Medicine Hat pedophile murders 12 year old girlfriend's family

[RubberDuck]

Originally Posted by FireFly

How long is long enough to punish without making her worse than before? How long is enough to teach her a lesson without filling her with anger and hatred?

How do you make someone like this worse than before? Don't you think she is already filled with anger and hatred? Enough to off her whole family perhaps. I can't read anymore of Fireflys bleeding heart posts defending this little sociopath.

[8 Ball]

God help the 23 year old creep show who tries dating my daughter when she's 12. Sentence is to light for a girl who stabbed her own brother while he was pleading for his life and listening to his parents getting butchered.

[Burninator]

Interesting debate going on here, I like it. I'll give my thoughts.

Trying her as an adult and locking her up for 25 years will do nothing but satisfy total outsiders such as the people in this thread. She would be 38 when she gets out. I am no psychologist but I bet someone who spends their teens and most of their adult life in prison is hardly going to be rehabilitated. More than likely she would never be able to be a functioning member of society. Her chance of repeat offending I bet would be would be great.

I don't believe a 12 year old knows the full consequences of her actions. Firefly made some interesting points that no one responded to. 12 year olds aren't given any responsibility in society and the points about statutory rape are also worth looking at. One the one hand if murder wasn't involved the boyfriend would have likely faced some jail time and the girl would have been the victim despite the sex being consensual. However once murder is involved the sex is looked at as her only being more crazy. Why is there this jump? Now, I don't want to debate how murder is a much greater leap in the thought process, I know that. But I still think a 12 year old is very impressionable and is not the same as someone 5 years older. So with that said, she has a much greater chance of rehabilitating than someone who does the same crime when they are twenty years older.

However I do think the punishment could be greater. The YJA seems to treat you like you are two different people. One person is younger than 18 so the punishment is exclusive to that age range and the other person is over 18 and can be punished much, much more harshly. The disparity being the two is way too great in my mind.

Also I am surprised at this talk as compared to the Chris Benoit thread. People were much more bleeding hearts in there because they watched him on tv. Anyone in that thread that called Benoit a monster was pounced on. How was his any different? Benoit is clearly an adult who knows full well the consequences of his actions. People were giving him excuses left right and centre. How many people in Chris Benoit's age range kill their family? Countless. How many 12 year olds kill their family? Not a lot. Obviously both have something wrong with their brain at the time, but I would think that the younger one is the anomaly.

[J pold]

She deserved a much stronger sentence a life sentence would be the only fitting justice in my mind

My little brother is the same age as this girl and when he is 23 he the will have equal rights and freedoms, that makes me sick

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by Burninator

I don't believe a 12 year old knows the full consequences of her actions.

True...but to have this 12 year old make a concious effort to steal from her dead mother and try to hide the evidence...she knew what she had done was wrong and if her ignorance to the law and consequences (regardless of the age) is an excuse to let her loose from her punishment in 9-10 years than I think there needs to be a major overhaul to our justice system and the YJA.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Interesting debate going on here, I like it. I'll give my thoughts.

Trying her as an adult and locking her up for 25 years will do nothing but satisfy total outsiders such as the people in this thread. She would be 38 when she gets out. I am no psychologist but I bet someone who spends their teens and most of their adult life in prison is hardly going to be rehabilitated. More than likely she would never be able to be a functioning member of society. Her chance of repeat offending I bet would be would be great.

I don't believe a 12 year old knows the full consequences of her actions. Firefly made some interesting points that no one responded to. 12 year olds aren't given any responsibility in society and the points about statutory rape are also worth looking at. One the one hand if murder wasn't involved the boyfriend would have likely faced some jail time and the girl would have been the victim despite the sex being consensual. However once murder is involved the sex is looked at as her only being more crazy. Why is there this jump? Now, I don't want to debate how murder is a much greater leap in the thought process, I know that. But I still think a 12 year old is very impressionable and is not the same as someone 5 years older. So with that said, she has a much greater chance of rehabilitating than someone who does the same crime when they are twenty years older.

