News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 11K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 43K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 6.5K     0 

A

Abeja de Almirante

Guest
www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatc...g-boy.html
Police in Saskatchewan are searching for a 10-year-old boy who they believe has been abducted by a pedophile with a string of sex assault convictions.

Police issued an Amber Alert early Monday. They believe the boy may have been taken by 35-year-old Peter Robert Joseph Whitmore, a repeat sex offender who now lives in Morinville, Alta.

Whitmore has been jailed several times for crimes involving children. He served 16 months in custody after being convicted in Ontario in 1993 of abduction and sexual offences involving four boys.

Just nine days after he was released, Whitmore took an eight-year-old girl from Guelph, Ont., to Toronto. He received a 56-month sentence.

After his release in November 2000, Whitmore was found less than one month later with a 13-year-old boy in a Toronto motel. His sentence for that offence was one year in jail.

In 2002, Whitmore fled to British Columbia after he was accused of more parole violations in Ontario including befriending a five-year-old boy. When he was arrested by police in B.C., Whitmore was found to be carrying latex gloves, duct tape and pictures of young children.

He was later given a three-year sentence, including 12 months of psychiatric treatment at Kingston Penitentiary.
How can the Canadian justice system keep letting this guy out? I'm no "hang'em high" socon, I swear I'm not, but in 1993 this fellow was charged with abduction and sexual assault charges against children. Shouldn't he, at that point, have been thrown into jail for life? IMO, many child sex offenders can not be rehabilitated, and thus must be removed from society. Regardless of my opinion, surely by 2002 after being found with a "rape kit" and breaking the rules of his parole, this fellow should have been permamently removed?

If my child, God forbid, was subsequently attacked by this fellow, I'd be near tempted to shoot him myself, and then sue the government (likely from prison, where I'd get a long sentence for sure) for putting the public at risk.

Why can't we keep repeat child-sex offenders in jail? Is this the Just Society we were promised?
 
I wish more people would sue the government for this sort of thing.
 
I am surprised he didn't get the dangerous offender status.

AoD
 
I wish more people would sue the government for this sort of thing.
The problem is, on what basis do you sue? As long as the government and judiciary followed the relevant laws pertaining to such offenders, you can't sue these parties due to their neglect of the law. Assuming all the laws and prescribed punishments were followed, you could try to sue the government due to the existance of insufficient laws and/or punishments, or that the government put the public at risk, as it should have known that releasing a repeated sex-offender was a dangerous move. Either way, it would be years in the courts, at the expense of millions on lawyers. This is why, IMO, most do not sue the government. I would though, seeking perhaps a class action suit from other victims.
 
I am surprised he didn't get the dangerous offender status.
They're may be some exceptions, but I think someone has to be dead for that to usually apply. This fellow may get there eventually, given sufficient time and opportunity.
 
I wonder if Paul Bernardo hadn't been caught for the French and Mahaffy (and who knows who else) murders, whether he would have been given dangerous offender designation. There may be serial rapists/abductors who have been given that status *without* having killed anyone, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.
 
If Bernardo (and Karla) had not killed the three girls we know of, and instead had "just" raped them without the torture, etc. Paul would have received likely a six year, mimimal-security sentence, followed by two years probation, while Karla would have likely haved walked on the "battered woman" excuse.
 
www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs...8793972154
Eleven were out on bail.
Nine were banned from having a firearm.

Eight were on probation.

Of the 32 people charged in a Toronto murder this year, 21 were under a court order, some multiple orders.

“In every case I’ve had this year, we’ve had to tell a victim’s family that the accused was out on bail,†said Toronto homicide Det. Stacy Gallant, who has worked on five cases this year.

“We’ve had to say we believe if this (the accused) person had been kept in jail, their son or daughter would still be alive.â€

“We’re seeing a number of murder cases where accused people are out on previous bails,†said Staff Insp. Brian Raybould, the head of the homicide squad.

“I’m not talking about theft under. They are on bail for very serious offences, firearms possession, sexual assault, violent crimes. Why are they on bail?â€

Raybould said he believes those charged with gun crimes and violent offences should not be granted bail.

The 37-year veteran said one recent case “hit me hard.â€

Last December, one month after he was released on bail, charged with 10 offences including possession of a loaded firearm, Jodie Alistaire Wheatle was charged with fatally shootx ing Danny Fatulahzadeh-Rabti.

Homicide officers have described the 25-year-old victim as an “innocent.â€

The case is still before the courts.

“That’s the type of case that cries out for a review. It is the kind of case that demands a review of the bail system,†Raybould said.

Toronto criminal defence lawyer Craig Penney agrees that those who pose a “serious†risk to society or are truly violent should be kept in custody.

But he said the premise upon which the justice system is founded is innocence until proven guilty.

