Should Karla Homolka's child be taken from her?

[Pasi Nurminen]

Karla Homolka is a woman who helped her husband rape and kill teenaged girls, including her own sister. She was given a lighter sentence in exchange for testifying against her own husband, and has since been released from prison. She reportedly has now given birth to a baby boy.

In light of her past, should the child be taken away from her? Pasi says yes. Please vote in the poll.

 

[Tee Kay]

I'm leaning towards no. Then again it depends if she's reformed or not.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

I'm leaning towards no. Then again it depends if she's reformed or not.

Do you really think that anyone who helped rape and murder her own sister can "reform"? She's simply not fit to raise a child.

 

[REDY]

I think its business for psychiatrists. This poll is fair and balanced

 

[azzaman333]

Do you really think that anyone who helped rape and murder her own sister can "reform"? She's simply not fit to raise a child.

I doubt you have the qualifications to decide whether she is mentally fit enough to raise a child.

 

[GinandTonic]

Why on earth would you let a child remain in the care of a convicted child-abuser?

Jesus - if you are involved in raping and murdering kiddies you are never allowed to be around them again. Period.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

I doubt you have the qualifications to decide whether she is mentally fit enough to raise a child.

She actively participated in the murder and rape of her own sister. That's all I need to know. I don't need to be a psychiatrist and psychoanalyze every single aspect of her mind using medical terminology to know that someone who rapes and murders her own sister is not fit to raise a child.

What you're saying is that I don't have the qualifications to decide that a drunk driver who mows down a couple of schoolgirls should not be allowed to drive a car ever again.

Replace the word "qualifications" with "authority" and I'll buy your theory, but until then, any sane person has the qualifications to judge her as unfit to raise a child.

 

[GinandTonic]

She actively participated in the murder and rape of her own sister. That's all I need to know. I don't need to be a psychiatrist and psychoanalyze every single aspect of her mind using medical terminology to know that someone who rapes and murders her own sister is not fit to raise a child.

What you're saying is that I don't have the qualifications to decide that a drunk driver who mows down a couple of schoolgirls should not be allowed to drive a car ever again.

Replace the word "qualifications" with "authority" and I'll buy your theory, but until then, any sane person has the qualifications to judge her as unfit to raise a child.

Well said sir. Looks like we agree for once.

 

[azzaman333]

She actively participated in the murder and rape of her own sister. That's all I need to know. I don't need to be a psychiatrist and psychoanalyze every single aspect of her mind using medical terminology to know that someone who rapes and murders her own sister is not fit to raise a child.

She may have 'fixed' her behaviour. A psychiatrist would be able to figure out whether she has/hasn't. I'd like to see her proven fit/unfit before any decision is made.

What you're saying is that I don't have the qualifications to decide that a drunk driver who mows down a couple of schoolgirls should not be allowed to drive a car ever again.

A drunk driver that mows down a couple of school girls could be allowed to drive again IMO.

Replace the word "qualifications" with "authority" and I'll buy your theory, but until then, any sane person has the qualifications to judge her as unfit to raise a child.

Anyone can judge all they want, but they do not know the specific about her to decide whether she can raise a child.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Anyone can judge all they want, but they do not know the specific about her to decide whether she can raise a child.

Hey, I understand where you're coming from. I understand that you cannot comprehend someone actively participating in the rape and murder of her own sister, plus a bunch of other kids. I can't comprehend that myself. I simply lack the mental depravity to understand how or why someone would do that, particularly to an immediate family member.

But I do understand that someone who is that evil simply cannot be rehabilitated, and she presents a clear and present risk not only to society, but to the human race. Plea bargain notwithstanding, the authorities should be monitoring her every single move, and the moment she does anything even remotely illegal (even just jaywalking), that's it. You send her to the nuthouse for life.

And don't argue that she was battered or dominated by her husband into cooperating with him. That's nonsense. If your husband turns to you and says "hey, you know what would be great? If we raped and murdered your sister," you reply to him "that's cool, I'm just going to go to the toilet now," and then you call the police. There is no level of duress that could make someone actively participate in the rape and murder of her own sister.

So that's it. Someone who has done what she has done is simply not a human being, at least not as we understand human beings. She should not be allowed anywhere near any person under the age of 35 for the rest of her life, period.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

Child should be taken in custody - i simply can't think worse mother as she is a real monster. Anyone objecting to that, answer honestly to this question - would you like her to take care of YOUR baby?

 

[MOTH]

She has paid her debt to society. According to the experts she poses a low risk to re-offend. I am willing to give her the benifit of the doubt to raise her own children.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Karla Homolka is a woman who helped her husband rape and kill teenaged girls, including her own sister. She was given a lighter sentence in exchange for testifying against her own husband, and has since been released from prison. She reportedly has now given birth to a baby boy.

