Teen admits to killing 9 year old boy on Manitoba reserve

Teen admits killing 9 year old boy on MB reserve

WINNIPEG - A Manitoba teen has admitted to slitting the throat of a nine-year-old boy he was babysitting on a remote reserve.

The 17-year-old pleaded guilty Friday to second-degree murder and will be sentenced this fall. Justice officials agreed not to seek an adult sentence in exchange for his admission of guilt.

Tristian Dunsford was killed on June 27, 2008 inside a home in Little Grand Rapids, about 280 kilometres northeast of Winnipeg. He suffered massive blood loss as a result of "sharp force trauma to the neck," according to police.

No other details have been presented to the court, including any motive for the slaying or what type of weapon was used.

The accused was set to begin a Queen’s Bench jury trial next month before striking the plea bargain.

Crown and defence lawyers have requested a pre-sentence report and forensic assessment based on the belief the youth suffers from mental-health issues. However, the teen is not seeking to avoid criminal responsibility based on any existing issues.

He now faces a maximum sentence under the Youth Criminal Justice Act of seven years custody and community supervision. An adult convicted of second-degree murder would face a mandatory sentence of life in prison with no chance of parole for at least 10 years.

There could be many factors which contributed to this crime. First of all, this teen was from a reserve, which usually offer little employment or recreational opportunities, leaving reservation teens restless and bored. They often are more likely to be influenced by deviant norms and values of their peers, due to the fact that their parents live in poverty. They may witness or experience abuse, witness substance abuse, are neglected, lack supervision or monitoring, parents lack involvement in their child's life, lack of encouragement, support, affection, nurturance, consistent discipline, etc. These are all risk factors for teens to become involved in delinquent and antisocial behaviours. This article is biased as it fails to mention anything about this teen's background and family life.  

17 year old boy sentenced to 7 years prison after killing mom, sister

Boy, 17, sentenced to 7 years after killing mom, sister

A 17-year-old Manitoba boy has been handed the maximum youth sentence of seven years after pleading guilty to shooting his mother and five-year-old sister to death in a rural farmhouse in August 2007.

The teen, who was 14 at the time of the killings, cannot be identified under provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

A Brandon judge handed the youth an additional seven years on top of the almost three years he has spent in custody, following the teen's guilty plea to two counts of second degree murder earlier this year. Under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, after serving four more years in custody, the teen becomes eligible for supervised community release that would continue for another three years.

The teen offered no reason for the killings to police or psychiatrists. He alleged he was abused and sometimes beaten by his adoptive mother, who allegedly threatened to kill him or beat him. He expressed remorse for the death of his five-year-old sister.

On Wednesday, Justice Robert Cummings of Manitoba's Court of Queen's Bench had to choose between giving the teen a youth sentence or an adult sentence, the latter requiring a mandatory term of life in prison. In a written decision, Cummings said he chose the maximum youth sentence because all the expert testimony suggested the boy's best chances for counseling and rehabilitation would come with a youth sentence.

The judge noted the teen had no prior involvement with the law. "His personality and development have been adversely affected by his upbringing," the judge said, noting there was evidence the mother had said she hated the boy and that his relationship with her was "poor."

The bodies of the teen's 43-year-old mother and little sister were discovered by the woman's husband. The shootings rocked the small community of St. Lazare, about 300 kilometres west of Winnipeg.

The teen went through an extensive pre-trial process that involved psychiatric evaluations and other assessments.

I disagree with an additional 7 years for this teen. He has no prior involvement with the CJ system, and alleged that his adoptive mother abused and threatened him. He could have killed after being provoked by his mother or for self-defense. I think this teen should have been given 3 additional years in custody and 2 years in the community. Abuse and neglect can alter and affect your brain development. Rehabilitation and reintegration must always remain the main focuses of teens.  

Judge applauds teen girls for pleading guilty in random woman's beating death

Judge applauds teen for "accepting responsibility" in woman's death

Nearly two weeks after a male co-accused was acquitted of the same crime, a judge applauded two young women who pleaded guilty for their role in the random beating death of Spence Street resident Audrey Cooper nearly four years ago.

The now 18-year-old women have given Cooper’s family the satisfaction “that at least some of those who committed the offence have acted responsibly and that her death won’t go unresolved or unpunished,” said Justice Holly Beard.

The women — who pleaded guilty to second-degree murder last February — appeared in court Monday for a progress report.

In May, the women received the maximum youth sentence of seven years custody and community supervision. Beard ordered that they remain in custody until August pending the submission of acceptable release plans, at which time they will be credited three years for time served.

A jury acquitted a now 19-year-old male co-accused last month following a month-long trial. Jurors heard evidence the accused admitted in a police interview to punching Cooper. The man’s lawyer argued he was merely an observer and did not participate in the beating.

“I wasn’t there, but you were and you know whether or not that’s true and whether or not (the accused) was being honest,” Beard told the women. “But whatever the truth is, that defence would not have worked for you as there was no one else to blame.”

Cooper, 34, was beaten to death in October 2006 outside the Spence Street rooming house where she lived. Jurors heard Cooper suffered more than 60 distinct injuries, including seven broken ribs, a punctured liver and a severed ear.

A third now 16-year-old female accused pleaded guilty last year to manslaughter and received the maximum youth sentence of three years custody and community supervision, with a requirement she live in a specialized group home until she is 18.

Beard urged the two women in court Monday to take advantage of the services and support that will be available to them once they are released from custody. Beard said their lives were filled with drugs and violence and that they were at risk of becoming involved in gangs and prostitution.

“Ask yourselves: Is that the life you want for yourselves or your children?” Beard said. “You made your first courageous decision when you chose to plead guilty and accept responsibility... That was the right decision then and it remains the right decision today, regardless of the outcome of (the male accused’s) trial.”

The women will return to court Aug. 18.

I am glad the women pleaded guilty and accepted responsibility for what they were involved in. However I feel that the maximum sentence of 7 years, was too harsh. The women may not have been directly involved in the killing. We do not know all of the details. They should have received 5 years total, with 3 in custody and 2 in the community. 

All criminals deserve a chance at reintegration!

Cold-blooded killers don't deserve parole

Maybe Robert Dmytruk's testosterone level was in overdrive in the darkness of a July night in 1996. Whatever. Nobody should tolerate that or any other lame excuse to explain his actions 14 years ago.

Dmytruk and a band of thugs from Elmwood's long-defunct East Side Crypts were to battle it out with a rival street gang headquartered in the North End. Loaded guns were the weapons and Chalmers Community Centre was the battlefield.

But the other gang never showed, leaving the Elmwood riff-raff frustrated and loaded for bear and somebody was going to pay.

A pedestrian walking in the area garnered the gang's attention and bullets flew his way. He made it to safety as one shot penetrated a nearby home, lodging inches from where a baby slept.

But that wasn't enough.

Quyen-Vn Raceles and her boyfriend, Eric Vargas, both students, had just finished work and unwittingly picked the chosen war zone as a place to park and talk. Quyen is a jewel in her own right and Eric was a U of M star, the only child of immigrant parents who had come to Canada to live the dream.

With a coldness for which no explanation can suffice, Dmytruk and his cohorts sneaked up on the couple and opened fire leaving Eric Vargas with just a few more laboured breaths.

The Crypts decided there could be no witnesses to their mindless assassination. As Quyen cried "why," she too was shot.

Nineteen years old and riddled by four bullets, the gentle-hearted young woman fought to escape the surreal and save Eric. With all the guts and focus she could muster, Quyen put the car in gear and screeched east on Chalmers past Elmwood High School, toward the Concordia Hospital.

