accused had been remanded the day before and would not be making an appearance until the following week. Apparently no one thought it necessary to ensure that the family was informed.
­ed.


Law Without Order?

It is senseless to advocate public safety without attempting to stem the anonymous flow of guns through our communities.

While most Canadians support gun control, there is sure to be opposition to the soon-to-be-implemented firearms regulations contained in Bill C 68. Here are the facts:

 

  • One woman is shot to death every five days in Canada.
  • Over 40% of women killed by their husbands are shot, and in 78% of those cases, with a legally-owned firearm. Registration would allow police responding to domestic disputes to remove every firearm from the premises before there is a shooting.
  • 300 people between the ages of 15 and 24 committed suicide in 1994 using a firearm usually easily accessible in the home.
  • An average of 1,400 Canadians die each year of gunshot wounds in suicides, murders and accidents. Over 1,000 are injured.
  • Rural areas have firearms homicide rates 50% to 100% higher than in small, medium or large cities, while non-firearm murder rates are comparable or lower.
  • Canada spends an estimated $60 million annually on medical and health care for firearm-related injuries. This figure does not include the cost of social services, pain and suffering, psychological trauma, loss of economic productivity, etc.
  • Every bullet on the shelf--bullets that will be fired at people--bullets that will be fired at targets--bullets that will simply sit in a dresser drawer or a glove compartment--every bullet on the shelf carries an injury price tag of $24.
  • Canada is one of the last western countries to have firearms registration.
  • Costs to gun owners will be minimal.
  • 47% of recovered firearms used in crime are rifles and shotguns, the vast majority of which were at one time legally owned. Safe storage incentives are lacking.

 


An Evening with CAVEAT...A Year Later

"You are making a difference," said John Scholtens, Mayor for the Township of Langley. "Safety and security are everyone's business and CAVEAT is raising this issue to the political level it deserves."
Scholtens was one of the many CAVEAT BC supporters in attendance at this year's fund raiser. The sold-out event featured dinner, a silent auction and entertainment by country and western singer Alyssa Nielsen.

Auction items, ranging from diamond rings to dinosaur-sized dog bones, were donated by local businesses. The mood was upbeat. "We've seen a tremendous increase in membership, support and recognition," said Master of Ceremonies Lillian Fuller. "As we reach further out into the community we find more and more people coming back to us saying, 'What can I do?'."

"The display of support CAVEAT BC has been given for Youth Challenge '96 provides a clear message that Canadians are ready to make a stand in the battle against violence," said speaker Shane Tuckey. "Today's youth are the key to a healthy tomorrow and the education of our young people is the one solution to violence that no one will disagree with," he said.

Tuckey, an RCMP member, is co-ordinating this project, which was the focus of the evening. Youth Challenge '96 will take place on October 21 at the Sheraton Guildford in Surrey and will involve more than 300 Lower Mainland secondary students. Among the volunteers planning the conference is a team of students from participating high schools. The line-up of workshops they've scheduled includes such topics as anger management, self esteem, date rape, and hate crimes.

"It is through participation in crime prevention conferences such as this that we empower our youth to make positive changes," said Tuckey. "They will make a difference."

"This year," he said, "we limited our numbers to 300 students and we already have more people interested than we can accommodate. With your support, we'll plan for a bigger conference next year." Youth Challenge '96 has been endorsed by all three of the local school districts and has the support of various community groups as well as local police departments and the Attorney General's office, youth division.

"Gotta face that cold hard wind with a heart like fire," sang Alyssa Nielsen to a rapt audience which included some of BC's most active victims­Dawn and Bill Bakeberg, Paul and Marilyn Cameron, Merv Duggan, and Chris and Sue Simmonds. All of them are parents who face an empty place at their table with the strength and courage to look beyond their own loss and work toward a safer future for others.

"In the words of Donna French," said Tuckey, "Taking violence out of society may seem like an overwhelming task but any job, when broken down into smaller tasks, can be accomplished."

"Canadians are rising to the task," he said.

 


Do you know a young person working to make a difference?

