Mother of C-Train Murderer claims Racism lead to harsh sentancing

[Resolute 14]

And things just get harder for natives who are legitimately discriminated against.

Good job, mom.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by taco.vidal

12 years without parole is pretty harsh by Canadian justice system standards.

Take a look at the crack whore who killed the guy behind Sal's on 17th a couple of years ago. She is already out on parole (and now back in jail for violations) and she planned that killing with her boyfriend to rob the victim.

Whether its racism or not, this sentence is quite harsh. I wont argue that its not justified or that it shouldnt be even longer. However, looking at other crimes and sentences, this is a long one.

Were you thinking of Davina Miller and Joseph Pike?
http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Alberta/...9/1784437.html
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/sto...-arrested.html

Of note, the Miller and Pike case started with a charge of 2nd degree murder and resulted in a plea of guilty to manslaughter. The Crown asked for 5-7 years for Pike and 4-6 for Miller. The judge ended up giving Pike 6 years less double time for pre-trial custody resulting in a final sentence of 4 years 6 months. Miller was given 3 years 6 months after accounting for time served. There were no restrictions placed on their eligibility for parole.

In Pasqua's case, this was a trial before a jury. A jury of her peers. A jury of people in the community who are probably capable of sympathy and a rational application of the law. However, there's also a fantastic chance that the jury is comprised of people who are tired of lenient sentences commonly rendered in our justice system. That could be why the charge of 2nd degree murder stuck in this case while others, such as Pike and Miller, got off relatively easy.

Under the Criminal Code, a conviction for first or second degree murder results in a minimum sentence of life in prison (s. 235). Convictions for first degree murder result in no eligibility for parole for at least 25 years (s. 745(a)). Convictions for second degree murder result in no eligibility for parole for at least 10 years but not more than 25 years (s. 745(c)) unless there are previous convictions for murder or certain other prescribed offences.

While Pasqua's mother suggests race was a factor, defence lawyer Andre Ouellette is pointing at the jury instructions instead. A trial judge's instructions to a jury before deliberation have to be very carefully worded and must canvas a great deal of issues in a way that the jury can understand. That the jury returned a verdict so quickly after complicated instructions suggests to Ouellette that they may have misunderstood. That is a fertile ground for appeal and probably the most common way to overturn a jury verdict on appeal.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by FLAMESRULE

Last night they had this on the news. Karla Homolka got 12 years for 1st degree. Race card or not this is a pretty harsh penalty by Canadian standards as mentioned. It was a drug deal gone bad between 2 crack heads. She could have very easily been the one that died.

Wrong. Karla Homolka got 12 years for manslaughter. And that only because she turned a deal with the crown to testify against Bernardo.

This chick pushed a kid into a moving C-train over what? $10? 12 years is lenient, imo, especially for a multiple time loser who's been in trouble with the law penty of times before.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Wrong. Karla Homolka got 12 years for manslaughter.

I guess its a good thing I wasn't sitting on this jury (although with how quickly this went through I'm guessing it was a judge only trial or she plead guilty) as I would have also found her guilty of manslaughter.

The kid pushed her onto the tracks first, she then pushed him onto the tracks. Only difference was the position of the train. IMHO to be found guilty of murder she would have had to been waiting for the exact moment when a train was coming. 3 seconds too early and the kid could have ran out of the way or ducked under the platform. 1 second too late and he would have bounced off the side of the moving car; likely hurting him but not killing him.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by FLAMESRULE

Last night they had this on the news. Karla Homolka got 12 years for 1st degree. Race card or not this is a pretty harsh penalty by Canadian standards as mentioned. It was a drug deal gone bad between 2 crack heads. She could have very easily been the one that died.

This by no means condones what happened, and that Canadian justice does need to be strengthened.

Dragon, I agree that the sentence would have been much lighter had she not fled. But who knows she may have become a victim of vigilante justice with Prevosts buddies/fellow drug dealers on the scene.

Homolka got 12 years for pleading guilty to two counts of manslaughter, if I recall correctly. The Galligan Report, the result of an inquiry into the whole cluster###### once the video tapes and all the facts became known, suggested that a fair sentence under the circumstances would have been 10-15 years. The plea was, therefore, appropriate and necessary under the circumstances at the time according to the report.

[MarchHare]

1 second too late and he would have bounced off the side of the moving car; likely hurting him but not killing him.

I could be wrong, but I remember reading at the time that the murder happened that she actually pushed (and held) him against the side of a moving car, and he fell to his death when he reached the gap between two cars.

[Cowboy89]

The mother's comments went even further. I heard on the CBC eyeopener news this morning a sound byte of the mom who spoke of her daughter and used the words helpful, smart, sucessful, and also mentioned that she knows for a fact that her daughter didn't go around giving people trouble (I thought pushing someone in front of a train over $10 of crack could be considered trouble but I could be wrong). She's clearly either delusional, or dousing sugar on her daughter for the sake of advancing her 'Race card' defense. One who has a prior history of criminal behavior and who murders for crack doesn't fit with that description regardless of spin or angle.