Racing for medical help was too much for her wounded body and just beyond Elmwood High, before the railway tracks, she crashed into a pole.

Paramedics rushed to the scene, their efforts to save Eric futile. Quyen was extremely critical and evacuated to the Health Sciences Centre.

I was just going to sleep when called to the scene. I took charge of the investigation and, given the depth and circumstances, rallied as many detectives as possible, including the rare move of bringing in a second supervisor, Tom Anderson, who was put to work alongside other investigators.

He and now-Supt. Dave Thorne, a crack detective in our unit, were sent to the HSC to get whatever information Quyen could provide when doctors weren't hovering. They left the hospital with the understanding that she would not survive beyond daybreak.

Hours of overnight canvassing and interrogation yielded those responsible including Dmytruk who was putty in Thorne's hands. A confession was extracted that along with other evidence led to several charges.

Maybe it was a miracle, but Quyen's resilience surprised everyone. Detectives Scott Bell and Jim Thiessen worked with her, keeping track in the months that followed and marvelled at the injured body and strong mind determined to see justice done.

Dmytruk's tough-guy demeanour was no match for Quyen's eloquence and inner strength. Justice Brenda Keyser and a jury listened intently to the case where evidence led to Dmytruk's two life sentences, with a minimum 15 years before parole could be entertained.

Controversy erupted last year when the Free Press reported that Dmytruk, well short of that minimum, had for some time been receiving escorted excursions to malls and 7-Elevens as a way of integrating back into the mainstream.

Last week it hit the fan again when it was revealed that he'd applied for unescorted passes. Dmytruk's prison rehab team supported the move although why remains murky in the face of a slough of documented prison violations.

Bravo to the National Parole Board for dismissing Dmytruk, his team and the convoluted idea of de facto parole to test the waters for real parole. Genuine parole is the time to step up with reintegration efforts outside of prison -- not before -- and Justice Keyser determined 15 years was the absolute minimum time to be behind bars.

This murder and acts of violence continue to require denunciation that goes beyond mere words. Pass-on-demand rehabilitation rooted in over-the-top compassion for a killer substantially discounts the lives of Eric and Quyen.

Dmytruk never getting out of prison should remain a very real possibility. Time cannot undo the loss caused by his thirst for gunplay.

Shooting it out with rival gangs, at pedestrians and endangering babies is unacceptable. Changing a young woman's life immeasurably and snatching away another is unacceptable.

And unacceptable is the thought that Robert Dmytruk could now be savouring even the slightest taste of freedom. His choices in July of 1996 were about cold-blooded murder and now's not the time to make nice.

I completely disagree with this article. This man, and all other criminals, deserve a second chance to improve and rehabilitate themselves and I strongly support rehabilitation programs and reintegration into the community. Longer sentences are only revenge and do not increase public safety in the long term. It is cruel and dangerous to hold offenders in prison until their warrant expiry date where they would be released from prison with no conditions, assistance, supervision or support. Everybody deserves the opportunity for successful reintegration. If this man has been successful on escorted absences, there is no reason to deny him unescorted absences. Our society needs to support efforts at reintegration as the majority of offenders will someday be released into our communities. It is in our best interests that they begin the reintegration process BEFORE they are released. The author of this article is merely seeking revenge on this man. We need to provide offenders with the opportunities and chances to improve themselves and become law abiding and productive citizens once again. The purposes of prison are supposed to be rehabilitation and reintegration, not punishment and retribution. All criminals deserve to be reintegrated gradually. Temporary absences are an integral part of successful reintegration into society and society needs to support that. I support reintegration as long as the individual is not considered a high risk to the public's safety. 

Jurors acquit teen accused of second degree murder!

Cooper jurors acquit man accused of murder

A jury has acquitted a 19-year-old man charged with second-degree murder in the random beating death of Spence Street resident Audrey Cooper.

The man, who cannot be named because he was 15 years old at the time of the killing, was overwhelmed by emotion and tried to hold back tears after jurors delivered their verdict Wednesday evening.

Jurors reached their verdict shortly after 9 p.m. following a day and a half of deliberations.

Cooper, 34, was beaten to death in October 2006 outside the Spence Street rooming house where she lived.

Jurors interrupted their deliberations Wednesday afternoon to review the testimony of three witnesses, including a now 16-year-old female co-accused. Jurors also asked Justice Holly Beard to clarify the meaning of “reasonable doubt.”

The man’s three female co-accused were previously convicted and sentenced for their parts in the killing.

A now 16-year-old girl pleaded guilty last year to manslaughter and received the maximum youth sentence of three years custody and community supervision, with a requirement she live in a specialized group home until she is 18.

Two now 18-year-old girls pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and received the maximum youth sentence of seven years custody and community supervision.

Jurors were told the male accused admitted in a police statement to punching Cooper once. His 16-year-old co-accused — who admitted instigating the attack after Cooper refused her demand for a cigarette — told jurors he did much more. She testified the accused “stomped” Cooper in the head and stomach. After the two older girls stripped Cooper’s clothes off, the accused urinated on her, the girl said.

Jurors heard Cooper suffered more than 60 distinct injuries, including seven broken ribs, a punctured liver and a severed ear.

Defence lawyer Ian Histed argued his client was merely an observer and took no active role in the attack.

Histed argued the 16-year-old girl lied about his client urinating on Cooper. Court heard there is no method to prove where urine came from.

The girl “didn’t want to admit she kicked a woman so hard she lost control of her bladder, so she made up this story about the accused urinating on her,” Histed said.

Winnipeg teen not guilty in random killing

A young Winnipeg man has been found not guilty of taking part in the random beating that killed Audrey Cooper on a city street almost four years ago.
Jurors reached the verdict late Wednesday night.
Audrey Cooper, 34, was beaten, stripped naked and urinated on when she was swarmed by a group of youths, who tossed loose change on her after the attack.
The youths, who included three girls, were upset Cooper didn't give them a cigarette when they walked by her home on Spence Street in October 2006, court was told.
The 19-year-old man acquitted Wednesday can't be named because he was only 15 at the time of the slaying. He claimed he was a bystander to the attack and pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder.
Three girls — one 12 years old at the time, and two who were 14 — have already admitted their roles in the fatal beating.
The youngest pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of manslaughter in exchange for her testimony against the man. She got the maximum youth sentence of two years in custody and one year of community supervision.
The two other girls pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and were given the maximum youth sentence of four years in custody and three years of community supervision.
Court was told at the girls' sentencing that Cooper suffered a brain hemorrhage and ruptured organs during the attack, which police described as completely random.

Winnipeg teen found not guilty in random beating death
WINNIPEG - A Winnipeg teen has been found not guilty of participating in the random beating death of a stranger on the street.
Jurors spent two days deliberating before reaching their verdict late Wednesday night. The 19-year-old accused - who can't be named because he was only 15 at the time of the October 2006 slaying - pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder when his trial began in early June.
The Crown was expected to seek an adult sentence against the man if he was convicted.