However I do think the punishment could be greater. The YJA seems to treat you like you are two different people. One person is younger than 18 so the punishment is exclusive to that age range and the other person is over 18 and can be punished much, much more harshly. The disparity being the two is way too great in my mind.

Also I am surprised at this talk as compared to the Chris Benoit thread. People were much more bleeding hearts in there because they watched him on tv. Anyone in that thread that called Benoit a monster was pounced on. How was his any different? Benoit is clearly an adult who knows full well the consequences of his actions. People were giving him excuses left right and centre. How many people in Chris Benoit's age range kill their family? Countless. How many 12 year olds kill their family? Not a lot. Obviously both have something wrong with their brain at the time, but I would think that the younger one is the anomaly.

excellent post. I agree with the whole thing.

[peter12]

The moral relativism in this thread is nothing short of shocking and degrading. Firefly are you somehow equating prepubescent idiocy, like stealing candy or "plotting" to kill your parents to mass murder?

12 year olds may not have the maturity or experience to make truly rational choices based on the consequences of the future. That's pretty obvious, but I would like to think that most 12 year olds have a reasoned sense of right and wrong. I stole candy once as a child, but I knew it was wrong. I knew it was wrong as I walked out of the store with it. I knew it was wrong the next day. This is a purely inconsquential act. I'm pretty sure that if I was upstairs threatening my pleading brother with scissors as I listened to the screams of my father being butchered by my pedophile boyfriend, I would maybe have a trickle of guilt or a sense that something horrible was happening.

If that's the case, I should pay for my crimes. I was aware of them and I didn't stop them. However, if I continued to complete the slaughter of the family that had loved and raised me over my 12 years, then proceeded to go back to a pedophile's home and have sex with him in celebration, without an ounce of remorse, then I'm not human. Can a 6 year sentence and "rehabilitation" fix that? Can government bureaucracy and prison psychologists overcome this gap in humanity?

The absolute lack of remorse in this situation is revolting, the absolute disregard for family, kindness, and love is shocking.

What is justice? You ask that almost sneeringly, expecting a retort along the lines of, "an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth". Justice is payment in kind certainly, justice is also protection. Justice is the balanced hand of the law protecting the rest of society from monsters, like this 12 year old child and her 23 year old pedophile, no matter the cost.

[Boo Radley]

Peter12,

Great Post! I completely agree.

[TheDragon]

I have to say, I'm not buying the rehabilitation thing this time. Now, if this crime involved stealing a car with a group of friends and some joy riding that resulted in a fatality? Maybe. In this particular instance, though, this girl will be released from prison custody when she is 18 years old. 18! Hardly at the point in her life when she will be reflecting and looking back on her life and thinking about what she did wrong. Is 6 years really enough time to "learn your lesson," after committing such a heinous act as to kill your parents and younger sibling? Especially at about the time she's going to be developing a natural hatred for the world, anyway (as if she doesn't already have one.) Premeditated murders, making that 1st Degree Murder in most of the US. She should be counting her lucky stars she didn't partake in this crime south of the 49th parellel, or else she'd likely be spending most of her adult life behind bars, too.

Hell, I know a guy who wasn't directly involved in the murder of someone when he was 17, but was present for it before and after it happened. He got 10 years, and something like 5-6 years probation. That was when he was 17, just 5 years older then this girl was and is, and none of it was premeditated or planned. Infact, it was all acted on in self defense. You're still very much young impressionable at that age, and she's going to be getting out at exactly the wrong time in my opinion. Even though in my opinion, her outlook on life has already been pre-determined.

Now, I know because of the Youth Offenders Act, her name can't be published, but because she was originally declared Missing after the bodies were discovered, her name was published multiple times, all over the internet and on news broadcasts across Canada, (basically destroying the whole purpose of having the YOA to cover up the suspect's name in the first place.) Because of this, a few people have started watch dog groups and such, even to the extent of keeping databases and faux-replicas of the sites she used and the screen names she had. I won't post or discuss the details on here, because I don't feel that is my place. However, I did see some of these sites. I'm not a certified Psychologist or anything, but I've got to tell you, this girl is definitely a psycho/sociopath. She knew full well what she intended of doing, as did Steinke. You can't tell me that because she was 12, she didn't know what she was doing. Nobody grows up not knowing killing another human being is extremely wrong and unthinkable. She, on the other hand, seemed to have no ounce of remorse about the whole thing, and was reportedly laughing during and after the killings.

