Post: #1

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/04/...ilure.html

Quote:The psychiatric assessment gave a sordid glimpse into the murderous teen sisters’ minds: the girls had been thrilled by their plot to kill mom, revelled in “the excitement, the collaboration,” noted forensic psychiatrist Dr. Phil Klassen — “the drama.”

A decade after they fed their mother a disorienting cocktail of vodka and codeine, helped her into the bathtub inside their Mississauga townhouse, then held her head under the water until she stopped moving, the made-for-Hollywood murder scene will, as if destined, play out in theatres across the country this weekend.

And the so-called “Bathtub Girls” may well be sitting in the theatre.

The tale of matricide will now reach North American audiences with the release of Perfect Sisters, a film starring Mira Sorvino as the depressed, alcoholic mother and Abigail Breslin as the eldest sister.

The story is already well-known across the GTA, where the sisters’ shocking trial played out for weeks inside a Brampton courtroom, revealing a calculated murder plan hatched by girls barely old enough to drive, complete with alibis and a 911 call dubbed by media as ‘Oscar-worthy.’

Their plan was so seamlessly executed it wasn’t until 2004, a year after the death was declared accidental, that word began to spread and one of the girls’ friends went to police.

What may not be as widely known, however, is that the sisters today lead lives not unlike those of average 20-somethings.

Though they remain under the watch of the justice system — both have had court-ordered restrictions on their activities, including banning the use of alcohol and drugs as well as dating — the women, now in their mid-twenties, are shackle-free.

The eldest, released to a halfway house in 2009 after just three years in jail, been studying engineering at a Canadian university. Her younger sister, released in 2010 under federal parole, is a married mother who starts law school this fall.

Lucky kids. I wonder if the husband knows? Who would marry someone with this history if they knew, let alone leave them alone with their children?

Quote:Their relative freedom, just over 10 years since killing their mother, stands either as a rehabilitation victory or a sign the justice system laid down a sentence too merciful.

“It’s really interesting. Canadians certainly do say (young offender sentences) are too lenient,” said Anthony Doob, a professor at the University of Toronto’s Centre of Criminology who researches the youth criminal justice system.

“And then if you ask them if kids should be treated the same as adults, they don’t want that,” he said.

The girls — whose identities are forever protected by a court order — were 15 and 16 when they committed the murder. But their age did not automatically mean they would be sentenced as youth under Canada’s Youth Criminal Justice Act, which emphasizes rehabilitation and lighter sentences. If the crime merits a harsher punishment, young offenders can be sentenced as adults.

The Crown attempted to have the sisters, by then 19 and 20, given life sentences with no chance of parole for at least 10 years for the older girl, and five to seven years for the younger.

But after a lengthy sentencing phase, Justice Bruce Duncan wasn’t convinced. Though he agreed the sisters had “carried out the plan with chilling detachment,” he felt a youth sentence of 10 years, with a six-year incarceration maximum, was sufficient to hold them accountable for murder.

That decision should give the public confidence there was little evidence the women would reoffend, said Kim Pate, executive director of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies.

For more than a century, Canadians have — at least in law — supported the idea that young people deserve special treatment, she said, in recognition that they have only partially developed moral compasses and decision-making abilities.

Part and parcel with that, Pate said, is the goal of encouraging young offenders to rejoin society.

“The whole purpose is to ensure that young people have the opportunity to both be held accountable but also be reintegrated,” Pate said.

Ryerson University criminology professor Jane Sprott said Canadians should be in favour of young offenders spending time in the liminal space between incarceration and freedom.

“The idea is that at some point, you’re going to lose correctional control of these people, so you don’t just want to have them in prison and then suddenly dump them out into the community without anything,” she said.

The release of criminals into society typically gets attention in rare circumstances where little time has been spent in jail for a violent crime, such as murder. But in reality, a fair number of convicted killers are now living in Canadian communities.

As of December 2013, there were just under 1,500 convicted killers — 166 first degree, 1,332 second degree — out on full parole in Canadian communities, according to Public Safety Canada data.

Pate and others say it should be celebrated when criminals attempt to reintegrate, rather than taxing society through incarceration.

“I think one of the tragedies is that when we see individuals actually trying to move ahead with their lives, there is still a negative connotation put on it,” she said.

Robert Jagielski, one of the sisters’ defence lawyers, describes both women as incredibly intelligent and capable.

“I hope this younger sister does become a lawyer because I think, what she went through, I think she has a lot to offer,” he said.

Huh? By that standard, every murderer would be a great lawyer.

Quote:Her 10-year sentence ends in 2016, but she could nonetheless encounter problems practising law. One of the requirements to pass the bar in Ontario is to “be of good character.”

Roy Thomas, spokesman for the Law Society of Upper Canada, the body that regulates lawyers in the province, said all applicants to the bar must report prior criminal proceedings. If the law society finds the matter serious, a hearing will be held where the applicant must show they can meet ethical and professional standards.

Can you imagine her actually not being permitted to be a lawyer?

Quote:The hearing is typically public, but the society does allow for private hearings, which would likely be the case for the bathtub-girl-turned-lawyer, whose identity can never be public.

This particular case is a bad example, because juveniles tend to get off easily in Ontario courts, but I really wonder how bad any woman would have to screw up to actually experience serious life changing consequences for their actions.

Post: #2

Holy fuck that is insane.

That is scary shit these girls are out of prison.

They were 16 or so when they killed their mom, not 11. A 16 year old is way more than aware of their actions.