Here is an opportunity to recognize that deserving person, or persons, through CAVEAT's Youth Awards. Each year CAVEAT recognizes youth who have demonstrated a dedication to the prevention and elimination of violence. Nominations for the awards may be made from anywhere in Canada. Recipients from B.C. will receive their awards at this year's Youth Challenge conference on October 21st in Surrey, B.C., while others will receive their awards at a CAVEAT event in their area or by mail. Nominees must be 10-19 years of age, and will have worked towards the prevention of violence through an individual act and/or through involvement in a program or project aimed at helping to stop violence in their community.

Here's What To Do

 

  • Complete the Youth Award nomination form below;
  • Include reasons why you feel this individual(s) is
    deserving (2 pages maximum);
  • Ensure that the nominee has been notified; and
  • Mail or fax nominations to the nearest CAVEAT office.

Nominations must be received by September 30, 1996.


It's probable that the fine work many of our youth are doing towards the prevention and elimination of violence is not recognized or acknowledged frequently enough. Here's our chance to tell them that we appreciate their efforts. Send your nomination today!

 


10% Parole Failure Rate Doesn't Bother Criminology Prof

Criminology professor Julian Roberts' controversial statement regarding parole statistics prompted Chuck Cadman of CRY to write the following, July 20, 1996.

Re article: 10 % of paroled prisoners face new charges [15 murders, 15 attempted murders, 22 sexual assaults, 71 armed robberies] (Jim Morris­Canadian Press,Vancouver Sun, July 19, 1996).

University of Ottawa criminology professor, Julian Roberts, responded to this 10% figure from last year by saying, "These statistics don't bother me that much."

I'm glad that Prof. Roberts, isn't "bothered that much" by the fact that 15 families are grieving the violent death of a loved one or that 15 others came within a whisker of a similar fate. I'm glad that HE isn't "bothered that much" knowing that 22 victims of sexual assault may never function normally again. I'm glad that HE isn't "bothered that much" that the victims of 71 armed robberies might suffer anxiety or panic attacks every time a stranger approaches them for the rest of their days. He says, "If you're releasing thousands of people, one or two are going to go wrong." Well, possibly Professor Roberts will be "bothered" when one "goes wrong" in his home in the dead of night or at the corner store when he just happens to be purchasing a litre of milk.

It would appear as though SOME academics like Prof. Roberts have spent so long in their ivory towers with their heads buried in statistics and theories that they have lost touch with reality. One wonders if they really have any concept of the value or quality of human life anymore. What "bothers" me is the idea that it is the Prof. Roberts of this world to whom the lawmakers choose to listen.

One thing which should "bother" Prof. Roberts is the fact that, when the National Parole Board next rolls the dice, his or her loved ones' numbers have the same chance of coming up as does anybody else's.

 


Anti-violence Rally Held in Terrace, B.C.

On July 16, 1996, CAVEAT BC's Chris Simmonds and Lillian Fuller travelled to Terrace, B.C., to be keynote speakers at a Voices Against Violence rally. Over 700 people packed the local park and listened to speeches from the First Nations Peoples. Half way through the rally, a march through the main streets of Terrace was organized. The police co operated with the organizers by blocking off the side streets. The march was lead by the First Nations Dancers. BCTV, UTV and CBC were on hand to cover the event. Chris and Lillian were interviewed by the two local newspapers as well. Many valuable contacts within the First Nations people were made and it was impressed on them that CAVEAT can be their voice as well.

 


Inquiries and Inquests: Campbell Report Mandates Information Sharing, Again

A look at the judicial inquiry into the Bernardo investigation

 

This article is a cursory and preliminary examination of the Bernardo Investigation Review completed by Mr. Justice Archie Campbell. This lengthy report raises many other issues that are not addressed in the following article.

"All that was old is now new again" would be an apt slogan for the judicial inquiry into the Bernardo investigation. In mid-July, the Ontario government released the four hundred and seventy-three page result of Mr. Justice Archie Campbell's review of the investigations into Paul Bernardo­a review that illustrates some all too familiar holes within the criminal justice system.

Justice Campbell's inquiry is solid and his report does not mince words. Its chronological, almost novel-like analysis begins with the police's first, although unbeknownst, contact with the perpetrator during the Scarborough rape investigations. As time progresses, the report links together pieces of information in police hands during the investigations, which, in retrospect, pointed directly to Bernardo as a predator, a rapist, and a murderer. According to the report, errors such as disregarded tips, 'back-burnered' suspect DNA, lack of effective case management systems and miscommunication among police services, allowed Paul Bernardo to repeatedly slip through the fingers of the authorities.

