The devil who lives next door
It came as no surprise to see the John Howard and Elizabeth Fry societies going to bat for Karla Homolka. If there’s someone in jail, chances are good they’ll argue she shouldn’t be in there; and if she has served her sentence, it’s a sure thing that they’ll argue she should be left alone.
“She got a sentence, she did her time and there’s no reason to believe that she has not been rehabilitated,’’ Catherine Latimer, executive director at John Howard, told The Canadian Press (CP). “The question is whether or not she’ll get a chance to be reintegrated.’’
Kim Pate, her counterpart at Elizabeth Fry, told CP she understood why residents of Châteauguay, on Montreal’s South Shore, where Homolka was this week revealed to be living, were perplexed. But, she asked: “Is it based on myths and stereotypes or is it based on real risk?”
She noted, as paraphrased by CP, that “sex crimes are most likely to be committed by a family member or acquaintance,” which is true. We could ask Tammy Homolka about that, had she not choked to death on vomit while suffering the effects of alcohol, sleeping pills and veterinary anesthetic administered by her older sister, Karla, in order that Karla’s husband, Paul Bernardo, could savagely rape her.
These groups serve an important purpose in a so- ciety that’s over-enamoured with incarceration. But considering whom we’re talking about, the tenor of the discussion among those not professionally obligated to advocate for Homolka’s interests has been remarkably calm. You would think she had, I don’t know, killed her husband in a fit of rage with a frying pan; or mowed down some cyclists while driving drunk.
In an editorial, the Montreal Gazette, which had Homolka on the front page for two straight days, worried that her three children might be exposed to “bullying” at school, and affirmed the family’s “right” to live wherever it pleases.
“Homolka seems unlikely to pose any threat to children at the school,” the Gazette opined. “Four months after her release from prison in July 2005, a court ruled there was no evidence she remained a ‘real and imminent’ danger to the public.”
A Université de Montréal criminologist suggested to CTV News that the odds Homolka might commit similar crimes were a positively soothing 1.5 per cent — though she conceded that “strong emotional reactions” in the community are “totally understandable.”
Words like “firestorm” and “shock waves” have been used to describe the neighbourhood’s reaction. But the quotes in most of the stories haven’t really backed it up. Everyone seems to sym- pathize with the children, which they should. Nobody seems to have threatened violence. Some think the Homolka clan should get out of town, which is perfectly reasonable. Others seem to think they ought to be allowed to live in peace, but also think they had a right to know where she was living.
“If it hadn’t surfaced, we would have never known,” Alana Syvret, whose two kids attend the same school as Homolka’s, told the Gazette. “I could have sent my kids there for a birthday party.”
No kidding. How do you respond to that? “Ma’am, please, you had nothing to worry about. There’s a 98.5 per cent chance she’ll never rape and kill any more children.”
I’m as big a bleeding heart as you’ll find when it comes to second chances, but let’s remember who the hell we’re talking about here. Homolka at the very least helped sexually assault and kill three teenage girls: her own 15-year-old sister; 14-year-old Leslie Mahaffy, whom she and Bernardo chopped up with a circular saw, encased in concrete and dumped in a lake; and 15-year-old Kristen French, whom they kidnapped together and tortured for three days before killing her and heading off to Easter dinner at her parents’ house.
Karla Homolka shouldn’t have kids. She shouldn’t be anywhere but in prison. And had the Crown seen what lawyer Ken Murray described as her “feral joy” on the videotapes that he sat on for a year and a half, that’s exactly where she likely would be. If she had been released, it would have been under formal conditions that might put the minds of Châteauguay parents somewhat at ease.
By the sound of it, the people of Châteauguay have this well under control. They deserve medals for tolerance, not admonishments to live and let live. It sounds like Homolka’s kids will get the shot they deserve. If the rest of us are of a mind to start sympathizing with criminals and helping them rebuild their lives, I think that’s splendid. Let’s go ahead and sympathize with almost anyone other than Karla Homolka.