Those girls are fucking dangerous, they really need to.be locked up.

Post: #3

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_...a_Andersen

Single mother, check.

White knight father, check.

Are there pictures of them anywhere?

Post: #4

How the hell is anyone allowed to study and practice law even when you have committed murder?

crime really does pay if you have a vagina

Post: #5

(04-12-2014 04:23 PM)Haig Wrote:  How the hell is anyone allowed to study and practice law even when you have committed murder?

Makes sense that they got away with it. They would make excellent defense attorneys.

Post: #6

A chick in the UK got an award for her work in helping women's rights.

Quote:Ahluwalia was honored in 2001 at the first Asian Women Awards in recognition of her "strength, personal achievements, determination and commitment" in helping to bring to light the subject of domestic violence.

What did she do?

Ten years earlier - she set fire to her husband as he slept in bed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiranjit_Ahluwalia

Post: #7

Yeah... WTF kind of story is that. They intentionally murdered their mother and revelled in it... Holy shit they let them be rehabilitated? Wonder how men teen boys get that kind of sentence.

Post: #8

(04-12-2014 08:40 PM)Tytalus Wrote:  Yeah... WTF kind of story is that. They intentionally murdered their mother and revelled in it... Holy shit they let them be rehabilitated? Wonder how men teen boys get that kind of sentence.

For all I know, juvenile males would get off just as easy in Canada.

I think the real take away here is that the innocent looking sophomore in your engineering or law school class might be more than meets the eye.

Post: #9

Fuck me, they chatted online with their friends whilst they waited for their mother to become drunk enough! And their friends encouraged them. What sort of friends are these?

Two sisters this fucked in the head can be explained as anomalies. When they have a circle of friends who encourage and cover up for them after the event, you begin to wonder if there's something in the water...

Post: #10

That is severely fucked up. How could you ever even kill somebody I don't even understand. Especially your own mom. Crazy emotional detachment. And some beta white knight married one of the bitches! Imagine knowing that your wife IS A CONVICTED MURDERER. That's some serious baggage. The article seems to focus on the fact that they are young, though. It seems like two brothers at the same age would get off just as easy. I wonder what's right, easy or hard sentences for teens. In America it seems that a kid as young as 16 would spend their life behind bars.

What is the point of prison anyway? It doesn't seem like the best system for preventing crime. But nobody has had any better ideas so it continues.

One thing I always wondered: is it the fear of going to jail that prevents crime? Or is it the fact that people who commit crimes are in jail so they can't commit more crimes on the outside? Or both?

Post: #11

It seems ridiculous that their identities are being protected. For stupid non-crimes like minor in possession sure I can see having it taken off your record, but people should be able to find out if you've been convicted of murder and be allowed to make the rational decision to avoid the person.

Post: #12

(04-13-2014 05:18 AM)Switch Wrote:  That is severely fucked up. How could you ever even kill somebody I don't even understand. Especially your own mom. Crazy emotional detachment. And some beta white knight married one of the bitches! Imagine knowing that your wife IS A CONVICTED MURDERER. That's some serious baggage. The article seems to focus on the fact that they are young, though. It seems like two brothers at the same age would get off just as easy. I wonder what's right, easy or hard sentences for teens. In America it seems that a kid as young as 16 would spend their life behind bars.

What is the point of prison anyway? It doesn't seem like the best system for preventing crime. But nobody has had any better ideas so it continues.

One thing I always wondered: is it the fear of going to jail that prevents crime? Or is it the fact that people who commit crimes are in jail so they can't commit more crimes on the outside? Or both?

This is a fascinating question. The best answer that I can come up with is that, 'it's a bit of both'. Everyone in the world has a sense of right or wrong- what's commonly referred to as a 'moral compass'. Whether that compass is 'set to true North' or not depends an awful lot upon the individual in question's intelligence, upbringing, status and presumably a whole host of other factors.

If pressed, I'd say that most of the time, prison is working because those that commit crimes are inside. Re-offending rates aren't as high as they are due to poor parole and rehabilitation- they're high because ex cons are pre-disposed to a life of crime. All those who say 'prison isn't working due to the high re-offending rates' are missing the point with a crude straw man argument- prison does work, all the time criminals are inside it. I'm not saying keep people locked up forever. In fact, despite the above, I support the idea of giving people another chance. For some reason I empathise with them, I think 'that coulda been me', even though I know the chances of that being the case are slim to none.

As far as a deterrent goes- our internal moral compass will keep most of us from ever seeing the inside of a prison in person. I'd reason there might be a small overlap of reasoning where the deterrent effect is effective . Three examples-

#1 You don't steal your neighbour's mower even if he is a twat- your moral compass tells you that's wrong. You don't need the threat of prison to deter you.
#2 You are shafted on a business deal and loose a fortune. You have a way of obtaining revenge, but if caught you will go to prison. Is the deterrent enough?
#3 You walk in on a guy raping your 8 year old daughter. You immediately stove his head in with a baseball bat. Prison in this instance is no deterrent.

Whether the deterrent is effective or not depends upon 'how you are wired'. It's important to remember that a defining characteristic of most low level criminals is an inability to look beyond the short to medium term. Combine this with an off-course moral compass and you have lots of petty crime (example #1) from a certain percentage of the population for whom prison is not a deterrent.


TL;DR: The deterrent effect of prison is most evident for those with lots to loose, and a certain level of intelligence. Prison is a deterrent for white collar crime, and not nearly so much for blue collar crime.