Censure is heaped upon the system itself, and not specific component parts. The report's recommendations for improvement focus on systemic reforms: the mandatory use of violent crime databases, better cases management systems for investigations, unified police investigation teams and increased cooperation between different segments of the investigation process.

If one point can fairly sum up all that the report found wrong with the investigation system as it then existed, it would be the lack of effective communication­lack of communication between police forces, within police forces, between investigators and between the police and other government agencies. In reality, and in 20-20 retrospect, the state held all of the information it needed to expeditiously identify and stop the rapist and murderer Paul Bernardo. The problem, however, is that the state is not one coherent body, orchestrated and co-ordinated in movement. It is a patchwork of separate entities, each completing separate activities with separate goals and separate mandates. It is this shattering of the state into segregated resources that was and is its greatest weakness.

Recommendations to increase, facilitate and mandate inter-state agency communications in order to stem instances of systemic failure of the criminal justice system are nothing new. The repetition of these calls has become the hallmark of recent inquiries into deaths resulting from holes in the system. The best example of this comes from the Yeo inquest, which recommended that police services obtain and use information in the hands of other services and that a uniform retrieval system be implemented across the province for this purpose. Similarly, the Stephenson inquest recommended increased information sharing between police forces and parole authorities. The pattern is clearly demarcated and, in this light, the Campbell inquiry findings are simply an extension of the rule and not a serendipitous conclusion.

The question that must ultimately be posed, therefore, is how many inquests and inquiries do we need to hold in order to see the whole picture? Experience has shown that the solution is the same; it's simply the variables within the algebraic equation that change. This is not to say that future inquiries will not arise or raise important points to consider in this regard. Instead, it is submitted that all levels of government currently have the necessary framework with which to work in order to prevent the repetition of Yeo, Stephenson or Bernardo scenarios within other government agencies. In an age when the state has taken on regulatory roles in so many jurisdictions that directly impact on the security and safety of its citizenry (immigration, customs, corrections, parole, securities commissions, and policing), it would seem inane to suggest that these agencies should be allowed to function in their own vacuums. Public safety is the goal that must be addressed as a whole, not in compartmentalized sectors that are often oblivious to each others' activities.

A Campbell report summary is on the Internet at http://www.gov.on.ca/MBS/english/new/
Look for these Campbell report concerns in future issues of STOPWATCH: search warrants and the Charter presumption of minimal damage, the imperative role of the public in criminal investigations, and failings of the Anti-stalking provisions of the Criminal Code.


A Deal With the Devil?

Justice Patrick Galligan's recent inquiry into the Homolka deal has brought the whole issue of plea bargaining into the public spotlight. Plea bargaining, which many believe is a necessary component of the justice system, is a widespread practice that few outside the system understand.

Plea Bargaining:
What Is It?

Plea bargaining is a process of discussions between Crown counsel, the police, a defence counsel, and even a judge, leading to an agreement in which an accused person waives his right to a trial in return for Crown concessions.

Why Do We Have It?

The Benefits: Plea bargains result in quick convictions, thus alleviating the enormous costs associated with lengthy adversarial court proceedings and offsetting a serious backlog of cases in the courts. As such, plea bargaining has advantages for the Crown and for those charged with a crime. For example, a person charged with a serious crime may benefit from pleading guilty to a lesser crime by receiving the shorter sentence established for the lesser conviction. When a court procedure is circumvented in this way, an overburdened and perhaps underfunded system also wins.

The Drawbacks: Plea bargaining is a widespread practice that few outside the system understand. Many feel it undermines the true sense of justice that the system is supposed to embody. The biggest concerns regarding plea bargaining are its "apparent travesty of justice" and lack of support by a majority of Canadians. While some of the concessions granted to accused persons seem harmless, others can be particularly offensive. In return for a guilty plea, criminals have been granted lesser sentences, full immunity, protection, and financial or other benefits for testifying against a partner in crime.
Plea bargaining that is largely unregulated is a risky business that can clearly lead to abuses that hurt the accused, the victim and the public at large. For example, a plea bargain to a lesser charge that carries a shorter prison sentence will serve the interests of the accused, the Crown, the judge or the defence counsel, but it may not consider the importance of protection of the public as the paramount aspect of sentencing nor the accepted goals of retribution, denunciation, rehabilitation or deterrence in sentencing. Victims may be left in a state of bewilderment after a plea bargain has been agreed upon, if the process and the deal reached have not been clearly explained to them during the process. Victims have spoken of experiences of showing up in court only to be told that the case has been resolved. Part of the healing process often calls for their having their day in court.