Keeping people in custody until they have their day in court amounts to punishing the potentially innocent, he said.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`It is disheartening... to see people are out on bail ... commit murder, while they are supposed to be supervised'

Det. Stacy Gallant, Toronto homicide division

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`They've already proven ...

they don't respect the court by disrespecting their order not to possess firearms and being caught again with firearms'

Deputy Police Chief Tony Warr


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


“I think nobody would disagree in principle with the general proposition that you shouldn’t be punished for a crime you didn’t commit.

“Essentially, when you have no bail, that’s what happens,†Penney said.

Deputy Police Chief Tony Warr said the number of people who repeatedly disrespect the law but still get bail concerns him.

“One was on three separate firearms prohibition orders, another was on two separate orders,†he said, looking at the statistics.

“They’ve already proven . . . they don’t respect the court by disrespecting their order not to possess firearms and being caught again with firearms.

“I think once a person puts themselves in this position, the court shouldn’t have any hesitation of keeping them in custody.â€

Stricter conditions for those released on bail and serious consequences for those who breach “for the person who puts up the bail as well as those on bail themselves,†are necessary, Warr said.

With thousands of people in the city on bail, Warr said it is impossible for the police to check up on everyone.

The service does have a compliance program in some areas where officers conduct random visits to people they deem dangerous to ensure bail conditions are not being breached.

In the slaying of Kemar Brown, who was shot dead in a rooming house on July 11, the accused in that case was out on bail and under three separate firearms prohibition orders.

The man charged with fatally stabbing Dale Cheryl Mapstone on April 26 was under two probation orders and a firearms prohibition.

“It is disheartening to me as a police officer, to see people are out on bail, under court imposed orders and they commit murder, the ultimate crime, while they are supposed to be supervised, while the court has seen them fit to be released,†said Gallant.

The homicide detective said it is always difficult trying to explain to a victim’s family why an accused was out on bail at the time of a murder.

He tries to explain the rules of the courts and what a judge must consider when deciding whether to release an accused.

“We make the arrests. We present the best case we can. Then we have no control, it is out of our hands,†Gallant said.

“We need to look at greater accountability on the people who are given bail, increase the monitoring system.

“Maybe that means electronic ankle bracelets, using technology.â€

Had court orders been followed, police believe at least 21 of the city’s 44 murder victims this year may still be alive including:
This is maddness! Why doesn't our justice system keep these people in jail? If you commit a serious crime, there should be no possibility of bail or parole or early release.
 
No possibility of parole? Would you rather criminals be released straight from prison to the streets without any supervision?
 
No possibility of parole? Would you rather criminals be released straight from prison to the streets without any supervision?
That's not what parole is. Parole is criminals being released BEFORE they've completed their sentence. If they need supervision due to high risk of reoffending, such as pedophiles, they shouldn't be released.
 
Yes, that's exactly what it is. It's releasing prisoners under supervision to society so that they can adapt before they're let completely free. Of course, parole on some criminals like murderers never ends.
 
Then give them parole AFTER they've completed the sentence. For example, if I'm sentenced to 25 years for murder, I shouldn't get parole after 15 years for "good or contrite behaviour", but instead should serve the entire 25 years, and then be reviewed for possible application of parole, if deemed necessary.

I think we're on the same page here, as I certainly don't want criminals walking out of prison at large, unsupervised, as I want criminals in jail.
 
Abeja:

Why would there be a parole AFTER completion of a sentence?

Not to say I necessarily argue a parole should be that easy, but one of the whole point of having it is to allow those who are genuinely reformed to reintegrate into the society quicker. The focus of the criminal justice system isn't just to punish or seek vengence, but 1. to protect the citizenry at large; 2. reform the lawbreaker if at all possible and 3. facilitate any such individuals back into the society for productive lives.

Not to mention, most criminals does not warrant jailtime. I am all for sentencing with electronic monitoring where applicable and appropriate, considering it's a much cheaper alternative.

AoD
 
Why would there be a parole AFTER completion of a sentence?
Because they're in jail during their sentence. At the end of their prison term, there should be an assessment to determine if further monitoring and oversight by the state is required, and then a parole-like system could be applied when necessary.

For example, if I rob five banks, and get caught during the last robbery, and am sentenced to ten years in a medium security jail, I should have absolutely no chance of getting out of that jail until I've done my full ten years. Perhaps for contrite behaviour I may get transferred to a mimimal security jail, but there's no chance for me to get out into the public until I've done my full ten years. At the end of the ten years, I'm brought forth to the assessement team, who reviews and determines my likelyhood of reoffending. If I'm deemed no longer a threat to people or property, I'm free to go. However, if I'm deemed a continued threat, then I'm given supervision or parole for a set period of time (for pedophiles this could be lifetime parole, for example).

Look at what Cliford Olsen's victims just went through. Every four years that guy gets to be considered for parole, and every four years the families must endure and revisit their memories and emotions of this fellow.
 
A sentence doesn't just equal incarceration though. It includes the parole period as well (like it or not).
 

Back
Top