Light Sentence for killing unfaithful, married triple timing lover ...

[Cloud Cover]

Is a conditional sentence really appropriate in this case, or is there a little overt gender bias going on with the administration of justice in Canada. The judge found this persons testimony not to be credible and to be self serving, yet she got only a conditional sentence for killing a man by stabbing him in the groin. Would a male in Canada of the same character, in which this judge places so much trust in the convicted killer, recieve the same leniency if, for example, he used the same weapon to strike in the same area?

    http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/08/29/Senner_conditional_sentence20050829.html?print


C B C . C A    N e w s    -    F u l l    S t o r y :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


B.C. woman avoids prison in death of secret lover
Last Updated Mon, 29 Aug 2005 19:54:22 EDT
CBC News
A Prince George B.C., woman has been given a conditional sentence for killing her secret lover.

Teresa Layne Senner's conditional sentence of two years less a day means she can live in the community but must follow a curfew.

Senner, 43, was convicted of manslaughter in the death of Norman Wicks, a school principal in nearby Vanderhoof.

In addition to her curfew, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Glen Parrett also prohibited Senner from using the internet and e-mail during the length of her sentence.

Senner killed Norman Wicks with a single stab-wound to the groin in a quarrel at his home in Vanderhoof in November 2002.

At her trial, Senner testified she inadvertently cut Wicks during a struggle. But the court heard that the struggle came after she had learned that Wicks had no plans to leave his wife for her and that he was having simultaneous affairs with two other women.

Senner had been charged with second-degree murder but a six-man, six-woman jury found her guilty of manslaughter: culpable homicide committed in the heat of passion or sudden provocation.

Wicks, 50, was the principal of two Vanderhoof elementary schools. Senner was a clerk in the human resources department of the Vanderhoof school district in north-central British Columbia.

Senner said she had found numerous e-mails on Wick's computer detailing a sexual relationship between Wicks and one of Senner's colleagues.

Wicks confided personal information to the colleague about Senner. Other e-mails disclosed another relationship between Wicks and a woman whom Senner didn't know.

Evidence showed that on the day of his death, Wicks and Senner exchanged several e-mails and phone calls that Senner said built up the emotional tension between them.

Justice Parrett said Senner's version of events was not credible on numerous points. "She describes herself as completely passive," he said. "Things happen to her and around her. She doesn't describe herself as doing anything."

Parrett said Senner's version of events of how a long, sharp knife in the kitchen came to be used did not stand up to scrutiny. Senner claimed she grabbed the knife during the argument with Wicks because she was afraid it would fall off a counter and hurt one of them.

On the other hand, the judge said, Senner had no criminal record and had been a contributing member of society, with 50 letters before the court attesting to her good character.


Copyright ©2005 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation - All Rights Reserved  

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Oh, we all know the answer to that one.....


Just as a side note to those who are unfamiliar to our cockeyed legal system, think about what Todd Bertuzzi paid for punching someone.....isn't it nice to know that sports can be tougher on violence than our legal system on murder?

 

[Cloud Cover]

Good point Bruce, although Todd may have a feminine side to him or at least be described as such, in a rough manner so to speak..

 

[Island Ryhno]

Me "look, I know I stabbed her in the groin, I was just trying to save the bread knife, I knew it could fall on the floor and cut our toes"
Judge "well"
Me "look, i've got all these letters that say I'm a good person, it's not like I was the one sleeping around. If you give me a break I'll promise to be home by 11 every night"
Judge "life in jail"

Absolute nonsense.

 

[NavComm]

I followed this case with the distant view that for once justice would be applied equally. When I was a volunteer with the RCMP victim services I refused cases that were 'domestic battery' for the simple fact that I had no empathy with the 'victim'...usually some weak female who for monetary reasons stayed with an 'abusive' husband for various reasons mostly: status, money and self-interest.

I've been slammed for this view more than once but believe me, in my mind it's valid that any mother who would have her innocent children subjected to this is just self-centred. If I'm all wrong about that, enlighten me.

Leave and give your kids a chance is my view. Dad will come around later if he's worth his salt/or Mom if she's the abuser. Therein lies the dilemna, what if MOM is the abuser? As is often the case. What should Dad do?

I want to make it clear that in my opinion battery is not acceptable. I don't care who's doing it. There are many abused spouses in the world and for women there are hospices, safe houses, respite. Men have next to nothing.

