I have nothing but praise today for the Supreme Court's 8-1 decision to restore Kelly Ellard's second-degree murder conviction. The B.C teen was convicted in 1997 for her part in the drowning of Reena Virk.
Her trial and subsequent appeals are an example of the outrageous liberties that Canada allows to its convicted criminals. She has been allowed to appeal her case not once, not twice, but three times, each time pulling the Virk family over daggers as they are forced to relive their daughter's death. Ellard should have been allowed one appeal until the time came that she was eligible to apply for parole. Convicted criminals should not be allowed to continue causing pain to their extended victims, as Ellard was permited to do with the Virk family.
Unfortunately, having already served roughly seven years in prison, Ellard may soon be eligible to apply for parole. At the discretion of the Correctional Service of Canada it will be determined whether Ellard is eligible to apply for parole. Personally, I strongly feel that one year should be tacked on to Ellard's sentence to compensate the Virk family for each painful process of appeal. In Ellard's case, the three appeals would add up to three additional years in prison. That should be the case with all convicted criminals...the process of appeal, which can cause so much pain to extended victims, should be balanced by retribution on the part of the criminal for the continued suffering of families such as the Virks. If this were the case, maybe we would see a decrease in the number of appeals put forth by convicted criminals.
No comments:
Post a Comment