6 years for taking 3 lives just doesn't sit well with me. I don't care if she was 12. She still committed capital scale crimes that even her 7 year old brother could have told you were wrong, wrong, wrong.

[Antithesis]

People's desire for "justice" and life sentences for all do seem to decline when you realize how much money it costs to keep a person in jail. That money has to come from somewhere - but I would contend that a lot of people - a LOT of them - would be freaking out over higher taxes to pay for these tougher sentences. I'm not saying I think the sentence here is right or wrong - I'm just saying the money for what people are clamouring for has to come from somewhere.

At some point, the justice system, and we as a society in a broader sense, has to look at the resources available to us and determine the best way to use them ... if it is impossible to keep a 13 year old locked up for their entire life - we are talking about 60+ years of incarceration - what is the next best alternative? Is it trying to reform them? To educate them?

As to those saying she should "ride the lightning", you only have to look to places like Texas and California to realize it is not the best solution. First of all, you have to be damn sure the person you are giving the death penalty to is the 'right person' and that the sentence is the correct one.

According to this website (http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/drowfacts.htm), the average amount of time spent on death row is over 10 years. This raises some important points:

1. That person is going to spend their entire 10 year average stay on death row appealing their case, usually right up to the last minute. That is not only expensive - paying for the lawyers and such, but also keeping this person incarcerated.

2. Since that person is spending their entire 10 year average stay in appeals, they are tying up other parts of the justice system, which either slows justice for other people or raises costs to hire more judges and lawyers ...

I think when one looks at their beliefs about the justice system, there are questions that need to be answered:

- What are you seeking? Justice or revenge?
- What result will be best in all aspects for the society? Yes - it is unfair that economics must be taken in to account in these things but that is how it is.

It is easy to suggest the death penalty for a stranger who has been a party to a horrible, horrible crime - but would it be so easy if it was your friend? Your brother?

[habernac]

Some people are just born evil. I know. My first cousin is serving life in prison for first degree murder. He was nasty from birth. When he was 6, my grandfather said "That boy will die in prison". None of us were surprised when it happened. This one is probably no different. Her sentence is a joke.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Antithesis

People's desire for "justice" and life sentences for all do seem to decline when you realize how much money it costs to keep a person in jail. That money has to come from somewhere - but I would contend that a lot of people - a LOT of them - would be freaking out over higher taxes to pay for these tougher sentences. I'm not saying I think the sentence here is right or wrong - I'm just saying the money for what people are clamouring for has to come from somewhere.

At some point, the justice system, and we as a society in a broader sense, has to look at the resources available to us and determine the best way to use them ... if it is impossible to keep a 13 year old locked up for their entire life - we are talking about 60+ years of incarceration - what is the next best alternative? Is it trying to reform them? To educate them?

As to those saying she should "ride the lightning", you only have to look to places like Texas and California to realize it is not the best solution. First of all, you have to be damn sure the person you are giving the death penalty to is the 'right person' and that the sentence is the correct one.

According to this website (http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/drowfacts.htm), the average amount of time spent on death row is over 10 years. This raises some important points:

1. That person is going to spend their entire 10 year average stay on death row appealing their case, usually right up to the last minute. That is not only expensive - paying for the lawyers and such, but also keeping this person incarcerated.

2. Since that person is spending their entire 10 year average stay in appeals, they are tying up other parts of the justice system, which either slows justice for other people or raises costs to hire more judges and lawyers ...

I think when one looks at their beliefs about the justice system, there are questions that need to be answered:

- What are you seeking? Justice or revenge?
- What result will be best in all aspects for the society? Yes - it is unfair that economics must be taken in to account in these things but that is how it is.

It is easy to suggest the death penalty for a stranger who has been a party to a horrible, horrible crime - but would it be so easy if it was your friend? Your brother?