Also this blame the victim crap has to stop too, yes the victim was a 17 year old crack dealer, doesn't mean that any conviction or sentance laid out should be any softer. In fact for the arguement of optics and racism this detail works against the convicted.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I could be wrong, but I remember reading at the time that the murder happened that she actually pushed (and held) him against the side of a moving car, and he fell to his death when he reached the gap between two cars.

She also loudly threatened to throw him into a train in the seconds prior that was heard by people around at the time. This is another big detail the reveals intent in the differentiation between Second Degree murder and manslaughter. This wasn't an accident like she claims, it was a heat of the moment murder.

[ken0042]

Yeah, when I went looking for further news to see if it had been a jury trial or not I saw something that indicated that he had been pushed between 2 cars; which indicated the train was there when she started the pushing.

Could have sworn I heard the new saying he had been pushed in front of the train. I guess if I did hear it it was intended to dramatize the event.

[MaDMaN_26]

Originally Posted by TheDragon

Not to mention she ran away to hide in Edmonton. She probably wouldn't have gotten sentenced for 12 years if she would have stayed in Calgary and either turned herself in, or remained at the scene of the crime until police arrived.

oh ya... I think it was over a drug deal gone wrong too...

You murdered a kid because your drug deal went south and then fled the scene and started a manhunt... oh ya and you're crack addict... 12 years is a joke... Bring back/in the chair.

[TheDragon]

Originally Posted by FLAMESRULE

Dragon, I agree that the sentence would have been much lighter had she not fled. But who knows she may have become a victim of vigilante justice with Prevosts buddies/fellow drug dealers on the scene.

Fair enough, but if that's the case, she should have went to the police in Calgary. The police headquarters downtown were a helluva close than Edmonton. However, she left the city after being the primary suspect in a murder/manslaughter that had coverage on almost all local and provincial news outlets. It doesn't bode well for your excuse that it was "an honest mistake," or "an accident," when you have to force the hand of the Police from another city to get involved in your capture, and it certainly doesn't help your cause if you go into hiding.

To me, the fact that she ran away indicates she had a guilty conscience, with the intent to hurt, if not kill this person, and ran away to protect herself.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by pepper24

It's a sad story for all parties involved and no one deserved to die but the impression I get from the victim of the parents is that their son was a completely innocent bystander. Definitely not the case.

Not only an innocent bystander, but a perfect little angel. It bugged me too.

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Not only an innocent bystander, but a perfect little angel. It bugged me too.

What does it matter? Perfect angel or little hell-raiser: murder is murder.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Teh_Bandwagoner

What does it matter? Perfect angel or little hell-raiser: murder is murder.

It matters when you are trying to show other kids that "Drugs are bad- mkay."

Bottom line is if he was in chess club and not doing pot he would still be alive today. Get into a bad drug deal; you could die.

I'm sure the kid's mom wants to preserve his memory, but maybe she should try to make some good come from this tragedy.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Teh_Bandwagoner

What does it matter? Perfect angel or little hell-raiser: murder is murder.

It doesn't really matter, but it did bug me.

Nobody sheds many tears when some Asian gang-member gets clipped and nobody really seems to care if they ever catch who clipped him. This woman though, she's getting an awful lot of attention.

Just an observation.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Teh_Bandwagoner

What does it matter? Perfect angel or little hell-raiser: murder is murder.

It how this murder happened that should be the focus. This kid was not a saint by any means and was leading a risky lifestyle. Chances are he'd still be alive today if wasn't using drugs. Plus he initaited the fight by pushing the woman off that same train platform

His parents should speaking out against drug use and how the risky lifestyle can have tragic consequenses. Like Ken said, try to make something positive out of his death.

[TheDragon]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

It doesn't really matter, but it did bug me.

Nobody sheds many tears when some Asian gang-member gets clipped and nobody really seems to care if they ever catch who clipped him. This woman though, she's getting an awful lot of attention.

Just an observation.

On the contrary. Whenever I hear about an Asian gang shooting, I always get an uneasy feeling in my stomach, no matter how guilty the victim was, or how badly they had it coming. Sure, a part of me might feel a bit safer knowing one less gang member is off the streets, but that doesn't mean I feel happy about them being dead, or that I automatically assume the side of the killer because he's somehow doing the world a favour by murdering somebody else.

In this case, I never once took the side of young Mr. Prevost. Sure, he's dead, and sure he may have had it coming, but that was his choice to live that lifestyle. That said, did he deserve to die for it? Probably not. At the same token, Paskua shouldn't be granted hero status for killing somebody else.

Personally speaking, I was brought up in an environment that preached equal rights, liberty and fair justice for everybody, no matter what the color of pigment is in a persons' skin when they are born. I was taught to look past the boundries of ethnicity, creed, sex, sexual preference or religion in order to understand that everyone is the same. I was taught discrimination and bigotry are wrong, obsolete ideologies that do the new world no good by being passed about. The world would never progress if we never got past the differences between us.