I'm glad this topic is here and I'm interested to see the replies to this. I don't intend to inflame but this is a topic that needs discussion. Possibly and hopefully this case, even though children are not involved, will put the spotlight on domestic violence which is not gender specific in my mind.

 

[KevinB]

I followed this case with the distant view that for once justice would be applied equally. When I was a volunteer with the RCMP victim services I refused cases that were 'domestic battery' for the simple fact that I had no empathy with the 'victim'...usually some weak female who for monetary reasons stayed with an 'abusive' husband for various reasons mostly: status, money and self-interest.

Please engage brain before engaging typing fingers - re-read what you just wrote.  You want somethig applied equally - YET YOU WON"T GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE TO DO YOUR JOB IN SOME SITUATIONS....  :

Excuse me Hyprocrisy called - your poaching his territory!!!!

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Please engage brain before engaging typing fingers - re-read what you just wrote.  You want somethig applied equally - YET YOU WON"T GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE TO DO YOUR JOB IN SOME SITUATIONS....  :

Excuse me Hyprocrisy called - your poaching his territory!!!!

I don't read it that way at all.  I think it's about time individuals in the bureaucracy took moral stands; it's like the millionaires who draw on medicaire to pay for stuff they can clearly afford themselves.  The reason the Army has so little money to work with is because Canadians demand social programs first.  And yet here someone is posting that they actually used their brain to decide how best to prioritize.  If only more bureaucrats would do that, maybe more of our money wouldn't be poured down the vast sinkhole.  Reread her comments about women remaining in abusive relationships for prestige reasons.

Good on you, NavComm.  Keep using your head, and saving our money.

 

[KevinB]

I don't read it that way at all.   I think it's about time individuals in the bureaucracy took moral stands; it's like the millionaires who draw on medicaire to pay for stuff they can clearly afford themselves.   The reason the Army has so little money to work with is because Canadians demand social programs first.   And yet here someone is posting that they actually used their brain to decide how best to prioritize.   If only more bureaucrats would do that, maybe more of our money wouldn't be poured down the vast sinkhole.   Reread her comments about women remaining in abusive relationships for prestige reasons.

Good on you, NavComm.   Keep using your head, and saving our money.

:

Uhm Okay.
So let me get this right.

1) So some who pays into Medicare should use their owm money if they can afford it? (but keep in mind they pay into it anyway) [maybe we shoudl just hke their taxes as well, after all the rich can afford it]
2) The Canadian public decided to make social spending their priority - but we should not do it cause... ?(We still live in a Liberal Democracy, as much as I'd like to enforce my own agenda...)
3) Having worked at a Police District thru University and having a few friends in the field of domestic conflict I can say 100% your RTFO on rationale for staying in an abusive relationship.

Lastly - so you consider it okay to ignore your job?  Ever take an oath Michael...  - I guess I just found out how much it means to you. ^-^

 

[48Highlander]

1) So some who pays into Medicare should use their owm money if they can afford it? (but keep in mind they pay into it anyway) [maybe we shoudl just hke their taxes as well, after all the rich can afford it]

You're bang on on that one.  A milionaire will pay more taxes in one year than some people do in a lifetime, how the hell can anyone claim that they shouldn't be taking advantage of medicare?

Lastly - so you consider it okay to ignore your job?   Ever take an oath Michael...   - I guess I just found out how much it means to you. ^-^

The job's getting done, NavComm just refused to do it because she couldn't identify with the victim.  In other words, she didn't want to do a job because she knew she wouldn't be able to do it properly.  We could do with more of that in the CF, instead of people trying to fill roles for which they obviously have no skill or talent.  I could name a few platoon commanders who would be doing everyone a huge favour if they declined command and retired to a desk

 

[camochick]

It's so easy to judge someone from the comfort of your living room but unless you are someone who has been in an abusive relationship then you don't really know anything about it. It's not as easy as it seems to get away from someone who is abusive, sometimes they control all the money, sometimes their threats are so harsh that a person is afraid to leave for fear that they or their children will be hurt. I know someone who tried to leave their abusive husband and he came after them with a gun. He scratched her name and the names of their kids on each bullet and came to kill them one by one. He was busted before he got the chance but it could have been a major tragedy. Things are not always as simple as they seem.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

:

Uhm Okay.
So let me get this right.

