joelcairo said:
The thing is this: you aren't talking about revenge, you're talking about vigilante justice. What's next? Go after the judges who didn't give her a stiff enough sentence? The police who did their job so poorly? Where does it stop?
Karla Homolka in Montreal ??
- Thread starter gohabsgo
- Start date
The thing is this: you aren't talking about revenge, you're talking about vigilante justice. What's next? Go after the judges who didn't give her a stiff enough sentence? The police who did their job so poorly? Where does it stop?
Techman: As is so often the case, you are the voice of reason on this board. I was never advocating vigilante justice in my original post, just making the observation that she did get off easy when you consider what she did. I am particularly sensitive to vigilante justice, as I witnessed it first-hand so many times, a world away - you steal a pair of shoes, you die on the street at the hands of so many vigilantes.Techman said:
Chef, I agree with you completely about the fact that she got off easy. Unfortunately, there is nothing that can be done about it now under our legal system. What has to be done is to make sure that the same thing never happens again...that criminals get the punishment they deserve for the crimes they commit.
Homolka should be left to fade into history and her child deserves the chance to live without his mother's past crimes hanging over his head.
Homolka should be left to fade into history and her child deserves the chance to live without his mother's past crimes hanging over his head.
I agree with you Techman, she should be allowed to have a life and there's no justification her child have to face that type of circus.
Did she got off easy? I think so. But, our society (Judge and Jury) found her guilty and she got what is considered, legally, as a fair sentence. Whatever we agree with it or not is irrelevant. There's nothing we can do about this. Without the deal, Bernardo, who was the mastermind, could still be around.
If peoples keep pushing her to be marginal, she will stay marginal and it's way easier for her to relapse or do something else stupid if she is marginalized, because of all the stress she will have to deal with. Some will say "yhea but her victims didn't get a chance!" True but what's done is done. Now, if she can become a productive part of society, why not let her a shot at it? You can bet this child will be watched for abuse by everybody around her and if anything remotly suspect happens, Karla will get "flagged".
Did she got off easy? I think so. But, our society (Judge and Jury) found her guilty and she got what is considered, legally, as a fair sentence. Whatever we agree with it or not is irrelevant. There's nothing we can do about this. Without the deal, Bernardo, who was the mastermind, could still be around.
If peoples keep pushing her to be marginal, she will stay marginal and it's way easier for her to relapse or do something else stupid if she is marginalized, because of all the stress she will have to deal with. Some will say "yhea but her victims didn't get a chance!" True but what's done is done. Now, if she can become a productive part of society, why not let her a shot at it? You can bet this child will be watched for abuse by everybody around her and if anything remotly suspect happens, Karla will get "flagged".
Last edited:
Hu?? Techman said:
Vigilante justice = bad, but sane, sober, controlled revenge = good. And as for the cops and judges, ineptitude requires correction, not revenge. It is only premeditated evil that requires revenge. The minions of the legal system were not evil, just incompetent whereas Karla was evil pure and simple.
joelcairo said:
Where do you get off asking for revenge? What did she do to you personally?
The fact of the matter is that you do not have the right to ask for or to exact revenge. She didn't do anything to you or your family. The only ones who have any right to cry out for, or seek revenge are the families of the victims and they have never done so. All they have ever wanted was justice and the fact that they feel justice was not done is not the fault of Karla Homolka, it is the fault of the system. Accept it and get over it.
See, Techman, here's the problem: even a reasonably bright guy like you starts to lose a little of his logic when he becomes emotional (viz: your most recent post here). To your credit, the only other time I noticed this lapse was when you were adamantly defending what you perceived to be the "rights" of smokers.
In this instance, if you reread my original post on the current subject, you will note that I said I disagreed with your last sentence (which was "I don't believe in revenge"). This is a philosophical belief and does not apply only to poor misunderstood Karla so your comments about my "asking for revenge" are sadly inappropriate.
