Bernardo and Hamolka (Serial Killers & Rapists)

[Jolly_Penguin]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toro...le-pitch-after-25-years-behind-bars-1.4866556

ernardo is serving a life sentence for the kidnapping, rapes and first-degree murders of two teen girls in the early 1990s and two counts of aggravated sexual assault.

The designated dangerous offender has been eligible for full parole since February, having served 25 years behind bars.

"What I did was so dreadful. I hurt a lot of people," Bernardo told parole board member Suzanne Poirier during the hearing in Bath, Ont. "I cry all the time."

Poirier said that to the parole board, Bernardo's empathy seemed to be recent.

Bernardo's crimes over several years in the late 1980s and early 1990s, some of which he videotaped, sparked widespread terror and revulsion.

Among them, Bernardo and his then-wife Karla Homolka kidnapped, tortured and killed Leslie Mahaffy, 14, of Burlington, Ont., in June 1991 at their home in Port Dalhousie, Ont., before dismembering her body, encasing her remains in cement and dumping them in a nearby lake.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4ftNBvqzf8[/youtube]

After 25 years in jail, this serial killer/rapist, Paul Bernardo, is claiming to have improved himself and is requesting parole.

He has admitted to his crimes, which include the torture and encasing in cement of a neighbour of mine at the time, as well as other rapes and murders. Yes, men did object to this, caught him and put him behind bars. His accomplice, and girlfriend at the time, Karla Hamolka was released long long ago. One of their victims was Hamolka's own sister. She drugged her and video later showed her engaged in forced sexual acts with her along with Bernardo, and her encouraging him and telling him what to do to their victims.

A guest speaker at our law school was the defence lawyer for Hamolka. He spoke to us about a decade after the trials. He described the difficulty he faced when she revealed to him the existence of a video tape that they filmed some of the torture on, that showed her not being forced by Bernardo to go along with things, but egging him on, instructing him, and participating with him. He described the ethics issues he faced in whether or not he should reveal this information to the crown prosecutors. He did what a criminal defence lawyer is sworn to do and didn't tell. He struggled with it for years afterwards and was only able to speak about it after the tape was otherwise revealed. He could have revealed it by anonymous tip. He swore he didn't. This story had a heavy impact on everyone in our class.

What are your thoughts on Bernardo? On Hamolka? On this defence lawyer?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

In terms of not handing over the tape, that's an interesting question. The prosecution would need to do so, of course, since their duty (theoretically) is to see that justice is properly served, but the defence attorney's job is to protect his client. A client needs to be able to trust his lawyer and be able to give them as many details and as much information as possible so as to allow that lawyer to craft the best defence possible, so even taking it to the extreme which happened in this case is the lesser of two evils, IMHO.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

In terms of not handing over the tape, that's an interesting question. The prosecution would need to do so, of course, since their duty (theoretically) is to see that justice is properly served, but the defence attorney's job is to protect his client. A client needs to be able to trust his lawyer and be able to give them as many details and as much information as possible so as to allow that lawyer to craft the best defence possible, so even taking it to the extreme which happened in this case is the lesser of two evils, IMHO.

I agree. And this story and the obvious toll it took on this defence lawyer, is one of the key reasons I never have and never will practice criminal law. The other was the story of a retired crown prosecutor who had successfully put an innocent man in jail for 20 years, before DNA evidence overturned the conviction. That's quite a stress minefield of a job on either side.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I agree. And this story and the obvious toll it took on this defence lawyer, is one of the key reasons I never have and never will practice criminal law. The other was the story of a retired crown prosecutor who had successfully put an innocent man in jail for 20 years, before DNA evidence overturned the conviction. That's quite a stress minefield of a job on either side.

The reason I've never practiced criminal law is because I'm lazy and selfish, so I wouldn't care about my client or do a good job for him, which would limit my career options to being a public defender in Texas and that place gets really hot during the summer so I don't want to live there.

Going back to the OP, I think that there's a zero percent chance of Bernardo getting parole. He could have spent the last 25 years curing cancer in puppies and still nobody on the parole board would ever want to be known as the guy who voted for his release. They're legally obligated to sit there and listen to him bullshit for an afternoon, but that's where things end.

Hamolka was a travesty of justice. She also should have spent a lifetime behind bars but absent the evidence on the video tape, she was able to successfully sell herself as a victim and got off with a reduced sentence. It annoys me that Hell isn't real because she's someone who clearly deserves an eternity of pain and suffering.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I have decent Canada IQ, but am not familiar with this story. Not certain why. Regardless, it is really hard to support parole based on this part of the article.

