The “letter of the law” is an expression that has been bantered about for eons.
It would seem that no one really knows what it means. It would be subject to interpretation with what might be termed as rampant use of such things as “notwithstanding” and “whereas clauses.”
In these instances, the rights of the perpetrators of crimes appear to have more importance than the rights of individuals who have been victimized. Is this typical of Canada or is it the norm through other democracies as well?
It doesn’t take too much research to get the answer to that one. Why is it that good old Canada seems to be a nation of bleeding hearts and exceptions to the rule when it comes to crimes that are set out in law and the consequences that fit them? It seems that we want to create the impression that, “We are Canada a pristine, proud member of the world order.”
If we believe this, then P.T. Barnum was right when he said, “There’s a sucker born every minute.” The current issue with Mr. Schoenborn, who killed his three children in 2008, and his day pass scenario is a typical example. Here is a travesty of justice if ever there was one. The law states that consequences for his offense are spelled out. However, instability trumps the law, so it would seem.
True, there has been time served. That we know is documented. However, so called professional experts have stated that Mr. Schoenborn has progressed to the point that he could function on supervised outings in the community.
Here, the law says one thing and the experts say another. In most other democracies, such crimes do not get the “bleeding heart treatment,” irrespective of the circumstances.
Several questions come into play here? How often will this freedom be exercised? How tight will the security be? Have the victims’ rights been respected and protected as we are led to believe that supervision will not be sheriff driven? What guarantees are there against acts of violence or even recidivism?
How safe will the general public in the surrounding community be? I would wager that there are very few guarantees here to many of these. The experts appear to be basing their decision on their observations over a period of time. Who knows for sure what’s real and what’s an act?
Why do parole boards seem to drop the ball and realize later that, oops we made a mistake again.