concurrent sentencing in Canada / Bernardo
Merv Cripps
...
By LICIA CORBELLA
Calgary Sun
Consecutive versus concurrent. Many Canadians don't know the difference
between those two words -- so obtuse is their meaning and so benevolent
their sound -- which is just fine as far as Canada's correctional system
is concerned.
Essentially, consecutive sentencing means you do the time for the crimes
-- all of them. Concurrent means a volume discount.
If you kill one person in Canada, you may as well kill a few more before
you get caught or when you escape from jail, 'cause chances are, it
won't affect your sentence one bit.
Consider the case of Harvey Andres.
Andres -- who is currently serving a life sentence for the 1976 murder
of Shirley Baker, a 33-year-old B.C. woman who had her head smashed in
with a 20-lb. rock -- was charged Thursday with a rash of new charges,
including first-degree murder. They stem from events in Calgary in 1982
while Andres had escaped, for the second time, from the supposedly
"escape-proof" maximum security prison in Edmonton.
Andres escaped March 11, 1982 and was caught following a bloody shootout
July 5.
In those four months, Calgary was gripped by fear following a series of
vicious sex assaults committed by a man known as the "ski-mask" rapist,
including the murder of 17-year-old Shirley Ann Johnston on May 23.
As written by Sun reporter Pete Smith, Andres' jail breaks and shootouts
with the police ostensibly went unpunished.
After his first escape, Andres was trapped by police April 19, 1981 in a
car at 12 Ave. and 8 St. S.W. in Calgary.
After the shootout, Andres had been shot and wounded, and 13-year
veteran RCMP Sgt. Ray Forsythe had taken a city police bullet in the
chest.
This is what Smith wrote: "Forsythe lived and Andres was returned to
prison, smiling broadly in court when the new five-and-a-half year
sentence imposed on him was made concurrent to his life term. He
wouldn't have to serve another day."
Now, is it any wonder that he attempted (and carried out) another
escape?
Of course not. That his escape from prison and a shootout in the middle
of a Calgary street garnered him just a five-and-a-half year sentence is
bad enough. That the sentence was concurrent is obscene.
Had he received a consecutive sentence at that time, adding some five
years to his parole eligibility, perhaps Andres would have thought twice
about attempting another jail break.
What's more, if Andres is indeed convicted of these new charges, his
life sentence would run concurrent to his current one. Depending on the
experts you talk to, it's still not clear what impact that would have on
his parole eligibility.
But surely the parole board would never consider letting him out any
time soon, goes the patter. Oh, really? Don't be so sure.
Andres is already eligible to apply for parole of his conviction for the
1976 murder.
According to a 1996 report obtained by the Sun, the parole board
declared Andres too dangerous to be let out of prison.
The board, however, added it would consider day parole or full parole in
his case if three conditions were met.
Andres would have to undergo psychological treatment in jail --
something he has refused to do. He would have to warrant being
transferred to a lower-security jail, and have to earn the right to have
escorted temporary absences.
This for a man who committed murder in 1976 while on mandatory
supervision from an earlier prison sentence.
It's maddening. The time has come, folks, for the term concurrent
sentencing to be struck from Canada's criminal code.
That's why Canadians need to start showing support for Ontario Liberal
MP Albina Guarnieri's private member's bill dubbed the Consecutive
Sentencing Bill.
The bill would enable judges to finally sentence killers to two
consecutive life terms -- which would mean no parole eligibility for up
to 50 years -- for multiple murderers.
The law as it's drafted now in Canada gives killers a bulk rate for
murder, says Guarnieri. Two or three or 11 murders for the price of one.
Currently, multiple murderers like Clifford Olson and Paul Bernardo
receive concurrent sentences -- or one life sentence. They, as well as
the 320 other multiple murderers in Canada, must be given the right to
apply for parole after serving 25 years -- even though Olson, for
instance, killed 11 children and Bernardo murdered two teens.
For her efforts, Guarnieri has been labelled by some as vengeful and
"un-liberal."
But Guarnieri says it was compassion -- not vengeance -- which set her
on her campaign to get rid of concurrent sentences for multiple
murderers and rapists.
During the Bernardo trial it struck her that the lives of his two young
victims -- Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French -- were discounted. So too
was the pain and suffering of the at least 14 women and girls Bernardo
is said to have raped. It would be moot for those cases to go to trial
since they would not add a single day to his sentence.
So what is the real definition of concurrent sentencing? How about the
gross undervaluing of an innocent human life?
Hownow
<mcri...@home.com> wrote:
> Here is a good look at how concurrent prison terms devalue human life
> ...
>
> By LICIA CORBELLA
> Calgary Sun
>
> Consecutive versus concurrent. Many Canadians don't know the difference
> between those two words -- so obtuse is their meaning and so benevolent
> their sound -- which is just fine as far as Canada's correctional system
> is concerned.
>
> Essentially, consecutive sentencing means you do the time for the crimes
> -- all of them. Concurrent means a volume discount.
>
The concurrent sentence is not the problem ... it is the release on
parole of killers sentenced to life.
In less serious offences, concurrrent sentences make it easier for the
court to hand the offender one sentence that should reflect the
severity of all the offences.
Law enforcement like 'em because they can clear a number of things off
the books by having the offender cop to them all rather than clog the
courts by fighting each charge - and there could be scores.
If there were no concurrent sentences, we'd have many minor lawbreakers
doing concurrent stretches that are longer than time served by violent
offenders.
hm
Mark Denman
While the person who rapes and kills has been convicted of a crime
(rape) for which he receives a 15 year sentence, and another crime
(manslaughter) for which he receives a 25 year sentence, he has not been
convicted of any crime worthy of a 40 year sentence.
--
Mark Denman ~W.W.J.J.D.?~ <"what would judge judy do?">
=======================================================================
the ALARUMS-L mailing list - a chatty forum about pencil and paper RPGs
http://lists.accglobal.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=alarums&text_mode=0
AlTrussGuy
early out in 4 yrs 8 months, and rapes 8 yr old , while mom watches, then
cuts em both up, SOB is back in jail with two more people dead..........
Mark some how the afgans, don't have this problem, they are backwards etc.
but if you steal a car it cost right hand left foot. now not in 20 yrs on
death row, A woman attracks a mans attention she sleeps with him, and is
found guilt (stoned to death) new twist to stoning, lay on the ground, solid
wood door from head to toe, 8foot long 4 feet wide, stack rocks on door
until people stop moving.......
Mark Denman wrote in message <37F7B6...@pacbell.net>...