Among them, Bernardo and his then-wife Karla Homolka kidnapped, tortured and killed Leslie Mahaffy, 14, of Burlington, Ont., in June 1991 at their home in Port Dalhousie, Ont., before dismembering her body, encasing her remains in cement and dumping them in a nearby lake.

The crucial words that really make it tough is "among them". As in, what follows was an example, not the only crime.

Prison is supposed to rehabilitate citizens so they can go back into society in addition to paying a price of their life to society. But it gets to a certain point where crimes become so egregious and horrendous that you just want them to remain in jail because there is no way they can ever pay back to society what they stole.

In my opinion, a person that committed these crimes and was truly rehabilitated would likely come to the conclusion they don't deserve to ever be put on parole.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Hamolka was a travesty of justice. She also should have spent a lifetime behind bars but absent the evidence on the video tape, she was able to successfully sell herself as a victim and got off with a reduced sentence. It annoys me that Hell isn't real because she's someone who clearly deserves an eternity of pain and suffering.

Another point about Hamolka is that she has since had her own children. I wonder if they are in danger from those who learn about who their mother is and are retribution minded. And as recently as last year, she was volunteering at their school, with other children. That's pretty messed up.

 

[TSwizzle]

In terms of not handing over the tape, that's an interesting question. The prosecution would need to do so, of course, since their duty (theoretically) is to see that justice is properly served, but the defence attorney's job is to protect his client. A client needs to be able to trust his lawyer and be able to give them as many details and as much information as possible so as to allow that lawyer to craft the best defence possible, so even taking it to the extreme which happened in this case is the lesser of two evils, IMHO.

I think the defense attorney should have handed the tape over. This is something I don't like about the "justice system". It sometimes isn't about justice, as in this case. The defense attorney must have had some sleepless nights. I don't know how he kept a lid on that one.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

She was convicted of raping and murdering a 14 year old girl. Even if she’s served her time, isn’t there some rule about her not being allowed around schools?

If not, there kind of should be.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

She was convicted of raping and murdering a 14 year old girl. Even if she’s served her time, isn’t there some rule about her not being allowed around schools?

If not, there kind of should be.

There was. A judge lifted the restriction. I have no idea why. It only came to light in 2017 that she was volunteering (not full time) at a school. Once it hit the news, the school banned her from it. But still, this somehow happened....

 

[Deepak]

She was convicted of raping and murdering a 14 year old girl. Even if she’s served her time, isn’t there some rule about her not being allowed around schools?

If not, there kind of should be.

I remember reading about this when the articles about her volunteering at the school first came out. She wasn't actually convicted of either rape or murder - her plea bargain was for two counts of manslaughter which would not prevent her from volunteering at the school. The bargain was agreed to before the release of the tapes and they couldn't renege on the agreement when the tapes did eventually get released.

EDIT: Did some reading and she was restricted from contact with minors and this was rescinded by an Ontario judge as Jolly noted. https://web.archive.org/web/2008020...canada/national/2005/11/30/homolka051130.html

 

[bilby]

If she hasn't re-offended, doesn't that imply that her sentence was not, in fact, too short? What benefit arises from keeping her (or him, for that matter) in jail, unless to prevent them from committing further crimes?

Whether to release him on parole is a question for the parole board, but surely their primary criterion is their assessment of the likelihood of his committing further crimes if released. I can understand how they might not want to take that risk.

Sure, a long sentence might also be a deterrent to others - but surely anyone thinking of committing such an offense is not going to be deterred by the idea that they might spend 30 years in prison, but at the same time be OK with spending 25 years inside.

 

[J842P]

In terms of not handing over the tape, that's an interesting question. The prosecution would need to do so, of course, since their duty (theoretically) is to see that justice is properly served, but the defence attorney's job is to protect his client. A client needs to be able to trust his lawyer and be able to give them as many details and as much information as possible so as to allow that lawyer to craft the best defence possible, so even taking it to the extreme which happened in this case is the lesser of two evils, IMHO.

I think the defense attorney should have handed the tape over. This is something I don't like about the "justice system". It sometimes isn't about justice, as in this case. The defense attorney must have had some sleepless nights. I don't know how he kept a lid on that one.

Yes, clearly he failed ethically.

- - - Updated - - -

If she hasn't re-offended, doesn't that imply that her sentence was not, in fact, too short? What benefit arises from keeping her (or him, for that matter) in jail, unless to prevent them from committing further crimes?

Whether to release him on parole is a question for the parole board, but surely their primary criterion is their assessment of the likelihood of his committing further crimes if released. I can understand how they might not want to take that risk.

Sure, a long sentence might also be a deterrent to others - but surely anyone thinking of committing such an offense is not going to be deterred by the idea that they might spend 30 years in prison, but at the same time be OK with spending 25 years inside.