1) So some who pays into Medicare should use their owm money if they can afford it? (but keep in mind they pay into it anyway) [maybe we shoudl just hke their taxes as well, after all the rich can afford it]

I was thinking more of those who truly abuse the system, poor analogy on my part.   I'm sure you know people who abuse the medical coverage though.   Add them to the insurance cheats, hypochondriacs, and other assorted administrative burdens - all of whom are ensuring the military goes without.   I think a better case is those who continue to abuse tobacco and alcohol and then expect society to pick up the tab for their inevitable health care costs.

2) The Canadian public decided to make social spending their priority - but we should not do it cause... ?(We still live in a Liberal Democracy, as much as I'd like to enforce my own agenda...)

Where did I say we shouldn't do it, or that I disagree?

Lastly - so you consider it okay to ignore your job?   Ever take an oath Michael...   - I guess I just found out how much it means to you. ^-^

My, my, but you do have a tendency to turn these into personal grudge matches don't you.   Any oaths I've taken are irrelevant.    I do my jobs the best way I know how, which involves using initiative. I've stolen, lied, cheated, ignored orders and issued techinically illegal ones in order to accomplish my missions, civvie or military.   Everyone does.   You have too.   If ignoring part of my job ensures I get other parts accomplished, then I do so.   I have more respect for someone who uses initiative than someone who robotically slaves at every aspect, trivial or not.   I can think of one vivid example of a robot in an orderly room I once worked for; universally despised because she knew nothing about her job except rules and regulations.   No initiative, no human touch, just slavish devotion to systems which ensured nothing got done.

Now come on, you know as well as I do what an "administrative burden" is.   How do you deal with them in your corner of the world?   Never ignored a wonky private's pleas for attention?

Anyway, this seems to be veering off topic.  Looking at the case in question - I can't comment on if the case would be different were the genders reversed.  Nor do I think the man "got what he deserved."  He made a lifestyle choice, so did his partner.  She seemed unable to accept the consequences of her choice.  By actively seeing this guy who was cheating on other women, she condoned the behaviour of cheating.  Seems hypocritical to cry foul when he proved unwilling or unable to be faithful to her.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Domestic battery? Where is the pattern of ongoing, inescapable domestic battery in this case? Now I am going to have to go and find the decision [assuming one will be available publicly.]

Battered womens syndrome, while a recognized form of psychological trauma in the medical world for quite a while, was a piece of legal fiction until the Lavalee decision in 1990, which permitted the introduction of such trauma as a avenue of defence to a murder charge. It is still viewed with scepticism and subjected to close scrutiny by the courts when the defence is raised.

The fact situations in the present case of Senner and Mrs. Lavalee* are significantly different and Senner does not appear to rise to the level of Lavalee, based on the article. If it did, she would have been found not guilty. In this case, she is guilty, but is not being subjected to the customary sentencing principles under the criminal code.

*who gave her husband exactly what he deserved with both barrels of a shotgun before he went to beat her for the umpteenth time that week, IIRC.

 

[Armymedic]

Equality, Justice...in this case:

Utter nonsense.

 

[48Highlander]

There's a very well documented history of gender discrimination within our legal system.  Women in general regularly receive lighter sentences for felonies than do men.  Within the civil system, the discrepancies are most easily seen by looking at divorce cases, and especially child custody.  It's nothing new.

 

[NavComm]

The reason I see this case as a gender issue is because, in   my opinion, if a man had killed his unfaithful wife/girlfriend in a similar situation, he would be facing at least 5 years in jail. Sentencing can be argued as being too lenient in both cases, but in the case of this woman, she is not receiving the same sentence a man would IMHO.

KevinB....First of all, I didn't refuse to 'do my job'. It was a volunteer position and during our training we were instructed that if we had a problem with any type of crime to the point where we didn't think we'd be providing the victim with the respect and empathy they deserved, then pass it on to someone else. All victims of spousal/domestic abuse in that community had access to victim services. Thankfully for them, they didn't end up with me.

I don't empathize with 'battered women'. My sympathy for them is lukewarm to say the least. If they have children, then I think they are guilty of child abuse if they don't leave their abusive spouse.   I agree with camochick that it's not easy to leave. But then who said life was easy? I think social programs have been put in place to make it easier for women.(edit: And I agree those programs are necessary). My beef is that those same social programs are not available for abused men (of which there are plenty).

