Good grief. Thanks for getting the word out as I'm in Southern Ontario with two wee ones. This guy is a complete lunatic but I'll bet you he acts like he's your best friend. Most of these predators do.

Double post.

I'm really starting to get a Hate-On for this lil area. I do enjoy Kingston, but this area is becoming quite dirty and so forth, Belleville especially, Nasty lil neighboring town I have!

I recently went back to Ontario for a visit (had not been back for 10 years), so much had changed. It doesn't seem like home anymore.

I really wonder what is going on in these politicians heads though, homolka, the girl in bc, now this rapist in waiting all being released. It makes no sense

I simply can't wrap my head around it. I'm sure the argument is that even though he is a criminal, as is the case with Kayla Bourque, they have served their time and disgustingly enough also still have human rights.
In my opinion, if a person is considered a high risk and a public warning needs to be issued, they should not be released. Is the point of our legal system not to keep offenders off the streets and protect us from harm? What happened to that?
It is my opinion, that this man has zero right to be free.

Originally posted by rimjaja
I recently went back to Ontario for a visit (had not been back for 10 years), so much had changed. It doesn't seem like home anymore.

We did that as well...felt like I couldn't breathe. I'll drive through and wave goodbye as I pass but I'll never go back for any reason.

Originally posted by AccessDenied
I simply can't wrap my head around it. I'm sure the argument is that even though he is a criminal, as is the case with Kayla Bourque, they have served their time and disgustingly enough also still have human rights.
In my opinion, if a person is considered a high risk and a public warning needs to be issued, they should not be released. Is the point of our legal system not to keep offenders off the streets and protect us from harm? What happened to that?
It is my opinion, that this man has zero right to be free.

Your point is not unreasonable. However, I think this is a very tricky issue for various reasons.

IMO the most sane response would be to sentence these people to facilities for the criminally insane instead of prison, where their "illnesses" can be treated... and further, facilities which would have staff far more capable of deciding whether these individuals were truly "safe" to re-enter a community.

Of course that most logical of responses would have some people all up in arms too, as they would claim that such a thing would be "getting off light," for the perpetrator. I would disagree with that claim, and invite anyone saying so to spend any extended time in a mental-healthcare facility.

But if we believe that most of these people act compulsively, and are highly likely to re-offend, we really need to start addressing that by treating this like a mental illness.

Originally posted by iwilliam

Originally posted by AccessDenied
I simply can't wrap my head around it. I'm sure the argument is that even though he is a criminal, as is the case with Kayla Bourque, they have served their time and disgustingly enough also still have human rights.
In my opinion, if a person is considered a high risk and a public warning needs to be issued, they should not be released. Is the point of our legal system not to keep offenders off the streets and protect us from harm? What happened to that?
It is my opinion, that this man has zero right to be free.

Your point is not unreasonable. However, I think this is a very tricky issue for various reasons.

IMO the most sane response would be to sentence these people to facilities for the criminally insane instead of prison, where their "illnesses" can be treated... and further, facilities which would have staff far more capable of deciding whether these individuals were truly "safe" to re-enter a community.

Of course that most logical of responses would have some people all up in arms too, as they would claim that such a thing would be "getting off light," for the perpetrator. I would disagree with that claim, and invite anyone saying so to spend any extended time in a mental-healthcare facility.

But if we believe that most of these people act compulsively, and are highly likely to re-offend, we really need to start addressing that by treating this like a mental illness.

From what I have seen in regards to the mental health care system here, it is not much better and just as ill equip t to handle a criminal such as this. These types of people get shuttled back and forth between the two systems and neither gives them punishment nor rehabilitation if such exists.

Canada is foolish for letting Kayla roam free even if she is monitored 24/7. She will move onto humans, every time I've ever read about someone torturing animals and videotaping it for the internet they end up hurting someone. I guess you could all demand the right to bear arms if they do since your gov clearly doesn't care if you end up in a snuff video :-P

Originally posted by iwilliam
IMO the most sane response would be to sentence these people to facilities for the criminally insane instead of prison, where their "illnesses" can be treated... and further, facilities which would have staff far more capable of deciding whether these individuals were truly "safe" to re-enter a community.

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner. That's exactly what we need but there's no funding for it. Hell, we don't have enough beds for regular offenders and then we have to house the mentally ill? With NO way of treating them? Sad state of affairs.

It is hard to believe they are going to let someone like that out! Perhaps the one who decides it is ok for a dangerous offender to be let loose should go to prison if/when the offender re-offends. I am sure that would make them think twice about the decision.

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by iwilliam
IMO the most sane response would be to sentence these people to facilities for the criminally insane instead of prison, where their "illnesses" can be treated... and further, facilities which would have staff far more capable of deciding whether these individuals were truly "safe" to re-enter a community.

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner. That's exactly what we need but there's no funding for it. Hell, we don't have enough beds for regular offenders and then we have to house the mentally ill? With NO way of treating them? Sad state of affairs.

Doesn't Penetang have a facility to house this type of criminal? That was always what we thought Ontario did with those who didn't fit into the prison system. Ship em off to Penetang!

Originally posted by AccessDenied
To those families in those towns, hide your children and hide them well.

But do go gently, the children do not need to have fear instilled in them, lest you play into the hands of those that wish to enfear their populations; ie, systemic manipulation and abuse of parental concern to raise a generation of wusses, always dependent on the state for their 'safety'. Re-enforcing their 'stranger danger' awareness and then carry on as normal, should do it!

Originally posted by Thurisaz

I have a theory about this kind of thing. = they release them so they can/will reoffend and keep everyone in jobs.

And yet, people like this (as well as thugs/gangs) on the streets makes for policing on the cheap, as it can instill fear that keeps people safe indoors, reluctant to venture out, especially after dark, in case they are victimised by crime.