GenQ - For the not so straight individual

Karla Homolka, ex-wife of the worst murderer/rapist in Canadian history, may be headed back for more trouble later next week when police are expected to release statements on recorded conversations with her former boss, Richer Lapointe.

But what does this all mean?

Karla Homolka is no stranger to trouble. She is certainly not someone to be taken lightly, acording to her release conditions. Homolka was denied accessto any person with a criminal record. The nature of the taped conversations involve current inmate Stivia Clarmont, who is serving a life sentence for first degree murder.

But under what pretenses were these taped conversations taken under?

Richer Lapointe is no stranger to criminal activity himself. He is currently facing charges of sexual misconduct and breaking and entering. He then goes to the press, releasing bits of taped conversations with Homolka, promising to release the full tapes at a press conference set for next friday.

Suddenly, he changes his mind, and cancels his press conference. The next day he is media super star number one in Canada. The man appears to be a typical media whore. A junket for whatever variety of truth happens to look favourably on him.

Why does a man who is quoted as saying 'I am trying to protect the public', have a criminal record? Someone who changes his mind so readly, none of us can ever be sure of what happened between prosecutors and Lapointe. Did they cut him a deal for the tapes? Did they promise him somehting if he didn't publicly leak anything else? Perhaps they are using his testimony as leverage to retry Homolka? Something is just not right.

Since Lapointe broke the story, the man has come forth and said such ridiculous things as 'He plans to move to St. Catherine's, because he has empathy for the people.' A man with empathy for the people, does not break the law.

What makes this man so driven to be in the public eye? Many people commented that "Lapointe is trying to make his own deviance look small in comparison." To me, that is like comparing apples to oranges. Homolka's crime was horrible, but so was Lapointe's. If Lapointe is trying to get his own sentence reduced by stepping forward on Homolka, then the justice system we uphold fails us.

What's more, under what context can the police or prosecutors possibly take these recordings? Karla Homolka has been barred from fraternizing with convicts and inmates. She definitely broke the law by being in contact with Clarmont. However, Margaret Samson, of St Catherine's had this to say. "Isn't it kind of sneaky to call your employee into your office with the intent of asking them who they talk to? And, it just so happens, he decides to record their [personal] conversations, in case the topic of convited felons comes up? This sounds like entrapment."

I agree. I can't imagine any circumstance where a normal person will ever be recorded while talking about felons. The difference is that this is Karla Homolka, beng taped by someone about to go to court for his own misconduct. I hope that whoever is sitting on that jury realizes that just because Lapointe did something to 'protect' the people, he still broke the law and deserves to be punished if he is found guilty. Taped conversations about an ex-convict sould not dictate our justice system.