Author
|
Topic: Ardeth Wood
|
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299
|
posted 18 August 2003 11:03 AM
My local paper, the Kitchener-Waterloo Record, limits access to major parts of their website to subscribers only (bah! to them). Here are excerpts of some of their stories on Ardeth Wood, a remarkable young University of Waterloo Ph.D. student who was murdered while cycling in her hometown of Ottawa. quote: "We can't let one individual take these paths away from us," said cyclist Julian Luckham, a former Stratford resident.Although most in the crowd didn't know Wood, many said they nonetheless felt compelled to be there -- united in grief and fear by the apparently random murder, and determined to make sure it doesn't happen again. "With all of the Take Back the Night marches, we have to take back the day as well," organizer Melanie Porter said. "But I have to really hope that this was a once-in-many-decades kind of incident." Co-organizer Lisa Campbell, an Ottawa lawyer and avid cyclist, regularly uses the path Wood was killed on in her commute to work. "I would never have thought that on a sunny day, a grown woman couldn't go out on a bike ride in safety in Ottawa," she said. "This could have been any one of us."
quote: 'Shouldn't have to be afraid' BARBARA AGGERHOLM WATERLOO (Aug 13, 2003)The killing of their good friend Ardeth Wood has made a group of philosophy students think hard about what it is to be a woman. It's a topic the doctoral students had already touched on after taking a new feminism course recently taught by feminist theory expert Christine Overall at the University of Waterloo. Then it was theory. Now it's not. "We were looking at what sex and gender are," said PhD philosophy student Christine Freeman-Roth, 30. "I remember Ardeth and I am trying to explain why white men have privilege. They can walk down the street and not be worried this is going to happen to them. "I don't like to feel like that. I want to be able to walk down the street and not be worried." The group of four or five women, all doctoral philosophy students and Wood's classmates, are trying to keep a positive image of their wise, beautiful, uplifting friend. But yesterday -- the day after Wood's body was found and police started looking for a male suspect -- the world seemed different. "It's just not right," said doctoral student Amy Keppler, 29. "We shouldn't be afraid. That's the bottom line. "We shouldn't have to be afraid of where we go because we're women." Jill Oliver, Wood's best friend and a doctoral student with her, recalled a recent discussion with Wood after the feminism class. "We were thinking the problems we face because we're women don't seem that limiting," said Oliver, 24. "We felt they were manageable, in a way. "We believed there was more to us than just being a woman. "Now I'm thinking I'm absolutely, completely wrong. It's something that keeps going through my head. Whoever did this, that's all he cared about."
quote: Editorial: Darkness in the afternoon (Aug 13, 2003)Every autumn in cities across Canada, women and girls join Take-Back-The-Night marches to protest this indisputable and unacceptable fact of life: When darkness falls, even in this supposedly enlightened country, public streets and public places are too often too dangerous for them. In the wake of the killing of a 27-year-old woman who attended the University of Waterloo, we add our sincerest support to these activists, but suggest that their demands go farther. The terrible death of Ardeth Wood on a public trail in Ottawa, when it was almost certainly mid-afternoon, compels us to say that women and the entire community must take back the day, all 24 hours of it. There is much, admittedly, that is either unknown or unpublicized about the slaying of Wood. But we know, first of all, that an intelligent, gifted young woman has had her life torn away from her in a despicable and deliberate act of violence. We know, from the accounts of her family and friends, that she had already given much in her kind deeds and loving disposition. We know, too, judging by her labours as a PhD philosophy student, that her life held every promise of making a significant contribution to the whole community. To observe the loss of a life like this is to experience the most profound sadness and to wish to extend condolences to her loved ones who have suffered the greatest imaginable blow. It is impossible to look at a photograph of this woman, to see her youth, her unpretentious elegance and, yes, her shining beauty, without feeling that the whole community has been robbed of something precious and irreplaceable. But secondly, we know that the cold-blooded attack on Wood almost certainly occurred when she was riding a bicycle on a well-used public trail in Ottawa in the middle of the day. Her bicycle was discovered by a police diver in a creek not far from the path. Her lifeless body was found nearby. On top of this, we are aware that the police are hunting for a male suspect who had harassed many women in the same area and on the same day as Wood disappeared -- last Wednesday. Even though much remains unknown, these basic facts and the conclusions that can be reasonably drawn from them fill us with feelings of disgust and rage. It is obvious that women and girls should, looking at the crime against Wood, resolve to take the precautions that are necessary to keep them safe. And yet, how far should such advice go? To conclude that public paths in broad daylight are to be avoided by females because they are unsafe places is unacceptable both for women and for Canadian society. If we ever reach the point where we must advise women to remain cloistered and cowering indoors, to eschew public spaces if they are unaccompanied, to accept that they cannot ever roam and range as freely as men, then we will have surrendered to the most evil and savage forces in our society. We will have empowered the scum of the Earth. There can be no surrender to the brute who took Ardeth Wood's life or to that criminal's ilk. Yes, women need to be careful. They need to be cautious. But the entire community, in Ottawa, in Waterloo Region, in every city and town across Canada must band together, watch over its members, watch out for the thugs and criminals and affirm that the streets and footpaths, that even the most remote wilderness trail, are safe places to be if you are female.