The Senner case is one of domestic violence. The victim just happened to be the man. Judging whether or not he was a good man is just another example of gender inequality here. If it was a woman would we be saying, "She was a tramp so she deserved it"? No, we'd be saying things like, "He drove her to infidelity, the poor little flower had no choice, and then he killed her for it"

 

[Cloud Cover]

I don't empathize with 'battered women'. My sympathy for them is lukewarm to say the least. If they have children, then I think they are guilty of child abuse if they don't leave their abusive spouse.   I agree with camochick that it's not easy to leave. But then who said life was easy? I think social programs have been put in place to make it easier for women.(edit: And I agree those programs are necessary). My beef is that those same social programs are not available for abused men (of which there are plenty).

I do. I empathize with anybody who takes a beating from a bully, a pervert or a thug. They aren't guilty of anything if they are under extreme duress, or living in actual fear for their life.    We do   not have the necessary safeguards in Canada to protect a person who walks out of an abusive relationship. Restraining orders do not stop punches and bullets. What is more, our system is not set up to properly recognize abuse towards men, between women in a lesbian relationship or male-male relationships. In general, it something that as a society, we have directed our policy makers to stay away from with our tax dollars. Thats just the way it is, and I don't see that ever changing.

The Senner case is one of domestic violence. The victim just happened to be the man. Judging whether or not he was a good man is just another example of gender inequality here. If it was a woman would we be saying, "She was a tramp so she deserved it"? No, we'd be saying things like, "He drove her to infidelity, the poor little flower had no choice, and then he killed her for it"

This is a fantastic point, and I am glad that you have stated it so succinctly.    

 

[48Highlander]

We do   not have the necessary safeguards in Canada to protect a person who walks out of an abusive relationship. Restraining orders do not stop punches and bullets. What is more, our system is not set up to properly recognize abuse towards men, between women in a lesbian relationship or male-male relationships. In general, it something that as a society, we have directed our policy makers to stay away from with our tax dollars. Thats just the way it is, and I don't see that ever changing.

Our legal system is set up just fine when it comes to reckognizing abuse.  What's the difference wether it's a man beating the crap out of another man in front of a bar, a man beating up his wife, a woman beating up her husband, a man beating up his husband, or what have ya?  In any situation, assault is assault, and the police know how to deal with it.  Restraining orders might not stop everyone, but they will stop many.  For the rest, quickly reporting their violation of a restraining order should get them locked up so it doesn't happen again.  Yes, there have been situations where women have been killed after leaving their abusive husbands, however that's hardly an excuse for staying there and accepting the abuse, ESPECALLY if there's children involved.  It's the same mindset as those who do not report being raped - it's selfish beyond belief to let someone get away with a crime, and have the chance to hurt others, when you have the power to do something about it.

 

[NavComm]

Whiskey I agree that more needs to be done to protect victims of domestic violence. Mostly because they won't protect themselves. There will always be people who are prepared to take it to the extremes, as camochick pointed out about her friend's situation. However, overall the chances of survival are much higher if the battered spouse gets themself (and their children) out of harms way.

I watched all the videos, took all the courses that RCMP victim services had to offer on this crime. It is a crime, whether the perpetrator is male or female, gay or straight. After all that training though, I was still not moved to empathize with a victim who continually puts themselves in harms way.

The recidivism rate of domestic abuse is very very high. In fact, it usually doesn't end until the victim leaves or somebody dies.

In most other crimes, victims do not purposely put themselves back in the line of fire. If someone was mugged for example, they would probably take measures to protect themselves in the future. I do not buy into the bleeding heart argument that these (usually) women have no choice. They have plenty of choices, they just choose - and mostly for financial/social reasons - to stay with, or return to the abuser over and over again.

This case in point here was not a situation where there was ongoing domestic violence, but I wonder if he had lived would he have returned to a relationship with Senner? Probably not. But many women have been stabbed, beaten, shot, burned and so on by abusive spouses and still go back...with their children. This boggles my mind.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Our legal system is set up just fine when it comes to reckognizing abuse.   What's the difference wether it's a man beating the crap out of another man in front of a bar, a man beating up his wife, a woman beating up her husband, a man beating up his husband, or what have ya?   In any situation, assault is assault, and the police know how to deal with it.   Restraining orders might not stop everyone, but they will stop many.   For the rest, quickly reporting their violation of a restraining order should get them locked up so it doesn't happen again.  