Calls For Change?

At the recent trials of Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka, citizens were outraged with the plea bargain that saw Homolka receive a twelve year sentence for her part in the killings of Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French. The authorities claimed that based on the evidence they had at the time, Homolka's co-operation was essential in order to ensure a conviction in Bernardo's case. Without her evidence the Crown's case was weak. Nevertheless, members of the public were outraged at the lenient sentence which Homolka received when the facts surrounding the murders became public, and especially when her involvement in additional violent crimes became common knowledge. She stated that she 'forgot' some of the details, remembering them only through a dream after her memory had been jogged by police questioning. An angry group of citizens petitioned the government to overturn the plea bargain.

The conflict between plea bargaining and society's need to denounce crimes of violence must be reconciled. Every Canadian realizes that perfect justice is likely unattainable; nevertheless, they have every right to expect a system in which the operating professionals aspire to reach the perfect solution. Plea bargaining, particularly with regard to violent crime, must be reviewed and reformed to minimize any abuses inherent in the process.

The failure on the part of Crown to involve the victim in the plea bargaining process has removed a very important step in the healing process for the victim. Fortunately, because of more vocal demands by victims that they be recognized as part of the court process and as a result of greater sensitivity towards victims' needs, victims are being allowed increased participation in the process. This participation has provided empowerment and therapeutic benefits for the victim and has served public interest by lending a legitimacy to the practice through the victim's voice. Unfortunately, victim participation is still largely left to the discretion of the prosecutors. However, because the victim has involuntarily been made a part of the violent crime and has an important role to play in representing not only his own interests, but also those of the public, the victims' right to take part in the process must be nationally recognized and legally enforceable.

 


Youth Sentencing Disparities

The following article by Chuck Cadman of CRY (Crime, Responsibility & Youth) points out the shortcomings of sentencing of violent youth. Mr. Cadman's own son was murdered in 1992 by a young offender.

Two cases were recently concluded (pending appeal) in BC Supreme Court which clearly illustrate the shortcomings of the YOA as it pertains to violent offences.

In August of 1994, Steven Stark (18) and John Biniaris (15) killed 31 year-old Graham Niven in Coquitlam, BC. On the evidence, Stark grabbed Niven and spun him to the ground where he struck his head on the concrete. Pinning him with one arm, Stark delivered punches to the body with the other, at which point Biniaris joined in by stomping on Niven's head at least twice with such force that imprints of his shoe soles were still clearly visible on the victim's temple and forehead at his funeral some four or five days later. Last year, Stark was sentenced to life with no parole for at least 12 years for second degree murder. On June 17th this year, Biniaris was also convicted of second degree murder but, since he was 15-years-old at the time of the offence, his parole ineligibility period was set at 5 years­the minimum available to the judge under the YOA. Part of the learned(?) judge's reasoning­Biniaris has a loving family who visit him daily. Isn't that nice. I wonder if they visit Graham Niven's grave?

In March of 1995, Paul Spanevello (19) and Ryan Seddon (15) murdered Jeanne Richter (79), a frail widow, while robbing her Langley, B.C. home. Seddon came up with the robbery plot and targeted Mrs. Richter, a neighbour, because she was, in his words, "old and stupid". They knocked on her door and asked to use her phone to call a tow truck because their car had broken down, again, Seddon's idea. When Mrs. Richter opened the door, Spanevello punched her in the face. When she resisted and fought back, they spent the next twenty minutes or so beating her with their fists, feet, a frying pan which broke, a large saucepan and a small step ladder. They also stabbed her with a carving knife, a large two-pronged meat fork and attempted to strangle her with a telephone cord. The court was told that Seddon commented to the effect "this bitch doesn't die". They then left with two cameras, some liquor, some jewelry and cash. A couple of days later, knowing her body was still in the house, they returned to take her car but the crime had just been discovered and they fled at the sight of police cars.