Sorry, I dont buy putting money into the equation with this crime. Now on the other hand, if it was for some minor break and enter or something along that line, it might be another scenario.

I think the public at large is more than willing to pay the money required to keep someone dangerous off the streets, and yes it is our money through our taxes we are talking about.

I think what many are concerned about here is will this young girl be a danger when she is turned out in the streets, 6 years from now. If she proves to be dangerous, then I think most will be willing to pay for her reincarceration.

[Antithesis]

Originally Posted by redforever

Sorry, I dont buy putting money into the equation with this crime. Now on the other hand, if it was for some minor break and enter or something along that line, it might be another scenario.

I think the public at large is more than willing to pay the money required to keep someone dangerous off the streets, and yes it is our money through our taxes we are talking about.

I think what many are concerned about here is will this young girl be a danger when she is turned out in the streets, 6 years from now. If she proves to be dangerous, then I think most will be willing to pay for her reincarceration.

Well, obviously, I disagree with you - I think the vast majority of Canadians would freak out over an increase in their taxes even if they were told it was to keep every single person convicted of muder in Canada in a jail for the rest of their lives. That would be a pretty big increase in taxes, I'd have to assume.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Antithesis

Well, obviously, I disagree with you - I think the vast majority of Canadians would freak out over an increase in their taxes even if they were told it was to keep every single person convicted of muder in Canada in a jail for the rest of their lives. That would be a pretty big increase in taxes, I'd have to assume.

Well, ask the people here, get a general consensus. I think a lot of the new laws regarding incarceration are a direct reflection of what the public has been demanding. Example, the law that allows a person to be designated dangerous basically forever, thus allowing them to be kept behind bars where they cant endanger the citizens of our country. It was not long ago that criminals, no matter if very dangerous or not, were simply put out when their sentence was served.

Put me down as one who will pay more to keep those deemed dangerous and those deemed not able to be rehabilitated behind bars indefinitely.

Now, will this young girl fit that category? Only time will tell. I am all for rehabilitation while behind bars and once you have done the time, fine, go back into society and turn a new leaf and get on with a new life. We all make mistakes. The trick is to learn from your mistakes. Unfortunately, not all fit that category, and for those who don't, for those with a background of reoffending, whatever, I am willing to pay more to keep them behind bars. Does that make me a redneck with no compassion? I dont think so.

[octothorp]

It amazes me how people seem to think that the answer to this is easy one way or the other. Jeez, I wish I had a conscience that allowed me to say that rehabilitation should be our only concern, or the self-conviction to say that at this point her life is a complete write-off. To me, it`s not unlike sending our soldiers to Afghanistan (and maybe this is an analogy that angers people on both sides of the debate): what amount of risk are we willing to accept as a society and what amount of risk are we willing to put our soldiers into, when measured against the possibility of saving lives and giving a people their self-determination? what amount of risk are we willing to accept as a society and put our families into when measured against the chance of restoring a young girl`s life and giving her some element of humanity? Not saying that the answers or even the questions are the same, but I think the asking of them rattles around in the same part of our national conscience. And as a society, for better or for worse, we tend to take the approach that these possible gains are worth the risk, but when things go wrong and people lose their lives because of those risks, it rarely feels like we made the right decision. Again, I`m not offering answers here: I lean towards the rehabilitation side of the debate, if only because I`ve known people who have gotten their lives off to a fairly rough start and have been rehabilitated successfully. Either way, it`s an important continued debate.

[Antithesis]

Originally Posted by redforever

Well, ask the people here, get a general consensus. I think a lot of the new laws regarding incarceration are a direct reflection of what the public has been demanding.

Put me down as one who will pay more to keep those deemed dangerous and those deemed not able to be rehabilitated behind bars indefinitely.

Now, will this young girl fit that category? Only time will tell.