From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trinitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 826
|
posted 18 August 2003 11:18 AM
It's really horrid. I'm a 25 year old woman. I use the bike paths every day. We don't own cars. It could have been me. Yes, I wouldn't have biked alone at night, I'd bring my husband with me, that is enough to make me angry at the injustice. But, Ardeth went for a bike ride at NOON on Wednesday. Broad daylight. I've always assumed that biking would be safer than walking, you're in motion, you can accelerate quickly. The only thing I can think of is buying another can of pepper spray. Sad.
From: Europa | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Lima Bean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3000
|
posted 18 August 2003 11:47 AM
quote: But yesterday -- the day after Wood's body was found and police started looking for a male suspect -- the world seemed different.
So, we can assume then, that she was sexually assaulted too, I guess. I guess they figure that we don't need to hear the details if she's also been murdered. quote: Every autumn in cities across Canada, women and girls join Take-Back-The-Night marches to protest this indisputable and unacceptable fact of life: When darkness falls, even in this supposedly enlightened country, public streets and public places are too often too dangerous for them....In the wake of the killing of a 27-year-old woman who attended the University of Waterloo, we add our sincerest support to these activists, but suggest that their demands go farther.
So, as women, and thus as victims, we're still charged with the seemingly sole responsibility of fighting for an end to this predation. I completely understand why take back the night marches are women only, but that does not mean that the fight against rape and abuse and murder of women should fall to women alone. It's just total bullshit.
From: s | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 18 August 2003 12:17 PM
You should take a look at some of the older "Law and order" oriented threads. Any suggestion of getting serious about violent crime is almost certain to be met with "Crime is actually decreasing", "Tough sentencing doesn't deter crime", "A '3 strikes' law for violent criminals would be unjust", or "if we want to get rid of crime we need to smash capitalism/hang Ernie Eves/all be anarchists/give everyone we meet a big hug". It's only when a woman is killed or a child is molested that that tone changes.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 18 August 2003 02:12 PM
quote: It's only when a woman is killed or a child is molested that that tone changes.