In light of her past, should the child be taken away from her? Pasi says yes. Please vote in the poll.

Of course. Her tubes should be tied also. Im not saying this because its a woman. My response would be the same if it was guy, take the kid away and give him a vasectomy.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Of course. Her tubes should be tied also. Im not saying this because its a woman. My response would be the same if it was guy, take the kid away and give him a vasectomy.

Should this become a part of the punishment for murderers in general?!

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Should this become a part of the punishment for murderers in general?!

I wouldnt have a problem with it. We already take away their right to vote when convicted of this sort of crime. How much more harm could someone do entrusted with the raising of a human being, than he or she could by casting a vote?

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Didn't know murderers weren't able to vote, I think they are here... but it can't be used as a rule whether they should be able to raise a child or not.

I agree that too many people get children who really shouldn't have, but permanently castrating human beings seems too much whatever they've done.... I'd rather see them shot if it's deserved and comes down to either.

 

[azzaman333]

But I do understand that someone who is that evil simply cannot be rehabilitated, and she presents a clear and present risk not only to society, but to the human race. Plea bargain notwithstanding, the authorities should be monitoring her every single move, and the moment she does anything even remotely illegal (even just jaywalking), that's it. You send her to the nuthouse for life.

And don't argue that she was battered or dominated by her husband into cooperating with him. That's nonsense. If your husband turns to you and says "hey, you know what would be great? If we raped and murdered your sister," you reply to him "that's cool, I'm just going to go to the toilet now," and then you call the police. There is no level of duress that could make someone actively participate in the rape and murder of her own sister.

So that's it. Someone who has done what she has done is simply not a human being, at least not as we understand human beings. She should not be allowed anywhere near any person under the age of 35 for the rest of her life, period.

From the wiki;

Homolka would later say that in the spring of 1990, Bernardo began calling her his sex slave and abusing her severely. Homolka claims that she would never deny him anything; she was his property and was well trained.

I highly doubt a sex slave would have the opportunity to use a phone, especially if her husband was able to rape and murder so many young women.

Also;

During her imprisonment Homolka received psychological evaluations from at least seven different psychologists who all agreed that she exhibited the symptoms of "severe clinical depression, battered spousal syndrome and post traumatic stress disorder," all of which she has been treated for while in prison.

Dr Sharon Williams, an expert on incarcerated sex offenders and psychopaths, who evaluated her between 1996 and 1999, concluded that Karla Homolka was not a psychopath, and not likely to reoffend. In 2005, during Homolka's release hearing (under section 810.2 of the Criminal Code), psychiatrist Louis Morrisette said the 35-year-old did not represent a threat to society and was not a psychopath.

So, despite all her mental health problems, none of them are likely to make her reoffend and all three of her mental health problems can be attributed to her husband. I personally wouldn't mind her living in the same neighbourhood as me, or even the same street. I doubt I would let her look after my own hypothetical children straight away, but if she earned my trust I would have no qualms at all.


I would like a psychiatrist to confirm or deny that she is fit for parenthood though, but otherwise, she's served her time, she has some very strict restrictions

Spoiler :

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.

on what she can and can't do, and is no threat to society according to the wiki article.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Oh please, everybody has a sob story, not everybody is an accessory to people being raped and killed, including their own sister. What, she's got to have a kid? Its imperative that this complete wacko be entrusted with the care and raising of a human being? Its like giving her 20 years to train her replacement wacko. Enough with the people already, theres no shortage, we've got plenty.

 

[azzaman333]

Oh please, everybody has a sob story, not everybody is an accessory to people being raped and killed, including their own sister. What, she's got to have a kid? Its imperative that this complete wacko be entrusted with the care and raising of a human being? Its like giving her 20 years to train her replacement wacko. Enough with the people already, theres no shortage, we've got plenty.

If the experts feel that she isn't enough of a risk to be automatically scrutinized, why should we scare ourselves over the potential that the kid may be trained as a rapist murderer?

Actually, if we ban kids, we won't have a problem with kids being killed/abused/trained to be evil. Problem solved?

 

[MobBoss]

She actively participated in the murder and rape of her own sister. That's all I need to know. I don't need to be a psychiatrist and psychoanalyze every single aspect of her mind using medical terminology to know that someone who rapes and murders her own sister is not fit to raise a child.

What you're saying is that I don't have the qualifications to decide that a drunk driver who mows down a couple of schoolgirls should not be allowed to drive a car ever again.

Replace the word "qualifications" with "authority" and I'll buy your theory, but until then, any sane person has the qualifications to judge her as unfit to raise a child.

Has she paid her debt to society? If so, by what right do you continue her punishment?

And you have it right, it would take a judge and a court to rule her unfit to be a parent. However, in the absence of such a ruling, she should have the right to have and raise a child just like anyone else.