Seddon was transferred to adult court. They were tried together and both were convicted of second degree murder and received life sentences. On June 27th of this year Spanevello's parole ineligibility was set at 15 years for which he thanked the judge for by gesturing to his groin and yelling out obscenities. That should look good on his appeal! The next day Seddon's parole ineligibility was set at 7 years­the maximum available to the judge under the YOA. The judge stated that, if it were in his power, he would have given Seddon precisely what he gave Spanevello.

While Stark and Spanevello certainly deserved everything they got, it is clear that Biniaris and Seddon were equally as, and arguably even more, predatory and violent than their older cohorts. Yet, through that concoction of bleeding heart drivel, the Young Offenders Act, they will get the opportunity to grace our communities with their presence in less than half the time. Let's not forget that these penalties were REDUCED to the current level by the December 1995 amendments to the YOA. Somehow it seems almost fitting that these sentences were handed down at precisely the same time that a 14- and 15-year-old were being charged with first degree murder for killing FOUR people in 100 Mile House, B.C. The Crown will apply to have them tried as adults. If they are, then they will be facing the same sentence­life with a maximum period of 7 years before parole eligibility. Is it any wonder why Canadians are fed up?

There is no restitution for murder. It is final; it is permanent; it is forever. For the survivors, it is lifelong hurt. Murder is murder and ALL who commit it must be treated equally before the law, regardless of their age. The imposition of lighter sanctions on cold-blooded killers for no other reason than a difference of a few years in age serves only to minimize their crimes. It is the same ivory tower thought process that gave us Section 745 which permits twisted predators to seek parole 10 years earlier than the law otherwise mandates. It comes from the same psychiatric bag of excuses that allows a voluntarily, self-administered, drug-induced altered mental state to be used as a defence for the most diabolical, vicious criminal behaviour. It reveals a system which shows more concern for its bottom feeders than it does for honest, law abiding citizens; a system which is prepared to roll the dice with the lives of women and children in order to protect the privacy of a predator. It flies in the face of the values that most Canadians adhere to.

Young offenders are transferred to adult court because they have committed serious, adult-like crimes of violence. In a growing number of cases, the savage brutality is beyond comprehension. They should lose ALL the protections afforded them under the YOA and face the same sanctions prescribed for adults. In all but first degree murder, judges can use discretion at sentencing to account for mitigating factors­but age alone should not be one of them.

(A youth sentencing chart accompanies this article in the printed version)



"If you dare to prey on our children, the law will follow you wherever you go..."

- President Clinton, May 17, 1996


The release of high-risk pedophiles into unsuspecting communities is an issue of great concern to many Canadians. Once pedophiles have served their sentence there is no recourse, under existing legislation, but to release even those who are judged by experts to be highly likely to re offend. Any post-sentence measures, including identification or some sort of supervision, are deemed to be unconstitutional by civil libertarians. Achieving a balance between the rights of the offender and the rights of the public is not easy. The United States has made a bold attempt to do so by passing the controversial Megan's Law.

A dramatic example of what can be achieved by a group of very determined people was recently shown when the U.S. signed into law Bill H.R. 2137, more commonly known as "Megan's Law." The bill requires all states to notify local law enforcement officials when a convicted sex offender moves into a neighbourhood and to make that information available to the community. It was passed unanimously by both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate, and signed into national law by the President on May 17, 1996.

The bill is named after 7-year-old Megan Kanka who was raped, sodomized, strangled with a belt and then suffocated with a plastic bag by a man living directly across the street from her­a man who twice before had been convicted of sexual offences, and who lived with two housemates who were themselves sexual predators.
Of course the neighbourhood knew nothing about this danger living amongst them.

In an inspiring example of channeling grief into action, Richard and Maureen Kanka built upon a grassroots campaign that had started immediately after Megan's murder. As Mrs. Kanka was returning home from identifying her daughter's body at the morgue she saw complete strangers circulating petitions that asked,"Where were Megan's rights? Where was her right to know?"

The New Jersey community in which the Kankas lived began a petition that resulted in 400,000 signatures in less than 2 months. Just 85 days after Megan's death, New Jersey passed one of the first laws requiring that communities be warned when a freed sex offender moves there.

