Clifford Olson soon up for parole

[auntAgonist]

Olson 'should die in prison,' father of victim says

VICTORIA (Jun 22, 2006)

Serial child killer Clifford Olson should die behind bars, the family of one of his victims will tell the National Parole Board at a parole hearing expected next month.

Olson, who has served 25 years in prison after pleading guilty in 1982 to the murders of 11 young people in British Columbia, now is eligible for parole as part of his life sentence.

Gary Rosenfeldt, whose son Daryn was murdered by Olson in April 1981, said, "The bottom line is he murdered 11 children. If they let him out now, it's like he got two years for the murder of each child. I don't think that he could ever do enough time in prison. He should die in prison.''


http://www.therecord.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=record/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1150927814547&call_pageid=1024321927354&col=1024322421753

[Canuck55]

1. I agree

"He should die in prison.''

[auntAgonist]

2. agreed.

there is no place in society for him. He chose his path, now let him rot in it.


aA

[MrPrax]

3. All his young victims...

would have been in the middle 30s to late 40s--living life, would have been fathers and mothers with children of their own, attending family picnics, weddings, graduating from school, making a contribution, not only to themselves, but to their own families and communities. But they didn't because of him.

I can't see how Olsen can ever be released -- unless it's just the body going to the local crematorium.

[Jazz2006]

5. Agreed.

Eleven children.

What more needs be said?

[Jazz2006]

4. delete -- wrong spot.

[yvr girl]

6. How is it possible he's not classified as a dangerous offender?

There's no way he should ever get out of prison.

[Darth_Kitten]

7. Good question.

n/t

[Canuck55]

8. I scream this question...

no one looks twice...

[Jazz2006]

9. Probably because his crimes pre-dated the current dangerous offender

provisions, and most statutes are not retroactively enforceable.

I'd have to look up the details but off the top of my head, I think that there were old "habitual offender" provisions dating back to the 40s but those wouldn't apply in this kind of case, and in any event, they were superceded by later provisions dealing solely with sexual offenders - and parts of the latter provisions were deemed unconstitutional at some point, and then the current "dangerous offender" provisions, which have been deemed constitutional are relatively recent (late 90s) and would therefore not apply to Olson, since he had been sentenced for his crimes long before the provisions came into force.

There are exceptions to the retroactive applicability of statutes, of course ~ one recent example is the DNA databank law which allows the state to obtain DNA samples from convicted sex offenders even though the offences for which they were convicted took place before the law allowing collection of samples for a databank was enacted. But that is procedural rather than substantive. While procedural changes are often applied retroactively, substantive changes are usually not.

A complete change in law is a substantive change, and is very rarely retroactively applied (although there are exceptions and some statutes explicitly set out their retroactive applicability).

The D.O. provisions are more procedural than substantive but there's an element of overlap to them. In the result, if the relevant dangerous offender provisions were not enacted before he was sentenced for the crime, the Crown cannot seek dangerous offender status for Olson. But, even if the crimes had been committed before the provisions were enacted, he could have been subject to them if he was sentenced after they came into effect.

There was a couple of cases heard simultaneously a few years ago in the S.C.C. which held that although the offender had committed the offences before the provisions came into effect, the court could still consider the applicability of the dangerous offender provisions for him because the provisions had come into effect before his trial and sentencing.

But in Olson's case, the provisions came about long after his crimes and long after his sentencing.

That said, I don't think he's going anywhere anyway. He murdered 11 children, after all. I really don't think he's going to garner any sympathy among those hearing his application for parole.


On edit: I looked it up ~ the D.O. provisions came into force August 1, 1997. And the Supreme Court did determine in 2003 that it was proper to consider declaring an offender a dangerous offender under those provisions if the convicted person came up for sentencing after the provisions came into effect, even if the crimes were committed before the provisions came into effect. R. v. Edgar, <2003> 2 S.C.R. 388, 2003 SCC 47 and R. v. Johnson, <2003> 2 S.C.R. 357.