A common complaint among Canadians is that our criminal justice system is too lenient when dealing with serial killers. The recent conviction of the now-cashiered Colonel Russell Williams could serve as a case in point. The high-profile case never went to trial since Williams pleaded guilty to two murders and a string of sex-related offences totalling 88 charges. He was given an individual prison sentence for each of these crimes, including, above all, two life sentences with no chance for parole for 25 years. But much of this sentence time is a mere formality, due to a clause in the criminal law mandating that all the sentences be served concurrently with the highest one. In practice, this means that Williams could theoretically get out of prison in 25 years, as if he had committed only one murder. It is true that he is subject to additional consequences: like any murderer, he will never be eligible to apply for a pardon and clear his criminal record. Nor will he be able to invoke the "faint hope clause" (Section 745.6 (1) of the Criminal Code, which allows those who are sentenced to more than 15 years’ imprisonment to apply for early release after they have been imprisoned for 15 years), since Section 745.6 (2) of the Code closes that option to multiple murderers. In addition, the mere fact that Williams committed so many acts of sheer evil is likely to dissuade the Parole Board (the federal agency that grants parole and pardons) from granting any request for release that he makes. Still, it is theoretically possible that in 25 years, he will end up a free man. How and why does the law allow this option?

In the past, the Criminal Code had a decidedly more severe approach toward killers, imposing the death penalty for "capital murder" – a murder that was planned and deliberate or committed against an on-duty police or corrections officer. In the 1960s and 1970s, the onus in penal philosophy shifted from retribution to rehabilitation and capital punishment (for what was now called first-degree murder) was eventually replaced with life imprisonment with a chance for parole after 25 years. As it stands, the law stipulates that when a person is sentenced to life imprisonment together with any additional sentence, the period of parole ineligibility remains at 25 years, with no possibility to lengthen it. The only exception to this is when someone is declared a dangerous offender (per Sections 752-761 of the Code), in which case they will be jailed for an indeterminate period of time, with their case receiving regular review. Compare this to the United States, where most states allow, if not the death penalty, the imposition of consecutive life sentences, which serve to prevent the offender from ever being released unless he happens to be pardoned. In fact, this may soon be possible in Canada. On 5 October 2010, the Government introduced Bill C-48 into Parliament. If passed, it will amend the law to allow a judge to increase the period of parole ineligibility for a person convicted of more than one murder. Thus, a double murderer like Williams could end up serving at least 50 years instead of at least 25. This might not appeal to humanist-minded people who think that the law should focus on reform more than on punishment. I would disagree in this case and argue that a punitive approach is far more appropriate for this situation than a rehabilitative one.

While it should certainly be recognized that one of the main aspects of modern criminal justice is an effort to reform prisoners and reintegrate them into society once they leave prison, the importance of the traditional punitive aspect should not be underestimated. First of all, by imposing harsh consequences individually for every murder, the law would send a clear message that the public strongly disapproves of what was done and will not tolerate such actions. In case someone would invoke human fallibility and claim that all offenders have the right to eventually be given a second chance, I would contend that the rights of victims should be given first consideration. Rights go hand in hand with responsibilities and when a person infringes on the rights of others, they give up by default their right to be free from sanctions. In the words of the preamble of the Canadian Bill of Rights (the 1960 precursor to our Constitution’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms), "...men and institutions remain free only when freedom is founded upon respect for moral...values and the rule of law...". It is patently unjust to consider an offender’s rights without considering the interests of the people whose rights he has violated. The damage wrought by serial killers like Williams brings this point to light; once lives are taken, they can never be brought back. The victims’ families will bear their loss for the remainder of their lives. Therefore, the notion that the murderer could be rehabilitated in 25 years appears to me to be irrelevant. So many people are affected in such an unfathomably terrible manner by these crimes that the perpetrators simply do not deserve any kind of pardon to come their way. In my opinion, society will not be able to exact the kind of retribution it is entitled to get unless serial murderers are unconditionally imprisoned for life.

The point here is not that criminal law should lack any measure of leniency; ideally, the consequences for a crime will increase and decrease relative to the gravity of an offence. And rehabilitating criminals, where appropriate, is another essential purpose of the law. But it is wrong to automatically pardon an offence; heinous crimes should not be exempted from consequences and society owes it to the victim and to itself to compel murderers to answer in full for their actions.