Audrey Cooper, 34, was the victim of what police described as one of the city's worst attacks in years. She suffered 64 separate injuries, inluding seven broken ribs, a lacerated liver, swelling that shut both of her eyes and bleeding on the brain. She was also stripped naked and left to die outside of the Spence Street rooming house where she lived.
Cooper didn't know her killers, who jumped her after she refused their request for a cigarette, court was told.
Three young girls - aged 12, 14 and 14 - previously admitted to their roles in the killing. The youngest girl struck a deal with justice officials to plead guilty to a reduced charge of manslaughter in exchange for her testimony against the young man. She was given the maximum youth sentence of two years custody and one year of community supervision.
The two other girls pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and were given the maximum youth sentence of four years of custody and three years of community supervision.
Crown attorney Ami Kotler told jurors in closing arguments last week they should have no trouble finding the man guilty. He previously admitted to police he "punched" Cooper, while other witnesses have described him as also joining in on the kicking and stomping of the unconscious woman.
The most damning evidence came from the youngest killer, who testified last week how the man on trial urinated on Cooper’s body before fleeing the scene. Kotler said the fact police found a pool of urine at the crime scene proves the girl is telling the truth.
However, defence lawyer Ian Histed accused the Crown’s key witness of exaggerating his client’s involvement in order to escape prosecution on the more serious murder charge. She denied the suggestion while being cross-examined. Histed didn't deny the young man was present when the attack began but claimed he was just an innocent observer.
Jurors were clearly having difficulty with her evidence, which they asked to review Wednesday afternoon while in the midst of deliberations. They also asked Queen's Bench Justice Holly Beard to give them further details on the meaning of "reasonable doubt", which the Crown is tasked with proving in order to secure a conviction.

Jury finds teen not guilty in woman's random beating death
A Winnipeg teen has been found not guilty of participating in the random beating death of a stranger on the street.
Jurors spent two days deliberating before reaching their verdict late Wednesday night. The 19-year-old accused -- who can't be named because he was only 15 at the time of the October 2006 slaying -- pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder when his trial began in early June.
The Crown was expected to seek an adult sentence against the man if he was convicted.
Audrey Cooper, 34, was the victim of what police described as one of the city's worst attacks in years. She suffered 64 separate injuries, inluding seven broken ribs, a lacerated liver, swelling that shut both of her eyes and bleeding on the brain. She was also stripped naked and left to die outside of the Spence Street rooming house where she lived.
Cooper didn't know her killers, who jumped her after she refused their request for a cigarette, court was told.
Three young girls -- aged 12, 14 and 14 -- previously admitted to their roles in the killing. The youngest girl struck a deal with justice officials to plead guilty to a reduced charge of manslaughter in exchange for her testimony against the young man. She was given the maximum youth sentence of two years custody and one year of community supervision.
Crown attorney Ami Kotler told jurors in closing arguments last week they should have no trouble finding the man guilty. He previously admitted to police he "punched" Cooper, while other witnesses have described him as also joining in on the kicking and stomping of the unconscious woman.
The most damning evidence came from the youngest killer, who testified last week how the man on trial urinated on Cooper's body before fleeing the scene. Kotler said the fact police found a pool of urine at the crime scene proves the girl is telling the truth.
However, defence lawyer Ian Histed accused the Crown's key witness of exaggerating his client's involvement in order to escape prosecution on the more serious murder charge. She denied the suggestion while being cross-examined. Histed didn't deny the young man was present when the attack began but claimed he was just an innocent observer.
Jurors were clearly having difficulty with her evidence, which they asked to review Wednesday afternoon while in the midst of deliberations. They also asked Queen's Bench Justice Holly Beard to give them further details on the meaning of "reasonable doubt", which the Crown is required to prove in order to secure a conviction.

Yay!! I am glad that this man was found not guilty of the crime and acquitted completely! The result couldn't have been better! There was definitely a reasonable doubt as to this man's guilt, due to the fact that the key Crown witness could have been exaggerating the accused's involvement in order for her to obtain a better deal with justice officials, as her second degree murder charge was dropped to manslaughter, in exchange for her testimony. She made no statement to police at first. Also, the other teens involved in the killing had blood and forensic evidence on them, linking them to the crime. But this male accused had none. I am glad he was acquitted. It doesn't happen very often that the jury gets it right, in my opinion. 

Jury deliberations begin in teen's second degree murder trial

Jury begins deliberations in murder trial

Audrey Cooper was brutally beaten to death by a group of teenagers roaming through Winnipeg’s core looking for random victims to attack.

Three young girls have already admitted to their roles in her October 2006 slaying, which police called one of the worst in the city’s recent history. Now the fourth, and final, accused is about to learn his fate.

Jury deliberations began Tuesday afternoon for the 19-year-old man, who can’t be named because he was only 15 at the time. He pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder when his trial began earlier this month.

Crown attorney Ami Kotler told jurors in closing arguments last week they should have no trouble finding him guilty of second-degree murder. The accused admitted to police he "punched" Cooper, while other witnesses have described him as also joining in on the kicking and stomping of the unconscious woman.

Cooper, 34, suffered 64 separate injuries in the unprovoked attack, which came after she refused the teen’s requests for a cigarette. They included seven broken ribs, a lacerated liver, swelling that shut both of her eyes and bleeding on the brain. She was also stripped naked and left to die.

The most damning evidence came from the youngest killer, who was just 12 at the time and testified last week how the man on trial urinated on Cooper’s body before fleeing the scene. Kotler said the fact police found a pool of urine at the crime scene proves the girl is telling the truth.

However, defence lawyer Ian Histed has accused the Crown’s key witness of exaggerating his client’s involvement in order to escape prosecution on more serious charges. She denied the suggestion while being cross-examined. The girl signed a deal with justice officials to testify in exchange for her second-degree murder charge being dropped to manslaughter. She then pleaded guilty and got the maximum youth sentence of two years custody and one year of community supervision.

The two other girls, who were 14 at the time, pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and were given the maximum youth sentence of four years of custody and three years of community supervision.

I believe that their is a reasonable doubt as to this man's guilt on the second degree murder charge. I do not believe he intentionally and deliberately participated in the killing of the female victim. As his defence lawyer previously stated, all three other accused had blood on them and forensic evidence linking them to the crime but the male accused did not. He may have been merely an observer but took no active role in the attack. The accused only admitted to punching the victim once, to police. That should not warrant a second degree murder conviction, but instead one of aggravated assault. Even the Crown agrees that he himself, did not commit the murder. This teen should receive no more than 2 years in prison. I would also like to know more about this teen's background life and mitigating factors. I believe that the key witness could be falsely implicating the accused so she could escape more severe prosecution. I think she exaggerated the accused's involvement to get a better deal for herself. The defence lawyer said that when she got arrested, she didn't tell police a thing. But 2 years later, she knew there couldn't be a deal unless she gave a statement. I also think she was too intoxicated to remember her own involvement in the death, let alone the male accused's. 

I think that this male accused should be found not guilty of second degree murder, but guilty of either manslaughter or aggravated assault, because he did admit to punching the victim, which could have contributed to her injuries and death. 

Infamous killer denied unsupervised community passes

No unsupervised community jaunts for infamous killer

One of Winnipeg's most notorious killers will not be allowed to go on unsupervised "personal development" excursions into the community designed to bolster his chances of getting parole.

Robert Dmytruk, 32, was seeking to be granted unescorted temporary absences from Rockwood Institution, where he is currently serving a life sentence for second-degree murder and the attempted murder of two innocent bystanders in 1996. He is eligible to apply for parole in July 2011 after serving 15 years of his term.

The National Parole Board denied his bid earlier this month, saying such freedoms would pose an "undue risk to society." In parole documents, the board cited Dmytruk's previous gang involvement and track record behind bars, which includes 11 "institutional incidents" in the four years he's been at the minimum-security facility just north of Winnipeg. They also noted the facts of the case, which made headlines across Canada for their random brutality.

Dmytruk shot Eric Vargas to death and wounded his girlfriend, Quyen-Vn Raceles, in the parking lot of Chalmers Community Centre. On the night of the killing, Dmytruk and a co-accused arrived at the club expecting to fight members of a rival gang. When nobody showed up, they turned their weapons on Vargas, 20, and Raceles, 19, who just happened to be sitting in a vehicle having a conversation.

