Should Karla Homolka's child be taken from her?

[sysyphus]

I think the child should be taken away and then have Holmoka put into a space capsule and jettisoned out to space so I never have to hear about media darling Karla f%#$ing Holmoka again.

 

[LucyDuke]

certain restrictions were placed on Homolka as a condition of her release:

1. She was to tell police her home address, work address and whom she lives with.
2. She was required to notify police as soon as any of the above changes.
3. She was likewise required to notify police of any change to her name.
4. If she planned to be away from her home for more than 48 hours, she had to give 72 hours' notice.
5. She could not contact Paul Bernardo, the families of Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French or that of the woman known as Jane Doe (see below), or any violent criminals.
6. She was forbidden from being with people under the age of 16 and from consuming drugs other than prescription medicine.
7. She was required to continue therapy and counseling.
8. She was required to provide police with a DNA sample.

There is a penalty of a maximum two-year prison term for violating such an order. While this reassured the public that Homolka would find it difficult to offend again, it was felt by the court that it might be beneficial to her as well, because public hostility and her high profile might endanger her upon release.

Sounds pretty straightforward to me.

 

[Azash]

Who gives a crap? This is just sensationalism.

The answer is simple. If you have faith in the maternal instinct, you say no. What the official answer will be depends on who's assigned that question.

 

[Eukaryote]

Should Karla Homolka's child be taken from her?

Damn straight it should

 

[GinandTonic]

Who gives a crap? This is just sensationalism.

The answer is simple. If you have faith in the maternal instinct, you say no. What the official answer will be depends on who's assigned that question.

When she participated with murdering and raping kiddies she answered as to her maternal instinct.

Really, if this were a male murderous nonce who would be defending his right [sic] to have a kiddie? Just because she has the ability to get pregnant doesnt make her any more suitable to raise a kid than a male murderous nonce.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

I've got to say... that she shouldn't be allowed to have a kid. She's either evil or she has a complete lack of willpower. Either way, I don't want to have to deal with whatever sort of kid she'd raise.

 

[sysyphus]

She shouldn't even be allowed the newspapers anymore.

This woman so much as farts and the bloody media in this country are all over it.

 

[White Elk]

My personal opinion is YES the child should be taken from her. And from a legal standpoint I think YES the child should be taken from her. She is "forbidden from being with people under the age of 16". Period. The arguement that it is her own child is irrelevant. Furthermore she raped and murdered her own sister. By law the child must be taken from her.

 

[MobBoss]

My personal opinion is YES the child should be taken from her. And from a legal standpoint I think YES the child should be taken from her. She is "forbidden from being with people under the age of 16". Period. The arguement that it is her own child is irrelevant. Furthermore she raped and murdered her own sister. By law the child must be taken from her.

Sorry, but legally, being forbidden from being with people under the age of 16 is NOT a ban from having kids. Period. For such a thing to be implemented would take a direct and completely clear order from the court in regards to procreation. Period.

 

[GinandTonic]

Sorry, but legally, being forbidden from being with people under the age of 16 is NOT a ban from having kids. Period. For such a thing to be implemented would take a direct and completely clear order from the court in regards to procreation. Period.

A ban from being with under 16's wouldnt ban her from procreating. She just cannot be aound them postnatal. Why would a ban on her being around under 16's not apply to her progeny? If a man is banned from being around kiddies he cannot live with his kids or minor siblings. Why would being the mother make any diference, legally speaking?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Course if you consider life to begin at conception, shouldn't they take away the kid prenatal

 

[MobBoss]

A ban from being with under 16's wouldnt ban her from procreating. She just cannot be aound them postnatal. Why would a ban on her being around under 16's not apply to her progeny? If a man is banned from being around kiddies he cannot live with his kids or minor siblings. Why would being the mother make any diference, legally speaking?

The original court order was evidently given prior to her having any kids and most likely was not written to encompass her becoming pregnant. Basically, unless the court order was specific as to any child born of her in the future, that part of the order wouldnt apply to her as a parent.