In 1994, a federal crime bill was passed in the U.S. that included registration and tracking of convicted sexual offenders for 10 years, and the requirement that local law enforcement agencies be notified when offenders moved into their area. That law also permitted officials to notify communities that there was an offender in their midst. However, it did not make notification mandatory.

Megan's Law makes that notification compulsory. However, state and local law enforcement officials retain the substantial discretion to determine when community notification is called for, exactly what the community should be told, and how that information is to be released.

The U.S government has put into place a strong incentive for individual states to comply with the legislation. Under the bill, states that fail to comply could lose federal aid.

Megan's parents and Megan's brother, Jeremy, who is now age 7 himself, were present at the White House when the President signed the bill as were three other parents who have lost children under similar circumstances.

For Megan's mother the moment was the culmination of a 2-year struggle on behalf of the nation's vulnerable children. "This is basically putting the rights of children over (those of) offenders".

In spite of the concerns of civil libertarians that the law tramples on the constitutional rights of ex-convicts who already have paid their debt to society, that it will spur vigilante justice, and discourage sex offenders from seeking treatment, President Clinton states that the bill will be defended all the way to Supreme Court.

He addressed the issue of rights at the signing of the bill. ". . . We respect people's rights but today America proclaims that there is no greater right than a parent's right to raise a child in love and safety. Today America warns, 'If you dare to prey on our children, the law will follow you wherever you go, state to state, town to town'."

 


What Can One Person Do?

Angela Peters, a dedicated CAVEAT member, is proof that one person can make a difference. Angela, of Windsor, Ontario, is a victim who survived a brutal rape in 1988. The charge laid against her attacker was sexual assault causing bodily harm which means the crime involved significant violence and that Angela suffered not only emotionally, but physically as well.

Although the facts in her case are alarming, they are not unusual in our justice system. The rapist was on parole when he attacked Angela. He had been released a few weeks earlier from prison where he had been serving a sentence for a previous sexual assault. Moreover, he received only 6 1/2 years in prison despite the fact that his offence was punishable by a sentence of up to 10 years. Most disturbing was the fact that a psychiatric report found him to be at high risk of re-offending.

Angela Peters has not merely survived the brutal attack; she has triumphed over it to become an advocate for greater public safety, justice reform and victims' rights. She became a valued member of CAVEAT in 1992 to further those goals.

To that end, Angela has served as a delegate to SafetyNet, CAVEAT's national conference on public safety, crime prevention and justice reform. She has been persistent in her efforts to present the SafetyNet Final Report in person to both provincial and federal officials in her area. Angela arranged a meeting with Herb Gray, Windsor West MP and Solicitor General of Canada, as well as Windsor area MPs Shaughnessy Cohen and Susan Whelan. All MPs stated that they would review the recommendations and addressed the timeliness of Angela's presentation as Ms. Cohen has been appointed Chair of the National Justice Committee.

Angela has also been meeting one-on-one with provincial politicians to present the SafetyNet conference results.

She has been a contributor to the editorial page of the Windsor Star, and, at the special request of the Crown's office and the Victim Witness Program, was featured in a full-page article regarding plea bargaining. In true advocate fashion, Angela agreed to do the interview only with the understanding that the newspaper give CAVEAT and SafetyNet coverage as well.

Angela's energy and tenacity are an example of someone working to make a difference. In Angela's words, "We are willing to work diligently and collectively toward making our country's treasured freedom more balanced and just."

 


Parole Rolls the Dice, And Everybody Loses, Again


The dangerous game played daily by the National Parole Board was again revealed when two paroled murderers, both with outstanding arrest warrants for parole violations, were charged with the attempted murder of a Toronto real estate agent in early July, 1996.

John Lyman Kehoe, 47, was convicted of two counts of murder for the deaths of his two daughters in 1972. In 1981 Kehoe was charged with being unlawfully at large after walking away from an escorted temporary absence. He received day parole in 1985 and was freed on mandatory release in 1986. At the time of the attempted murder he was subject to outstanding warrants for parole violations, assault and weapons charges.