Vargas was an honours student studying economics at the University of Manitoba and vice-president of the Filipino Students Association. Raceles was struck by four bullets that hit her in the shoulder, hip and foot. A quiet, well-liked and talented woman known for her singing, Raceles managed to drive about a block from the shooting before crashing the car into a light standard.

A co-accused was found guilty of manslaughter and attempted murder, while a third man was acquitted of supplying the gun used in the killing.

Dmytruk was back in the news last summer when a Free Press investigation revealed he had been granted escorted temporary absences (ETAs) from prison beginning in 2008. Sources said the passes were allowing him to visit shopping malls, the public library, a city gym and even get a Slurpee from 7-Eleven. The passes allowed him to leave prison for up to eight hours at a time, provided he was with an approved supervisor.

"It's ridiculous," Manitoba Tory MP Shelly Glover told the Free Press upon learning Dmytruk started getting a taste of freedom almost three full years before his earliest possible release date. She said the federal government plans new legislation that would prevent convicted killers like him from stepping out of prison before they hit their minimum parole eligibility.

Dmytruk was now seeking similar forays into society, but without the confines of anyone watching over him. His case-management team was supporting his application, saying they would "help you prepare for the next step of your gradual release."

"They will also provide you the opportunity to further explore and build on your community contacts, resources and supports in a more independent manner," his supervisor wrote to the board.

Dmytruk will still be allowed escorted temporary absences, which National Parole Board officials have defended as an "integral" part of his eventual reintegration back to society. In 2007/08, 201 requests were made for ETAs in Canada -- with 91 per cent of them being approved, according to federal statistics.

The parole board says the success rate of all types of temporary absences -- escorted and unescorted -- is consistently over 99 per cent. There are no restrictions on when prisoners serving life sentences can apply for an temporary absences, but they must have a "structured and specific" plan that is approved in advance.

In my opinion, he should be allowed to gradually reintegrate into society, before becoming eligible for parole next year and unescorted temporary absences, are the next step. I would like to know if this man was successful when he was on his escorted temporary absences. If no mistakes happened, then I would say that this man should be granted unescorted absences. That new government legislation will only cause more problems, as it would severely limit offenders from gradually reintegrating into society, and that is a very important step in reducing the chances of re-offending when completely released. I would also be curious in knowing if this man has taken any programming while in prison, or any positive steps towards improving himself. This article is a little biased in that respect. The main purpose of prisons are to rehabilitate and reintegrate. This article did not state that at all. Punishment and retribution are the NOT the purposes of prison, but people always seem to forget that or are simply unaware.  I would also like to know more about this man's background life circumstances. Did he have a troubled upbringing? Did he live in poverty? Does he suffer from any mental illnesses?

They really don't elaborate on what they mean by the success rate being consistently over 99% for escorted and unescorted temporary absences. It's my understanding that this service is open to all criminals, not just murderers. Well, less violent offenders are probably going to be more likely to have a "successful" absence than a murderer. So that is a biased statement when comparing it to this case. Also, the absences aren't so much the problem as being paroled is. There generally is a lot tighter restrictions on a temporary absence, and it is for a shorter time period obviously, so the chance and opportunity to commit a crime is less likely. I would like statistics showing how many people who have been paroled have reoffended (and of those who took part in temporary absences). I don't think a violent offender should ever be unescorted on a temporary absence, and certainly a murderer shouldn't be paroled only after 15 years. Nor should they have even gotten such a light sentence in the first place. Of course, the judges and parole board are all bleeding hearts who think criminals walk on water, so as if they would actually have a logical thought pass through their brain.

Temporary absences are an integral part of gradual reintegration into society. Would you rather have a violent offender serve their entire sentence in prison and then be released with no conditions, supervision, assistance or support? Their chances of re-offending would skyrocket! To me, that does not increase public safety. I support reintegration into society, regardless of the person's criminal background. If this man is living in Rockwood Institution, which is a minimum security facility, it means his risk to re-offend is much lower than it used to be.

No "Brittanymaria" many of us would rather have the Death Penalty in Canada because of what some of these animals do. I remember this from back in the 90's and if we had it then, sure, this guy could still be on Death Row from his appeals ad-nauseum as that too would be his right in our far too lenient country.

It's like WOW Brittanymaria, you defend every single one of these types and you post rebuttals to everyone who wants these types to actually BE PUNISHED, maybe you should let them move into the halfway house you most certainly should build. Kindness, tea and cookies and an allowance will change them, they'll be productive members of society and you will then have succeeded. I actually live in the real world and see the need to fix this ongoing problem because there are too many who have absolutely no regard for other human beings and then wish to be let off with little to no punishment.

Not to worry Brittanymaria, you can keep that Liberal Logo, they're out next time 'round, MB might have Conservatives running it too and we the citizens of common sense are sick of the thugs who get away with yep, MURDER. Throw away the key, some of these thugs are just hopeless and a ticking time bomb and their supporters are giving them the match to light it!

The death penalty is cruel, inhumane, uncivilized and completely barbaric! It is the pre-meditated and cold blooded murder performed by the government! How does the government killing a murderer demonstrate to society that killing is wrong? It doesn't! Plus, we as a society should never take the risk of executing an innocent individual! That is much too big of a risk to take! Plus, capital punishment is much more expensive than one spending their life in prison. It also denies the offender the opportunity to improve and rehabilitate themselves. That in itself, is cruel and vengeful. The purpose of our justice system is not that of retribution and punishment, but of rehabilitation and reintegration. If you want punishment, don't live in Canada. 


Neither you nor I know specific details as to why the parole board decided not to allow him unsupervised outings. Being that the parole board in my opinion is generally always too lenient, I assume there's a good reason for their decision here. We also don't know what he has been doing otherwise to better himself, but if I had to speculate I would say it probably would've been reported if he had done anything. But that's just speculation, he may very well be doing something. Regardless, in a sense I agree with you regarding the new government legislation to keep murderers from having temporary absences. I agree that the outings probably help. However, I believe that they shouldn't be let out of prison at all, and that to me is what really needs to change. Just another example of the Conservatives trying to get votes with nothing substantial being done. In terms of him being in a minimum security prison, that really means nothing. The inmates in Canada, or at least in Manitoba, are pretty much shipped to whatever prison has room. So being in a minimum security prison makes no difference.

Yes, I would also be curious to know if he has participated in any programming or attempted to improve himself and how much of a risk he presents to society. You are right about the minimum security prison thing. Prisons nowadays are so overcrowded, that often risk level is not taken into account when considering what facility to place an offender. That needs to change. 

"The purpose of our justice system is not that of retribution and punishment, but of rehabilitation and reintegration. If you want punishment, don't live in Canada."

I disagree. First, the origin of jail had many reasons. Punishment, segregation, fairness, and of course there was the death penalty then. Personally I feel in this day and age we can do better than the death penalty. And although with DNA and such, the chances of an innocent person being convicted of murder is little to none, but still too much of a risk to take, I agree. We have evolved as a society where we do feel for some criminals, we understand mental illness better, and we are more sympathetic. So yes, some criminals we will give the chance to rehabilitate themselves and live in society. However, the majority of Canadians disagree with your views. It may be so that the people in power are extreme Liberals, but the tides are turning Brittany. People are frustrated, and we want actual justice. To us, that means punishment, to teach them what they did was wrong, fairness, to take away from them what they have taken away from others, segregation, to keep dangerous people away from society, and in some cases rehabilitation, to help them be a part of society. But in regards to rapists, pedophiles, and murderers, most of Canada believes they should stay in jail forever. Hopefully in our lifetime it'll be so, I wouldn't be surprised. So you may in fact, be the one who moves one day.