I agree with your points here 100% ... I'm sure if you asked around the site, "Would you pay more to keep dangerous offenders behind bars for their entire lives?" you would get a variety of answers ... some people would be philosophically opposed to it without any consideration of economics ... some would accept it conditionally - as long as it doesn't cost TOO much ... and some people would accept it unconditionally. I just think Canada as a whole would reject such an idea - and the money would be a big stumbling block for some people. For some people, that extra $100, $500, $1000, whatever, per year, would be too much ... for whatever reason. I'm just saying that as things stand right now - with the limited resources available to our justice system at the moment, we need to pick and choose our battles, which is why legislation is the way it is right now - it is where public opinion on crime and punishment and taxes meet.

I think there is a higher-than-normal chance that this girl could be rehabilitated. As said before, she is in her most formative years ... most people are not anywhere near the same person they were when they were 13 ... whether it is in such an extreme case as this or a less extreme case like my own childhood. I also think people need to answer the question, "What is punishment?" ... at some point, whether it was yesterday, or today, or years from now, this girl is going to realize what she has done and been a part of, and will have to carry that for the rest of her life. Now, I understand this will not bring her family back, and I also understand that if they could, they would not say, "well, we are all dead, but she will have to carry that with her for her whole life, so it's alright ..." but the fact remains that carrying this with her, in itself, is a punishment.

[Burninator]

Good post Antithesis. Especially this part.

Originally Posted by Antithesis

What are you seeking? Justice or revenge?

I think some people can't tell the difference. If punishment was up to the general public, guaranteed they would vote in the maximum punishment every time.

It's really easy for people to bring emotions into this. I mean look how many people have related it to their own siblings. Unfortunately it's not a simple issue as "she is crazy, lock her up forever."

[Boo Radley]

I for one believe it is the responsibilty of the country (and tax payers) to protect it's citizens at all cost. Some people have and will ask "Well, how far would you go with that?" (I should probably reference the answer to this question). In this debate, the real cost is both rehabilitation and incarceration. Each case should be debated separately.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Antithesis

I agree with your points here 100% ... I'm sure if you asked around the site, "Would you pay more to keep dangerous offenders behind bars for their entire lives?" you would get a variety of answers ... some people would be philosophically opposed to it without any consideration of economics ... some would accept it conditionally - as long as it doesn't cost TOO much ... and some people would accept it unconditionally. I just think Canada as a whole would reject such an idea - and the money would be a big stumbling block for some people. For some people, that extra $100, $500, $1000, whatever, per year, would be too much ... for whatever reason. I'm just saying that as things stand right now - with the limited resources available to our justice system at the moment, we need to pick and choose our battles, which is why legislation is the way it is right now - it is where public opinion on crime and punishment and taxes meet.

I think there is a higher-than-normal chance that this girl could be rehabilitated. As said before, she is in her most formative years ... most people,

Ask the parent whose child got sexually abused by someone who had a past record of sexually abusing children, had been incarcerated for the crime many times, but was still released only to reoffend yet again. Ask them how much they would have paid to keep that from happening to their child.

What price do you put on the safety of a nation? I would agree that Canadians as a whole would not be willing to pay more money to keep every criminal behind bars for a longer period of time. But you can not lump all criminals together, just like you can not lump the rest of society all together.

But there are some within the criminal population who have proven themselves to be very dangerous to the rest of society, who have proven that if you release them, they will only reoffend yet again, who have proven that if you offer them programs to assist in their rehabilitation, they will refuse them, in other words, accept no blame for their crimes. I will pay more to keep these criminals behind bars for a longer period of time or if the case warrants it, indefinitely.

And as I said before, which category this young girl will fit into, only time will tell.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by redforever

But there are some within the criminal population who have proved themselves to be very dangerous to the rest of society, who have proved that if you release them, they will only reoffend yet again, who have proved that if you offer them programs to assist in their rehabilitation, they will refuse them, in other words, accepting no blame for their crimes. I will pay more to keep them behind bars for a longer period of time or if the case warrants it, indefinitely.

Does such a program even require an increase in taxes? If you offset it with earlier parole for reformed non-violent offenders... Basically let ten guys out a year earlier to keep the one really bad guy in ten years longer? Not sure if the demographics warrant it, but an ideological shift in the penal system such as you have suggested does not necessary require more funding. Would you let 10 repentant freudulent accountants out of prison early to keep one unrepentant rapist in there for life? I think most people would.