Magoo et al, I agree, and perhaps I was being a bit too literal; just pointing out that there are reasons other than being a serial rapist and killer to change one's name. One might be your parents or other relatives being such nefarious types.
I know that the little pink house in St. Catharines was demolished; wonder who is living at that location now?
But I suppose such characters have always lived; think of stories such as Bluebeard.
If it was me who had served a sentence for kidnapping, raping, and murdering minors, whether I was wrongfully convicted or not, the last place I would volunteer my time is anywhere near children. I would not want to be seen in public near children for my own reputation. I also know that I would not want to put any parents in a state of fear or panic that somebody like me is anywhere near their children. I gather from this that Karla Homolka does not have a conscience about the optics of the whole scenario.
Yes, she has served her time and I suppose that she can volunteer with children, but the deeper issue though is that those with an ability to care about the needs of others in the community would try to avoid causing such alarm in the first place.
If I had a child and needed a babysitter and someone recommended a friend of theirs who served time in prison for sexually abusing children, I would not want that person left alone with my children no matter how much people claim that he/she served their debts to society or claim that they somehow now found "God" and are now "reformed".
Karla Homolka should have known that she would draw media attention eventually. I think that is exactly what she was looking for by volunteering at an elementary school. She likes the media attention and the notoriety.
It is a power statement used to scare people now that she is out. It also advertises that she can attempt this again somewhere else under another new name.
This is what sociopaths do.
She likes the media attention and the notoriety.
Are you saying that if she DIDN'T want this, there are easy ways by which she could totally avoid this?
If so, I agree.
And @those who "worry" about her children: shouldn't she avoid this -- for their sake! -- if she can?
Kim Campbell changed her name. Her legal name is Avril Campbell, but when her mother abandoned the family she (Kim) wanted a new name, to break the bond with her mother who chose Avril. So she started calling herself "Kim"
Just calling yourself by a different name than the one given by your parents isn't 'changing your name'. Lots of people have three names, and some of them choose to use the middle name, others pick a name for themselves that they like better than their given name, and others use any number of different names.
Changing your legal name is, as one might guess, a legal process that can take some time and effort. It can get quite sticky when it comes to drivers licences and passports.
From what I've read, she's volunteering as a parent, not just randomly selecting an elementary school. I can understand the desire to be involved with your children 's education. I also read that she is not allowed to be alone with the children at the school at any time. So this discussion is getting a little worbly around the details.
I don't see malicious intent here, just someone trying to lead a life. I don't have any heartfelt sympathy for her, but I thought our justice system was supposed to have an element of rehabilitation to it.
I can understand the desire to be involved with your children 's education.
There must be plenty of ways to be involved with your children's education that don't involve anyone else's children. Read to your kids, and help them with homework. Make a poster for the bake sale. Don't allow your children's school to become associated with someone who killed her little sister while helping her boyfriend rape her. Lots of other ways to contribute!
I don't see malicious intent here, just someone trying to lead a life.
I don't think it's "malicious" either. I think it's (unsurprisingly) narcissistic. It's all good now, after she went through the moral car-wash.
but I thought our justice system was supposed to have an element of rehabilitation to it.
If Homolka is ever going to be genuinely rehabilitated, I can think of plenty of things that should probably come before "let some strangers' kids pat your dog".
But she definitely made a wise choice going the Ned Flanders route, where "rehabilitation" is entirely restricted to "accepting Jesus as your Lord and Saviour". Apparently, the school knew all along. They could have asked her to quietly staple newsletters if she wanted to be a helper bee.
I don't think rehabilitation is really a factor when someone simply serves their allotted sentence. Which Homolka did. She was entitled to a discharge and, in my opinion, to not have legal restrictions retroactively imposed upon her because of public outrage. But I don't think people who find it difficult to accept her presence in their community and school are reacting in any kind of abnormal manner.
I was not talking about retroactive restrictions. I was merely pointing out that if it was me who was charged and served time for the horrific crimes that Karla served her time for, I would have the common decency to try to avoid controversy and the public spotlight wherever I could. I don't think that Karla Homolka has that capacity to care about the optics of this.