I understand that the majority of Canadians disagree with my views, but everybody is entitled to their own opinions and my beliefs on criminal justice topics are very strong and developed. I will not change to suit the majority of Canadians. I believe that the possibility of rehabilitation should always be considered first and the most emphasis should be placed on this area, along with the protection of the public. I believe that everybody can change and improve themselves, if given the opportunities and assistance to do so, even murderers and sex offenders. I do not believe that sex offenders should be in prisons though, but in a separate facility (like a mental health facility) where the focus is on treating their condition, which is similar to a mental illness, as their brain has chemical deficiencies.  

"The death penalty is cruel, inhumane, uncivilized and completely barbaric! It is the pre-meditated and cold blooded murder performed by the government! How does the government killing a murderer demonstrate to society that killing is wrong? It doesn't! Plus, we as a society should never take the risk of executing an innocent individual! "

Cold blooded murder is cruel, inhumane, uncivilized and completely barbaric. I say that we should treat people like "fairly". I think it would be "fair" that they get the same treatment their victims do. I mean, this would make things equal and fair would it not? As for the risk of executing an innocent individual, capitol punishment should only be used in cases where there is without a doubt that the person convicted actualy did it. Either through key eye witnesses, being caught red handed so to speak, or significant DNA evidence in such cases as rape murder charges. The cost factor could be eliminated if these individuals were simply not allowed to appeal a death penalty conviction. I could go on about the beneifits of capitol punishment, but I will to see what you have to say Brittanymaria, or anyone else who feels otherwise.

The death penalty is never fair. Two wrongs don't make a right. In trials, there can never be 100% absolute guilt. It just doesn't happen. Eyewitnesses can often be mistaken. That is the number one cause of wrongful convictions. Also, DNA is never 100%. It often just shows that the person was at the scene of the crime, but not that they necessarily committed the crime in question. Therefore, we cannot and should not take that risk of executing an innocent person. That is the very reason capital punishment was abolished in Canada, and rightfully so. There are no benefits to capital punishment. It is expensive, barbaric and should not be practiced in civilized societies. When the government executes an innocent individual, that is murder. If you believe murder is wrong, why would you want it to be practiced by our government? Capital punishment also violates basic human rights of the "right to life" and the right "not be subjected to cruel and unusual treatment/punishment." We cannot teach that killing is wrong by killing. "To take a life when a life has been lost, is revenge, not justice." Revenge should have no place in modern day criminal justice systems. Capital punishment is the most brutal method of revenge.  


-and like others have stated, you never hear about when they screwed up while on a T/A and for the many who are stuck in prison and staying longer, it wouldn't be possible to show the stats as it's probably mind-boggling. Yes Brittanymaria, it would be nice to re-hab everyone but they're perfect little angels even in the max. security and eventually someone has to be put in min. security if there is room. It's the lesser of 2 evils but still evils either way.

Brittanymaria, do YOU just pick and choose what you read anyway? This guy HAS been in trouble while incarcerated, he WAS in a gang prior to getting caught, what about those chances he WOULD have got each time he got pinched before or was he just lucky to not getting caught but then when he decided to execute someone, was unlucky to get caught then? Ironic isn't it, that in print they describe this guy exactly as the NPB saw him. Sure, he's getting tired of being around other habitual criminals and we should let him loose on society but will you return to stick up for that society if he possibly harms another or will you just refrain from commenting at all? I guarantee the latter as you wouldn't even think of admitting you're wrong and that WOULD be exactly what the Liberals have always been about-their cr*p don't stink and they tell you what you're smelling is success and good for the law-abiding majority.

I can admit that I am wrong. Everybody makes mistakes.

As for people like this being "rehabilitated". The risk of them re-offending will never be zero. Even a one in a million chance is too much in my eyes.

If your intention is to become a defense lawyer, then I will wait to see the day that someone you get off easy, kills again. Seems to me that this is what it will take for you to realize that a significant proportion of people like this will always be like this.

If someone can do such horrible things to other human beings, then they expect that the same horrible things can happen to them, and they should get exactly what they gave their victims. This soft country and soft people like you show no respect to the victims and their families.

You show alot of compassion and enthusiam in your posts, it's just too bad it's for the wrong side.

Unfortunately, the risk of re-offending will never be zero, but we cannot continue to keep those individuals imprisoned who pose a very minimal risk to the public. That is cruel and harsh. We need to gradually reintegrate offenders into society. I believe in second chances and I believe that people can change, if given the opportunity, assistance and support to do so. We need to help criminals improve themselves and to find the cause of their offending. I have compassion and sympathy for victims of crime as well, but I also have sympathy for the marginalized and often socially disadvantaged criminals, who need help. 

I respect your opinion regarding the death penalty, I just feel like we can do a little better than that in 2010. I think a little compassion is necessary. Life in prison for rapists, murderers, and pedophiles sounds good to me, and I have no problem paying taxes for it. And to be honest, death is an easy way out. Life in prison really makes them suffer. It just sounds nicer than the "death penalty".

Brittanymaria- You think sex offenders can be rehabilitated? Then you know nothing about psychology, even though you claim to. There is something wrong with their brain, and no known medication to fix it. Therapy can only do so much. Urges from a sex offender's brain NEVER go away. I really really hope you never get raped, I would never wish that on anyone. But if you ever did experience that, I guarantee you would not want that person free ever again. If you did want them to be rehabilitated and walking amongst you and your children...perhaps you belong in a mental institution. I'm not trying to be mean at all, but you seem to be lacking many human emotions. It's okay to be vengeful, humans aren't nice creatures, that doesn't mean we can't try, but you can only fight nature so much.

I don't think being a defense lawyer is right for you. You seem to be compassionate, so perhaps a youth centre, or addiction counselling, or something that helps prevent the crime is where you need to be. Simply freeing them and hoping for the best, even with services for them, won't work.

I agree regarding the death penalty. This is 2010, not 1800. We are much more civilized and should realize that capital punishment is inhumane and barbaric.

Yes, I do believe sex offenders can be helped to manage their impulses. They cannot be cured, but through effective programming, their "illness" can be managed and controlled. I never said they could be cured. If I ever was the victim of a sexual assault, I would rather have the offender receiving treatment in a facility, than sitting in prison surrounded by negative influences and a negative environment. Those are just my beliefs. I have compassion for sex offenders especially, because I have known some, as family members. I know how difficult it is for them to change, but it is possible. I do have emotions of revenge, but my logic and reason always overrides those primitive emotions. 

Eleven "institutional incidents" in four years is good enough for me to agree he shouldn't be allowed out without a minder. Even that bothers me. Let his gradual "reintegration" begin once he's past his earliest parole eligibility date...but only if he has had zero "institutional incidents" in a couple of years.

Gotta love how these people assume he's automatically going to be reintegrating to society. They should wait until he proves he's changed his ways before making that leap. No rubberstamping parole, please.

Brittanymaria:
"Also, DNA is never 100%."

This is what I said:
"DNA evidence in such cases as rape murder charges"

When you find semen, that is significant enough for me. I did not say rape or murder, I said rape murder, as in both at same time.

Also:
"Capital punishment also violates basic human rights of the "right to life" and the right "not be subjected to cruel and unusual treatment/punishment"

So victims don't get these rights, but the person who committed such atrocities does?

Don't get me wrong. Capitol Punishment is not always applicable, just in situations where it is 100% certain that the offender is guilty, would it be applicable. As I just said, you can't argue with semen evidence in a rape and murder case. Also when people are caught in the act in the same manner as Vince Li (althought not applicable to him due to mental illness), you can't argue that a person found in a similar situation "might" not be guilty.