No, but we have the ability to distinguish between the sad consequences of crime and the phony right wing nostrums which are peddled as a way of profiting from the crime. Recently, with the murder of a young girl in Toronto, a decent group of people fell into the right-wing nostrum of "dangerous offender hearings" for all repeat sexual offenders. "Never again" they said, ignoring the fact that there was no evidence whatever that the person who did it was a repeat offender. When someone was finally arrested, he had no previous offences on his record. So, their nostrum would have no effect. Here, too, the usual suspects are paraded out; such as the "three strikes and your out" lunacy from the Bible Belt. Any evidence that the perpetrator has several previous offences is again deemed unnecessary, since bandwagons run on steam, not evidence. The worst of it is that the "Holly's Law" group, once made up of well-meaning neighbours, has been taken over by John Nunziata's right-wing cabal who use it to fuel his mayoral ambitions. I am sad whenever a serious crime occurs. I am also sad when someone with three non-violent or minimally violent offences goes to jail for life, as has happened in the US, where all this sentencing silliness comes from.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lima Bean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3000
|
posted 18 August 2003 03:21 PM
All the hubbub about sentencing and three strikes etc. is only really relevant after the murder/molestation/rape or whatever other horrible thing has happened. I'd be a lot more interested in a plan to prevent and decrease the instances of violence against women. I'd like to see measures taken to make public spaces safer for women. When I was still doing my undergrad, the UofA was one of the top-rated campuses for sexual assault in Canada (what an honour, hey? ) and despite this ranking, campus officials and gov't seem to have ignored the problem best they could. I heard of other campuses that had an alert system, whereby women were warned of suspicious activity, and informed of places or descriptions of people that were sketchy/risky. Other campuses had the blue light system, so that if you were being attacked or followed at night, all you had to do was hit the big blue button on the posts that are evenly distributed around campus to alert campus police of your whereabouts and that you were in danger. By the time I left the UofA, I think they had put up one blue light, right near the subway/bus terminal. It's this kind of shoulder-shrugging laziness and ignorance on the part of policy makers and police/security workers that I get really angry about. I don't know if a blue light system would have helped Ardeth, but maybe...Or perhaps, since there were reports of other women being harassed, and they had a description of the suspect, the police should have been patrolling that neighbourhood already...if they took that sort of thing even the slightest bit seriously. But evidently, they had more important things to be doing.
From: s | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 18 August 2003 03:54 PM
quote: No, but we have the ability to distinguish between the sad consequences of crime and the phony right wing nostrums which are peddled as a way of profiting from the crime.
Okay, but may I point out that the first suggestion to come as a result of this crime is that girls of 9 be taught to kill? quote: Any evidence that the perpetrator has several previous offences is again deemed unnecessary, since bandwagons run on steam, not evidence.
I agree, in a sense. I think it's a bad idea to attach any such plan to a specific crime or criminal, since as you point out, the plan may, or in the case of "Holly's Law", may not have prevented the crime in the first place. But at the same time we've all read of criminals who have committed similar violent crimes in the past. A 3 strikes law for violent crimes only, could effectively prevent any "fourth" violent offense. The fact that some people in another country are in jail for life over jaywalking does [b]not[/i] mean that we would have to do the same thing. Specifying that the rule only apply to violent criminals would mean that we're only applying it to violent criminals. quote: I'd be a lot more interested in a plan to prevent and decrease the instances of violence against women. I'd like to see measures taken to make public spaces safer for women.
How do you feel about security cameras? quote: ...an alert system, whereby women were warned of suspicious activity, and informed of places or descriptions of people that were sketchy/risky.
Don't the terms "suspicious activity" and "people that were sketchy" imply a bit of profiling? Is this acceptable under the circumstances?
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lima Bean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3000
|
posted 18 August 2003 04:02 PM
quote: Don't the terms "suspicious activity" and "people that were sketchy" imply a bit of profiling? Is this acceptable under the circumstances?
Well, maybe they do, but that's not really what was going on. It was more like: A woman is attacked in a particular building on campus by someone with a particular description, under particular circumstances. She would report the assault to campus police and they would post signs or make announcements containing the particular information from that woman's attack so that other women would know to be extra wary should they encounter similar circumstances themselves. It's better than just hushing it up and promoting the false sense of security that comes with a "what they don't know..." kind of silence, I think.