The other fallacy in your emotional response, Techman, is when you state that "the only ones who have any right...are the families of the victims..." Problem # 1 with your fuzzy logic is that the DEAD VICTIMS might also have that "right" but they can't exercise it because they are DEAD. Problem # 2 is that "justice" (ha ha) should be universal and should not be different strokes for different folks depending on what the VICTIM'S surviving relatives happen to think! For example: A and B are both sexually assaulted, tortured and killed. A's survivors don't believe in revenge but B's do. According to your emotional response, A should get off more lightly, which is freakin ridiculous.
By the way I think a fairly well-known book says something about an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but then again that's the King James version, not the Techman one so I guess it doesn't count. So Techman, relax, have a smoke (but please not in a public place) and pray that you and your loved ones are never the victim of a violent crime.
In this instance, if you reread my original post on the current subject, you will note that I said I disagreed with your last sentence (which was "I don't believe in revenge"). This is a philosophical belief and does not apply only to poor misunderstood Karla so your comments about my "asking for revenge" are sadly inappropriate.
The other fallacy in your emotional response, Techman, is when you state that "the only ones who have any right...are the families of the victims..." Problem # 1 with your fuzzy logic is that the DEAD VICTIMS might also have that "right" but they can't exercise it because they are DEAD. Problem # 2 is that "justice" (ha ha) should be universal and should not be different strokes for different folks depending on what the VICTIM'S surviving relatives happen to think! For example: A and B are both sexually assaulted, tortured and killed. A's survivors don't believe in revenge but B's do. According to your emotional response, A should get off more lightly, which is freakin ridiculous.
By the way I think a fairly well-known book says something about an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but then again that's the King James version, not the Techman one so I guess it doesn't count. So Techman, relax, have a smoke (but please not in a public place) and pray that you and your loved ones are never the victim of a violent crime.
Basically ... JUSTICE does not equal REVENGE. So in your example, t6he justice for the two perps should be the same. It is not the family of the victim that decides what "justice" is. It's the laws that each society has set up that determine what justice is. Here in Canada, it may be a certain number of years in a detention center called prison. In other countries it may be decapitiation. It has nothing to do with revenge.
As far as the bible is concerned, I don't worry myself about a book that was put together by religious zealots to suit their purposes to control a flock of sheep.
As far as the bible is concerned, I don't worry myself about a book that was put together by religious zealots to suit their purposes to control a flock of sheep.
The justice system in Canada is unfortunately a bad joke. The Karla story is one of many examples. Another recent one concerns the blind woman who got dumped by her boyfriend (also blind I believe) and lost on Canadian Idol. Her solution to life's problems was to lure the ex to Montreal with some phony story, drug him and kill him. Well, being the stupid bitch that she is, she didn't succeed in her final objective so the charge was only attempted murder. Unbelievably, this murderous **** got off with a 2 year suspended sentence! Just another example of stupidity in the "justice" system.
Canada readily takes the world's refuse in without asking a question. Been to Toronto lately? Jamaica readily exports its vermin to Canada without thinking twice.
I don't get it.
Look at how OJ is in the US. The man got away scot-free with a double murder in which he was the only guilty party involved. There are plenty of people who are disgusted with OJ; for example, at the Kentucky Derby, he was thrown out of a restaurant. But for the most part, notwithstanding his current situation, he seems to enjoy a pretty happy life in the US.
So if the US can stomach having OJ around, why can't Canada tolerate Homolka, who was an accomplice at most (not the mastermind), and she already served her full sentence?
Look at how OJ is in the US. The man got away scot-free with a double murder in which he was the only guilty party involved. There are plenty of people who are disgusted with OJ; for example, at the Kentucky Derby, he was thrown out of a restaurant. But for the most part, notwithstanding his current situation, he seems to enjoy a pretty happy life in the US.
So if the US can stomach having OJ around, why can't Canada tolerate Homolka, who was an accomplice at most (not the mastermind), and she already served her full sentence?
Similar threads