I do agree though, that the cost for Capitol Punishment is 4 times higher than keeping someone in prison for 25 years. This is why (in certain cases like I just described) if we did have Capitol Punishment, there should be no way to appeal such a decision.

If people want to be treated humanely, then they should pass that same treatment onto others. To cry about your "rights" after you have done such things is absurd.

I know full well that Capitol Punishment will never be reinstated. There should be a seperate facilty for individuals such as this one, where they are stripped of their rights, and punished properly. The slap on the wrist punishments they get now are rediculous.

 

Everybody is entitled to their rights. Victims had those rights before they passed away, but unfortunately they were taken from them. But two wrongs don't make a right. Capital punishment is murder. If you disagree with murder, I am not sure why you advocate for the death penalty because it is the same thing. The only difference, is that the government instead of an individual citizen, is killing somebody else. You are implying that all crime is rational. It is not. The majority of criminals are impulsive in their actions and do not consider the consequences of their actions or the possibility of prison.

Brittanymaria- I don't like how you use the word "primitive" to describe human emotions. I'm glad to hear you have them, and good for you for overcoming them. However, that doesn't make you better than everyone else. You may not be saying that, but that's how you come across. The way you've scolded commenters here before, such as in the Earl Giesbrecht case. Multiple commenters shared their experiences, many of them were even quite diplomatic about it. Yet you called them barbaric and vengeful. That's disrespectful to them, and not very compassionate as to what they have gone through. I feel as though you have a misguided representation of compassion. You feel for these "socially disadvantaged" criminals, yet you really don't understand what the victims are going through. You say you do, but you show no compassion towards them, their feelings, or the value of their opinions and experiences. The only words of compassion I have ever read from you are always directed at the criminal. You only say "I feel for the victims too", and that's it. It's easy to say,it's not that much harder to show it, yet you don't show it. So you seem to feel for those who have problems because of being socially disadvantaged, or having mental issues,yet you do not understand how the basic human brain works. Humans can show compassion, yes,but not often towards those who have wronged us our others, and certainly not to the degree of murder. You need to understand the basics first.

I am very compassionate towards victims of crime but also offenders. I said their desire for revenge, was vengeful and unacceptable. I have the desire to support and assist criminals in their rehabilitation and reintegration. That is what I am studying to do. I believe in seeing the good in everybody and loving and forgiving others, no matter what they have done. 

"you can't argue with semen evidence in a rape and murder case."

What about a situation where the accused legitimately had consensual sex with a woman who is later raped and murdered by someone else? Eyewitnesses can be mistaken or can lie, scientific evidence can be botched or tampered with, etc., etc. We've seen so many convicted "murderers" exonerated years later because of these things and that's a terrible injustice in itself, never mind finding out a mistake was made after someone has been put to death.

I'll never forget the Thomas Sophonow case. I was following the trial news in the paper. I was flabbergasted when he was unable to put on the glove that the killer supposedly wore yet he was still convicted! There were other things too but that's the one that stood out for me. (Shades of the future O.J. Simpson trial with the opposite outcome!) That and the Milgaard case convinced me that capital punishment should never be allowed.

Background information on Robert Dmytruk's escorted temporary absences

Con on the town -- Killer not yet up for parole, so is it too early for him to be out?

June 20, 2009

Robert Dmytruk shot an innocent bystander to death and tried to kill the victim's girlfriend so there would be no witnesses.

He's serving time in Stony Mountain and isn't eligible for parole until 2011.

Yet that hasn't stopped the 31-year-old former gang member from exploring Winnipeg shopping malls, visiting the public library, getting a Slurpee from 7-Eleven or exercising at a city gym in recent months.

Dmytruk didn't make a dramatic prison break nor is he a fugitive on the run. His forays into the community have been done with the blessing of the National Parole Board and the Correctional Services of Canada .

"It's ridiculous," Manitoba Tory MP Shelly Glover told the Free Press upon learning Dmytruk started getting a taste of freedom almost three full years before his earliest possible release date. "Where is the consideration for the victim's family here?"

Glover said she thought most Canadians would be shocked to hear of Dmytruk's case. She said the federal government plans to act fast to bring new laws that would prevent convicted killers like him from stepping out of prison before they hit their minimum parole eligibility.

"I believe in truth in sentencing. Criminals who commit first- and second-degree murder should no longer be able to apply for early release," said Glover. "Our government is working on a number of different clauses."

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson recently announced the proposed elimination of the so-called "faint-hope" clause that currently allows murderers to seek parole after serving just 15 years of their life sentence (in cases where their parole eligibility is higher). Glover said a person like Dmytruk wouldn't be impacted by those changes, proving there remains much work to be done.

Caroline Douglas, communications director with the NPB, said there is nothing improper about Dmytruk's situation. Officials with the parole board and correctional services have the power to give escorted temporary absences (ETAs) to all federal inmates at any point in their sentence to prepare them for an eventual full-time return to the community. The hope is to assist with "their personal development for rehabilitative purposes."

In 2007/2008, 201 requests were made for ETAs in Canada -- with 91 per cent of them being approved, according to federal statistics. The NPB numbers don't track at what point in a prisoner's sentence they got their first ETA. Douglas doesn't believe the time frame in Dmytruk's case is "unusual."

The parole board says the success rate of all types of temporary absences -- escorted and unescorted -- is consistently over 99 per cent. And even in the unsuccessful absences, not all of them failed because a crime was committed.

Dmytruk has been approved for multiple passes since last August, which allow him to leave Stony Mountain penitentiary for up to eight hours at a time. ETAs first included community-based treatment and have grown to include partnering with a federal program called "Life Line," which pairs convicted killers already on the outside with prisoners working towards an eventual full-time release. That means Dmytruk has been supervised on occasions by a fellow con who has also killed.

Douglas said there is no restriction on when prisoners serving life sentences can apply for an ETA, but they must have a "structured and specific" plan that is approved in advance. The parole board will not provide copies of reasons for their decision, unlike parole decisions, which are made public on request.

Dmytruk was convicted of second-degree murder and attempted murder after admitting to police he shot Eric Vargas to death and wounded his girlfriend Quyen-Vn Raceles on July 20, 1996. He was sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for at least 15 years.

"I'll be back," Dmytruk yelled at a throng of police officers in the courtroom as he was led away in handcuffs and shackles. "Go to hell." A co-accused was found guilty of manslaughter and attempted murder, while a third man was acquitted of supplying the gun used in the killing.

Jurors heard that on the night of the killing, Dmytruk and his co-accused arrived at Chalmers Community Centre to fight a rival gang. When nobody showed up, they turned their weapons on Vargas, 20, and Raceles, 19, who just happened to be sitting in a vehicle having a conversation.

Vargas was an honours student studying economics at the University of Manitoba and vice-president of the Filipino Students Association. He was pronounced dead in hospital. Raceles, the driver of the Ford Probe the couple was sitting in, was struck by four bullets that hit her in the shoulder, hip and foot. A quiet, well-liked and talented woman known for her singing, Raceles managed to drive about a block from the shooting before crashing the car into a light standard. The couple had been dating for six months and were thinking of getting married.

A prison official who recently contacted the Free Press said the decision to give Dmytruk ETAs was made without the knowledge of the victim's family. Glover, a former Winnipeg police officer, said that must change.

"Can you imagine, the family of his victim could run into him at Polo Park Shopping Centre," she said. "The memories could come flooding back and they could do something in the heat of the moment they regret for the rest of their lives."

Prison spokesman Guy Langlois said ETAs are a valuable part of getting an offender prepared to re-enter society.

