• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Poor Karla!

Jas

Illuminator
J
Joined
Jan 2, 2004
Messages
3,833
link to article

"As far as I know, nothing has been done to safeguard my security after my release from prison, and the thought of being relentlessly pursued, hunted down and followed when I won't have any protection makes me fear for my life."
Click to expand...

I don't know about you, but for me, Karla Homolka's personal safety is at the top of the list of my priorities.

:rolleyes:
 
If being hunted down and followed is the only thing that happens, she should count herself fortunate.
 
It's probably cramping her style when trolling for young girls ...

Charlie (young women of Quebec, beware!) Monoxide
 
I guess that's one of downsides of raping and killing teenaged girls. Society tends to hold a grudge even after jail time has been served.

I feel so bad for Karla. Boo hoo. Boo hoo hoo.
 
This will sound weird given my deep loathing of both of them, but I think Paul Bernardo should be allowed to have his say, if not by press conference than a written press release. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems Clifford Olson and even Karla are able to issue statements, why not Bernardo?

As for her safety, well....I can't even begin to think about this without feeling physically ill.
 
Just read about the case. How horrible! Leave them alone? I think they should do Texas style justice and post a sign her front yard stating what she had done.
 
Badger said:
I guess that's one of downsides of raping and killing teenaged girls. Society tends to hold a grudge even after jail time has been served.

I feel so bad for Karla. Boo hoo. Boo hoo hoo.
Click to expand...

Quoted for truth.
 
Thank goodness!

A Quebec judge has turned down Karla Homolka's request for an injunction that would have prohibited the media from telling certain details about her life after she's released from prison.
Click to expand...

Bellavance also agreed with an argument made by the media outlets, saying the public has a right to know Homolka's location because of the severity of her crimes and because another court earlier ruled that she could still be dangerous.
Click to expand...

from here


I can't believe she might be released as soon as tomorrow.
 
Badger said:
Society tends to hold a grudge even after jail time has been served.
Click to expand...

Which is why we can't have vigilantism.

Since she has served her time, and is now free, does she not deserve the exact same protection as all others?
 
CFLarsen said:
Which is why we can't have vigilantism.

Since she has served her time, and is now free, does she not deserve the exact same protection as all others?
Click to expand...
Yes, she does. What she is asking for is protections that no one else gets.
 
CFLarsen said:
Because she obviously needs it.
Click to expand...
That is an assessment that should be made by the courts and the police. The courts decided she didn't obviously need it.
 
Donks said:
That is an assessment that should be made by the courts and the police. The courts decided she didn't obviously need it.
Click to expand...

Where did you read that the courts had reached a decision?

Not from the article mentioned in the OP, that's for sure.
 
CFLarsen said:
Because she obviously needs it.
Click to expand...

She brought that need upon herself; you know, she didn´t HAVE to commit those crimes.

Besides, in this case the need for protection of the general population IMHO outweighs the need to protect one person.
 
CFLarsen said:
Where did you read that the courts had reached a decision?

Not from the article mentioned in the OP, that's for sure.
Click to expand...
Nope. I read the post right above your first post in the thread.

Edit: Took out a remark and tone that was uncalled for. Sorry Larsen.
 
Ah, thanks.

Bellavance also agreed with an argument made by the media outlets, saying the public has a right to know Homolka's location because of the severity of her crimes and because another court earlier ruled that she could still be dangerous.
Click to expand...

That's a very interesting statement. The judge is basically saying that the public has a right to know where she is, because a court has ruled that she could be dangerous.

If that isn't an invitation from the law to harm her, I don't know what is.

How can a court rule that someone could be dangerous? Is that what a legal sentence is? You are not guilty of a crime, but we have the law's ruling that you could be dangerous?

The whole guilty vs. not guilty idea goes out the window.
 
At least two canadian provinces offer sex offender registry and community notification, so it's not unheard of to consider that someone who has been convicted of sexually related crimes still poses a danger after release.
 
I'm also perplexed by this idea that a court has said she could still be a danger and yet she is being released?

Why is she being released if she is still considered a danger?
 
CFLarsen said:
How can a court rule that someone could be dangerous? Is that what a legal sentence is? You are not guilty of a crime, but we have the law's ruling that you could be dangerous?

The whole guilty vs. not guilty idea goes out the window.
Click to expand...

I guess sometimes systems fail and even courts just have to admit it.

It would obviously be better if the penal system never generated unfortunate results, but it's not obvious to me that it is always best to pretend that the penal system never gets in wrong. Homolka strikes me as an unambiguous case of a person who should be in prison for life if anyone should.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom