Quandry

So I find myself in a bit of a quandry concerning the rights of those convicted of a crime, especially a violent crime. In Canada we have two rather high profile murder cases hitting the headlines once again. The first deals with Karla Homolka and the fact that she is getting out of jail in July after having served 12 years in prison for her part in the violent killings of Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffey.

It turns out that Karla lied to the courts when she struck her deal 12 years ago. She claimed to be a battered wife who was forced to do these horrible things. After the fact video's came to light that showed Karla was an active participant in the crimes and was not forced as she claimed. Now she will get out in July and unless a Quebec court judge agrees with the Ontario government she will be completely free to do as she wishes. The one thing that my give a person pause in all of this is that the parole board has repeatedly said that Karla showed a certain lack of remorse for her crimes. She is not going to be charged in the death of her sister even though she had a part in it and apparently she had information concerning a 4th victim but that never came out.

The second case in question concerns Kelly Ellard who was found guilty of 2nd degree murder in the beating and drowning death of Reena Virk. In November 1997, Kelly Ellard and a group of teenagers beat a 14 year old Reena Virk under a bridge in Vancouver. After Reena escaped the group she fled across the bridge but was once again set upon by Kelly and another (who was also found guilty of 2nd degree murder) who attacked her. We are told that Kelly then dragged Reena down to the river and held her head under water with her foot. According to Kelly's friends, Kelly bragged about the killing in the days that followed. Also in February 2004 Kelly was charged with assault when she attacked a 58 year old women in a park.

I can clearly remember working nights in a factory when this case was going on and thinking that the 'golden rule' should be applied to Kelly Ellard and the others. That seeing as how they attacked a innocent and defenceless girl, killing her in the end, that maybe they should know what it is like to be attacked by a group of strangers. I don't say this to my credit but I am being honest.

I bring these two cases up because I find myself wrestling with the concept of the social contract. In essence each citizen of the country is part of a contract in which they are provided with rights protected by the government and in return each of us is expected to obey the laws set down by that government. I know that in many cases the contract is forced upon us as we are part of it simply by being born but I question whether or not it is possible to violate the social contract to such an extent that the contract should no longer apply to you.

It is clear that criminals violate the social contract because they broke the law. It is also clear that different criminals violate the social contract to differing extents based upon their actions. A person found with some pot is not the same as a person who rapes or kills. We as members of society delude ourselves that justice will be served through the courts and that our criminal justice system will reform these criminals to such an extent that they will uphold the social contract for good. Recently a woman who left her baby in a sweltering apartment to die while she went on a 36 hour bender was given only 3 years for the baby's death. A number of years ago 2 men in Quebec were sentenced to 2 years in prison for brutally raping a woman, dangling her from a 6th floor balcony, bashing her head in with a tire iron (from which she suffered permanent brain injury) and left her to die in a garbage dumpster. Is this justice?

I am not advocating capital punishment but I do question if our criminal justice system is truly serving its purpose in protecting the people in society. I have a cousin, who after 53 convictions still only receives 6 months in jail for a break and enter. He acknowledges that he can do the time with no problems. Obviously the prospect of serving time in a jail is no deterent to him. It obviously does little to reform him of his penchant for violating the social contract.

I understand that this is a slippery slope and that perhaps there is no clear answer but I do find it frustrating that people who so grossly violate the trust of society and their fellow man by killing, raping, etc. are protected more than the victims of their crimes. The social contract meant nothing to them when they were performing their crimes so why should it mean anything when they are aprehended? For in the end Karla Homolka spent 12 years in jail and society is treated to pictures of her mugging for the camera at birthday parties and learning that she gets steak dinners twice a week. Leslie Mahaffey and Kristen French, the two girls that she brutalized, molested, killed and dismembered suffered as no person should and paid their lives for it. They are no longer free to walk in the sunshine, hear the birds sing, smell the flowers of spring, fall in love, have children, etc. so why should the people who denied them this be granted it in return? Reena Virk was only 14 when she was brutally killed, the same holds true for her as it does for Leslie and Kristen so why should Kelly Ellard ever get out?

I say that this is quandry for me because in the end it is a battle between my mind that says that we must forgive and my gut that says that these people deserve to suffer to some extent so that they know clearly and without any shodow of a doubt that what they did was wrong and that it will not be tollerated by society.