In our legal system, the police can lay all the charges they want- that often doesn't amount to a hill of beans if the court doesn't do something with it. Its the administration of the system that is the problem. Restraining order are really injunctive relief, althoug they can be permanent in some situations. Enforcement of a restraining order is also an after the fact occurrence-usuallt the damage has already been done.  

 

[Cloud Cover]

A few more details on this case:


Mandatory minimums for violent crimes may be needed to improve system:Tories

AMY CARMICHAEL
26 minutes ago



VANCOUVER (CP) - Cutting a woman off e-mail and ordering her to serve two years of house arrest for fatally stabbing her cheating lover in the groin suggests there is a need for mandatory minimum jail sentences for violent crimes, says the Conservative justice critic.

MP Vic Toews said the punishment handed to Teresa Senner for the manslaughter of her lover sends out the wrong message.

"I think that the taking of another person's life through a criminal act . . . that needs to be punishable by a prison sentence that communicates denunciation and deterrence," he said Tuesday in an interview.

Senner, 43, was sentenced to two years less a day of house arrest in the central B.C. city of Prince George, B.C., earlier this week for killing Norman Wicks, 50, a school principal in nearby Vanderhoof.

She said the single, fatal stab wound she inflicted on Wicks was an accident and that she was trying to move a knife out of the way when the two were struggling.

But court also heard the fight exploded when Senner learned her lover had no plans to leave his wife for her and that he was having simultaneous affairs with two other women.

Justice Glen Parrett of B.C. Supreme Court said he wrestled with the decision on how to sentence Senner because the range available to him was so wide.

"I literally have the potential to impose a suspended sentence, a conditional sentence or a life sentence," he told court.

"Here's my difficulty," Parrett said. "The jury rejected her version of why she picked up the knife. . . . That has potentially serious implications."

He based his decision to sentence her to house arrest on the fact that the jury found she had no formed intent to kill Wicks.

Under the conditional sentence, in use since 1996, Senner will be allowed to live in the community under a curfew. She is also banned from using the Internet and e-mail.

Toews wants the federal government to change the legislation on conditional sentencing and stop judges from handing them out for violent crimes.

But the government is showing no movement towards such changes, the Manitoba MP said, and the Tories might have to start demanding the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences for crimes like manslaughter.

The party lobbied for and won mandatory jail time for child pornography offences in 2004, but the move was symbolic more than anything. The minimum sentence allowed for perpetrators of child porn offences was set at a week to 14 days.

He said the Tories may have no choice but to go the same route to toughen sentences for violent crimes.

"Given the failure of the Liberal government to move on this issue, despite the fact that they have been saying they would, I am very skeptical," Toews added. "I think, quite frankly, the only way we're going to move to eliminate these kind of conditional sentences for serious violent offences, given the present government's attitudes, is through the imposition of mandatory minimums."

Justice Minister Irwin Cotler has said he personally is against that punishment model, pointing out that it hasn't worked in the United States.

But after a recent speech to the Canadian Bar Association in Vancouver he said he planned to introduce reforms eliminating conditional sentences for violent crimes.

The Crown in the Senner case said the woman should be given up to four years in jail.

Canada has preferred to impose mandatory minimums as little as possible because the government wants judges to have the freedom to take contributing factors into account.

"The preferred approach is to provide the courts with the discretion to craft sentences appropriate to the gravity of the offence and to take into account aggravating and mitigating factors," said Justice Ministry spokesman Christian Girouard.

A jury found Senner guilty of manslaughter earlier this year. At trial, Senner testified she had attempted to remove a sharp kitchen knife from the path of her struggle with Wicks. She said it inadvertently cut Wicks.

On the day of his death, Wicks and Senner exchanged e-mails and phone calls that Senner confirmed built up the emotional tension between them.

She had also found e-mails on Wick's computer detailing a sexual relationship he had with one of her colleagues.

Senner said she told Wicks on the phone that day she didn't trust his intentions for their relationship.

It grew worse when she learned of a house-warming party some colleagues were throwing for Wicks. She asked him if his supposedly estranged common-law wife would be coming.

When he answered yes, Senner said she became even more incensed.

The prosecution focused on e-mails from Senner that showed her agitation.

"I hate you more than I thought possible," said one e-mail. "This is the last (expletive) straw," said a second.

The Crown has 30 days to appeal the sentence. Spokesman Stan Lowe said it's too early to comment on whether prosecutors will pursue a stiffer sentence for Senner.



Copyright © 2005 Canadian Press