"It's all about making sure the risk is managed. It's a monitored, progressive type of situation, a stepping stone if you will," he said.

Dmytruk's close friend, Pamela Ringach, told the Free Press a prison guard has accompanied him on most of his outings, which are preparing him for a smoother transition back to society.

"It's part of the re-integration process. I think it's good. It's not like he's some crazy mass murderer. He's not a whack job, he's a good person," Ringach said. "He's been in prison for 13 years. He's done his time. He knows he made a mistake."

Not everyone is convinced.

"The prospect of Dmytruk being allowed to wander in the community unsupervised should be of concern to any law-abiding citizen," said the prison official, who is familiar with Dmytruk's case. "Dmytruk was prepared to shoot an unarmed girl who poses no threat to him multiple times at point blank range to cover up his original murder. What would he be prepared to do if he was at risk of having his passes cancelled or his parole revoked because a citizen happened to witness him to do something inappropriate and/or illegal?"

Out and about

Some examples of Robert Dmytruk's recent time spent in the community under supervision:

August 2008 -- Given pass to attend Forward Step, a community-based support program.

February 20, 2009 -- Given pass to visit Polo Park mall, a public library and the YMCA.

March 20 -- Given pass to attend Kildonan Place, Wal-Mart, 7-Eleven and a halfway house.

April 24 -- Given pass to visit St. Vital Shopping Centre, 7-Eleven and a district parole office.

May 12 -- Given pass to attend the Career Construction Expo in Winnipeg.

By the numbers

Some facts and figures on escorted temporary absences:

They can be authorized for several purposes, such as: medical appointments, court appearances, compassionate reasons such as funerals, and personal development for rehabilitation

A federal inmate can apply for them at any time to the Correctional Service of Canada, regardless of their sentence.

The National Parole Board must approve any ETA's -- except ones for medical or legal reasons -- if an inmate is serving a life sentence and more than three years away from their earliest parole eligibility date.

Number of requests for ETAs

2007/08 -- 201

2006/07 -- 240

2005/06 -- 305

2004/05 -- 231

2003/04 -- 310

National approval rate for ETAs

2007/08 -- 91 per cent

2006/07 -- 91 per cent

2005/06 -- 91 per cent

2004/05 -- 91 per cent

2003/04 -- 86 per cent

Approval rate by region in 2007/08

Prairies -- 94 per cent

Atlantic -- 93 per cent

Quebec -- 92 per cent

Ontario -- 90 per cent

Pacific -- 83 per cent

Success rate is consistently better than 99 per cent.

For more statistics, including breakdowns by offence, race and gender, go to www.npb-cnlc.gc.ca

Off the web

FRIENDS of convicted killer Robert Dmytruk will have to find a more traditional way to get hold of him while he remains in prison -- his Facebook page is apparently being taken down.

Officials at the minimum-security Rockwood Institution told the Free Press earlier this month they were surprised to learn Dmytruk was apparently communicating with people on the popular social-networking site despite a jailhouse Internet ban.

Spokesman Guy Langlois said inmates have computer access but are not supposed to be able to go online. Langlois admits some find ways to circumvent that, largely through smuggled phones. "Technology is not our friend on this," he said. Langlois said it's possible Dmytruk accessed the Internet while on escorted temporary absences in the community.

Dmytruk's Facebook page includes frequent interaction with friends and pictures of himself behind bars.

"It is offensive that a convicted murderer has somehow managed to get himself on Facebook so that he can socialize with others while he is supposed to be doing 'hard-time'," a prison official familiar with Dmytruk's case told the Free Press. A message was posted on Dmytruk's Facebook page earlier this week -- purported to be from him -- indicating he was taking his page down for "personal issues." He invited his friends to contact him by writing to Rockwood and said "If your (sic) a hot girl send pics."

I completely agree with escorted temporary absences. The majority of offenders are successful and we need to support the gradual reintegration of offenders into society, as successful reintegration reduces their chances of re-offending when fully released. We need to support offenders with a smooth transition into the community. If we force them to serve their entire sentence in prison, they will be released with no supervision, conditions, support or assistance and that is not in the public's best interests and would not increase public safety. We need to prepare offenders as best as possible, to re-enter society through a gradual process. 

Shopping mall justice

Is it any wonder why the public has so little faith in the justice system?

Take the curious case of Robert Dmytruk.

The former Winnipeg gang member committed one of the city’s most shocking crimes – murdering an innocent bystander and then trying to kill the victim’s girlfriend so there would be no witnesses.

Dmytruk was sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for 15 years. His earliest date to apply for release is in July 2011.

Or so we thought.

As I reported exclusively in Saturday’s Free Press, Dmytruk has been receiving passes to leave prison for short periods at a time since August 2008 – a full 35 months before parole eligibility.

He has visited at least three Winnipeg shopping malls, a local gym, Wal-Mart, the library and even 7-Eleven. In some cases, his supervisor was a prison guard. In others, he was apparently being watched by another convicted murderer who is currently out in the community on parole. (under the federal Life Line program)

The National Parole Board insists they’ve done nothing improper in the handling of Dmytruk’s case. And there is no evidence to suggest Dmytruk hasn`t been on his best behaviour.

All federal inmates are entitled to apply for temporary absences from prison at any point in their sentence. Some may be for medical reasons. Others may be for court purposes. And then there are ones like Dmytruk, who receive them for so-called rehabilitative purposes.

Dmytruk was one of 201 offenders to receive escorted passes last year. Most of them are also serving life sentences.

Let me be perfectly clear about one thing.

I`m all for easing an inmate`s transition back into the community and not simply opening the prison door on the day of their release, wishing them good luck and giving them complete and absolute freedom. That is a recipe for disaster. There obviously has to be a series of baby steps taken, and temporary absences clearly fall under that category. I`ve got no issue with them being issued.

I sincerely hope Robert Dmytruk does well, can turn his life around and eventually become a productive citizen. If he doesn’t, think of what an enormous waste all the resources – financial and otherwise – that have been invested in him to date would be. If we`re not going to keep an offender locked up forever in this country, then we may as well hope that they at least emerge from prison a better person. Society will be all the better for it, obviously.

However, that doesn`t change the fact that I find it absolutely ridiculous that Dmytruk is already being eased back into society. There is no need for this process to begin a full three years before his parole date. In fact, I don`t think it should be allowed to begin UNTIL an inmate has reached that date.

Shelly Glover, a former Winnipeg cop now serving as a Conservative MP, agrees. She told me her government will move quickly to introduce legislation to bring about so-called truth in sentencing.

If a judge says you must do 15 years before you can be considered for release, then you would have to do 15 years. Only then could the so-called transition process begin.

I just don`t get what the hurry is, but can`t help but wonder if this isn`t a side-effect of our clearly overcrowded prison population. We know that institutions across this country are jam-packed, and recent government proposals to do away with some conditional sentences and introduce mandatory minimum prison terms will only add to the congestion.

While I doubt anyone in authority would admit it, you wonder if there`s a culture that exists to get people out the door as quickly as possible in order to clear out room for the new guests.

I have already heard from several people on this issue, with differing opinions. Many are outraged at the system, while a handful are upset with me for appearing to pick on Dmytruk.

Again, let me be clear. A friend of his called into my national Crime and Punishment radio show Sunday night, explaining that Dmytruk is a changed man who desperately needs these short visits into the community to get him ready for the eye-opening experience of parole. The world has no doubt changed in the time Dmytruk has been locked up and it will take some getting used to.

I understand that. And I agreed with Dmytruk`s friend that these are important steps to take. But I also stated that I see no reason why they have to be taken so soon.