From: s | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 18 August 2003 06:19 PM
quote: Specifying that the rule only apply to violent criminals would mean that we're only applying it to violent criminals
The "three strikes and you're out" plan comes to us from the United States, and is a hobby horse of the American right. In Canada, we have a different system, which includes the Crown being able to bring a "dangerous offender" application whenever there is a persistent history of violence. True, it does not specify "three" violent offences, because "violence" is a very fluid concept. It is violent to slap someone, but three slaps over ten years should not send anyone to jail for life. So, a system which sends "dangerous" offenders away for life may also be abused. But the fact is that it is draconian legislation. We have it, and we use it. Of course, crime still exists, and so there will always be those who think their particular suggestion provides a magical solution; if only so-and-so had been predicted to be as dangerous as he was, etc. etc. The truth is, that kind of second-guessing is easiest from the sidelines.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 19 August 2003 01:09 AM
quote: In Canada, we have a different system, which includes the Crown being able to bring a "dangerous offender" application whenever there is a persistent history of violence. True, it does not specify "three" violent offences, because "violence" is a very fluid concept. It is violent to slap someone, but three slaps over ten years should not send anyone to jail for life.
Then we could set the bar as high or as low as we'd like. How many violent offenses should a person be permitted? What level of violence would be considered violent enough to count as a strike? Insofar as we have no such law right now, if we decided to institute one we could make these choices as we saw fit. We already have "levels" of violence that are capable of distinguishing a slap, say, from breaking your wife's jaw, so why not use them as a starting point? I agree that nobody should go to jail for life for slapping someone three times, but if a man breaks his wife's jaw, then blackens her eye, then breaks her wrist and threatens to kill her, I have to ask: how much more of this do we feel we need before we can say "here's a violent individual who's not going to stop"? Certainly these individuals can be warned of the impending consequences of their actions at their first, second (or third, or fourth) trials as well, for example: Judge: "Mr. Smith, you've been convicted of beating your stepson, and you've been convicted of hitting a stranger in the face with a bottle. I'm here to tell you that if you don't cease being a violent nutsack you'll be spending the rest of your life in crowbar hotel, and you'll have only yourself and your selfish actions to blame. Do you understand? Maybe it's time to lay off the Mr. Toughguy schtick for a while, huh? This is your last warning."
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sara Mayo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3714
|
posted 19 August 2003 02:05 AM
How many people in Canada are currently in jail for their third violent offence? How many of these do not already have significant sentences? I'm willing to bet it's a very small percentage, and of those cases there are circumstances to justify it (severity of crime, rehabilitation potential of criminal).When they're frail seventy-five year old men (and women), do you think they should still be in jail? What if they get Alzeimer's or Parkinson's? What if they find faith, get treatment, repent, get the forgiveness of the victims families? What if the only person they were ever violent with dies of natural causes? Should they still be in jail for life under each of these circumstances? It's more difficult to be so cut and dry in these cases. That's why the law has to be supple, so that it can take into account all the possibilities and differences of each case. Any sentencing law without discretion is not a fair law. quote: I agree that nobody should go to jail for life for slapping someone three times, but if a man breaks his wife's jaw, then blackens her eye, then breaks her wrist and threatens to kill her, I have to ask: how much more of this do we feel we need before we can say "here's a violent individual who's not going to stop"?
Perhaps the better answer in this case would be divorce. A violent temper is not an incurable disease. There are lots of ways to teach violent people to better deal with conflict and channel their anger. In the case you describe, you advocate the man should be imprisonned for the rest of his life after beating his wife three times. A terrible crime to be sure, but let's put ourselves in the man's shoes for a minute... He's in the middle of his third violent crime, he says to himself, "shit, I'll probably get caught for this again, and the judge told me that next time I'll be sent away for life. Well hell, if I'm going to be in jail for life, then I might as well kill her, since it won't make any difference in my sentencing." Seriously, that's a real possibility. We have to keep the heaviest sentences for the worst crimes, if not there's no vested interest for the criminal to avoid committing the worst crimes. As horrific as rape is, a murderer generally gets a longer sentence than a one-time rapist. A man who commits both crimes, will usually get an even longer sentence. I can't see the problem with that. I'm not a lawyer, but I think you could describe our justice system as retributive (and I guess rehabilitative to a certain extent), but not as preventative. It is a major breach of someone's rights to keep them imprisonned because they might commit a crime. There are cases where it might be justified, but we must be very careful not to write into law any automatic sentencing based on perceived future threats. From what I know of the current Dangerous Offenders Act, I am satisfied that it balances the right of society to protect itself against the right of a person not to be punished for a crime they did not commit. We do not need tougher laws.