Again, I dont have a problem with the court either (a) preventing her from having a kid, or (b) taking the kid away, but that is not what the current rules state.

Also, if you follow the OPs link to her wiki story, it says she will not face any additional scrutiny in her pregnancy/motherhood. So that kind of answers it right there.

On February 9, 2007, Sun Media reported that Homolka had given birth to a baby boy [12]. Quebec Children's Aid said that despite Homolka's past, the new mother will not automatically be scrutinized.

 

[White Elk]

Sorry, but legally, being forbidden from being with people under the age of 16 is NOT a ban from having kids. Period. For such a thing to be implemented would take a direct and completely clear order from the court in regards to procreation. Period.

I will no longer reply to your posts until you answer to this one. You have a history of not replying to my posts and/or points which point out an error of yours. You have proclaimed authority in topics of military and legal discussion due to some experiance in those fields. Well you know what dude? You dont know jack squat more than the next guy!

 

[MobBoss]

I will no longer reply to your posts until you answer to this one. You have a history of not replying to my posts and/or points which point out an error of yours. You have proclaimed authority in topics of military and legal discussion due to some experiance in those fields. Well you know what dude? You dont know jack squat more than the next guy!

How about you deal with the stuff in this thread here, in this thread. Regardless of what you might think, my world doesnt evolve around trying to educate you. Sorry. Actually, I hadnt even noticed you replied to that other thread and I will reply back in a sec. However, please realize, that yes, I ineed do have a 20 year career in the military under my belt and I do happen to have a wealth of institutional knowledge in regards to that. So, you basically think I am incorrect since you lack the google skills to find what you want. /whatever.

 

[MOTH]

My personal opinion is YES the child should be taken from her. And from a legal standpoint I think YES the child should be taken from her. She is "forbidden from being with people under the age of 16". Period. The arguement that it is her own child is irrelevant. Furthermore she raped and murdered her own sister. By law the child must be taken from her.

Sorry, but legally that restriction no longer applies:

On November 30, 2005, Quebec Superior Court judge James Brunton lifted all restrictions imposed on Homolka, saying there was not enough evidence to justify them. On December 6, 2005, the Quebec Court of Appeal upheld Brunton's decision. The Quebec Justice Department decided not to take the case to the Supreme Court.

So, we are back to the basic question of whether or not she is fit to be a mother. IMHO, she is likely to be as good or a better mother than th average mother due to her experiences and the scrutiny she is under. This is balanced by the negative side that will be imposed on the child from the public and the press.

 

[MobBoss]

Originally Posted by Wiki Article
On November 30, 2005, Quebec Superior Court judge James Brunton lifted all restrictions imposed on Homolka, saying there was not enough evidence to justify them. On December 6, 2005, the Quebec Court of Appeal upheld Brunton's decision. The Quebec Justice Department decided not to take the case to the Supreme Court

Comment on this, White Elk? Or do you still think "She is "forbidden from being with people under the age of 16". Period"?

Kinda puts your comment:

You dont know jack squat more than the next guy!

Into stark perspective dont it?

Irony. Gotta love it.

 

[fishjie]

women always get all the breaks. whenever a woman commits a heinous crime, theres always "mental illness" and various psycho babble ppl make up to excuse her behaviour. guys rush to her defense because she is a poor innocent woman incapable of doing any wrong, she only did it because she was emotionally abused. blahblahblbahblah.

when a man commits a heinous crime, he rightfully gets punished for it. nobody comes to his defense, and nobody should. this is what feminism has reduced society to.

this woman should be in jail for life, period.

 

[sysyphus]

Erm... due process. Somebody has to come to his defense in order to assure that a truly guilty person has been convicted. If they are found guilty, then they should be punished, but a defence must always be provided.

 

[LucyDuke]

this is what feminism has reduced society to.

this woman should be in jail for life, period.

I'm a feminist and I think this woman should be in jail for life.

 

[emzie]

Honestly, you have to screw up pretty bad to have hundreds of Canadians send you death threats. I wouldn't feel bad for a moment if someone followed through on one.