31 July 2006

The Revolving Door Dilemma Continues

Tying right in with my most recent post, this angers me to no end. Another pervert who should be locked away forever so that he can't hurt little kids, but is out on the street despite all of this history. Peter Whitmore
was first convicted in 1993 of abduction and five sexual offences involving four young boys and spent 16 months in custody.
Nine days after his release, he took an eight-year-old girl from Guelph, Ont., to Toronto, and was sentenced to 56 months in prison.
Less than a month after his November 2000 release, he was found in a downtown Toronto motel with a 13-year-old boy. He was sentenced to one year in jail.
In 2002 he fled to British Columbia in an attempt to avoid the media spotlight in Ontario after he was found in the company of a five-year-old boy.
In B.C., he pleaded guilty to parole violations because a "rape kit" had been found on him.
A search of Whitmore's backpack turned up latex gloves, pictures of young children, tubes of jelly lubricant, duct tape, a sleeping bag and plastic zipper ties that can be used as handcuffs.
In 2002, Whitmore told CTV's Canada AM that he was not going to re-offend. "I can't change the past, but I can change the future. I won't do it again," he said.

Look at the times after his release that he re-offended again: 9 days and something less than 31 days. Why? Why? WHY?

There has got to be something done to get people like this classified as dangerous offenders, defined in the Criminal Code as an offender who:
constitutes a threat to the life, safety or physical or mental well-being of other persons on the basis of evidence establishing
(i) a pattern of repetitive behaviour by the offender, of which the offence for which he or she has been convicted forms a part, showing a failure to restrain his or her behaviour and a likelihood of causing death or injury to other persons, or inflicting severe psychological damage on other persons, through failure in the future to restrain his or her behaviour,
(ii) a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour by the offender, of which the offence for which he or she has been convicted forms a part, showing a substantial degree of indifference on the part of the offender respecting the reasonably foreseeable consequences to other persons of his or her behaviour, or
(iii) any behaviour by the offender, associated with the offence for which he or she has been convicted, that is of such a brutal nature as to compel the conclusion that the offender’s behaviour in the future is unlikely to be inhibited by normal standards of behavioural restraint

This is the type of stuff I'm talking about in my previous post. He's been given multiple opportunities by the justice system to demonstrate that he's reformed, changed, whatever, and he's failed every single goddamn time and has now struck again against innocent young people. Had he faced stronger laws in 1993 when he first offended he wouldn't have been free to do this again. I cannot believe this actually has been allowed to happen. Why isn't there a monitoring system? Why wasn't there proper notification and surveillance detailing his movements? Why doesn't he have an ankle bracelet that tracks his every move? Why is he on the loose to prey on children, goddammit!?!?!?

Is the timing still off, or am I a little more accurate now when it comes to saying that it's time to deal with these crimes?


Nicole said...

I agree with you, and also posted on this as well. I have 2 kids, and one of them is the same age as one of the kids he took, plus this all went down 2 hours away from where I live. On another blog, a guy actually argued with me, and for the things I said, he actually said that he is happy to have the Charter of Rights, for this man.
What about victims rights???

RGM said...

Hi Nicole, thank you for your comment. It is a truly scary thing the manner in which some will put the rights of the attacker before those of the attacked. It makes me question what their motivations are and wonder aloud why the folks who take such a stance simply do not come forward and take sides. Yes the person has rights under the Charter, and they should be respected, but these offenders are violating one of the most important features of the Charter: the guarantee of life, liberty, and the security of the person.

Nicole said...

Hi Richard, thanks for also commenting on my blog.I can see we definitely agree on this subject, and wish more people felt the way we do!

Incase you haven't figured it out, my blog { I also have a childcare blog} is a silly, tell big whoppers, have fun, venting kind of place, so if you frequent, most of it is tongue in cheek. I do post about serious things too, but for the most part use this particular blog just to be silly and immature. You are welcome anytime!!!

RGM said...

When I'm not writing a thesis or being deadly serious, I am all about the silly.

Nicole said...

I am all about the silly.

Then my friend you are welcome anytime!! Cheers!