Edward Samuel Schwartz, 57, was convicted of non-capital murder in British Columbia in 1973. After serving time with Kehoe in Warkworth Correctional Facility, Schwartz was day paroled in 1985, and received full parole in 1986, along with Kehoe. The hunt for Schwartz was hampered by the fact that the most recent picture Corrections had of the offender was ten years old. At the time of the attempted murder Schwartz was also wanted for violating his parole conditions.

Some academics suggest that the current failure rate of parole, which sees 10% of parolees committing violent crimes, is statistically acceptable and a fair expectation of the system. However, as this ivory tower rhetoric subjugates the safety of the law-abiding members of society, Kehoe and Schwartz wait to join the ranks of Ezra Dobbs, Harvey Ilg, John Hutton and other so-called "acceptable" parole failures.

 


NEWSWATCH

A New Halton Police Initiative
Burlington, Ontario


On June 19, CAVEAT, along with other interested members of the community, took part in a public forum on crime prevention organized by the Halton Regional Police Service. The purpose of the workshop was to involve the public in discussions on crime (both the perception and the reality) and to promote a community-police partnership committed to public safety.

Both the police and the public are concerned about the increasing number of auto thefts and break-and-enters in the region­most committed by young offenders.The police are looking at new ways to respond to crime and they want the public's help in developing new crime response strategies.

Youth crime was of particular concern to those in attendance and they had numerous ideas for dealing with young offenders. Publishing the names of young criminals and harsher punishment were seen as solutions by some, while other suggestions ranged from curfews to bootcamps. Early intervention and the availability of parenting programs were recognized as being an important part of any crime prevention strategy.

A few weeks later, as a result of the community support shown for the idea at the workshop, police announced that a new program for parents of young offenders may soon be offered. Concerned parents would be taught skills and techniques to use to break the cycle of their children's criminal behaviour.

The Halton police should be commended for the initiative they have shown in involving the community in public discussions on crime prevention.


Bike Racks Mean Business
Calgary, Alberta


A unique inmate training program has been developed as a joint project of Alberta Justice, the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology (SAIT), the Federation of Calgary Communities and the Calgary Police Service.

Inmates from the Calgary Correction Centre are making bike racks for sale to Calgary businesses and community facilities. Half the proceeds go to Calgary community associations for crime prevention programs and the other half covers materials and other program costs.

The benefits of the initiative are various:

  • Inmates learn welding skills from SAIT instructors.
  • Businesses and community facilities receive a well-made product for a reasonable price.
  • Community groups raise funds for local crime prevention programs and youth initiatives.
  • Alberta Justice gains a useful program that provides inmates with marketable skills.



(Alberta Justice Department
News Release, July 2, 1996)


Upcoming Events

CAVEAT Day at the du Maurier Open, August 19, 1996, Toronto, Ontario


Join us for an exciting day of world class tennis at the National Tennis Centre, York University. Meet some of the ATP Tour players at a special marquee reception for CAVEAT guests. Tickets are $7.50 each or $20 each for special seating. Day and/or evening tickets available. To order your tickets or for more information, call CAVEAT at 905-632-1733.


CAVEAT Youth Challenge 1996, October 21, Surrey, B.C.


CAVEAT BC will host this year's violence prevention conference for students. As part of the conference, selected students will receive CAVEAT Youth Awards. Have you sent in your nomination form yet? See page 3 for details.

 


CAVEAT's New Gift Catalogue


We are about to embark on a new fund-raising project that will benefit both CAVEAT and the many Canadian artists, craftsmen and home business people who believe in CAVEAT's goals.

We are hoping to have available by Fall '96, a top-notch gift catalogue to be mailed right across Canada. Incredibly, just by word of mouth, the response from potential suppliers has been tremendous.

Our gift catalogue will have limited edition prints, fleece clothing, jewellery, personalized shirts, photographic reprints, hand-painted stationery, mini-prints, jewelled boxes, scarves, appliqued shawls ... and lots more.

Talented people from across Canada will have the opportunity to sell their products through our catalogue and all of us will be winners!

We are looking to include items which will be interesting, unique, reasonably priced and easy to ship. Perhaps you or someone you know would be more than thrilled to be part of this project. Let us know right away. Call, fax or write to Maddy at CAVEAT, Burlington, Ontario. Include as many details as possible. We will follow up on your leads. And next year, we will be saying, "Thank you for shopping at CAVEAT!"





[Back]
[Home]

Web Hosting by