For retribution.

 

[bilby]

Yes, clearly he failed ethically.

- - - Updated - - -

If she hasn't re-offended, doesn't that imply that her sentence was not, in fact, too short? What benefit arises from keeping her (or him, for that matter) in jail, unless to prevent them from committing further crimes?

Whether to release him on parole is a question for the parole board, but surely their primary criterion is their assessment of the likelihood of his committing further crimes if released. I can understand how they might not want to take that risk.

Sure, a long sentence might also be a deterrent to others - but surely anyone thinking of committing such an offense is not going to be deterred by the idea that they might spend 30 years in prison, but at the same time be OK with spending 25 years inside.

For retribution.

To what end?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

To what end?

To discourage others. And to prevent her from re-offending. Hindsight is 20/20, but they had good reason to believe then that she was likely to re-offend. Bernardo wasn't her only killer boyfriend.

Your question makes me curious though. If somebody raped your sister, the police declined to charge him, but he never reoffended, do you think that mean the police made the right call?

 

[bilby]

To what end?

To discourage others.

I already explained why this is not relevant.

And to prevent her from re-offending. Hindsight is 20/20, but they had good reason to believe then that she was likely to re-offend.

Hence my question - has she? If not, doesn't that suggest that their assessment may have been flawed?

Bernardo wasn't her only killer boyfriend.

Your question makes me curious though. If somebody raped your sister, the police declined to charge him, but he never reoffended, do you think that mean the police made the right call?

No. There's a HUGE difference between not charging someone; and charging, trying, convicting and imprisoning them, and then releasing them on parole after 25 years rather than keeping them locked up for 30+ years.

And of course, one of the primary purposes of the criminal justice system is remove the personal element from the actions taken against offenders. A policeman or judge whose sister was the victim would be expected to remove themselves from the case, and to allow it to be investigated and tried by people without a personal involvement.

Rapists should not receive greater or lesser punishments based on whose relatives they chose as victims.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

No. There's a HUGE difference between not charging someone; and charging, trying, convicting and imprisoning them, and then releasing them on parole after 25 years rather than keeping them locked up for 30+ years.

It is Bernardo who has been in jail for 25 years. Hamolka was for far less. And nonetheless, I don't see the huge difference. If your focus for the criminal justice system is to prevent repeat offenders, then why jail people at all if you are reasonably sure they won't reoffend?

There are other bases for the criminal justice sentencing, and another big one often raised is deterence. They want to make an example of criminals to show society (and other criminals) that the law has teeth.

I personally don't support punishment for vengeance etc, but that is another common reason given. Victim impact statements seem to focus on that. He really hurt somebody, so he should suffer, etc.

Rapists should not receive greater or lesser punishments based on whose relatives they chose as victims.

Agreed.

 

[bilby]

No. There's a HUGE difference between not charging someone; and charging, trying, convicting and imprisoning them, and then releasing them on parole after 25 years rather than keeping them locked up for 30+ years.

It is Bernardo who has been in jail for 25 years. Hamolka was for far less. And nonetheless, I don't see the huge difference. If your focus for the criminal justice system is to prevent repeat offenders, then why jail people at all if you are reasonably sure they won't reoffend?

Indeed. That seems like a gross waste of resources on a number of levels.

There are other bases for the criminal justice sentencing, and another big one often raised is deterence. They want to make an example of criminals to show society (and other criminals) that the law has teeth.

Sure. But seriously, how much more of a deterrent is 30 years in jail than 10? If the idea of losing the next decade of your life isn't stopping you, why would losing three decades be any different?

I personally don't support punishment for vengeance etc, but that is another common reason given. Victim impact statements seem to focus on that. He really hurt somebody, so he should suffer, etc.

Yes. I agree, it's not a good reason, and as you don't support it, we need not discuss why.

Rapists should not receive greater or lesser punishments based on whose relatives they chose as victims.

Agreed.

The purpose of the system is to physically restrain those who would re-offend, until such time as they change their minds; To deter others from offending; And to deter victims of crime from embarking on vendettas.

Any imprisonment term beyond what is needed to meet those objectives is a waste of resources.

 

[J842P]

Yes, clearly he failed ethically.

- - - Updated - - -

If she hasn't re-offended, doesn't that imply that her sentence was not, in fact, too short? What benefit arises from keeping her (or him, for that matter) in jail, unless to prevent them from committing further crimes?

Whether to release him on parole is a question for the parole board, but surely their primary criterion is their assessment of the likelihood of his committing further crimes if released. I can understand how they might not want to take that risk.

