Today's newspaper has an article "Charter no barrier to proposed sexual predator law: proponents.
It goes on to say that the propsal to keep Karla in prison is not as constitutionally flawed as it was first believed. The rights of offenders can be taken away under the Charter of Rights. Opponents feel it is unconstitutional to keep her in jail.
Kent Roach, a professor at the University of Toronto says that Section 1 of the Charter of Rights allows for "reasonable limit" on a persons rights if it is justified by a legitimate concern for public safety. A court will have to decide if Karla is classed as a public threat.
Everytime a dangerous offender is released from prison, it jeopardizes the interest balance between the offender and the public. Lawyer Tim Danson, who represents the families of Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French states: "A sexual predator law may violate your Charter of Rights, but they're focusing on a small, small number of very dangerous sexual predators - psychopaths and sexual sadists." "It's a reasonable limit prescribed by law that's demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
This is the same principle that allows Canadian police officers to conduct spot checks at the side of the road for drunk drivers . This is a violation of a person's rights but one that's allowed to keep our roads free of drunk drivers.
Karla Homolka is both a psychopath and a sexual saddist. She willingly took
Go To Page: 1 2
| Here's the follow-up discussion on this article: | View all related messages |
For a complete listing of article comments, questions, and other discussions related to Mary M. Alward's Canadian Tourism topic, please visit the Discussions page.