Dmytruk`s girlfriend was also critical, saying he deserves to be given a second chance. She told me he has served his time.

That`s where her argument falls apart. No, he hasn`t. He`s now done close to 13 years of the 15 a judge said he must serve. Only in Canada could that be considering doing one`s time, I suppose.

I completely agree with offenders receiving ETA's before their earliest parole eligibility date. We need to support a gradual and smooth transition into the community and successful reintegration is important and has been proven to reduce the rates of re-offending. The longer one spends in prison, their chances of re-offending increase as they are surrounded by the negative prison environment, influences and subculture. I support this man having a chance to get away from the prison environment and experience a brief taste of life on the outside, especially since he is participating in the Life Line program, where he is paired with another inmate already reintegrating into society. Prison does not facilitate rehabilitation or reform, especially with all the gang and drug influences, violence, overcrowding, etc. 

Not enough evidence for a second degree murder conviction against teen

Silent Crown shows slaying time

Crown attorney Ami Kotler had been addressing jurors for over half an hour — telling them why he thought a 19-year-old man should be convicted of second-degree murder in the savage beating death of Spence street resident Audrey Cooper — when he suddenly stopped talking.

“That was 30 seconds,” he said finally, breaking the silence. The accused and three female co-accused “kicked, punched and stomped Audrey Cooper for 20 times that long.”

Cooper, 34, was beaten to death in October 2006 in a random attack outside the Spence Street rooming house where she lived.

A now 16-year old girl has pleaded guilty to manslaughter and two now 18-year-old women have pleaded guilty to second-degree murder for their part in the killing.

The male accused “did not commit the murder himself but he took part in it and he helped,” Kotler told jurors. “I ask you now to hold him accountable as well.”

In a statement to police, the accused admitted punching Cooper once. His 16-year-old co-accused told jurors he did much more. She testified the accused “stomped” Cooper in the head and stomach. After the two older girls stripped Cooper’s clothes off, the accused urinated on her, the girl said.

“Someone who does that to another human being cares nothing for human life,” Kotler said.

Jurors heard Cooper suffered more than 60 distinct injuries, including seven broken ribs, a punctured liver and a severed ear.

A pathologist who conducted the autopsy on Cooper’s body told jurors her injuries were comparable to those suffered by someone thrown from a car.

Defence lawyer Ian Histed argued his client was merely an observer and took no active role in the attack.

“All three (female accused) had blood on them and forensic evidence linking them to the crime,” Histed said. “(My client) did not.”

Histed argued the 16-year-old girl — who admitted throwing the first punch in the attack — lied about his client urinating on Cooper. Court heard there is no method to analyze urine or prove where it came from.

The girl “didn’t want to admit she kicked a woman so hard she lost control of her bladder, so she made up this story about the accused urinating on her,” Histed said.

Jurors will return to court Tuesday when they will receive their final instructions from Justice Holly Beard and begin deliberations.

On this case, I have to say that I do not believe the Crown has proved this teen's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no forensic evidence linking the teen to the crime, as there was with the other teens involved and no evidence to corroborate the witness's story that he urinated on the victim. The accused only admitted to punching the victim once. Even the Crown agrees that he did not commit the murder himself. I think this evidence should not warrant a second degree murder conviction. This teen should be convicted of a lesser charge such as aggravated assault, for punching the victim, but nothing more. He should not receive more than 2 years in prison. 

Witness accused of lying in Cooper trial

Witness accused of lying in Cooper case

The star witness against a man on trial for the unprovoked beating death of Audrey Cooper was accused Monday of falsely implicating the accused so she could escape prosecution.

“You knew that it would be more likely for (the Crown) to drop the charges against you if you said (the accused) did something he didn’t do,” defence lawyer Ian Histed charged during his cross-examination of the now 16-year-old girl. “Isn’t it true you exaggerated (the accused’s) involvement to get a better deal for yourself?”

The girl repeatedly denied lying to police or justice officials.

The 19-year-old accused has pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder.

Cooper, 34, was beaten to death in October 2006 outside the Spence Street rooming house where she lived.

Earlier Monday, the girl testified she punched Cooper in the face after she ignored her request for a cigarette. She said two 14-year-old female co-accused dragged Cooper onto her porch where all three girls and the male accused “stomped, kicked and punched” the unconscious woman. The two older girls stripped Cooper of her clothes after which the male accused urinated on the woman, the girl said.

The girl pleaded guilty to manslaughter in October 2008. She served 32 months in custody before a judge handed her a community-based sentence set to expire one week after her 18th birthday. The girl was allowed to plead guilty to the reduced charge in exchange for her testimony against her three co-accused at trial.

“When you got arrested, you didn’t tell police a thing,” Histed said. “That changed two years later ... You knew there couldn’t be a deal unless you gave a statement.”

Histed alleged the girl was too intoxicated to remember her own involvement in Cooper’s death, let alone his client’s.

“You were so drunk you didn’t know kicking somebody in the head kills them, did you?” Histed said. “You were blind stupid drunk at the time, weren’t you?”

“I guess, yeah,” the girl responded.

Closing arguments in the trial are expected to begin Wednesday morning.

Woman killed after cigarette request, court hears -- Teen describes vicious swarming

Woman killed after cigarette request, court hears

Audrey Cooper was beaten to death after she refused a cigarette request from one of her attackers, jurors heard this morning.

"I asked her for a cigarette and she didn't answer," testified a now 16-year-old girl. "I said we should fight her ... gang up on her."

Cooper, 34, was beaten to death in October 2006 outside the Spence Street rooming house where she lived.

A now 19-year-old man is on trial charged with second-degree murder.

The girl - who was 12 at the time of the killing - testified she punched Cooper in the face, after which two 14-year-old female co-accused "went after her."

The two other girls dragged Cooper onto the porch of the rooming house where all four youths "stomped, kicked and punched" the unconscious woman, the girl said.

The girl told court the two female co-accused stripped Cooper of her clothes and discarded them in another yard. The male accused held a lighter to Cooper's face, which was "all beaten up," then he "peed on her," she said.

Court has heard Cooper suffered more than 60 distinct injuries, including seven broken ribs, a punctured liver and a severed ear.

Girl describes vicious swarming in court
Teen witness tells court of attack

She was just 12 years old when she participated in the random killing of a Winnipeg woman. Now 16, she was back in court Monday as a key Crown witness.

The girl - who can’t be named under the Youth Criminal Justice Act - told jurors how she and her friends brutally attacked 34-year-old Audrey Cooper after she refused their request for a cigarette.

She broke down in tears and pointed the finger of blame at herself, two other teen girls who have pleaded guilty - and the 19-year-old man who is now on trial for second-degree murder. He was 15 at the time of the October 2006 slaying and claims he was not involved.

Audrey Cooper, 34, suffered 64 separate injuries in the unprovoked attack, including seven broken ribs, a lacerated liver, swelling that shut both of her eyes and bleeding on the brain. She was stripped naked and left to die. The youngest attacker admitted Monday she suggested they "gang up" on Cooper but told jurors how everyone took turn delivering kicks, punches and stomps to Cooper. She said the young man on trial held a lighter to Cooper’s face to observe the damage they’d done, then urinated on her unconscious body before they all fled the scene.

The man’s lawyer attacked her credibility during cross-examination, suggesting she invented the claims against his client to get a sweet deal with Manitoba justice officials.

The girl was originally charged with second-degree murder, but the Crown agreed to drop it to manslaughter.

She pleaded guilty and was given the maximum sentence of two years custody and one year of community supervision.

The two other girls, who were 14 at the time, pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and were given the maximum youth sentence of four years of custody and three years of community supervision.