Sure, a long sentence might also be a deterrent to others - but surely anyone thinking of committing such an offense is not going to be deterred by the idea that they might spend 30 years in prison, but at the same time be OK with spending 25 years inside.

For retribution.

To what end?

The retribution is an end onto itself.

But look, if you want some sort of pragmatic reason, then you have to accept that it is a fundamental aspect of human psychology to desire retribution when you have been wronged. The purpose of a justice system is to prevent us from descending into clannish blood feuds. We have decided to allow the state to take these sorts of matters out of the hands of individuals for the greater good. It's a balancing act for sure. But letting off someone after there exists clear evidence that they raped, tortured, and murdered a fifteen year old for fun simply serves to delegitimize the function of the state as an arbiter in these matters.

If this victim had been my sister, I would have made it my life's goal to find and kill this woman. And I would happily plead guilty and do the time for it.

Look, I think people who have lived there whole lives in first-world countries with more-or-less functioning governments don't really appreciate how easily everything can descend into utter chaos. If you remove the retribution element from the justice system, I think that only serves to delegitimize the system pushes us closer towards chaos. That may stem from a fundamentally pessimistic view of human nature, and I may be wrong. Call me crazy, but if you rape, torture, and murder someone, I don't think you should ever be allowed out of a prison for the rest of your natural life.

No. There's a HUGE difference between not charging someone; and charging, trying, convicting and imprisoning them, and then releasing them on parole after 25 years rather than keeping them locked up for 30+ years.

I don't think this adequately deals with JP's question. Look, you claimed that the fact she hasn't re-offended sort of shows that the sentence was enough. But using that same logic, if she didn't receive any jail time at all, and didn't end up re-offending, then would you agree that she ought not have gone to jail at all?

 

[Axulus]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toro...le-pitch-after-25-years-behind-bars-1.4866556

ernardo is serving a life sentence for the kidnapping, rapes and first-degree murders of two teen girls in the early 1990s and two counts of aggravated sexual assault.

The designated dangerous offender has been eligible for full parole since February, having served 25 years behind bars.

"What I did was so dreadful. I hurt a lot of people," Bernardo told parole board member Suzanne Poirier during the hearing in Bath, Ont. "I cry all the time."

Poirier said that to the parole board, Bernardo's empathy seemed to be recent.

Bernardo's crimes over several years in the late 1980s and early 1990s, some of which he videotaped, sparked widespread terror and revulsion.

Among them, Bernardo and his then-wife Karla Homolka kidnapped, tortured and killed Leslie Mahaffy, 14, of Burlington, Ont., in June 1991 at their home in Port Dalhousie, Ont., before dismembering her body, encasing her remains in cement and dumping them in a nearby lake.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4ftNBvqzf8[/youtube]

After 25 years in jail, this serial killer/rapist, Paul Bernardo, is claiming to have improved himself and is requesting parole.

He has admitted to his crimes, which include the torture and encasing in cement of a neighbour of mine at the time, as well as other rapes and murders. Yes, men did object to this, caught him and put him behind bars. His accomplice, and girlfriend at the time, Karla Hamolka was released long long ago. One of their victims was Hamolka's own sister. She drugged her and video later showed her engaged in forced sexual acts with her along with Bernardo, and her encouraging him and telling him what to do to their victims.

A guest speaker at our law school was the defence lawyer for Hamolka. He spoke to us about a decade after the trials. He described the difficulty he faced when she revealed to him the existence of a video tape that they filmed some of the torture on, that showed her not being forced by Bernardo to go along with things, but egging him on, instructing him, and participating with him. He described the ethics issues he faced in whether or not he should reveal this information to the crown prosecutors. He did what a criminal defence lawyer is sworn to do and didn't tell. He struggled with it for years afterwards and was only able to speak about it after the tape was otherwise revealed. He could have revealed it by anonymous tip. He swore he didn't. This story had a heavy impact on everyone in our class.

What are your thoughts on Bernardo? On Hamolka? On this defence lawyer?

My thoughts on the defense lawyer: don't leak information on the tape, but resign from the case.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If she hasn't re-offended, doesn't that imply that her sentence was not, in fact, too short? What benefit arises from keeping her (or him, for that matter) in jail, unless to prevent them from committing further crimes?

Whether to release him on parole is a question for the parole board, but surely their primary criterion is their assessment of the likelihood of his committing further crimes if released. I can understand how they might not want to take that risk.

Sure, a long sentence might also be a deterrent to others - but surely anyone thinking of committing such an offense is not going to be deterred by the idea that they might spend 30 years in prison, but at the same time be OK with spending 25 years inside.

It is about rehab and payment back to the society, literally trading a piece of your life for your crime.