WhatFinger


Murder and concurrent sentences

The cost of the second Picton trial



Five years ago British Columbia pig farmer Robert Picton was arrested and charged with the murders of prostitutes who had gone missing from the Vancouver area. When all was said and done, Picton faced 27 counts (one was subsequently thrown out) of first degree murder making him potentially the worst serial killer in Canadian history.

Support Canada Free Press


The prosecution decided to split the charges in two; beginning with a trial on six counts while leaving the remaining 20 to be tried at a later date. After nearly a year long trial, on Sunday the jury returned with a somewhat surprising verdict on the initial six counts; not guilty of first degree murder but guilty of six counts of second degree murder. A life sentence for second degree murder is a mandatory life sentence but unlike first degree murder, the judge has the discretion to fix the period of parole eligibility from between 10 and 25 years.           Yesterday Judge James Williams fixed the parole eligibility period at the maximum; Picton must wait 25 years before being able to apply for parole. The sentences, running concurrently as they must are now equal to what he would have been sentenced to had he been convicted of six counts of the more serious charges of first degree murder.           The prosecution must decide whether or not to proceed with the remaining 25 counts although it is unlikely that the decision to proceed or not will be made until the anticipated appeals are disposed of. While most people in Picton’s situation appeal because they have nothing to lose, there are indications that an appeal may not be frivolous. The judge’s recharge to the jury during their deliberations, followed by an apology and an additional recharge on the issue of what exact role Picton had to play in the killings to be convicted of first or second degree murder, at least seems to indicate that there is an arguable issue for an appellate court. A cross appeal by the Crown is not beyond the realm of belief; it is difficult to see how the jury could have found Picton had killed the women (at least after the first murder he committed) without being satisfied that his actions were planned and deliberate.           But eventually these appeals and retrials if any will end and the prosecutors will have to decide what to do with the remaining 20 counts of first degree murder. Should the cost of a second trial, involving not six but 20 victims be taken into account in determining whether or not to proceed?           The police investigation, including extensive searches on Picton’s farm and the trial itself cost the taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. Should the province spend tens of millions more to try Picton on the remaining counts (assuming his convictions are upheld) in order to secure more convictions that will result in concurrent sentences?           According to CTV’s legal analyst, Steve Skurka, the answer is “yes”.  The family of each and every victim has the right to have their loved one’s case tried and a verdict obtained; all relatives are equal and therefore entitled to have Picton tried on all of the other outstanding counts.           For years victims of crime and their families have been ignored by the criminal justice system. But there is a danger of allowing the pendulum to swing too far the other way. The main objective of a criminal trial should not be to allow each and every family member closure but to enforce the law and to ensure that the public is protected from killers like Picton. Robert Picton has now joined a select group of killers such as Clifford Olson and Paul Bernardo that even the most ardent critics of our justice system do not seriously contemplate ever being released back into society. A second trial will result in an enormous straining of money and other resources and will not affect the future of Robert Picton or increase the protection of the public. And it is hard to believe that the six counts that were tried first were chosen on some random basis. It is likely that they were the strongest counts and even though that was the case, the prosecution was unsuccessful in obtaining convictions for first degree murder.           Similarities have been drawn to the situation of Paul Bernardo. The charges against Bernardo that stemmed from the days of his being the “Scarborough rapist” were not proceeded with in exchange for him being found to be a dangerous offender. But Bernardo’s case was different in the sense that the victims of those sexual offences were still alive and able to express their views about how the outstanding matters should be proceeded with.           While the state does have a duty to the victims and their families their primary duty is to all members of public. To expend countless millions on a trial that can only result in concurrent sentences being imposed on someone who only has a theoretical hope of ever being released back into society simply cannot be justified.


View Comments

Arthur Weinreb -- Bio and Archives

Arthur Weinreb is an author, columnist and Associate Editor of Canada Free Press. Arthur’s latest book, Ford Nation: Why hundreds of thousands of Torontonians supported their conservative crack-smoking mayor is available at Amazon. Racism and the Death of Trayvon Martin is also available at Smashwords. His work has appeared on Newsmax.com,  Drudge Report, Foxnews.com.

Older articles (2007) by Arthur Weinreb


Sponsored