From: "Highways are monuments to inequality" - Enrique Penalosa | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 19 August 2003 02:51 AM
quote: A violent temper is not an incurable disease. There are lots of ways to teach violent people to better deal with conflict and channel their anger.
And one way that violent people can immediately cure their violence: don't. How tough is that? Simply don't raise your fist to assault anyone. Hit a wall instead. Or go get drunk. Or howl at the moon. But respect the rights of others not to bear the brunt of your problems. quote: In the case you describe, you advocate the man should be imprisonned for the rest of his life after beating his wife three times.
I'm not fixated on the "life sentence" part. What do you think would be appropriate. What would his wife think was? quote: He's in the middle of his third violent crime, he says to himself, "shit, I'll probably get caught for this again, and the judge told me that next time I'll be sent away for life. Well hell, if I'm going to be in jail for life, then I might as well kill her, since it won't make any difference in my sentencing." Seriously, that's a real possibility.
Great. He's going to murder someone just so he can "get his money's worth". God forbid that such a valuable member of the community get taken from us! quote: It is a major breach of someone's rights to keep them imprisonned because they might commit a crime.
Certainly. That's why this would only apply to those who have committed numerous crimes. It's not saying "we're locking you away because of what you might do", it's saying "we're locking you away because of what you have done.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 19 August 2003 03:43 AM
quote: Come on Magoo, what's your problem with the current dangerous offender laws?
I've only heard of them applied in the most egregious cases. And I don't think a violent person deserves an umpteenth chance just because they didn't mutilate a body or torture someone. I believe that at a certain point one's actions betray one's intentions. In other words, if you've got an 8th conviction for assualt then it's pretty clear you don't really intend to stop there, and why should some unlucky 9th person pay for your problems? Pick any number you'd like, but there must be some number at which society is justified in seeing a pattern and deciding that you don't deserve one more chance as much as society deserves to know that you aren't free to squander that chance... again.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Meowful
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4177
|
posted 19 August 2003 12:47 PM
That's the catch 22, Sara. Boy, is he gonna be pissed when he gets out! Regardless of how long he's been in there. Jail teaches people how to be better criminals, it doesn't "rehabilitate" them. I know, I dated a con for a while once... when he got out, he knew all kinds of stuff he didn't have a clue about before. Education from the ground-up is the only answer. Teach your sons that women are not property. Teach them to be kind. Teach them to be understanding of differences. And if your kid ever, EVER hurts an animal -- get him to counselling, immediately!! Animal cruelty is the first step on the road to becoming a violent criminal.
From: British Columbia | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pimji
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 228
|
posted 20 August 2003 11:03 PM
The next day a young black man was shot to death in his apartment. The motivation for the murder is unknown. He didn’t receive the same amount of press or get the mayor and police chief to attend his funeral. Is it worth asking the question of sex and race and who is more worthy of attention. In either case the murders of the young black man and the pretty white woman have not been apprehended. The suspect in the Woods case has been approaching women along the same stretch of bike path for a few weeks. No one reported him to the police. The Ottawa police, last year, had problems of their own; an officer was video taped bashing a woman’s head onto the hood of a police cruiser while she was handcuffed and being arrested for a misdemeanor. The cop was found guilty of assault despite the fact he didn’t acknowledge he had done anything wrong. I do believe that the police would have taken any reports of a male harassing women along a bike path very seriously but the stance of the police officer in the case mentioned above didn’t endear the entire force to being the most helpful when it comes to treating women with a degree of respect. The National Capital Commission (NCC) is now issuing cell phones to people who are using the bike path in a pilot program. I don’t think it makes much difference to people who may be about to act out their deviant thoughts, if the sentence is a long stretch in protective custody. It would make all the difference if they knew that what they were doing was not going unnoticed and was taken seriously before the perp was to take his deviance from his head and out onto the street. They might also be offered some type of counseling, mandated by a court if need be, to help make them aware of what they are doing to their life as well as others.
From: South of Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|