That's why, when I hear of instances like this, where one person is claiming racism because a member of their family was given the right to a fair trial, and was dealt a sentence, I personally believe, was fair and just given the circumstances, facts, and evidence provided to the public, I do infact get my panties in a bunch, so to speak. I feel exactly the same way towards any other cases that are similar to this one.

Why? Because that is telling me that there will always be that lingering thing within certain people to make them think they are seperate from the rest of the world. It tells me, they don't view themselves as being obligated to apply to the same set of "rules," if you'd excuse the term, as I was, and as such, are such entitled to get away with crimes, or any other variable of illegal activities that go against the charter or rights that is provided to ALL Canadians, simply because of the color of their skin, the name of the religion, or the structure of their genitals. It tells me they view themselves as being different, which isn't fair.

Now, granted, there are more than enough cases of racism, bigotry and discrimination having an impact on a trial and a sentence... but this isn't one of them, in my opinion. Getting 12 years for punching a kid you were involved in an argument with? That's a steep, unfair sentence. Pushing a kid into a moving train as it's going by, and then fleeing the scene, and the city for that matter, in hopes you'll never get caught? Sounds fair to me.

But, I digress.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by TheDragon

On the contrary. Whenever I hear about an Asian gang shooting, I always get an uneasy feeling in my stomach, no matter how guilty the victim was, or how badly they had it coming. Sure, a part of me might feel a bit safer knowing one less gang member is off the streets, but that doesn't mean I feel happy about them being dead, or that I automatically assume the side of the killer because he's somehow doing the world a favour by murdering somebody else.

In this case, I never once took the side of young Mr. Prevost. Sure, he's dead, and sure he may have had it coming, but that was his choice to live that lifestyle. That said, did he deserve to die for it? Probably not. At the same token, Paskua shouldn't be granted hero status for killing somebody else.

Personally speaking, I was brought up in an environment that preached equal rights, liberty and fair justice for everybody, no matter what the color of pigment is in a persons' skin when they are born. I was taught to look past the boundries of ethnicity, creed, sex, sexual preference or religion in order to understand that everyone is the same. I was taught discrimination and bigotry are wrong, obsolete ideologies that do the new world no good by being passed about.

That's why, when I hear of instances like this, where one person is claiming racism because a member of their family was given the right to a fair trial, and was dealt a sentence, I personally believe, was fair and just given the circumstances, facts, and evidence provided to the public, I do infact get my panties in a bunch, so to speak. I feel exactly the same way towards any other cases that are similar to this one.

Why? Because that is telling me that there will always be that lingering thing within certain people to make them think they are seperate from the rest of the world. It tells me, they don't view themselves as being obligated to apply to the same set of "rules," if you'd excuse the term, as I was, and as such, are such entitled to get away with crimes, or any other variable of illegal activities that go against the charter or rights that is provided to ALL Canadians. It tells me they view themselves as being different, which isn't fair.

Now, granted, there are more than enough cases of racism, bigotry and discrimination having an impact on a trial and a sentence... but this isn't one of them, in my opinion. Getting 12 years for punching a kid you were involved in an argument with? That's a steep, unfair sentence. Pushing a kid into a moving train as it's going by, and then fleeing the scene, and the city for that matter, in hopes you'll never get caught? Sounds fair to me.

But, I digress.

Great post!

[FLAMESRULE]

Originally Posted by TheDragon

Fair enough, but if that's the case, she should have went to the police in Calgary. The police headquarters downtown were a helluva close than Edmonton. However, she left the city after being the primary suspect in a murder/manslaughter that had coverage on almost all local and provincial news outlets. It doesn't bode well for your excuse that it was "an honest mistake," or "an accident," when you have to force the hand of the Police from another city to get involved in your capture, and it certainly doesn't help your cause if you go into hiding.

To me, the fact that she ran away indicates she had a guilty conscience, with the intent to hurt, if not kill this person, and ran away to protect herself.

Considering his friends tried to attack another Native women (IIRC) who "looked" like her is enough to run. I'm going to hazard a guess that they were also users and she probably got scared that they'd find her. Granted Edmonton is far, and she was clearly trying to get away. I agree that is clearly a guilty conscience.

Of course she tried to hurt him, he pushed her onto the tracks first. We'd all be irate if that happened to us. Dont get me wrong, I'm not making excuses for either party. But I really find it hard to feel sorry for either person in this case. Both were drug dealers and drug users, both had next to nothing to contribute to society. But by no means am I condoning murder. Would anyone here care if he got the crap kicked out of him?? Not a chance...

Drug dealers/gang bangers get whacked...part of the life you choose to lead.

[FLAMESRULE]

Originally Posted by Dion

It how this murder happened that should be the focus. This kid was not a saint by any means and was leading a risky lifestyle. Chances are he'd still be alive today if wasn't using drugs. Plus he initaited the fight by pushing the woman off that same train platform

His parents should speaking out against drug use and how the risky lifestyle can have tragic consequenses. Like Ken said, try to make something positive out of his death.

Well said. Life is all about the choices we make. The better the choices, the better the life.

Setting up a fund to help drug addicts etc. in his name would be the best thing they could do.